BREAKING NEWS: Final Count Confirm Defeat of Nishi by 693 Votes

Nishi-final

The final count is in.  The Yolo Elections Office has finished counting ballots and Nishi, the only election with a chance for the results to flip remained defeated with margin widening to 693 votes.  The final vote total took the number of No Votes to 11,702 with yes getting 11,009 – meaning the turnout increased to 66%.

In the State Assembly, Dan Wolk increased his Yolo County lead by about 400 votes over Cecilia Aguiar-Curry but not enough to change the outcome district-wide.

Brett Lee finished first by 2008 votes over Lucas Frerichs taking 13,409 votes.  Lucas Frerichs finished 266 votes ahead of Will Arnold for second while Matt Williams finished fourth with a healthy 7157 votes.

Previous Story

We expected, after two resounding defeats of a Measure J/R project, in 2005 and 2009, that this time it would be different.  As it turns out, it was.  The first returns showed Measure A, the Nishi Gateway Project that would put about 1500 beds into an apartment and condo development along with 325,000 square feet of R&D space and small retail into a project adjacent to UC Davis, was ahead by about 300 votes.

The No side outstripped the Yes side by about 600 votes on election day, finally forging ahead around 2:30 a.m. as all the precincts were counted.  While there are still absentee ballots to be counted, neither side expects them to change the outcome.

Alan Pryor, a spokesperson for the No on Measure A side, told the Vanguard, “We are optimistic that the final tally will remain in favor of the No vote once all the remaining ballots are counted.”

He added, “We are anxious to continue the discussion with the community and UCD as to how to best provide the affordable housing the City and University needs.”

Daniel Parrella was magnanimous in the face of narrow defeat. “Hats off to the No team for making up in passion what they lacked in money and resources. They never gave up and it is admirable of them,” he said.

On the one hand, the opposition noted the huge resource advantage that the Yes side had, outspending them around $500,000 to $20,000.

In a way, the map ended up looking like a classic Davis voter map, with the inner core voting no and the new subdivisions on the periphery voting yes.

Mr. Parrella felt like the race was lost when Bernie Sanders came to town and Redrum Burger protested.  In the last week, the No on A side came out with a strong push on Facebook, going from 100 likes to over 500 in just a few days.  A glance at the map shows that many of the student precincts ended up going to the No side.

In our view, what is notable is the relatively low turnout in the city.  Given that Bernie Sanders came to town last week and the election was hard fought until the end, the turnout, pending the counting of the final absentees, was only 43.5 percent, barely above what it was in 2014 when there was no presidential primary.

Election Night 2016-3
Tim Ruff (far right) with his campaign team early in the evening when the measure was ahead in the returns

It is hard to know what factor the presidential election played.  In the city of Davis, the town went narrowly for Bernie Sanders, 6542 to 6317.  Countywide, Hillary Clinton would win handily.  Had the race not been called on Monday, perhaps the Sanders margin would be higher.  It is not completely clear what effect, if any, the Sanders factor had, other than it appears to have been suppressed by the race being called.

The defeat of Measure A leaves open a lot of questions for another day.  One of those questions will be whether any Measure R project can win at the polls.  This one was at least competitive and, while the opposition argued it was a bad project with bad law, given the location and nature, there will be those who wonder if any vote can pass.

Second will be the question of student housing and where it will go in the city – if it will go in the city.

Then there is a question about economic development and whether the city will now be forced to go to a parcel tax to attempt to fund roads and infrastructure.

—David M. Greenwald 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

164 thoughts on “BREAKING NEWS: Final Count Confirm Defeat of Nishi by 693 Votes”

  1. Barack Palin

    Then there is a question about economic development and whether the city will now be forced to go to a parcel tax to attempt to fund roads and infrastructure.

    Regardless of how Measure A turned out the city was still going to have to go to a roads parcel tax.

    Do you hear that people?  Think about that when DJUSD comes after you for more funds because the city will be right behind them with their hand out too.

    1. Mark West

      “Regardless of how Measure A turned out the city was still going to have to go to a roads parcel tax.”

      That is true, tax increases were always an expected part of a comprehensive solution to our fiscal problems. Unfortunately, with a City Council majority that is opposed to cost-containment and an electorate that is opposed to economic development, the only remaining options involve significant tax increases.

      1. Barack Palin

        Well let’s face it, the $500,000 to $1.4 million was just a drop in the bucket for what we really need.  I’m sad that Nishi didn’t pass, maybe they can come back with a better proposal that addresses the issues as to why they lost.  For me I felt the city should’ve received more revenue and I feel the other big issue was the traffic problem.  I don’t think the air quality or the affordable housing issue was a big factor in why they lost.

        1. Frankly

          For me I felt the city should’ve received more revenue and I feel the other big issue was the traffic problem.

          I think this is magical thinking.  I would expect better from you after all the debate.

          There are two ways to kill development in Davis.

          1. Believe we are entitled to so much from the developer that it destroys the financial feasibility of the project.

          2. Measure R and our population of stasis fools.

        2. Mark West

          As has been stated many times BP, no single project is going to fix the problem. Nishi, however, was a bellwether showing the way that the community wanted to move forward.

          1. Don Shor

            No. I agree with Bob Dunning and several others. There will never be another peripheral project proposed so long as Measure R is in place.

    1. Don Shor

      Given that the city’s economic development plan of the last several years has been fully destroyed, it will be necessary for the incoming council to begin the much more difficult process of building a new one.

      We need economic development. The voters have put serious constraints on it. So they will need to do something, though it isn’t clear exactly what. Robb, Brett, and Dirk will really have to start from scratch at this point, and they will also have to revisit how the parcel and sales taxes will be a part of stabilizing the city’s budget.

      Whether the mayor and incoming mayor pro-tem decide the current staff has the skill sets to do all of that is really, in my opinion, their call.

      1. Bob Fung

        Completely agree.  There were 3 innovation park proposals, now there are none.  Nishi was the smallest of the 3, situated the closest to downtown and I would guess the most palatable to Davis voters.  “Fully destroyed”.   Back to the drawing board after years and years of effort.

         

         

  2. Frankly

    The downtown puckered-up grumpy old people win again.  This is a classic example for why direct democracy should never be allowed.  It is a tool for the tyranny of the majority.   100% of the CC supported Nishi, so this clear proof that Measure J/R is a complete corruption of our system of represented governance.

    Davis again cements it’s growing legacy as a sinking ship of shriveled up grumpy old selfish people and fools.

    UCD will work with Woodland to build business parks, and build more student housing on its land thereby causing most of the same impacts to Davis but without any tax revenue benefits.  Or maybe the owners of Nishi just sell to UCD and build the exact same development but without any road improvements and again, without any tax revenue.

    Did I say fools?

      1. Frankly

        You should have imposed that on yourself before you started your campaign of lies.

        – Sinking ship – Check

        – Grumpy old selfish people – Check

        – Fools – Check

        – Shriveled-up – That was uncalled for.  I apologize.  Uncheck.

      1. Frankly

        You are correct, he is not a fool.  He is in the grumpy old selfish camp as are you.

        But you are supported by a bunch of fools that also vote.

        I am not grumpy this morning, I am disgusted.

        The message is “hey young people, ef you!”

        1. Justice4All

          I do find it ironic, given Frankly’s history of disparaging the younger generations that he’s accusing no on Nishi voters of giving young people the middle finger. It’s particularly ironic given the fact that the no crowd is filled with progressive people who agree with minimum wage increases, free college tuition etc.. Stones in glass houses my friend

        1. Justice4All

          Definitely true. Initially students were overwhelmingly in support of Nishi, but when the whole affordable housing exemption hit, along with the proposed prices the social justice people went from meh in favor to adamantly opposed.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      I’ve had the same idea. Build apartments and innovation parks in Woodland, and run direct no-stop shuttle buses there from several points on campus. It could help add some pop to downtown Woodland.

        1. South of Davis

          We just need a fleet of these “buscycle” bike buses and all the minimum wage kids that don’t want more apartments in town can be “green” and ride them in to work from Woodland while all the rich Davis home and apartment owners can raise rents even higher for the rich out of state and foreign UCD students.

          http://www.davisbikeclub.org/club_news/newsletters/changing-gears-2011/november_2011_changing_gears/the-buscycle-comes-to-davis

    2. Michael Harrington

      I think my dear neighbor, Frankly, is kind going the grumpy old downtown geezer route?

      Fools? Nope.

      Let it me give you developer guys a hint, one I’ve never raised before.

      Drum roll …. You heard it first here !

      How about telling us ahead of time where and how much mitigation land you have?
      Duh …..

      1. Rich RifkinWDE 73

        I am sure all the business owners in downtown (who supported Measure A nearly unanimously) are very excited that you saved downtown Davis … from more customers.

        1. Ron

          Rich Rifkin:  ” . . . are very excited that you saved downtown Davis”

          Actually, I think this is exactly what happened.  (For businesses and residents.)  Adding 1,732 parking spaces adjacent to an already-challenged intersection (along with the unknown effects of providing additional unplanned motor vehicle access to the University) was not a “solution”. 

          I understand that the city has already collected sufficient funds from other developments to make improvements to the Richards/Olive intersection and interchange. Now, those improvements can be made without adding the detrimental impacts from the Nishi development.

          And yes – I sincerely thank Mike Harrington, Alan Pryor, and others for their efforts.

        2. South of Davis

          Rich wrote:

          > I am sure all the business owners in downtown (who supported Measure

          > A nearly unanimously) are very excited that you saved downtown Davis …

          > from more customers.

          All the apartment owners around downtown (who were not investors in Nishi) that supported No on A nearly unanimously are very excited that Michael (and the rest of the No on A/Toxic Soup gang) saved them from having to improve their dumpy old units to compete with new stuff and they can keep raising rents higher and higher as UCD accepts more and more students in the next five years.  Homeowners who are thinking about selling soon (that hate their neighbors) know that a Bay Area investor who plans to convert their 3×2 home in to a 6×3 home and rent to 10 kids will pay more than a guy who works at Schilling married to a Montessori teacher when they sell to retire somewhere cooler.

      2. Matt Williams

        Mike, I understand where you get your argument about saving “the southern entrance to our fair city,” but I’m having a hard time understanding how you have saved downtown Davis.  Care to elaborate?

        1. Matt Williams

          I just read Dan’s article Mike, and there isn’t a single piece of evidence provided by Dan to support his conjecture about downtown traffic.  In fact, most of Dan’s article doesn’t deal with downtown, but rather Richards south of the tunnel.

          Here are the quotes that do deal with downtown …

          Dan Cornford said . . . “Traffic in downtown Davis: This project will have serious adverse impacts on traffic flow in downtown Davis itself;”

          I respect Dan’s right to have that opinion, but nowhere in his article does he provide any data to support that opinion.

          Dan Cornford said . . . “Moreover, any forecast is only as good as the data put into it. The baseline traffic statistics used in the study are projections based on traffic counts at 40 different intersections in downtown and nearby areas. All supposedly were taken on only a single day (Oct. 12, 2014), and only for one hour in the morning period and then again for an hour in the evening period.

          This hardly seems to be sufficient data on which to base an estimate of the potentially massive traffic impacts of this huge project and the cumulative impacts of several other major projects. There is also some question as to the completeness of the measurement data itself.”

          With this argument Dan isn’t putting forth any incremental adverse effect on downtown over and above the current ambient levels.  All he is doing is questioning the accuracy of those current ambient levels.

          Dan Cornford said . . . “Furthermore, most Davis residents familiar with the city’s streets know that the Richards Boulevard and Olive Drive intersection and through the downtown tunnel on to First Street is the worst in Davis. The traffic congestion through there is so bad that it is going to take more than an indecipherable traffic study to convince us that running 4,870 additional cars through the area is going to make it better.”

          Here too Dan is conflating traffic impacts south of the tunnel with traffic impacts in downtown.  Dan does not provide any data to support his implied assumption that all 4,870 additional cars will end up in downtown, rather than turning left of of Richards onto West Olive Drive before ever getting to downtown.

          You will need to do better if you are going to convince me that you “have saved downtown Davis.”

    1. Michael Harrington

      After knocking down the single worst proposed development — ever — in Davis, we are going to submit very soon to the City Clerk an amendment to R that should be very welcome to our community.  It’s a straight initiative — right to the voters.  The CC is totally out of touch with the voters.  I predict a very high rate of passage.

      1. The Pugilist

        Let’s see…  Worst proposed development ever?  BS.  Totally out of touch with the voters?  You mean an essentially 50-50 split where 11,000 people voted yes on the project?  And you ran who in this election who would be more in touch?  No one.  Whose fault is that?  That’s right, the council.  Pshaw.

  3. ryankelly

    Nishi could still be developed for R&D.  They could work with the County and UCD to forge ahead with no benefits to the City. There is already an at grade crossing, but people would still have to enter downtown Davis to get to it.

    1. Jim Frame

      There is already an at grade crossing, but people would still have to enter downtown Davis to get to it.

      No public agency is going to approve a development on Nishi that depends on that crossing, and no financial institution is going to finance such a development even if the local agency were to be so foolish.  Nor would Union Pacific sit idly by and let such a thing happen.  That crossing is a legacy installation that will not survive a land use change.

  4. Alan Pryor

    On the one hand, the opposition noted the huge resource advantage that the Yes side had

    Actually, David, you were the one who noted the resource advantage and made the point of publicizing it for the community. We were too busy stretching our few dollars and counting our pennies to even worry about what they were doing and what resources they had to do it with.

  5. rwx

    Does it really make sense to try to interpret the Nishi vote in terms of Sanders and Clinton?

    I’d say traffic was the main problem.  Many voters were unwilling to put a large development in the middle of a perpetual traffic jam.  Nishi promised major traffic improvements there, but that was just a promise.  Sure, the development agreement said that the traffic improvements had to be in place before occupancy of the buildings. But relying on that agreement requires a lot of faith in local politicians to stand firm on an issue involving a developer/campaign contributor. Furthermore, there was no deal with the RR in place to allow the second undercrossing.

    As for the opinion pieces on Nishi in the Sunday Enterprise, is the story now Eileen and Goliath?

    1. ryankelly

      I think we are done with Nishi coverage.  The stories will now be how to fund infrastructure and take care of deferred maintenance (new tax) and school funding (increased tax) – new and expanded taxes with no relief in sight.

       

  6. Rich RifkinWDE 73

    I’m surprised it was this close. It makes me wonder if it might not make sense for the developers to try again in November. I am not sure what it takes to get a second bite at the apple. However, my guess is that a larger student/renter turnout in a general election could put Nishi over the top.

    Keep in mind that in the 2012 primary in Yolo County, only 36,577 votes were cast. In the 2012 general election that November, 75,313 votes were cast.

    1. nsw

      This. There is no “no growth” mandate at all. Turnout was low, and A lost by 300 votes. Run it by us again in November. In for a penny, in for a pound.

    2. Matt Williams

      Rich, the challenge that the developer would have regarding a November election is that the ballot terms and language have to be submitted to the County Elections Office by the second week in July.  Four weeks isn’t enough time to remedy the flaws.

      As a point of comparison, when Measure P succeeded two years ago the Council was able to come up with new water rate language within four weeks, but that was only because Donna Lemongello, Bob Dunning, Sue Greenwald, Pam Gunnell, Mark Siegler, John Munn, myself, and others had done the heavy lifting regarding 87-13 in the weeks prior to the June Measure P vote.  If the Council had had to start from scratch the day after the Measure P vote, it is highly unlikely that the 87-13 rate would have been approved by Council before September.

      Bottom-line, a November 2016 redo is extremely unlikely.

  7. nameless

    Alan Pryor, a spokesperson for the No on Measure A side, told the Vanguard, “We are optimistic that the final tally will remain in favor of the No vote once all the remaining ballots are counted.”
    He added, “We are anxious to continue the discussion with the community and UCD as to how to best provide the affordable housing the City and University needs.”

    You are going to solve the “affordable” housing problem in Davis? LOL You just torpedoed much needed student housing that was very affordable for the average student, even at your inflated rental rate! And are you going to talk about city infrastructure needs?  How is the city going to pay for repairs to roads?  More or new parcel taxes?  And what if the electorate decides to vote “no” on new or increase in parcel taxes?  Then what?

    IMO you have a few people “controlling” the message in this town, and it is not the City Council.  As a result of frivolous lawsuits being filed, disseminating misinformation, as well as using unsavory tactics like disrupting commission meetings, public forums, Farmer’s Market, these no growthers have managed to set the city back on much needed economic development.  My guess is the fiscal result is going to be grim, e.g. increase in existing taxes and new taxes will be proposed, roads will continue to deteriorate, economic development will occur just outside the city on county land or in neighboring cities so that Davis suffers the impacts but gets none of the benefits.  I also expect Measure R to be revisited.  I was a proponent of Measure R, but NO MORE…

      1. South of Davis

        Mike wrote:

        > please stop your poison.

        It must hurt to read someone bashing people who file “frivolous lawsuits, disseminate misinformation, as well as using unsavory tactics”…

        1. Michael Harrington

          Ryan:  you have no idea what is coming next.  I think you actually might like it.  I am a business person, and a strong supporter of commercial activities in our community.  I just disagree with the way that these exterior developers, staff, and the CC have chosen to process these projects.

        2. ryankelly

          Is this something that is planned by the community, led by our elected leaders, vetted by City commissions, staff, and experts in planning and sustainability, endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce & Downtown Business Association and other business leaders, in collaboration with UC Davis and other stakeholders in the region?

          Or will it be something thought and written by a small committee of people in your office meeting space?

          Will it solve any problems, or will it place limits on solutions to problems?

        3. ryankelly

          I am a business person, and a strong supporter of commercial activities in our community.

          Says the man who is suing is neighbor and trying to get her evicted.

    1. Matt Williams

      nameless said . . . “As a result of frivolous lawsuits being filed, disseminating misinformation, as well as using unsavory tactics like disrupting commission meetings, public forums, Farmer’s Market, these no growthers have managed to set the city back on much needed economic development.”

      Frivolous lawsuits?  —  the Yolo County Superior Court will determine whether the current lawsuit is frivolous or not.  If the Court does so determine, they will let us know.

      Disseminating misinformation? — both sides of the Measure A battle were guilty of that in approximately equal measure.  You may remember that the initial sizing of the water treatment facility was a good example of disseminated misinformation that was only corrected by the good work of the Water Advisory Committee.   That was a $100 million plus example on the “other side of the ledger”

      Disrupting Commission meetings? — I have asked you in the past to provide examples of this charge, but thus far all I have head is crickets.  Each time you throw this spurrious comment out you sound like the redoubtable Me. Harrington himself . . . throw whatever you can up against the wall and see if it sticks.

      Disrupting public forums? — Same question as for the commission meetings.  I’m a regular attendee of a substantial portion of this community’s public forums, and I haven’t seen what you have described in any of the forums I have attended.

      Disrupting Farmer’s Market? — for most of the election season my booth has been located immediately adjacent to the Yes On A booth.  I certainly have observed some citizens actively challenging the Yes On A team members, but I can not remember any of those citizens being part of either the No On A team, or “the few people” you reference in your comment.  I also observed (up close and personal) many of those same citizens who challenged the Yes On A team vociferously challenging me regarding my position on Measure A.  I never felt they were out of bounds when they challenged either me or the Yes On A team.

      What I hear you saying nameless is that you do not believe in democracy.  Is that right?

       

       

       

       

  8. Barack Palin

    IMO you have a few people “controlling” the message in this town

    I agree, I’ve said that often, all the way from development to the soda tax.

  9. DurantFan

    Perhaps the complete demolition of the Shell gas station  at the SE corner of Russell Boulevard and Olive Drive ( next to the In and Out Restaurant)  just before the election gave the No on Measure A supporters a better “view” of the potential  negative impact of this project on the local landscape.   The now stripped and barren site is a reminder to some of the “in your face” power  of developers in this town.    The person who executed this project could be accused of incredibly poor timing, if nothing else.

    1. South of Davis

      DurantFan wrote:

      > the complete demolition of the Shell gas station  at the SE corner of Russell Boulevard and Olive

      Any idea why the Shell station was torn down?  Are they planning to build a new one?

      1. Barbara King

        From the June 2, 2016 Davis Enterprise:

        “Gone, baby, gone
        By Fred Gladdis From page A6 | June 05, 2016

        The Shell Station at the corner of Olive Drive and Richards Boulevard was demolished Thursday in preparation for a larger gas station and a new carwash. The four-pump station will be expanded from 2,000 to 3,800 square feet. The estimated date of completion is not yet known. Fred Gladdis/Enterprise photo”

         

        1. DurantFan

          Thank you Barbara for “clearing up” the picture for me!   The developers want a “bigger” gas station and  a “wider” Olive Drive because they care “so much” for the local population in the area.

        2. hpierce

          You do know, or course that there was, at one time, not all that long ago when there were gas stations on 3 quadrants of Olive/Richards, one @ SW quadrant of Fifth /Russell/B, SE corner of Second and B, SE/NW corners of Fifth and G, NE corner of Fourth and G, SE corner of Second/B, NW corner of Fourth and G, SE corner of Sweetbriar/G?

        3. Jim Frame

          Wasn’t there also a Flying A station at the NEC of First & B?  I seem to remember salvaging some steel signs from it when it closed.  (I was working at the time at the recycling center on the south side of First Street, one of my first jobs upon arriving in Davis.)

        4. Rich RifkinWDE 73

          Jim, if my memory serves, the gas station at the corner of 1st and B was a Shell. It was there from my earliest memories (say about 1967 when I attended the UC Davis preschool across the street) until … I am not sure when. I think maybe around 1980? I think it was in business as a gas station later than the station which used to be at the southwest corner of Russell and B.

  10. Frankly

    I just heard from someone that Measure A lost by only 284 votes at final count, but there are still 1200 or so ballots to be counted.   Can this be confirmed?

      1. Frankly

        From the Enterprise article today:

        A close and contentious race saw 51 percent of Davis voters oppose the Nishi Gateway project in Tuesday’s Measure A election, potentially shooting down the innovation center that was eight years in the making.

        Only 298 votes separated the “yes” and “no” camps for Measure A — 7,395 yes votes and 7,693 no votes — after election officials tallied ballots from all 34 Davis precincts as well as vote-by-mail ballots. Provisional and late-arriving absentee ballots are yet to be counted, making the race too close to be called definitively.

    1. hpierce

      I can confirm that the “final count” has not occurred… wait for ~ 3 weeks for the official ‘canvass’.  I agree it is not likely the result will change, but it is possible… I’d estimate the uncounted votes to be closer to 600…

        1. David Greenwald Post author

          If you do the math, it would have to very heavily skew to the yes side to change the outcome. No reason to expect it.

  11. Anon

    Matt Williams: “Frivolous lawsuits?  —  the Yolo County Superior Court will determine whether the current lawsuit is frivolous or not.  If the Court does so determine, they will let us know.
    Disseminating misinformation? — both sides of the Measure A battle were guilty of that in approximately equal measure.  You may remember that the initial sizing of the water treatment facility was a good example of disseminated misinformation that was only corrected by the good work of the Water Advisory Committee.   That was a $100 million plus example on the “other side of the ledger”
    Disrupting Commission meetings? — I have asked you in the past to provide examples of this charge, but thus far all I have head is crickets.  Each time you throw this spurrious comment out you sound like the redoubtable Me. Harrington himself . . . throw whatever you can up against the wall and see if it sticks.
    Disrupting public forums? — Same question as for the commission meetings.  I’m a regular attendee of a substantial portion of this community’s public forums, and I haven’t seen what you have described in any of the forums I have attended.
    Disrupting Farmer’s Market? — for most of the election season my booth has been located immediately adjacent to the Yes On A booth.  I certainly have observed some citizens actively challenging the Yes On A team members, but I can not remember any of those citizens being part of either the No On A team, or “the few people” you reference in your comment.  I also observed (up close and personal) many of those same citizens who challenged the Yes On A team vociferously challenging me regarding my position on Measure A.  I never felt they were out of bounds when they challenged either me or the Yes On A team.
    What I hear you saying nameless is that you do not believe in democracy.  Is that right?

    I am an attendee of various commission meetings and public forums and have tabled at the Farmers Market.  The no growthers have consistently used underhanded tactics to get their way.  They have disrupted public meetings, public forums on a particular issue, and at the Farmers Market.  These charges are not unfounded nor spurious.  Even you concede the lawsuit may be frivolous.  As an example, Measure A opponents came to our Yes on A table this past weekend and monopolized our time with very nasty comments towards high schoolers volunteering for Measure A.  If one already knows s/he is voting “no” on Measure A, why would such a person make it a point to get between the public and the Yes on A volunteers, which is exactly what happened? Not kosher IMO.   As for disruption of public meetings, you were at one in which a no growther refused to stop filibustering, a typical tactic.  If you cannot remember, I can’t help you. If you think the Yes on A side spread more disinformation that the No on A side, I can’t help you.  There are enough people who have witnessed these tactics to know I am not blowing smoke. Ask Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis and Council member Rochelle Swanson about the nastiness of his public forums on innovation parks and the opponents of DIC.

    The current reality is that no growthers are controlling the message in this city with these sorts of dirty tactics. It keeps the general pubic away from informational meetings and commissions because most of the public does not want to engage in confrontation or listen to it either.  I have no doubt dirty tactics by no growthers will erode support for Measure R.  I was a proponent of Measure R, BUT NOT ANYMORE.

    1. Matt Williams

      Anon, I observed what went on at the Yes on A table this past weekend regarding the monopolization of your time with “very nasty comments towards high schoolers volunteering for Measure A.”  None of those Davis citizens who engaged the Yes On A tablers, including yourself, were part of the group you described as “a few people.”  They are “the public,” so your question  is really, “Why would the public cue up to talk to the Yes on A volunteers?”  What isn’t kosher about that.  Tabling at the Farmers Market is volunteer participation in a very public debate. If you don’t want to debate, then don’t volunteer to participate.  The Holy Communion talks about “the outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace.”  The high schoolers volunteering at the Yes On Measure A table were the outward and visible sign of the wide campaign spending disparity between the Yes and the No sides of Measure A.  No has said that that spending disparity was not kosher.  Do you agree with that position?  If not, why not?  (for the record I disagree with that partiecular No position)

      Anon said . . .  “As for disruption of public meetings, you were at one in which a no growther refused to stop filibustering, a typical tactic.  If you cannot remember, I can’t help you.”

      I am assuming you are referring to a URAC meeting where Sue Greenwald adamantly requested more than the three minutes that the URAC Chair insisted she be limited to.  The Chair was just as disruptive as Sue was, and instead of resolving the issue quietly by granting Sue the extra two minutes she desired, the screaming and gavel crashing went on for well over five minutes much to the discomfort of all the URAC members and public audience alike.  It clearly took two people to escalate that situation to the level that it went to.

      With that said, do you have another example, or is your universe of examples limited to that one example from a number of years ago?

      Anon said . . .  “Ask Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis and Council member Rochelle Swanson about the nastiness of his public forums on innovation parks and the opponents of DIC.”

      That is indeed a very illustrative example.  First, the people involved in the incident(s) you describe were 100% NOT part of “the few” you have described.  Second, the people involved were not even City of Davis residents.  Third, based on what I have learned about most of the people involved, they are not even “slow growthers” much less “no growthers.”  Their motivation was specific to their own personal back yards.  Can you name even one name that crosses over between the two groups (opponents of DIC and opponents of Nishi Gateway)?

       

  12. Tia Will

    Anon

    . It keeps the general pubic away from informational meetings and commissions because most of the public does not want to engage in confrontation or listen to it either.”

    I do not like any of the negative campaign tactics that were employed by either side and called them out as I saw them during the final weeks of the campaign. However, it is not the fault of those who opposed Nishi ( or its supporters either) if people decide to stay away from informational forums. This is a matter of individual choice and should not be used as a means of stifling the right to free expression of opinion.

    I am disappointed at the defeat of Measure A after I spent so much time and energy coming to the conclusion that its advantages outweighed its potential downsides. However, I fail to see how the narrow defeat of a project should mean that one abandons Measure R unless you feel that any building is better than no building if a developer manages to get three votes on the City Council. If what you want is developer driven projects as opposed to community driven projects, then eliminating Measure R is definitely the way to proceed.

    1. Frankly

      Why stop there?  Why not have direct democracy for everything?  Let the city vote on the Trackside building as designed?  Let the city vote on the Sterling apartment project?

      Let the city vote on fluoride in the drinking water and plastic bag bans.

      If Measure R is such a justified instrument, then everything should be put to a public vote, no?

      1. hpierce

        You do not go far enough, frankly… every building permit, every business license, every fixing of a street light outage repair, every street repair, every bi-weekly payroll payment (by employee) should require a vote of the people… that would be “true” democracy… but we live in a republic… and I’m glad of that fact…

        1. Tia Will

          Frankly and hpierce

          Direct democracy and representative democracy doubtless each have their pros and cons. I don’t know if what we have is better than what we could design because we have never tried it. I do not make the assumption that what we have is the best possible just because we have been indoctrinated with that belief all our lives.

        2. Frankly

          I don’t know if what we have is better than what we could design because we have never tried it.

          Never tried it?  You don’t study much history do you, except the history of victims and oppression?

          http://www.economist.com/node/18548119

          Californians thus explicitly chose a path that diverged from the one America’s founders had taken. To understand California’s problems today, you need to know what tradition California departed from. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and their peers, as they met for the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787, had deliberately rejected direct democracy. So why did Californians second-guess them?

          Deeply versed in the classics, the founders had seen ancient Athens as the main historical example of direct democracy. In that city every male adult citizen voted in the assembly and there were no distinct executive or judicial branches. But this was also the Athens that condemned Socrates to death, rashly launched a disastrous pre-emptive war against Syracuse and barely survived repeated oligarchic coups before succumbing to undemocratic Macedonia.

          Greek thinkers such as Aristotle and Polybius concluded that democracy was inherently unstable because it led to mob rule (in the same way that monarchy deteriorated into tyranny and aristocracy into oligarchy). Those three elements, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, thus had to be balanced for a state to remain free, they argued. Rome (before the emperors) became the prime example of such a mixture. It was a republic, a “public thing”, but not a democracy, a thing “ruled by the people”. It had executives (in the shape of two annually elected consuls), an elite in the senate, and outlets for the vox populi in the popular assemblies.

          Direct democracy in California is thus an aberration. It has no safeguards against Madison’s tyranny of the majority. It recognises no saucer that might cool the passions of the people. Above all, it is not a system intended to contain minority factions. Instead, it encourages special interests to wage war by ballot measure until one lobby prevails and imposes its will on all. Madison and Hamilton would have been horrified.

    2. Mark West

       “If what you want is developer driven projects as opposed to community driven projects, then eliminating Measure R is definitely the way to proceed.”

      What we have with Measure R are no projects, either community-driven or developer based. That means no increased economic vitality, no job growth, no comprehensive solution to our fiscal problems, and no fiscal sustainability. Woohoo!

       

        1. Tia Will

          Mark and Anon

          Exactly… which makes for a grim future for the city…”

          Well, so you keep saying. And yet I do not see the stagnation that you seem to see. We have quite a lot of business turnover in Davis. What we do not have are large industrial developments of the type you two would seem from your comments to prefer. I favored Nishi because I saw it as a good compromise, a relatively small project that was not focused exclusively on one aspect but sought to meet multiple city goals.

          I would be very happy to see and promote another Nishi type development. However, if one is not set to go in the next few years, I do not see the “grim future” that you are projecting. Other people will come along with other, perhaps better ideas. And, perhaps we may even decide as a community that it is our responsibility as residents to pay for what we want instead of attempting to pass our bills to someone else.

        2. Mark West

           “I do not see the “grim future” that you are projecting.”

          No surprise, given that you frequently have offered that you are not very good at math and finance. We have a $50 million annual general fund budget with a $30+ million annual shortfall and no prospects for creating that new revenue stream beyond taking it from the pockets of residents (making everyone poorer). I know you don’t care about that given your accumulated wealth, but you are in the minority in that regard (so much for your claimed support of affordable housing). I suggest you take off the rose colored glasses and open your eyes and you might see how quickly the city is deteriorating.

          “Other people will come along with other, perhaps better ideas.”

          Following this election, you would have to be completely foolish to propose a new project that requires a Measure R vote. Foolishness is a characteristic that is not frequently associated with developers risking their own money, but is quite frequently found among the uninformed masses (with their rose colored glasses) who are spending other people’s money.

          “What we do not have are large industrial developments of the type you two would seem from your comments to prefer.”

          When have I ever proposed such?  Seems to me that you are failing to live up to your own stated standards of behavior. Shame…

          “And, perhaps we may even decide as a community that it is our responsibility as residents to pay for what we want instead of attempting to pass our bills to someone else.”

          Perhaps with your ‘go fund me’ campaign? What a great idea…

           

          Without cost-containment and economic development, our only reasonable outcome is bankruptcy. The sooner the better if we are going that route.

      1. hpierce

        Not quite, but point well taken… there is a parcel @ Chiles/Cowell/Drummond (NE’ly) that is ripe for infill, but not necessarily for ‘big’ innovation park… needs frontage improvements, but all the basics are there… Actually zoned I-R, last time I checked… there is another parcel @ Mace/Alhambra (again, perhaps not “right-sized”)… zoned commercial as I recall…  there WAS the “Cannery” (no more…).

        As far as ‘active’ projects, there is ‘Chiles Ranch’, ‘Grande Village’, Woodbridge AF, Paso Fino, in various states of approvals… also a proposed hotel/motel next to ‘Davis Diamonds’…

        Depends on perspective…

         

    3. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > I am disappointed at the defeat of Measure A after I spent so much time and energy coming

      > to the conclusion that its advantages outweighed its potential downsides. 

      Does this mean you voted Yes on A?

        1. hpierce

          Given Tia’s previous posts, how can you judge what she thinks/acts on?  (anathema)

          Yes, you are correct on her words, but how can you presume how she acted?

        2. Mark West

          “She’s been saying it for over a month”

          After voluminously questioning the need for any development at all (and Nishi specifically) for greater than two years before that, so it is reasonable to be confused about her intentions.

  13. Barack Palin

    However, I fail to see how the narrow defeat of a project should mean that one abandons Measure R unless you feel that any building is better than no building if a developer manages to get three votes on the City Council. If what you want is developer driven projects as opposed to community driven projects, then eliminating Measure R is definitely the way to proceed.

    Well said.

  14. Anon

    Matt Williams: “None of those Davis citizens who engaged the Yes On A tablers, including yourself, were part of the group you described as “a few people.”  

    No, they were SENT to the Yes on A table to distract the volunteers away from engaging the public.  Same exact tactics were used in the water project by the No side.

    Matt Williams: “I am assuming you are referring to a URAC meeting where Sue Greenwald adamantly requested more than the three minutes that the URAC Chair insisted she be limited to.

    Actually I was talking about another meeting involving a different no growther, but thanks for reminding me of the Sue Greenwald incident where she refused to stop talking even though she had gone way past exhausting her allotted 3 minutes.  And the incident I was referring to is only one of MANY.  I have been told by quite a few folks they cease coming to public forums in this town because of the controversy.  I have avoided some of them for the same reason, e.g. the one at Village Homes on Measure A because I knew it was going to be a set up, after seeing what had happened in previous forums.

    Matt Williams: “First, the people involved in the incident(s) [forums facilitated by Robb Davis and Rochelle Swanson] you describe were 100% NOT part of “the few” you have described.  Second, the people involved were not even City of Davis residents.

    The words out of the mouths of these opponents at the forums facilitated by Robb Davis and Rochelle Swanson were word for word right out of the mouths of typical well known no growthers in this town.  As I said, a small group of no growthers are controlling the message.

    Tia Will: “However, it is not the fault of those who opposed Nishi ( or its supporters either) if people decide to stay away from informational forums. This is a matter of individual choice and should not be used as a means of stifling the right to free expression of opinion.

    When public meetings are disrupted by opponents (who keep talking or make disparaging remarks of those they disagree with), so that everyone there is made to feel uncomfortable and the meeting is out of control because an opponent has grabbed the mike (pun intended) and is filibustering, things have gone too far.  That IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.  It is not individual choice to not attend forums when meetings are disorderly and don’t allow for everyone to have a say without being shouted down.

    Tia Will: “However, I fail to see how the narrow defeat of a project should mean that one abandons Measure R unless you feel that any building is better than no building if a developer manages to get three votes on the City Council. If what you want is developer driven projects as opposed to community driven projects, then eliminating Measure R is definitely the way to proceed.”

    Measure R has effectively allowed a group of citizens to completely control the message the public receives with the use of unsavory tactics that are less than honest.  I do not believe that is healthy for the city/citizens, and will not support Measure R in the future.  This is unfortunate.  I initially got on board the Measure R train because I felt developers had things too much their way and controlled the process.  However, what we have now is as bad if not worse.  The city is headed for serious fiscal trouble, which is going to result in much higher taxes.  You may be okay with that because you can afford to pay, but many others won’t be so lucky.  Or citizens may vote down any higher or new taxes, in which case the roads and other city infrastructure will continue to deteriorate.  I am normally an optimist, but I see real trouble ahead…

     

    1. Matt Williams

      Anon said . . .  “No, they were SENT to the Yes on A table to distract the volunteers away from engaging the public.  Same exact tactics were used in the water project by the No side.”

      Anon, I tabled immediately next to Yes on A more than a dozen times over the past 90 days, and never once did I see any of the people who fit the description you have given ever collude with the people manning the No On A table prior to going to the Yes on A table to engage the students.  There was one time where Brett Lee SENT someone to the Yes on A table to test the students’ knowledge of Measure J, but other than that all the people who actively engaged the Yes on A students at many of the tabling events were unaligned citizens trying hard to change the minds of the students, or have their own minds changed by the students.  With that said, I don’t remember you manning the Yes on A booth more than once in that three month period.  I may have missed one of your other volunteer efforts at the Yes on A booth, but I believe you are making a sweeping generalization based on a very limited data set.

      Anon said . . . “Actually I was talking about another meeting involving a different no growther, but thanks for reminding me of the Sue Greenwald incident where she refused to stop talking even though she had gone way past exhausting her allotted 3 minutes.  And the incident I was referring to is only one of MANY.  I have been told by quite a few folks they cease coming to public forums in this town because of the controversy.  I have avoided some of them for the same reason, e.g. the one at Village Homes on Measure A because I knew it was going to be a set up, after seeing what had happened in previous forums.”

      The 3 minute time limit is arbitrary at best.  At the recent dust-up at the Senior Commission regarding Sterling the public comment time limit was set at 5 minutes by the Chair.  The URAC dust-up was worthy of Tyson-Holyfield with Sue playing the role of Holyfield.  The amount of time the gavel was pounded far exceeded 3 minutes, as well as any overage that Sue might have incurred .  . . and the gavel pounding started within 5 seconds of the moment when Sue’s 3 minutes elapsed.

      With the above said, it probably is best to agree to disagree, your perspective on both my observations and Tia’s observations is unlikely to ever prompt a meeting on any middle ground.

      JMHO

  15. Tia Will

    Anon

    It is not individual choice to not attend forums when meetings are disorderly and don’t allow for everyone to have a say without being shouted down.”

    Disagree. We are all responsible for our own choice to attend or not attend regardless of whether or not we are “comfortable”.

    Measure R has effectively allowed a group of citizens to completely control the message the public receives with the use of unsavory tactics that are less than honest.”

    Perhaps. But not having Measure R would mean that we allow a different group of citizens, those with enough money or personal connections to complete control the message by counting to three on the City Council. If I must accept “control of message” I would prefer the former to the latter since it is right out in the open for all to see which is not necessarily the case with council influence. People are not coerced, they still have the right to vote for a project if they find it worthy.

    1. Frankly

      Perhaps. But not having Measure R would mean that we allow a different group of citizens, those with enough money or personal connections to complete control the message by counting to three on the City Council.

      Tia my friend, I’m sorry but this is just asinine, irritating, silly and idiotic.

      Look at ALL the decision made recently and over the years by our various CC members and tell me that money and/or personal connections where the source.  Did money buy a plastic grocery bag decision?  Did money buy an MRAP decision?

      God I hate this type of crap.  Always money.  Always power.  The little poor and unconnected victim cannot get her way in this oppressive oppression of money privilege.  This is BS argument in this town.  Activists more likely get their way in this town.  They have for decades… it is why the town is falling apart.

      Our five elected officials all supported Nishi.  All spent hours and hours going over the details.  Listening to pros and cons.  Listening to those that opposed and those that supported.   All five decided that it was a worthy project and GOOD FOR DAVIS.

      Then the puckered-up old NIMBY No-grower got together and started telling big lies to frighten the ignorant… those that did not have time to study all the details and make an informed decision (one of the main reasons we have representative democracy and not direct democracy).

      The Cannery won 3-2.  If it was all the money and connections calling the shots, then why did it not win 5-0.

      Do you not understand what representative democracy is and why we have it and not direct democracy?   I don’t think you.

      1. Tia Will

        Frankly

        The Cannery won 3-2.  If it was all the money and connections calling the shots, then why did it not win 5-0.”

        For the simple reason that it was not necessary to get all 5 votes when 3 will do.

  16. Marina Kalugin

    I see the “not smarter than the average fifth grader” crowd are still at it.

    Will post my real comments once the final tally is in, and I have more time….. stay tuned.

  17. Tia Will

    While it is true that I am not facile with numbers, it also true and of greater importance that money is not my highest priority in life and I am able to see value in things that do not have a dollar sign attached.

    open your eyes and you might see how quickly the city is deteriorating.”

    I do not have to open my eyes very wide to see deterioration as a product of people being unwilling to pay for what the want themselves. This to me is the antithesis of responsibility. If we want an amenity we need to be willing to pick up the tab, not foist the expense off on someone else.

    who are spending other people’s money.”

    It is not “spending other people’s money” if you are willing to pay yourself, and most especially if you are willing to pay proportionally more to cover for those who genuinely cannot afford the increase. I know that this is not how things are set up now. But I also know that we are not limited by our current constraints and have the ability to devise new solutions if we are willing to consider alternatives.

    And there is more at stake here than just money. What you do not seem to realize is that there are some in this community who value open space, health and wellness, and ambience above money. Actually we all do to some degree or we would choose to live in one of the less expensive surrounding neighborhoods. What we have is those who value money above these other factors and thus fail to see that they are “spending other people’s resources” in a way that the majority would not choose. What we are weighing is the “tyranny of the majority” against a “tyranny of the minority” ( usually wealthy and or well connected). I believe that there is a third way which would be characterized by proactive collaboration. I believe that we as a community came very close using this approach with Nishi which as David has pointed out came very much closer than we have come before.

    Perhaps with your ‘go fund me’ campaign? What a great idea…”

    For limited small projects, why not. The original Rainbow City was a city/ public volunteer collaboration which was the “go fund me” of its day.

     

    1. Mark West

      Tia – you need to get your mind around this one point. $30+ million extra per year, every year in perpetuity, is what we currently need. The amount increases every day we delay making the necessary changes. Your ‘grand ideas’ and a bake sale or two are not going to cut it. Yes, we should have increased the revenues before spending the money, but that is not how it worked out.  The reality is that we are in a giant fiscal hole and the only option now left to us is the one that you have been advocating all along – raise taxes on everyone. Yes, you do want to spend other people’s money (along with your own) to pay for your preferred version of the city.

      You said it yourself long ago which I will now paraphrase…’Nobody has the right to live in Davis, if they can’t afford it, they can just live somewhere else until they have the resources to move back.’ Just as you did, right? What a wonderfully altruistic attitude.

      We need a comprehensive approach, including cost-containment, new taxes and significant growth in economic vitality in order to pay for the things that you demand of Davis. No single approach or project will be sufficient and we cannot afford to waste ten years waiting for consensus on every little step along the path. Your approach Tia is the personification of ‘paralysis by analysis’ and it is that approach that is preventing our finding real world solutions to our fiscal problems.

       

       

      1. Tia Will

        Mark

         you need to get your mind around this one point. $30+ million extra per year, every year in perpetuity, is what we currently need”

        And from my perspective, you need to get your mind around this one concept… personal responsibility. I know that many people like the thought of getting someone else to pay for their choices. I do not share that view. I do not believe that we should be paying down our fiscal irresponsibility through irresponsible growth. I do not believe that we should be passing our debts on to our children, or to some one whose business we hope will provide enough for what we refuse to pay ourselves. It is amazing to me that so many who consider themselves to be conservatives and or fiscally responsible want to pass the buck when it comes to paying their bills.

        Anon has stated that she believes that I do not seem to understand that some cannot pay. Absolutely not true. I have stated again and again that I would favor those who cannot pay being sponsored by those of us who can. And there are many, many of us who could contribute to a fund of some sort to ensure that no one who cannot pay is displaced.  Just because we do not have the mechanism to do that now does not mean that we could not create it.

        What a wonderfully altruistic attitude.”

        I have never claimed that my view of economic personal responsibility is altruistic. But, I would point out that the developers are also not making their proposals from an altruistic point of view. If they were, there would be no such thing as “in lier” fees for affordable housing. Every development would provide its share of affordable housing, no exceptions. Also in your “paraphrase” you also neglected to include another vital part of my post. Perhaps you have forgotten. I have always stated that I believe that we should be helping those in actual need rather than those who are already advantaged. I do not believe in changing zoning and ignoring design guidelines that were arrived at by community consensus in order to profit local investors while providing luxury accommodations. But I would certainly be willing to consider the notion of considering exceptions in order to house people in actual need.

        1. Mark West

          “personal responsibility”

          Personal responsibility is the idea that human beings choose, instigate, or otherwise cause their own actions. A corollary idea is that because we cause our actions, we can be held morally accountable or legally liable.

          https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Personal_responsibility

          It was not my personal decision to use the money needed to maintain our infrastructure to provide excessive compensation for public employees so it is not an issue of my personal responsibility to deal with the consequences. Our fiscal problems are a community responsibility, not a personal one. Consequently, the resources that we use to fix the problem should be community resources, not personal ones.  Every time you advocate for raising taxes you are advocating for spending other people’s personal resources, using other people’s money to get what you want. Taking money away from people that might otherwise be used for putting good food on the table, paying for sports activities, music lessons or savings for college.  You are advocating the stealing of other people’s personal assets to pay for the things you expect the community to supply to you. I call that selfishness in the extreme.

          Personal assets should be used to pay for personal expenses and obligations. Community assets should be used to pay for community expenses and obligations. The one asset that the community has in excess is land, and we access that value through development, not taxation. The fact that development also leads to new jobs and wealth for the community is an added bonus. We make the community stronger and wealthier through development. Taxation just makes the community weaker and poorer.

           

  18. Anon

    Matt Williams: “With that said, I don’t remember you manning the Yes on A booth more than once in that three month period.”

    Then your memory is faulty because I manned the Yes on A table more than once.  In addition, the Yes on A volunteers have expressed to me concerns about being sent shills from the No on A side to keep the public away from the Yes on A table.

    Matt Williams: “The 3 minute time limit is arbitrary at best.”

    This totally misses the point.  Whatever the time limit is, a particular member of the public does not have a right to filibuster beyond the time allotted, to be fair to every speaker.  THAT IS THE DEMOCRATIC WAY.

    Tia Will: “We are all responsible for our own choice to attend or not attend regardless of whether or not we are “comfortable”.”

    So I take it you are perfectly okay with allowing members of the public to disrupt commission meetings and public forums with filibustering at the microphone, making disparaging remarks against members of the public who are speaking and disagree, and interfering with tabling at the Farmer’s Market?  The public should just “toughen up” and come to forums where they don’t feel welcome and know it is likely their comments will be met with nasty remarks?  Sorry, but you have a very different view of the democratic process than I do…

    1. Matt Williams

      Anon, if you think the citizens who came to the Yes table were shills, then you have to label yourself as a shill for Yes as well.  Your passion for Yes is just as vociferous as those repeat visitors’ passions were/are for No.  I personally don’t think you are a shill any more than I think they were shills.  And remember, because of my booth’s location next to Yes on A I both observed and overheard much of the actions you are describing.

      The night of the URAC kerfuffle with Sue, the three minute limit was not announced until the Chair decided to cut Sue off.  As I remember that night, she was the only public commenter (there could have been one other one), so being “fair to every speaker” was a non-issue.  In that kind of situation where time constraints are non-existent, what useful purpose does limiting public comment serve?  The only purpose that I see it having is that it serves to exclude rather than include.

      Clearly you and I disagree on this subject.  It is probably best to drop it, but if you want to continue, I’m game.

      JMHO

       

      1. Anon

        Matt, you are so wrong on so many counts IMO.  Why you defend the indefensible is beyond me.  Why you say things you saw when you clearly didn’t see them is beyond me, e.g. your claim I only tabled at one Farmer’s Market, which completely incorrect.  You were not even near the Yes on A table on the last Saturday, yet claim you know what happened and what was said that day at the Yes on A table.  Sheesh.

        1. Matt Williams

          Well Anon, how many times did you actually work at the Yes On A Table?  You were never at any of the Wednesday tables to the best of my knowledge, and your presence at the last week of Saturday tabling was conspicuously noteworthy.  Do you have the chutzpah to actually state the number of times you tabled?

           

  19. Anon

    Tia Will: “I do not have to open my eyes very wide to see deterioration as a product of people being unwilling to pay for what the want themselves.

    Some folks cannot AFFORD to pay.  I know you don’t want to believe that, but then you make a good salary and can easily afford to pay.  Suppose higher taxes significantly cut into your lifestyle, so that paying higher taxes meant you could no longer eat out or do any extracurricular activities?  Think about it…

    1. Barack Palin

      Good post Anon.  I often think the same thing myself when I hear others continually cry for higher and higher taxation as the solution to everything.

    2. Matt Williams

      Anon, I find your response to Tia ironic when viewed in the light of your comments about the affordability of the projected rental rates at Nishi.  The thought that some folks cannot afford to pay $450 per month to share a room never seems to have entered your mind.  It certainly did not enter your argument.

      1. Anon

        Excuse me?  $450 per month for most students renting in this town is not unreasonable.  West Village students are paying $900 per month (yes, really).  Are you telling me that most students in this town pay less than $450 a month for rent?  You’ve got to be kidding me?  And if students cannot afford it, they will choose other alternatives (Community College, sharing more to a room, grants, apartments outside of town).

        1. Matt Williams

          Anon said . . . “Some folks cannot AFFORD to pay.  I know you don’t want to believe that, but then you make a good salary and can easily afford to pay.”

          Anon, your words above apply to the rents at West Village in every bit as meaningful way as they apply to the projected Nishi rents.

          I am not saying that most students in this town pay less than $450 a month for rent . . . the UCD Apartment Rental Rate Survey is saying that.  Go to http://housing.ucdavis.edu/_pdf/vacancy_report/2015-vacancy-report.pdf

          and you will find that the average 2-bedroom apartment rents for $1,462, which is 19% lower than your $450 per month per roommate ($1,800 total).  UCD is clearly saying that at least half pay 19% lower than $450 per month.

    3. Tia Will

      Anon

      Some folks cannot AFFORD to pay.  I know you don’t want to believe that”

      Think about it…”

      I think that you are being quite disingenuous and more than a little condescending. You and I have had this conversation many times here on the Vanguard. But since you brought it up….one more go around. I have stated repeatedly that I am aware that there are people for whom higher taxes would be a genuine burden. I have also stipulated my willingness to pay into a fund to make up for those who  would be over burdened, as opposed to those who just feel “victimized” to borrow Frankly’s term. I am also aware that we currently do not have such a mechanism. But that does not mean that we could not devise one.

  20. Marina Kalugin

    instead of higher taxation, developers should be forced to pay their fair share when they want to make billions on the backs of the town  recent example the Cannery allowed to noncomply with their “agreement” and yet the good ole boys were still reelected….and “unamously support Nishi” to do it all over again…..,  engineers (such as Cunningham) should be required to warranty their work and should be gone after to correct gross incompetence such as the sidewalks at Woodbridge  (go look)  …  custom home builders (aka Fouts)  should be made to pay for shoddy workmanship and toxic mold (also at Woodbridge)….the same players now own tons of the min-dorms, apartments et al.   and yet this city keeps going under due to so many poor decisions over the recent decades…

    Will will be on the side of ALL pro development matters, that is in his blood…..

    so sorry Matt didn’t quite make it onto the council….there is no one there of enough sense now…..Brett is good sometimes……..

     

    1. Tia Will

      so sorry Matt didn’t quite make it onto the council….there is no one there of enough sense now…..Brett is good sometimes…”

      Interesting that you seem to feel that “there is no one there of enough sense now” which seems to imply that you feel that no one has sense if they do not always agree with you. This is my inference, I do not know what is in your mind, so please correct me if I am wrong.

  21. South of Davis

    Marina wrote:

    > developers should be forced to pay their fair share

    > when they want to make billions 

    The developers in town are not making “billions” of dollars, (the top guys are making “millions” but even all of them combined are not making ‘billions”)…

    > engineers (such as Cunningham) should be required

    > to warranty their work and should be gone after to

    > correct gross incompetence such as the sidewalks

    > at Woodbridge

    If you find any “gross incompetence” in Woodbridge it will be easy for a construction defect atty. to get you a settlement.  Unless you kill everything with a root within a 1/4 mile of sidewalk, road or bike path they will crack over time and roots in the ground grow.

    > custom home builders (aka Fouts)  should be made to

    > pay for shoddy workmanship and toxic mold (also at Woodbridge)

    If a Fouts built home has “toxic mold” due to poor construction it is easy to get fixed (attorneys take good cases without any payment up front).  If it has “toxic mold” because the minimum wage “contractor” DirecTV sent out drilled holes in the roof it is not Don’s fault.

    > ….the same players now own tons of the min-dorms,

    Many No on A people own mini-dorms, but I’m pretty sure “players” aka developers like Fouts, Whitcombe, Roe and Thompson are busy enough without buying small Davis homes and adding bedrooms to the garage to make mini-dorms…

    P.S. Can you name a single “player” that owns a mini-dorm? (you said there are “tons” of them)…

  22. Tia Will

    Mark

    Personal assets should be used to pay for personal expenses and obligations. “

    So let me make sure I understand your position. Do you believe that I should not have to pay taxes to support our military since I am a pacifist ?

    1. Mark West

      As you are well aware, my comments were directed to the fiscal problems of the City of Davis. At the present time, the City does not have a military, so your question is of no relevance and is nothing more than an attempt to change the subject instead of answering for your own selfishness.

      1. South of Davis

        Mark wrote:

        > my comments were directed to the fiscal problems of the City of Davis.

        One way to get extra cash  for the city now that Nishi is dead is to evict the poor people from the city owned “affordable” real estate and fill the Symphony Apartments, New Harmony Apartments and DACHA Homes with wealthy foreign and out of sate students who will pay top rent and spend more money at local business than  the current residents generating more sales tax and gross revenue taxes for the city.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          I don’t know of other cities where residents have to vote yes or no for zoned development. How was this different, or was this the vote to change the zoning?

        1. Mark West

          There was no ‘matter of principle’ Tia. You didn’t have a valid response so you tried to change the subject instead. Rather typical of you, and pathetic, actually.

          We all have an obligation to follow the laws of civil society, including paying our taxes. I have no issue with that. Case in point, I support all of us sharing the burden of protecting the Country with our military and believe that is an appropriate use of tax monies, even those received from so-called ‘pacifists’ as you claim to be. Unlike you, however, I am not advocating for increasing other people’s tax burdens, to pay for the military or any other purpose.  You are the one expecting others to pay more in taxes to support your vision of ‘Tia world.’

           
          Our City made some poor decisions in the recent past; decisions that have created an enormous fiscal hole that we now have to address. These were not personal decisions by members of the community involving ‘personal responsibility,’ but those made by the community or in the name of the community by our elected officials and staff. As I said before, the appropriate way to address a community obligation is to use community assets. We cannot reasonably hope to sell a park or swimming pool to meet the need, but we can allow for expansion of business and/or housing to raise the funds. This doesn’t necessarily mean expanding the City’s boundary (although that is one approach), as we could instead alter zoning regulations to allow for greater land use efficiency. Taller buildings, denser construction, and fewer on-site parking requirements are reasonable approaches (all of which you have opposed).

    2. hpierce

      I’ll bite, Tia… not one cent of my taxes would go to any social service (no contributions to Planned Parenthood, Medicare/Social Security, Head Start, MedicAid, UC, state colleges, community colleges, DJUSD) or other government program that I have not personally signed off on… you want to get real now, about new taxes/assessments?

  23. TrueBlueDevil

    Is this a partial solution?

    1. Trade / build more mid-rise student housing on the western portion of campus, possibly trading out some of the planned single family homes.

    2. Study  the size of the needed new parcel tax. $150 a year? $250 a year? … needed for infrastructure.

    How tall were the planned apartments / condo’s in Nishi? … we could really use those! And older properties would be forced to upgrade to compete.

    1. Don Shor

      1. UCD plans to do that, at some point. That could cover the enrollment increase they are planning but won’t cover the housing shortage they’ve created over the last 10+ years.
      2. Figure $1000 per parcel minimum.

  24. Tia Will

    hpierce

    I think you just demonstrated my point about the importance of paying for what we as a community decide are our priorities through our taxes which are actually the price that we pay for living in a community as individual members of that community.

    1. Frankly

      You have compelling but incomplete thinking on this topic.

      You want people to pay more in taxes to keep Davis like Tia likes Davis.

      But you fail to connect the dots for where the money comes from to pay those taxes.

      Were does it come from?

      What does your income derive from that you are so eager to give away to government?

      What about the rest of the families in Davis?  Where does their money come from that you are so willing to cause them to rid themselves of…  on the backing of your confidence that they really do not need so much stuff and so they should be able to give up more?

      You might need some help with this, so let me.

      That money derives from the very things you want less of.

      Ironic isn’t it?  You want to take more money from people to fund a new world order where there are fewer opportunities to earn more money.  Sounds like an unsustainable proposition to me.

    2. hpierce

      Actually Tia, you went from ‘community’ (City), to at least State if not Federal ‘community’… I over-responded in kind.  I basically agree with supporting existing programs, but new ones?  Your “pat” response re:  military and taxes, is wearing very thin… ‘pacifism’ is great, as long as we can impose it on everyone.  Until then, I will be a ‘pacifist’ when I can, but if I or those dear to me (which includes almost everyone in the world) are truly threatened with death, dismemberment, rape, etc., I reserve the right to be a ‘beserker’, and/or support those who would protect me, or those I care about, with lethal force, if that’s what it takes.

      I prefer to be pacifist, but God help anyone who poses an immediate threat to me or mine.

      1. Tia Will

        Frankly

         Sounds like an unsustainable proposition to me.”

        I know it does Frankly. But from my point of view that is because you cannot imagine another way of doing things. What if instead of seeking ever more, we were to seek first enough for everyone and then were to add in ways that did not threaten our environment, our health, the opportunities for future generations to create a balanced lifestyle for themselves ?  What if everything were not centered around being “great” or having the “most” or “more” or “better” ? It is not inevitable to envision a life not centered around more. It is a matter of choice, and what we teach our children, not human nature.

        I understand that you see money as what drives everything. I see human endeavor as what drives everything. Money is only the exchange medium that we have chosen. Since we have, we have to use it currently and I very much understand that fact. However, because we must use it does not mean that we must individually hoard it. Mark made what I see as an important point. He made the distinction between the use of an individual’s money and the use of community money. I do not see that distinction. All  money for funding of community ( whether local, state or national) comes from individual  human endeavor. All money is controlled by some individual prior to going to the government. Now it is nice to think that when land is devoted to new businesses, that it is the money generated by those businesses ( and therefore not “my money”) that is being used to fund the city. This allows one to ignore that the business owner is paying for ( through their taxes) what it was we chose with our votes. How this is not passing the buck on paying for our own amenities is beyond me. Someone is ultimately paying for our choices. That is either us, or someone else. These new additions to our community are choosing for “someone else” to pay. I believe that there are many good reasons for the addition of some small scale new businesses to our community. I do not believe that asking someone else to bail us out for our own poor choices is one of those reasons.

         

         

      2. Tia Will

        hpierce

        Ok, I get it. You don’t like the pacifist example. Let me try to explain my point ( which by the way had nothing to do about pacifism at all but was about individual vs community choice of how to spend money) using a local example.

        The city, through our elected representatives chose to hire a financial development officer (forgive me if I got the title wrong Rob). This was based on a prioritization of need for the city. It would not have been my first choice. I would have liked to have seen a city health and wellness officer. Now some will say “that is handled at the county level”. And I would answer that was probably adequate for a city of 30, 000, but it is grossly inadequate today. However, the point is that different citizens and groups  will have different priorities for the use of public resources. We clearly saw this on Nishi where there was a near 51-49 split in opinion.

        There is something more powerful in decision making than just the money. What is needed in my opinion is to consider all of our resources in decision making, not just money. Our peripheral land has value. Out air, water, safety and time have value. Each of these have both a “private” and a “community” component. We are responsible for example for the quality of the fixtures within our own home. We can choose to save time by using our car, or spare the air by staying in, walking or riding our bike. But when it comes to community, there is not an entity called “the government” that “steals tax money from us” is us. This is a community decision through vote, and those votes are cast by each of us as individuals. “Our” money going for taxes is the price that we pay for membership in this particular community not someone picking our pockets. Each and everyone of us has the same opportunity to not pay taxes. The ultimate choice is to not be a member of the community and accept the consequences of that choice.

        What the pro rapid business growth does not seem to appreciate is that business money, like tax on individual earnings flows to the city largely through….guess what….taxes. So in saying we must use up more land for more business, what we are saying is, “we have spent too much ourselves on what we wanted, so now we must import more people whose earnings we can tax to pay for our excesses”. The way we have structured our society now, someone must pay through taxation. Either we accept responsibility and pay our own way, or we push the payment onto someone else and call it “healthy business growth” just ignoring the potential cost in other resources. I thought that the tradeoff on Nishi was reasonable and responsible and cast a “Yes” vote. Obviously those on the “No” side did not.

         

  25. ecotect

    Before everyone freaks out and becomes depressed there is a way to build a robust economy based on a sustainable community.  A serious, deep diving infill study has not been done.  We can densify within the city limits and to step into the 21st century of population explosion we need to engage in thoughtful master planning.  We also need to bring in new traffic consultants.  The gridlock from SF to Sacramento is getting worse every day.  We are a bump on I-80 with old road designs that do not work for the traffic we have now, much less for growth.

    We need to embrace what we have that is special such as bike-ability, organic farmers market and young & old citizens.

    The Living Community Challenge provides a well-defined framework we could collectively work with to make Davis a star-level sustainable, resilient community.  The State of California has significant cap and trade funds to hand out to sustainable communities.  Taking the Challenge would definitely qualify us for these funds.  Also, the press and publicity of taking the Challenge will attract global attention and attract visitors from near and far, stimulating us into an abundant economy.

    Now is the time to talk about the current leadership not doing their duty by enforcing the principles in the Davis General Plan as intended.

    Going forward we need to revisit and renew what principles we value and what kind of a city we wish to be while there is the inevitable growth.

    Just because this terrible site was voted down does not mean it could not be within the city’s boundary in a better location for health and traffic.

    1. Frankly

      Yes it has been done.  And you cannot build enough infill because people like Tia will demands that you keep it 3 or fewer stories tall.

      Davis is 10 square miles.  It is surrounded by open land.  With 72,000 people it’s 7200 people per square mile puts it into dense urban population territory… not a rural community.

      How dense do you want it?

      I have a better idea.  Let’s all stop being puckered up old NIMBY people and just allow some peripheral development.  If Davis built 1000 acres it would be 11.5 square miles and still one of the most population-dense small cities in California and the nation.

      1. Don Shor

        Let’s all stop being puckered up old NIMBY people and just allow some peripheral development.

        That fight is over. It’s done. We may as well focus on whatever remains to develop within the city limits for the next 5 – 10 years, because there will never be another peripheral proposal. Do you disagree? If not, then why keep picking at the scab? If Nishi couldn’t pass, nothing will.
        So that’s where we are. We have a serious structural budget deficit, no economic development plan whatsoever, and various forms of increased taxation already on the table. That’s the reality, and it’s what our current council has to work with.
        My hope is that, with the election behind us and no council members currently vying for higher office, we will start to hear more realistic descriptions of the present situation. Any proposals for new spending are simply unrealistic. Any move toward economic development will take several years to materialize, so it’s not realistic to expect revenues from anything within any, say, five-year budget plans. Sales tax is permanent. Parcel taxes will go up significantly, and the council needs to be honest about that. Proposals for things like sports parks simply can’t be considered.
        That’s where we are, unless there is some magical way to get the Mace or northwest projects moving again.

        1. Misanthrop

          I’m voting no on any new parcel taxes or sales taxes for the city (The schools and the county will have my support). I’m not going to willingly support the no on development scene lifestyle. If you want to bail the city out with your vote go ahead but don’t even think about getting my vote for it.

        2. Mark West

          I agree ‘that fight is done’ and we will not have a peripheral project as long as Measure R is the law.  Where I disagree is on what needs to happen now.  Since the City Council has demonstrated they collectively lack the ‘cojones’ for cost-containment (at least Rochelle has an excuse), and the voters have decided against economic development, our only option is more taxes, and taxes alone will not be sufficient for a sustainable solution. That means we will fail to create anything approaching long-term fiscal security.  Our only option is to allow the City to go bankrupt and address our absurd compensation arrangements in Federal Court, as quickly as possible. The fastest way to make that happen is to vote against all new and renewing taxes. Don’t continue to ‘feed the pig,’ kill it.

          I would prefer that we act responsibly and created a comprehensive solution, but that is no longer possible. It is time to kill the pig and move on.

           

        3. South of Davis

          Don wrote:

          > Parcel taxes will go up significantly, and the council needs to be honest about that.

          Parcel taxes will only go up with a vote of the people.

          If we have a blip down in the economy (with a dip in home prices, dip in 401K values and an increase in unemployment) it will get a lot harder to get the “significant” tax increases the government wants (and the government pensions need).

    2. hpierce

      uh, there is no “gridlock” between SF and Sac.  Unless there is a crash, and those don’t last that long.

      Unless, of course, you mean “gridlock” means you have delays in some segments, at certain times of the day…

      1. South of Davis

        hpierce wrote:

        > uh, there is no “gridlock” between SF and Sac. 

        Sure it is not actual “gridlock” (there is no “grid” on a freeway so you can never have “grid lock”), but when was the last time you made the SF to Davis/Sac drive on a Friday afternoon (it sucks)?

        A few weeks back it took me just about an hour to drive “to” Walnut Creek in the morning and it took three hours (even with some Waze shortcuts) to drive home to Davis in the afternoon “from” Walnut Creek.

        1. Mark West

          It doesn’t take 3 hours to drive from Walnut Creek to Davis on the ‘River Road.’ Not as fast as a freeway generally, but much more pleasant than sitting in traffic.

  26. Don Shor

    Then there is a question about economic development and whether the city will now be forced to go to a parcel tax to attempt to fund roads and infrastructure.

    I don’t think there’s any question about that.

  27. Roberta Millstein

    It’s also worth noting that with the additional votes counted, Bernie’s lead over Hillary in Davis increased (for those who thought there would be a correlation between voting for Bernie and voting “yes” on Nishi, that correlation did not seem to hold, at least for the majority of originally uncounted votes).

    Yolo also flipped from Hillary to Bernie as a whole.

      1. Roberta Millstein

        I see what you mean.  The same people who think that Hillary would stare down Wall Street and fight fracking might also buy into unrealistic developer promises.

        1. ryankelly

          Just pointing out how statistics can be selected or manipulated to mean whatever you want it to mean, that unconnected facts or ideas can be claimed to be correlated to support a political viewpoint.  Your response only further demonstrates this.

    1. Barack Palin

      I think somehow we’ll get by and life won’t end as we know it.

      I know, it’s not the narrative that many of the crisis alarmists want to put out.

  28. Ron

    Yay!  Thanks again to Alan Pryor and Mike Harrington!

    I’m more relieved, than outright happy.  If approved, this thing would have resulted in a real “experiment”, regarding traffic flow.  (And, we would have been the test subjects.)  From what I’ve heard, the residents might have been the subjects for a more long-term experiment, regarding air quality.

    But, with this behind us, watch for a renewed effort (by David Greenwald) to relentlessly focus on the vacancy rate (while simultaneously/conveniently not advocating for any “particular” site).  Never mind that Nishi was targeted at wealthy students who could afford to live anywhere in Davis, and that any units would not be occupied for years.  Also, never mind that the vacancy rate may not be reduced in any meaningful way, short of constructing truly vast numbers of housing units (as some have advocated). We really have no way to determine actual demand, since it also potentially includes non-students from other areas. (And again, I would not advocate that we try to meet overall market demand.)

    Nope – I fully expect the onslaught of articles to continue tomorrow.  (Actually, they’ve never stopped.)

    The only way to ensure housing for students is to place it on campus.  And, some of us will continue those efforts.  The alternative, which includes placing it at far-flung sites with impacts throughout the city, is not very appealing.  (I’m thinking of the intersection at Trader Joe’s, as an example of what might occur as a result of some of the proposals.)  Yeap – I can picture Pole Line and Fifth street, now (as a result of Sterling).  (Probably all the way to the University.)

    If these types of developments are primarily built on campus, it will be safer and better for everyone – especially students.  And yet, some will continue to undermine that effort.

     

     

     

     

     

    1. Don Shor

      We need housing on campus for students, and we need rental housing in town for students, employees of local businesses, and other renters — all of whom are impacted by the 0.2% apartment vacancy rate.
      We need housing in town and on campus. We are short thousands of beds due to the past enrollment growth of the campus and failure to provide for that. The university has only promised to help with the issue of enrollment growth going forward.
      So yes: focus on the vacancy rate should be relentless until we get more housing developed both on private and public properties.
      The impact of this shortage fall most heavily on those who can least afford it.

  29. Ron

    Don:  “So yes: focus on the vacancy rate should be relentless until we get more housing developed both on private and public properties.”

    Well, that didn’t take long, to flush that out.  (I realize that you and David have similar views regarding this.)

    If you follow your logic, it will ultimately lead to some very negative impacts on existing neighborhoods (and the city, as a whole). And, it may very well not have any meaningful impact on the vacancy rate, or cost of housing.

    What will you and David continue your efforts, if the city approves “thousands” of units to be built, but the vacancy rate remains essentially the same?  Should we take a periodic survey, and adjust our building rate based primarily on that?

    Are you actually advocating that we build units based primarily on the vacancy rate (while disregarding existing zoning and planning)?  What do you think the impact will be, by letting the vacancy rate guide most planning decisions?

    Do you think, for example, that units will only be occupied by those who are otherwise commuting to Davis?  (I don’t think you can realistically make that argument.)

    And, are you advocating for this without further effort to encourage the University to do more? (We’ve already had a positive impact, regarding their commitments.)

    Again, to have any meaningful impact on prices (in particular), you’d truly have to advocate a high rate of development.  (Actually, prices aren’t that much less in nearby areas where development has run amok.)  In any case, Davis will likely remain more expensive than other nearby areas, regardless of the amount of development that might (realistically) be approved.

    I’m not advocating for “no residential infill”, but it’s going to lead to some bad decisions if you base decisions primarily on the vacancy rate.

     

    1. Don Shor

      Taking your paragraphs in order:

      1. Negative impacts are already happening.

      2. Of course it will affect the vacancy rate.

      3. The city won’t approve thousands of units. The vacancy rate won’t stay the same. A periodic survey has been taken every year for decades.

      4. I have long advocated that the apartment vacancy rate be used as a metric to determine the need for more apartments. There is no need to ignore existing zoning and planning. Any change in zoning requires a city council vote after review by commissions. As to planning, we are long overdue for an update of the General Plan, and our current housing shortage should certainly be addressed in that.

      5. Units will be occupied by people who are commuting into town, by people who are living in higher-density housing situations than their houses and apartments were designed for, by many of the new students that will be coming to town. I’m not sure what the relevance of that question is.

      6. I certainly advocate that the university be encouraged to build more housing and increase the density of their planned developments. We should also be very realistic about exactly what the university has promised and what the limits of their capabilities are.

      7. I’m not concerned with prices. I’m concerned with the vacancy rate. Davis has always, in the 40+ years I’ve lived in this region, been more expensive than surrounding communities. The disparity has never been higher, though, than in the last few years.

      8. Yes, in fact, you appear to be advocating for “no residential infill.”

      I’ve been pounding this issue on the Vanguard for several years, because I see directly the impact on young adults who are trying to find rental housing in this market. My kids, their friends, and my employees face in increasingly difficult housing market. It costs them more to either live here or commute in to Davis. I will continue to do so until I see the apartment vacancy rate going up substantially, and I hope David will as well.

      1. hpierce

        Vacancy rate is cyclic… ‘healthy’ value (landlords/tenants have ‘balance’ in rates/rate increases year to year) is ~ 5%… when we moved back, a couple years after graduation, in ’79, it was @ 0.25 %… got better, then plummeted again a few years later (owned a home @ that point, so didn’t focus on that year much).  To give you an idea, in ’80, we were able to buy a 3 br/2ba house @ not all that much above what we were paying for a 2br, 1ba townhouse rental, except for the 12+% interest rate at that time… we toughed it out… had the interest rate been near current, it would have been a very tiny stretch.

        Vacancy rate IS an important barometer… not a goal, in and of itself, but an important indicator of housing supply/demand, hence cost/affordability.  Particularly for rental properties, whether SF or MF…

      2. Ron

        Regarding your numbered points:

        1)  Your apparent/proposed “solution” (to drastically change existing zoning and planning) will increase negative impacts.  (And, it will ultimately result in recurring, bitter fights throughout the city, as additional large-scale developments are proposed in locations that are not suitable for it.)

        2)  There is not a “linear” relationship between the number of units built and a corresponding (hoped for) decrease in demand.  No one can determine the origin of a new resident in advance, or the potential reason for moving to Davis.

        3)  You and David are advocating for “thousands of units”.  (David generally doesn’t commit to location.)

        4)  I understand that you are indeed advocating for a very significant change in zoning, e.g., at Sterling.  The city council can make such changes, regardless of the impact on a particular neighborhood or the city, as a whole.  Some on that council are openly pro-development.  One council member (Rochelle) has demonstrated some hostility, towards those who are on the slower end of the “growth spectrum”.  We don’t get to vote on such changes, and we are essentially at the mercy of the council.  (It makes things even worse, when someone constantly advocates for the developer.)

        5)  What if, instead of the “preferred” groups that you’ve identified, the new units are occupied by residents from other areas?  (And, the “preferred” groups are outbid for these units?)

        6)  As I mentioned yesterday, you cannot assume what the University’s limits are, especially at this point.  It wasn’t that long ago when some repeatedly (and incorrectly) said that the University would never respond.

        7)  In your initial comment above, you brought up the issue of affordability.

        8)  I never said that I was advocating for “no residential infill”.  (Infill will occur, regardless of what I think.  And, I agree that it’s often a reasonable decision to make.)  However, in the case of Sterling, placing a large-scale, 525 parking space, “rent-by-the-room” dormitory structure located far from campus is a textbook example of poor planning.  Not to mention the destruction of the existing, relatively new facility (that can serve the community in other ways), which was built by a non-profit organization that receives tax dollars.  And yet, this seems to be what you and some others are advocating.

        Regarding your employees, I frankly don’t see how anyone can realistically expect to survive solely on the limited salary that small retail businesses such as yours can afford to pay (while still remaining competitive, with other similar nearby businesses that probably pay even less).  Regarding your children and their friends, I don’t know enough to comment, regarding their experiences.  (However, I strongly suspect that even building “thousands of units” won’t make much difference, regarding the cost of housing.)

        I can tell you that I’ve been “priced out” of my original home town (some time ago), but I’ve never advocated that housing should be built there, as a result.  (I fully accepted it, and moved on.)  (In fact, when I was growing up, it greatly disturbed me to see nearby areas lost to development.)  If a community keeps building housing simply to respond to demand, it’s ultimately not going to be a place that I’d want to live in, regardless.

        Again, basing planning decisions primarily on demand will ensure some poor planning.  (That’s what developers constantly advocate for.)

        I’d urge you and David to “take a breather”, and think more carefully about what you’re advocating for.  (I’d also encourage you and David to get more involved in efforts to encourage the University to do even more.)

        I think you’d agree that placing student housing on campus ensures the best overall result, for students and other residents.  I don’t have a problem with advocating for some residential units (that are not necessarily exclusively targeted at students, far from campus) within the city.  However, I’d suggest that we do so with careful consideration.

         

         

         

         

        1. Ron

          ryankelly:  Huh?  Are you referring to Nishi?

          So, 11, 700 “agree” with me?  (Is this an argument you’re trying to make?) Does that mean “I win”? (Regardless, I’d argue that Davis “won”.)

      1. Don Shor

        UCD enrollment 1997: 24,299

        UCD enrollment 2012: 32,354

        UCD enrollment 2016 – 17: 34,665

        UCD planned enrollment 2020: ______

        Total beds added on campus 1997 – 2016: ______

        Total beds to be added on campus 2016 – 2020: ______

        I’ll let others fill in the blanks.

        1. Fred

          Exactly my point. How much housing has been built in Davis the same time frame? Your time frame goes back far enough to include Mace Ranch and Wildhorse. Maybe your suggesting that these should have been denser and contained more student housing.

  30. Marina Kalugin

    of course…and anyone on here who thinks the silent majority has not learned their lessons from the decades past…..

    well, your “power”, your “money” and your free advertising will not buy the people… nor the votes….

    I knew that many of my friends and neighbors who were No no A, no on Nishi, had not had their votes counted yet…but I knew that in my neighborhood, those who fought this same engineering firm and these same developers, were not going to believe a word out of the liars mouths…

    just because the most brilliant and talented do not spend their time  24/7  (unless retired…LOL   )   on such stupid sites as the DE nor DV to the extent necessary to try to counterbalance the idiocy in the mass media, does not mean that they will be bought and sold and given more problems rather than solutions.

    cya

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