The City of Davis and the City Council remains at least in public adamantly against such developments. As Katherine Hess, Davis Community Development Director wrote in a hand-delivered letter to the board, “we continue to be concerned that the current recommendations being considered could set in motion potential significant land use inconsistent with the long-standing policies embraced by the City and County on urbanization within the City’s Planning Area.”
The City-County pass-through agreement grants exclusive land use authority to the city of Davis in the Davis planning area in exchange for over $2 million a year granted to the county.
Hess writes:
“The City continues to be very concerned about possible inclusion of retain uses along Intestate 80, either at Mace Boulevard or at Chiles Road. The City of Davis is aware of the fiscal difficulties facing the County. We hope that the funds that the City’s Redevelopment Agency passes through each year provide some assistance to your budget. Development along the freeway without the consent of the City would jeopardize that $2 million per year. Retail development that would generate an equivalent amount of revenue for the County seems improbable.”
At the last meeting Stephen Souza, Davis City Councilmember, expressed interest in joint meetings to discuss an array of issues, however, the city council as a whole is strongly opposed to a joint meeting. At the two-by-two last week between the city and county, Councilmember Don Saylor was very clear that by agreeing to talk that is all the city was doing. They were not agreeing to reconsidering issues such as peripheral growth.
As Hess wrote:
“There is no City Council consensus on whether the city and county should jointly consider urban development in the northwest quadrant or in the north-central planning sub-area… Although there may be opportunities for continued discussions about future land uses in these areas, we support having these discussions outside of the process for the current General Plan Update.”
Some members of the Davis City Council have pointed out that in fact the voters in Davis resoundingly defeated the development proposal by the city in Covell Village. That being the case, even discussions considering land-use alternatives for the Covell Property should be considered by the voters a direct affront to them. Others members have suggested further that the County is basically declaring war on the city of Davis by trying to force changes within the Davis sphere of influence.
That leads us however to the logical question as to why the County would be pushing this issue so hard if the Davis City Council is so strongly opposed to these developments. A number of people have suggested that while some of the members of the Davis city council have publicly opposed these developments, that others privately support all of these developments but are not willing to admit it publicly. According to a number of sources, the suggestion is being made that the County pushing this issue will give them cover and once they have joint study sessions, some sort of arrangement will be used to justify peripheral growth in Davis that right now is politically infeasible.
While in the past, I have dismissed these notions as somewhat conspiratorial, there is a strong logic to it. For instance, why would a member of the County Supervisors, who is a resident of Davis and a strong ally to some on the city council continue to push this project that the council is unanimously opposed to unless they were getting some sort of differing message in private? In general, the Board of Supervisors tend to defer to the members who represent a given city on such issues, so this issue is being largely pushed by the members of the board who represent Davis. Why would this issue be pushed unless they were at least getting some indication from the city that there would be a possibility that a joint study session may result in a change in preferred land use changes to the areas being studied? Unfortunately, I am forced to conclude that there may be behind the scenes maneuvering by members of the Davis City Council that have kept these approaches alive.
I had no problem with an idea of holding joint City-County discussions on a broad array of topics as suggested a few weeks ago by the Davis City Council. I had no problem with Mariko Yamada’s proposal for a sort of Yolo County Council of Governments. It seems there should be some sort of coordination as local governments re-write their respective general plans or in Davis’ case, their housing element. However, I am strongly opposed to the county studying areas on the Davis periphery for changes in preferred land use. Land use authority on city edges should be within the domain of the city as the pass-through agreement dictates. These have been long fought for land use principles and they have served both the city and county very well. The County has received revenue well in excess of what they would have received from development and the City has been able to control how and when it grows.
I honestly do not understand the County’s continued pressing of this issue while at the same time it seems to be conceding as Hess’ letter suggests that “the General Plan Update EIR will not include changes to the existing land use map for these areas.”
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
The NO ON X campaign crushed the proposed Covell development with a 60% vote. The UCD development in West Davis will add large numbers and problems to that section of Davis. The proposed Race Track would negatively impact 113, Pedrick Road and I-80, the suggested study and development of the NWQ would add further population, traffic and congestion to West Davis and 113 and the proposed study of commercial deverlopment along I-80 near the latest fruit stand continues the threat of development along I-80. The reintroduction of development at Covell and Pole Line is an insult to the Davis voter. Those supporting these “study areas” are the DEVELOPER DEMOCRATS that continually use the same old methods to gain revenues and feather their own political futures with guaranteed campaign funds. List the names of these unimaginative supervisors and councilpersons and remember them when our cities are too congested to enjoy. The term “study areas” means lands they want to develop. It is stage one for cooperation between developers and our elected representatives. Don’t be fooled by these tactics.
The NO ON X campaign crushed the proposed Covell development with a 60% vote. The UCD development in West Davis will add large numbers and problems to that section of Davis. The proposed Race Track would negatively impact 113, Pedrick Road and I-80, the suggested study and development of the NWQ would add further population, traffic and congestion to West Davis and 113 and the proposed study of commercial deverlopment along I-80 near the latest fruit stand continues the threat of development along I-80. The reintroduction of development at Covell and Pole Line is an insult to the Davis voter. Those supporting these “study areas” are the DEVELOPER DEMOCRATS that continually use the same old methods to gain revenues and feather their own political futures with guaranteed campaign funds. List the names of these unimaginative supervisors and councilpersons and remember them when our cities are too congested to enjoy. The term “study areas” means lands they want to develop. It is stage one for cooperation between developers and our elected representatives. Don’t be fooled by these tactics.
The NO ON X campaign crushed the proposed Covell development with a 60% vote. The UCD development in West Davis will add large numbers and problems to that section of Davis. The proposed Race Track would negatively impact 113, Pedrick Road and I-80, the suggested study and development of the NWQ would add further population, traffic and congestion to West Davis and 113 and the proposed study of commercial deverlopment along I-80 near the latest fruit stand continues the threat of development along I-80. The reintroduction of development at Covell and Pole Line is an insult to the Davis voter. Those supporting these “study areas” are the DEVELOPER DEMOCRATS that continually use the same old methods to gain revenues and feather their own political futures with guaranteed campaign funds. List the names of these unimaginative supervisors and councilpersons and remember them when our cities are too congested to enjoy. The term “study areas” means lands they want to develop. It is stage one for cooperation between developers and our elected representatives. Don’t be fooled by these tactics.
The NO ON X campaign crushed the proposed Covell development with a 60% vote. The UCD development in West Davis will add large numbers and problems to that section of Davis. The proposed Race Track would negatively impact 113, Pedrick Road and I-80, the suggested study and development of the NWQ would add further population, traffic and congestion to West Davis and 113 and the proposed study of commercial deverlopment along I-80 near the latest fruit stand continues the threat of development along I-80. The reintroduction of development at Covell and Pole Line is an insult to the Davis voter. Those supporting these “study areas” are the DEVELOPER DEMOCRATS that continually use the same old methods to gain revenues and feather their own political futures with guaranteed campaign funds. List the names of these unimaginative supervisors and councilpersons and remember them when our cities are too congested to enjoy. The term “study areas” means lands they want to develop. It is stage one for cooperation between developers and our elected representatives. Don’t be fooled by these tactics.
“For instance, why would a member of the County Supervisors, who is a resident of Davis and a strong ally to some on the city council continue to push this project that the council is unanimously opposed to unless they were getting some sort of differing message in private?”
The Council is not “unanimously” opposed. Stephen Souza has openly supported the “joint study areas” (which would more accurately be termed “development planning areas”).
But the point remains – it is quite likely that different messages are being delivered through back channels from the pro-growth Council members. Don Saylor’s and Ruth Asmundson’s appointees to the Housing Element Steering Committee provide strong indications of their allegiances – as do the identities of their campaign donors in previous elections.
City Council campaigns are expensive. Assembly campaigns are even more so. And the political debts for past support remain for years in the future.
When you can’t understand the motivations of a politician, follow the money – past, present and what can be reasonably anticipated in the future.
“For instance, why would a member of the County Supervisors, who is a resident of Davis and a strong ally to some on the city council continue to push this project that the council is unanimously opposed to unless they were getting some sort of differing message in private?”
The Council is not “unanimously” opposed. Stephen Souza has openly supported the “joint study areas” (which would more accurately be termed “development planning areas”).
But the point remains – it is quite likely that different messages are being delivered through back channels from the pro-growth Council members. Don Saylor’s and Ruth Asmundson’s appointees to the Housing Element Steering Committee provide strong indications of their allegiances – as do the identities of their campaign donors in previous elections.
City Council campaigns are expensive. Assembly campaigns are even more so. And the political debts for past support remain for years in the future.
When you can’t understand the motivations of a politician, follow the money – past, present and what can be reasonably anticipated in the future.
“For instance, why would a member of the County Supervisors, who is a resident of Davis and a strong ally to some on the city council continue to push this project that the council is unanimously opposed to unless they were getting some sort of differing message in private?”
The Council is not “unanimously” opposed. Stephen Souza has openly supported the “joint study areas” (which would more accurately be termed “development planning areas”).
But the point remains – it is quite likely that different messages are being delivered through back channels from the pro-growth Council members. Don Saylor’s and Ruth Asmundson’s appointees to the Housing Element Steering Committee provide strong indications of their allegiances – as do the identities of their campaign donors in previous elections.
City Council campaigns are expensive. Assembly campaigns are even more so. And the political debts for past support remain for years in the future.
When you can’t understand the motivations of a politician, follow the money – past, present and what can be reasonably anticipated in the future.
“For instance, why would a member of the County Supervisors, who is a resident of Davis and a strong ally to some on the city council continue to push this project that the council is unanimously opposed to unless they were getting some sort of differing message in private?”
The Council is not “unanimously” opposed. Stephen Souza has openly supported the “joint study areas” (which would more accurately be termed “development planning areas”).
But the point remains – it is quite likely that different messages are being delivered through back channels from the pro-growth Council members. Don Saylor’s and Ruth Asmundson’s appointees to the Housing Element Steering Committee provide strong indications of their allegiances – as do the identities of their campaign donors in previous elections.
City Council campaigns are expensive. Assembly campaigns are even more so. And the political debts for past support remain for years in the future.
When you can’t understand the motivations of a politician, follow the money – past, present and what can be reasonably anticipated in the future.
“Stephen Souza has openly supported the “joint study areas””
I was under the impression that Souza had only publicly supported “talks” not “joint study areas.” I could be wrong however.
“Stephen Souza has openly supported the “joint study areas””
I was under the impression that Souza had only publicly supported “talks” not “joint study areas.” I could be wrong however.
“Stephen Souza has openly supported the “joint study areas””
I was under the impression that Souza had only publicly supported “talks” not “joint study areas.” I could be wrong however.
“Stephen Souza has openly supported the “joint study areas””
I was under the impression that Souza had only publicly supported “talks” not “joint study areas.” I could be wrong however.
Those of us who have been around for some time recognize this as the standard MO to offer political cover to developer-oriented councilmembers.. Prior to the pass-through agreement,the County put the squeeze on Davis concerning who would determine development of the Mace ranch property. Our then mayor went through the appropriate public “song and dance” defending the Davis voters’ interests but,SO RELUCTANTLY, gave in to the County’s demands. “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
Those of us who have been around for some time recognize this as the standard MO to offer political cover to developer-oriented councilmembers.. Prior to the pass-through agreement,the County put the squeeze on Davis concerning who would determine development of the Mace ranch property. Our then mayor went through the appropriate public “song and dance” defending the Davis voters’ interests but,SO RELUCTANTLY, gave in to the County’s demands. “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
Those of us who have been around for some time recognize this as the standard MO to offer political cover to developer-oriented councilmembers.. Prior to the pass-through agreement,the County put the squeeze on Davis concerning who would determine development of the Mace ranch property. Our then mayor went through the appropriate public “song and dance” defending the Davis voters’ interests but,SO RELUCTANTLY, gave in to the County’s demands. “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
Those of us who have been around for some time recognize this as the standard MO to offer political cover to developer-oriented councilmembers.. Prior to the pass-through agreement,the County put the squeeze on Davis concerning who would determine development of the Mace ranch property. Our then mayor went through the appropriate public “song and dance” defending the Davis voters’ interests but,SO RELUCTANTLY, gave in to the County’s demands. “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
“…an antiquated property east of Mace Road along I-80 which would be designated for commercial development.”
Mace Boulevard, not Road. And what makes this property “antiquated?”
“…an antiquated property east of Mace Road along I-80 which would be designated for commercial development.”
Mace Boulevard, not Road. And what makes this property “antiquated?”
“…an antiquated property east of Mace Road along I-80 which would be designated for commercial development.”
Mace Boulevard, not Road. And what makes this property “antiquated?”
“…an antiquated property east of Mace Road along I-80 which would be designated for commercial development.”
Mace Boulevard, not Road. And what makes this property “antiquated?”
The 2008 council election is KEY.
The defeat of councilman Souza and Saylor will be crucial to the Davis voter retaining control over the future of their city. This is not the time to sit on one’s hands at home and be reluctant to open one’s wallet. IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
The 2008 council election is KEY.
The defeat of councilman Souza and Saylor will be crucial to the Davis voter retaining control over the future of their city. This is not the time to sit on one’s hands at home and be reluctant to open one’s wallet. IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
The 2008 council election is KEY.
The defeat of councilman Souza and Saylor will be crucial to the Davis voter retaining control over the future of their city. This is not the time to sit on one’s hands at home and be reluctant to open one’s wallet. IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
The 2008 council election is KEY.
The defeat of councilman Souza and Saylor will be crucial to the Davis voter retaining control over the future of their city. This is not the time to sit on one’s hands at home and be reluctant to open one’s wallet. IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
And what makes this property “antiquated?”
That’s the designation for a non-developed property.
And what makes this property “antiquated?”
That’s the designation for a non-developed property.
And what makes this property “antiquated?”
That’s the designation for a non-developed property.
And what makes this property “antiquated?”
That’s the designation for a non-developed property.
Usually, real estate developers speak of obsolescence (which I suppose is what the county means by “antiquated”) when a property was being used for one purpose and that function is no longer viable at that site or at any other site. For example, if a building was constructed to do some kind of manufacturing process, and the business failed or the economies of scale changed so that such manufacturing in that building was no longer economical, the property would be deemed “obsolete.” (This could be true of a house, too, if, for example, it was quite old and had no kitchen or plumbing or some such necessity for today’s living.)
The choice then with an obsolete property is to either: A) rehab it so that it meets today’s needs for either the same purpose or for a new purpose. (My old company used to, for example, rehab old warehouses and factories and turn them into live-work lofts.); or B) demolish it and build something completely new there.
However, if it was just fallow land (which is what I believe that region east of the Park N Ride has always been, it seems strange to call it an “antiquated” property. (I understand that “antiquated” is not your designation, but the county’s.)
Usually, real estate developers speak of obsolescence (which I suppose is what the county means by “antiquated”) when a property was being used for one purpose and that function is no longer viable at that site or at any other site. For example, if a building was constructed to do some kind of manufacturing process, and the business failed or the economies of scale changed so that such manufacturing in that building was no longer economical, the property would be deemed “obsolete.” (This could be true of a house, too, if, for example, it was quite old and had no kitchen or plumbing or some such necessity for today’s living.)
The choice then with an obsolete property is to either: A) rehab it so that it meets today’s needs for either the same purpose or for a new purpose. (My old company used to, for example, rehab old warehouses and factories and turn them into live-work lofts.); or B) demolish it and build something completely new there.
However, if it was just fallow land (which is what I believe that region east of the Park N Ride has always been, it seems strange to call it an “antiquated” property. (I understand that “antiquated” is not your designation, but the county’s.)
Usually, real estate developers speak of obsolescence (which I suppose is what the county means by “antiquated”) when a property was being used for one purpose and that function is no longer viable at that site or at any other site. For example, if a building was constructed to do some kind of manufacturing process, and the business failed or the economies of scale changed so that such manufacturing in that building was no longer economical, the property would be deemed “obsolete.” (This could be true of a house, too, if, for example, it was quite old and had no kitchen or plumbing or some such necessity for today’s living.)
The choice then with an obsolete property is to either: A) rehab it so that it meets today’s needs for either the same purpose or for a new purpose. (My old company used to, for example, rehab old warehouses and factories and turn them into live-work lofts.); or B) demolish it and build something completely new there.
However, if it was just fallow land (which is what I believe that region east of the Park N Ride has always been, it seems strange to call it an “antiquated” property. (I understand that “antiquated” is not your designation, but the county’s.)
Usually, real estate developers speak of obsolescence (which I suppose is what the county means by “antiquated”) when a property was being used for one purpose and that function is no longer viable at that site or at any other site. For example, if a building was constructed to do some kind of manufacturing process, and the business failed or the economies of scale changed so that such manufacturing in that building was no longer economical, the property would be deemed “obsolete.” (This could be true of a house, too, if, for example, it was quite old and had no kitchen or plumbing or some such necessity for today’s living.)
The choice then with an obsolete property is to either: A) rehab it so that it meets today’s needs for either the same purpose or for a new purpose. (My old company used to, for example, rehab old warehouses and factories and turn them into live-work lofts.); or B) demolish it and build something completely new there.
However, if it was just fallow land (which is what I believe that region east of the Park N Ride has always been, it seems strange to call it an “antiquated” property. (I understand that “antiquated” is not your designation, but the county’s.)
It should be noted that Angelo Tsakopoulos owns a big chunk of land in the vicinity of the Yolo Fruit Stand (near 80 and the Yolo Wildlife Area).
It should be noted that Angelo Tsakopoulos owns a big chunk of land in the vicinity of the Yolo Fruit Stand (near 80 and the Yolo Wildlife Area).
It should be noted that Angelo Tsakopoulos owns a big chunk of land in the vicinity of the Yolo Fruit Stand (near 80 and the Yolo Wildlife Area).
It should be noted that Angelo Tsakopoulos owns a big chunk of land in the vicinity of the Yolo Fruit Stand (near 80 and the Yolo Wildlife Area).
Rich: My definition was incomplete, antiquated are subdivided lots with irregular shapes and inadequate sizes for proper development. It linked in with redevelopment agency work and blight. And again, you should not use a vernacular definition of blight, you would have to look up the legal definition of blight as it relates to redevelopment.
Rich: My definition was incomplete, antiquated are subdivided lots with irregular shapes and inadequate sizes for proper development. It linked in with redevelopment agency work and blight. And again, you should not use a vernacular definition of blight, you would have to look up the legal definition of blight as it relates to redevelopment.
Rich: My definition was incomplete, antiquated are subdivided lots with irregular shapes and inadequate sizes for proper development. It linked in with redevelopment agency work and blight. And again, you should not use a vernacular definition of blight, you would have to look up the legal definition of blight as it relates to redevelopment.
Rich: My definition was incomplete, antiquated are subdivided lots with irregular shapes and inadequate sizes for proper development. It linked in with redevelopment agency work and blight. And again, you should not use a vernacular definition of blight, you would have to look up the legal definition of blight as it relates to redevelopment.
Why is the land north of Covell Boulevard and west of Pole Line Road being referred to as “Covell Village,” when that development was soundly rejected by Davis voters months ago?
Why is the land north of Covell Boulevard and west of Pole Line Road being referred to as “Covell Village,” when that development was soundly rejected by Davis voters months ago?
Why is the land north of Covell Boulevard and west of Pole Line Road being referred to as “Covell Village,” when that development was soundly rejected by Davis voters months ago?
Why is the land north of Covell Boulevard and west of Pole Line Road being referred to as “Covell Village,” when that development was soundly rejected by Davis voters months ago?
Follow the money indeed. Saylor, Souza and Asmundsen have both been major reciepients of developer political contributions and have voted accordingly. They blather on about doing “the people’s business,” and then, for example, backed by the Davis Enterprise, vote approval of Covell Village — which is then promptly shot down by a huge majority of Davis voters.
I’m thinking that come election time, a detailed, factual account of campaign contributions might be in order. The Enterprise runs these contributions, but their contribution stories typically only focus on who’s raised the most money. They don’t really report on who’s giving what to whom. For example, a developer and family members will all give, and only be identified by name in the Enterprise — not company or type of business. A serious newspaper would say that “Candidates X, G and Y were the recipients of money from a large group of investors in the proposed Covell Village development,” or something like that. Same as you’d read in the Bee or the Chronicle. The Enterprise, however, in supporting favories of the executive editor who are typically — hell, exclusively pro-development, wants to help the candidate they endorse but not giving people news and analysis by which voters can make informed decisions. Instead, the depend Bob Dunning to savage candidates they don’t like — for example, several years ago when then-Councilman Ted Puntillo launched a nasty attack against Mike Harrington shortly before that year’s election.
Follow the money indeed. Saylor, Souza and Asmundsen have both been major reciepients of developer political contributions and have voted accordingly. They blather on about doing “the people’s business,” and then, for example, backed by the Davis Enterprise, vote approval of Covell Village — which is then promptly shot down by a huge majority of Davis voters.
I’m thinking that come election time, a detailed, factual account of campaign contributions might be in order. The Enterprise runs these contributions, but their contribution stories typically only focus on who’s raised the most money. They don’t really report on who’s giving what to whom. For example, a developer and family members will all give, and only be identified by name in the Enterprise — not company or type of business. A serious newspaper would say that “Candidates X, G and Y were the recipients of money from a large group of investors in the proposed Covell Village development,” or something like that. Same as you’d read in the Bee or the Chronicle. The Enterprise, however, in supporting favories of the executive editor who are typically — hell, exclusively pro-development, wants to help the candidate they endorse but not giving people news and analysis by which voters can make informed decisions. Instead, the depend Bob Dunning to savage candidates they don’t like — for example, several years ago when then-Councilman Ted Puntillo launched a nasty attack against Mike Harrington shortly before that year’s election.
Follow the money indeed. Saylor, Souza and Asmundsen have both been major reciepients of developer political contributions and have voted accordingly. They blather on about doing “the people’s business,” and then, for example, backed by the Davis Enterprise, vote approval of Covell Village — which is then promptly shot down by a huge majority of Davis voters.
I’m thinking that come election time, a detailed, factual account of campaign contributions might be in order. The Enterprise runs these contributions, but their contribution stories typically only focus on who’s raised the most money. They don’t really report on who’s giving what to whom. For example, a developer and family members will all give, and only be identified by name in the Enterprise — not company or type of business. A serious newspaper would say that “Candidates X, G and Y were the recipients of money from a large group of investors in the proposed Covell Village development,” or something like that. Same as you’d read in the Bee or the Chronicle. The Enterprise, however, in supporting favories of the executive editor who are typically — hell, exclusively pro-development, wants to help the candidate they endorse but not giving people news and analysis by which voters can make informed decisions. Instead, the depend Bob Dunning to savage candidates they don’t like — for example, several years ago when then-Councilman Ted Puntillo launched a nasty attack against Mike Harrington shortly before that year’s election.
Follow the money indeed. Saylor, Souza and Asmundsen have both been major reciepients of developer political contributions and have voted accordingly. They blather on about doing “the people’s business,” and then, for example, backed by the Davis Enterprise, vote approval of Covell Village — which is then promptly shot down by a huge majority of Davis voters.
I’m thinking that come election time, a detailed, factual account of campaign contributions might be in order. The Enterprise runs these contributions, but their contribution stories typically only focus on who’s raised the most money. They don’t really report on who’s giving what to whom. For example, a developer and family members will all give, and only be identified by name in the Enterprise — not company or type of business. A serious newspaper would say that “Candidates X, G and Y were the recipients of money from a large group of investors in the proposed Covell Village development,” or something like that. Same as you’d read in the Bee or the Chronicle. The Enterprise, however, in supporting favories of the executive editor who are typically — hell, exclusively pro-development, wants to help the candidate they endorse but not giving people news and analysis by which voters can make informed decisions. Instead, the depend Bob Dunning to savage candidates they don’t like — for example, several years ago when then-Councilman Ted Puntillo launched a nasty attack against Mike Harrington shortly before that year’s election.
“Follow the money indeed.”
Cliché.
“Saylor, Souza and Asmundsen have both been major reciepients of developer political contributions and have voted accordingly.”
There have been no developments of any size built in Davis since Evergreen, which was approved in about 1995.
“They blather on about doing ‘the people’s business,’ and then, for example, backed by the Davis Enterprise, vote approval of Covell Village — which is then promptly shot down by a huge majority of Davis voters.”
If the people of Davis don’t want peripheral growth, there won’t be any. The people are in charge of that. It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.
“thinking that come election time, a detailed, factual account of campaign contributions might be in order.”
These are fully published on-line on the Clerk-Recorder’s website.
“Enterprise runs these contributions, but their contribution stories typically only focus on who’s raised the most money. They don’t really report on who’s giving what to whom.”
Actually, The Enterprise does just that.
“For example, a developer and family members will all give, and only be identified by name in the Enterprise — not company or type of business.”
Exactly what have all these developments purchased?
More disturbing, by miles, is the organizational and monetary contributions of members of the public employees associations. Not only do they give much more than any other group — by far — but they have the strongest financial incentive — by far — of having their friends elected to the council.
“A serious newspaper would say that “Candidates X, G and Y were the recipients of money from a large group of investors in the proposed Covell Village development,” or something like that.”
That’s what op/eds are for. What you seem to want is a biased newspaper, one with your no-growth bias.
“Same as you’d read in the Bee or the Chronicle. The Enterprise, however, in supporting favories of the executive editor who are typically — hell, exclusively pro-development, wants to help the candidate they endorse but not giving people news and analysis by which voters can make informed decisions.”
Pro-devlopment? Where is all this development you are speaking of?
“Instead, they depend on Bob Dunning to savage candidates they don’t like — for example, several years ago when then-Councilman Ted Puntillo launched a nasty attack against Mike Harrington shortly before that year’s election.”
Is Bob Dunning pro-developer? What makes you conclude that?
“Follow the money indeed.”
Cliché.
“Saylor, Souza and Asmundsen have both been major reciepients of developer political contributions and have voted accordingly.”
There have been no developments of any size built in Davis since Evergreen, which was approved in about 1995.
“They blather on about doing ‘the people’s business,’ and then, for example, backed by the Davis Enterprise, vote approval of Covell Village — which is then promptly shot down by a huge majority of Davis voters.”
If the people of Davis don’t want peripheral growth, there won’t be any. The people are in charge of that. It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.
“thinking that come election time, a detailed, factual account of campaign contributions might be in order.”
These are fully published on-line on the Clerk-Recorder’s website.
“Enterprise runs these contributions, but their contribution stories typically only focus on who’s raised the most money. They don’t really report on who’s giving what to whom.”
Actually, The Enterprise does just that.
“For example, a developer and family members will all give, and only be identified by name in the Enterprise — not company or type of business.”
Exactly what have all these developments purchased?
More disturbing, by miles, is the organizational and monetary contributions of members of the public employees associations. Not only do they give much more than any other group — by far — but they have the strongest financial incentive — by far — of having their friends elected to the council.
“A serious newspaper would say that “Candidates X, G and Y were the recipients of money from a large group of investors in the proposed Covell Village development,” or something like that.”
That’s what op/eds are for. What you seem to want is a biased newspaper, one with your no-growth bias.
“Same as you’d read in the Bee or the Chronicle. The Enterprise, however, in supporting favories of the executive editor who are typically — hell, exclusively pro-development, wants to help the candidate they endorse but not giving people news and analysis by which voters can make informed decisions.”
Pro-devlopment? Where is all this development you are speaking of?
“Instead, they depend on Bob Dunning to savage candidates they don’t like — for example, several years ago when then-Councilman Ted Puntillo launched a nasty attack against Mike Harrington shortly before that year’s election.”
Is Bob Dunning pro-developer? What makes you conclude that?
“Follow the money indeed.”
Cliché.
“Saylor, Souza and Asmundsen have both been major reciepients of developer political contributions and have voted accordingly.”
There have been no developments of any size built in Davis since Evergreen, which was approved in about 1995.
“They blather on about doing ‘the people’s business,’ and then, for example, backed by the Davis Enterprise, vote approval of Covell Village — which is then promptly shot down by a huge majority of Davis voters.”
If the people of Davis don’t want peripheral growth, there won’t be any. The people are in charge of that. It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.
“thinking that come election time, a detailed, factual account of campaign contributions might be in order.”
These are fully published on-line on the Clerk-Recorder’s website.
“Enterprise runs these contributions, but their contribution stories typically only focus on who’s raised the most money. They don’t really report on who’s giving what to whom.”
Actually, The Enterprise does just that.
“For example, a developer and family members will all give, and only be identified by name in the Enterprise — not company or type of business.”
Exactly what have all these developments purchased?
More disturbing, by miles, is the organizational and monetary contributions of members of the public employees associations. Not only do they give much more than any other group — by far — but they have the strongest financial incentive — by far — of having their friends elected to the council.
“A serious newspaper would say that “Candidates X, G and Y were the recipients of money from a large group of investors in the proposed Covell Village development,” or something like that.”
That’s what op/eds are for. What you seem to want is a biased newspaper, one with your no-growth bias.
“Same as you’d read in the Bee or the Chronicle. The Enterprise, however, in supporting favories of the executive editor who are typically — hell, exclusively pro-development, wants to help the candidate they endorse but not giving people news and analysis by which voters can make informed decisions.”
Pro-devlopment? Where is all this development you are speaking of?
“Instead, they depend on Bob Dunning to savage candidates they don’t like — for example, several years ago when then-Councilman Ted Puntillo launched a nasty attack against Mike Harrington shortly before that year’s election.”
Is Bob Dunning pro-developer? What makes you conclude that?
“Follow the money indeed.”
Cliché.
“Saylor, Souza and Asmundsen have both been major reciepients of developer political contributions and have voted accordingly.”
There have been no developments of any size built in Davis since Evergreen, which was approved in about 1995.
“They blather on about doing ‘the people’s business,’ and then, for example, backed by the Davis Enterprise, vote approval of Covell Village — which is then promptly shot down by a huge majority of Davis voters.”
If the people of Davis don’t want peripheral growth, there won’t be any. The people are in charge of that. It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.
“thinking that come election time, a detailed, factual account of campaign contributions might be in order.”
These are fully published on-line on the Clerk-Recorder’s website.
“Enterprise runs these contributions, but their contribution stories typically only focus on who’s raised the most money. They don’t really report on who’s giving what to whom.”
Actually, The Enterprise does just that.
“For example, a developer and family members will all give, and only be identified by name in the Enterprise — not company or type of business.”
Exactly what have all these developments purchased?
More disturbing, by miles, is the organizational and monetary contributions of members of the public employees associations. Not only do they give much more than any other group — by far — but they have the strongest financial incentive — by far — of having their friends elected to the council.
“A serious newspaper would say that “Candidates X, G and Y were the recipients of money from a large group of investors in the proposed Covell Village development,” or something like that.”
That’s what op/eds are for. What you seem to want is a biased newspaper, one with your no-growth bias.
“Same as you’d read in the Bee or the Chronicle. The Enterprise, however, in supporting favories of the executive editor who are typically — hell, exclusively pro-development, wants to help the candidate they endorse but not giving people news and analysis by which voters can make informed decisions.”
Pro-devlopment? Where is all this development you are speaking of?
“Instead, they depend on Bob Dunning to savage candidates they don’t like — for example, several years ago when then-Councilman Ted Puntillo launched a nasty attack against Mike Harrington shortly before that year’s election.”
Is Bob Dunning pro-developer? What makes you conclude that?
while county and state assembly races would be another story, city of davis races have a limit of $100/person, if i’m not mistaken. even a developer’s extended family wouldn’t bring in all that much money, in the grand scheme of things.
i suspect the influence developers have (or are implied to have) is more a function of their convincing politicians that growth is a necessary part of managing the city or county, esp. WRT revenue stream. one can argue as to whether it’s a smart idea or fiscally correct, but all not disagreement is necessarily corruption. as the amount of money increases, in statewide and national politics i’m more inclined to see things that way, but not as much with the cheap-ante city politics.
rather than arguing against a given paper’s editorial slant by writing op-eds, though, setting up your own blog is a far more effective way of getting one’s point across, assuming that you can express yourself and can get word out that you exist.
while county and state assembly races would be another story, city of davis races have a limit of $100/person, if i’m not mistaken. even a developer’s extended family wouldn’t bring in all that much money, in the grand scheme of things.
i suspect the influence developers have (or are implied to have) is more a function of their convincing politicians that growth is a necessary part of managing the city or county, esp. WRT revenue stream. one can argue as to whether it’s a smart idea or fiscally correct, but all not disagreement is necessarily corruption. as the amount of money increases, in statewide and national politics i’m more inclined to see things that way, but not as much with the cheap-ante city politics.
rather than arguing against a given paper’s editorial slant by writing op-eds, though, setting up your own blog is a far more effective way of getting one’s point across, assuming that you can express yourself and can get word out that you exist.
while county and state assembly races would be another story, city of davis races have a limit of $100/person, if i’m not mistaken. even a developer’s extended family wouldn’t bring in all that much money, in the grand scheme of things.
i suspect the influence developers have (or are implied to have) is more a function of their convincing politicians that growth is a necessary part of managing the city or county, esp. WRT revenue stream. one can argue as to whether it’s a smart idea or fiscally correct, but all not disagreement is necessarily corruption. as the amount of money increases, in statewide and national politics i’m more inclined to see things that way, but not as much with the cheap-ante city politics.
rather than arguing against a given paper’s editorial slant by writing op-eds, though, setting up your own blog is a far more effective way of getting one’s point across, assuming that you can express yourself and can get word out that you exist.
while county and state assembly races would be another story, city of davis races have a limit of $100/person, if i’m not mistaken. even a developer’s extended family wouldn’t bring in all that much money, in the grand scheme of things.
i suspect the influence developers have (or are implied to have) is more a function of their convincing politicians that growth is a necessary part of managing the city or county, esp. WRT revenue stream. one can argue as to whether it’s a smart idea or fiscally correct, but all not disagreement is necessarily corruption. as the amount of money increases, in statewide and national politics i’m more inclined to see things that way, but not as much with the cheap-ante city politics.
rather than arguing against a given paper’s editorial slant by writing op-eds, though, setting up your own blog is a far more effective way of getting one’s point across, assuming that you can express yourself and can get word out that you exist.
Rich wrote:
“Saylor, Souza and Asmundsen have both been major reciepients of developer political contributions and have voted accordingly.”
There have been no developments of any size built in Davis since Evergreen, which was approved in about 1995.
———
They really aren’t getting a great return on their investment in local politicians, are they?!
Sometimes I get a sense from folks on this blog that development = corruption. Is there something inherently wrong with building houses for profit? I think these are mostly issues with how many houses and where. There is nothing corrupt about local developers donating to political candidates.
The fact is, we have choices here, and Davis has a far greater level of control over its growth than most communities. It has that control because the voters have opted to exercise it.
Our choices?
–No growth at all. Is anyone here seriously advocating that no houses be built anywhere?
–Housing built by local developers, according to Davis planning guidelines.
–Housing foisted on us by large regional developers, who want to build mass-produced tract homes as they’ve done in Vacaville, Roseville, etc., and as was done to Davis in the case of Mace Ranch. Think back to the history of how Mace Ranch came to be, and I think we’ll find advantages to having ongoing dialogue between city and county officials about any and all land on our periphery–if only for the purpose of constantly reminding county politicians about the preferences of Davis voters.
Any proposal outside the city limits has to be approved by the voters. So it isn’t as though local developers have accomplished much in terms of big development proposals. Even if they do, I’d far rather have Chuck Roe or Mike Corbett involved in the process than, say, Frank Ramos.
I agree with Bob Dunning that such voter approval ought to be required for any projects over a certain size, city limits or not. That way, the planning process would be subject to the will of the voters. Smaller projects could still go forward.
“….we continue to be concerned that the current recommendations being considered could set in motion potential significant land use inconsistent with the long-standing policies embraced by the City and County on urbanization within the City’s Planning Area.”
Say it again, Katherine, and again and again….
Rich wrote:
“Saylor, Souza and Asmundsen have both been major reciepients of developer political contributions and have voted accordingly.”
There have been no developments of any size built in Davis since Evergreen, which was approved in about 1995.
———
They really aren’t getting a great return on their investment in local politicians, are they?!
Sometimes I get a sense from folks on this blog that development = corruption. Is there something inherently wrong with building houses for profit? I think these are mostly issues with how many houses and where. There is nothing corrupt about local developers donating to political candidates.
The fact is, we have choices here, and Davis has a far greater level of control over its growth than most communities. It has that control because the voters have opted to exercise it.
Our choices?
–No growth at all. Is anyone here seriously advocating that no houses be built anywhere?
–Housing built by local developers, according to Davis planning guidelines.
–Housing foisted on us by large regional developers, who want to build mass-produced tract homes as they’ve done in Vacaville, Roseville, etc., and as was done to Davis in the case of Mace Ranch. Think back to the history of how Mace Ranch came to be, and I think we’ll find advantages to having ongoing dialogue between city and county officials about any and all land on our periphery–if only for the purpose of constantly reminding county politicians about the preferences of Davis voters.
Any proposal outside the city limits has to be approved by the voters. So it isn’t as though local developers have accomplished much in terms of big development proposals. Even if they do, I’d far rather have Chuck Roe or Mike Corbett involved in the process than, say, Frank Ramos.
I agree with Bob Dunning that such voter approval ought to be required for any projects over a certain size, city limits or not. That way, the planning process would be subject to the will of the voters. Smaller projects could still go forward.
“….we continue to be concerned that the current recommendations being considered could set in motion potential significant land use inconsistent with the long-standing policies embraced by the City and County on urbanization within the City’s Planning Area.”
Say it again, Katherine, and again and again….
Rich wrote:
“Saylor, Souza and Asmundsen have both been major reciepients of developer political contributions and have voted accordingly.”
There have been no developments of any size built in Davis since Evergreen, which was approved in about 1995.
———
They really aren’t getting a great return on their investment in local politicians, are they?!
Sometimes I get a sense from folks on this blog that development = corruption. Is there something inherently wrong with building houses for profit? I think these are mostly issues with how many houses and where. There is nothing corrupt about local developers donating to political candidates.
The fact is, we have choices here, and Davis has a far greater level of control over its growth than most communities. It has that control because the voters have opted to exercise it.
Our choices?
–No growth at all. Is anyone here seriously advocating that no houses be built anywhere?
–Housing built by local developers, according to Davis planning guidelines.
–Housing foisted on us by large regional developers, who want to build mass-produced tract homes as they’ve done in Vacaville, Roseville, etc., and as was done to Davis in the case of Mace Ranch. Think back to the history of how Mace Ranch came to be, and I think we’ll find advantages to having ongoing dialogue between city and county officials about any and all land on our periphery–if only for the purpose of constantly reminding county politicians about the preferences of Davis voters.
Any proposal outside the city limits has to be approved by the voters. So it isn’t as though local developers have accomplished much in terms of big development proposals. Even if they do, I’d far rather have Chuck Roe or Mike Corbett involved in the process than, say, Frank Ramos.
I agree with Bob Dunning that such voter approval ought to be required for any projects over a certain size, city limits or not. That way, the planning process would be subject to the will of the voters. Smaller projects could still go forward.
“….we continue to be concerned that the current recommendations being considered could set in motion potential significant land use inconsistent with the long-standing policies embraced by the City and County on urbanization within the City’s Planning Area.”
Say it again, Katherine, and again and again….
Rich wrote:
“Saylor, Souza and Asmundsen have both been major reciepients of developer political contributions and have voted accordingly.”
There have been no developments of any size built in Davis since Evergreen, which was approved in about 1995.
———
They really aren’t getting a great return on their investment in local politicians, are they?!
Sometimes I get a sense from folks on this blog that development = corruption. Is there something inherently wrong with building houses for profit? I think these are mostly issues with how many houses and where. There is nothing corrupt about local developers donating to political candidates.
The fact is, we have choices here, and Davis has a far greater level of control over its growth than most communities. It has that control because the voters have opted to exercise it.
Our choices?
–No growth at all. Is anyone here seriously advocating that no houses be built anywhere?
–Housing built by local developers, according to Davis planning guidelines.
–Housing foisted on us by large regional developers, who want to build mass-produced tract homes as they’ve done in Vacaville, Roseville, etc., and as was done to Davis in the case of Mace Ranch. Think back to the history of how Mace Ranch came to be, and I think we’ll find advantages to having ongoing dialogue between city and county officials about any and all land on our periphery–if only for the purpose of constantly reminding county politicians about the preferences of Davis voters.
Any proposal outside the city limits has to be approved by the voters. So it isn’t as though local developers have accomplished much in terms of big development proposals. Even if they do, I’d far rather have Chuck Roe or Mike Corbett involved in the process than, say, Frank Ramos.
I agree with Bob Dunning that such voter approval ought to be required for any projects over a certain size, city limits or not. That way, the planning process would be subject to the will of the voters. Smaller projects could still go forward.
“….we continue to be concerned that the current recommendations being considered could set in motion potential significant land use inconsistent with the long-standing policies embraced by the City and County on urbanization within the City’s Planning Area.”
Say it again, Katherine, and again and again….
“It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.”
Please. Rich, I am sure you are much too intelligent to believe that.
Measure J only makes it more difficult for City and County elected politicians to push projects favored by their contributors. The current push by Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, and Stephen Souza for “joint study areas” and/or “dialog” strongly suggest a desire to get around Measure J, one way or the other. Certainly you don’t believe that they want to “study” or “discuss” those areas for the purposes of preserving agriculture there?
Suppose the County comes to believe that they would make more money from peripheral development in these “study areas” than the extra tax revenues they receive due to the pass-through agreement?
Developers need politicians to push their projects (in Davis, just like everywhere else). Politicians need money in order to wage expensive campaigns. If this were not the case, I think it is very unlikely that we would be heaing anything about “joint study areas.”
I’m not saying that developers are evil or anything like that. Rather, they are a small group of individuals who have vastly disproportionate influence over local land use decisions – in large part due to their campaign contributions.
It matters tremendously “if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.”
“It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.”
Please. Rich, I am sure you are much too intelligent to believe that.
Measure J only makes it more difficult for City and County elected politicians to push projects favored by their contributors. The current push by Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, and Stephen Souza for “joint study areas” and/or “dialog” strongly suggest a desire to get around Measure J, one way or the other. Certainly you don’t believe that they want to “study” or “discuss” those areas for the purposes of preserving agriculture there?
Suppose the County comes to believe that they would make more money from peripheral development in these “study areas” than the extra tax revenues they receive due to the pass-through agreement?
Developers need politicians to push their projects (in Davis, just like everywhere else). Politicians need money in order to wage expensive campaigns. If this were not the case, I think it is very unlikely that we would be heaing anything about “joint study areas.”
I’m not saying that developers are evil or anything like that. Rather, they are a small group of individuals who have vastly disproportionate influence over local land use decisions – in large part due to their campaign contributions.
It matters tremendously “if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.”
“It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.”
Please. Rich, I am sure you are much too intelligent to believe that.
Measure J only makes it more difficult for City and County elected politicians to push projects favored by their contributors. The current push by Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, and Stephen Souza for “joint study areas” and/or “dialog” strongly suggest a desire to get around Measure J, one way or the other. Certainly you don’t believe that they want to “study” or “discuss” those areas for the purposes of preserving agriculture there?
Suppose the County comes to believe that they would make more money from peripheral development in these “study areas” than the extra tax revenues they receive due to the pass-through agreement?
Developers need politicians to push their projects (in Davis, just like everywhere else). Politicians need money in order to wage expensive campaigns. If this were not the case, I think it is very unlikely that we would be heaing anything about “joint study areas.”
I’m not saying that developers are evil or anything like that. Rather, they are a small group of individuals who have vastly disproportionate influence over local land use decisions – in large part due to their campaign contributions.
It matters tremendously “if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.”
“It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.”
Please. Rich, I am sure you are much too intelligent to believe that.
Measure J only makes it more difficult for City and County elected politicians to push projects favored by their contributors. The current push by Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, and Stephen Souza for “joint study areas” and/or “dialog” strongly suggest a desire to get around Measure J, one way or the other. Certainly you don’t believe that they want to “study” or “discuss” those areas for the purposes of preserving agriculture there?
Suppose the County comes to believe that they would make more money from peripheral development in these “study areas” than the extra tax revenues they receive due to the pass-through agreement?
Developers need politicians to push their projects (in Davis, just like everywhere else). Politicians need money in order to wage expensive campaigns. If this were not the case, I think it is very unlikely that we would be heaing anything about “joint study areas.”
I’m not saying that developers are evil or anything like that. Rather, they are a small group of individuals who have vastly disproportionate influence over local land use decisions – in large part due to their campaign contributions.
It matters tremendously “if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.”
If we had District council seat elections that would essentially eliminate the need to spend near $50,000 to run for a council seat, the political influence of special interest money would be largely eliminated.
If we had District council seat elections that would essentially eliminate the need to spend near $50,000 to run for a council seat, the political influence of special interest money would be largely eliminated.
If we had District council seat elections that would essentially eliminate the need to spend near $50,000 to run for a council seat, the political influence of special interest money would be largely eliminated.
If we had District council seat elections that would essentially eliminate the need to spend near $50,000 to run for a council seat, the political influence of special interest money would be largely eliminated.
“…The current push by Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, and Stephen Souza for “joint study areas” and/or “dialog” strongly suggest a desire to get around Measure J…”
Politics is,in large measure,just THEATRE that is presented to manipulate the consent of the governed.
“…The current push by Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, and Stephen Souza for “joint study areas” and/or “dialog” strongly suggest a desire to get around Measure J…”
Politics is,in large measure,just THEATRE that is presented to manipulate the consent of the governed.
“…The current push by Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, and Stephen Souza for “joint study areas” and/or “dialog” strongly suggest a desire to get around Measure J…”
Politics is,in large measure,just THEATRE that is presented to manipulate the consent of the governed.
“…The current push by Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, and Stephen Souza for “joint study areas” and/or “dialog” strongly suggest a desire to get around Measure J…”
Politics is,in large measure,just THEATRE that is presented to manipulate the consent of the governed.
“…city of Davis races have a limit of $100/person, if i’m not mistaken.”
It is well-known that if you are running for a council seat that compliments Developer interests,
you receive a flood of envelopes containing $100 contributions which leave you “scratching your head” and wondering,”who are these people?”
“…city of Davis races have a limit of $100/person, if i’m not mistaken.”
It is well-known that if you are running for a council seat that compliments Developer interests,
you receive a flood of envelopes containing $100 contributions which leave you “scratching your head” and wondering,”who are these people?”
“…city of Davis races have a limit of $100/person, if i’m not mistaken.”
It is well-known that if you are running for a council seat that compliments Developer interests,
you receive a flood of envelopes containing $100 contributions which leave you “scratching your head” and wondering,”who are these people?”
“…city of Davis races have a limit of $100/person, if i’m not mistaken.”
It is well-known that if you are running for a council seat that compliments Developer interests,
you receive a flood of envelopes containing $100 contributions which leave you “scratching your head” and wondering,”who are these people?”
Exactly. Developers tend to donate an envelope of 25 $100 checks.
Exactly. Developers tend to donate an envelope of 25 $100 checks.
Exactly. Developers tend to donate an envelope of 25 $100 checks.
Exactly. Developers tend to donate an envelope of 25 $100 checks.
If done correctly, and the Covell Village proposal had many flaws to it, there is no legitimate reason not to develop on that site, in my opininon. I wonder if people recognize the connection between unattainable home ownership in Davis, the school attendance issues, fiscal issues, and a virtual no-growth policy I observe that permeates throughout the City. I say this as a household who would be directly impacted by development on the Covell Village site.
I pulled out the GIS parcels layer readily available from the City’s website. I then cross-referenced it with Google Earth to find logical infill development sites rather than peripheral growth. In a very rough analysis, I identified sites that were either underutilized or vacant and assumed a very dense (for this town, 40 units per acre net). I left out downtown, because the cost of land there is so expensive and the only way, in my opinion, for residential mixed use infill to work downtown would be to relax some of the building height restrictions, which likely wouldn’t sit well with residents (We apparently oppose both sprawl and infill). I also left out the South Davis vacant land on Chiles currently identified for commercial/employment use and I left out the commercially zoned land by Wendy’s, Applebee’s, etc. Finally, I excluded the Cannery Park site because my assumption for this analysis is it will be built.
That left me with a few vacant or underutilized sites for infill sites and/or redevelopment totaling approximately 57 acres. These included:
1. Olive Drive north
2. 5th & Pole Line underutilized sites (Pizza Guys, Valero, Car Wash, etc.)
3. Dedicated school site in North Davis adjacent to green belt
4. PG & E site
5. A few other small sites
This totaled approximately 57 acres and even these are difficult and/or controversial to develop. An aerial photo is very enlightening. Other than that, there wasn’t much space for residential development. Total units using aforementioned assumptions was approximately 2200. Part of the equation, but likely not enough to meet our future needs.
If we don’t want development on the periphery, we need to seriously consider infill development, even on sensitive sites such as those mentioned. We cannot oppose both infill and sprawl simultaneously.
We do have a need for housing in this town or it will continue to move in the direction of an elite, exclusive city where only the ultra-affluent can afford to live, which residents also don’t want. This is a town that I thought prided itself on the ideal of diversity (at least one would think if following the Valley Oak elementary subject).
The the argument for developing on the northwest quadrant for senior housing makes little sense because it is totally isolated from many of the amenities seniors like to take advantage of. Stating it is near health services and the hospital as if those were there only needs is disingenuous. Senior housing is needed, but opening up the northwest quadrant on the stated grounds is illogical…about as illogical as keeping the Cannery Park site zoned for “high tech employment.”
If Davis residents cannot stomach the infill necessary to meet our housing needs, the Covell Village site makes sense if done correctly. It is surround on three sides by development. It should be done through a Specific Plan process where the vision and expectations for development is determined in advance before any developer approaches the city.
Growth isn’t bad or good. It can be either depending how it’s done and how well (or not) residents work together. It’s all about design and policies to minimize impacts.
If done correctly, and the Covell Village proposal had many flaws to it, there is no legitimate reason not to develop on that site, in my opininon. I wonder if people recognize the connection between unattainable home ownership in Davis, the school attendance issues, fiscal issues, and a virtual no-growth policy I observe that permeates throughout the City. I say this as a household who would be directly impacted by development on the Covell Village site.
I pulled out the GIS parcels layer readily available from the City’s website. I then cross-referenced it with Google Earth to find logical infill development sites rather than peripheral growth. In a very rough analysis, I identified sites that were either underutilized or vacant and assumed a very dense (for this town, 40 units per acre net). I left out downtown, because the cost of land there is so expensive and the only way, in my opinion, for residential mixed use infill to work downtown would be to relax some of the building height restrictions, which likely wouldn’t sit well with residents (We apparently oppose both sprawl and infill). I also left out the South Davis vacant land on Chiles currently identified for commercial/employment use and I left out the commercially zoned land by Wendy’s, Applebee’s, etc. Finally, I excluded the Cannery Park site because my assumption for this analysis is it will be built.
That left me with a few vacant or underutilized sites for infill sites and/or redevelopment totaling approximately 57 acres. These included:
1. Olive Drive north
2. 5th & Pole Line underutilized sites (Pizza Guys, Valero, Car Wash, etc.)
3. Dedicated school site in North Davis adjacent to green belt
4. PG & E site
5. A few other small sites
This totaled approximately 57 acres and even these are difficult and/or controversial to develop. An aerial photo is very enlightening. Other than that, there wasn’t much space for residential development. Total units using aforementioned assumptions was approximately 2200. Part of the equation, but likely not enough to meet our future needs.
If we don’t want development on the periphery, we need to seriously consider infill development, even on sensitive sites such as those mentioned. We cannot oppose both infill and sprawl simultaneously.
We do have a need for housing in this town or it will continue to move in the direction of an elite, exclusive city where only the ultra-affluent can afford to live, which residents also don’t want. This is a town that I thought prided itself on the ideal of diversity (at least one would think if following the Valley Oak elementary subject).
The the argument for developing on the northwest quadrant for senior housing makes little sense because it is totally isolated from many of the amenities seniors like to take advantage of. Stating it is near health services and the hospital as if those were there only needs is disingenuous. Senior housing is needed, but opening up the northwest quadrant on the stated grounds is illogical…about as illogical as keeping the Cannery Park site zoned for “high tech employment.”
If Davis residents cannot stomach the infill necessary to meet our housing needs, the Covell Village site makes sense if done correctly. It is surround on three sides by development. It should be done through a Specific Plan process where the vision and expectations for development is determined in advance before any developer approaches the city.
Growth isn’t bad or good. It can be either depending how it’s done and how well (or not) residents work together. It’s all about design and policies to minimize impacts.
If done correctly, and the Covell Village proposal had many flaws to it, there is no legitimate reason not to develop on that site, in my opininon. I wonder if people recognize the connection between unattainable home ownership in Davis, the school attendance issues, fiscal issues, and a virtual no-growth policy I observe that permeates throughout the City. I say this as a household who would be directly impacted by development on the Covell Village site.
I pulled out the GIS parcels layer readily available from the City’s website. I then cross-referenced it with Google Earth to find logical infill development sites rather than peripheral growth. In a very rough analysis, I identified sites that were either underutilized or vacant and assumed a very dense (for this town, 40 units per acre net). I left out downtown, because the cost of land there is so expensive and the only way, in my opinion, for residential mixed use infill to work downtown would be to relax some of the building height restrictions, which likely wouldn’t sit well with residents (We apparently oppose both sprawl and infill). I also left out the South Davis vacant land on Chiles currently identified for commercial/employment use and I left out the commercially zoned land by Wendy’s, Applebee’s, etc. Finally, I excluded the Cannery Park site because my assumption for this analysis is it will be built.
That left me with a few vacant or underutilized sites for infill sites and/or redevelopment totaling approximately 57 acres. These included:
1. Olive Drive north
2. 5th & Pole Line underutilized sites (Pizza Guys, Valero, Car Wash, etc.)
3. Dedicated school site in North Davis adjacent to green belt
4. PG & E site
5. A few other small sites
This totaled approximately 57 acres and even these are difficult and/or controversial to develop. An aerial photo is very enlightening. Other than that, there wasn’t much space for residential development. Total units using aforementioned assumptions was approximately 2200. Part of the equation, but likely not enough to meet our future needs.
If we don’t want development on the periphery, we need to seriously consider infill development, even on sensitive sites such as those mentioned. We cannot oppose both infill and sprawl simultaneously.
We do have a need for housing in this town or it will continue to move in the direction of an elite, exclusive city where only the ultra-affluent can afford to live, which residents also don’t want. This is a town that I thought prided itself on the ideal of diversity (at least one would think if following the Valley Oak elementary subject).
The the argument for developing on the northwest quadrant for senior housing makes little sense because it is totally isolated from many of the amenities seniors like to take advantage of. Stating it is near health services and the hospital as if those were there only needs is disingenuous. Senior housing is needed, but opening up the northwest quadrant on the stated grounds is illogical…about as illogical as keeping the Cannery Park site zoned for “high tech employment.”
If Davis residents cannot stomach the infill necessary to meet our housing needs, the Covell Village site makes sense if done correctly. It is surround on three sides by development. It should be done through a Specific Plan process where the vision and expectations for development is determined in advance before any developer approaches the city.
Growth isn’t bad or good. It can be either depending how it’s done and how well (or not) residents work together. It’s all about design and policies to minimize impacts.
If done correctly, and the Covell Village proposal had many flaws to it, there is no legitimate reason not to develop on that site, in my opininon. I wonder if people recognize the connection between unattainable home ownership in Davis, the school attendance issues, fiscal issues, and a virtual no-growth policy I observe that permeates throughout the City. I say this as a household who would be directly impacted by development on the Covell Village site.
I pulled out the GIS parcels layer readily available from the City’s website. I then cross-referenced it with Google Earth to find logical infill development sites rather than peripheral growth. In a very rough analysis, I identified sites that were either underutilized or vacant and assumed a very dense (for this town, 40 units per acre net). I left out downtown, because the cost of land there is so expensive and the only way, in my opinion, for residential mixed use infill to work downtown would be to relax some of the building height restrictions, which likely wouldn’t sit well with residents (We apparently oppose both sprawl and infill). I also left out the South Davis vacant land on Chiles currently identified for commercial/employment use and I left out the commercially zoned land by Wendy’s, Applebee’s, etc. Finally, I excluded the Cannery Park site because my assumption for this analysis is it will be built.
That left me with a few vacant or underutilized sites for infill sites and/or redevelopment totaling approximately 57 acres. These included:
1. Olive Drive north
2. 5th & Pole Line underutilized sites (Pizza Guys, Valero, Car Wash, etc.)
3. Dedicated school site in North Davis adjacent to green belt
4. PG & E site
5. A few other small sites
This totaled approximately 57 acres and even these are difficult and/or controversial to develop. An aerial photo is very enlightening. Other than that, there wasn’t much space for residential development. Total units using aforementioned assumptions was approximately 2200. Part of the equation, but likely not enough to meet our future needs.
If we don’t want development on the periphery, we need to seriously consider infill development, even on sensitive sites such as those mentioned. We cannot oppose both infill and sprawl simultaneously.
We do have a need for housing in this town or it will continue to move in the direction of an elite, exclusive city where only the ultra-affluent can afford to live, which residents also don’t want. This is a town that I thought prided itself on the ideal of diversity (at least one would think if following the Valley Oak elementary subject).
The the argument for developing on the northwest quadrant for senior housing makes little sense because it is totally isolated from many of the amenities seniors like to take advantage of. Stating it is near health services and the hospital as if those were there only needs is disingenuous. Senior housing is needed, but opening up the northwest quadrant on the stated grounds is illogical…about as illogical as keeping the Cannery Park site zoned for “high tech employment.”
If Davis residents cannot stomach the infill necessary to meet our housing needs, the Covell Village site makes sense if done correctly. It is surround on three sides by development. It should be done through a Specific Plan process where the vision and expectations for development is determined in advance before any developer approaches the city.
Growth isn’t bad or good. It can be either depending how it’s done and how well (or not) residents work together. It’s all about design and policies to minimize impacts.
Anonymous said…
“…city of Davis races have a limit of $100/person, if i’m not mistaken.”
It is well-known that if you are running for a council seat that compliments Developer interests,
you receive a flood of envelopes containing $100 contributions which leave you “scratching your head” and wondering,”who are these people?”
11:37 AM
Vincente said…
Exactly. Developers tend to donate an envelope of 25 $100 checks.
——–
….and the names of the donors are on the checks.
Developers aren’t corrupt, nor is their participation in the political process here any more inappropriate than that of unions (we got a nice donation to the No on K campaign from a Sacramento union), environmental groups, homeowner associations, or any other group.
If you are implying that local developers break the law, please be specific. Otherwise you are just demonstrating occupational bigotry.
Anonymous said…
“…city of Davis races have a limit of $100/person, if i’m not mistaken.”
It is well-known that if you are running for a council seat that compliments Developer interests,
you receive a flood of envelopes containing $100 contributions which leave you “scratching your head” and wondering,”who are these people?”
11:37 AM
Vincente said…
Exactly. Developers tend to donate an envelope of 25 $100 checks.
——–
….and the names of the donors are on the checks.
Developers aren’t corrupt, nor is their participation in the political process here any more inappropriate than that of unions (we got a nice donation to the No on K campaign from a Sacramento union), environmental groups, homeowner associations, or any other group.
If you are implying that local developers break the law, please be specific. Otherwise you are just demonstrating occupational bigotry.
Anonymous said…
“…city of Davis races have a limit of $100/person, if i’m not mistaken.”
It is well-known that if you are running for a council seat that compliments Developer interests,
you receive a flood of envelopes containing $100 contributions which leave you “scratching your head” and wondering,”who are these people?”
11:37 AM
Vincente said…
Exactly. Developers tend to donate an envelope of 25 $100 checks.
——–
….and the names of the donors are on the checks.
Developers aren’t corrupt, nor is their participation in the political process here any more inappropriate than that of unions (we got a nice donation to the No on K campaign from a Sacramento union), environmental groups, homeowner associations, or any other group.
If you are implying that local developers break the law, please be specific. Otherwise you are just demonstrating occupational bigotry.
Anonymous said…
“…city of Davis races have a limit of $100/person, if i’m not mistaken.”
It is well-known that if you are running for a council seat that compliments Developer interests,
you receive a flood of envelopes containing $100 contributions which leave you “scratching your head” and wondering,”who are these people?”
11:37 AM
Vincente said…
Exactly. Developers tend to donate an envelope of 25 $100 checks.
——–
….and the names of the donors are on the checks.
Developers aren’t corrupt, nor is their participation in the political process here any more inappropriate than that of unions (we got a nice donation to the No on K campaign from a Sacramento union), environmental groups, homeowner associations, or any other group.
If you are implying that local developers break the law, please be specific. Otherwise you are just demonstrating occupational bigotry.
The way to control the destiny of our city’s growth is to ELECT people to our council whom you trust will carry out your vision of your city and not rely on the “good intentions” of local developers. The Council appoints Planning Commission members, approves projects, oversees city staff planning negotiations and signs development agreements. ALL developers will most likely build anything that this process generates as long as they believe it is feasible and will bring them an acceptable return. Councilmember’s duty lies in pursuing the most favorable development agreement that can be
gotten from developers for awarding them the opportunity to reap the rewards of developing their speculative property investment.
The way to control the destiny of our city’s growth is to ELECT people to our council whom you trust will carry out your vision of your city and not rely on the “good intentions” of local developers. The Council appoints Planning Commission members, approves projects, oversees city staff planning negotiations and signs development agreements. ALL developers will most likely build anything that this process generates as long as they believe it is feasible and will bring them an acceptable return. Councilmember’s duty lies in pursuing the most favorable development agreement that can be
gotten from developers for awarding them the opportunity to reap the rewards of developing their speculative property investment.
The way to control the destiny of our city’s growth is to ELECT people to our council whom you trust will carry out your vision of your city and not rely on the “good intentions” of local developers. The Council appoints Planning Commission members, approves projects, oversees city staff planning negotiations and signs development agreements. ALL developers will most likely build anything that this process generates as long as they believe it is feasible and will bring them an acceptable return. Councilmember’s duty lies in pursuing the most favorable development agreement that can be
gotten from developers for awarding them the opportunity to reap the rewards of developing their speculative property investment.
The way to control the destiny of our city’s growth is to ELECT people to our council whom you trust will carry out your vision of your city and not rely on the “good intentions” of local developers. The Council appoints Planning Commission members, approves projects, oversees city staff planning negotiations and signs development agreements. ALL developers will most likely build anything that this process generates as long as they believe it is feasible and will bring them an acceptable return. Councilmember’s duty lies in pursuing the most favorable development agreement that can be
gotten from developers for awarding them the opportunity to reap the rewards of developing their speculative property investment.
I think the word corruption is misplaced, the word we want to use is influence.
I think the word corruption is misplaced, the word we want to use is influence.
I think the word corruption is misplaced, the word we want to use is influence.
I think the word corruption is misplaced, the word we want to use is influence.
agreed 100%, brian.
and a special “hear, hear” to anonymous on those district elections. not a popular idea, from the reactions i’ve got when i bring it up, but an easy way of reducing the cost and time necessary to run for office, and a way to hedge against neighborhoods going without any reps on the city council.
agreed 100%, brian.
and a special “hear, hear” to anonymous on those district elections. not a popular idea, from the reactions i’ve got when i bring it up, but an easy way of reducing the cost and time necessary to run for office, and a way to hedge against neighborhoods going without any reps on the city council.
agreed 100%, brian.
and a special “hear, hear” to anonymous on those district elections. not a popular idea, from the reactions i’ve got when i bring it up, but an easy way of reducing the cost and time necessary to run for office, and a way to hedge against neighborhoods going without any reps on the city council.
agreed 100%, brian.
and a special “hear, hear” to anonymous on those district elections. not a popular idea, from the reactions i’ve got when i bring it up, but an easy way of reducing the cost and time necessary to run for office, and a way to hedge against neighborhoods going without any reps on the city council.
Wu: Also a way for the current majority to gerrymander districts to give themselves a permanent majority and I’m not convinced it would help control costs, it might increase costs because it might force all the money into a single competitive election.
Wu: Also a way for the current majority to gerrymander districts to give themselves a permanent majority and I’m not convinced it would help control costs, it might increase costs because it might force all the money into a single competitive election.
Wu: Also a way for the current majority to gerrymander districts to give themselves a permanent majority and I’m not convinced it would help control costs, it might increase costs because it might force all the money into a single competitive election.
Wu: Also a way for the current majority to gerrymander districts to give themselves a permanent majority and I’m not convinced it would help control costs, it might increase costs because it might force all the money into a single competitive election.
Doug… gerrymandering can be addressed if it is dealt with at the creation of the process.. As to money, with District elections, there is a reasonable limit beyond which one does not gain an advantage with more campaign spending. Personal contact with every household through “coffees” and walking the district would be quit doable.
Doug… gerrymandering can be addressed if it is dealt with at the creation of the process.. As to money, with District elections, there is a reasonable limit beyond which one does not gain an advantage with more campaign spending. Personal contact with every household through “coffees” and walking the district would be quit doable.
Doug… gerrymandering can be addressed if it is dealt with at the creation of the process.. As to money, with District elections, there is a reasonable limit beyond which one does not gain an advantage with more campaign spending. Personal contact with every household through “coffees” and walking the district would be quit doable.
Doug… gerrymandering can be addressed if it is dealt with at the creation of the process.. As to money, with District elections, there is a reasonable limit beyond which one does not gain an advantage with more campaign spending. Personal contact with every household through “coffees” and walking the district would be quit doable.
Anonymous 10:48 wrote: “Please. Rich, I am sure you are much too intelligent to believe [It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.]”
It’s unseemly for me to brag about my stratospheric IQ, so I’ll leave that to others.
However, I stand by my statement, when it is read in context. The context here being that it is the citizenry of Davis which ultimately chooses one way or the other now on all significant residential growth.
To quote that Solomonic figure: “If the people of Davis don’t want peripheral growth, there won’t be any. The people are in charge of that. It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.”
Anonymous 10:48 adds: “The current push by Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, and Stephen Souza for “joint study areas” and/or “dialog” strongly suggest a desire to get around Measure J, one way or the other. Certainly you don’t believe that they want to “study” or “discuss” those areas for the purposes of preserving agriculture there?”
From the county’s perspective — which here, I believe, equates to Helen’s and Mariko’s — their interest is to move forward projects that will generate more revenues for Yolo County. As you must know, California counties often get screwed the way tax dollars are divided in our state. Cities and school districts and the state itself have first dibs on most revenues, and counties often get left holding the bag. So Helen and Mariko — both of whom have exceedingly strong records on and passionate commitments to preserving ag land in Yolo County — would like to renegotiate with Davis and the other county cities in order to try to get more money for the county, however that might happen.
As far as Souza goes, you are wrong in your assumptions about his interests in meeting. It is simply Stephen’s philosophy that it cannot hurt to talk and that open dialog is a good thing. (If you knew him, you would know this.) Assigning him diabolical motives is a mistake on your part.
Anonymous 10:48 wrote: “Please. Rich, I am sure you are much too intelligent to believe [It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.]”
It’s unseemly for me to brag about my stratospheric IQ, so I’ll leave that to others.
However, I stand by my statement, when it is read in context. The context here being that it is the citizenry of Davis which ultimately chooses one way or the other now on all significant residential growth.
To quote that Solomonic figure: “If the people of Davis don’t want peripheral growth, there won’t be any. The people are in charge of that. It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.”
Anonymous 10:48 adds: “The current push by Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, and Stephen Souza for “joint study areas” and/or “dialog” strongly suggest a desire to get around Measure J, one way or the other. Certainly you don’t believe that they want to “study” or “discuss” those areas for the purposes of preserving agriculture there?”
From the county’s perspective — which here, I believe, equates to Helen’s and Mariko’s — their interest is to move forward projects that will generate more revenues for Yolo County. As you must know, California counties often get screwed the way tax dollars are divided in our state. Cities and school districts and the state itself have first dibs on most revenues, and counties often get left holding the bag. So Helen and Mariko — both of whom have exceedingly strong records on and passionate commitments to preserving ag land in Yolo County — would like to renegotiate with Davis and the other county cities in order to try to get more money for the county, however that might happen.
As far as Souza goes, you are wrong in your assumptions about his interests in meeting. It is simply Stephen’s philosophy that it cannot hurt to talk and that open dialog is a good thing. (If you knew him, you would know this.) Assigning him diabolical motives is a mistake on your part.
Anonymous 10:48 wrote: “Please. Rich, I am sure you are much too intelligent to believe [It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.]”
It’s unseemly for me to brag about my stratospheric IQ, so I’ll leave that to others.
However, I stand by my statement, when it is read in context. The context here being that it is the citizenry of Davis which ultimately chooses one way or the other now on all significant residential growth.
To quote that Solomonic figure: “If the people of Davis don’t want peripheral growth, there won’t be any. The people are in charge of that. It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.”
Anonymous 10:48 adds: “The current push by Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, and Stephen Souza for “joint study areas” and/or “dialog” strongly suggest a desire to get around Measure J, one way or the other. Certainly you don’t believe that they want to “study” or “discuss” those areas for the purposes of preserving agriculture there?”
From the county’s perspective — which here, I believe, equates to Helen’s and Mariko’s — their interest is to move forward projects that will generate more revenues for Yolo County. As you must know, California counties often get screwed the way tax dollars are divided in our state. Cities and school districts and the state itself have first dibs on most revenues, and counties often get left holding the bag. So Helen and Mariko — both of whom have exceedingly strong records on and passionate commitments to preserving ag land in Yolo County — would like to renegotiate with Davis and the other county cities in order to try to get more money for the county, however that might happen.
As far as Souza goes, you are wrong in your assumptions about his interests in meeting. It is simply Stephen’s philosophy that it cannot hurt to talk and that open dialog is a good thing. (If you knew him, you would know this.) Assigning him diabolical motives is a mistake on your part.
Anonymous 10:48 wrote: “Please. Rich, I am sure you are much too intelligent to believe [It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.]”
It’s unseemly for me to brag about my stratospheric IQ, so I’ll leave that to others.
However, I stand by my statement, when it is read in context. The context here being that it is the citizenry of Davis which ultimately chooses one way or the other now on all significant residential growth.
To quote that Solomonic figure: “If the people of Davis don’t want peripheral growth, there won’t be any. The people are in charge of that. It matters not one whit then if some would-be homebuilders contribute to some candidates.”
Anonymous 10:48 adds: “The current push by Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, and Stephen Souza for “joint study areas” and/or “dialog” strongly suggest a desire to get around Measure J, one way or the other. Certainly you don’t believe that they want to “study” or “discuss” those areas for the purposes of preserving agriculture there?”
From the county’s perspective — which here, I believe, equates to Helen’s and Mariko’s — their interest is to move forward projects that will generate more revenues for Yolo County. As you must know, California counties often get screwed the way tax dollars are divided in our state. Cities and school districts and the state itself have first dibs on most revenues, and counties often get left holding the bag. So Helen and Mariko — both of whom have exceedingly strong records on and passionate commitments to preserving ag land in Yolo County — would like to renegotiate with Davis and the other county cities in order to try to get more money for the county, however that might happen.
As far as Souza goes, you are wrong in your assumptions about his interests in meeting. It is simply Stephen’s philosophy that it cannot hurt to talk and that open dialog is a good thing. (If you knew him, you would know this.) Assigning him diabolical motives is a mistake on your part.
The county’s own staff report suggests that such development will not provide additional revenue. Additionally, it will not provide the county with more revenue than the pass-through agreement already provides the county, which goes far beyond what any development would provide.
As for Mr. Souza, apparently there is evidence that he is supporting changing the land-use designations. Thomson would not be pushing such changes without at least the wink and nod approval from Souza and Saylor on this.
The county’s own staff report suggests that such development will not provide additional revenue. Additionally, it will not provide the county with more revenue than the pass-through agreement already provides the county, which goes far beyond what any development would provide.
As for Mr. Souza, apparently there is evidence that he is supporting changing the land-use designations. Thomson would not be pushing such changes without at least the wink and nod approval from Souza and Saylor on this.
The county’s own staff report suggests that such development will not provide additional revenue. Additionally, it will not provide the county with more revenue than the pass-through agreement already provides the county, which goes far beyond what any development would provide.
As for Mr. Souza, apparently there is evidence that he is supporting changing the land-use designations. Thomson would not be pushing such changes without at least the wink and nod approval from Souza and Saylor on this.
The county’s own staff report suggests that such development will not provide additional revenue. Additionally, it will not provide the county with more revenue than the pass-through agreement already provides the county, which goes far beyond what any development would provide.
As for Mr. Souza, apparently there is evidence that he is supporting changing the land-use designations. Thomson would not be pushing such changes without at least the wink and nod approval from Souza and Saylor on this.
David Greenwald chimes in: “Wu: Also a way for the current majority to gerrymander districts to give themselves a permanent majority and I’m not convinced it would help control costs, it might increase costs because it might force all the money into a single competitive election.”
I strongly support district elections for Davis. (I have done so in my column, as well.)
First, no one is going to get away with gerrymandering in our city. If we stay with a 5-member council, the town rather naturally divides 5 ways (N, S, W, E and Central). If someone tried to carve out one group of houses from its natural district and move it to another in order to help one party or the other, everyone with eyes would see it for what it is and shout it down in an instant.
I personally favor having a 7-member council, where 6 are elected by districts and a mayor is chosen by the city at large.
As far as costs go, having district elections would obviously lower the costs. A candidate who now wants to mail his advertsing to all the voters in Davis, for example, must reach around 24,000 residences. At $1 a piece that’s beaucoup bucks. (I don’t know how these candidates can afford it, but I usually get 2-3 pieces of mail from each of the major candidates, plus of course all of the newspaper advertising.) If the city were divided 6 ways, a mailer could reach everyone in a district for $4,000.
But even that would be unnecessary. Now it is absolutely impossible for a candidate to reach the voters by walking door-to-door. With district elections, it would be just like it was 25 years ago, when every single candidate came to your house and explained his positions on the issues. That takes a little time on weekends. But it doesn’t cost thousands of dollars, and it doesn’t require candidates to raise tens of thousands of dollars.
I’m not convinced that any of our elected officials are “bought.” I think the “buyers” just tend to favor the candidates who philosophically agree with what they want. What the big money does that is more perverse, however, is it excludes people from running who do not want to, or cannot, hold fundraisers that generate thousands of dollars in contributions.
Currently, many of our candidates for city council and school board are Sacramento attorneys and lobbysists. The reason those professions have such an edge is because it is rather easy for them to reach out to 100 other well off lawyers or lobbyists and ask for $100 (or more). In a couple of days, they can raise $20,000, most of it from people who really have no interest in Davis politics. And with $20,000 in the bank, they have a huge advantage in generating interest in their campaigns and then translating that into more contributions and votes down the road. Only by breaking up Davis into smaller units will we defeat the need for so much money in order to win office.
David Greenwald chimes in: “Wu: Also a way for the current majority to gerrymander districts to give themselves a permanent majority and I’m not convinced it would help control costs, it might increase costs because it might force all the money into a single competitive election.”
I strongly support district elections for Davis. (I have done so in my column, as well.)
First, no one is going to get away with gerrymandering in our city. If we stay with a 5-member council, the town rather naturally divides 5 ways (N, S, W, E and Central). If someone tried to carve out one group of houses from its natural district and move it to another in order to help one party or the other, everyone with eyes would see it for what it is and shout it down in an instant.
I personally favor having a 7-member council, where 6 are elected by districts and a mayor is chosen by the city at large.
As far as costs go, having district elections would obviously lower the costs. A candidate who now wants to mail his advertsing to all the voters in Davis, for example, must reach around 24,000 residences. At $1 a piece that’s beaucoup bucks. (I don’t know how these candidates can afford it, but I usually get 2-3 pieces of mail from each of the major candidates, plus of course all of the newspaper advertising.) If the city were divided 6 ways, a mailer could reach everyone in a district for $4,000.
But even that would be unnecessary. Now it is absolutely impossible for a candidate to reach the voters by walking door-to-door. With district elections, it would be just like it was 25 years ago, when every single candidate came to your house and explained his positions on the issues. That takes a little time on weekends. But it doesn’t cost thousands of dollars, and it doesn’t require candidates to raise tens of thousands of dollars.
I’m not convinced that any of our elected officials are “bought.” I think the “buyers” just tend to favor the candidates who philosophically agree with what they want. What the big money does that is more perverse, however, is it excludes people from running who do not want to, or cannot, hold fundraisers that generate thousands of dollars in contributions.
Currently, many of our candidates for city council and school board are Sacramento attorneys and lobbysists. The reason those professions have such an edge is because it is rather easy for them to reach out to 100 other well off lawyers or lobbyists and ask for $100 (or more). In a couple of days, they can raise $20,000, most of it from people who really have no interest in Davis politics. And with $20,000 in the bank, they have a huge advantage in generating interest in their campaigns and then translating that into more contributions and votes down the road. Only by breaking up Davis into smaller units will we defeat the need for so much money in order to win office.
David Greenwald chimes in: “Wu: Also a way for the current majority to gerrymander districts to give themselves a permanent majority and I’m not convinced it would help control costs, it might increase costs because it might force all the money into a single competitive election.”
I strongly support district elections for Davis. (I have done so in my column, as well.)
First, no one is going to get away with gerrymandering in our city. If we stay with a 5-member council, the town rather naturally divides 5 ways (N, S, W, E and Central). If someone tried to carve out one group of houses from its natural district and move it to another in order to help one party or the other, everyone with eyes would see it for what it is and shout it down in an instant.
I personally favor having a 7-member council, where 6 are elected by districts and a mayor is chosen by the city at large.
As far as costs go, having district elections would obviously lower the costs. A candidate who now wants to mail his advertsing to all the voters in Davis, for example, must reach around 24,000 residences. At $1 a piece that’s beaucoup bucks. (I don’t know how these candidates can afford it, but I usually get 2-3 pieces of mail from each of the major candidates, plus of course all of the newspaper advertising.) If the city were divided 6 ways, a mailer could reach everyone in a district for $4,000.
But even that would be unnecessary. Now it is absolutely impossible for a candidate to reach the voters by walking door-to-door. With district elections, it would be just like it was 25 years ago, when every single candidate came to your house and explained his positions on the issues. That takes a little time on weekends. But it doesn’t cost thousands of dollars, and it doesn’t require candidates to raise tens of thousands of dollars.
I’m not convinced that any of our elected officials are “bought.” I think the “buyers” just tend to favor the candidates who philosophically agree with what they want. What the big money does that is more perverse, however, is it excludes people from running who do not want to, or cannot, hold fundraisers that generate thousands of dollars in contributions.
Currently, many of our candidates for city council and school board are Sacramento attorneys and lobbysists. The reason those professions have such an edge is because it is rather easy for them to reach out to 100 other well off lawyers or lobbyists and ask for $100 (or more). In a couple of days, they can raise $20,000, most of it from people who really have no interest in Davis politics. And with $20,000 in the bank, they have a huge advantage in generating interest in their campaigns and then translating that into more contributions and votes down the road. Only by breaking up Davis into smaller units will we defeat the need for so much money in order to win office.
David Greenwald chimes in: “Wu: Also a way for the current majority to gerrymander districts to give themselves a permanent majority and I’m not convinced it would help control costs, it might increase costs because it might force all the money into a single competitive election.”
I strongly support district elections for Davis. (I have done so in my column, as well.)
First, no one is going to get away with gerrymandering in our city. If we stay with a 5-member council, the town rather naturally divides 5 ways (N, S, W, E and Central). If someone tried to carve out one group of houses from its natural district and move it to another in order to help one party or the other, everyone with eyes would see it for what it is and shout it down in an instant.
I personally favor having a 7-member council, where 6 are elected by districts and a mayor is chosen by the city at large.
As far as costs go, having district elections would obviously lower the costs. A candidate who now wants to mail his advertsing to all the voters in Davis, for example, must reach around 24,000 residences. At $1 a piece that’s beaucoup bucks. (I don’t know how these candidates can afford it, but I usually get 2-3 pieces of mail from each of the major candidates, plus of course all of the newspaper advertising.) If the city were divided 6 ways, a mailer could reach everyone in a district for $4,000.
But even that would be unnecessary. Now it is absolutely impossible for a candidate to reach the voters by walking door-to-door. With district elections, it would be just like it was 25 years ago, when every single candidate came to your house and explained his positions on the issues. That takes a little time on weekends. But it doesn’t cost thousands of dollars, and it doesn’t require candidates to raise tens of thousands of dollars.
I’m not convinced that any of our elected officials are “bought.” I think the “buyers” just tend to favor the candidates who philosophically agree with what they want. What the big money does that is more perverse, however, is it excludes people from running who do not want to, or cannot, hold fundraisers that generate thousands of dollars in contributions.
Currently, many of our candidates for city council and school board are Sacramento attorneys and lobbysists. The reason those professions have such an edge is because it is rather easy for them to reach out to 100 other well off lawyers or lobbyists and ask for $100 (or more). In a couple of days, they can raise $20,000, most of it from people who really have no interest in Davis politics. And with $20,000 in the bank, they have a huge advantage in generating interest in their campaigns and then translating that into more contributions and votes down the road. Only by breaking up Davis into smaller units will we defeat the need for so much money in order to win office.
One should not lose sight of the fact that Helen Thomson “showed her colors” with her “Thomson Letter” in the final days of the Measure X campaign. She did not press the issue then as she was up for reelection. The word is that she does not plan to go before the voters again. Mariko Yamada’s positions as County Supervisor, in contrast, has EARNED our support as she seeks the Democratic spot in the Assembly race. I trust Mariko not to a party to County scare tactics designed to force Davis to dilute its Pass-Through powers.
One should not lose sight of the fact that Helen Thomson “showed her colors” with her “Thomson Letter” in the final days of the Measure X campaign. She did not press the issue then as she was up for reelection. The word is that she does not plan to go before the voters again. Mariko Yamada’s positions as County Supervisor, in contrast, has EARNED our support as she seeks the Democratic spot in the Assembly race. I trust Mariko not to a party to County scare tactics designed to force Davis to dilute its Pass-Through powers.
One should not lose sight of the fact that Helen Thomson “showed her colors” with her “Thomson Letter” in the final days of the Measure X campaign. She did not press the issue then as she was up for reelection. The word is that she does not plan to go before the voters again. Mariko Yamada’s positions as County Supervisor, in contrast, has EARNED our support as she seeks the Democratic spot in the Assembly race. I trust Mariko not to a party to County scare tactics designed to force Davis to dilute its Pass-Through powers.
One should not lose sight of the fact that Helen Thomson “showed her colors” with her “Thomson Letter” in the final days of the Measure X campaign. She did not press the issue then as she was up for reelection. The word is that she does not plan to go before the voters again. Mariko Yamada’s positions as County Supervisor, in contrast, has EARNED our support as she seeks the Democratic spot in the Assembly race. I trust Mariko not to a party to County scare tactics designed to force Davis to dilute its Pass-Through powers.
“One should not lose sight of the fact that Helen Thomson “showed her colors” with her “Thomson Letter” in the final days of the Measure X campaign.”
Can you name one significant piece of property — say 5 acres or more — which is zoned for agriculture in Yolo County that Helen Thomson has ever voted to change that designation?
I think by trying to slander her because you disagreed with her on the merits of Covell Village, it’s not her colors that are exposed but yours.
“One should not lose sight of the fact that Helen Thomson “showed her colors” with her “Thomson Letter” in the final days of the Measure X campaign.”
Can you name one significant piece of property — say 5 acres or more — which is zoned for agriculture in Yolo County that Helen Thomson has ever voted to change that designation?
I think by trying to slander her because you disagreed with her on the merits of Covell Village, it’s not her colors that are exposed but yours.
“One should not lose sight of the fact that Helen Thomson “showed her colors” with her “Thomson Letter” in the final days of the Measure X campaign.”
Can you name one significant piece of property — say 5 acres or more — which is zoned for agriculture in Yolo County that Helen Thomson has ever voted to change that designation?
I think by trying to slander her because you disagreed with her on the merits of Covell Village, it’s not her colors that are exposed but yours.
“One should not lose sight of the fact that Helen Thomson “showed her colors” with her “Thomson Letter” in the final days of the Measure X campaign.”
Can you name one significant piece of property — say 5 acres or more — which is zoned for agriculture in Yolo County that Helen Thomson has ever voted to change that designation?
I think by trying to slander her because you disagreed with her on the merits of Covell Village, it’s not her colors that are exposed but yours.