While the work of the body was universally praised in terms of the time commitment and overall work, the substance of it presents some mixed feelings at best. Part of me believes that the work done by the steering committee could have been performed by city staff over the course of a few months. On the other hand, some of things that emerged from this process have been interesting and somewhat unique, and those would not have occurred with a city staff run process. Nevertheless, throughout the meeting there seemed to be a push to expedite the development of the identified properties–the bigger issue of growth rate has been left unresolved by city council since they have anointed the 1% growth rate as a target rather than a mandate. That leaves a considerable gap between the RHNA numbers and the upper ceiling on growth.
In addition to rank ordering the sites, the HESC developed zones or groupings. The first grouping accounts for just over 500 projected units, these are the primary sites–they have existing zoning and are simply ready to go for development. The next group are the top 20 sites–number 1 to number 20, these are called the Secondary Sites and between the primary and secondary sites, the city would get very close to filling its growth capacity on even a 1% growth rate. Some of these properties include the DJUSD Headquarters (1), Grande School Site (3), Downtown Zoning changes (7), PG&E site (8), Nishi (17), etc.
The next group of sites are the alternate sites and they are sites numbers 21 to 33. These are potential sites for this period, but more likely for a future point in time. Some of these include Lewis Cannery (21), Signature (23), Nishi with Olive Drive access (25), Nugget Fields (28), and Covell Village (32). The last four sites are those not needed prior to 2013. These are Parlin sites near the Binning Tracts, Lin Boschken, the property West of Stonegate, and finally at No.37 Oeste Ranch (I wonder if the county is reading this).
Now one of the more innovative changes that this process may allow the city to make, is a change in the way development is done. Kevin Wolf, Chair of the HESC, told the council that they wanted to use the site rankings in the development processing. Right now interested developers go to the city, it goes through a process, and the city makes a determination. He wants this to change, so that only the sites that are given priority by this reporting would be eligible to go forward and they would go forward somewhat in the order in which they were prioritized by the HESC. So project number 1 would get the first opportunity, if the owner was not interested in developing the property at this time, they could move to the next property on the list. The interest of the property owner would still drive the process, but it would be given some structure along the way.
The current system,
“wastes planning commission time and it may not be a high priority at all, but you are stuck with a project going forward. This says, what we’re hoping staff and council will say, your project is not on our priority list. We want to hear from the priority list first, if we don’t hear from the ones that are in front of you, we’ll hear from you. But right now, don’t bring it forward because that other one is in front of you that we want to develop first based on our HESC recommendations.”
There is a positive aspect to this concept that Kevin Wolf outlined–it sets a prioritization for development. In that respect this would be a positive change. However, I also think it adds the pressure to develop these top 20 sites. Council defended their decision to keep the 1% as the growth guideline based on the fact that we have not been growing at the 1% rate over the past few years, basically since Measure X was defeated. However, putting this into play, if the council uses the 1% growth number, there is a much more realistic chance that we growth at that rate.
1% of course sounds like a very small amount of growth, but we are talking about adding a property larger than Covell Village between now and 2013. Covell Village itself wasn’t even suppose to occur that quickly, it was to be phased in over a ten year period of time. Watching the meeting last night, it was clear to me that this process, would expedite the development pace in Davis.
My overall thoughts here before I discuss a bit more specific observations from the council and the community is that in terms of the ranking of sites, there is not much to quibble about. The HESC did a fine job in this respect. The real questions and debate is just beginning however and it is the political one. The question is one about how much additional housing we need, how fast we should grow, and where will we put this housing.
The issue of density has come up over and over again. I think we need to eliminate that word from our land use planning vocabulary. It is a scary word, especially to residents living in adjacent areas that have sunk their hard earned money into their existing property. Kevin Wolf is one of the biggest proponents of making developments more and more dense to accommodate more people and keep the city fairly compact.
At a HESC meeting Mr. Wolf wanted to direct council to ignore or at least downplay the concerns of neighbors about density. I think we need to re-work this dialogue. What we need to talk about is not higher density, but rather a smaller size for units. Smaller units with good strong design that maintains open space and distances can be made acceptable for neighbors if we include them in the process from day one rather than thrust it on them halfway through. You might never get complete approval, but even a compromised process will lead to community and neighborhood buy-in.
Now some of my concerns. The first is site No.7 which is the downtown area. That’s a pretty high priority site and what it looks like to me is completely changing the nature and character of downtown. They have a CGI of what that downtown might look like and frankly it is a bit alarming. We are talking about several story buildings lining the downtown with retail on the ground level and potentially housing on the upper levels. This is clearly a long way from going through at this point, but if it does, it completely changes the landscape, feel, and look of our downtown. In many ways, the downtown did not look like Davis, it looked like it could be in many other cities.
I was also concerned about the talk regarding the Lewis Cannery site.
The recommendation of the HESC:
“The Lewis site should be planned, at a minimum, with thoughtful consideration to circulation and land use compatibility with the adjacent Covell Village site, even though the Covell Village site may or may not be approved for future urban use.”
Kevin Wolf was one of the chief proponents of Covell Village in 2005. He said point blank at this meeting that he thinks there needs to be access to Pole Line from the Lewis site and he believes that by 2050, there is no way that Covell Village will not be developed. Of course, the voters voted 60-40 against such a development. The Lewis site is ranked 21 versus 32 for the Covell Village site, but I will say this now, there is no way I can support Lewis if it becomes a means by which to expedite and facilitate the development at the adjacent Covell Village site. The intent of Kevin Wolf was very clear here despite the notion that the “planning for the Lewis Cannery site should be able to stand alone and not be delayed by a Measure J vote.”
A key point that was raised had to do with West Village and the fact that if it is annexed, it would count for the growth guideline. That is 1500 units, which would be a large portion of even a pure 1% growth rate. If it is not annexed, then it would not count for the 1% growth rate, but in essence, our area could grow by 4000 units by 2013 if West Village is developed, not annexed, and we grow out the full 1% over the next five years. Both Councilmember Lamar Heystek, speaking through a poor connection from a conference in Arkansas and Mayor Sue Greenwald raised this point.
Sue Greenwald raised an additional point:
“I have another concern, that’s that this entire process seems to be numbers driven… One thing that concerns me about this whole process is that it seems to be numbers driven and that there’s no vision component and that de facto decisions are being made about the visions for the future because we didn’t start with the vision discussion.”
George Phillips threw an interesting curveball into the mix. Mr. Phillips spoke on behalf of Steve Gidaro one of the owners of the Shriner’s Property–the property that Councilmember Stephen Souza had tried to negotiate to get the city to purchase for the purposes of an athletics complex last summer. Mr. Phillips requested that the council place the Shriner’s property back into consideration for development.
“The owners of the property… did not express interest at the time [the HESC selection process was occurring] and there is a reason for that there were discussions going on with the city relative to the potential acquisition of the Shriner’s property for park purposes, to be considered as a potential site for the major sports park that the city is considering bringing a building out on the Howlett Property.”
According to Mr. Phillips, there was agreement that this would be a straight acquisition, not connected to any kind development proposals or any kind of “quid pro quo.” They were encouraged to make an offer to the city.
“We received a response back that the price and terms for that acquisition, the city did not have the funds at this point in time to make that acquisition, and that it probably isn’t going to come together in spite of good faith efforts by all involved.”
He wants to be added the list and the ranking process. He was told by council that he needs to speak to staff about this.
Eileen Samitz, who served on the committee, spoke as well.
“Another problem addressed was the need for a fourth fire station [was addressed as well] and a significant number of us on the committee felt strongly that we don’t need a fourth fire station. Instead we need an emergency medical service. One of the astonishing facts is that only 10 percent of the calls for the fire department are for fires, over 50 percent are for medical. We don’t need a fire engine to start someone’s heart, we need an emergency medical service and basically a restructuring of our fire services is what we should be looking at.”
Finally Councilmember Heystek expressed some of his concerns.
“I also wanted to express some of my concerns. Some of those concerns have already been expressed by some of the speakers during public comment on the dais.”
He continued that if we were to look at Measure J projects, before we bless this document with those projects for inclusion, that
“we know exactly what our approach to Measure J is. That we are committed to bringing to the voters some renewal of Measure J. If not one that strengthens Measure J, one that at least renews it in its current form.”
He also had a problem with the concept of a “green light project.” This is a reference to the color scheme where the top projects are green (1-20), the next projects are yellow (21-33), and then red are (34-37).
“And when we say the projects are green light, I think that sends the message that we support the project before we know what the citizens rights with regards to that project are. We have to be very careful about Measure J projects.”
He further was concerned how this list helps us determine the kinds of housing that will help fill our needs. We have the sites, but we do not necessarily know what these projects will look like.
My final comment is that I think we need to have a discussion of Measure J before we go forward with this project. While I commend the HESC for their work, there are a lot of issues that they did not deal with, Measure J being one. Another is that they looked at sites rather than housing, but I think we need a fuller picture like Councilmember Heystek said of what these houses will look like. To use Mayor Greenwald’s point, we need to know the vision rather than simply the numbers. And finally, we need to know how much we will grow. If we pass 20 green light projects, does that mean that we grow at 1%? It seems to mean that even though the council’s previous discussion seemed to downplay that as even a possibility.
Finally, people may not agree with me on any of these three points in terms of direction. I do not have a problem with that, I would just like to see the cards laid on the table before the election a month and a half from now and allow the voters to decide who they want to lead us. The issues of Measure J, housing needs, and growth rate should all be key discussions during the coming election.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Excellent summary of the meeting DPD. I was not able to attend and watched part of the meeting on TV.
What concerns me is that some on council will attempt to use this to move forward with developing the green sites before we even know what type of development we need for Davis. You are correct in saying that these are just site locations. Now, we need to have a discussion about what we want built in Davis and at what rate.
Excellent summary of the meeting DPD. I was not able to attend and watched part of the meeting on TV.
What concerns me is that some on council will attempt to use this to move forward with developing the green sites before we even know what type of development we need for Davis. You are correct in saying that these are just site locations. Now, we need to have a discussion about what we want built in Davis and at what rate.
Excellent summary of the meeting DPD. I was not able to attend and watched part of the meeting on TV.
What concerns me is that some on council will attempt to use this to move forward with developing the green sites before we even know what type of development we need for Davis. You are correct in saying that these are just site locations. Now, we need to have a discussion about what we want built in Davis and at what rate.
Excellent summary of the meeting DPD. I was not able to attend and watched part of the meeting on TV.
What concerns me is that some on council will attempt to use this to move forward with developing the green sites before we even know what type of development we need for Davis. You are correct in saying that these are just site locations. Now, we need to have a discussion about what we want built in Davis and at what rate.
Fact: The pressure to build many residential units in Davis is off for a few years.
Fact: We can be certain that developer interests will press for accelerated residential growth as soonas it is just profitable to them, at the cost of Davis depressed home owner values at that time when the market finally does turn around.
Fact: Davis wants smaller, more affordable residential units built
Fact:Smaller residential units probably end up taking more out of the city budget for services than they bring in.
Fact:Commercial development brings in more revenue to city coffers than the city lays out for services.
Fact: land speculators will not be serious about offering their property for commercial development if they believe that Davis will rezone it for residential which is much more profitable.
PLAN: Davis needs to let land speculators know that it will NOT be rezoning commercial property to residential for the foreseeable future. The city needs to take this opportunity in the next few years(till 2013?), when we can meet our RHEA numbers with infill and West Village,to make a full-court-press in bringing commercial development to Davis. Commercial development income can then backfill the negative drain when we start building the housing that Davis wants.. more affordable homes with young families to fill our elementary and junior high schools.
Fact: The pressure to build many residential units in Davis is off for a few years.
Fact: We can be certain that developer interests will press for accelerated residential growth as soonas it is just profitable to them, at the cost of Davis depressed home owner values at that time when the market finally does turn around.
Fact: Davis wants smaller, more affordable residential units built
Fact:Smaller residential units probably end up taking more out of the city budget for services than they bring in.
Fact:Commercial development brings in more revenue to city coffers than the city lays out for services.
Fact: land speculators will not be serious about offering their property for commercial development if they believe that Davis will rezone it for residential which is much more profitable.
PLAN: Davis needs to let land speculators know that it will NOT be rezoning commercial property to residential for the foreseeable future. The city needs to take this opportunity in the next few years(till 2013?), when we can meet our RHEA numbers with infill and West Village,to make a full-court-press in bringing commercial development to Davis. Commercial development income can then backfill the negative drain when we start building the housing that Davis wants.. more affordable homes with young families to fill our elementary and junior high schools.
Fact: The pressure to build many residential units in Davis is off for a few years.
Fact: We can be certain that developer interests will press for accelerated residential growth as soonas it is just profitable to them, at the cost of Davis depressed home owner values at that time when the market finally does turn around.
Fact: Davis wants smaller, more affordable residential units built
Fact:Smaller residential units probably end up taking more out of the city budget for services than they bring in.
Fact:Commercial development brings in more revenue to city coffers than the city lays out for services.
Fact: land speculators will not be serious about offering their property for commercial development if they believe that Davis will rezone it for residential which is much more profitable.
PLAN: Davis needs to let land speculators know that it will NOT be rezoning commercial property to residential for the foreseeable future. The city needs to take this opportunity in the next few years(till 2013?), when we can meet our RHEA numbers with infill and West Village,to make a full-court-press in bringing commercial development to Davis. Commercial development income can then backfill the negative drain when we start building the housing that Davis wants.. more affordable homes with young families to fill our elementary and junior high schools.
Fact: The pressure to build many residential units in Davis is off for a few years.
Fact: We can be certain that developer interests will press for accelerated residential growth as soonas it is just profitable to them, at the cost of Davis depressed home owner values at that time when the market finally does turn around.
Fact: Davis wants smaller, more affordable residential units built
Fact:Smaller residential units probably end up taking more out of the city budget for services than they bring in.
Fact:Commercial development brings in more revenue to city coffers than the city lays out for services.
Fact: land speculators will not be serious about offering their property for commercial development if they believe that Davis will rezone it for residential which is much more profitable.
PLAN: Davis needs to let land speculators know that it will NOT be rezoning commercial property to residential for the foreseeable future. The city needs to take this opportunity in the next few years(till 2013?), when we can meet our RHEA numbers with infill and West Village,to make a full-court-press in bringing commercial development to Davis. Commercial development income can then backfill the negative drain when we start building the housing that Davis wants.. more affordable homes with young families to fill our elementary and junior high schools.
David, I made this point last night, and I’ll make it again here. The HESC report is a first step in a multi-step process. They approached their task from a land use perspective … or said another way, they looked at the characteristics of the supply of potential sites. How that supply of sites might be used up (and at what rate) was not in the HESC’s original 1/2007 charge from the Council.
I see what we are going through as a multi chapter book.
— The first Chapter was the original Bay Area Economics (BAE) study of housing demand.
— The second Chapter was the Council’s passage of the 1% Growth Guideline based on their perception of the housing need
— The third Chapter was the on-the-ground validation (or refution) of the housing need assumptions
— The fourth Chapter was delivered last night as the culmination of all the HESC deliberations
— The fifth (and next) Chapter is the reevaluation analysis of Davis’ actual internal housing need. This step was approved by the Council at the end of their recent 1% Guideline vs. Cap deliberations. Many of the assumptions that BAE used in its original study have proven to be very wide of the mark. This reevaluation analysis not provides the input for the “Mid Course Correction” of the 1% Cap, but also lays the foundation for the 2010 General Plan Update.
— The sixth Chapter is that 2010 General Plan Update
We are very fortunate that the nationwide housing slowdown will severely depress the number of building permit applications that will be filed with the Planning Department in the next 12-24 months. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see 2008 and even 2009 come in at numbers similar to 2007’s 44 total permits issued. That gives us a window of opportunity to really know where we are going, and just how fast we should be going there.
Now that the HESC has delivered its report, I am no longer going to refer to the 1% Cap using the number 1. For me it is the X% Cap, with X being the number that is justified in the fifth Chapter. I fully expect that X will be a fraction well below 1.
David, I made this point last night, and I’ll make it again here. The HESC report is a first step in a multi-step process. They approached their task from a land use perspective … or said another way, they looked at the characteristics of the supply of potential sites. How that supply of sites might be used up (and at what rate) was not in the HESC’s original 1/2007 charge from the Council.
I see what we are going through as a multi chapter book.
— The first Chapter was the original Bay Area Economics (BAE) study of housing demand.
— The second Chapter was the Council’s passage of the 1% Growth Guideline based on their perception of the housing need
— The third Chapter was the on-the-ground validation (or refution) of the housing need assumptions
— The fourth Chapter was delivered last night as the culmination of all the HESC deliberations
— The fifth (and next) Chapter is the reevaluation analysis of Davis’ actual internal housing need. This step was approved by the Council at the end of their recent 1% Guideline vs. Cap deliberations. Many of the assumptions that BAE used in its original study have proven to be very wide of the mark. This reevaluation analysis not provides the input for the “Mid Course Correction” of the 1% Cap, but also lays the foundation for the 2010 General Plan Update.
— The sixth Chapter is that 2010 General Plan Update
We are very fortunate that the nationwide housing slowdown will severely depress the number of building permit applications that will be filed with the Planning Department in the next 12-24 months. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see 2008 and even 2009 come in at numbers similar to 2007’s 44 total permits issued. That gives us a window of opportunity to really know where we are going, and just how fast we should be going there.
Now that the HESC has delivered its report, I am no longer going to refer to the 1% Cap using the number 1. For me it is the X% Cap, with X being the number that is justified in the fifth Chapter. I fully expect that X will be a fraction well below 1.
David, I made this point last night, and I’ll make it again here. The HESC report is a first step in a multi-step process. They approached their task from a land use perspective … or said another way, they looked at the characteristics of the supply of potential sites. How that supply of sites might be used up (and at what rate) was not in the HESC’s original 1/2007 charge from the Council.
I see what we are going through as a multi chapter book.
— The first Chapter was the original Bay Area Economics (BAE) study of housing demand.
— The second Chapter was the Council’s passage of the 1% Growth Guideline based on their perception of the housing need
— The third Chapter was the on-the-ground validation (or refution) of the housing need assumptions
— The fourth Chapter was delivered last night as the culmination of all the HESC deliberations
— The fifth (and next) Chapter is the reevaluation analysis of Davis’ actual internal housing need. This step was approved by the Council at the end of their recent 1% Guideline vs. Cap deliberations. Many of the assumptions that BAE used in its original study have proven to be very wide of the mark. This reevaluation analysis not provides the input for the “Mid Course Correction” of the 1% Cap, but also lays the foundation for the 2010 General Plan Update.
— The sixth Chapter is that 2010 General Plan Update
We are very fortunate that the nationwide housing slowdown will severely depress the number of building permit applications that will be filed with the Planning Department in the next 12-24 months. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see 2008 and even 2009 come in at numbers similar to 2007’s 44 total permits issued. That gives us a window of opportunity to really know where we are going, and just how fast we should be going there.
Now that the HESC has delivered its report, I am no longer going to refer to the 1% Cap using the number 1. For me it is the X% Cap, with X being the number that is justified in the fifth Chapter. I fully expect that X will be a fraction well below 1.
David, I made this point last night, and I’ll make it again here. The HESC report is a first step in a multi-step process. They approached their task from a land use perspective … or said another way, they looked at the characteristics of the supply of potential sites. How that supply of sites might be used up (and at what rate) was not in the HESC’s original 1/2007 charge from the Council.
I see what we are going through as a multi chapter book.
— The first Chapter was the original Bay Area Economics (BAE) study of housing demand.
— The second Chapter was the Council’s passage of the 1% Growth Guideline based on their perception of the housing need
— The third Chapter was the on-the-ground validation (or refution) of the housing need assumptions
— The fourth Chapter was delivered last night as the culmination of all the HESC deliberations
— The fifth (and next) Chapter is the reevaluation analysis of Davis’ actual internal housing need. This step was approved by the Council at the end of their recent 1% Guideline vs. Cap deliberations. Many of the assumptions that BAE used in its original study have proven to be very wide of the mark. This reevaluation analysis not provides the input for the “Mid Course Correction” of the 1% Cap, but also lays the foundation for the 2010 General Plan Update.
— The sixth Chapter is that 2010 General Plan Update
We are very fortunate that the nationwide housing slowdown will severely depress the number of building permit applications that will be filed with the Planning Department in the next 12-24 months. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see 2008 and even 2009 come in at numbers similar to 2007’s 44 total permits issued. That gives us a window of opportunity to really know where we are going, and just how fast we should be going there.
Now that the HESC has delivered its report, I am no longer going to refer to the 1% Cap using the number 1. For me it is the X% Cap, with X being the number that is justified in the fifth Chapter. I fully expect that X will be a fraction well below 1.
“We are very fortunate that the nationwide housing slowdown will severely depress the number of building permit applications that will be filed with the Planning Department in the next 12-24 months. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see 2008 and even 2009 come in at numbers similar to 2007’s 44 total permits issued. That gives us a window of opportunity to really know where we are going, and just how fast we should be going there.
Now that the HESC has delivered its report, I am no longer going to refer to the 1% Cap using the number 1. For me it is the X% Cap, with X being the number that is justified in the fifth Chapter. I fully expect that X will be a fraction well below 1. “
I’m not in agreement with you on this point. The way I see this and the way it was presented at the meeting by Kevin Wolf this opens the door. The internal needs assessment is not going to change this prognosis, if anything it will raise the prognosis. Remember you start planning now for things that will be built several years down the line, the speculative value of these developments has not declined.
Lamar was exactly right, the green lighting of these projects gives them a toe-hold that will enable them to get their projects–the top 20 if they are so inclined into the door. The next question is about the size of the units and the number. The direction there is for more units and smaller (again density is the wrong word to use).
“We are very fortunate that the nationwide housing slowdown will severely depress the number of building permit applications that will be filed with the Planning Department in the next 12-24 months. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see 2008 and even 2009 come in at numbers similar to 2007’s 44 total permits issued. That gives us a window of opportunity to really know where we are going, and just how fast we should be going there.
Now that the HESC has delivered its report, I am no longer going to refer to the 1% Cap using the number 1. For me it is the X% Cap, with X being the number that is justified in the fifth Chapter. I fully expect that X will be a fraction well below 1. “
I’m not in agreement with you on this point. The way I see this and the way it was presented at the meeting by Kevin Wolf this opens the door. The internal needs assessment is not going to change this prognosis, if anything it will raise the prognosis. Remember you start planning now for things that will be built several years down the line, the speculative value of these developments has not declined.
Lamar was exactly right, the green lighting of these projects gives them a toe-hold that will enable them to get their projects–the top 20 if they are so inclined into the door. The next question is about the size of the units and the number. The direction there is for more units and smaller (again density is the wrong word to use).
“We are very fortunate that the nationwide housing slowdown will severely depress the number of building permit applications that will be filed with the Planning Department in the next 12-24 months. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see 2008 and even 2009 come in at numbers similar to 2007’s 44 total permits issued. That gives us a window of opportunity to really know where we are going, and just how fast we should be going there.
Now that the HESC has delivered its report, I am no longer going to refer to the 1% Cap using the number 1. For me it is the X% Cap, with X being the number that is justified in the fifth Chapter. I fully expect that X will be a fraction well below 1. “
I’m not in agreement with you on this point. The way I see this and the way it was presented at the meeting by Kevin Wolf this opens the door. The internal needs assessment is not going to change this prognosis, if anything it will raise the prognosis. Remember you start planning now for things that will be built several years down the line, the speculative value of these developments has not declined.
Lamar was exactly right, the green lighting of these projects gives them a toe-hold that will enable them to get their projects–the top 20 if they are so inclined into the door. The next question is about the size of the units and the number. The direction there is for more units and smaller (again density is the wrong word to use).
“We are very fortunate that the nationwide housing slowdown will severely depress the number of building permit applications that will be filed with the Planning Department in the next 12-24 months. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see 2008 and even 2009 come in at numbers similar to 2007’s 44 total permits issued. That gives us a window of opportunity to really know where we are going, and just how fast we should be going there.
Now that the HESC has delivered its report, I am no longer going to refer to the 1% Cap using the number 1. For me it is the X% Cap, with X being the number that is justified in the fifth Chapter. I fully expect that X will be a fraction well below 1. “
I’m not in agreement with you on this point. The way I see this and the way it was presented at the meeting by Kevin Wolf this opens the door. The internal needs assessment is not going to change this prognosis, if anything it will raise the prognosis. Remember you start planning now for things that will be built several years down the line, the speculative value of these developments has not declined.
Lamar was exactly right, the green lighting of these projects gives them a toe-hold that will enable them to get their projects–the top 20 if they are so inclined into the door. The next question is about the size of the units and the number. The direction there is for more units and smaller (again density is the wrong word to use).
A very insightful commentary- thank you. I think that unless we are playing games with semantics, the city must acknowledge that West Village is part of the city and its 1,500 units are new growth. This is being built in spite of the housing slump. The added 1,500 homes will have a significant impact on Davis economics, schools and services for a very long time to come. We will have more than met our 1% maximum growth for good while.
I would like to see the city planners take a long break from any new developments until this new “village” is fully integrated into our city.
The HESC priority list (I have not seen the actual list yet) appears to be a reasonable list of projects but I disagree about the idea of pushing the developers/owners into a use-it-or-lose-it attitude about their priorities.
A very insightful commentary- thank you. I think that unless we are playing games with semantics, the city must acknowledge that West Village is part of the city and its 1,500 units are new growth. This is being built in spite of the housing slump. The added 1,500 homes will have a significant impact on Davis economics, schools and services for a very long time to come. We will have more than met our 1% maximum growth for good while.
I would like to see the city planners take a long break from any new developments until this new “village” is fully integrated into our city.
The HESC priority list (I have not seen the actual list yet) appears to be a reasonable list of projects but I disagree about the idea of pushing the developers/owners into a use-it-or-lose-it attitude about their priorities.
A very insightful commentary- thank you. I think that unless we are playing games with semantics, the city must acknowledge that West Village is part of the city and its 1,500 units are new growth. This is being built in spite of the housing slump. The added 1,500 homes will have a significant impact on Davis economics, schools and services for a very long time to come. We will have more than met our 1% maximum growth for good while.
I would like to see the city planners take a long break from any new developments until this new “village” is fully integrated into our city.
The HESC priority list (I have not seen the actual list yet) appears to be a reasonable list of projects but I disagree about the idea of pushing the developers/owners into a use-it-or-lose-it attitude about their priorities.
A very insightful commentary- thank you. I think that unless we are playing games with semantics, the city must acknowledge that West Village is part of the city and its 1,500 units are new growth. This is being built in spite of the housing slump. The added 1,500 homes will have a significant impact on Davis economics, schools and services for a very long time to come. We will have more than met our 1% maximum growth for good while.
I would like to see the city planners take a long break from any new developments until this new “village” is fully integrated into our city.
The HESC priority list (I have not seen the actual list yet) appears to be a reasonable list of projects but I disagree about the idea of pushing the developers/owners into a use-it-or-lose-it attitude about their priorities.
David, we will have to agree to disagree. You are assuming that just because an application is filed it will get approved. I don’t see it that way. There are still a huge number of considerations that each application will go through.
Lets say that one of the green section sites sends in its application with 10% single family detached homes, all with prices over $400,000. I feel confident that the staff will turn that application right around and return it to the applicant saying (amongst other things), “The housing mix you propose doesn’t match the City’s needs or rules.”
In addition, if you look at the sites in the green area of the list …
#1 needs the DJUSD to decide what it wants to do, then have the City rezone the parcel
#2 is good to go, but only represents 7-16 units
#3 needs the DJUSD to decide what it wants to do, then have the City rezone the parcel
#4 may have ground contamination, so it won’t proceed quickly
#5 will come in in dribbles
#6 is essentially ready to go, but it has been that way for quite a while and the owners haven’t shown any pressing inclination to act … plus it is only 59-78 units
#7 will have lots of delays due to public input, and then will only come in in dribbles
#8 PG&E hasn’t shown any inclination
#9 has a very long lead time and lots of community input issues
#10 look at the Simmons meetings thus far … do you see this happening soon? I don’t
#11 lots of major planning issues/considerations
#12 see #11 above
#13 see #11 above
#14 doesn’t even have an owner. The Mormon Church has it listed, but no buyer in sight. Even if it does move forward it is only 22-50 units.
#15 see # 9 above
#16 possibly 12-29 units. Not a big impact
#17 see #11 above … plus a Measure J vote
#18 not happening anytime soon. The owner, the Catholic Church, wants to put its regional offices there
#19 see #11 above
#20 possibly 6-8 units. Not a big impact
That takes care of the fgreen sites. We are not talking about the Bonneville Salt Flats here.
David, we will have to agree to disagree. You are assuming that just because an application is filed it will get approved. I don’t see it that way. There are still a huge number of considerations that each application will go through.
Lets say that one of the green section sites sends in its application with 10% single family detached homes, all with prices over $400,000. I feel confident that the staff will turn that application right around and return it to the applicant saying (amongst other things), “The housing mix you propose doesn’t match the City’s needs or rules.”
In addition, if you look at the sites in the green area of the list …
#1 needs the DJUSD to decide what it wants to do, then have the City rezone the parcel
#2 is good to go, but only represents 7-16 units
#3 needs the DJUSD to decide what it wants to do, then have the City rezone the parcel
#4 may have ground contamination, so it won’t proceed quickly
#5 will come in in dribbles
#6 is essentially ready to go, but it has been that way for quite a while and the owners haven’t shown any pressing inclination to act … plus it is only 59-78 units
#7 will have lots of delays due to public input, and then will only come in in dribbles
#8 PG&E hasn’t shown any inclination
#9 has a very long lead time and lots of community input issues
#10 look at the Simmons meetings thus far … do you see this happening soon? I don’t
#11 lots of major planning issues/considerations
#12 see #11 above
#13 see #11 above
#14 doesn’t even have an owner. The Mormon Church has it listed, but no buyer in sight. Even if it does move forward it is only 22-50 units.
#15 see # 9 above
#16 possibly 12-29 units. Not a big impact
#17 see #11 above … plus a Measure J vote
#18 not happening anytime soon. The owner, the Catholic Church, wants to put its regional offices there
#19 see #11 above
#20 possibly 6-8 units. Not a big impact
That takes care of the fgreen sites. We are not talking about the Bonneville Salt Flats here.
David, we will have to agree to disagree. You are assuming that just because an application is filed it will get approved. I don’t see it that way. There are still a huge number of considerations that each application will go through.
Lets say that one of the green section sites sends in its application with 10% single family detached homes, all with prices over $400,000. I feel confident that the staff will turn that application right around and return it to the applicant saying (amongst other things), “The housing mix you propose doesn’t match the City’s needs or rules.”
In addition, if you look at the sites in the green area of the list …
#1 needs the DJUSD to decide what it wants to do, then have the City rezone the parcel
#2 is good to go, but only represents 7-16 units
#3 needs the DJUSD to decide what it wants to do, then have the City rezone the parcel
#4 may have ground contamination, so it won’t proceed quickly
#5 will come in in dribbles
#6 is essentially ready to go, but it has been that way for quite a while and the owners haven’t shown any pressing inclination to act … plus it is only 59-78 units
#7 will have lots of delays due to public input, and then will only come in in dribbles
#8 PG&E hasn’t shown any inclination
#9 has a very long lead time and lots of community input issues
#10 look at the Simmons meetings thus far … do you see this happening soon? I don’t
#11 lots of major planning issues/considerations
#12 see #11 above
#13 see #11 above
#14 doesn’t even have an owner. The Mormon Church has it listed, but no buyer in sight. Even if it does move forward it is only 22-50 units.
#15 see # 9 above
#16 possibly 12-29 units. Not a big impact
#17 see #11 above … plus a Measure J vote
#18 not happening anytime soon. The owner, the Catholic Church, wants to put its regional offices there
#19 see #11 above
#20 possibly 6-8 units. Not a big impact
That takes care of the fgreen sites. We are not talking about the Bonneville Salt Flats here.
David, we will have to agree to disagree. You are assuming that just because an application is filed it will get approved. I don’t see it that way. There are still a huge number of considerations that each application will go through.
Lets say that one of the green section sites sends in its application with 10% single family detached homes, all with prices over $400,000. I feel confident that the staff will turn that application right around and return it to the applicant saying (amongst other things), “The housing mix you propose doesn’t match the City’s needs or rules.”
In addition, if you look at the sites in the green area of the list …
#1 needs the DJUSD to decide what it wants to do, then have the City rezone the parcel
#2 is good to go, but only represents 7-16 units
#3 needs the DJUSD to decide what it wants to do, then have the City rezone the parcel
#4 may have ground contamination, so it won’t proceed quickly
#5 will come in in dribbles
#6 is essentially ready to go, but it has been that way for quite a while and the owners haven’t shown any pressing inclination to act … plus it is only 59-78 units
#7 will have lots of delays due to public input, and then will only come in in dribbles
#8 PG&E hasn’t shown any inclination
#9 has a very long lead time and lots of community input issues
#10 look at the Simmons meetings thus far … do you see this happening soon? I don’t
#11 lots of major planning issues/considerations
#12 see #11 above
#13 see #11 above
#14 doesn’t even have an owner. The Mormon Church has it listed, but no buyer in sight. Even if it does move forward it is only 22-50 units.
#15 see # 9 above
#16 possibly 12-29 units. Not a big impact
#17 see #11 above … plus a Measure J vote
#18 not happening anytime soon. The owner, the Catholic Church, wants to put its regional offices there
#19 see #11 above
#20 possibly 6-8 units. Not a big impact
That takes care of the fgreen sites. We are not talking about the Bonneville Salt Flats here.
if you’re against sprawl and also against density, what you are in effect advocating is that the town stop growing to absorb local kids, new professors and graduated students, and thus essentially become a retirement community/affluent commuter suburb with a university stuck awkwardly next to it. it is effectively pulling up the ladder.
as gas continues to climb in price as global oil production/export levels stall and then begin to drop, we’re really going to want to have a dense downtown within walking distance of the train station. the old car-based low density suburban model is dead, and at the moment it is being defended by those bought into the system (ie. current homeowners) at the expense of future generations.
i understand that development has to be done on a careful case by case basis, but you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too here. this town has been priced out of range for a lot of people that used to make the city what made it so attractive to most of you in the first place. as gas gets more expensive, forcing the service class to live way out of town is going to cause serious hardship. if we want to keep what’s left of our college town community alive, we’re going to need an adequate stock of housing suited to people who don’t have a ton of equity from previous houses in the bay area, and if we don’t want to sprawl, that means increasing density in appropriate places, near points of employment, schools, shopping and services, and mass transportation. both the university and the city have been sorely remiss in providing for a balanced community, we’ve been given the false choice between mcmansions and nothing.
if you’re against sprawl and also against density, what you are in effect advocating is that the town stop growing to absorb local kids, new professors and graduated students, and thus essentially become a retirement community/affluent commuter suburb with a university stuck awkwardly next to it. it is effectively pulling up the ladder.
as gas continues to climb in price as global oil production/export levels stall and then begin to drop, we’re really going to want to have a dense downtown within walking distance of the train station. the old car-based low density suburban model is dead, and at the moment it is being defended by those bought into the system (ie. current homeowners) at the expense of future generations.
i understand that development has to be done on a careful case by case basis, but you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too here. this town has been priced out of range for a lot of people that used to make the city what made it so attractive to most of you in the first place. as gas gets more expensive, forcing the service class to live way out of town is going to cause serious hardship. if we want to keep what’s left of our college town community alive, we’re going to need an adequate stock of housing suited to people who don’t have a ton of equity from previous houses in the bay area, and if we don’t want to sprawl, that means increasing density in appropriate places, near points of employment, schools, shopping and services, and mass transportation. both the university and the city have been sorely remiss in providing for a balanced community, we’ve been given the false choice between mcmansions and nothing.
if you’re against sprawl and also against density, what you are in effect advocating is that the town stop growing to absorb local kids, new professors and graduated students, and thus essentially become a retirement community/affluent commuter suburb with a university stuck awkwardly next to it. it is effectively pulling up the ladder.
as gas continues to climb in price as global oil production/export levels stall and then begin to drop, we’re really going to want to have a dense downtown within walking distance of the train station. the old car-based low density suburban model is dead, and at the moment it is being defended by those bought into the system (ie. current homeowners) at the expense of future generations.
i understand that development has to be done on a careful case by case basis, but you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too here. this town has been priced out of range for a lot of people that used to make the city what made it so attractive to most of you in the first place. as gas gets more expensive, forcing the service class to live way out of town is going to cause serious hardship. if we want to keep what’s left of our college town community alive, we’re going to need an adequate stock of housing suited to people who don’t have a ton of equity from previous houses in the bay area, and if we don’t want to sprawl, that means increasing density in appropriate places, near points of employment, schools, shopping and services, and mass transportation. both the university and the city have been sorely remiss in providing for a balanced community, we’ve been given the false choice between mcmansions and nothing.
if you’re against sprawl and also against density, what you are in effect advocating is that the town stop growing to absorb local kids, new professors and graduated students, and thus essentially become a retirement community/affluent commuter suburb with a university stuck awkwardly next to it. it is effectively pulling up the ladder.
as gas continues to climb in price as global oil production/export levels stall and then begin to drop, we’re really going to want to have a dense downtown within walking distance of the train station. the old car-based low density suburban model is dead, and at the moment it is being defended by those bought into the system (ie. current homeowners) at the expense of future generations.
i understand that development has to be done on a careful case by case basis, but you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too here. this town has been priced out of range for a lot of people that used to make the city what made it so attractive to most of you in the first place. as gas gets more expensive, forcing the service class to live way out of town is going to cause serious hardship. if we want to keep what’s left of our college town community alive, we’re going to need an adequate stock of housing suited to people who don’t have a ton of equity from previous houses in the bay area, and if we don’t want to sprawl, that means increasing density in appropriate places, near points of employment, schools, shopping and services, and mass transportation. both the university and the city have been sorely remiss in providing for a balanced community, we’ve been given the false choice between mcmansions and nothing.
“I would like to see the city planners take a long break from any new developments until this new “village” is fully integrated into our city.”
Our Council needs to keep in mind and a keen eye on city-staff as Davis is essentially a city-manager/city staff- run city. City staff is not infrequently presented with potential conflict of interests when growth policy butts up against career-status,number of department positions,job securitiy and raise/benefit funds
available.
“I would like to see the city planners take a long break from any new developments until this new “village” is fully integrated into our city.”
Our Council needs to keep in mind and a keen eye on city-staff as Davis is essentially a city-manager/city staff- run city. City staff is not infrequently presented with potential conflict of interests when growth policy butts up against career-status,number of department positions,job securitiy and raise/benefit funds
available.
“I would like to see the city planners take a long break from any new developments until this new “village” is fully integrated into our city.”
Our Council needs to keep in mind and a keen eye on city-staff as Davis is essentially a city-manager/city staff- run city. City staff is not infrequently presented with potential conflict of interests when growth policy butts up against career-status,number of department positions,job securitiy and raise/benefit funds
available.
“I would like to see the city planners take a long break from any new developments until this new “village” is fully integrated into our city.”
Our Council needs to keep in mind and a keen eye on city-staff as Davis is essentially a city-manager/city staff- run city. City staff is not infrequently presented with potential conflict of interests when growth policy butts up against career-status,number of department positions,job securitiy and raise/benefit funds
available.
dpd-
I wish that the CGI/picture used to demonstrate a “hypothetical” downtown with “density” wasn’t used last night.
It gives folks the mental picture of things that other communities have done, and some of those things wouldn’t necessarily work in Davis.
Having said that, I believe that you are absolutely WRONG regarding you wish to remove “density” from our land use planning vocabulary.
As wu-ming rightly states, if there is opposition to both density and sprawl, Davis will continue to “grey”, and the door is effectively slammed shut.
the one thing we hear over and over from the “progressive” community is, “i’m in favor of growth, just not density, or sprawl on the periphery”….
well, where, or what types of projects, do you support, DPD?
dpd-
I wish that the CGI/picture used to demonstrate a “hypothetical” downtown with “density” wasn’t used last night.
It gives folks the mental picture of things that other communities have done, and some of those things wouldn’t necessarily work in Davis.
Having said that, I believe that you are absolutely WRONG regarding you wish to remove “density” from our land use planning vocabulary.
As wu-ming rightly states, if there is opposition to both density and sprawl, Davis will continue to “grey”, and the door is effectively slammed shut.
the one thing we hear over and over from the “progressive” community is, “i’m in favor of growth, just not density, or sprawl on the periphery”….
well, where, or what types of projects, do you support, DPD?
dpd-
I wish that the CGI/picture used to demonstrate a “hypothetical” downtown with “density” wasn’t used last night.
It gives folks the mental picture of things that other communities have done, and some of those things wouldn’t necessarily work in Davis.
Having said that, I believe that you are absolutely WRONG regarding you wish to remove “density” from our land use planning vocabulary.
As wu-ming rightly states, if there is opposition to both density and sprawl, Davis will continue to “grey”, and the door is effectively slammed shut.
the one thing we hear over and over from the “progressive” community is, “i’m in favor of growth, just not density, or sprawl on the periphery”….
well, where, or what types of projects, do you support, DPD?
dpd-
I wish that the CGI/picture used to demonstrate a “hypothetical” downtown with “density” wasn’t used last night.
It gives folks the mental picture of things that other communities have done, and some of those things wouldn’t necessarily work in Davis.
Having said that, I believe that you are absolutely WRONG regarding you wish to remove “density” from our land use planning vocabulary.
As wu-ming rightly states, if there is opposition to both density and sprawl, Davis will continue to “grey”, and the door is effectively slammed shut.
the one thing we hear over and over from the “progressive” community is, “i’m in favor of growth, just not density, or sprawl on the periphery”….
well, where, or what types of projects, do you support, DPD?
The last time West Village annexation was before the council Sue Greenwald, knowing that I felt strongly that people who live on campus should be allowed to vote in city elections, asked me to turn out to speak in favor of annexation. Now I find out that she wants to use West Village in the growth numbers to restrict other development in Davis.
I really resent being used like this. Sue led me to believe that she too was concerned about the students being allowed to vote. I admit that I was surprised when Sue asked me to turn out because in previous discussions she had admitted to me, in front of my wife, that she wasn’t interested in expanding the student vote because it wasn’t her constituency.
If she really was concerned about enfranchising she could stipulate to exempt West Village from the growth target. Since it is only a guideline number this would be easy to do. If she insists on using West Village in the growth numbers there is no chance that West Village will be annexed into the city further disenfrancising students and discouraging their participation in civic life. To do otherwise will show her ploy is the height of cynicism, to claim that she is for expanding voting rights and to speak at the King Day ceremonies while using the student vote issue for her own petty political ends regarding growth is unforgivable. If West Village is not annexed there will be thousands more people, mostly students, who are disenfranchised from Davis politics. My disgust is palpable.
The last time West Village annexation was before the council Sue Greenwald, knowing that I felt strongly that people who live on campus should be allowed to vote in city elections, asked me to turn out to speak in favor of annexation. Now I find out that she wants to use West Village in the growth numbers to restrict other development in Davis.
I really resent being used like this. Sue led me to believe that she too was concerned about the students being allowed to vote. I admit that I was surprised when Sue asked me to turn out because in previous discussions she had admitted to me, in front of my wife, that she wasn’t interested in expanding the student vote because it wasn’t her constituency.
If she really was concerned about enfranchising she could stipulate to exempt West Village from the growth target. Since it is only a guideline number this would be easy to do. If she insists on using West Village in the growth numbers there is no chance that West Village will be annexed into the city further disenfrancising students and discouraging their participation in civic life. To do otherwise will show her ploy is the height of cynicism, to claim that she is for expanding voting rights and to speak at the King Day ceremonies while using the student vote issue for her own petty political ends regarding growth is unforgivable. If West Village is not annexed there will be thousands more people, mostly students, who are disenfranchised from Davis politics. My disgust is palpable.
The last time West Village annexation was before the council Sue Greenwald, knowing that I felt strongly that people who live on campus should be allowed to vote in city elections, asked me to turn out to speak in favor of annexation. Now I find out that she wants to use West Village in the growth numbers to restrict other development in Davis.
I really resent being used like this. Sue led me to believe that she too was concerned about the students being allowed to vote. I admit that I was surprised when Sue asked me to turn out because in previous discussions she had admitted to me, in front of my wife, that she wasn’t interested in expanding the student vote because it wasn’t her constituency.
If she really was concerned about enfranchising she could stipulate to exempt West Village from the growth target. Since it is only a guideline number this would be easy to do. If she insists on using West Village in the growth numbers there is no chance that West Village will be annexed into the city further disenfrancising students and discouraging their participation in civic life. To do otherwise will show her ploy is the height of cynicism, to claim that she is for expanding voting rights and to speak at the King Day ceremonies while using the student vote issue for her own petty political ends regarding growth is unforgivable. If West Village is not annexed there will be thousands more people, mostly students, who are disenfranchised from Davis politics. My disgust is palpable.
The last time West Village annexation was before the council Sue Greenwald, knowing that I felt strongly that people who live on campus should be allowed to vote in city elections, asked me to turn out to speak in favor of annexation. Now I find out that she wants to use West Village in the growth numbers to restrict other development in Davis.
I really resent being used like this. Sue led me to believe that she too was concerned about the students being allowed to vote. I admit that I was surprised when Sue asked me to turn out because in previous discussions she had admitted to me, in front of my wife, that she wasn’t interested in expanding the student vote because it wasn’t her constituency.
If she really was concerned about enfranchising she could stipulate to exempt West Village from the growth target. Since it is only a guideline number this would be easy to do. If she insists on using West Village in the growth numbers there is no chance that West Village will be annexed into the city further disenfrancising students and discouraging their participation in civic life. To do otherwise will show her ploy is the height of cynicism, to claim that she is for expanding voting rights and to speak at the King Day ceremonies while using the student vote issue for her own petty political ends regarding growth is unforgivable. If West Village is not annexed there will be thousands more people, mostly students, who are disenfranchised from Davis politics. My disgust is palpable.
I obviously did a poor job of expressing my point. The term density conveys the concept in a negative light. I think it is easier to sell to neighbors and the community–smaller, more affordable units–that implies that there will be more, but if you put them in a nice development that is attractive and does not encroach, you can make it work. The word density causes fear.
I obviously did a poor job of expressing my point. The term density conveys the concept in a negative light. I think it is easier to sell to neighbors and the community–smaller, more affordable units–that implies that there will be more, but if you put them in a nice development that is attractive and does not encroach, you can make it work. The word density causes fear.
I obviously did a poor job of expressing my point. The term density conveys the concept in a negative light. I think it is easier to sell to neighbors and the community–smaller, more affordable units–that implies that there will be more, but if you put them in a nice development that is attractive and does not encroach, you can make it work. The word density causes fear.
I obviously did a poor job of expressing my point. The term density conveys the concept in a negative light. I think it is easier to sell to neighbors and the community–smaller, more affordable units–that implies that there will be more, but if you put them in a nice development that is attractive and does not encroach, you can make it work. The word density causes fear.
By the Way, this week is the annual fundraiser for KDVS. Many people who read this blog also have had their issues aired on KDVS on the show I cohost with Richard Estes. If people wanted to donate to KDVS to support its role in the public discourse they can do so this week.
By the Way, this week is the annual fundraiser for KDVS. Many people who read this blog also have had their issues aired on KDVS on the show I cohost with Richard Estes. If people wanted to donate to KDVS to support its role in the public discourse they can do so this week.
By the Way, this week is the annual fundraiser for KDVS. Many people who read this blog also have had their issues aired on KDVS on the show I cohost with Richard Estes. If people wanted to donate to KDVS to support its role in the public discourse they can do so this week.
By the Way, this week is the annual fundraiser for KDVS. Many people who read this blog also have had their issues aired on KDVS on the show I cohost with Richard Estes. If people wanted to donate to KDVS to support its role in the public discourse they can do so this week.
If she insists on using West Village in the growth numbers there is no chance that West Village will be annexed into the city further disenfrancising students and discouraging their participation in civic life.
I’m not connecting the dots here, primarily because of a lack of information. Why is this so? And, furthermore, if it is so, is Sue responsible for it, or are other council members or some combination of them?
From what has been provided here, it looks like the council and Sue have been conflated in terms of actions and responsibility.
–Richard Estes
If she insists on using West Village in the growth numbers there is no chance that West Village will be annexed into the city further disenfrancising students and discouraging their participation in civic life.
I’m not connecting the dots here, primarily because of a lack of information. Why is this so? And, furthermore, if it is so, is Sue responsible for it, or are other council members or some combination of them?
From what has been provided here, it looks like the council and Sue have been conflated in terms of actions and responsibility.
–Richard Estes
If she insists on using West Village in the growth numbers there is no chance that West Village will be annexed into the city further disenfrancising students and discouraging their participation in civic life.
I’m not connecting the dots here, primarily because of a lack of information. Why is this so? And, furthermore, if it is so, is Sue responsible for it, or are other council members or some combination of them?
From what has been provided here, it looks like the council and Sue have been conflated in terms of actions and responsibility.
–Richard Estes
If she insists on using West Village in the growth numbers there is no chance that West Village will be annexed into the city further disenfrancising students and discouraging their participation in civic life.
I’m not connecting the dots here, primarily because of a lack of information. Why is this so? And, furthermore, if it is so, is Sue responsible for it, or are other council members or some combination of them?
From what has been provided here, it looks like the council and Sue have been conflated in terms of actions and responsibility.
–Richard Estes
She will not be able to build the consensus required to get the annexation through. There is much opposition to annexation and her insistance on using West Village in the growth numbers will preclude any of the other issues from being resolved.
Don Saylor told me it was about services. As did Mariko Yamada as well. Sydney Vergis hedged on annexation although she claimed she favored it conceptually. I came away thinking she would not favor it in the end.
I have a hunch that you could have a more honest discussion if the growth issue was seperated from the voting issue. I feel that if you can’t get past the growth issue on West Village you won’t ever get to the voting issue.
She will not be able to build the consensus required to get the annexation through. There is much opposition to annexation and her insistance on using West Village in the growth numbers will preclude any of the other issues from being resolved.
Don Saylor told me it was about services. As did Mariko Yamada as well. Sydney Vergis hedged on annexation although she claimed she favored it conceptually. I came away thinking she would not favor it in the end.
I have a hunch that you could have a more honest discussion if the growth issue was seperated from the voting issue. I feel that if you can’t get past the growth issue on West Village you won’t ever get to the voting issue.
She will not be able to build the consensus required to get the annexation through. There is much opposition to annexation and her insistance on using West Village in the growth numbers will preclude any of the other issues from being resolved.
Don Saylor told me it was about services. As did Mariko Yamada as well. Sydney Vergis hedged on annexation although she claimed she favored it conceptually. I came away thinking she would not favor it in the end.
I have a hunch that you could have a more honest discussion if the growth issue was seperated from the voting issue. I feel that if you can’t get past the growth issue on West Village you won’t ever get to the voting issue.
She will not be able to build the consensus required to get the annexation through. There is much opposition to annexation and her insistance on using West Village in the growth numbers will preclude any of the other issues from being resolved.
Don Saylor told me it was about services. As did Mariko Yamada as well. Sydney Vergis hedged on annexation although she claimed she favored it conceptually. I came away thinking she would not favor it in the end.
I have a hunch that you could have a more honest discussion if the growth issue was seperated from the voting issue. I feel that if you can’t get past the growth issue on West Village you won’t ever get to the voting issue.
You’re underplaying the importance of the growth issue Ron. The voting issue pales in comparison to the prospect that we will be adding 4000 additional units in the next five years. That’s over 10,000 additional people in Davis in the next five years if that comes to fruition.
You’re underplaying the importance of the growth issue Ron. The voting issue pales in comparison to the prospect that we will be adding 4000 additional units in the next five years. That’s over 10,000 additional people in Davis in the next five years if that comes to fruition.
You’re underplaying the importance of the growth issue Ron. The voting issue pales in comparison to the prospect that we will be adding 4000 additional units in the next five years. That’s over 10,000 additional people in Davis in the next five years if that comes to fruition.
You’re underplaying the importance of the growth issue Ron. The voting issue pales in comparison to the prospect that we will be adding 4000 additional units in the next five years. That’s over 10,000 additional people in Davis in the next five years if that comes to fruition.
Vincente,
Like I said in my post I don’t like to be used like that. I also care more about voting rights than most of the other concerns I’ve heard about relating to West Village such as services, growth rates, taxes etc. To me it is a fundamental right to be able to vote in the community in which you live.
BTW Rob Roy told me flat out he was for annexation.
Vincente,
Like I said in my post I don’t like to be used like that. I also care more about voting rights than most of the other concerns I’ve heard about relating to West Village such as services, growth rates, taxes etc. To me it is a fundamental right to be able to vote in the community in which you live.
BTW Rob Roy told me flat out he was for annexation.
Vincente,
Like I said in my post I don’t like to be used like that. I also care more about voting rights than most of the other concerns I’ve heard about relating to West Village such as services, growth rates, taxes etc. To me it is a fundamental right to be able to vote in the community in which you live.
BTW Rob Roy told me flat out he was for annexation.
Vincente,
Like I said in my post I don’t like to be used like that. I also care more about voting rights than most of the other concerns I’ve heard about relating to West Village such as services, growth rates, taxes etc. To me it is a fundamental right to be able to vote in the community in which you live.
BTW Rob Roy told me flat out he was for annexation.
She will not be able to build the consensus required to get the annexation through. There is much opposition to annexation and her insistance on using West Village in the growth numbers will preclude any of the other issues from being resolved.
Okay, now I get it. It’s the other council members who won’t support Sue’s position. And, yet, they go unmentioned in your original post amongst all the vitriol directed towards Sue.
I’m also not persuaded that you were “used” in any way. Sue has always favored more restrictive growth policies, so her position was either known at the time that you spoke on this issue, or was fairly predictable.
Did Sue ever tell you that she favored annexation unconditionally? I doubt it, given her history. So you spoke on the subject before council, didn’t prevail, and now you are angry because it has gotten caught up in the intransigent growth fights that characterize Davis.
Here’s a thought: maybe everyone could just compromise on the annexation of West Village in relation to future growth? I doubt it will happen for a number of reasons, and, of course, they will ultimately all be traceable to Sue in one form or another.
By the way, let me second Ron’s exhortation to donate to the KDVS fundraiser during “Speaking in Tongues” on Friday at 5pm. You can do so over the Internet at:
http://fundraiser.kdvs.org/ and we would appreciate if you specify that you are contributing because of “Speaking in Tongues” specifically
Or, by calling during the show on Friday at 5pm at 530 753 5387 or 1 888 654 6294
–Richard Estes
She will not be able to build the consensus required to get the annexation through. There is much opposition to annexation and her insistance on using West Village in the growth numbers will preclude any of the other issues from being resolved.
Okay, now I get it. It’s the other council members who won’t support Sue’s position. And, yet, they go unmentioned in your original post amongst all the vitriol directed towards Sue.
I’m also not persuaded that you were “used” in any way. Sue has always favored more restrictive growth policies, so her position was either known at the time that you spoke on this issue, or was fairly predictable.
Did Sue ever tell you that she favored annexation unconditionally? I doubt it, given her history. So you spoke on the subject before council, didn’t prevail, and now you are angry because it has gotten caught up in the intransigent growth fights that characterize Davis.
Here’s a thought: maybe everyone could just compromise on the annexation of West Village in relation to future growth? I doubt it will happen for a number of reasons, and, of course, they will ultimately all be traceable to Sue in one form or another.
By the way, let me second Ron’s exhortation to donate to the KDVS fundraiser during “Speaking in Tongues” on Friday at 5pm. You can do so over the Internet at:
http://fundraiser.kdvs.org/ and we would appreciate if you specify that you are contributing because of “Speaking in Tongues” specifically
Or, by calling during the show on Friday at 5pm at 530 753 5387 or 1 888 654 6294
–Richard Estes
She will not be able to build the consensus required to get the annexation through. There is much opposition to annexation and her insistance on using West Village in the growth numbers will preclude any of the other issues from being resolved.
Okay, now I get it. It’s the other council members who won’t support Sue’s position. And, yet, they go unmentioned in your original post amongst all the vitriol directed towards Sue.
I’m also not persuaded that you were “used” in any way. Sue has always favored more restrictive growth policies, so her position was either known at the time that you spoke on this issue, or was fairly predictable.
Did Sue ever tell you that she favored annexation unconditionally? I doubt it, given her history. So you spoke on the subject before council, didn’t prevail, and now you are angry because it has gotten caught up in the intransigent growth fights that characterize Davis.
Here’s a thought: maybe everyone could just compromise on the annexation of West Village in relation to future growth? I doubt it will happen for a number of reasons, and, of course, they will ultimately all be traceable to Sue in one form or another.
By the way, let me second Ron’s exhortation to donate to the KDVS fundraiser during “Speaking in Tongues” on Friday at 5pm. You can do so over the Internet at:
http://fundraiser.kdvs.org/ and we would appreciate if you specify that you are contributing because of “Speaking in Tongues” specifically
Or, by calling during the show on Friday at 5pm at 530 753 5387 or 1 888 654 6294
–Richard Estes
She will not be able to build the consensus required to get the annexation through. There is much opposition to annexation and her insistance on using West Village in the growth numbers will preclude any of the other issues from being resolved.
Okay, now I get it. It’s the other council members who won’t support Sue’s position. And, yet, they go unmentioned in your original post amongst all the vitriol directed towards Sue.
I’m also not persuaded that you were “used” in any way. Sue has always favored more restrictive growth policies, so her position was either known at the time that you spoke on this issue, or was fairly predictable.
Did Sue ever tell you that she favored annexation unconditionally? I doubt it, given her history. So you spoke on the subject before council, didn’t prevail, and now you are angry because it has gotten caught up in the intransigent growth fights that characterize Davis.
Here’s a thought: maybe everyone could just compromise on the annexation of West Village in relation to future growth? I doubt it will happen for a number of reasons, and, of course, they will ultimately all be traceable to Sue in one form or another.
By the way, let me second Ron’s exhortation to donate to the KDVS fundraiser during “Speaking in Tongues” on Friday at 5pm. You can do so over the Internet at:
http://fundraiser.kdvs.org/ and we would appreciate if you specify that you are contributing because of “Speaking in Tongues” specifically
Or, by calling during the show on Friday at 5pm at 530 753 5387 or 1 888 654 6294
–Richard Estes
Richard I said she should stipulate to exclude West Village from the growth numbers the same conclusion you reached.
There is one member who has been an unequivocal supported of annexation despite being a diehard supported of more growth. That member is Steve Souza.
It would be nice to see more council members do the right thing simply for the purpose of doing the right thing and seperate West Village from the other growth issues as West Village is going to happpen no matter what else is decided.
Richard I said she should stipulate to exclude West Village from the growth numbers the same conclusion you reached.
There is one member who has been an unequivocal supported of annexation despite being a diehard supported of more growth. That member is Steve Souza.
It would be nice to see more council members do the right thing simply for the purpose of doing the right thing and seperate West Village from the other growth issues as West Village is going to happpen no matter what else is decided.
Richard I said she should stipulate to exclude West Village from the growth numbers the same conclusion you reached.
There is one member who has been an unequivocal supported of annexation despite being a diehard supported of more growth. That member is Steve Souza.
It would be nice to see more council members do the right thing simply for the purpose of doing the right thing and seperate West Village from the other growth issues as West Village is going to happpen no matter what else is decided.
Richard I said she should stipulate to exclude West Village from the growth numbers the same conclusion you reached.
There is one member who has been an unequivocal supported of annexation despite being a diehard supported of more growth. That member is Steve Souza.
It would be nice to see more council members do the right thing simply for the purpose of doing the right thing and seperate West Village from the other growth issues as West Village is going to happpen no matter what else is decided.
I’m surprised Souza did that, because my simple minded view has always been that no one ultimately will support annexation at the risk of angering West Davis residents, even though, of course, annexation is different from the actual construction of the project.
–Richard
I’m surprised Souza did that, because my simple minded view has always been that no one ultimately will support annexation at the risk of angering West Davis residents, even though, of course, annexation is different from the actual construction of the project.
–Richard
I’m surprised Souza did that, because my simple minded view has always been that no one ultimately will support annexation at the risk of angering West Davis residents, even though, of course, annexation is different from the actual construction of the project.
–Richard
I’m surprised Souza did that, because my simple minded view has always been that no one ultimately will support annexation at the risk of angering West Davis residents, even though, of course, annexation is different from the actual construction of the project.
–Richard
“seperate West Village from the other growth issues as West Village is going to happpen no matter what else is decided.”
Ron: you are being terminally naive, more so than normal even. Let me try to type this real slowly so you understand. Even if West Village is going to happen no matter what else is decided, that does not mean that it is not related to other decisions. After all, you do not make your other growth decisions in a vacuum.
“seperate West Village from the other growth issues as West Village is going to happpen no matter what else is decided.”
Ron: you are being terminally naive, more so than normal even. Let me try to type this real slowly so you understand. Even if West Village is going to happen no matter what else is decided, that does not mean that it is not related to other decisions. After all, you do not make your other growth decisions in a vacuum.
“seperate West Village from the other growth issues as West Village is going to happpen no matter what else is decided.”
Ron: you are being terminally naive, more so than normal even. Let me try to type this real slowly so you understand. Even if West Village is going to happen no matter what else is decided, that does not mean that it is not related to other decisions. After all, you do not make your other growth decisions in a vacuum.
“seperate West Village from the other growth issues as West Village is going to happpen no matter what else is decided.”
Ron: you are being terminally naive, more so than normal even. Let me try to type this real slowly so you understand. Even if West Village is going to happen no matter what else is decided, that does not mean that it is not related to other decisions. After all, you do not make your other growth decisions in a vacuum.
So Vicente, what do you think is more important growth decisions or voting rights? If you say growth decisions why have measure J? Or let me ask it this way, can we say that measure J is an honest measurement of community sentiment if large numbers of people are systematically disenfranchised from participating in the process?
So Vicente, what do you think is more important growth decisions or voting rights? If you say growth decisions why have measure J? Or let me ask it this way, can we say that measure J is an honest measurement of community sentiment if large numbers of people are systematically disenfranchised from participating in the process?
So Vicente, what do you think is more important growth decisions or voting rights? If you say growth decisions why have measure J? Or let me ask it this way, can we say that measure J is an honest measurement of community sentiment if large numbers of people are systematically disenfranchised from participating in the process?
So Vicente, what do you think is more important growth decisions or voting rights? If you say growth decisions why have measure J? Or let me ask it this way, can we say that measure J is an honest measurement of community sentiment if large numbers of people are systematically disenfranchised from participating in the process?
Ron Glick:
I am sorry if you feel used. To me, annexation and growth rate are two completely separate issues. I am in favor of annexation so that students and faculty can be part of the City of Davis and vote in the City of Davis.
I would be fighting hard for this whether we grow slowly or quickly, peripherally or centrally. This is because I want Davis to remain a University-oriented town. In fact, one of my concerns about peripheral growth is that it is tending to attract more commuters than people who work or study in Davis.
Although half of my friends and half of my campaign steering committe are commuters (as you yourself are), and commuters like yourself add interesting people to our community—the increasing percentage of commuters ultimately has the potential to make the town less University and student and research oriented, and is certainly environmentally less than optimal.
Again, you and I disagree on one key assumption: You assume that building peripheral housing will make housing less expensive.
However, there is no historical support for that position. Data shows that Davis housing prices have not decreased relative to state-wide, regional, or Yolo housing prices in years that we have issued many single-family permits, nor have they increased relative to these other housing prices in years when we have issued few permits.
If I had the ability to post graphs proving this on the blog, I would.
The reason that growth doesn’t make housing more affordable is because the demand is very elastic. If a few peripheral projects would lower prices to the point that my friends could afford to buy them, I would vote for them. Unfortunately, I don’t think they will.
I am strongly in favor of some major housing projects that will provide more or different options, or attract more progressive young people, but I have little illusion that these projects, or others, will actually lower prices.
Ron Glick:
I am sorry if you feel used. To me, annexation and growth rate are two completely separate issues. I am in favor of annexation so that students and faculty can be part of the City of Davis and vote in the City of Davis.
I would be fighting hard for this whether we grow slowly or quickly, peripherally or centrally. This is because I want Davis to remain a University-oriented town. In fact, one of my concerns about peripheral growth is that it is tending to attract more commuters than people who work or study in Davis.
Although half of my friends and half of my campaign steering committe are commuters (as you yourself are), and commuters like yourself add interesting people to our community—the increasing percentage of commuters ultimately has the potential to make the town less University and student and research oriented, and is certainly environmentally less than optimal.
Again, you and I disagree on one key assumption: You assume that building peripheral housing will make housing less expensive.
However, there is no historical support for that position. Data shows that Davis housing prices have not decreased relative to state-wide, regional, or Yolo housing prices in years that we have issued many single-family permits, nor have they increased relative to these other housing prices in years when we have issued few permits.
If I had the ability to post graphs proving this on the blog, I would.
The reason that growth doesn’t make housing more affordable is because the demand is very elastic. If a few peripheral projects would lower prices to the point that my friends could afford to buy them, I would vote for them. Unfortunately, I don’t think they will.
I am strongly in favor of some major housing projects that will provide more or different options, or attract more progressive young people, but I have little illusion that these projects, or others, will actually lower prices.
Ron Glick:
I am sorry if you feel used. To me, annexation and growth rate are two completely separate issues. I am in favor of annexation so that students and faculty can be part of the City of Davis and vote in the City of Davis.
I would be fighting hard for this whether we grow slowly or quickly, peripherally or centrally. This is because I want Davis to remain a University-oriented town. In fact, one of my concerns about peripheral growth is that it is tending to attract more commuters than people who work or study in Davis.
Although half of my friends and half of my campaign steering committe are commuters (as you yourself are), and commuters like yourself add interesting people to our community—the increasing percentage of commuters ultimately has the potential to make the town less University and student and research oriented, and is certainly environmentally less than optimal.
Again, you and I disagree on one key assumption: You assume that building peripheral housing will make housing less expensive.
However, there is no historical support for that position. Data shows that Davis housing prices have not decreased relative to state-wide, regional, or Yolo housing prices in years that we have issued many single-family permits, nor have they increased relative to these other housing prices in years when we have issued few permits.
If I had the ability to post graphs proving this on the blog, I would.
The reason that growth doesn’t make housing more affordable is because the demand is very elastic. If a few peripheral projects would lower prices to the point that my friends could afford to buy them, I would vote for them. Unfortunately, I don’t think they will.
I am strongly in favor of some major housing projects that will provide more or different options, or attract more progressive young people, but I have little illusion that these projects, or others, will actually lower prices.
Ron Glick:
I am sorry if you feel used. To me, annexation and growth rate are two completely separate issues. I am in favor of annexation so that students and faculty can be part of the City of Davis and vote in the City of Davis.
I would be fighting hard for this whether we grow slowly or quickly, peripherally or centrally. This is because I want Davis to remain a University-oriented town. In fact, one of my concerns about peripheral growth is that it is tending to attract more commuters than people who work or study in Davis.
Although half of my friends and half of my campaign steering committe are commuters (as you yourself are), and commuters like yourself add interesting people to our community—the increasing percentage of commuters ultimately has the potential to make the town less University and student and research oriented, and is certainly environmentally less than optimal.
Again, you and I disagree on one key assumption: You assume that building peripheral housing will make housing less expensive.
However, there is no historical support for that position. Data shows that Davis housing prices have not decreased relative to state-wide, regional, or Yolo housing prices in years that we have issued many single-family permits, nor have they increased relative to these other housing prices in years when we have issued few permits.
If I had the ability to post graphs proving this on the blog, I would.
The reason that growth doesn’t make housing more affordable is because the demand is very elastic. If a few peripheral projects would lower prices to the point that my friends could afford to buy them, I would vote for them. Unfortunately, I don’t think they will.
I am strongly in favor of some major housing projects that will provide more or different options, or attract more progressive young people, but I have little illusion that these projects, or others, will actually lower prices.
oops, the local direct line for making contributions to KDVS during “Speaking in Tongues” on Friday at 5pm is:
530 754 5387
please make a note of it
–Richard Estes
oops, the local direct line for making contributions to KDVS during “Speaking in Tongues” on Friday at 5pm is:
530 754 5387
please make a note of it
–Richard Estes
oops, the local direct line for making contributions to KDVS during “Speaking in Tongues” on Friday at 5pm is:
530 754 5387
please make a note of it
–Richard Estes
oops, the local direct line for making contributions to KDVS during “Speaking in Tongues” on Friday at 5pm is:
530 754 5387
please make a note of it
–Richard Estes
Ron Glick:
Now to the logic of your argument.
You seem to be saying that the council majority is holding the concept of Davis as a University oriented town, and the voting rights of students and faculty, hostage to their desire for peripheral growth. Aren’t they the ones you should be angry at?
Ron Glick:
Now to the logic of your argument.
You seem to be saying that the council majority is holding the concept of Davis as a University oriented town, and the voting rights of students and faculty, hostage to their desire for peripheral growth. Aren’t they the ones you should be angry at?
Ron Glick:
Now to the logic of your argument.
You seem to be saying that the council majority is holding the concept of Davis as a University oriented town, and the voting rights of students and faculty, hostage to their desire for peripheral growth. Aren’t they the ones you should be angry at?
Ron Glick:
Now to the logic of your argument.
You seem to be saying that the council majority is holding the concept of Davis as a University oriented town, and the voting rights of students and faculty, hostage to their desire for peripheral growth. Aren’t they the ones you should be angry at?
Yes Sue, I disagree with everyone who, for whatever reason, stands in the way of annexing West Village. If its you throwing the growth rate monkey wrench into the mix or Don playing the services card it doesn’t matter to me. My comment had nothing to do with peripheral or any other type of growth. It was about trying to get people to agree to seperate the growth issue from the voting issue. By demanding West Village be included you reveal that you care more about the growth rate than voting rights because both you and I know that it will be difficult if not impossible to win on both. If politics is the art of the possible and you can’t have both which one do you choose?
Yes Sue, I disagree with everyone who, for whatever reason, stands in the way of annexing West Village. If its you throwing the growth rate monkey wrench into the mix or Don playing the services card it doesn’t matter to me. My comment had nothing to do with peripheral or any other type of growth. It was about trying to get people to agree to seperate the growth issue from the voting issue. By demanding West Village be included you reveal that you care more about the growth rate than voting rights because both you and I know that it will be difficult if not impossible to win on both. If politics is the art of the possible and you can’t have both which one do you choose?
Yes Sue, I disagree with everyone who, for whatever reason, stands in the way of annexing West Village. If its you throwing the growth rate monkey wrench into the mix or Don playing the services card it doesn’t matter to me. My comment had nothing to do with peripheral or any other type of growth. It was about trying to get people to agree to seperate the growth issue from the voting issue. By demanding West Village be included you reveal that you care more about the growth rate than voting rights because both you and I know that it will be difficult if not impossible to win on both. If politics is the art of the possible and you can’t have both which one do you choose?
Yes Sue, I disagree with everyone who, for whatever reason, stands in the way of annexing West Village. If its you throwing the growth rate monkey wrench into the mix or Don playing the services card it doesn’t matter to me. My comment had nothing to do with peripheral or any other type of growth. It was about trying to get people to agree to seperate the growth issue from the voting issue. By demanding West Village be included you reveal that you care more about the growth rate than voting rights because both you and I know that it will be difficult if not impossible to win on both. If politics is the art of the possible and you can’t have both which one do you choose?
Ron,
The council majority can grow at any rate they want. The connection between my opinion that University residential development should count as Davis development, and the seeming reluctance of the council majority to annex West Village, is tenuous at best.
Ron,
The council majority can grow at any rate they want. The connection between my opinion that University residential development should count as Davis development, and the seeming reluctance of the council majority to annex West Village, is tenuous at best.
Ron,
The council majority can grow at any rate they want. The connection between my opinion that University residential development should count as Davis development, and the seeming reluctance of the council majority to annex West Village, is tenuous at best.
Ron,
The council majority can grow at any rate they want. The connection between my opinion that University residential development should count as Davis development, and the seeming reluctance of the council majority to annex West Village, is tenuous at best.
Sue Greenwald said:
“Again, you and I disagree on one key assumption: You assume that building peripheral housing will make housing less expensive.
However, there is no historical support for that position. Data shows that Davis housing prices have not decreased relative to state-wide, regional, or Yolo housing prices in years that we have issued many single-family permits, nor have they increased relative to these other housing prices in years when we have issued few permits. “
Sue – can you please disclose the data source which shows that Davis has added units at the same pace as other communities surrounding us? I don’t have the exact data, but it doesn’t seem possible that Davis has grown proportionately to the rest of the surrounding area. Consequently, one would expect that Davis prices would have risen on a relative basis. Furthermore, it is quite possible,even likely, that Davis home prices would have risen even more had we not had the development that we’ve had.
I know that Davisites like to think our community is unique, and in many ways, it is. Regardless of this uniqueness, it is not immune to supply/demand economics and this is a non-credible argument with respect to growth and relative housing prices.
Sue Greenwald said:
“Again, you and I disagree on one key assumption: You assume that building peripheral housing will make housing less expensive.
However, there is no historical support for that position. Data shows that Davis housing prices have not decreased relative to state-wide, regional, or Yolo housing prices in years that we have issued many single-family permits, nor have they increased relative to these other housing prices in years when we have issued few permits. “
Sue – can you please disclose the data source which shows that Davis has added units at the same pace as other communities surrounding us? I don’t have the exact data, but it doesn’t seem possible that Davis has grown proportionately to the rest of the surrounding area. Consequently, one would expect that Davis prices would have risen on a relative basis. Furthermore, it is quite possible,even likely, that Davis home prices would have risen even more had we not had the development that we’ve had.
I know that Davisites like to think our community is unique, and in many ways, it is. Regardless of this uniqueness, it is not immune to supply/demand economics and this is a non-credible argument with respect to growth and relative housing prices.
Sue Greenwald said:
“Again, you and I disagree on one key assumption: You assume that building peripheral housing will make housing less expensive.
However, there is no historical support for that position. Data shows that Davis housing prices have not decreased relative to state-wide, regional, or Yolo housing prices in years that we have issued many single-family permits, nor have they increased relative to these other housing prices in years when we have issued few permits. “
Sue – can you please disclose the data source which shows that Davis has added units at the same pace as other communities surrounding us? I don’t have the exact data, but it doesn’t seem possible that Davis has grown proportionately to the rest of the surrounding area. Consequently, one would expect that Davis prices would have risen on a relative basis. Furthermore, it is quite possible,even likely, that Davis home prices would have risen even more had we not had the development that we’ve had.
I know that Davisites like to think our community is unique, and in many ways, it is. Regardless of this uniqueness, it is not immune to supply/demand economics and this is a non-credible argument with respect to growth and relative housing prices.
Sue Greenwald said:
“Again, you and I disagree on one key assumption: You assume that building peripheral housing will make housing less expensive.
However, there is no historical support for that position. Data shows that Davis housing prices have not decreased relative to state-wide, regional, or Yolo housing prices in years that we have issued many single-family permits, nor have they increased relative to these other housing prices in years when we have issued few permits. “
Sue – can you please disclose the data source which shows that Davis has added units at the same pace as other communities surrounding us? I don’t have the exact data, but it doesn’t seem possible that Davis has grown proportionately to the rest of the surrounding area. Consequently, one would expect that Davis prices would have risen on a relative basis. Furthermore, it is quite possible,even likely, that Davis home prices would have risen even more had we not had the development that we’ve had.
I know that Davisites like to think our community is unique, and in many ways, it is. Regardless of this uniqueness, it is not immune to supply/demand economics and this is a non-credible argument with respect to growth and relative housing prices.
Problem is Sue, perception is reality. If others fear you will use annexation as an argument against other growth they are less likely to go along with annexation. However, if you were to clearly state that you will not do that, I think you could make your argument about voting rights would be more persuasive.
Problem is Sue, perception is reality. If others fear you will use annexation as an argument against other growth they are less likely to go along with annexation. However, if you were to clearly state that you will not do that, I think you could make your argument about voting rights would be more persuasive.
Problem is Sue, perception is reality. If others fear you will use annexation as an argument against other growth they are less likely to go along with annexation. However, if you were to clearly state that you will not do that, I think you could make your argument about voting rights would be more persuasive.
Problem is Sue, perception is reality. If others fear you will use annexation as an argument against other growth they are less likely to go along with annexation. However, if you were to clearly state that you will not do that, I think you could make your argument about voting rights would be more persuasive.
sorry
and it would be more persuasive.
sorry
and it would be more persuasive.
sorry
and it would be more persuasive.
sorry
and it would be more persuasive.
Problem is Sue, perception is reality. If others fear you will use annexation as an argument against other growth they are less likely to go along with annexation. However, if you were to clearly state that you will not do that, I think you could make your argument about voting rights would be more persuasive.
Or, maybe others could draw their independent conclusions and be held politically responsible for them?
After all, does anyone believe that the council majority is known for frequently making their decisions based upon perceptions of what Sue might do?
A radical concept, to be sure, as it requires abandoning the personality cult approach that makes Sue responsible for what the other council members do.
Personally, as the house cynic, I don’t think anyone on the Davis City Council really wants annexation, public pronouncements to the contrary, unless the residents, with support from the highest levels of the UCD administration, insist upon it.
Doesn’t sound too likely.
–Richard Estes
Problem is Sue, perception is reality. If others fear you will use annexation as an argument against other growth they are less likely to go along with annexation. However, if you were to clearly state that you will not do that, I think you could make your argument about voting rights would be more persuasive.
Or, maybe others could draw their independent conclusions and be held politically responsible for them?
After all, does anyone believe that the council majority is known for frequently making their decisions based upon perceptions of what Sue might do?
A radical concept, to be sure, as it requires abandoning the personality cult approach that makes Sue responsible for what the other council members do.
Personally, as the house cynic, I don’t think anyone on the Davis City Council really wants annexation, public pronouncements to the contrary, unless the residents, with support from the highest levels of the UCD administration, insist upon it.
Doesn’t sound too likely.
–Richard Estes
Problem is Sue, perception is reality. If others fear you will use annexation as an argument against other growth they are less likely to go along with annexation. However, if you were to clearly state that you will not do that, I think you could make your argument about voting rights would be more persuasive.
Or, maybe others could draw their independent conclusions and be held politically responsible for them?
After all, does anyone believe that the council majority is known for frequently making their decisions based upon perceptions of what Sue might do?
A radical concept, to be sure, as it requires abandoning the personality cult approach that makes Sue responsible for what the other council members do.
Personally, as the house cynic, I don’t think anyone on the Davis City Council really wants annexation, public pronouncements to the contrary, unless the residents, with support from the highest levels of the UCD administration, insist upon it.
Doesn’t sound too likely.
–Richard Estes
Problem is Sue, perception is reality. If others fear you will use annexation as an argument against other growth they are less likely to go along with annexation. However, if you were to clearly state that you will not do that, I think you could make your argument about voting rights would be more persuasive.
Or, maybe others could draw their independent conclusions and be held politically responsible for them?
After all, does anyone believe that the council majority is known for frequently making their decisions based upon perceptions of what Sue might do?
A radical concept, to be sure, as it requires abandoning the personality cult approach that makes Sue responsible for what the other council members do.
Personally, as the house cynic, I don’t think anyone on the Davis City Council really wants annexation, public pronouncements to the contrary, unless the residents, with support from the highest levels of the UCD administration, insist upon it.
Doesn’t sound too likely.
–Richard Estes
“Regardless of this uniqueness, it is not immune to supply/demand economics and this is a non-credible argument with respect to growth and relative housing prices.”
This is a point that has been made ad nauseam. You made this point the other day but you never responded to the counter:
“The problem I see with the supply-demand argue, is not that supply and demand do not apply, it is that we do not know what the demand is. If demand is sufficiently high, it may not matter if we increase the supply by 1000 units a year. It may be like a pin prick in a blimp as opposed to in a balloon.”
It’s not that we do not think that supply and demand applies, it’s that we are questioning that the growth that Davis can offer with have an impact on prices at a regional level. As long as Davis remains a desirable place to live with good schools, it’s housing prices will be higher than most other areas in the region. To me that means we can solve the housing affordability problem in three ways:
1. build smaller housing that is cheaper–you still have the problem that people can live in a larger home elsewhere, but if you really want to live in Davis you can
2. build until you reduce the cost of housing by flooding the market, but that may be detrimental to the community
3. continue as we have and allow the market itself to correct
“Regardless of this uniqueness, it is not immune to supply/demand economics and this is a non-credible argument with respect to growth and relative housing prices.”
This is a point that has been made ad nauseam. You made this point the other day but you never responded to the counter:
“The problem I see with the supply-demand argue, is not that supply and demand do not apply, it is that we do not know what the demand is. If demand is sufficiently high, it may not matter if we increase the supply by 1000 units a year. It may be like a pin prick in a blimp as opposed to in a balloon.”
It’s not that we do not think that supply and demand applies, it’s that we are questioning that the growth that Davis can offer with have an impact on prices at a regional level. As long as Davis remains a desirable place to live with good schools, it’s housing prices will be higher than most other areas in the region. To me that means we can solve the housing affordability problem in three ways:
1. build smaller housing that is cheaper–you still have the problem that people can live in a larger home elsewhere, but if you really want to live in Davis you can
2. build until you reduce the cost of housing by flooding the market, but that may be detrimental to the community
3. continue as we have and allow the market itself to correct
“Regardless of this uniqueness, it is not immune to supply/demand economics and this is a non-credible argument with respect to growth and relative housing prices.”
This is a point that has been made ad nauseam. You made this point the other day but you never responded to the counter:
“The problem I see with the supply-demand argue, is not that supply and demand do not apply, it is that we do not know what the demand is. If demand is sufficiently high, it may not matter if we increase the supply by 1000 units a year. It may be like a pin prick in a blimp as opposed to in a balloon.”
It’s not that we do not think that supply and demand applies, it’s that we are questioning that the growth that Davis can offer with have an impact on prices at a regional level. As long as Davis remains a desirable place to live with good schools, it’s housing prices will be higher than most other areas in the region. To me that means we can solve the housing affordability problem in three ways:
1. build smaller housing that is cheaper–you still have the problem that people can live in a larger home elsewhere, but if you really want to live in Davis you can
2. build until you reduce the cost of housing by flooding the market, but that may be detrimental to the community
3. continue as we have and allow the market itself to correct
“Regardless of this uniqueness, it is not immune to supply/demand economics and this is a non-credible argument with respect to growth and relative housing prices.”
This is a point that has been made ad nauseam. You made this point the other day but you never responded to the counter:
“The problem I see with the supply-demand argue, is not that supply and demand do not apply, it is that we do not know what the demand is. If demand is sufficiently high, it may not matter if we increase the supply by 1000 units a year. It may be like a pin prick in a blimp as opposed to in a balloon.”
It’s not that we do not think that supply and demand applies, it’s that we are questioning that the growth that Davis can offer with have an impact on prices at a regional level. As long as Davis remains a desirable place to live with good schools, it’s housing prices will be higher than most other areas in the region. To me that means we can solve the housing affordability problem in three ways:
1. build smaller housing that is cheaper–you still have the problem that people can live in a larger home elsewhere, but if you really want to live in Davis you can
2. build until you reduce the cost of housing by flooding the market, but that may be detrimental to the community
3. continue as we have and allow the market itself to correct
The current Council majority will equivocate over the West Village annexation issue until Davis future growth policy is incorporated in Council ordinance(as in the past 1% cap/target/guideline),resolutions or General Plan. Leaving the question open with negative suggestions about West Village annexation allows them to rhetorically reduce the number of future Davis housing units that are already committed. The decision to annex West Village into Davis WILL occur when either the developer-backed Council majority first gets the future growth policies that they desire firmly esconced in Davis’ future plans or we CHANGE the direction(and members) of our future Council.
The current Council majority will equivocate over the West Village annexation issue until Davis future growth policy is incorporated in Council ordinance(as in the past 1% cap/target/guideline),resolutions or General Plan. Leaving the question open with negative suggestions about West Village annexation allows them to rhetorically reduce the number of future Davis housing units that are already committed. The decision to annex West Village into Davis WILL occur when either the developer-backed Council majority first gets the future growth policies that they desire firmly esconced in Davis’ future plans or we CHANGE the direction(and members) of our future Council.
The current Council majority will equivocate over the West Village annexation issue until Davis future growth policy is incorporated in Council ordinance(as in the past 1% cap/target/guideline),resolutions or General Plan. Leaving the question open with negative suggestions about West Village annexation allows them to rhetorically reduce the number of future Davis housing units that are already committed. The decision to annex West Village into Davis WILL occur when either the developer-backed Council majority first gets the future growth policies that they desire firmly esconced in Davis’ future plans or we CHANGE the direction(and members) of our future Council.
The current Council majority will equivocate over the West Village annexation issue until Davis future growth policy is incorporated in Council ordinance(as in the past 1% cap/target/guideline),resolutions or General Plan. Leaving the question open with negative suggestions about West Village annexation allows them to rhetorically reduce the number of future Davis housing units that are already committed. The decision to annex West Village into Davis WILL occur when either the developer-backed Council majority first gets the future growth policies that they desire firmly esconced in Davis’ future plans or we CHANGE the direction(and members) of our future Council.
To me that means we can solve the housing affordability problem in three ways:
1. build smaller housing that is cheaper–you still have the problem that people can live in a larger home elsewhere, but if you really want to live in Davis you can
Clearly, this is a view that I have expressed here consistently. It is a ludicrous notion that the peripheral regions of Davis can be built out with single family, residential lot homes of the kind that we associate with an idealized Norman Rockwell past in such a way as to reduce prices.
Nor do I have much empathy for anyone who believes that they are entitled to have such a residence constructed for them, as it perpetuates the evils of the postwar California model of suburbanization that still afflicts us.
There are just too many constraints, costs of land, construction and infrastructure, particularly the lag between the sale of completed homes and the provision of roads, schools, sewage, etc., in addition to compliance with environmental laws related to habitat preservation and water conservation.
An interesting question is, given these expenses, what would it cost, absent profit, to build such a home in Davis? Given the current costs of land and materials alone, I suspect that it would be substantial.
So, increased densities are unavoidable. As has been the case in other areas, the only question is whether the increased densities arrive sooner rather than later. If built now, housing can be made available in Davis for lower middle income people and middle income people. If built later, they will go to the same upper middle income people that Davis currently attracts.
–Richard Estes
To me that means we can solve the housing affordability problem in three ways:
1. build smaller housing that is cheaper–you still have the problem that people can live in a larger home elsewhere, but if you really want to live in Davis you can
Clearly, this is a view that I have expressed here consistently. It is a ludicrous notion that the peripheral regions of Davis can be built out with single family, residential lot homes of the kind that we associate with an idealized Norman Rockwell past in such a way as to reduce prices.
Nor do I have much empathy for anyone who believes that they are entitled to have such a residence constructed for them, as it perpetuates the evils of the postwar California model of suburbanization that still afflicts us.
There are just too many constraints, costs of land, construction and infrastructure, particularly the lag between the sale of completed homes and the provision of roads, schools, sewage, etc., in addition to compliance with environmental laws related to habitat preservation and water conservation.
An interesting question is, given these expenses, what would it cost, absent profit, to build such a home in Davis? Given the current costs of land and materials alone, I suspect that it would be substantial.
So, increased densities are unavoidable. As has been the case in other areas, the only question is whether the increased densities arrive sooner rather than later. If built now, housing can be made available in Davis for lower middle income people and middle income people. If built later, they will go to the same upper middle income people that Davis currently attracts.
–Richard Estes
To me that means we can solve the housing affordability problem in three ways:
1. build smaller housing that is cheaper–you still have the problem that people can live in a larger home elsewhere, but if you really want to live in Davis you can
Clearly, this is a view that I have expressed here consistently. It is a ludicrous notion that the peripheral regions of Davis can be built out with single family, residential lot homes of the kind that we associate with an idealized Norman Rockwell past in such a way as to reduce prices.
Nor do I have much empathy for anyone who believes that they are entitled to have such a residence constructed for them, as it perpetuates the evils of the postwar California model of suburbanization that still afflicts us.
There are just too many constraints, costs of land, construction and infrastructure, particularly the lag between the sale of completed homes and the provision of roads, schools, sewage, etc., in addition to compliance with environmental laws related to habitat preservation and water conservation.
An interesting question is, given these expenses, what would it cost, absent profit, to build such a home in Davis? Given the current costs of land and materials alone, I suspect that it would be substantial.
So, increased densities are unavoidable. As has been the case in other areas, the only question is whether the increased densities arrive sooner rather than later. If built now, housing can be made available in Davis for lower middle income people and middle income people. If built later, they will go to the same upper middle income people that Davis currently attracts.
–Richard Estes
To me that means we can solve the housing affordability problem in three ways:
1. build smaller housing that is cheaper–you still have the problem that people can live in a larger home elsewhere, but if you really want to live in Davis you can
Clearly, this is a view that I have expressed here consistently. It is a ludicrous notion that the peripheral regions of Davis can be built out with single family, residential lot homes of the kind that we associate with an idealized Norman Rockwell past in such a way as to reduce prices.
Nor do I have much empathy for anyone who believes that they are entitled to have such a residence constructed for them, as it perpetuates the evils of the postwar California model of suburbanization that still afflicts us.
There are just too many constraints, costs of land, construction and infrastructure, particularly the lag between the sale of completed homes and the provision of roads, schools, sewage, etc., in addition to compliance with environmental laws related to habitat preservation and water conservation.
An interesting question is, given these expenses, what would it cost, absent profit, to build such a home in Davis? Given the current costs of land and materials alone, I suspect that it would be substantial.
So, increased densities are unavoidable. As has been the case in other areas, the only question is whether the increased densities arrive sooner rather than later. If built now, housing can be made available in Davis for lower middle income people and middle income people. If built later, they will go to the same upper middle income people that Davis currently attracts.
–Richard Estes
So who of all the canidates is the most pro-growth?
So who of all the canidates is the most pro-growth?
So who of all the canidates is the most pro-growth?
So who of all the canidates is the most pro-growth?
The most pro growth
Don Saylor
The most pro growth
Don Saylor
The most pro growth
Don Saylor
The most pro growth
Don Saylor
“David, I made this point last night, and I’ll make it again here. The HESC report is a first step in a multi-step process. They approached their task from a land use perspective … or said another way, they looked at the characteristics of the supply of potential sites. How that supply of sites might be used up (and at what rate) was not in the HESC’s original 1/2007 charge from the Council. I see what we are going through as a multi chapter book.”
In an ideal world yes. Here in Davis, I don’t think so. The Council Majority has a nasty habit of circumventing process, and pandering to developer interests. Suddenly things happen, without explanation, because they have been sneaked by. Souza is infamous for doing this, and Saylor/Asmundson back him up. The only thing that stopped the steamrolling of Covell Village through was Measure J – the will of the people.
“David, I made this point last night, and I’ll make it again here. The HESC report is a first step in a multi-step process. They approached their task from a land use perspective … or said another way, they looked at the characteristics of the supply of potential sites. How that supply of sites might be used up (and at what rate) was not in the HESC’s original 1/2007 charge from the Council. I see what we are going through as a multi chapter book.”
In an ideal world yes. Here in Davis, I don’t think so. The Council Majority has a nasty habit of circumventing process, and pandering to developer interests. Suddenly things happen, without explanation, because they have been sneaked by. Souza is infamous for doing this, and Saylor/Asmundson back him up. The only thing that stopped the steamrolling of Covell Village through was Measure J – the will of the people.
“David, I made this point last night, and I’ll make it again here. The HESC report is a first step in a multi-step process. They approached their task from a land use perspective … or said another way, they looked at the characteristics of the supply of potential sites. How that supply of sites might be used up (and at what rate) was not in the HESC’s original 1/2007 charge from the Council. I see what we are going through as a multi chapter book.”
In an ideal world yes. Here in Davis, I don’t think so. The Council Majority has a nasty habit of circumventing process, and pandering to developer interests. Suddenly things happen, without explanation, because they have been sneaked by. Souza is infamous for doing this, and Saylor/Asmundson back him up. The only thing that stopped the steamrolling of Covell Village through was Measure J – the will of the people.
“David, I made this point last night, and I’ll make it again here. The HESC report is a first step in a multi-step process. They approached their task from a land use perspective … or said another way, they looked at the characteristics of the supply of potential sites. How that supply of sites might be used up (and at what rate) was not in the HESC’s original 1/2007 charge from the Council. I see what we are going through as a multi chapter book.”
In an ideal world yes. Here in Davis, I don’t think so. The Council Majority has a nasty habit of circumventing process, and pandering to developer interests. Suddenly things happen, without explanation, because they have been sneaked by. Souza is infamous for doing this, and Saylor/Asmundson back him up. The only thing that stopped the steamrolling of Covell Village through was Measure J – the will of the people.
By Pro-growth, I mean residential growth and not just promoting the freway sign idea.
I guess a better question is who backed the Covell development a couple of years ago?
By Pro-growth, I mean residential growth and not just promoting the freway sign idea.
I guess a better question is who backed the Covell development a couple of years ago?
By Pro-growth, I mean residential growth and not just promoting the freway sign idea.
I guess a better question is who backed the Covell development a couple of years ago?
By Pro-growth, I mean residential growth and not just promoting the freway sign idea.
I guess a better question is who backed the Covell development a couple of years ago?
Souza and Saylor supported Covell.
I disagree with the person who said that Saylor is the most pro-growth, I don’t think there is any difference in a meaningful way in his voting record from Souza’s.
Souza and Saylor supported Covell.
I disagree with the person who said that Saylor is the most pro-growth, I don’t think there is any difference in a meaningful way in his voting record from Souza’s.
Souza and Saylor supported Covell.
I disagree with the person who said that Saylor is the most pro-growth, I don’t think there is any difference in a meaningful way in his voting record from Souza’s.
Souza and Saylor supported Covell.
I disagree with the person who said that Saylor is the most pro-growth, I don’t think there is any difference in a meaningful way in his voting record from Souza’s.
Progressive blogger said:
I don’t think there is any difference in a meaningful way in his voting record from Souza’s.
Their past public voting record has been in lock-step. What should be of concern to the voters are the consequences of
Saylor’s unrelenting political ambition which does apparently eclipse Souza’s(I wonder if Souza still holds to his public pronouncement some months back that this run for Council reelection would be his LAST try for elected public office)
Progressive blogger said:
I don’t think there is any difference in a meaningful way in his voting record from Souza’s.
Their past public voting record has been in lock-step. What should be of concern to the voters are the consequences of
Saylor’s unrelenting political ambition which does apparently eclipse Souza’s(I wonder if Souza still holds to his public pronouncement some months back that this run for Council reelection would be his LAST try for elected public office)
Progressive blogger said:
I don’t think there is any difference in a meaningful way in his voting record from Souza’s.
Their past public voting record has been in lock-step. What should be of concern to the voters are the consequences of
Saylor’s unrelenting political ambition which does apparently eclipse Souza’s(I wonder if Souza still holds to his public pronouncement some months back that this run for Council reelection would be his LAST try for elected public office)
Progressive blogger said:
I don’t think there is any difference in a meaningful way in his voting record from Souza’s.
Their past public voting record has been in lock-step. What should be of concern to the voters are the consequences of
Saylor’s unrelenting political ambition which does apparently eclipse Souza’s(I wonder if Souza still holds to his public pronouncement some months back that this run for Council reelection would be his LAST try for elected public office)
Thanks for the replies.
There are a lot of us in Davis who are pro-growth. A bunch of us were debting this over dinner last weekend. Now we have a good idea who we should be looking at.
Thanks for the replies.
There are a lot of us in Davis who are pro-growth. A bunch of us were debting this over dinner last weekend. Now we have a good idea who we should be looking at.
Thanks for the replies.
There are a lot of us in Davis who are pro-growth. A bunch of us were debting this over dinner last weekend. Now we have a good idea who we should be looking at.
Thanks for the replies.
There are a lot of us in Davis who are pro-growth. A bunch of us were debting this over dinner last weekend. Now we have a good idea who we should be looking at.
If were in favor of Covell Village then Souza/ Saylor are your guys.
If were in favor of Covell Village then Souza/ Saylor are your guys.
If were in favor of Covell Village then Souza/ Saylor are your guys.
If were in favor of Covell Village then Souza/ Saylor are your guys.
“There are a lot of us in Davis who are pro-growth. A bunch of us were debting this over dinner last weekend. Now we have a good idea who we should be looking at.”
Remember, pro-growth with respect to residential housing brings with it increased costs in services to the city of Davis. City gov’t will have no hesitation in raising taxes to such an extent it will drive many out of the city itself. It will certainly crimp the lifestyle of many. So be careful what you wish for…
And by the way, I am not anti-growth, but for “smart growth”. I would much prefer to see Davis encourage business to come here that will bring in much needed tax revenue to pay for city services, tax revenue which is currently leaking out to Woodland and the surrounding areas.
“There are a lot of us in Davis who are pro-growth. A bunch of us were debting this over dinner last weekend. Now we have a good idea who we should be looking at.”
Remember, pro-growth with respect to residential housing brings with it increased costs in services to the city of Davis. City gov’t will have no hesitation in raising taxes to such an extent it will drive many out of the city itself. It will certainly crimp the lifestyle of many. So be careful what you wish for…
And by the way, I am not anti-growth, but for “smart growth”. I would much prefer to see Davis encourage business to come here that will bring in much needed tax revenue to pay for city services, tax revenue which is currently leaking out to Woodland and the surrounding areas.
“There are a lot of us in Davis who are pro-growth. A bunch of us were debting this over dinner last weekend. Now we have a good idea who we should be looking at.”
Remember, pro-growth with respect to residential housing brings with it increased costs in services to the city of Davis. City gov’t will have no hesitation in raising taxes to such an extent it will drive many out of the city itself. It will certainly crimp the lifestyle of many. So be careful what you wish for…
And by the way, I am not anti-growth, but for “smart growth”. I would much prefer to see Davis encourage business to come here that will bring in much needed tax revenue to pay for city services, tax revenue which is currently leaking out to Woodland and the surrounding areas.
“There are a lot of us in Davis who are pro-growth. A bunch of us were debting this over dinner last weekend. Now we have a good idea who we should be looking at.”
Remember, pro-growth with respect to residential housing brings with it increased costs in services to the city of Davis. City gov’t will have no hesitation in raising taxes to such an extent it will drive many out of the city itself. It will certainly crimp the lifestyle of many. So be careful what you wish for…
And by the way, I am not anti-growth, but for “smart growth”. I would much prefer to see Davis encourage business to come here that will bring in much needed tax revenue to pay for city services, tax revenue which is currently leaking out to Woodland and the surrounding areas.
Saylor and Souza are not always in lock step. They disagreed on annexing West Village with Souza favoring annexation and Saylor opposing annexation.
Saylor and Souza are not always in lock step. They disagreed on annexing West Village with Souza favoring annexation and Saylor opposing annexation.
Saylor and Souza are not always in lock step. They disagreed on annexing West Village with Souza favoring annexation and Saylor opposing annexation.
Saylor and Souza are not always in lock step. They disagreed on annexing West Village with Souza favoring annexation and Saylor opposing annexation.
I might add that Saylor only supported negotiating with the county and the University on annexation because he doesn’t like to be on the losing side of votes. By the way, nothing has happened in those negotiations for over a year with Don and Sue on the committee.
As for Richard’s comment about West Village being annexed when the University wants it to be, I would like to point out that Gary Sandy, who was representing the University, told the council that the University favors the annexation because it is the most cost effective solution for the universtiy and its students. Sandy also told me that he realized that I knew what I was talking about when I raised the issue of how West Village would effect the growth numbers for the city.
So if people at the University also agree that the growth rate is the sticking point and as Sue has pointed out that the city can do what it wants with the growth rate, and, if Sue is serious about wanting the residents of West Village to be included in city politics, it follows that Sue should make it clear that she will not use West Village as a club against other growth proposals as I posted earlier.
I might add that Saylor only supported negotiating with the county and the University on annexation because he doesn’t like to be on the losing side of votes. By the way, nothing has happened in those negotiations for over a year with Don and Sue on the committee.
As for Richard’s comment about West Village being annexed when the University wants it to be, I would like to point out that Gary Sandy, who was representing the University, told the council that the University favors the annexation because it is the most cost effective solution for the universtiy and its students. Sandy also told me that he realized that I knew what I was talking about when I raised the issue of how West Village would effect the growth numbers for the city.
So if people at the University also agree that the growth rate is the sticking point and as Sue has pointed out that the city can do what it wants with the growth rate, and, if Sue is serious about wanting the residents of West Village to be included in city politics, it follows that Sue should make it clear that she will not use West Village as a club against other growth proposals as I posted earlier.
I might add that Saylor only supported negotiating with the county and the University on annexation because he doesn’t like to be on the losing side of votes. By the way, nothing has happened in those negotiations for over a year with Don and Sue on the committee.
As for Richard’s comment about West Village being annexed when the University wants it to be, I would like to point out that Gary Sandy, who was representing the University, told the council that the University favors the annexation because it is the most cost effective solution for the universtiy and its students. Sandy also told me that he realized that I knew what I was talking about when I raised the issue of how West Village would effect the growth numbers for the city.
So if people at the University also agree that the growth rate is the sticking point and as Sue has pointed out that the city can do what it wants with the growth rate, and, if Sue is serious about wanting the residents of West Village to be included in city politics, it follows that Sue should make it clear that she will not use West Village as a club against other growth proposals as I posted earlier.
I might add that Saylor only supported negotiating with the county and the University on annexation because he doesn’t like to be on the losing side of votes. By the way, nothing has happened in those negotiations for over a year with Don and Sue on the committee.
As for Richard’s comment about West Village being annexed when the University wants it to be, I would like to point out that Gary Sandy, who was representing the University, told the council that the University favors the annexation because it is the most cost effective solution for the universtiy and its students. Sandy also told me that he realized that I knew what I was talking about when I raised the issue of how West Village would effect the growth numbers for the city.
So if people at the University also agree that the growth rate is the sticking point and as Sue has pointed out that the city can do what it wants with the growth rate, and, if Sue is serious about wanting the residents of West Village to be included in city politics, it follows that Sue should make it clear that she will not use West Village as a club against other growth proposals as I posted earlier.
Rob himself has denied that rumor. Also that’s not really Gina’s style.
Rob himself has denied that rumor. Also that’s not really Gina’s style.
Rob himself has denied that rumor. Also that’s not really Gina’s style.
Rob himself has denied that rumor. Also that’s not really Gina’s style.
Eileen Samitz it correct about the Davis Fire Department wasting money and gas on frivolous responses.
Mayor Greenwald is correct in her assessment of items in this issue.
An intersesting note is that David Greenwald ,AGAIN, admitted that he may not have come across correcly here. That seems to be a frequent remark from him lately.
Eileen Samitz it correct about the Davis Fire Department wasting money and gas on frivolous responses.
Mayor Greenwald is correct in her assessment of items in this issue.
An intersesting note is that David Greenwald ,AGAIN, admitted that he may not have come across correcly here. That seems to be a frequent remark from him lately.
Eileen Samitz it correct about the Davis Fire Department wasting money and gas on frivolous responses.
Mayor Greenwald is correct in her assessment of items in this issue.
An intersesting note is that David Greenwald ,AGAIN, admitted that he may not have come across correcly here. That seems to be a frequent remark from him lately.
Eileen Samitz it correct about the Davis Fire Department wasting money and gas on frivolous responses.
Mayor Greenwald is correct in her assessment of items in this issue.
An intersesting note is that David Greenwald ,AGAIN, admitted that he may not have come across correcly here. That seems to be a frequent remark from him lately.