In 2000, after years of rapid growth in the city of Davis, progressive forces were resurgent. Not only would they get their seminal ordinance approved by the voters – albeit by a relatively narrow 53.6-46.3 margin. But in a three-seat election, slow-growth forces got two candidates elected and a third one finished a close fourth.
As a result, for the first time in a general election, progressive and slow-growth officeholders had a 3-2 majority on council as Mike Harrington and Sue Greenwald joined Ken Wagstaff. As it would turn out, the election marked not so much of a resurgence as a temporary moment. Two years later, the majority flipped back in the other direction and, by 2012, there were no consistent opponents of growth left on the council.
Still, it was shown in 2005 that opponents of growth could still muster enough voters to defeat major projects. Covell Village went down to defeat in 2005, Wildhorse Ranch in 2009 and, as late as 2016, Nishi was defeated, albeit by a very narrow margin.
As late as November 2017, the Vanguard ran an article asking if a Measure R project could win. 2018 would answer that question rather definitively with two measures passing – by large, nearly 60-40 margins.
Slow-growth candidates have not been competitive since Sue Greenwald’s 2012 electoral defeat. However, this marked really the first time that not only were slow-growth candidates not competitive, but activists were unsuccessful in marshaling the votes need to block projects.
To illustrate just how weak the slow-growth position has become, we can look at the Davis City Council election. There were nine candidates for two seats. But of those, only two candidates were opposed to Nishi – Ezra Beeman (who finished fourth) and Larry Guenther (who finished fifth). In a nine-person race, all the slow-growth candidates had to do was capture the bulk of the vote 
against the project and they would be extremely competitive.
Even though Nishi overwhelmingly passed, 7572 voters voted against it. That is more votes than Gloria Partida got, who finished first. As it turns out, the candidates who opposed Nishi failed to capture even half of the No on Nishi vote. Their combined vote total was 6730 or less than No on Nishi got, even though voters had two votes for council and only one vote for Nishi.
A key question is what has changed.
First of all, we need to understand what Measure J was. Measure J was a reaction to the rapid growth in Davis in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1980, there were just 36,000 people in Davis, and the population exploded to 60,000 by 20 years later. In those 20 years, Davis added 24,000. In the 18 years since, Davis has added just 8000.
Covell Village in 2005 was seen, therefore, as a continuation of the policies in Davis which saw large amounts of growth, whether it be Wildhorse or Mace Ranch.
However, since Measure J was passed, there have been no major peripheral subdivisions approved. The largest project had been the Cannery in 2013 up until now. But the pendulum has seemed to swing back in the opposition direction – a lot of voters were concerned about the lack of student housing and there are concerns overall about the availability and affordability of housing.
A second key change is that developments have learned from their mistakes. In 2005, Covell Village was the first Measure J vote. While it is true that Wildhorse Ranch ended up on the ballot and was passed by the voters, it seems to me that both the opposition and proponents of projects have engaged in a prolonged learning process.
The opposition quickly learned how to defeat projects in Davis. They were helped by the mistakes made by developers – mistakes that have largely been overcome. Covell Village, for example, was way too large a project – especially coming on the heels of other very large projects. Moreover, it had traffic impacts that were not mitigated. Wildhorse Ranch was defeated by time and circumstance, but also the opposition of near neighbors.
Even as late as 2016, there were fatal errors made by the developers. While the developers attempted to assuage the public on the issue of traffic, the fatal flaw was probably not just traffic but the lack of affordable housing.
In order to win in June of 2018, Nishi developers took the issue of traffic off the table by putting all access as university access. They took the issue of affordable housing off the table by creating 
on-site affordable housing for students. That left the opposition with one issue – that of air quality – but an issue that would not impact the individual voters.
With WDAAC (West Davis Active Adult Community), traffic issues were largely mitigated. There were no near neighbors.
And so on paper it would seem that both projects would be overwhelming favorites. But this was Davis and so no one was exactly sure what the default was.
As it turns out, we believe both projects really did not get much more than the core slow-growth vote. They both passed overwhelmingly.
The opposition in both cases did not have much to go on, they did not have large groups of supporters, there was not much in the way of strong grassroots mobilization against the projects, and so they engaged in a process that threw as much directly as possible against the wall in the hopes that the voters would bite – and in neither case did the voters bite.
A key question, therefore, going forward is how strong opposition to growth forces will be. Will they continue to decline or is there a pendulum that will swing back at some point in time?
The next key test is going to be Measure R’s renewal in 2020. That is going to be a key test of the voters, but also of the slow-growth forces in town. There are those who want to renew Measure R as it is currently written. There are some who wish to see it strengthened and those who wish to change it.
My sense is that with two relatively healthy passages of Measure R projects, any clear opposition to the renewal will be tepid at best. Had both Nishi and WDAAC been defeated, the call would be louder for change – of course, the fact that they would have been defeated would seem to preclude the opposition from having the electoral strength to do so.
In terms of candidates, will we start to see more efforts at coalition building and compromise or will the electorate remain polarized?
It is clear that the next test will be the renewal of Measure R and what it looks like, and a key question is going to be whether the slow-growth forces remain in decline or whether this is simply a cycle that will return at some point.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David Greenwald said . . . “Slow-growth candidates have not been competitive since Sue Greenwald’s 2012 electoral defeat.”
That is a bit of revisionist history David. Brett Lee’s election in 2012 was driven by slow growth forces. His two campaign managers were Ken Wagstaff and Dick Livingston, and the bulk of the people manning his campaign events and walking the streets for him were slow growth. His reelection in 2016 was similarly mobilized.
It’s less revisionist and more a simplification. The old progressive guard had a split of sorts, with a harder core slow growth wing and a more moderate wing. Brett Lee is part of that more moderate wing, supported the last three Measure R projects, for instance. But in a way that further illustrates the point.
Your description of the split is again revisionist history. That split wasn’t ideological along moderate vs. progressive lines. Rather it was personality-driven. There was a substantial group of slow growthers who had developed an antipathy for Sue Greenwald (an antipathy that deepened as the 2012 election played out) and her rhetoric and tactics. As a result they put up their own candidate … Brett. The two candidates could have worked together … powerfully worked together … but Sue was not willing to share the spotlight on the stage.
Are you really trying to sell a bill of goods that Dick Livingston is a moderate? That dog won’t hunt.
You’ve taken my statement of “more moderate” and turned it into “moderate.” That’s clearly not what I said or meant. While the initial split was due to personality, Sue Greenwald has been largely out of the picture for six years. That’s not what I’m referring to.
Sean Raycraft and Robb Davis aren’t pro-housing. Both of them have always been pro-affordable housing. I suspect both of them would have voted “no” on The Cannery.
I do not believe either of them has shifted to the right on that issue at all. If anything Sean has shifted to the left. He is more aggressively pro-affordable than he was in 2009, 2005 or 2000.
In addition, look at why Sean voted no on Nishi 2016 vs. Nishi 2018. It was all about the absece/presence of ;
Matt, if Brett was in the slow growth camp, he didn’t make it readily apparent in his campaign. That position certainly did not jump out at me, while Greenwald’s was very apparent. I think David’s characterization is even too little, as I would say that Brett’s underplay of his slow growth preferences illustrates how much the movement had lost by 2012.
And you’re illustrating with Sean and Robb how “slow growth” has faded away, and instead is now about “appropriate housing”. Sean and Robb realize that additional housing is required to relieve supply constraints and high prices. Slow growthers have denied that relationship.
Richard McCann said . . . And you’re illustrating with Sean and Robb how “slow growth” has faded away, and instead is now about “appropriate housing”. Sean and Robb realize that additional housing is required to relieve supply constraints and high prices. Slow growthers have denied that relationship.
Richard, your imagination is running away with you. First, David was the one who illustrated with Sean and Robb, not I. Second, your conversion of the term “affordable housing” to “appropriate housing” is yours and yours alone.
Regarding the supply/demand relationship for Davis housing, I have posted in the past the statistical evidence that Davis the rise in the UCD-driven component of housing demand from 1996 (when vacancy levels reached 0.5%) to present exceeds the rise in rental housing supply by over 20,000 beds. That does not include the supply/demand numbers for non-UCD-driven housing. Further, only a small portion (for the sake of argument no more than 15%) of the proposed added housing will qualify as affordable. All the rest is market rate, which Sean has been very clear in his writings and statements is not affordable for huge swaths of Davis residents, employees and students.
Finally, you are judging the Davis voting “iceberg” by the visible (vocal) portion that shows above the water line. The bulk of an iceberg, and the Davis voting public, is invisible below the water line.
As Tia and I have said individually, Davis voters are more discerning than your broad brush stroke. They evaluate individual projects on their individual merits and demerits. That is how it was in 2000, 2005, 2009, 2016 and 2018.
As an opponent of WDAAC I am “slow growth”? Let’s just start the Shabbat off by saying that this sickens me as much as being a called a Self-Hating Jew. The expected next term to throw around – in your analysis betrayed by lots of reductionist terminology – would of course be “smart growth”, but this is tainted by its overlap with gentrification. Then also you seem to be saying that “progressive” is anti-housing.
I have plenty of terms for my ethnicity, cultural background… and even body type! But for my positions on holistic and joyous sustainability, do I need a term? Folks from Robb Davis to anonymous persons commonly associated with conservative positions in this forum call me an “idealist”; not sure who else calls me “anti-car” besides Eileen Samnitz. (I making a list of sayings that probably annoy the hell out of Children of Holocaust Survivors like me: These are “perfect is the enemy of the good” and “it is what it is”. Who can help me with a third, or three more? Two more won’t work for some reason.)
About “air quality concerns”, to be frank… is the local population as informed as it needs to be? It took nearly a full week before the City and primary to university administration got to the bottom edge of up-to-speed on our wildfire fallout emergency. To their credit, the City has temporarily stopped use of leaf blowers and lawn mowers in its own operations, and has Next Door’d – softly stated – an advisory on the same for everyone else in the City. They are handing out free N-95 masks, but not for children, and with different information (from our county) – and the inadequate MERV 8 which does not filter wildfire smoke is probably what the school uses, see below – than e.g. Sacramento County, and I don’t think that still more-or-less centralized distribution of safety equipment for breathing in the USA Cycling Capitol is appropriate. As far as the DJUSD goes, it’s certainly understandable that suspending classes was difficult when our lack of safety net Neo-Liberal clusterf*ck doesn’t easily allow parents to complement this by staying home without penalty. On an update on wildfire health concerns put out by DJUSD before they decided to suspend classes there was not quite clearly stated information about the ability of HVAC systems to address wildfire smoke. The systems do not (3.0 microns is higher than 2.5… they should simply said “no” here, right?) A couple of days after the Camp Fire fallout started to enter the bloodstreams of our kids at school, I asked in multiple forums if Measure M funds are going to be used to improve school systems to address wildfire fallout (implicitly all dangerous particulate latter) – no answer, including from boosters of M, some of who were deeply involved in its development, i.e. details of aid for facilities. All of the foregoing indicates to me that we still have a long way to go on air pollution education, and that this impacted the vote on Nishi. (Don’t get me wrong – again – I am confident that if Caltrans etc wanted to build I-80 right now, they’d at the very least get pelted to, um, suffocation by rotting tomatoes thrown by parents — what’s sad is that we are not doing much to not accept that it’s here. If necessary, at this junction readers can call me “idealist” or “correct” about this issue, but not both <3 .)
[Moderator: released from the filter, but this is likely to get removed again automatically due to excess links and possibly certain words. I suggest you avoid so many links in your posts.]
Todd: Just because you opposed WDAAC does not automatically mean you’re slow growth. After all, Mark West opposed WDAAC and no one would call him slow growth. That’s not the point made here.
No, and those using respirators are apparently not correctly informed.
http://www.saccounty.net/news/latest-news/Documents/N95%20Respirator%20Mask%20Recommendations.pdf
Use of N95 respirator masks is not recommended for the general public. Only recommended for those near the fire. The N95 respirator can make it more difficult for the wearer to breathe. Use by those with heart and respiratory diseases can be dangerous.
Thanks, Don – I was looking for that link, as I had seen it posted on Facebook.
It says “General public should not wear masks” (“… not recommend use of N95 respirator masks for the general public…”), then immediately follows with (“… only recommended for those near the fire who do not have the option to be indoors or have access to filtered/recirculated air…”). It’s not quite a contradiction, but it is no doubt confusing for many. Do they mean “general public” or “general use” or what?
It’s a poorly written communication: It should say, from the top, e.g. “Stay inside in a place with filtered air. If you have to go outside, use an N95 [or N100] filter mask, ideally with a value to release carbon dioxide and anyone with (the described issues) should first seek the advice of a medical professional”. Or something like that — whoever wrote this mis-summarized its contents with the header and should know that many people don’t get past the header. There’s lots of good stuff in the memo, but it’s poorly organized, or unrealistic: For example there’s simply no way for hundreds of thousands of people to consult their doctor in this kind of crisis.
I think that the memo should be even more clear that promoting fashionable looking particulate masks is just too normalizing.
But ALL of this should be much better organized when we are not in the peaks of a crisis — that’s my main problem.
David continues the reductionist Sabbath with
Argh! My point is that you should be able to describe the situation without this pigeonholing language.
In earlier editorials you seem to say that nearly everyone who voted against WDAAC did so because they are part of the “slow growth” contingent in Davis – this attacks the agency of the many people might have voted against it. You’ve said that “slow growthism” is the position of 40% of voters here, which means you think – given the results in the election – that only a very tiny number of people, less than 4% – assuming all ballots have been counted? – made a decision based the project’s own merits. Do you supply proof or at least more data about this 40% thing, somewhere?
I’ve never believed that nearly everyone who voted against WDAAC did so because they are part of a slow growth contingent – Mark West is again a good example. However, I have seen some internal polling that suggests there is about about a 40% core that will vote against just about every project – give our take. I think there is another – probably smaller contingent that votes yes on a project. That leaves probably a 20 to 30% group in the middle that is deciding on individual project factors.
The 40-40-20 rule has prevailed for as long as I can remember in Davis.
My personal opinion is that you are overselling the change in the electorate.
I have always thought that Measure J was passed, and renewed through Measure R, as a PROCESS that would minimize the chances of bad project outcomes like the community experienced when Mace Ranch followed Wildhorse. That process was designed (with substantial input by Mark Spencer) to ensure that the public would vote on well-vetted, well-designed, and well-disclosed projects. The change between 2005, 2009, 2016 and 2018 has not been in the electorate, but rather in the ability of the projects to better follow the Measure J/R process and be better-vetted, better-designed, and better-disclosed.
That’s the big question right – has the electorate shifted?
It is only a big question in you mind. The electorate hasn’t changed, but the projects have changed … and the process for vetting and disclosing those projects has been better deployed and adhered to.
How has the Davis electorate shifted? Look at the election results from November. The votes for DeLeon vs. Feinstein are a clear indicator. The hearts and minds of any electorate are shown by the sum of all their votes.
You are saying the hearts and minds of the Davis electorate have shifted to the right. I’m saying you are fooling yourself for the sake of a story line.
No, I’m not saying that they have shifted to the right. Some of the most progressive people I know are pro-housing in Davis including Sean Raycraft and Robb Davis. You’re thinking two dimensionally. The growth/ no growth issue is not a simple left v. right debate.
Sean Raycraft and Robb Davis aren’t pro-housing. Both of them have always been pro-affordable housing. I suspect both of them would have voted “no” on The Cannery.
I do not believe either of them has shifted to the right on that issue at all. If anything Sean has shifted to the left. He is more aggressively pro-affordable than he was in 2009, 2005 or 2000.
In addition, look at Sean’s votes on Nishi 2016 and Nishi 2018. He voted “no” on Nishi 2016 and “yes” on Nishi 2018 … all because of the absence/presence of affordable units. The number of units (a pro-housing measurement) did not matter to him, but the number of affordable units (not a pro-housing measurement). He is just as far left on the issue of housing as he has ever been.
Again, you’re using the term “left” and “right” which I think is misplaced.
Politics and electorates are measured on a left-right axis. They “move” or “shift” on a left-right axis. What alternative axis do you propose for measuring political shifts?
One aspect that you touched on too lightly in my view was the impact that the increased enrollment at UCD played. Some of us “slow growthers”( which in my case really meant taking each project at a time and judging it on its specific pros and cons) came down firmly in favor of affordable student housing as a specific category of demonstrated need.
When we try to draw sweeping conclusions regarding which polarized group is ascending or descending it invariably downplays the importance of the majority of voters who are likely to be somewhere in between and making their decisions on a variety of factors, not blind allegiance to an ideology.
Very well said Tia. Very well said indeed!
My reason for opposing Nishi 2018 revolved precisely around that issue. The project could have housed at least 3,000 more students than the 2,200 it is planned to house. All the project proponents would have had to do in order to accomplish that was to build at the same residential density per acre in the 2018 project that they proposed in the 2016 project. The growth in UCD enrollment meant that leaving 3,000 additional students without Davis housing was a sub-optimal outcome … and I felt it was worth fighting for. That didn’t indicate a “shift” in my pro-housing vs. slow growth position. Mine was a project-specific issue.
There’s also folks like Eileen Samitz, who most would define as “slow-growth”. And yet, she supported WDAAC, the Cannery, Davis Live, and probably other proposals over the years.
(I have nothing but respect for her, regardless.)
Seems to me that almost everyone on this blog was against WDAAC, which suggests that this blog is not an accurate gauge of public opinion. In general, I suspect that blogs tend to attract those who feel most strongly about particular issues (as well as those who simply “enjoy” the insults and fighting – several of whom use their full names).
The articles themselves are intended to inflame.
Not sure what you mean by “almost everyone.” Certainly in terms of the sheer number of posts, yes. But as to the general readership and the owner, the election results suggest otherwise.
I have noticed that newer parts of Davis, especially East and South, vote differently than the core area. The demographics may simply be shifting to newer voters who are not steeped in the ossified acrimony of the late 20th Century debates here.
What conclusions are you drawing from that? How would you know who the general readership is, compared to the voting population in Davis? And, if the commenters are not representative of (either) the readership or voters, how would you draw any conclusions at all?
I think we have tired of the arguments for opposing projects – toxic air, greedy developers, racist/discriminatory design. There are discussions about moving toward higher density, but then we get the unattractive jumble of housing like the Cannery or 6 story buildings next to one story bungelows. Other than Eileen Samitz’s efforts to push for student housing on campus and housing for non-students and families in town, no one seems to have a clear vision of how Davis should grow. Efforts to start conversations are immediately given short shrift, i.e. Lee’s ranting about the downtown design workshops. I think any innovative plan needs to start with agreement that Davis needs to grow and then we can talk about how and where. (That, plus an agreement not to sue the community every time something is approved.)
Li (not Lee)
Sharla, I agree with your points. Thank you for posting them. I would take your point that “no one seems to have a clear vision of how Davis should grow” a step further. I personally don’t believe that there is a clear vision of either what Davis is, or what it will be.
I recently read the excellent book Our Towns: A 100,000-Mile Journey into the Heart of America written by James Fallows and Deborah Fallows, which I strongly recommend as excellent reading. In the concluding chapter they make the following eleven-point argument. I have excerpted one of those points … a point which I believe Davis has no clear sense of.
You recommended this book to me and I read it. Entertaining with some absolutely valuable nuggets… although I was a bit disappointed at times over the lack of business/economic savvy in the authors brought to the project. Their ideological filter caused them some myopia in assessment, IMO.
But I think there is a key point of “big but not too big” and this transcends almost everything in life as our personal aesthetics filter. More specifically though is the transition to and from… the change.
My opinion of Davis is that it is fighting a natural and inevitable transition from small rural to small-medium urban.
It reminds me of the situation where someone has great life-change forced upon them. Think of a divorce, a death of a spouse or a wildfire that destroys a home and a town. Who was prepared? Who was ready? Who can just accept it and move on?
The life we live is a storybook (a too short one in my view) and is a series of chapters that we try to control. The chapters are shorter and change more frequently when we are younger (we graduate, start our career, move, get married, buy a home, have children, etc.). Most young people are eager to turn to the next chapter in their lives. These are positive changes that people pursue.
But change perceived as negative manifests a reaction of resistance. And as we age, almost all change begins to feel negative.
The problem as I see it… when the resistance exceeds utility and crosses over into harm. When change is rational and real, the job is to learn to accept it… to turn the page into the next chapter… not to stubbornly refuse by inventing excuses for staying stuck in the old chapter.
This helping people stuck in an old chapter move to the next chapter is the primary stuff that therapists do.
I think there are some that see the old chapter of Davis as something they can stay suck in. They believe they are right and righteous and invent an endless list of excuses for keeping Davis the same. But they are wrong in believing that they have control. Davis change is being forced on them. Keeping their feet firmly planted in that old-Davis chapter is causing them harm, and also causing harm to the members of the community as these change-resistant folk have their Measure J/R.
Davis needs to become a new chapter of a small-medium-sized urban city that retains its agriculture connection, leverages the UCD connection and grows in a way complicit with smart-development and growth principles. Otherwise Davis will become a small-medium-sized urban city without these things.
The new chapter is gonna happen regardless…. either we help write it, or we get forced to accept the story that others write for us.
I agree with this sentiment and see this as the major difference between the process that created the 1961 CASP and the current efforts. Largely because of the shared vision, the ‘61 panel was able to create a bold and innovative plan for the future evolution of the downtown intended to create a central commercial core sufficient to support the expected growth of the city. It was our failure to implement that plan that has led to many of the challenges we face today, with the recommended solutions largely reflecting what was proposed in ‘61. Unfortunately, I have not seen anything I would describe as bold or innovative coming out of the current effort, which I see primarily as an effort in preservation.
I agree. But that requires someone to step up with a vision.
Ho-hum. Just another typical Greenwald piece. Broad simplistic generalizations, historical revisionism, and specious reasoning unsupported by evidence intended as a propaganda effort to push a particular viewpoint.
Rik, the other posters here appear to disagree with your characterization.
Richard: Please speak for yourself (which is all any of us can do).
I am noting that there are many comments here that are engaged in the topics that David has raised, indicating that they do not perceive his article has being “broad simplistic generalizations with historical revisions.” We’ve engaged over Matt’s comments as several of us disagree with Matt’s characterizations. So I’m pointing out that your view is not held by the majority of posters here.
And if you believe that David’s article is yet another yawner, why are you reading them?
Richard: I’m seeing a variety of opinions on here, including those from Tia, Todd, Matt, Rik, and me.
I wouldn’t necessarily characterize all of these comments as being in conflict with Rik’s comment. (And, definitely not mine, since I agree with Rik.)
Regarding it being another “yawner”, that’s your terminology. I read these articles (and make comments) because I’m concerned about the Vanguard’s advocacy, as well as the content (or lack thereof) of its articles. And, to point out that not everyone is on board with visions such as yours.
I don’t see this as a “vision” article. It’s an analysis. It’s debatable of course. But the interesting thing, some of the people opposing it, aren’t offering much of a debate.
Richard McCann: in your view, I am not allowed to post that this is the same broken-record, simplistic propaganda that is Greenwald’s speciality?
A real analysis would look at voting patterns by precinct and try to draw some conclusions from that (of course, that would require waiting until more than 60% of the ballots are in). And a real analysis would also acknowledge that vastly different projects have individual dynamics and the small sample size we have is not sufficient to draw the types of conclusions that are drawn here.
What would a precinct by precinct level analysis tell us much? What is going to change with the results by waiting? It sounds a lot like you are inventing more reasons to whine and deflect from your piss poor showing at the polls.
There are times when precinct by precinct level data is useful. I’ve performed it. I don’t see the point here. Other than to find something to complain about – I wonder what Rik thinks the utility of such an approach is in this particular case?
Although I did find it amusing that the one precinct that appears to have voted against Measure L, according to my sources, is the one where Eileen Samitz lives.
Craig… re precinct anomaly re measure L… yeah, noticed it too, right off… God has a wicked sense of humor! [or, for those not inclined that way, “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies…”]… or,[“stuff happens”, and it can be very funny and/or ironic…]
Craig your main point, re precincts, is “spot on”… if anyone doubts, compare the precinct votes as to J, R, etc.
Jeff M, I agree with your description. Well said. It is that rear guard fight that is preventing us from moving to discussing a vision that tries to preserve certain elements. We see this in the Downtown Plan where some (including Sue Greenwald) who have asked why we even need to change anything in downtown. It’s difficult to develop a shared vision when when group isn’t interested in any change and won’t compromise.
The Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education College Rankings report has UCD as the 5th highest ranked public university. That explains growth.
Title of article is wrong…
There is “ultra growth” (not sure if anyone subscribes to that)… “pro-growth”, some subscribe to that, and not clear what that means, as to ‘meeting community needs’, being open to ‘drivers’ etc… “slow growth” again not clear what that means, could mean mean keeping up with demand, in a measured way, thinking of absorbtion rates, or “no growth” (I got mine, to hell with others).
It appears that many “slow-growthers” are actually either “no-growthers” or “negative growthers”… which is ‘funny’… [not as in ‘amusing’], as many of the “slow/no growthers” are “newbies”… the “drawbridge-type”.. they got theirs, to heck with anyone else…
A group we haven’t heard from much are “reasonable growthers”…
And, I’ll opine that those who haven’t lived in Davis for at least 45 years should “shut their pie-holes”…
I will also opine that with the new rules as to “anonymity” folk should have to disclose if they do not live in Davis, to post… John Hobbs does so disclose… respect him for that… as does Don Shor (but he at least has a business here)… same…
There are several others, not so honest about that… am thinking of at least, two…
When, if, I go fully ‘public’ as to my name, or even post, I hope all will have to do the same, no matter what “considerations” they seek… have my reasons, will have to measure… sll should have to do the same… but anyone outside Davis, should disclose that, IMHO…
This is very much worth a read and relates to Davis’s situation.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/11/17/how-to-defeat-nimbyism-build-more-beautiful-houses
It is my opinion that the battle lines are those of personal aesthetics and the way to combat NIMBYism is with a greater focus on those elements that are commonly accepted as beautiful.
Sharla said “I think any innovative plan needs to start with agreement that Davis needs to grow and then we can talk about how and where. (That, plus an agreement not to sue the community every time something is approved.)”
I suppose there is a sense in which it would be “innovative” to foreclose the possibility beforehand of legal action against discrimination and civil rights violations by a project. Not sure how that would work though with the pesky Constitution, equal protection, due process, and all.