Commentary: Deafening Silence on Covell Village by Dunning and Others

On November 17, 2006, Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning maliciously excoriated Councilmember Lamar Heystek when the Councilmember made the observation that Target was “by no means a mandate.” Dunning responded surreptitiously that “target didn’t need a ‘mandate,’ just one vote.”

Imagine Dunning’s outrage had the county decided to step in and prevent the building of the new Target. He would be arguing that the county was blatantly and willfully ignoring the will of the Davis voters and overstepping its bounds.

In 2005 the Voters of Davis voted down the Covell Village by a wide margin, a measure that Dunning if he did not outright oppose, certainly had strong leaning in that direction during the Measure X campaign. And now this past Tuesday the county both staff and supervisors were talking about resurrecting that project along with two others. What was Dunning’s response? Was it outrage? Did he blast the County for usurping the will of the Davis voter? Did he hold Supervisor Helen Thomson, a Yes on Covell Village supporter, in contempt for ignoring the clear will of Davis voters?

I read his column from yesterday with great interest. But amazingly instead of going after the county for trying to thwart the will of Davis voters, Dunning is taking shots at the Davis City Council for trying to protect the right of the city to determine its own growth.

“YOLO CONTENDERS … boy, does our City Council like to think it’s in control or what? … stunned that the county might actually try to have a say in the where and how of growth in this Yolo Wonderland, Councilman Steve Souza said “I want a strong and forceful letter sent to the county.” … in other words, send the growth to Dunnigan …”

Hey it is not like the Davis voters didn’t vote against one of the projects by a 60-40 margin. It is not like the City of Davis and the County of Yolo did not sign a pass-through agreement. It is not like the City of Davis is not due to pay the county $72 million over the next 18 years–more than the rest of the cities in Yolo County combined–not to develop on Davis’ periphery. And it is certainly not like the Davis voters did not pass Measure J–a measure that Dunning claims he supported–that gives the Davis voters the right to determine what projects to approve and what projects they disapprove.

If Dunning wanted to be clever, perhaps he could have quipped that for the one time in our memories the entire Davis City Council agreed on something–that growth in Davis’ sphere of influence, on its periphery, should be determined by the city of Davis and not Yolo County. Instead of signaling any agreement with the Council’s apparent unanimity in this instance, he chose to mock the bedrock of our land use policies for the last 20 years, which is very telling. One can infer without much strain his ambivalence about the concept behind Measure J, which is up for renewal in 2010.

Hey it is easy to poke fun of Bill Kopper’s efforts to stop this land deal. I too thought it was premature to talk recall before a vote was taken. But let me tell you something, Bob Dunning was dead wrong when he said on Friday that recall was “dead on arrival.” At 3:45 pm yesterday, before the board of Supervisors took a very quick about face, the recall was alive and well and the General was coming down from the mountain to lead the charge.

And let me tell you something else, the amount of times that recall was raised by the public on Tuesday was once. But it was raised repeatedly, over and over again without prompting by members of the Board of Supervisors, specifically Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada. They complained about it. They whined about it. It got under their skin. But at the end of the day, the threat of recall was one factor among many that led to the halt. No sir, the recall was not dead on arrival, it was very much alive.

I read in today’s Dick Dorf column, Dorf’s continued support for development at Covell Village. Mr. Dorf was a strong and outspoken supporter of Measure X. Sir, your side lost. Your side lost by a very wide margin. Do you really believe it when then Mayor Asmundson said, the “voters didn’t understand what the 1,864-unit development offered” or that “We needed to educate the community better on the project,” as she did April 30, 2006? Sir, we did understand the project, the costs, the liabilities, the traffic, the air pollution, the unaffordability and ultimately in large numbers decided to vote no.

Bob Dunning attacked Councilmember Heystek when he issued a mild statement about the closeness of the Target vote precluding a large mandate but said nothing when the County Board of Supervisors tried to overturn the landslide no-on Measure X vote.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

124 thoughts on “Commentary: Deafening Silence on Covell Village by Dunning and Others”

  1. Anonymous

    Is Bob coming to the Vanguard birthday party?

    Maybe if he meets and knows people who read the Vanguard, he might just find that they aren’t so bad.

    You know, the Enterprise could really use a sports reporter that really covered local sports. Hmmmm…..

  2. Anonymous

    Is Bob coming to the Vanguard birthday party?

    Maybe if he meets and knows people who read the Vanguard, he might just find that they aren’t so bad.

    You know, the Enterprise could really use a sports reporter that really covered local sports. Hmmmm…..

  3. Anonymous

    Is Bob coming to the Vanguard birthday party?

    Maybe if he meets and knows people who read the Vanguard, he might just find that they aren’t so bad.

    You know, the Enterprise could really use a sports reporter that really covered local sports. Hmmmm…..

  4. Anonymous

    Is Bob coming to the Vanguard birthday party?

    Maybe if he meets and knows people who read the Vanguard, he might just find that they aren’t so bad.

    You know, the Enterprise could really use a sports reporter that really covered local sports. Hmmmm…..

  5. progressive observer

    The Davis Vanguard once again points out the inconsistencies of Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning. Never before was there a method or vehicle by which the community could hold the man accountable for his arguments, prior pronouncements and messed up logic. Thankfully, the PVD and DPD shines a beacon of light on Mr. Dunning and other Davis Enterprise columnists, reporters and editors who frequently misstate or omit the facts and show clear bias and misdirection in their writings.

  6. progressive observer

    The Davis Vanguard once again points out the inconsistencies of Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning. Never before was there a method or vehicle by which the community could hold the man accountable for his arguments, prior pronouncements and messed up logic. Thankfully, the PVD and DPD shines a beacon of light on Mr. Dunning and other Davis Enterprise columnists, reporters and editors who frequently misstate or omit the facts and show clear bias and misdirection in their writings.

  7. progressive observer

    The Davis Vanguard once again points out the inconsistencies of Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning. Never before was there a method or vehicle by which the community could hold the man accountable for his arguments, prior pronouncements and messed up logic. Thankfully, the PVD and DPD shines a beacon of light on Mr. Dunning and other Davis Enterprise columnists, reporters and editors who frequently misstate or omit the facts and show clear bias and misdirection in their writings.

  8. progressive observer

    The Davis Vanguard once again points out the inconsistencies of Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning. Never before was there a method or vehicle by which the community could hold the man accountable for his arguments, prior pronouncements and messed up logic. Thankfully, the PVD and DPD shines a beacon of light on Mr. Dunning and other Davis Enterprise columnists, reporters and editors who frequently misstate or omit the facts and show clear bias and misdirection in their writings.

  9. Anonymous

    The Covell Village project was certainly defeated. And for plenty of good reasons. (size, timing, etc.) Nobody disputes that. What is also indisputable is that there is no more appropriate piece of property for development of similar size in Davis anyhwere else. Not anywhere. Bordered on three sides by development, closer to the core than much of Davis, once in the General Plan when Wildhorse was approved, there simply is no argument for approving any peripheral development in Davis anywhere else before developing the CV site. Whether it’s 10 years or 50 years, that’s the logical place. By continually opposing that location, people on this site look silly and unreasonable and are essentially saying No to everything forever. If that’s your position, OK. But be honest and say so.

  10. Anonymous

    The Covell Village project was certainly defeated. And for plenty of good reasons. (size, timing, etc.) Nobody disputes that. What is also indisputable is that there is no more appropriate piece of property for development of similar size in Davis anyhwere else. Not anywhere. Bordered on three sides by development, closer to the core than much of Davis, once in the General Plan when Wildhorse was approved, there simply is no argument for approving any peripheral development in Davis anywhere else before developing the CV site. Whether it’s 10 years or 50 years, that’s the logical place. By continually opposing that location, people on this site look silly and unreasonable and are essentially saying No to everything forever. If that’s your position, OK. But be honest and say so.

  11. Anonymous

    The Covell Village project was certainly defeated. And for plenty of good reasons. (size, timing, etc.) Nobody disputes that. What is also indisputable is that there is no more appropriate piece of property for development of similar size in Davis anyhwere else. Not anywhere. Bordered on three sides by development, closer to the core than much of Davis, once in the General Plan when Wildhorse was approved, there simply is no argument for approving any peripheral development in Davis anywhere else before developing the CV site. Whether it’s 10 years or 50 years, that’s the logical place. By continually opposing that location, people on this site look silly and unreasonable and are essentially saying No to everything forever. If that’s your position, OK. But be honest and say so.

  12. Anonymous

    The Covell Village project was certainly defeated. And for plenty of good reasons. (size, timing, etc.) Nobody disputes that. What is also indisputable is that there is no more appropriate piece of property for development of similar size in Davis anyhwere else. Not anywhere. Bordered on three sides by development, closer to the core than much of Davis, once in the General Plan when Wildhorse was approved, there simply is no argument for approving any peripheral development in Davis anywhere else before developing the CV site. Whether it’s 10 years or 50 years, that’s the logical place. By continually opposing that location, people on this site look silly and unreasonable and are essentially saying No to everything forever. If that’s your position, OK. But be honest and say so.

  13. Anonymous

    Agreed. Now be a little more honest and say the city should eventually do something there, or say they should never do something there. And if the answer is never, than say where else is better.

  14. Anonymous

    Agreed. Now be a little more honest and say the city should eventually do something there, or say they should never do something there. And if the answer is never, than say where else is better.

  15. Anonymous

    Agreed. Now be a little more honest and say the city should eventually do something there, or say they should never do something there. And if the answer is never, than say where else is better.

  16. Anonymous

    Agreed. Now be a little more honest and say the city should eventually do something there, or say they should never do something there. And if the answer is never, than say where else is better.

  17. Vincente

    I’m not willing to go on the never path. That’s long past our lifetimes. I don’t think the city should do anything there in the foreseeable future. However if pressed, I would support 50 acres of development on that site of small houses on small lots–selling at roughly 200K-300K a piece.

  18. Vincente

    I’m not willing to go on the never path. That’s long past our lifetimes. I don’t think the city should do anything there in the foreseeable future. However if pressed, I would support 50 acres of development on that site of small houses on small lots–selling at roughly 200K-300K a piece.

  19. Vincente

    I’m not willing to go on the never path. That’s long past our lifetimes. I don’t think the city should do anything there in the foreseeable future. However if pressed, I would support 50 acres of development on that site of small houses on small lots–selling at roughly 200K-300K a piece.

  20. Vincente

    I’m not willing to go on the never path. That’s long past our lifetimes. I don’t think the city should do anything there in the foreseeable future. However if pressed, I would support 50 acres of development on that site of small houses on small lots–selling at roughly 200K-300K a piece.

  21. Lyle Smith

    The Covell Village site is totally unsuitable for any kind of growth until the traffic issue is dealt with in an honest manner.

    Planning for growth is not an exercies in putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Yes, the Covell Village site is surrounded on three sides by development. Yet building there is fiscally irresponsible (among breaking any number of 21st Century smart growth concepts).

    Who is going to build the roads? City isn’t. County isn’t. The developers aren’t going to pay anywhere near their fair share because not even their large profit on such a project would cover the road infastructure.

    Traffic problems permanently dooms this site for development.

  22. Lyle Smith

    The Covell Village site is totally unsuitable for any kind of growth until the traffic issue is dealt with in an honest manner.

    Planning for growth is not an exercies in putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Yes, the Covell Village site is surrounded on three sides by development. Yet building there is fiscally irresponsible (among breaking any number of 21st Century smart growth concepts).

    Who is going to build the roads? City isn’t. County isn’t. The developers aren’t going to pay anywhere near their fair share because not even their large profit on such a project would cover the road infastructure.

    Traffic problems permanently dooms this site for development.

  23. Lyle Smith

    The Covell Village site is totally unsuitable for any kind of growth until the traffic issue is dealt with in an honest manner.

    Planning for growth is not an exercies in putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Yes, the Covell Village site is surrounded on three sides by development. Yet building there is fiscally irresponsible (among breaking any number of 21st Century smart growth concepts).

    Who is going to build the roads? City isn’t. County isn’t. The developers aren’t going to pay anywhere near their fair share because not even their large profit on such a project would cover the road infastructure.

    Traffic problems permanently dooms this site for development.

  24. Lyle Smith

    The Covell Village site is totally unsuitable for any kind of growth until the traffic issue is dealt with in an honest manner.

    Planning for growth is not an exercies in putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Yes, the Covell Village site is surrounded on three sides by development. Yet building there is fiscally irresponsible (among breaking any number of 21st Century smart growth concepts).

    Who is going to build the roads? City isn’t. County isn’t. The developers aren’t going to pay anywhere near their fair share because not even their large profit on such a project would cover the road infastructure.

    Traffic problems permanently dooms this site for development.

  25. Anonymous

    It is certainly conceivable that the CV property will never be developed to a significant degree with residential housing. The Woodland development just up the road as well as the probable Hunt-Wessen site could very well make it unfeasible-traffic-wise. If the CV property is brought foward for some minimal development, part of the package needs to be guarantees that this will be the limit of northward residential development there,i.e. permanent easments, permanent agricultural land dedication. A thorough analysis of impacts and the fees necessary needs to be pressed.. no more profit “gifts” to local friendly developers.

  26. Anonymous

    It is certainly conceivable that the CV property will never be developed to a significant degree with residential housing. The Woodland development just up the road as well as the probable Hunt-Wessen site could very well make it unfeasible-traffic-wise. If the CV property is brought foward for some minimal development, part of the package needs to be guarantees that this will be the limit of northward residential development there,i.e. permanent easments, permanent agricultural land dedication. A thorough analysis of impacts and the fees necessary needs to be pressed.. no more profit “gifts” to local friendly developers.

  27. Anonymous

    It is certainly conceivable that the CV property will never be developed to a significant degree with residential housing. The Woodland development just up the road as well as the probable Hunt-Wessen site could very well make it unfeasible-traffic-wise. If the CV property is brought foward for some minimal development, part of the package needs to be guarantees that this will be the limit of northward residential development there,i.e. permanent easments, permanent agricultural land dedication. A thorough analysis of impacts and the fees necessary needs to be pressed.. no more profit “gifts” to local friendly developers.

  28. Anonymous

    It is certainly conceivable that the CV property will never be developed to a significant degree with residential housing. The Woodland development just up the road as well as the probable Hunt-Wessen site could very well make it unfeasible-traffic-wise. If the CV property is brought foward for some minimal development, part of the package needs to be guarantees that this will be the limit of northward residential development there,i.e. permanent easments, permanent agricultural land dedication. A thorough analysis of impacts and the fees necessary needs to be pressed.. no more profit “gifts” to local friendly developers.

  29. Don Shor

    “And now this past Tuesday the county both staff and supervisors were talking about resurrecting that project…”
    I don’t think that ‘resurrecting that project’ is what the county was talking about at all. They were talking about maybe developing something there someday.

    Covell Village was opposed by people for a lot of different reasons, but IMO the main reason was that it just was too big. To construe the vote against Measure X as a vote against any development of that site whatsoever probably misreads the voters.

    Houses at $200 – 300K? Half the median price of current Dixon homes? Seems unlikely anywhere in this area.

    If you want to look at examples of greater density at a range of prices, just look across the street from CV at Green Meadows (the streets named after Impressionist artists) and La Buena Vida (the quad-plexes north of those).

  30. Don Shor

    “And now this past Tuesday the county both staff and supervisors were talking about resurrecting that project…”
    I don’t think that ‘resurrecting that project’ is what the county was talking about at all. They were talking about maybe developing something there someday.

    Covell Village was opposed by people for a lot of different reasons, but IMO the main reason was that it just was too big. To construe the vote against Measure X as a vote against any development of that site whatsoever probably misreads the voters.

    Houses at $200 – 300K? Half the median price of current Dixon homes? Seems unlikely anywhere in this area.

    If you want to look at examples of greater density at a range of prices, just look across the street from CV at Green Meadows (the streets named after Impressionist artists) and La Buena Vida (the quad-plexes north of those).

  31. Don Shor

    “And now this past Tuesday the county both staff and supervisors were talking about resurrecting that project…”
    I don’t think that ‘resurrecting that project’ is what the county was talking about at all. They were talking about maybe developing something there someday.

    Covell Village was opposed by people for a lot of different reasons, but IMO the main reason was that it just was too big. To construe the vote against Measure X as a vote against any development of that site whatsoever probably misreads the voters.

    Houses at $200 – 300K? Half the median price of current Dixon homes? Seems unlikely anywhere in this area.

    If you want to look at examples of greater density at a range of prices, just look across the street from CV at Green Meadows (the streets named after Impressionist artists) and La Buena Vida (the quad-plexes north of those).

  32. Don Shor

    “And now this past Tuesday the county both staff and supervisors were talking about resurrecting that project…”
    I don’t think that ‘resurrecting that project’ is what the county was talking about at all. They were talking about maybe developing something there someday.

    Covell Village was opposed by people for a lot of different reasons, but IMO the main reason was that it just was too big. To construe the vote against Measure X as a vote against any development of that site whatsoever probably misreads the voters.

    Houses at $200 – 300K? Half the median price of current Dixon homes? Seems unlikely anywhere in this area.

    If you want to look at examples of greater density at a range of prices, just look across the street from CV at Green Meadows (the streets named after Impressionist artists) and La Buena Vida (the quad-plexes north of those).

  33. Anonymous

    Don Shor said:
    “I don’t think that ‘resurrecting that project’ is what the county was talking about at all.”

    Don-I think that you are being a little TOO naive here . I don’t think that it is a conspiratorial delusion to recognize that the current Council Majority still wants to bring back the CV project for another “bite at the apple”. I do not think that it is a coincidence that Thomson and McGowen with their Yolo devleoper connections and Mariko for her own reasons tried to put the screws to the Davis voter with their threats to “study” CV for County development in violation of our pass-through agreement. We WILL see the CV proposal again(perhaps in some modified form, depending on the perceived anti-CV grassroots strength).

  34. Anonymous

    Don Shor said:
    “I don’t think that ‘resurrecting that project’ is what the county was talking about at all.”

    Don-I think that you are being a little TOO naive here . I don’t think that it is a conspiratorial delusion to recognize that the current Council Majority still wants to bring back the CV project for another “bite at the apple”. I do not think that it is a coincidence that Thomson and McGowen with their Yolo devleoper connections and Mariko for her own reasons tried to put the screws to the Davis voter with their threats to “study” CV for County development in violation of our pass-through agreement. We WILL see the CV proposal again(perhaps in some modified form, depending on the perceived anti-CV grassroots strength).

  35. Anonymous

    Don Shor said:
    “I don’t think that ‘resurrecting that project’ is what the county was talking about at all.”

    Don-I think that you are being a little TOO naive here . I don’t think that it is a conspiratorial delusion to recognize that the current Council Majority still wants to bring back the CV project for another “bite at the apple”. I do not think that it is a coincidence that Thomson and McGowen with their Yolo devleoper connections and Mariko for her own reasons tried to put the screws to the Davis voter with their threats to “study” CV for County development in violation of our pass-through agreement. We WILL see the CV proposal again(perhaps in some modified form, depending on the perceived anti-CV grassroots strength).

  36. Anonymous

    Don Shor said:
    “I don’t think that ‘resurrecting that project’ is what the county was talking about at all.”

    Don-I think that you are being a little TOO naive here . I don’t think that it is a conspiratorial delusion to recognize that the current Council Majority still wants to bring back the CV project for another “bite at the apple”. I do not think that it is a coincidence that Thomson and McGowen with their Yolo devleoper connections and Mariko for her own reasons tried to put the screws to the Davis voter with their threats to “study” CV for County development in violation of our pass-through agreement. We WILL see the CV proposal again(perhaps in some modified form, depending on the perceived anti-CV grassroots strength).

  37. Charlie Paige

    ” I don’t think that it is a conspiratorial delusion to recognize that the current Council Majority still wants to bring back the CV project.”

    Bringing back CV would be political suicide. Not one person on the city council wants to commit political suicide.

    However, it’s possible that some who opposed CV will accept a much smaller project on the Covell Village property, such as a proposal which has no single family housing. For example, if Cannery Park is approved, a development (retail, offices, some apartments and light industry) that fronts Covell Boulevard between Pole Line Road and the Hunt-Wesson property could win support. If that kind of development were about 1/3 the size of Covell Village — in terms of total developed land — and it didn’t overly flood the existing streets with traffic, it might have a chance to pass a Measure J vote.

  38. Charlie Paige

    ” I don’t think that it is a conspiratorial delusion to recognize that the current Council Majority still wants to bring back the CV project.”

    Bringing back CV would be political suicide. Not one person on the city council wants to commit political suicide.

    However, it’s possible that some who opposed CV will accept a much smaller project on the Covell Village property, such as a proposal which has no single family housing. For example, if Cannery Park is approved, a development (retail, offices, some apartments and light industry) that fronts Covell Boulevard between Pole Line Road and the Hunt-Wesson property could win support. If that kind of development were about 1/3 the size of Covell Village — in terms of total developed land — and it didn’t overly flood the existing streets with traffic, it might have a chance to pass a Measure J vote.

  39. Charlie Paige

    ” I don’t think that it is a conspiratorial delusion to recognize that the current Council Majority still wants to bring back the CV project.”

    Bringing back CV would be political suicide. Not one person on the city council wants to commit political suicide.

    However, it’s possible that some who opposed CV will accept a much smaller project on the Covell Village property, such as a proposal which has no single family housing. For example, if Cannery Park is approved, a development (retail, offices, some apartments and light industry) that fronts Covell Boulevard between Pole Line Road and the Hunt-Wesson property could win support. If that kind of development were about 1/3 the size of Covell Village — in terms of total developed land — and it didn’t overly flood the existing streets with traffic, it might have a chance to pass a Measure J vote.

  40. Charlie Paige

    ” I don’t think that it is a conspiratorial delusion to recognize that the current Council Majority still wants to bring back the CV project.”

    Bringing back CV would be political suicide. Not one person on the city council wants to commit political suicide.

    However, it’s possible that some who opposed CV will accept a much smaller project on the Covell Village property, such as a proposal which has no single family housing. For example, if Cannery Park is approved, a development (retail, offices, some apartments and light industry) that fronts Covell Boulevard between Pole Line Road and the Hunt-Wesson property could win support. If that kind of development were about 1/3 the size of Covell Village — in terms of total developed land — and it didn’t overly flood the existing streets with traffic, it might have a chance to pass a Measure J vote.

  41. Anonymous

    Charlie Page: We will see. This smells a lot like the squeeze play that was pulled on Davis with the Mace Ranch developemt by the developer Ramos/County cabal. It does give some political cover for Council members who will claim that they were defending Davis with all their might but were overwhelmed by County pressures. That’s what the Pass-through agreement was created to prevent and as we can see, the County(and our own two Supervisors) are attempting to dramatically erode its provisions which do not call for negotiations but rather Davis having sole decision-making authority. As for a much smaller CV project, fronting Covell, this might fly but I would hope that the city would demand that easments and
    permanent agricultural dedications permanently prevented a piecemeal spread northward of residential development of what is left of the 383 acres.

  42. Anonymous

    Charlie Page: We will see. This smells a lot like the squeeze play that was pulled on Davis with the Mace Ranch developemt by the developer Ramos/County cabal. It does give some political cover for Council members who will claim that they were defending Davis with all their might but were overwhelmed by County pressures. That’s what the Pass-through agreement was created to prevent and as we can see, the County(and our own two Supervisors) are attempting to dramatically erode its provisions which do not call for negotiations but rather Davis having sole decision-making authority. As for a much smaller CV project, fronting Covell, this might fly but I would hope that the city would demand that easments and
    permanent agricultural dedications permanently prevented a piecemeal spread northward of residential development of what is left of the 383 acres.

  43. Anonymous

    Charlie Page: We will see. This smells a lot like the squeeze play that was pulled on Davis with the Mace Ranch developemt by the developer Ramos/County cabal. It does give some political cover for Council members who will claim that they were defending Davis with all their might but were overwhelmed by County pressures. That’s what the Pass-through agreement was created to prevent and as we can see, the County(and our own two Supervisors) are attempting to dramatically erode its provisions which do not call for negotiations but rather Davis having sole decision-making authority. As for a much smaller CV project, fronting Covell, this might fly but I would hope that the city would demand that easments and
    permanent agricultural dedications permanently prevented a piecemeal spread northward of residential development of what is left of the 383 acres.

  44. Anonymous

    Charlie Page: We will see. This smells a lot like the squeeze play that was pulled on Davis with the Mace Ranch developemt by the developer Ramos/County cabal. It does give some political cover for Council members who will claim that they were defending Davis with all their might but were overwhelmed by County pressures. That’s what the Pass-through agreement was created to prevent and as we can see, the County(and our own two Supervisors) are attempting to dramatically erode its provisions which do not call for negotiations but rather Davis having sole decision-making authority. As for a much smaller CV project, fronting Covell, this might fly but I would hope that the city would demand that easments and
    permanent agricultural dedications permanently prevented a piecemeal spread northward of residential development of what is left of the 383 acres.

  45. Anonymous

    I too thought it was premature to talk recall before a vote was taken.

    DPD: Without the talk of recall, how do you think the Supervisors’ vote would have gone?

  46. Anonymous

    I too thought it was premature to talk recall before a vote was taken.

    DPD: Without the talk of recall, how do you think the Supervisors’ vote would have gone?

  47. Anonymous

    I too thought it was premature to talk recall before a vote was taken.

    DPD: Without the talk of recall, how do you think the Supervisors’ vote would have gone?

  48. Anonymous

    I too thought it was premature to talk recall before a vote was taken.

    DPD: Without the talk of recall, how do you think the Supervisors’ vote would have gone?

  49. Mike

    Come on, give Bob a break… He lives in East Davis and anything looks good from that side of the tracks; Target, Covell Village, heck even Traitor Joes looks good!

  50. Mike

    Come on, give Bob a break… He lives in East Davis and anything looks good from that side of the tracks; Target, Covell Village, heck even Traitor Joes looks good!

  51. Mike

    Come on, give Bob a break… He lives in East Davis and anything looks good from that side of the tracks; Target, Covell Village, heck even Traitor Joes looks good!

  52. Mike

    Come on, give Bob a break… He lives in East Davis and anything looks good from that side of the tracks; Target, Covell Village, heck even Traitor Joes looks good!

  53. Anonymous

    When the Covell Village site was on the table at one of the Blue Print Process meetings here in Davis, virtually every table in the room (probably about 200 people) recommended a much smaller project: 1/3 to 1/2 of the site developed in the south, with mixed use and truly affordable housing: town houses, condominiums, apartments, etc. Smaller homes and higher density. The two to one ag mitigation on site. The developers completely ignored the wishes of the people, and proposed the huge development with big, expensive, unaffordable houses, huge traffic impacts, and negative fiscal benefits to the city. They believed that if they threw enough money at it, they would win. They were soundly defeated. If they had come forward with the type of development the people suggested, and could also have really mitigated for traffic impacts, the project may have passed. But it was truly dead on arrival.

  54. Anonymous

    When the Covell Village site was on the table at one of the Blue Print Process meetings here in Davis, virtually every table in the room (probably about 200 people) recommended a much smaller project: 1/3 to 1/2 of the site developed in the south, with mixed use and truly affordable housing: town houses, condominiums, apartments, etc. Smaller homes and higher density. The two to one ag mitigation on site. The developers completely ignored the wishes of the people, and proposed the huge development with big, expensive, unaffordable houses, huge traffic impacts, and negative fiscal benefits to the city. They believed that if they threw enough money at it, they would win. They were soundly defeated. If they had come forward with the type of development the people suggested, and could also have really mitigated for traffic impacts, the project may have passed. But it was truly dead on arrival.

  55. Anonymous

    When the Covell Village site was on the table at one of the Blue Print Process meetings here in Davis, virtually every table in the room (probably about 200 people) recommended a much smaller project: 1/3 to 1/2 of the site developed in the south, with mixed use and truly affordable housing: town houses, condominiums, apartments, etc. Smaller homes and higher density. The two to one ag mitigation on site. The developers completely ignored the wishes of the people, and proposed the huge development with big, expensive, unaffordable houses, huge traffic impacts, and negative fiscal benefits to the city. They believed that if they threw enough money at it, they would win. They were soundly defeated. If they had come forward with the type of development the people suggested, and could also have really mitigated for traffic impacts, the project may have passed. But it was truly dead on arrival.

  56. Anonymous

    When the Covell Village site was on the table at one of the Blue Print Process meetings here in Davis, virtually every table in the room (probably about 200 people) recommended a much smaller project: 1/3 to 1/2 of the site developed in the south, with mixed use and truly affordable housing: town houses, condominiums, apartments, etc. Smaller homes and higher density. The two to one ag mitigation on site. The developers completely ignored the wishes of the people, and proposed the huge development with big, expensive, unaffordable houses, huge traffic impacts, and negative fiscal benefits to the city. They believed that if they threw enough money at it, they would win. They were soundly defeated. If they had come forward with the type of development the people suggested, and could also have really mitigated for traffic impacts, the project may have passed. But it was truly dead on arrival.

  57. Anonymous

    I’m hearing a consensus in the above discussion, from a wide range of views, that in fact the CV site (not the old project) is indeed the next most sensible place for Davis to grow on land that has not been developed in the past. (Timeframe to be debated of course.) At least nobody has named a better site. So how about starting some intelligent discussions about it rather than refighting the past war? And how about not wasting time talking about other sites until you deal with this one?

  58. Anonymous

    I’m hearing a consensus in the above discussion, from a wide range of views, that in fact the CV site (not the old project) is indeed the next most sensible place for Davis to grow on land that has not been developed in the past. (Timeframe to be debated of course.) At least nobody has named a better site. So how about starting some intelligent discussions about it rather than refighting the past war? And how about not wasting time talking about other sites until you deal with this one?

  59. Anonymous

    I’m hearing a consensus in the above discussion, from a wide range of views, that in fact the CV site (not the old project) is indeed the next most sensible place for Davis to grow on land that has not been developed in the past. (Timeframe to be debated of course.) At least nobody has named a better site. So how about starting some intelligent discussions about it rather than refighting the past war? And how about not wasting time talking about other sites until you deal with this one?

  60. Anonymous

    I’m hearing a consensus in the above discussion, from a wide range of views, that in fact the CV site (not the old project) is indeed the next most sensible place for Davis to grow on land that has not been developed in the past. (Timeframe to be debated of course.) At least nobody has named a better site. So how about starting some intelligent discussions about it rather than refighting the past war? And how about not wasting time talking about other sites until you deal with this one?

  61. Anonymous

    “…So how about starting some intelligent discussions about it rather than refighting the past war?”

    The public trust of Saylor, Souza and Asmundson on the Covell Village issue is irreversibly destroyed. There is little chance of coming together on this issue until they are out of majority power.

  62. Anonymous

    “…So how about starting some intelligent discussions about it rather than refighting the past war?”

    The public trust of Saylor, Souza and Asmundson on the Covell Village issue is irreversibly destroyed. There is little chance of coming together on this issue until they are out of majority power.

  63. Anonymous

    “…So how about starting some intelligent discussions about it rather than refighting the past war?”

    The public trust of Saylor, Souza and Asmundson on the Covell Village issue is irreversibly destroyed. There is little chance of coming together on this issue until they are out of majority power.

  64. Anonymous

    “…So how about starting some intelligent discussions about it rather than refighting the past war?”

    The public trust of Saylor, Souza and Asmundson on the Covell Village issue is irreversibly destroyed. There is little chance of coming together on this issue until they are out of majority power.

  65. Lyle Smith

    The Covell Village site is permanently hobbled by the lack of road infrastructure.

    If, and that’s a big if, you are going to give up ag land, take whatever plan you come up with for the Covell site and put it where you can put traffic directly onto 113.

    Fiscally, the 113 corridor makes a hell of a lot more sense.

  66. Lyle Smith

    The Covell Village site is permanently hobbled by the lack of road infrastructure.

    If, and that’s a big if, you are going to give up ag land, take whatever plan you come up with for the Covell site and put it where you can put traffic directly onto 113.

    Fiscally, the 113 corridor makes a hell of a lot more sense.

  67. Lyle Smith

    The Covell Village site is permanently hobbled by the lack of road infrastructure.

    If, and that’s a big if, you are going to give up ag land, take whatever plan you come up with for the Covell site and put it where you can put traffic directly onto 113.

    Fiscally, the 113 corridor makes a hell of a lot more sense.

  68. Lyle Smith

    The Covell Village site is permanently hobbled by the lack of road infrastructure.

    If, and that’s a big if, you are going to give up ag land, take whatever plan you come up with for the Covell site and put it where you can put traffic directly onto 113.

    Fiscally, the 113 corridor makes a hell of a lot more sense.

  69. Anonymous

    Lyle,
    I’m sorry to say your 113 development idea only perpepuates and exacerbates the problems of automobile dependent sprawl development. At least the CV site has potential for pedestrian and bicycle friendly smart growth pricniples with a location close to downtown, schools and shopping. It’s the only site that can’t accurately be called “sprawl.”

  70. Anonymous

    Lyle,
    I’m sorry to say your 113 development idea only perpepuates and exacerbates the problems of automobile dependent sprawl development. At least the CV site has potential for pedestrian and bicycle friendly smart growth pricniples with a location close to downtown, schools and shopping. It’s the only site that can’t accurately be called “sprawl.”

  71. Anonymous

    Lyle,
    I’m sorry to say your 113 development idea only perpepuates and exacerbates the problems of automobile dependent sprawl development. At least the CV site has potential for pedestrian and bicycle friendly smart growth pricniples with a location close to downtown, schools and shopping. It’s the only site that can’t accurately be called “sprawl.”

  72. Anonymous

    Lyle,
    I’m sorry to say your 113 development idea only perpepuates and exacerbates the problems of automobile dependent sprawl development. At least the CV site has potential for pedestrian and bicycle friendly smart growth pricniples with a location close to downtown, schools and shopping. It’s the only site that can’t accurately be called “sprawl.”

  73. NO on Xer

    If you go way back in the Enterprise archives, you will find Mike Corbett(perhaps before he was hired on as the Covell Village front- man, saying, in effect, that the traffic problems at this site were somethng that the Davis voter would have to accept or not.. there was no solution to them.. Then, he came up with the solution, free bus passes!

  74. NO on Xer

    If you go way back in the Enterprise archives, you will find Mike Corbett(perhaps before he was hired on as the Covell Village front- man, saying, in effect, that the traffic problems at this site were somethng that the Davis voter would have to accept or not.. there was no solution to them.. Then, he came up with the solution, free bus passes!

  75. NO on Xer

    If you go way back in the Enterprise archives, you will find Mike Corbett(perhaps before he was hired on as the Covell Village front- man, saying, in effect, that the traffic problems at this site were somethng that the Davis voter would have to accept or not.. there was no solution to them.. Then, he came up with the solution, free bus passes!

  76. NO on Xer

    If you go way back in the Enterprise archives, you will find Mike Corbett(perhaps before he was hired on as the Covell Village front- man, saying, in effect, that the traffic problems at this site were somethng that the Davis voter would have to accept or not.. there was no solution to them.. Then, he came up with the solution, free bus passes!

  77. Vincente

    Lyle is essentially right here. There is not the infrastructure to sustain that type of growth there and really no good chance to add that infrastructure given current configurations.

    “At least the CV site has potential for pedestrian and bicycle friendly smart growth pricniples with a location close to downtown, schools and shopping. It’s the only site that can’t accurately be called “sprawl.””

    That’s really pie in the sky. People may indeed be encouraged to use bikes and walk places in town, but when they head off to work each morning, they are going to clog Covell Blvd. with massive traffic jams and pollution and there is no other realistic outlet that can be added. There is no avoiding that.

    So it may not constitute sprawl, but it represents a fundamentally unworkable arrangement.

  78. Vincente

    Lyle is essentially right here. There is not the infrastructure to sustain that type of growth there and really no good chance to add that infrastructure given current configurations.

    “At least the CV site has potential for pedestrian and bicycle friendly smart growth pricniples with a location close to downtown, schools and shopping. It’s the only site that can’t accurately be called “sprawl.””

    That’s really pie in the sky. People may indeed be encouraged to use bikes and walk places in town, but when they head off to work each morning, they are going to clog Covell Blvd. with massive traffic jams and pollution and there is no other realistic outlet that can be added. There is no avoiding that.

    So it may not constitute sprawl, but it represents a fundamentally unworkable arrangement.

  79. Vincente

    Lyle is essentially right here. There is not the infrastructure to sustain that type of growth there and really no good chance to add that infrastructure given current configurations.

    “At least the CV site has potential for pedestrian and bicycle friendly smart growth pricniples with a location close to downtown, schools and shopping. It’s the only site that can’t accurately be called “sprawl.””

    That’s really pie in the sky. People may indeed be encouraged to use bikes and walk places in town, but when they head off to work each morning, they are going to clog Covell Blvd. with massive traffic jams and pollution and there is no other realistic outlet that can be added. There is no avoiding that.

    So it may not constitute sprawl, but it represents a fundamentally unworkable arrangement.

  80. Vincente

    Lyle is essentially right here. There is not the infrastructure to sustain that type of growth there and really no good chance to add that infrastructure given current configurations.

    “At least the CV site has potential for pedestrian and bicycle friendly smart growth pricniples with a location close to downtown, schools and shopping. It’s the only site that can’t accurately be called “sprawl.””

    That’s really pie in the sky. People may indeed be encouraged to use bikes and walk places in town, but when they head off to work each morning, they are going to clog Covell Blvd. with massive traffic jams and pollution and there is no other realistic outlet that can be added. There is no avoiding that.

    So it may not constitute sprawl, but it represents a fundamentally unworkable arrangement.

  81. Anonymous

    What happened to the democratic princple that political leaders are elected to represent the people? What we have, disgustingly, in our city council (specifically A,S&S) and Yamada and Thompson, are arrogant jerks who think they alone know what’s best for Davis.

    I, for one, am sick of their condesending tone, holier-than-thou mindset, and juvenille complaining and bickering. Our City Council should be ashamed of themselves for their junior-high school behavior towards each other. Let me take that back, because that is a disservice to actual junior high students…..

    Hypocritical know-it-all jerks. Vote them all away.

  82. Anonymous

    What happened to the democratic princple that political leaders are elected to represent the people? What we have, disgustingly, in our city council (specifically A,S&S) and Yamada and Thompson, are arrogant jerks who think they alone know what’s best for Davis.

    I, for one, am sick of their condesending tone, holier-than-thou mindset, and juvenille complaining and bickering. Our City Council should be ashamed of themselves for their junior-high school behavior towards each other. Let me take that back, because that is a disservice to actual junior high students…..

    Hypocritical know-it-all jerks. Vote them all away.

  83. Anonymous

    What happened to the democratic princple that political leaders are elected to represent the people? What we have, disgustingly, in our city council (specifically A,S&S) and Yamada and Thompson, are arrogant jerks who think they alone know what’s best for Davis.

    I, for one, am sick of their condesending tone, holier-than-thou mindset, and juvenille complaining and bickering. Our City Council should be ashamed of themselves for their junior-high school behavior towards each other. Let me take that back, because that is a disservice to actual junior high students…..

    Hypocritical know-it-all jerks. Vote them all away.

  84. Anonymous

    What happened to the democratic princple that political leaders are elected to represent the people? What we have, disgustingly, in our city council (specifically A,S&S) and Yamada and Thompson, are arrogant jerks who think they alone know what’s best for Davis.

    I, for one, am sick of their condesending tone, holier-than-thou mindset, and juvenille complaining and bickering. Our City Council should be ashamed of themselves for their junior-high school behavior towards each other. Let me take that back, because that is a disservice to actual junior high students…..

    Hypocritical know-it-all jerks. Vote them all away.

  85. brian in davis

    That’s really pie in the sky. People may indeed be encouraged to use bikes and walk places in town, but when they head off to work each morning, they are going to clog Covell Blvd. with massive traffic jams and pollution and there is no other realistic outlet that can be added. There is no avoiding that.

    So it may not constitute sprawl, but it represents a fundamentally unworkable arrangement

    Anonymous 5:39 has it exactly right. Your opposition against Covell Village is based upon the relatively small window of the A.M. and P.M. peak traffic times? You’ve got to be kidding me. So we should oppose an otherwise logical place for development based on the A.M. and P.M. peaks?! You’ve got to be kidding me. A “fundamentally unworkable arrangement” based on the A.M. and P.M. peak traffic is a fundamentally flawed argument for opposing an otherwise logical potential smart growth option. The anonymous poster is correct and is not exercising pie in the sky thinking. The CV site makes sense, your argument regarding traffic does not. Your conclusions regarding traffic concerns are overstated. A significant and unavoidable impact does not mean doomsday. You would be able to get where you need to go, it just may take a little longer. Plan for it. Give yourself an extra minute or two. As J.H. Kunstler would say, incessant easy motoring is not a given right.

    You also fail to acknowledge city GP policy prohibiting 6 lane arterials and community opposition to sidening intersections, which is where the real impacts occur. So developments such as CV cannot adequately mitigate their traffic impacts. If one is sincere about smart growth and affordable housing, one does not oppose projects based on traffic impacts since potential developers are unable to mitigate against them.

  86. brian in davis

    That’s really pie in the sky. People may indeed be encouraged to use bikes and walk places in town, but when they head off to work each morning, they are going to clog Covell Blvd. with massive traffic jams and pollution and there is no other realistic outlet that can be added. There is no avoiding that.

    So it may not constitute sprawl, but it represents a fundamentally unworkable arrangement

    Anonymous 5:39 has it exactly right. Your opposition against Covell Village is based upon the relatively small window of the A.M. and P.M. peak traffic times? You’ve got to be kidding me. So we should oppose an otherwise logical place for development based on the A.M. and P.M. peaks?! You’ve got to be kidding me. A “fundamentally unworkable arrangement” based on the A.M. and P.M. peak traffic is a fundamentally flawed argument for opposing an otherwise logical potential smart growth option. The anonymous poster is correct and is not exercising pie in the sky thinking. The CV site makes sense, your argument regarding traffic does not. Your conclusions regarding traffic concerns are overstated. A significant and unavoidable impact does not mean doomsday. You would be able to get where you need to go, it just may take a little longer. Plan for it. Give yourself an extra minute or two. As J.H. Kunstler would say, incessant easy motoring is not a given right.

    You also fail to acknowledge city GP policy prohibiting 6 lane arterials and community opposition to sidening intersections, which is where the real impacts occur. So developments such as CV cannot adequately mitigate their traffic impacts. If one is sincere about smart growth and affordable housing, one does not oppose projects based on traffic impacts since potential developers are unable to mitigate against them.

  87. brian in davis

    That’s really pie in the sky. People may indeed be encouraged to use bikes and walk places in town, but when they head off to work each morning, they are going to clog Covell Blvd. with massive traffic jams and pollution and there is no other realistic outlet that can be added. There is no avoiding that.

    So it may not constitute sprawl, but it represents a fundamentally unworkable arrangement

    Anonymous 5:39 has it exactly right. Your opposition against Covell Village is based upon the relatively small window of the A.M. and P.M. peak traffic times? You’ve got to be kidding me. So we should oppose an otherwise logical place for development based on the A.M. and P.M. peaks?! You’ve got to be kidding me. A “fundamentally unworkable arrangement” based on the A.M. and P.M. peak traffic is a fundamentally flawed argument for opposing an otherwise logical potential smart growth option. The anonymous poster is correct and is not exercising pie in the sky thinking. The CV site makes sense, your argument regarding traffic does not. Your conclusions regarding traffic concerns are overstated. A significant and unavoidable impact does not mean doomsday. You would be able to get where you need to go, it just may take a little longer. Plan for it. Give yourself an extra minute or two. As J.H. Kunstler would say, incessant easy motoring is not a given right.

    You also fail to acknowledge city GP policy prohibiting 6 lane arterials and community opposition to sidening intersections, which is where the real impacts occur. So developments such as CV cannot adequately mitigate their traffic impacts. If one is sincere about smart growth and affordable housing, one does not oppose projects based on traffic impacts since potential developers are unable to mitigate against them.

  88. brian in davis

    That’s really pie in the sky. People may indeed be encouraged to use bikes and walk places in town, but when they head off to work each morning, they are going to clog Covell Blvd. with massive traffic jams and pollution and there is no other realistic outlet that can be added. There is no avoiding that.

    So it may not constitute sprawl, but it represents a fundamentally unworkable arrangement

    Anonymous 5:39 has it exactly right. Your opposition against Covell Village is based upon the relatively small window of the A.M. and P.M. peak traffic times? You’ve got to be kidding me. So we should oppose an otherwise logical place for development based on the A.M. and P.M. peaks?! You’ve got to be kidding me. A “fundamentally unworkable arrangement” based on the A.M. and P.M. peak traffic is a fundamentally flawed argument for opposing an otherwise logical potential smart growth option. The anonymous poster is correct and is not exercising pie in the sky thinking. The CV site makes sense, your argument regarding traffic does not. Your conclusions regarding traffic concerns are overstated. A significant and unavoidable impact does not mean doomsday. You would be able to get where you need to go, it just may take a little longer. Plan for it. Give yourself an extra minute or two. As J.H. Kunstler would say, incessant easy motoring is not a given right.

    You also fail to acknowledge city GP policy prohibiting 6 lane arterials and community opposition to sidening intersections, which is where the real impacts occur. So developments such as CV cannot adequately mitigate their traffic impacts. If one is sincere about smart growth and affordable housing, one does not oppose projects based on traffic impacts since potential developers are unable to mitigate against them.

  89. brian in davis

    Some folks here would rather move development close to Hwy 113 to avoid traffic on Covell, clearly not recognizing that work trips only represent 1/4 of all vehicular trips a household makes. So we’re increasing the total number of vehicular trips and pollution to within Davis in order to reduce 1/4 of the household trips entering on Covell Blvd. Makes absolutely no sense.

    At best, the congestion and pollution issues are a wash.

  90. brian in davis

    Some folks here would rather move development close to Hwy 113 to avoid traffic on Covell, clearly not recognizing that work trips only represent 1/4 of all vehicular trips a household makes. So we’re increasing the total number of vehicular trips and pollution to within Davis in order to reduce 1/4 of the household trips entering on Covell Blvd. Makes absolutely no sense.

    At best, the congestion and pollution issues are a wash.

  91. brian in davis

    Some folks here would rather move development close to Hwy 113 to avoid traffic on Covell, clearly not recognizing that work trips only represent 1/4 of all vehicular trips a household makes. So we’re increasing the total number of vehicular trips and pollution to within Davis in order to reduce 1/4 of the household trips entering on Covell Blvd. Makes absolutely no sense.

    At best, the congestion and pollution issues are a wash.

  92. brian in davis

    Some folks here would rather move development close to Hwy 113 to avoid traffic on Covell, clearly not recognizing that work trips only represent 1/4 of all vehicular trips a household makes. So we’re increasing the total number of vehicular trips and pollution to within Davis in order to reduce 1/4 of the household trips entering on Covell Blvd. Makes absolutely no sense.

    At best, the congestion and pollution issues are a wash.

  93. Anonymous

    I see where Dick Dorf in his July 18, 2007 Davis Emptyprize [sic] column, pleads, echoing Rodney King, “can’t we just all get along?”
    But if you read between the lines of his column below, you’ll see the one-sided consequences of King’s plea, according to Dick Dorf.
    Open-mindedness orchestrated with a one-mind direction, Mr. Dorf?
    Which question is made possible by my appreciation of the People’s Vanguard of Davis’s commitment to true open-minded dialogue on major issues that matter to Davisites.
    The Dick Dorfs of this Davis world now get their “between-the-lines” one-sided opinions exposed to discussion and a plea like King’s is placed for debate in a democratic context instead of having to be taken at face value amongst the pages of the “Emptyprize.”
    (thanks, Yolo County Library’s access to Newsbank):

    Dick Dorf wrote:
    “In my opinion, the best option for a joint study is the property north of Covell Boulevard previously known as Covell Village.
    Let’s talk openly about a plan over the next 15 to 20 years that enables a buildout of the Lewis Communities project on the former Hunt-Wesson cannery site in consort with the Covell Village project.
    With an agreement [on massive development around the Davis area] …we can get back to working together on our common goals and avoid the unwelcome potential for a breakdown in discussion and effort between our county and city governments.”

  94. Anonymous

    I see where Dick Dorf in his July 18, 2007 Davis Emptyprize [sic] column, pleads, echoing Rodney King, “can’t we just all get along?”
    But if you read between the lines of his column below, you’ll see the one-sided consequences of King’s plea, according to Dick Dorf.
    Open-mindedness orchestrated with a one-mind direction, Mr. Dorf?
    Which question is made possible by my appreciation of the People’s Vanguard of Davis’s commitment to true open-minded dialogue on major issues that matter to Davisites.
    The Dick Dorfs of this Davis world now get their “between-the-lines” one-sided opinions exposed to discussion and a plea like King’s is placed for debate in a democratic context instead of having to be taken at face value amongst the pages of the “Emptyprize.”
    (thanks, Yolo County Library’s access to Newsbank):

    Dick Dorf wrote:
    “In my opinion, the best option for a joint study is the property north of Covell Boulevard previously known as Covell Village.
    Let’s talk openly about a plan over the next 15 to 20 years that enables a buildout of the Lewis Communities project on the former Hunt-Wesson cannery site in consort with the Covell Village project.
    With an agreement [on massive development around the Davis area] …we can get back to working together on our common goals and avoid the unwelcome potential for a breakdown in discussion and effort between our county and city governments.”

  95. Anonymous

    I see where Dick Dorf in his July 18, 2007 Davis Emptyprize [sic] column, pleads, echoing Rodney King, “can’t we just all get along?”
    But if you read between the lines of his column below, you’ll see the one-sided consequences of King’s plea, according to Dick Dorf.
    Open-mindedness orchestrated with a one-mind direction, Mr. Dorf?
    Which question is made possible by my appreciation of the People’s Vanguard of Davis’s commitment to true open-minded dialogue on major issues that matter to Davisites.
    The Dick Dorfs of this Davis world now get their “between-the-lines” one-sided opinions exposed to discussion and a plea like King’s is placed for debate in a democratic context instead of having to be taken at face value amongst the pages of the “Emptyprize.”
    (thanks, Yolo County Library’s access to Newsbank):

    Dick Dorf wrote:
    “In my opinion, the best option for a joint study is the property north of Covell Boulevard previously known as Covell Village.
    Let’s talk openly about a plan over the next 15 to 20 years that enables a buildout of the Lewis Communities project on the former Hunt-Wesson cannery site in consort with the Covell Village project.
    With an agreement [on massive development around the Davis area] …we can get back to working together on our common goals and avoid the unwelcome potential for a breakdown in discussion and effort between our county and city governments.”

  96. Anonymous

    I see where Dick Dorf in his July 18, 2007 Davis Emptyprize [sic] column, pleads, echoing Rodney King, “can’t we just all get along?”
    But if you read between the lines of his column below, you’ll see the one-sided consequences of King’s plea, according to Dick Dorf.
    Open-mindedness orchestrated with a one-mind direction, Mr. Dorf?
    Which question is made possible by my appreciation of the People’s Vanguard of Davis’s commitment to true open-minded dialogue on major issues that matter to Davisites.
    The Dick Dorfs of this Davis world now get their “between-the-lines” one-sided opinions exposed to discussion and a plea like King’s is placed for debate in a democratic context instead of having to be taken at face value amongst the pages of the “Emptyprize.”
    (thanks, Yolo County Library’s access to Newsbank):

    Dick Dorf wrote:
    “In my opinion, the best option for a joint study is the property north of Covell Boulevard previously known as Covell Village.
    Let’s talk openly about a plan over the next 15 to 20 years that enables a buildout of the Lewis Communities project on the former Hunt-Wesson cannery site in consort with the Covell Village project.
    With an agreement [on massive development around the Davis area] …we can get back to working together on our common goals and avoid the unwelcome potential for a breakdown in discussion and effort between our county and city governments.”

  97. Anonymous

    It’s increasingly clear that there are at least a few (represented by the comments of no on x and lyle) that see the CV site as some sort of holy ground, and it has blinded them to a significant body of progressive planning principles that point to that site as most appropriate. This position only solidifies the sense that there are indeed folks who are NO ON EVERYTHING and who cannot just honestly say that they do in fact oppose all growth in Davis. It’s this dishonesty that is most disturbing. Just freaking admit it, and quit jerking everybody around into thinking you might support something somewhere sometime when in fact you won’t. Never. Ever. This is the basic dishonesty that undermines those who call themselves progressives but are nothing other than selfish elitists. This blog may provide a happy home for them, but it provides no intellectual legitimacy for their position.

  98. Anonymous

    It’s increasingly clear that there are at least a few (represented by the comments of no on x and lyle) that see the CV site as some sort of holy ground, and it has blinded them to a significant body of progressive planning principles that point to that site as most appropriate. This position only solidifies the sense that there are indeed folks who are NO ON EVERYTHING and who cannot just honestly say that they do in fact oppose all growth in Davis. It’s this dishonesty that is most disturbing. Just freaking admit it, and quit jerking everybody around into thinking you might support something somewhere sometime when in fact you won’t. Never. Ever. This is the basic dishonesty that undermines those who call themselves progressives but are nothing other than selfish elitists. This blog may provide a happy home for them, but it provides no intellectual legitimacy for their position.

  99. Anonymous

    It’s increasingly clear that there are at least a few (represented by the comments of no on x and lyle) that see the CV site as some sort of holy ground, and it has blinded them to a significant body of progressive planning principles that point to that site as most appropriate. This position only solidifies the sense that there are indeed folks who are NO ON EVERYTHING and who cannot just honestly say that they do in fact oppose all growth in Davis. It’s this dishonesty that is most disturbing. Just freaking admit it, and quit jerking everybody around into thinking you might support something somewhere sometime when in fact you won’t. Never. Ever. This is the basic dishonesty that undermines those who call themselves progressives but are nothing other than selfish elitists. This blog may provide a happy home for them, but it provides no intellectual legitimacy for their position.

  100. Anonymous

    It’s increasingly clear that there are at least a few (represented by the comments of no on x and lyle) that see the CV site as some sort of holy ground, and it has blinded them to a significant body of progressive planning principles that point to that site as most appropriate. This position only solidifies the sense that there are indeed folks who are NO ON EVERYTHING and who cannot just honestly say that they do in fact oppose all growth in Davis. It’s this dishonesty that is most disturbing. Just freaking admit it, and quit jerking everybody around into thinking you might support something somewhere sometime when in fact you won’t. Never. Ever. This is the basic dishonesty that undermines those who call themselves progressives but are nothing other than selfish elitists. This blog may provide a happy home for them, but it provides no intellectual legitimacy for their position.

  101. Anonymous

    Well, Mr. Dunning, or Mr. Dorf,
    as the case may be (who’s paying youall off, anyway, the same Davis EmptyPrize paymaster as facilitates Rich Rifkin’s posts here?), why do you think the heartfelt oppoosition to nefarious developer schemes to line their already full pockets is opposed here?
    Heartfelt opposition to paving over the county’s rich agricultural lands gets results,
    your majesties!
    This is Davis, California, 2007, not Nottingham, England circa 1300, and we have our very own free-thinking Robin Hood, thank you very much, sirs.

  102. Anonymous

    Well, Mr. Dunning, or Mr. Dorf,
    as the case may be (who’s paying youall off, anyway, the same Davis EmptyPrize paymaster as facilitates Rich Rifkin’s posts here?), why do you think the heartfelt oppoosition to nefarious developer schemes to line their already full pockets is opposed here?
    Heartfelt opposition to paving over the county’s rich agricultural lands gets results,
    your majesties!
    This is Davis, California, 2007, not Nottingham, England circa 1300, and we have our very own free-thinking Robin Hood, thank you very much, sirs.

  103. Anonymous

    Well, Mr. Dunning, or Mr. Dorf,
    as the case may be (who’s paying youall off, anyway, the same Davis EmptyPrize paymaster as facilitates Rich Rifkin’s posts here?), why do you think the heartfelt oppoosition to nefarious developer schemes to line their already full pockets is opposed here?
    Heartfelt opposition to paving over the county’s rich agricultural lands gets results,
    your majesties!
    This is Davis, California, 2007, not Nottingham, England circa 1300, and we have our very own free-thinking Robin Hood, thank you very much, sirs.

  104. Anonymous

    Well, Mr. Dunning, or Mr. Dorf,
    as the case may be (who’s paying youall off, anyway, the same Davis EmptyPrize paymaster as facilitates Rich Rifkin’s posts here?), why do you think the heartfelt oppoosition to nefarious developer schemes to line their already full pockets is opposed here?
    Heartfelt opposition to paving over the county’s rich agricultural lands gets results,
    your majesties!
    This is Davis, California, 2007, not Nottingham, England circa 1300, and we have our very own free-thinking Robin Hood, thank you very much, sirs.

  105. Anonymous

    to clear up any nit-pickers’ torments: the previous post meant, as far as I can see, in so many words, “heartfelt opposition to nefarious narcissistically-motivated greedy developers desires to suck, vampire-like, the energy out of the vibrant community that is Davis…”
    Thank goodness for DPD’s Robin Hood effect…
    Brian Orr

  106. Anonymous

    to clear up any nit-pickers’ torments: the previous post meant, as far as I can see, in so many words, “heartfelt opposition to nefarious narcissistically-motivated greedy developers desires to suck, vampire-like, the energy out of the vibrant community that is Davis…”
    Thank goodness for DPD’s Robin Hood effect…
    Brian Orr

  107. Anonymous

    to clear up any nit-pickers’ torments: the previous post meant, as far as I can see, in so many words, “heartfelt opposition to nefarious narcissistically-motivated greedy developers desires to suck, vampire-like, the energy out of the vibrant community that is Davis…”
    Thank goodness for DPD’s Robin Hood effect…
    Brian Orr

  108. Anonymous

    to clear up any nit-pickers’ torments: the previous post meant, as far as I can see, in so many words, “heartfelt opposition to nefarious narcissistically-motivated greedy developers desires to suck, vampire-like, the energy out of the vibrant community that is Davis…”
    Thank goodness for DPD’s Robin Hood effect…
    Brian Orr

  109. Anonymous

    “see the CV site as some sort of holy ground”

    What seems clear to me is that many have legitimate concerns that you are blowing off and no addressing.

  110. Anonymous

    “see the CV site as some sort of holy ground”

    What seems clear to me is that many have legitimate concerns that you are blowing off and no addressing.

  111. Anonymous

    “see the CV site as some sort of holy ground”

    What seems clear to me is that many have legitimate concerns that you are blowing off and no addressing.

  112. Anonymous

    “see the CV site as some sort of holy ground”

    What seems clear to me is that many have legitimate concerns that you are blowing off and no addressing.

  113. Anonymous

    “CV” is a misnomer. Should be the “Whitcombe property”, or “Tandem Properties” (if you prefer the corporate name), and that piece of dirt has been submitted three times for development.

    It’s all there in the history:

    Some growth-control activists liked the plans (for Covell Center) because 660 residences were far fewer than the 1,500 for Crossroads Place, an earlier residential project that was proposed for the site, but never built.

    By the time they reached the “Village” the project had grown to 1894 units, sweetened this time with promises of a pedestrian-friendly, energy-efficient
    design by Corbett. Hoo-yah.

    That “third time around” development failed because 60% of the voting public looked past the lipstick into an extremely ugly porcine face. Poor plannning – and nothing else – doomed that project.

  114. Anonymous

    “CV” is a misnomer. Should be the “Whitcombe property”, or “Tandem Properties” (if you prefer the corporate name), and that piece of dirt has been submitted three times for development.

    It’s all there in the history:

    Some growth-control activists liked the plans (for Covell Center) because 660 residences were far fewer than the 1,500 for Crossroads Place, an earlier residential project that was proposed for the site, but never built.

    By the time they reached the “Village” the project had grown to 1894 units, sweetened this time with promises of a pedestrian-friendly, energy-efficient
    design by Corbett. Hoo-yah.

    That “third time around” development failed because 60% of the voting public looked past the lipstick into an extremely ugly porcine face. Poor plannning – and nothing else – doomed that project.

  115. Anonymous

    “CV” is a misnomer. Should be the “Whitcombe property”, or “Tandem Properties” (if you prefer the corporate name), and that piece of dirt has been submitted three times for development.

    It’s all there in the history:

    Some growth-control activists liked the plans (for Covell Center) because 660 residences were far fewer than the 1,500 for Crossroads Place, an earlier residential project that was proposed for the site, but never built.

    By the time they reached the “Village” the project had grown to 1894 units, sweetened this time with promises of a pedestrian-friendly, energy-efficient
    design by Corbett. Hoo-yah.

    That “third time around” development failed because 60% of the voting public looked past the lipstick into an extremely ugly porcine face. Poor plannning – and nothing else – doomed that project.

  116. Anonymous

    “CV” is a misnomer. Should be the “Whitcombe property”, or “Tandem Properties” (if you prefer the corporate name), and that piece of dirt has been submitted three times for development.

    It’s all there in the history:

    Some growth-control activists liked the plans (for Covell Center) because 660 residences were far fewer than the 1,500 for Crossroads Place, an earlier residential project that was proposed for the site, but never built.

    By the time they reached the “Village” the project had grown to 1894 units, sweetened this time with promises of a pedestrian-friendly, energy-efficient
    design by Corbett. Hoo-yah.

    That “third time around” development failed because 60% of the voting public looked past the lipstick into an extremely ugly porcine face. Poor plannning – and nothing else – doomed that project.

  117. Yoloman

    My prediction: they are coming back with a joint proposal for development along Covell, from Poleline west to F Street. The main issue is going to be the mitigation. Lewis Homes does not have to give any of the 2/1 mitigation required by the GP for new growth outside the 2001 General Plan, but Covell Village does. So will Lewis allow itself to be bound up with the trials and tribulations of a Measure J vote? Doubtful … unless CV offers them something too good to pass up. I have not decided yet if the Lewis parcel should be rezoned for housing. It is the LAST parcel left in the city that is so large (100 acres) zoned for light industrial, research park. The Chamber of COmmerce should be going nuts to preserve it, but they are not … why? CV partners want a joint development? Remains to be seen.

  118. Yoloman

    My prediction: they are coming back with a joint proposal for development along Covell, from Poleline west to F Street. The main issue is going to be the mitigation. Lewis Homes does not have to give any of the 2/1 mitigation required by the GP for new growth outside the 2001 General Plan, but Covell Village does. So will Lewis allow itself to be bound up with the trials and tribulations of a Measure J vote? Doubtful … unless CV offers them something too good to pass up. I have not decided yet if the Lewis parcel should be rezoned for housing. It is the LAST parcel left in the city that is so large (100 acres) zoned for light industrial, research park. The Chamber of COmmerce should be going nuts to preserve it, but they are not … why? CV partners want a joint development? Remains to be seen.

  119. Yoloman

    My prediction: they are coming back with a joint proposal for development along Covell, from Poleline west to F Street. The main issue is going to be the mitigation. Lewis Homes does not have to give any of the 2/1 mitigation required by the GP for new growth outside the 2001 General Plan, but Covell Village does. So will Lewis allow itself to be bound up with the trials and tribulations of a Measure J vote? Doubtful … unless CV offers them something too good to pass up. I have not decided yet if the Lewis parcel should be rezoned for housing. It is the LAST parcel left in the city that is so large (100 acres) zoned for light industrial, research park. The Chamber of COmmerce should be going nuts to preserve it, but they are not … why? CV partners want a joint development? Remains to be seen.

  120. Yoloman

    My prediction: they are coming back with a joint proposal for development along Covell, from Poleline west to F Street. The main issue is going to be the mitigation. Lewis Homes does not have to give any of the 2/1 mitigation required by the GP for new growth outside the 2001 General Plan, but Covell Village does. So will Lewis allow itself to be bound up with the trials and tribulations of a Measure J vote? Doubtful … unless CV offers them something too good to pass up. I have not decided yet if the Lewis parcel should be rezoned for housing. It is the LAST parcel left in the city that is so large (100 acres) zoned for light industrial, research park. The Chamber of COmmerce should be going nuts to preserve it, but they are not … why? CV partners want a joint development? Remains to be seen.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for