City of Davis

The City of Davis has often boasted of its innovative and far-reaching affordable housing program.  However, as we saw in the early part of this decade, that program has often been abused and the subject of serious impropriety and corruption at the city level.  The current DACHA problem is yet another stain on the city’s ability to provide low income people with affordable housing.

The Vanguard has spent a good amount of time on and off over the past year examining the core of the city’s affordable housing program.  The bottom line is that Davis’ program fails to provide housing at an acceptable level for people making less than 36,000 dollars per year.  Subsequently except for Federal Section 8 Vouchers, the core of the city’s affordable housing program is aimed people making between 36,300 and 58,100 dollars per year.  Even for those residents, we might question as to how “affordable” the rental housing is.  What follows is a look strictly at rental housing, but we will probably do a follow up for ownership housing.

Much has been made of the fact that the recently rejected Wildhorse Ranch Project is only ranked No.22 currently and was originally ranked as low as No.27 by the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC).  The voters rejected Wildhorse Ranch (Measure P) by a wide margin.  Given the housing market, it seems unlikely the voters will approve another Measure J project in the near future.

However, it would be helpful to take another look at the other potential housing sites.  The city is likely going to have to focus on infill sites in the near future to meet whatever housing needs it has.  Recall that there are roughly 500 already approved but not built units already in town.  In addition, there will be just under 500 faculty homes built on the West Village site to go along with around 1000 student housing units.

Yesterday’s Vanguard analyzed the political climate that played a considerable role in the large victory for the opposition to the Wildhorse Ranch project.  However, the subtext of the election is the huge discrepancy in the amount of money spent.  Current estimates place the final campaign effort in support of P at around 375,000 dollars.  While this is considerably less than the reported 600,000 dollars spent in 2005 by Measure X and estimated actual expenditures of one million dollars, it is far more than the few thousand reported by the No on P campaign.

How did they do it?  A large part of that answer goes back to yesterday’s column which talks about the political climate, the housing market, the lack of pressing need for housing, the uncertainties facing the community with regards to home prices, and of course a number of mistakes and miscalculations.

While one is never quite sure the results of a local election until the votes are counted, by all measures, this is no surprise except perhaps for the final margin of defeat.  Last night the Davis voters overwhelmingly and resoundingly rejected the city’s second Measure J vote by a 3-1 margin.

While much will be made about the amount spent by the two sides in this race, criticism leveled toward the project applicant for pushing forward with this vote in a year where the housing market was the worst we have seen, the bottom line is that this result is not simply about a campaign, it is too wide a result to be about errors and mistakes and we can certainly go down the list of them again, this is a wholesale rejection once again by the voters of peripheral development and growth.

If there is one thing I agree with Bob Dunning on, it is that everyone regardless of the side that they are on, will be happy when Measure P is over.  I have said numerous times, that there are far more important issues facing us here in the city than the disposition of 191 units.  However, embedded within this issue are in fact other serious issues that residents need to follow long after the glare of the spotlight is off this project.

It is these issues that I wish to discuss in my closing remarks.  Tomorrow at this time, we will know the outcome of this election.  I have written two pieces in advance, one of them will be published while the other will never see the light of day.  Which one you read will depend on what happens today at the polls.

On June 4, the Vanguard reported that the Covell Village Campaign, Smart Planning – Yes on X, had failed to report hundreds of thousands in campaign expenditures in a timely matter.

On April 3, 2008, two and a half years after the November 3, 2005 election, the campaign filed three amended statements  using the Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC) California Form 460 were filed with the Davis City Clerk, two and a half years after the termination of campaign papers were filed on January 31, 2006 claiming a zero balance and a final expenditure of 385,274.75 dollars for the campaign that lasted from July 28, 2005 until December 31, 2005.

While some people have been discussing Measure P for several weeks, others are just starting to pay attention to the issue because the election is this Tuesday.  It seems some people in town have rushed to judgment, admittedly and regretfully taking a No position on Measure P without even knowing that it includes 40 affordable, 100% accessible rental units that come fully equipped with solar panels and the top-of-the-line energy efficiency features as well as provides Davis with the first 21st Century sustainable and affordable neighorhood, since Village Homes was built over 35 years ago.

The Yes on P side has stated that the Wildhorse Ranch project will set a new standard.  Unfortunately, the standard they are setting is one in deceptive politics.  After many vacuous brochures filled with pictures of tree huggers, majestic red barns, and Chia houses, Parlin Development now says that we, the No on P campaign, have made “patently untrue claims.”  All of our statements have come from City and University documents or have been confirmed by City staff, so let’s look at the facts one last time.

Under normal conditions, one would expect both the Sacramento Bee and Davis Enterprise to back new development in Davis.  In the last decade, the Davis Enterprise has backed virtually every pro-development candidate and backed every project on the ballot.  In fact, their 2004 endorsement of Sue Greenwald for Davis City Council stands out as the lone exception, up until now.  Meanwhile, the Sacramento Bee treats Davis more like the red-headed stepchild, treating its limited growth policies as oddities and signs of weird Davis.

Since the Enterprise endorsed in 2004 Sue Greenwald along with Don Saylor and Stephen Souza, they have a perfect record of supporting development.  They backed the sprawling Covell Village project in 2005 that was defeated handily by the voters.  They back Target.  And they backed every pro-development candidate and not just the three incumbents that make up the council majority, but Mike Levy (2006) and Sydney Vergis (2008).

I have to confess, not only have I not gone into the Target, I have not even gone by its location since it opened.  Based on media reports, I must be about the last Davisite left.  Then again I make it a point not to give my business to union busting companies that pay their workers with less than living wages.  Costco may not be local but at least they pay their workers with a living wage and give them health care to boot.

Reading Dunning yesterday, he noted:

Quietly and without much fanfare, the Woodland/ Davis Surface Water Project Joint Power Agency organized and elected officers.  The JPA was approved by both city councils in September, creating an entirely new government agency to over see the massive water project.

At the first meeting, William Marble, the Woodland City Councilmember was elected chair and Davis City Councilmember Stephen Souza was elected Vice Chair.  The other members are Woodland City Councilmember Martie Dote and Davis Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor.  Art Pimentel and Lamar Heystek were named alternates.

I never bought into the idea of a “green” Target, but that what was sold to Davis.  You know the Target that would be “unique” to Davis built in a unique looking building, LEED certified.  But that was the major marketing plan to get Davis voters who like to think of themselves as environmentalists to vote to bring a huge store to East Davis.

From the Target in Davis website:

I remember once upon a time a political consultant telling me that Davis is not different from anywhere else, and while Davis may be more educated than the average city, the campaign tactics, tried and true, that work elsewhere, work in Davis.  I’m not sure I really believe that. 

The ordinary rule of thumb in any campaign is that if you get people talking about your campaign, commenting on your mail pieces, you have success.  You see, few people pay much attention to campaigns.  I know this is shocking for an audience that scrutinizes every little point raised by both parties, but I wonder how many people in Davis really know there will be an election in less than two weeks.  And so, any piece that can get on the radar of the people, has to be a good one… Or so conventional wisdom will tell you.