Supervisor Mariko Yamada has for several weeks now and really much longer than that, angered many of her former and would be supporters not only with her continued support for development projects along the Davis periphery, but for her apparent attitude toward her constituents–many of whom are dead set against suggested projects.
In this article she continues to take a swipe at those constituents:
“Yamada said the board will make its decisions based on what the board sees is best on what the board sees is best for the county. Although the process of negotiation is welcomed and preferred, the expressed interests of Davis’ officials will not unilaterally dictate the ultimate outcome of the general plan.
‘The relationship between the city and county may have to be re-examined,’ Yamada said. ‘We have an obligation to the county and we’re not going to say, ‘Oh, we’re not going to address that because the mayor of Davis is saying no.””
There are several different aspects of that statement that are troubling. First, this is not primarily about the mayor of Davis, this is about the city of Davis and most specifically the citizens of the city of Davis, half of whom Yamada *represents* on the board of supervisors.
Second, the city of Davis pays the county annually over $2 million precisely so that they do have a say over peripheral development on Davis’ border. As long as the pass-through agreement remains, the county does have to listen to the city of Davis on such issues.
This demonstrates that Supervisor Yamada still does not get it. She is ignoring her constituents and insulting their intelligence.
While Supervisor Yamada has been outspoken about this in content and tone for several weeks now, she is now joined in the hole by her colleague Supervisor Thomson.
Supervisor Thomson complained about receiving a number of “vulgar and threatening e-mails.” While there is certainly no justification for such emails, there are a couple of statements that do not sit right.
First, she is paraphrased saying that “the arguments against the proposals were misconstrued.”
Supervisor Thomson’s statement seemingly suggests that people did not properly understand the issues involved. And while I have not read the emails, the public who came forth last week, seemed to understand exactly the issues involved and the implications thereof. Ms. Thomson may disagree with her constituents, as she did last week, but I certainly would not suggest that proposals were misconstrued.
Second, Thomson suggests that this kind of behavior is endemic to both Davis and the Davis City Council when she says:
“I know that type of behavior does not occur within the city chambers of Woodland, Winters or West Sacramento…”
Thus implying that it does occur in the city chambers of Davis. Again, I would suggest that she not pick a fight with her city or her constituents. Ironically, she has acknowledged that the meeting last week of the Board of Supervisors was not well run.
Again, I do not agree with attacking emails, but given the gravity of the situation and the job that these people have signed up for, I would say it goes with the territory.
Also jumping into the fray is Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor, who apparently is taking his civility act to the County level. As we have suggested before, perhaps Mr. Saylor ought to worry a bit more about his own behavior and a little less about others.
Nevertheless, Mr. Saylor also shows his hand suggesting:
“I really was not happy about the threats and attacks on individual supervisors… I thought that was not necessary and even destructive.”
Yet, many believe that the threat of recall and the recoil in general from the city of Davis is what finally caused the Board of Supervisors to at least temporarily back of the proposed joint study areas. Mr. Saylor needs to pick a side. To attempt to pander to both sides does not help the situation.
Questions continue about what to do next. It is clear both that talks need to occur and that the county is still posturing to continue this fight.
Last night at the Davis city council meeting, the suggestion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson that we need a change in composition on the city-county two-by-two. She suggested that Mayor Greenwald be replaced on that body with Councilmember Lamar Heystek.
This prompted an angry outburst from the Mayor who declared this was obviously an attempt to get her by the council majority.
As it turned out, it was only the Mayor Pro Tem acting alone, and the motion died for lack of a second.
While I do have some preferences for change on that board, and think it would benefit from having different and perhaps more accommodating personalities on it, the chief problem based on these public statements is not necessarily on the Davis side of things, but rather the county side of things. It seems clear to me that the two Davis County Supervisors have a clear agenda and do not appear to be willing to move on these issues. As such, changing the Davis Cit Council membership on this board, would do little to change the trajectory of talks.
Personally, I would like to see both sides swap one of their partners out for a more accomodating person–that approach may be more conducive to the spirit of cooperation. Nevertheless, the position of the city of Davis has to be to protect the pass-through agreement and oppose peripheral growth. That leaves the city and county to look toward other means by which to address some of the budgetary shortfalls registered by the county.
A key point needs to be made, chief among them is that you really are not going to generate a lot of revenue by having new development. The West Village is a net revenue loss for either the city or the county. The County Planning Department looked at the Northwest Quadrant back in February and found it did not produce sufficient revenue. Counties that continue to grow and development are not in fiscally better shape than counties that are not doing this. Development basically gives you a one-time boon in development fees. After that, the taxes generated from the housing for the county are more than off-set by the need for services. Development is not a means by which to balance the budget or even generate revenue.
All counties are hurting financially regardless of their growth policies. These issues need to be addressed at both the state and federal level. Decisions to cut services at those levels have caused them to fall to counties. And counties are last in line for state money. It is a tragic situation but it will not be improved by new development. It is that simple.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
California local governments should consider having a “use” tax instead of depending on development for tax revenue. Shopping centers are abandoned for new ones because a local government has to provide police protection and other services out of its own revenues. New revenues are only found with new development.
The tax structure for Yolo County should include annual taxes for the county to provide services. A problem with this suggestion is that a new tax would require a vote. People could donate enough money to defeat the new taxes. They usually agree not to fund these anti-tax campaigns if their parcels are exempt from the taxation.
For example, in Richmond, CA there were no school bonds passed until the Chevron and other industrial properties were exempted from the school bond parcel taxes.
Still, annual taxes to fund county government operations is the best way to remove the incentive for development. This does not remove Ms. Yamada’s incentive to sell out her constituency, but it would provide for a means of the county to become self-sustaining.
California local governments should consider having a “use” tax instead of depending on development for tax revenue. Shopping centers are abandoned for new ones because a local government has to provide police protection and other services out of its own revenues. New revenues are only found with new development.
The tax structure for Yolo County should include annual taxes for the county to provide services. A problem with this suggestion is that a new tax would require a vote. People could donate enough money to defeat the new taxes. They usually agree not to fund these anti-tax campaigns if their parcels are exempt from the taxation.
For example, in Richmond, CA there were no school bonds passed until the Chevron and other industrial properties were exempted from the school bond parcel taxes.
Still, annual taxes to fund county government operations is the best way to remove the incentive for development. This does not remove Ms. Yamada’s incentive to sell out her constituency, but it would provide for a means of the county to become self-sustaining.
California local governments should consider having a “use” tax instead of depending on development for tax revenue. Shopping centers are abandoned for new ones because a local government has to provide police protection and other services out of its own revenues. New revenues are only found with new development.
The tax structure for Yolo County should include annual taxes for the county to provide services. A problem with this suggestion is that a new tax would require a vote. People could donate enough money to defeat the new taxes. They usually agree not to fund these anti-tax campaigns if their parcels are exempt from the taxation.
For example, in Richmond, CA there were no school bonds passed until the Chevron and other industrial properties were exempted from the school bond parcel taxes.
Still, annual taxes to fund county government operations is the best way to remove the incentive for development. This does not remove Ms. Yamada’s incentive to sell out her constituency, but it would provide for a means of the county to become self-sustaining.
California local governments should consider having a “use” tax instead of depending on development for tax revenue. Shopping centers are abandoned for new ones because a local government has to provide police protection and other services out of its own revenues. New revenues are only found with new development.
The tax structure for Yolo County should include annual taxes for the county to provide services. A problem with this suggestion is that a new tax would require a vote. People could donate enough money to defeat the new taxes. They usually agree not to fund these anti-tax campaigns if their parcels are exempt from the taxation.
For example, in Richmond, CA there were no school bonds passed until the Chevron and other industrial properties were exempted from the school bond parcel taxes.
Still, annual taxes to fund county government operations is the best way to remove the incentive for development. This does not remove Ms. Yamada’s incentive to sell out her constituency, but it would provide for a means of the county to become self-sustaining.
While all the issues you discuss above are important, and part of the fabric of this ongoing political drama, the real substance of the issue is contained in your last paragraph. That is what the County and City should be focusing on. Sitting down all 10 players in a series of 5 by 5 meetings could thoroughly inventory the services the County provides to City residents (and vice versa) and their costs. With that in inventory done a clear (and publicly transparent) method for paying for those services could be hammered out. Then instead of the Pass-Through Agreement payments being a melange of service payments plus land development control payments, it could be siplified to be only payments for land development control.
As it is, the public rhetoric of the citizens of the County and the citizens of Davis is only focusing on the land development portion of the issue, and the problems with the problems with the current and future financing of services continues to fester. Expecting the federal and/or State governments to solve that problem is wishful thinking.
While all the issues you discuss above are important, and part of the fabric of this ongoing political drama, the real substance of the issue is contained in your last paragraph. That is what the County and City should be focusing on. Sitting down all 10 players in a series of 5 by 5 meetings could thoroughly inventory the services the County provides to City residents (and vice versa) and their costs. With that in inventory done a clear (and publicly transparent) method for paying for those services could be hammered out. Then instead of the Pass-Through Agreement payments being a melange of service payments plus land development control payments, it could be siplified to be only payments for land development control.
As it is, the public rhetoric of the citizens of the County and the citizens of Davis is only focusing on the land development portion of the issue, and the problems with the problems with the current and future financing of services continues to fester. Expecting the federal and/or State governments to solve that problem is wishful thinking.
While all the issues you discuss above are important, and part of the fabric of this ongoing political drama, the real substance of the issue is contained in your last paragraph. That is what the County and City should be focusing on. Sitting down all 10 players in a series of 5 by 5 meetings could thoroughly inventory the services the County provides to City residents (and vice versa) and their costs. With that in inventory done a clear (and publicly transparent) method for paying for those services could be hammered out. Then instead of the Pass-Through Agreement payments being a melange of service payments plus land development control payments, it could be siplified to be only payments for land development control.
As it is, the public rhetoric of the citizens of the County and the citizens of Davis is only focusing on the land development portion of the issue, and the problems with the problems with the current and future financing of services continues to fester. Expecting the federal and/or State governments to solve that problem is wishful thinking.
While all the issues you discuss above are important, and part of the fabric of this ongoing political drama, the real substance of the issue is contained in your last paragraph. That is what the County and City should be focusing on. Sitting down all 10 players in a series of 5 by 5 meetings could thoroughly inventory the services the County provides to City residents (and vice versa) and their costs. With that in inventory done a clear (and publicly transparent) method for paying for those services could be hammered out. Then instead of the Pass-Through Agreement payments being a melange of service payments plus land development control payments, it could be siplified to be only payments for land development control.
As it is, the public rhetoric of the citizens of the County and the citizens of Davis is only focusing on the land development portion of the issue, and the problems with the problems with the current and future financing of services continues to fester. Expecting the federal and/or State governments to solve that problem is wishful thinking.
“The tax structure for Yolo County should include annual taxes for the county to provide services.”
I posed the question, is there currently a County tax to support its services?,in the thread several days ago. I imagine that the answer is NO from the above thread quote. THIS is the avenue to pursue. I’d love to hear Rexroad weigh in on this.
“The tax structure for Yolo County should include annual taxes for the county to provide services.”
I posed the question, is there currently a County tax to support its services?,in the thread several days ago. I imagine that the answer is NO from the above thread quote. THIS is the avenue to pursue. I’d love to hear Rexroad weigh in on this.
“The tax structure for Yolo County should include annual taxes for the county to provide services.”
I posed the question, is there currently a County tax to support its services?,in the thread several days ago. I imagine that the answer is NO from the above thread quote. THIS is the avenue to pursue. I’d love to hear Rexroad weigh in on this.
“The tax structure for Yolo County should include annual taxes for the county to provide services.”
I posed the question, is there currently a County tax to support its services?,in the thread several days ago. I imagine that the answer is NO from the above thread quote. THIS is the avenue to pursue. I’d love to hear Rexroad weigh in on this.
The county clearly has a financial problem, (BTW so does the city of of Davis) – it is a common theme in municipal governments across all parts of the US.
The fact that the County is studying alternatives to repair its finances is appropriate. Instead of casting stones at Yamada and Thomson, we should instead thank them for standing up and making tough choices about seeking fixes to the financial problems – it is their job to do so. They understand the gravity of a county financial situation and they are now considering ideas that they haven’t previously been willing to consider. That isn’t reason for DPD and many other contributors to doubt their sincerity or credibilty, and it certainly isn’t reason for a recall election. I doubt either of them relish the fight they are taking on, but we should be proud to have public service agents willing to take a stand. Far, far too often our public service agents cave in to parochial, short sighted interests of constituents. Thank you Yamada and Thomson – you are earning my vote, and I hope that of many other practical, “in the middle” voters.
New development may or may not add net marginal revenue for local governments — it is situation dependent, regardless of the claims made on this blog that it “never” adds marginal revenue. But for the sake of argument, lets assume that new development never leads to net marginal revenue, th even if it was a fact, taken to the extreme, no rational city or county should ever allow any additional development because it always leads to the local government being poorer than it was before. That of course, would not be a tenable position for the cities and counties of CA to hold. Where do those of you anti- growth proponents propose to house the growing population of CA or the US? The people clearly have to live somewhere, but for contributors to this blog it’s another case of “NIMBY”.
There should be some reasonableness and control regarding the growth plans, but the primary contributors to this blog have far too many constraints to growth for their position to be tenable and viable in the long run (or maybe not so long run).
Finally, unless I am mistaken about the terms of the pass thru agreement, either side can opt out of it, without being in violation of the contract. Therefore, suggesting that the county is somehow acting unethically is inaccurate and not helpful to promoting a discourse with them.
The county clearly has a financial problem, (BTW so does the city of of Davis) – it is a common theme in municipal governments across all parts of the US.
The fact that the County is studying alternatives to repair its finances is appropriate. Instead of casting stones at Yamada and Thomson, we should instead thank them for standing up and making tough choices about seeking fixes to the financial problems – it is their job to do so. They understand the gravity of a county financial situation and they are now considering ideas that they haven’t previously been willing to consider. That isn’t reason for DPD and many other contributors to doubt their sincerity or credibilty, and it certainly isn’t reason for a recall election. I doubt either of them relish the fight they are taking on, but we should be proud to have public service agents willing to take a stand. Far, far too often our public service agents cave in to parochial, short sighted interests of constituents. Thank you Yamada and Thomson – you are earning my vote, and I hope that of many other practical, “in the middle” voters.
New development may or may not add net marginal revenue for local governments — it is situation dependent, regardless of the claims made on this blog that it “never” adds marginal revenue. But for the sake of argument, lets assume that new development never leads to net marginal revenue, th even if it was a fact, taken to the extreme, no rational city or county should ever allow any additional development because it always leads to the local government being poorer than it was before. That of course, would not be a tenable position for the cities and counties of CA to hold. Where do those of you anti- growth proponents propose to house the growing population of CA or the US? The people clearly have to live somewhere, but for contributors to this blog it’s another case of “NIMBY”.
There should be some reasonableness and control regarding the growth plans, but the primary contributors to this blog have far too many constraints to growth for their position to be tenable and viable in the long run (or maybe not so long run).
Finally, unless I am mistaken about the terms of the pass thru agreement, either side can opt out of it, without being in violation of the contract. Therefore, suggesting that the county is somehow acting unethically is inaccurate and not helpful to promoting a discourse with them.
The county clearly has a financial problem, (BTW so does the city of of Davis) – it is a common theme in municipal governments across all parts of the US.
The fact that the County is studying alternatives to repair its finances is appropriate. Instead of casting stones at Yamada and Thomson, we should instead thank them for standing up and making tough choices about seeking fixes to the financial problems – it is their job to do so. They understand the gravity of a county financial situation and they are now considering ideas that they haven’t previously been willing to consider. That isn’t reason for DPD and many other contributors to doubt their sincerity or credibilty, and it certainly isn’t reason for a recall election. I doubt either of them relish the fight they are taking on, but we should be proud to have public service agents willing to take a stand. Far, far too often our public service agents cave in to parochial, short sighted interests of constituents. Thank you Yamada and Thomson – you are earning my vote, and I hope that of many other practical, “in the middle” voters.
New development may or may not add net marginal revenue for local governments — it is situation dependent, regardless of the claims made on this blog that it “never” adds marginal revenue. But for the sake of argument, lets assume that new development never leads to net marginal revenue, th even if it was a fact, taken to the extreme, no rational city or county should ever allow any additional development because it always leads to the local government being poorer than it was before. That of course, would not be a tenable position for the cities and counties of CA to hold. Where do those of you anti- growth proponents propose to house the growing population of CA or the US? The people clearly have to live somewhere, but for contributors to this blog it’s another case of “NIMBY”.
There should be some reasonableness and control regarding the growth plans, but the primary contributors to this blog have far too many constraints to growth for their position to be tenable and viable in the long run (or maybe not so long run).
Finally, unless I am mistaken about the terms of the pass thru agreement, either side can opt out of it, without being in violation of the contract. Therefore, suggesting that the county is somehow acting unethically is inaccurate and not helpful to promoting a discourse with them.
The county clearly has a financial problem, (BTW so does the city of of Davis) – it is a common theme in municipal governments across all parts of the US.
The fact that the County is studying alternatives to repair its finances is appropriate. Instead of casting stones at Yamada and Thomson, we should instead thank them for standing up and making tough choices about seeking fixes to the financial problems – it is their job to do so. They understand the gravity of a county financial situation and they are now considering ideas that they haven’t previously been willing to consider. That isn’t reason for DPD and many other contributors to doubt their sincerity or credibilty, and it certainly isn’t reason for a recall election. I doubt either of them relish the fight they are taking on, but we should be proud to have public service agents willing to take a stand. Far, far too often our public service agents cave in to parochial, short sighted interests of constituents. Thank you Yamada and Thomson – you are earning my vote, and I hope that of many other practical, “in the middle” voters.
New development may or may not add net marginal revenue for local governments — it is situation dependent, regardless of the claims made on this blog that it “never” adds marginal revenue. But for the sake of argument, lets assume that new development never leads to net marginal revenue, th even if it was a fact, taken to the extreme, no rational city or county should ever allow any additional development because it always leads to the local government being poorer than it was before. That of course, would not be a tenable position for the cities and counties of CA to hold. Where do those of you anti- growth proponents propose to house the growing population of CA or the US? The people clearly have to live somewhere, but for contributors to this blog it’s another case of “NIMBY”.
There should be some reasonableness and control regarding the growth plans, but the primary contributors to this blog have far too many constraints to growth for their position to be tenable and viable in the long run (or maybe not so long run).
Finally, unless I am mistaken about the terms of the pass thru agreement, either side can opt out of it, without being in violation of the contract. Therefore, suggesting that the county is somehow acting unethically is inaccurate and not helpful to promoting a discourse with them.
The Council Majority is well-aware of the upswell of citizen outrage at their attempt to remove Sue Greenwald from the Mayor’s chair on the dais.
It is not surprising that only Ruth Asmundson, the only one of the Gang(Asmundson, Saylor and Souza) that is not up for reelection, brought up the idea of removing her from any DISCUSSIONS between the County and Davis.
The Council Majority is well-aware of the upswell of citizen outrage at their attempt to remove Sue Greenwald from the Mayor’s chair on the dais.
It is not surprising that only Ruth Asmundson, the only one of the Gang(Asmundson, Saylor and Souza) that is not up for reelection, brought up the idea of removing her from any DISCUSSIONS between the County and Davis.
The Council Majority is well-aware of the upswell of citizen outrage at their attempt to remove Sue Greenwald from the Mayor’s chair on the dais.
It is not surprising that only Ruth Asmundson, the only one of the Gang(Asmundson, Saylor and Souza) that is not up for reelection, brought up the idea of removing her from any DISCUSSIONS between the County and Davis.
The Council Majority is well-aware of the upswell of citizen outrage at their attempt to remove Sue Greenwald from the Mayor’s chair on the dais.
It is not surprising that only Ruth Asmundson, the only one of the Gang(Asmundson, Saylor and Souza) that is not up for reelection, brought up the idea of removing her from any DISCUSSIONS between the County and Davis.
Deja vu, all over again? Remember when Lois Wolk proclaimed, after the Davis voters had rejected her project to widen the Richard’s underpass, that the citizens of Davis didn’t understand the issues and were “hysterical”? We need to stop electing those to represent us who hold us in such arrogant distain.
Deja vu, all over again? Remember when Lois Wolk proclaimed, after the Davis voters had rejected her project to widen the Richard’s underpass, that the citizens of Davis didn’t understand the issues and were “hysterical”? We need to stop electing those to represent us who hold us in such arrogant distain.
Deja vu, all over again? Remember when Lois Wolk proclaimed, after the Davis voters had rejected her project to widen the Richard’s underpass, that the citizens of Davis didn’t understand the issues and were “hysterical”? We need to stop electing those to represent us who hold us in such arrogant distain.
Deja vu, all over again? Remember when Lois Wolk proclaimed, after the Davis voters had rejected her project to widen the Richard’s underpass, that the citizens of Davis didn’t understand the issues and were “hysterical”? We need to stop electing those to represent us who hold us in such arrogant distain.
Anonymous 8:18, could you please answer me one simple question–what county provides a higher level of service than Yolo and what county is operating in the black? Once you answer those questions, we can discuss the rest of your statement.
Anonymous 8:18, could you please answer me one simple question–what county provides a higher level of service than Yolo and what county is operating in the black? Once you answer those questions, we can discuss the rest of your statement.
Anonymous 8:18, could you please answer me one simple question–what county provides a higher level of service than Yolo and what county is operating in the black? Once you answer those questions, we can discuss the rest of your statement.
Anonymous 8:18, could you please answer me one simple question–what county provides a higher level of service than Yolo and what county is operating in the black? Once you answer those questions, we can discuss the rest of your statement.
I actually agree with Ruth on switching out the make-up of the City/County 2X2. How about switching Don and Lamar?
I actually agree with Ruth on switching out the make-up of the City/County 2X2. How about switching Don and Lamar?
I actually agree with Ruth on switching out the make-up of the City/County 2X2. How about switching Don and Lamar?
I actually agree with Ruth on switching out the make-up of the City/County 2X2. How about switching Don and Lamar?
while the proposal here to switch out a councilmember for the 2 by 2 is vague, at least, as far as progressives go, Greenwald has been on the right side of the struggle to preserve the pass through agreement and prevent development on the periphery, and her presentation before the BOS, if the account posted here is accurate, was well-reasoned and non-confrontational, so I can’t imagine why any progressive would want to switch her out and leave Don on the 2 by 2, it would practically reward Thomson and Yamada for pushing the study areas by granting them the prize of getting Sue off the 2 by 2
if there is a political concept that even us Sacramentans understand, it’s that you don’t reward your enemies, you reward your friends, but, maybe, they do things differently in Yolo County
–Richard Estes
while the proposal here to switch out a councilmember for the 2 by 2 is vague, at least, as far as progressives go, Greenwald has been on the right side of the struggle to preserve the pass through agreement and prevent development on the periphery, and her presentation before the BOS, if the account posted here is accurate, was well-reasoned and non-confrontational, so I can’t imagine why any progressive would want to switch her out and leave Don on the 2 by 2, it would practically reward Thomson and Yamada for pushing the study areas by granting them the prize of getting Sue off the 2 by 2
if there is a political concept that even us Sacramentans understand, it’s that you don’t reward your enemies, you reward your friends, but, maybe, they do things differently in Yolo County
–Richard Estes
while the proposal here to switch out a councilmember for the 2 by 2 is vague, at least, as far as progressives go, Greenwald has been on the right side of the struggle to preserve the pass through agreement and prevent development on the periphery, and her presentation before the BOS, if the account posted here is accurate, was well-reasoned and non-confrontational, so I can’t imagine why any progressive would want to switch her out and leave Don on the 2 by 2, it would practically reward Thomson and Yamada for pushing the study areas by granting them the prize of getting Sue off the 2 by 2
if there is a political concept that even us Sacramentans understand, it’s that you don’t reward your enemies, you reward your friends, but, maybe, they do things differently in Yolo County
–Richard Estes
while the proposal here to switch out a councilmember for the 2 by 2 is vague, at least, as far as progressives go, Greenwald has been on the right side of the struggle to preserve the pass through agreement and prevent development on the periphery, and her presentation before the BOS, if the account posted here is accurate, was well-reasoned and non-confrontational, so I can’t imagine why any progressive would want to switch her out and leave Don on the 2 by 2, it would practically reward Thomson and Yamada for pushing the study areas by granting them the prize of getting Sue off the 2 by 2
if there is a political concept that even us Sacramentans understand, it’s that you don’t reward your enemies, you reward your friends, but, maybe, they do things differently in Yolo County
–Richard Estes
Vincente –
Unfortunately, I am not qualified to answer either of the simple questions you posed – Anonymous 8:18.
Vincente –
Unfortunately, I am not qualified to answer either of the simple questions you posed – Anonymous 8:18.
Vincente –
Unfortunately, I am not qualified to answer either of the simple questions you posed – Anonymous 8:18.
Vincente –
Unfortunately, I am not qualified to answer either of the simple questions you posed – Anonymous 8:18.
Fair enough. I just don’t think we can answer the question without knowing those. I have suspicions about those answers, but I don’t know for sure.
Fair enough. I just don’t think we can answer the question without knowing those. I have suspicions about those answers, but I don’t know for sure.
Fair enough. I just don’t think we can answer the question without knowing those. I have suspicions about those answers, but I don’t know for sure.
Fair enough. I just don’t think we can answer the question without knowing those. I have suspicions about those answers, but I don’t know for sure.
Richard… Sue Greenwald has shown courage and leadership in defending the right of Davis to determine its own future. This cuts across the “Wing-tip”,”Berkenstock” political fracture lines that Dunning has encouraged and then milked all these years. I would venture to guess that the majority of Davis voters support our mayor on this most important issue.
Richard… Sue Greenwald has shown courage and leadership in defending the right of Davis to determine its own future. This cuts across the “Wing-tip”,”Berkenstock” political fracture lines that Dunning has encouraged and then milked all these years. I would venture to guess that the majority of Davis voters support our mayor on this most important issue.
Richard… Sue Greenwald has shown courage and leadership in defending the right of Davis to determine its own future. This cuts across the “Wing-tip”,”Berkenstock” political fracture lines that Dunning has encouraged and then milked all these years. I would venture to guess that the majority of Davis voters support our mayor on this most important issue.
Richard… Sue Greenwald has shown courage and leadership in defending the right of Davis to determine its own future. This cuts across the “Wing-tip”,”Berkenstock” political fracture lines that Dunning has encouraged and then milked all these years. I would venture to guess that the majority of Davis voters support our mayor on this most important issue.
WTF? I assumed Greenwald and Heystek were allies. Oh well.
WTF? I assumed Greenwald and Heystek were allies. Oh well.
WTF? I assumed Greenwald and Heystek were allies. Oh well.
WTF? I assumed Greenwald and Heystek were allies. Oh well.
. . . but for contributors to this blog it’s another case of “NIMBY”
Really? I have supported every development in this community for the past thirty+ years, but was drawn into the “CV” opposition by the poor planning of the project.
No excuse. Tandem/Whitcombe has developed nearly all of the property between Sycamore and F Street, and from Covell Blvd. North to the City limit line. They obviously have the experience and expertise, but apparently not the willingness to pay to mitigate the problems noted in the EIR. (Financials, traffic, sewer, and water).
That one development has been used as an excuse and an accusation for too long by the two supervisors who appeared in public and in print in support. It’s not the “people on this blog” that have the problem.
. . . but for contributors to this blog it’s another case of “NIMBY”
Really? I have supported every development in this community for the past thirty+ years, but was drawn into the “CV” opposition by the poor planning of the project.
No excuse. Tandem/Whitcombe has developed nearly all of the property between Sycamore and F Street, and from Covell Blvd. North to the City limit line. They obviously have the experience and expertise, but apparently not the willingness to pay to mitigate the problems noted in the EIR. (Financials, traffic, sewer, and water).
That one development has been used as an excuse and an accusation for too long by the two supervisors who appeared in public and in print in support. It’s not the “people on this blog” that have the problem.
. . . but for contributors to this blog it’s another case of “NIMBY”
Really? I have supported every development in this community for the past thirty+ years, but was drawn into the “CV” opposition by the poor planning of the project.
No excuse. Tandem/Whitcombe has developed nearly all of the property between Sycamore and F Street, and from Covell Blvd. North to the City limit line. They obviously have the experience and expertise, but apparently not the willingness to pay to mitigate the problems noted in the EIR. (Financials, traffic, sewer, and water).
That one development has been used as an excuse and an accusation for too long by the two supervisors who appeared in public and in print in support. It’s not the “people on this blog” that have the problem.
. . . but for contributors to this blog it’s another case of “NIMBY”
Really? I have supported every development in this community for the past thirty+ years, but was drawn into the “CV” opposition by the poor planning of the project.
No excuse. Tandem/Whitcombe has developed nearly all of the property between Sycamore and F Street, and from Covell Blvd. North to the City limit line. They obviously have the experience and expertise, but apparently not the willingness to pay to mitigate the problems noted in the EIR. (Financials, traffic, sewer, and water).
That one development has been used as an excuse and an accusation for too long by the two supervisors who appeared in public and in print in support. It’s not the “people on this blog” that have the problem.
a quibble: i would be surprised if both thompson and yamada “earned your vote,” anonymous 8:18, given that one is only allowed to vote in one district at a time.
i tend to agree with matt williams here: add up the county services, add up the revenues, and let’s talk out a way to get the two to match up in a manner that is sustainable in the long term, financially. development as a way of getting income is a terrible way to do things, even for those of us who are in favor of an increase in housing units in davis.
either a countywide tax hike or the development of more industrial developments on county land to develop a tax base might be the way to go. hard to say what will work best, but one-time developer fees aren’t sound policy. there has got to be a better way to do this.
a quibble: i would be surprised if both thompson and yamada “earned your vote,” anonymous 8:18, given that one is only allowed to vote in one district at a time.
i tend to agree with matt williams here: add up the county services, add up the revenues, and let’s talk out a way to get the two to match up in a manner that is sustainable in the long term, financially. development as a way of getting income is a terrible way to do things, even for those of us who are in favor of an increase in housing units in davis.
either a countywide tax hike or the development of more industrial developments on county land to develop a tax base might be the way to go. hard to say what will work best, but one-time developer fees aren’t sound policy. there has got to be a better way to do this.
a quibble: i would be surprised if both thompson and yamada “earned your vote,” anonymous 8:18, given that one is only allowed to vote in one district at a time.
i tend to agree with matt williams here: add up the county services, add up the revenues, and let’s talk out a way to get the two to match up in a manner that is sustainable in the long term, financially. development as a way of getting income is a terrible way to do things, even for those of us who are in favor of an increase in housing units in davis.
either a countywide tax hike or the development of more industrial developments on county land to develop a tax base might be the way to go. hard to say what will work best, but one-time developer fees aren’t sound policy. there has got to be a better way to do this.
a quibble: i would be surprised if both thompson and yamada “earned your vote,” anonymous 8:18, given that one is only allowed to vote in one district at a time.
i tend to agree with matt williams here: add up the county services, add up the revenues, and let’s talk out a way to get the two to match up in a manner that is sustainable in the long term, financially. development as a way of getting income is a terrible way to do things, even for those of us who are in favor of an increase in housing units in davis.
either a countywide tax hike or the development of more industrial developments on county land to develop a tax base might be the way to go. hard to say what will work best, but one-time developer fees aren’t sound policy. there has got to be a better way to do this.
“Tandem/Whitcombe has developed nearly all of the property between Sycamore and F Street, and from Covell Blvd. North to the City limit line. They obviously have the experience and expertise”
Well, take the “experience and expertise” with a grain of salt. A lot of those buildings are pretty shoddy, falling apart, compared to the craftsmanship with which, for example, the prewar Anderson Bank Building downtown was constructed.
“Tandem/Whitcombe has developed nearly all of the property between Sycamore and F Street, and from Covell Blvd. North to the City limit line. They obviously have the experience and expertise”
Well, take the “experience and expertise” with a grain of salt. A lot of those buildings are pretty shoddy, falling apart, compared to the craftsmanship with which, for example, the prewar Anderson Bank Building downtown was constructed.
“Tandem/Whitcombe has developed nearly all of the property between Sycamore and F Street, and from Covell Blvd. North to the City limit line. They obviously have the experience and expertise”
Well, take the “experience and expertise” with a grain of salt. A lot of those buildings are pretty shoddy, falling apart, compared to the craftsmanship with which, for example, the prewar Anderson Bank Building downtown was constructed.
“Tandem/Whitcombe has developed nearly all of the property between Sycamore and F Street, and from Covell Blvd. North to the City limit line. They obviously have the experience and expertise”
Well, take the “experience and expertise” with a grain of salt. A lot of those buildings are pretty shoddy, falling apart, compared to the craftsmanship with which, for example, the prewar Anderson Bank Building downtown was constructed.