My View: We Need a Better Discussion Here on Measure L – Part One

The tone of the discussion on Measure L has taken an unfortunate turn in my estimation this week.  Really since the start of the campaign when the first ballot statements were laid out, I felt that some of the opposition claims suffered from factual inaccuracies.  There were also over-the-top statements made by opponents of the project.

For instance: “This Sun City-like senior project is the antithesis of modern urban planning and is the worst example of suburban sprawl proposed in Davis in over 25 years.”  People are of course entitled to their opinions, but to me this was just hyperbole, especially with the problems that accompanied the Covell Village proposal and have actually manifested themselves in the Cannery project.

There is also: “West Davis Active Adult Community will not build ANY low-income housing itself like every other major development in Davis has done in recent years.”  That is flat out inaccurate, as David Thompson has repeatedly pointed out to no acknowledgement by the opposition.

Further there is: “The amount of money actually provided by Taormino toward his low income housing obligation at WDAAC is $O.”  Another blatant inaccuracy.

On the other hand, the response from David Taormino yesterday was not particularly helpful either.  Mr. Taormino claims, “Their first article contained 23 misleading, distorted and exaggerated statements.”

He continued: “This has been the underlying strategy in ALL previous campaigns against more Davis housing. In Mr. Pryor’s and Ms. Nieberg’s world: Ineffectual City staff, supported by largely incapable volunteer commissioners and incompetent City Council persons conspire to line the pockets of greedy developers.”

It would have been more helpful for Mr. Taormino to simply correct the record by sampling a list of what he viewed as inaccurate statements and then correcting them on an objective basis.

Instead we get: “There are so many misstatements, distortions, fabrications and nit picking in the second article by Mr. Pryor and Ms. Nieberg I’m not going to waste the reader’s time by responding to each. Together, their articles contain at least 50 distortions all protected by the United States Constitution.”

For a voter attempting to determine whether they are going to support the project – how does this help us?

We have been accused of favoring the developers here – while that may be understandable, from my view, part of the problem is that most of the talking right now is occurring by the opposition and many of their claims I consider questionable if not outright fabrications.

What the voters need is an objective view of the facts, they need the proponents and opponents to make their best subjective arguments, and then make the determination.  Given that this hasn’t happened thus far, it falls to us to set the record straight – this article will be the first attempt to do so.

We start with five questionable claims by the opposition.  Some of these are factually inaccurate.  Others are subjectively questionable.  Tomorrow I will go through problems I see with the project.

First: “West Davis Active Adult Community will not build ANY low-income housing itself like every other major development in Davis has done in recent years.”

This one is pretty much thoroughly debunked by David Thompson.

He argues: “The developers in the same category are the following over nearly a 30 year history. The donation of land to be set aside for affordable housing is the most valuable mechanism used by the city. The value of the land contributed to a non profit allows that land to be leveraged through state and federal programs to provide the highest subsidies and the lowest apartment rents. This category has provided more affordable housing apartments than any other during this past nearly 30 years.”

He then goes on to list 12 projects that have donated land to build affordable units over the last 30 years.  This includes: Windmere, Fox Creek, Heather Glen, Homestead, Tuscany Villas, Walnut Terrace, Twin Pines Community, Owendale Community, Tremont Green, Moore Village, Cesar Chavez, Eleanor Roosevelt.

Alan Pryor told me that he disagrees with the land dedication model, and I think that would be a better approach than attempting to repeat questionable if not factually inaccurate claims.

Second: “The amount of money actually provided by Taormino toward his low income housing obligation at WDAAC is $O.”

This is only true if you believe that the land that is donated for the affordable site has no value whatsoever.  I pointed out that about four acres has been donated for the affordable site and the affordable developers then have to raise the money through grants to actually build the housing, but in the end, the land donated has actual value.

There has been some debate over what that value should be.  I’ve argued $1 million per acre, but it really doesn’t matter.  The value of the land, we can all agree, is not zero.  When pointed out to Alan, he has doubled down on his argument.

They’ve also made the questionable argument that there is no guarantee the housing will ever get built.  It is true that there is no guarantee, but the developers gain no advantage by not building it as this point.  David Thompson and Luke Watkins have pointed out that in their considerable years in this business, they’ve always built their projects.

There may be fruitful approaches that the opposition can take here, but these claims I believe are inaccurate and not particularly helpful.

Third: “This Sun City-like senior project is the antithesis of modern urban planning and is the worst example of suburban sprawl proposed in Davis in over 25 years.”

This is a subjective argument, but I think it is hyperbolic.  There was the massive Covell Village project that was voted down in 2005.  Mr. Pryor argued in a comment that that project had far greater density, but density is not the only issue here.  Part of the problem with Covell Village is that it was too large and its unmitigated traffic impacts were a huge problem.

There is also the Cannery Project that had all sorts of problems which led to a 3-2 vote for approval in 2013.  Many of those problems have manifested themselves during build out.

There is a case to be made – and I will make shortly – that there are bad land use policies at work here, but calling it the worst example of suburban sprawl over the last 25 years is hyperbole in my view.

Fourth: “When calculated in that manner, the average return to the City becomes a negative $150,000 to $200,000 annually.”

Alan Pryor uses Commissioner Solomon’s alternative fiscal analysis to argue that this project results in a net fiscal negative to the city.  Now I find this interesting, because Mr. Solomon had the same fiscal analysis showing that Nishi was in the red, and yet Alan Pryor supported that project.

It is important to note that the majority of the Finance and Budget Commission does not agree with Mr. Solomon on this point.

As I posted in a comment, I just do not buy the fiscal analysis.  There are a number of problems here, and one is really asking what the real costs of the project are, separating out the overall city issue of unconstrained employee compensation from the issue of the impacts of any given project.

For example, when I examined Sterling’s fiscal analysis, it was actually a net fiscal positive all the way until year 14.  What happened in year 14?  Well the revenue and cost assumptions finally got to the point where the projected increases in employee compensation outstripped the assumptions on the increases to city revenue.

Change the assumptions to what consultant Bob Leland projected and you end up with a fiscally positive project throughout.

But there is a more important point than that – the problem is not the project, the problem is that we are not constraining employee compensation.  Constrain employee compensation and the project remains positive in perpetuity.  The problem therefore is a citywide problem, not project specific.

In any case, for WDAAC, I simply changed the assumptions on the cost for fire and police, reasoning that this project will not trigger additional police and fire, especially in the first ten years.  I simply took their initial cost allocation and assumed an annual 5 percent increase (more than Leland projected) and the result was that there was a $2.28 million surplus rather than a deficit.

Bottom line: if WDAAC is bleeding over $1 million from the budget by year 10, then every project is doing the same and the city is facing multi-million deficits on an ongoing basis.  I am not suggesting that the city doesn’t have fiscal issues, but that has less to do with development and more to do with unconstrained compensation growth.

Five – “The far edge of town is exactly the wrong location for a senior development and this project has exceedingly poor connectivity for seniors.” 

This is another subjective statement.  But I believe inaccurate.

When I interviewed David Thompson and Luke Watkins, they made a pretty compelling argument that this is actually a good location for seniors.

We need to understand something – everyone is different and a lot of people do not want to live near the downtown.

First of all, this is across the street from the University Retirement Community (URC), which has operated a successful senior facility for decades.  So if the location works for URC, why not WDAAC?

There are advantages to this location.  For seniors, close proximity to the hospital and also doctors’ offices is a huge advantage.

Moreover, the project is located in walking distance to shopping like Safeway and CVS.  That means that seniors can walk to get groceries.  They can use motorized mechanisms to do so.  Or they can have a van or shuttle, or contract with URC for use of theirs.

In a way, everything that individual seniors would need is in close proximity.  That would argue that it is a better location than others.

I asked the question of Alan Pryor and some others, because I think it is an important: if this location is problematic, is there any location that would work for peripheral development?  Todd Edelman, who has also opposed the project, pointed out that there should be “no development north of West Covell.”

These are five problems I have with the opposition arguments.  Given the length (1700 plus words), I will go through five problems that I have with the project for Sunday’s Commentary.

—David M. Greenwald reporting


Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event

Eventbrite - Immigration Law: Defending Immigrant Rights and Keeping Families Together

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

33 Comments

    1. Alan Pryor

       

      My View: We Need a Better Discussion Here on Measure L – Part One

      I agree, David.

      But when you continually cherry pick my statements and then INACCURATELY quote me it shows your obvious support for Taormino – and then you become part of the problem and not part of the solution. As pointed out in the first comment above, it has become pretty obvious to even the casual reader where your favors lie in this debate. It is embarrassing for you to even try to maintain a facade of objectivity here when you continually write disparaging things and fail to fully and fairly report my comments on the points you raised above. For instance,

      1. “West Davis Active Adult Community will not build ANY low-income housing itself like every other major development in Davis has done in recent years.”

      Here I clearly qualified my state with “..in recent years“., but then you disparage me by quoting David Thompson projects put in on donated land, “…over the last 30 years. ” Can we at least agree that my comment “...in recent years” is not the same as “...over the past 30 years.”

      2. Second: “The amount of money actually provided by Taormino toward his low income housing obligation at WDAAC is $O.”

      Firstly, the actual quote in both our website and white papers says, :”The amount of money actually provided by the WDAAC developer for construction of his low income housing obligation at WDAAC is $0.”

      By leaving out the phrase, “…for construction”, you have intentionally changed the meaning of our statement to suit your own inaccurate reporting. I have reported this discrepancy to you on several occasions so for you to continually make this misrepresenation is completely wrong.

      Second, the quote that West Davis Active Adult Community wll not actually build ANY low income housing itself is a true statement.

      Following is the full text on this item from our website, http://www.noonwdaac.org. The readers can decide themselves whether or not your reporting is accurate.
      And before that,  I do note that you yourself have agreed in your own words in a previous column disparaging us that there is “NO GUARANTEE” that the affordable housing will ever be built. Do you deny this?
      _________________________________________________

      “WDAAC HAS NO GUARANTEED LOW-INCOME HOUSING

      The Proposed Low-Income Senior Housing Component of WDAAC is a Ruse. The Developer is not Making ANY Contribution to the Low-Income Housing Construction Costs and There is No Guarantee in the Development Agreement that the Low-Income Units will EVER be Built.

      There is no doubt that we need more affordable (with a capital “A”) senior housing in Davis. The current 4 largest subsidized senior housing facilities in the City have a combined wait list of over 400 people with only about 15-20 openings per year. A similar situation exists for every low income age group seeking to get into subsidized housing. But the low-income housing component of this development is based on hopes and may never be built because the developer is NOT actually required to provide any affordable housing himself. Instead, he is donating a small parcel of land (4.26 acres) in the furthest southwest corner of the project to satisfy his affordable housing obligations.

      But there is no guarantee any affordable senior housing will ever be built there. Today, the low income housing developer does not have the resources to finance and construct such a development. Rather, the developer must rely entirely on getting grants from state or federal entities to construct the project in the future, when and if the millions of dollars of government funding ever does become available. With the loss of redevelopment funds and in an era of ever increasing deficits, this essential funding is almost non-existent.

      Further, according to David Thompson of Neighborhood Partners at a Planning Commission hearing on the project on November 8, 2017, the actual low income housing requirement for the WDAAC project is 76 units. The current standard for land dedication to satisfy the low income housing requirement is based on 16 units per acre. So 16 units X the 4.26 acre dedication by the developer would equal 68 units, not 76. To actually fulfill his low income housing obligation for this development, the developer would have to donate 4.75 acres, not 4.26, almost 12% more land than he is actually providing. So the developer is not even providing the minimal amount of land required by the City to employ this lowest cost option to satisfy his low income housing obligation.

      At this same meeting, Mr. Thompson stated he was exceedingly grateful to the developer for providing land on which Thompson felt he could “potentially” build up to 150 units, or almost double what the Affordable Housing obligation of the project is at present. Based on this, the project developer is now claiming he would be providing more than twice the affordable housing units required by the city.

      But in reality, Mr. Taormino is providing none. He is just donating even less than the minimum land required by the city and NO funds are made available for the construction of the low-income units themselves. ALL other recent large-scale developments in Davis have otherwise provided substantial subsidized low-income housing on-site which was built and paid for by the developers themselves at a substantial cost.

      For example, Sterling Apartments on 5th St. is putting in a total of 160 apartments of which 38 (19.7%) will be dedicated and reserved as “low income”. They are also using 1.03 acres of land to do so which is 17.1% of the total 6 acre project. Sterling is donating the land used for the low-income housing as a separate but contiguous parcel just like at WDAAC. However, significantly, as stated in the Staff Report recommending Council approval of the Sterling project,

      The proposed Affordable Housing Plan is contained in the Development Agreement. It requires provision of 38 affordable rental units and a $2,025,000 contribution to help with development of the affordable project. No City subsidy is anticipated. The site will be developed by Mutual Housing California, an affordable housing developer chosen by the applicant for this project.” (Emphasis added)

      A $2,025,000 contribution / 38 apts. = $53,289/Apt

      If the same per apartment contribution to actually build the low-income housing was made by WDAAC as was made by Sterling, WDAAC would be providing over $4,000,000 in additional funding to the low income housing construction –

      76 units x $53,289 per unit = $4,049,964

      The amount of money actually provided by the WDAAC developer for construction of his low income housing obligation at WDAAC is $0.

      Another example, the Lincoln 40 apartment project on Olive Dr. was approved only after the developer agreed to reserve almost 15% of the onsite beds for low income, very low income, and extremely low income subsidized units. Nishi 2.0 just passed a Measure J/R vote to put in apartments housing 2,200 beds of which 15% will also be reserved in perpetuity only for low income, very low income and extremely low income students.

      Regrettably, this is not the case with WDAAC! Here the City Council abused its discretionary authority by allowing the developer to donate 4.26 acres of land, totaling only about 6% of the total project size (74.49 acres) to a non-profit that “hopes” to get enough government grants to build a 150 unit apartment complex. As stated earlier, these affordable units may never be built because they are entirely dependent on outside funding since developer contributions for actual construction are not required by the City Council.

      So in summary, based on the City’s already dramatically reduced requirements from 35 to 15% in the City’s new Affordable Housing Ordinance passed last year, the project proponent claims that he is providing more than twice the affordable housing units required by the City. But this is not true! The developer is actually not providing ANY affordable housing units. He is merely donating the land on which affordable housing units “may” be built in the future if enough grant money can be obtained by another low-income housing developer.

      If free grant money cannot be obtained, then no affordable housing units will ever be built on the dedicated land and the WDAAC developer could get away without ever meeting any of the onsite Affordable Housing Requirements that every other developer in town was recently forced to meet to get their projects approved.”
       

      1. David Greenwald

        Alan:

        First of all, whether you qualified it or not. It is still not an accurate point. Some of the projects that David quoted are from the last ten years.

        Second, you say the actual quote is…

        I’m not sure that really makes a difference, but here is where I pulled the quote I used from: http://www.davisvanguard.org/2018/08/commentary-west-davis-affordable-housing-proposal/#comment-391015

        “By leaving out the phrase, “…for construction”, you have intentionally changed the meaning of our statement to suit your own inaccurate reporting.”

        See this is my problem: the quote is clearly coming from your comment and printed as is. But instead of acknowledging that, you’re now accusing me of doing things intentionally.

        Regardless, the phrase doesn’t change my point. You’re arguming in effect that the developer isn’t contributing the project. In fact, land is part of the equation of that donation. You can’t construct a project if you have no land to do it. So regardless of that phrase, your point is inaccurate.

        Finally, there is no guarantee. I said it in here as well. But there is never a guarantee. The point I have made in response is the one Luke and David made to me – they’ve always built their projects. So why would they not do it now?

        Nothing you have said in response here has changed anything.

        1. Alan Pryor

          “By leaving out the phrase, “…for construction”, you have intentionally changed the meaning of our statement to suit your own inaccurate reporting.”

          See this is my problem: the quote is clearly coming from your comment and printed as is. But instead of acknowledging that, you’re now accusing me of doing things intentionally.

          David – I have since clarified that remark a number of times yet you insist on using the month-old comment on a blog out of context. You know what my intentions were when I made an updated comment on the blog to make it consistent with our website and printed literature. To continue to reference an old comment you know to be updated and clarified is, at best, “inaccurate” or, IMHO, dishonest.  So for you to say that we use hyperbole or inaccuracy when you yourself employ the same tools under the guise of neutrality while promoting one development after another does a severe disservice to the Davis Vanguard “brand”. This is why so many of your posters question your supposed neutrality and objectivity.

           

          1. David Greenwald

            Regardless, you’re distinction isn’t meaningful. And btw, no one that has posted on here seems to agree with your point. You’d be better off dropping this and focusing on the weaknesses of the project – which I will lay out fully tomorrow.

      2. Ron

        David:  “The point I have made in response is the one Luke and David made to me – they’ve always built their projects. So why would they not do it now?”

        If you’re referring to Affordable housing, hasn’t the availability of external funding (to build such housing) changed in recent years?  Is so, then a comparison with the past may not be applicable.

        Also – please clarify: Are “Luke and David” the Affordable housing builders? Or, is it some other undefined/undetermined builder? If it’s some other builder, why aren’t you speaking with them, instead (assuming that they’re even identified, at this point)?

        1. Don Shor

          If you’re referring to Affordable housing, hasn’t the availability of external funding (to build such housing) changed in recent years? Is so, then a comparison with the past may not be applicable.

          Per Luke Watkins and David Thompson, funding will not be a problem.

          Also – please clarify: Are “Luke and David” the Affordable housing builders? Or, is it some other undefined/undetermined builder? If it’s some other builder, why aren’t you speaking with them, instead (assuming that they’re even identified, at this point)?

          They are the affordable housing builders. http://npllc.org/about-us/

        2. Ron

          Thanks, Don.

          If funding is actually available, I’m wondering why the city recently “lowered” its Affordable housing requirements (e.g., from 35% to 15%).  (Seems like there’s been a lot of concern regarding the lack of RDA money, for example.)

          I understand that other cities have also revisited their requirements, due to lack of external funding for Affordable housing.

          1. David Greenwald

            Because you are not going to have a lot of WDAAC peripheral developments. You’re going to have a lot of Lincoln40 type infill projects where you won’t have room for a land dedication site.

        3. David Greenwald

          “If you’re referring to Affordable housing, hasn’t the availability of external funding (to build such housing) changed in recent years? ”

          David and Luke are the affordable builders, and they claim no, that there is plenty of availability, in fact more availability than ever. But again, these are land dedication site funding that’s available.

        4. Ron

          David: In reference to your 12:17 p.m. comment, you’re suggesting that the Affordable housing requirements (for peripheral development proposals such as WDAAC) are inadvertently being “weakened” to accommodate (infill) Lincoln40-type developments?

          That doesn’t make sense.  (Also, Nishi was not infill, but nevertheless has an “Affordable housing” plan that is similar to the plan at Lincoln40.)

        5. Ron

          David:  I don’t see the relationship between your question, and the conversation above.

          In any case, no one has the answer, to that.  Voters recently approved Nishi, and they may/may not approve WDAAC. Both are peripheral housing development proposals.

        6. David Greenwald

          Point being, there are no other planned peripheral developments in the foreseeable future.  Hence the reason that the affordable housing ordinance is designed for integrated infill affordable housing at this point rather than land dedication sites.

      3. Ken A

        I’m wondering why Alan won’t tell us the names of the Davis developers that he claims have been donating land “and”  building affordable housing “in recent years”

      4. Ken A

        I have not heard that Sterling (currently a vacant lot) has actually given millions of dollars and deeded land to an affordable developer or put up a bond to “guarantee” construction?

        I wonder why Alan is not writing:

        ‘STERLING HAS NO GUARANTEED LOW-INCOME HOUSING”

        and

        “The amount of money actually provided by the Sterling developer for construction of his low income housing obligation at the Sterling site is $0”

        1. Alan Pryor

          To Ken A:

          I wonder why Alan is not writing:

          ‘STERLING HAS NO GUARANTEED LOW-INCOME HOUSING”

          and

          “The amount of money actually provided by the Sterling developer for construction of his low income housing obligation at the Sterling site is $0

          Uh, I guess because that is not true which you would know if you bothered to read my post above.

          “However, significantly, as stated in the Staff Report recommending Council approval of the Sterling project,

          The proposed Affordable Housing Plan is contained in the Development Agreement. It requires provision of 38 affordable rental units and a $2,025,000 contribution to help with development of the affordable project. No City subsidy is anticipated. The site will be developed by Mutual Housing California, an affordable housing developer chosen by the applicant for this project.” (Emphasis added)

          A $2,025,000 contribution / 38 apts. = $53,289/Apt”

  1. Todd Edelman

    Todd Edelman, who has also opposed the project pointed out, that there should be “no development north of West Covell.”

    My quote to an article from two days ago was actually “… No development north of West Covell; can be considered after we substantially in-fill and dense-fill.” This is similar to you reporting that I said “I will not drink milk” when I actually said “I will not drink milk; can be considered after there is a fundamental change in my intolerance of lactose”.

  2. Todd Edelman

    We need to understand something – everyone is different and a lot of people do not want to live near the downtown.

    A Downtown that is not desirable by persons in their last decades of life is a failed Downtown.

    So if the location works for URC, why not WDAAC?.

    URC is an assisted-living optional community, with e.g. “Tai Chi an elevator ride away”, but also nurses, home health aids and so on. It’s a fundamentally different one than the largely sprawling one proposed for across the street.

    For seniors, close proximity to the hospital but also doctors offices is a huge advantage.

    What’s needed is a good clinic – e.g. in the Civic Plaza Mixed-Use concept, connected with an expanded Senior Center but serving all groups – and for those appointments a few times a month a shuttle to Sutter Davis or Kaiser. Then the 28 or 29 other days of the month residents are close to a whole lot more than a hospital.

    walking distance to shopping like Safeway and CVS.

    It’s a lot more distant from the north end of the proposed development; where many will have cars. To save distance, people can cut through the fantastic parking lot around Sutter Davis. It’s also the same route every time. No one would call this a nice walk. There is nothing along the way besides a huge parking lot and zero destinations along the noisy Class I path that has frailer elder sharing the space with cyclists (oh, wrong, no one cycles to Sutter Davis because it’s at the periphery of town, a great indicator of why no one will go to visit family or friends at the proposed WDAAC.) There’s those ramps to 113. There’s that large parking lot at the Marketplace. It’s a tour of stupid American anti-human urban planning, at least it’s that.

    everything that individual seniors would need is in close proximity..

    Woah, talk about hyperbole! Hospital, one of the most impersonal supermarkets in town, CVS, some other stores, lousy bagels. That’s your planned retirement, David?

  3. Ron

    From article:  “For example, when I examined Sterling’s fiscal analysis, it was actually a net fiscal positive all the way until year 14.  What happened in year 14?”

    Two things occur, after that point:

    1.  It becomes an ever-increasing deficit for the city.

    2.  When it becomes an ever-increasing deficit, David allocates the costs of the proposal “to the city” as a whole, rather than to the development itself.

    1. David Greenwald

      You have to ask what’s generating the cost. I argue what’s generating the cost is employee compensation increases. Cap those, and you don’t have expenditures outstrip revenues 10-15 years out.

      1. Ron

        The employees that you’re referring to serve developments.  Those costs have never been “capped” in the long run, and there’s no mechanism in place to do so.

        “Wishing” doesn’t make it so.

        1. David Greenwald

          That’s not the point. The point is that what’s driving the deficit is that we are not containing employee compensation costs. If we do, then those numbers stay in the black through out. That’s not a development problem, it’s a city problem.

        2. David Greenwald

          The point is that what’s driving the deficit is that we are not containing employee compensation costs. If we do, then those numbers stay in the black through out. That’s not a development problem, it’s a city problem

        3. Ron

          David:  Your argument makes no sense.

          Why even conduct any fiscal analyses of a proposed development, if you’re simply going to allocate the additional costs to the city at large?

          1. David Greenwald

            Because there are project specific costs that you have to account for. But if you are moving into the negative in year 14, it is not due to the city incurring additional costs, it is because the costs of the employees is rising faster than revenues. That’s why I’m not sure running an analysis out that far is meaningful.

        4. Ron

          David:  “Because there are project specific costs that you have to account for.”

          That’s correct.

          David:  “But if you are moving into the negative in year 14, it is not due to the city incurring additional costs, it is because the costs of the employees is rising faster than revenues.”

          The city is incurring additional costs, for the reason that you’ve noted.  However, a portion of those costs is due to the increasing costs of serving the additional development in question.

          David:  “That’s why I’m not sure running an analysis out that far is meaningful.”

          It’s absolutely meaningful, since developments last longer than 14 years.  Since the city is made up of developments (that were approved in the past), there’s a cumulative impact that’s very significant.  Each and every money-losing development that’s approved ultimately makes the city’s fiscal situation worse.

          This is a situation that’s occurring throughout California, partly as a result of Proposition 13 (which caps “revenues” (taxes), but not “costs”. It has ultimately made cities reluctant to continuously add housing.

        5. Ron

          Don:  I’d refer to fiscal analyses, to answer your first question.

          In general, it’s been noted that commercial developments can have a positive fiscal impact, and that Davis has an “imbalance” of housing/commercial.  (In other words, too much existing housing compared to the amount of commercial development.)  Of course, a lot of this imbalance is due to the presence of UCD (as a major employer), as well as significant employment opportunities in Sacramento.  UCD in particular has already created a situation in which more commuters pour into the city, than outward each day.

          Having said that, I’m nevertheless excited about the new commercial development (within city limits, inside the Mace Ranch curve) that will house Nugget’s headquarters.  Over the years, I’ve noticed a lot of new commercial development along 2nd Street, all the way up to Mace Boulevard.  (The Residence Inn will also be a fine addition, in that area.)

           

          1. Don Shor

            I’d refer to fiscal analyses, to answer your first question.

            But the only fiscal analyses that you accept are minority viewpoints that support your pre-existing view.
            Are there any types of housing developments, using your preferred model, that don’t cost a city money in the long run?

        6. Ron

          Don:  Your first statement is incorrect, and is used as a basis for your second statement.

          However, no support has been presented for the “75% across-the-board” cost allocation that the city sometimes uses. That’s a fact – not an opinion (or “preference”).

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