A Bob Dunning column recently stated:
the Measure J concept has served Davis well … it doesn’t prevent growth, it simply allows everyone to have a say …
Furthermore he has in the past argued:
Measure J is neither anti-growth nor pro-growth, but simply a measure that allows people to vote on growth.
Dunning is wrong on this account–Measure J is the single-most important growth control device that Davis currently has. All one needs to do is make a comparative look at Davis history. Leading up to 2001, when Measure J took effect, there were any number of large subdivisions added on the Davis periphery that greatly increased the growth and size of the city residentially.
How many peripheral subdivisions have been approved since 2001?
Zero. That is in six years zero.
In fact, the very threat of a Measure J vote requirement has been a deterrent for growth proposals.
There has been one single development project that was proposed since Measure J was passed–Covell Village. Covell Village failed by a nearly 60-40 margin despite having 4-1 support in the city council. If it were not for Measure J, Covell Village would be under construction right now.
This is also why most of the talk in the Housing Element Update and in growth in Davis in general, seems to be focused on infill rather than peripheral growth.
So to suggest that Measure is neither anti-growth nor pro-growth is an empirically unfounded statement.
What I think is less obvious to many Davis residents is that there is another growth-control factor that is just as important–the pass-through agreement between the city and county. Basically this is an arrangement that enables the city of Davis to pass through over $2 million per year of redevelopment money to the county and in exchange the county has ceded land use authority to the city.
What that means is that the county cannot build large developments on the Davis periphery without city permission. The city cannot build those developments without a Measure J vote.
This process may be under assault right now however with proposals by the county to change three key areas that are inside the city’s agreed upon sphere of influence–Northwest Quadrant, Covell Property, and the antiquated subdivisions east of Mace Boulevard along I-80. If the county can succeed in changing the land-use designations for those properties they are well on their way toward development.
Members of the Davis city council may be working behind the scenes to attempt to force this growth on Davis. We are talking about a 2100 unit senior housing development north of Covell and west of Lake. We are talking about development in the Covell Property that the voters of Davis just a year and a half ago soundly rejected, and we are talking about commercial development along I-80 that even members of the council majority strongly oppose.
Fortunately for the residents of Davis we have a pass-through agreement and Measure J to help protect us, but we must remain vigilant in protecting those safeguards. And we must pay attention to what the City Council and the Board of Supervisors are proposing.
Some have interpreted this stance to mean that myself or others like me oppose all growth. Nothing could be further from the truth–I simply believe that the city should have land-use authority for the area around the city and that the county should not have the capacity to force growth on cities. I also believe that the voters should maintain control over what projects get built and what projects do not get built. Measure J needs to be renewed in the coming years to continue to provide that level of security.
I also think people are lulled into a false sense of security by some of the proposed projects and growth rates. The SACOG designated growth is 1 percent per year. That has been euphanized to mean “fair share.” That is the measure that the council majority has adopted.
But what does “fair share” actually mean? A one percent growth rate means a new development the size of Wildhorse every three years and the size of Mace Ranch every seven years. One percent means that by 2050, we are looking at nearly 100,000 people. That doesn’t sound like a lot but it will require nearly double our water supply (think that may be why they are developing that expensive water supply project that along with the sewer project will quadruple our water rates in real terms in the next 20 years?) If all cities in California grew at that rate, water a scarce commodity would become even more scarce and even more expensive. At a time of uncertainty about global climate, is a one percent growth rate, really a fair share for anyone?
Realistically, Davis will grow into the future as will California, but I think we need to be looking at smart growth rather than fair share growth. We want to maintain our character and the nature of our community. In the meantime, more communities will likely follow Davis’ model of protecting their growth rate and development.
All of which makes the next round of elections all the more important. We need to get people into the the County Board of Supervisors seat that will respect and support the pass-through agreement but more importantly acknowledge the city of Davis as the sole authority on land-use on its own periphery. Just as important, we need a council majority that will support a renewal of Measure J and work to limit new peripheral development rather than support it. That means helping to retake the city council from the current majority of Asmundson, Souza, and Saylor.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
The strategy for a Yes on X victory was arrogantly based upon the premise that, to paraphrase the “godfather” of that enterprise, the Davis voters do not have the political will to carry this off. The future battle lines are being drawn again and it is again a question of political will.
The Joint-Study strategy needs to be seen for what it is, empty “saber rattling” to erode the will of the Davis voter to retain control of their city’s future.
The strategy for a Yes on X victory was arrogantly based upon the premise that, to paraphrase the “godfather” of that enterprise, the Davis voters do not have the political will to carry this off. The future battle lines are being drawn again and it is again a question of political will.
The Joint-Study strategy needs to be seen for what it is, empty “saber rattling” to erode the will of the Davis voter to retain control of their city’s future.
The strategy for a Yes on X victory was arrogantly based upon the premise that, to paraphrase the “godfather” of that enterprise, the Davis voters do not have the political will to carry this off. The future battle lines are being drawn again and it is again a question of political will.
The Joint-Study strategy needs to be seen for what it is, empty “saber rattling” to erode the will of the Davis voter to retain control of their city’s future.
The strategy for a Yes on X victory was arrogantly based upon the premise that, to paraphrase the “godfather” of that enterprise, the Davis voters do not have the political will to carry this off. The future battle lines are being drawn again and it is again a question of political will.
The Joint-Study strategy needs to be seen for what it is, empty “saber rattling” to erode the will of the Davis voter to retain control of their city’s future.
No on X campaigner said..
“…it is again a question of political will.
This applies also to the Fair Share numbers which are political constructs rather than sacrosanct proclamations handed down from “the Mount”. Many California communities have acted upon their own determination as to whether these numbers do or do not fit in with their plans for the future of their city.
No on X campaigner said..
“…it is again a question of political will.
This applies also to the Fair Share numbers which are political constructs rather than sacrosanct proclamations handed down from “the Mount”. Many California communities have acted upon their own determination as to whether these numbers do or do not fit in with their plans for the future of their city.
No on X campaigner said..
“…it is again a question of political will.
This applies also to the Fair Share numbers which are political constructs rather than sacrosanct proclamations handed down from “the Mount”. Many California communities have acted upon their own determination as to whether these numbers do or do not fit in with their plans for the future of their city.
No on X campaigner said..
“…it is again a question of political will.
This applies also to the Fair Share numbers which are political constructs rather than sacrosanct proclamations handed down from “the Mount”. Many California communities have acted upon their own determination as to whether these numbers do or do not fit in with their plans for the future of their city.
and as those comunities decide to pull up the drawbridge, the next generation increasingly struggles to find affordable housing anywhere in the state.
i hope you all like the way your gated retirement community turns out. you can always get your service industry workers to commute in from out of town, after all, from sprawl somewhere else in the valley. development unseen doesn’t really exist, right?
and as those comunities decide to pull up the drawbridge, the next generation increasingly struggles to find affordable housing anywhere in the state.
i hope you all like the way your gated retirement community turns out. you can always get your service industry workers to commute in from out of town, after all, from sprawl somewhere else in the valley. development unseen doesn’t really exist, right?
and as those comunities decide to pull up the drawbridge, the next generation increasingly struggles to find affordable housing anywhere in the state.
i hope you all like the way your gated retirement community turns out. you can always get your service industry workers to commute in from out of town, after all, from sprawl somewhere else in the valley. development unseen doesn’t really exist, right?
and as those comunities decide to pull up the drawbridge, the next generation increasingly struggles to find affordable housing anywhere in the state.
i hope you all like the way your gated retirement community turns out. you can always get your service industry workers to commute in from out of town, after all, from sprawl somewhere else in the valley. development unseen doesn’t really exist, right?
Hang a second here… The most recent developments have not added affordable housing, they have added more expensive housing. The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable. I’d be willing to support more affordable housing developments, but neither the neighbors nor the developers will comply with that. So rather than add more expensive housing, I’d prefer to hold the line on growth. Covell Village, which you supported, would have added nearly 2000 homes costing 400K a piece–not exactly affordable.
Hang a second here… The most recent developments have not added affordable housing, they have added more expensive housing. The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable. I’d be willing to support more affordable housing developments, but neither the neighbors nor the developers will comply with that. So rather than add more expensive housing, I’d prefer to hold the line on growth. Covell Village, which you supported, would have added nearly 2000 homes costing 400K a piece–not exactly affordable.
Hang a second here… The most recent developments have not added affordable housing, they have added more expensive housing. The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable. I’d be willing to support more affordable housing developments, but neither the neighbors nor the developers will comply with that. So rather than add more expensive housing, I’d prefer to hold the line on growth. Covell Village, which you supported, would have added nearly 2000 homes costing 400K a piece–not exactly affordable.
Hang a second here… The most recent developments have not added affordable housing, they have added more expensive housing. The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable. I’d be willing to support more affordable housing developments, but neither the neighbors nor the developers will comply with that. So rather than add more expensive housing, I’d prefer to hold the line on growth. Covell Village, which you supported, would have added nearly 2000 homes costing 400K a piece–not exactly affordable.
Vincnete said:
“…. Covell Village, which you supported, would have added nearly 2000 homes costing 400K a piece–not exactly affordable.”
Vincente…..It was worse than that. The bulk of the housing was to be very low/low income affordable housing as mandated by the State and our own Davis rules and homes at 750K to over 1 million by the time of build-out according to K. Hesse’s(city staff’s)projections. The middle affordable housing(an inflated designation created by the developers which was at odds with the city’s family income definition) was to be built out at about 10/yr. for a total of about 100 homes.
Vincnete said:
“…. Covell Village, which you supported, would have added nearly 2000 homes costing 400K a piece–not exactly affordable.”
Vincente…..It was worse than that. The bulk of the housing was to be very low/low income affordable housing as mandated by the State and our own Davis rules and homes at 750K to over 1 million by the time of build-out according to K. Hesse’s(city staff’s)projections. The middle affordable housing(an inflated designation created by the developers which was at odds with the city’s family income definition) was to be built out at about 10/yr. for a total of about 100 homes.
Vincnete said:
“…. Covell Village, which you supported, would have added nearly 2000 homes costing 400K a piece–not exactly affordable.”
Vincente…..It was worse than that. The bulk of the housing was to be very low/low income affordable housing as mandated by the State and our own Davis rules and homes at 750K to over 1 million by the time of build-out according to K. Hesse’s(city staff’s)projections. The middle affordable housing(an inflated designation created by the developers which was at odds with the city’s family income definition) was to be built out at about 10/yr. for a total of about 100 homes.
Vincnete said:
“…. Covell Village, which you supported, would have added nearly 2000 homes costing 400K a piece–not exactly affordable.”
Vincente…..It was worse than that. The bulk of the housing was to be very low/low income affordable housing as mandated by the State and our own Davis rules and homes at 750K to over 1 million by the time of build-out according to K. Hesse’s(city staff’s)projections. The middle affordable housing(an inflated designation created by the developers which was at odds with the city’s family income definition) was to be built out at about 10/yr. for a total of about 100 homes.
“The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable.”
What?!
You are pulling numbers out of your tuchus. In fact, the current ordinance, which was in place prior to Covell Village, requires 25% for very low income and 25% more for “modest income.”
As the old saying goes, Vince, everyone has the right to his own opinions. But you don’t have the right to your own “facts.”
“The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable.”
What?!
You are pulling numbers out of your tuchus. In fact, the current ordinance, which was in place prior to Covell Village, requires 25% for very low income and 25% more for “modest income.”
As the old saying goes, Vince, everyone has the right to his own opinions. But you don’t have the right to your own “facts.”
“The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable.”
What?!
You are pulling numbers out of your tuchus. In fact, the current ordinance, which was in place prior to Covell Village, requires 25% for very low income and 25% more for “modest income.”
As the old saying goes, Vince, everyone has the right to his own opinions. But you don’t have the right to your own “facts.”
“The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable.”
What?!
You are pulling numbers out of your tuchus. In fact, the current ordinance, which was in place prior to Covell Village, requires 25% for very low income and 25% more for “modest income.”
As the old saying goes, Vince, everyone has the right to his own opinions. But you don’t have the right to your own “facts.”
Davis does have,by its own ordinance, a larger % for very low/low income housing than the State mandates. The additional 25% “modest income ” housing is a artifical construct of the Covell Village developers which I do not remember being supported by the facts. I do not believe that it existed prior to the CV proposal. The obligatory middle range housing that WAS set aside in the CV development agreement was about 10/yr. for a total of approx. 100 out of 1800+ units at build-out.
Davis does have,by its own ordinance, a larger % for very low/low income housing than the State mandates. The additional 25% “modest income ” housing is a artifical construct of the Covell Village developers which I do not remember being supported by the facts. I do not believe that it existed prior to the CV proposal. The obligatory middle range housing that WAS set aside in the CV development agreement was about 10/yr. for a total of approx. 100 out of 1800+ units at build-out.
Davis does have,by its own ordinance, a larger % for very low/low income housing than the State mandates. The additional 25% “modest income ” housing is a artifical construct of the Covell Village developers which I do not remember being supported by the facts. I do not believe that it existed prior to the CV proposal. The obligatory middle range housing that WAS set aside in the CV development agreement was about 10/yr. for a total of approx. 100 out of 1800+ units at build-out.
Davis does have,by its own ordinance, a larger % for very low/low income housing than the State mandates. The additional 25% “modest income ” housing is a artifical construct of the Covell Village developers which I do not remember being supported by the facts. I do not believe that it existed prior to the CV proposal. The obligatory middle range housing that WAS set aside in the CV development agreement was about 10/yr. for a total of approx. 100 out of 1800+ units at build-out.
“I do not believe that it existed prior to the CV proposal.”
Who cares what you “believe”? Just look it up in the city records. The city council in 2004 passed an ordinance which requires the low-income and middle-income percentages. Saying it’s an “artificial construct” is moronic, when you don’t know what the heck you are talking about and you won’t even bother to look up a single fact.
“I do not believe that it existed prior to the CV proposal.”
Who cares what you “believe”? Just look it up in the city records. The city council in 2004 passed an ordinance which requires the low-income and middle-income percentages. Saying it’s an “artificial construct” is moronic, when you don’t know what the heck you are talking about and you won’t even bother to look up a single fact.
“I do not believe that it existed prior to the CV proposal.”
Who cares what you “believe”? Just look it up in the city records. The city council in 2004 passed an ordinance which requires the low-income and middle-income percentages. Saying it’s an “artificial construct” is moronic, when you don’t know what the heck you are talking about and you won’t even bother to look up a single fact.
“I do not believe that it existed prior to the CV proposal.”
Who cares what you “believe”? Just look it up in the city records. The city council in 2004 passed an ordinance which requires the low-income and middle-income percentages. Saying it’s an “artificial construct” is moronic, when you don’t know what the heck you are talking about and you won’t even bother to look up a single fact.
Rich: You are right up against the edge there with that comment.
Rich: You are right up against the edge there with that comment.
Rich: You are right up against the edge there with that comment.
Rich: You are right up against the edge there with that comment.
Rich, you are impatient but you are right in that this discussion is not helped by factually unsupported assumptions. Having served on the Affordable Housing Task force, I am aware that there is a huge dilemma of sustaining a permanent stock of for sale affordable housing and keeping investors from buying them up. There are also other difficulties.
Rich, you are impatient but you are right in that this discussion is not helped by factually unsupported assumptions. Having served on the Affordable Housing Task force, I am aware that there is a huge dilemma of sustaining a permanent stock of for sale affordable housing and keeping investors from buying them up. There are also other difficulties.
Rich, you are impatient but you are right in that this discussion is not helped by factually unsupported assumptions. Having served on the Affordable Housing Task force, I am aware that there is a huge dilemma of sustaining a permanent stock of for sale affordable housing and keeping investors from buying them up. There are also other difficulties.
Rich, you are impatient but you are right in that this discussion is not helped by factually unsupported assumptions. Having served on the Affordable Housing Task force, I am aware that there is a huge dilemma of sustaining a permanent stock of for sale affordable housing and keeping investors from buying them up. There are also other difficulties.
Blog administrator.. please allow Rich Rifkin to continue with his hyperbolic ranting. He is the best
“advertisement” in town for the need of a political New Direction in 2008,both nationally and locally.
Blog administrator.. please allow Rich Rifkin to continue with his hyperbolic ranting. He is the best
“advertisement” in town for the need of a political New Direction in 2008,both nationally and locally.
Blog administrator.. please allow Rich Rifkin to continue with his hyperbolic ranting. He is the best
“advertisement” in town for the need of a political New Direction in 2008,both nationally and locally.
Blog administrator.. please allow Rich Rifkin to continue with his hyperbolic ranting. He is the best
“advertisement” in town for the need of a political New Direction in 2008,both nationally and locally.
Re: Rich Rifkin’s “hyperbolic ranting”
…eh, it’s just the beer talking …or perhaps it’s the rugby. Let’s just say it’s both.
Re: Rich Rifkin’s “hyperbolic ranting”
…eh, it’s just the beer talking …or perhaps it’s the rugby. Let’s just say it’s both.
Re: Rich Rifkin’s “hyperbolic ranting”
…eh, it’s just the beer talking …or perhaps it’s the rugby. Let’s just say it’s both.
Re: Rich Rifkin’s “hyperbolic ranting”
…eh, it’s just the beer talking …or perhaps it’s the rugby. Let’s just say it’s both.
I’m just pointing out the facts. Because the facts are in contradiction to the idiotology of the Vanguard, the halfwitted Blog Administrator thinks he needs to threaten me? Very nice, indeed.
I’m just pointing out the facts. Because the facts are in contradiction to the idiotology of the Vanguard, the halfwitted Blog Administrator thinks he needs to threaten me? Very nice, indeed.
I’m just pointing out the facts. Because the facts are in contradiction to the idiotology of the Vanguard, the halfwitted Blog Administrator thinks he needs to threaten me? Very nice, indeed.
I’m just pointing out the facts. Because the facts are in contradiction to the idiotology of the Vanguard, the halfwitted Blog Administrator thinks he needs to threaten me? Very nice, indeed.
Rich:
Saying something is moronic is not a fact, it is an opinion.
Second Blog Moderator could be any number of people and could just as easily be a she or as a he.
I’m going to say this for the last time–I do not care about your opinions, I do care how you express those opinions. In the future, I am direct that all posts that refer to the moderation of this blog be emailed to me, rather than posted on this blog. I do not want any more space to be wasted on this topic. You have expressed your opinion in public and in private to me. This is my blog, period. You will follow my rules or you will go somewhere else.
Thank you,
signed David Greenwald
Rich:
Saying something is moronic is not a fact, it is an opinion.
Second Blog Moderator could be any number of people and could just as easily be a she or as a he.
I’m going to say this for the last time–I do not care about your opinions, I do care how you express those opinions. In the future, I am direct that all posts that refer to the moderation of this blog be emailed to me, rather than posted on this blog. I do not want any more space to be wasted on this topic. You have expressed your opinion in public and in private to me. This is my blog, period. You will follow my rules or you will go somewhere else.
Thank you,
signed David Greenwald
Rich:
Saying something is moronic is not a fact, it is an opinion.
Second Blog Moderator could be any number of people and could just as easily be a she or as a he.
I’m going to say this for the last time–I do not care about your opinions, I do care how you express those opinions. In the future, I am direct that all posts that refer to the moderation of this blog be emailed to me, rather than posted on this blog. I do not want any more space to be wasted on this topic. You have expressed your opinion in public and in private to me. This is my blog, period. You will follow my rules or you will go somewhere else.
Thank you,
signed David Greenwald
Rich:
Saying something is moronic is not a fact, it is an opinion.
Second Blog Moderator could be any number of people and could just as easily be a she or as a he.
I’m going to say this for the last time–I do not care about your opinions, I do care how you express those opinions. In the future, I am direct that all posts that refer to the moderation of this blog be emailed to me, rather than posted on this blog. I do not want any more space to be wasted on this topic. You have expressed your opinion in public and in private to me. This is my blog, period. You will follow my rules or you will go somewhere else.
Thank you,
signed David Greenwald
“Saying something is moronic is not a fact, it is an opinion.”
Good point, Sherlock.
“Second Blog Moderator could be any number of people and could just as easily be a she or as a he.”
In the English language, we use he for both the masculine and the neutral form of the third person singular subjective pronoun. I’m not convinced that your proctors at the California Polytechnic drilled that point into your bean.
“I’m going to say this for the last time–I do not care about your opinions, I do care how you express those opinions.”
Good for you.
“In the future, I am direct that all posts that refer to the moderation of this blog be emailed to me, rather than posted on this blog.”
I think that quote — without the adverbial mistake — comes verbatim from Brave New World. It’s good to know that at CPSLO they read Huxley.
“I do not want any more space to be wasted on this topic.”
Of course not. Space on this thread is terribly valuable.
“You have expressed your opinion in public and in private to me.”
Indeed.
“This is my blog, period.”
Indeed, again.
“You will follow my rules or you will go somewhere else.”
How about you send me to Siberia?
“Thank you,
signed David Greenwald”
John Hancock would be proud.
“Saying something is moronic is not a fact, it is an opinion.”
Good point, Sherlock.
“Second Blog Moderator could be any number of people and could just as easily be a she or as a he.”
In the English language, we use he for both the masculine and the neutral form of the third person singular subjective pronoun. I’m not convinced that your proctors at the California Polytechnic drilled that point into your bean.
“I’m going to say this for the last time–I do not care about your opinions, I do care how you express those opinions.”
Good for you.
“In the future, I am direct that all posts that refer to the moderation of this blog be emailed to me, rather than posted on this blog.”
I think that quote — without the adverbial mistake — comes verbatim from Brave New World. It’s good to know that at CPSLO they read Huxley.
“I do not want any more space to be wasted on this topic.”
Of course not. Space on this thread is terribly valuable.
“You have expressed your opinion in public and in private to me.”
Indeed.
“This is my blog, period.”
Indeed, again.
“You will follow my rules or you will go somewhere else.”
How about you send me to Siberia?
“Thank you,
signed David Greenwald”
John Hancock would be proud.
“Saying something is moronic is not a fact, it is an opinion.”
Good point, Sherlock.
“Second Blog Moderator could be any number of people and could just as easily be a she or as a he.”
In the English language, we use he for both the masculine and the neutral form of the third person singular subjective pronoun. I’m not convinced that your proctors at the California Polytechnic drilled that point into your bean.
“I’m going to say this for the last time–I do not care about your opinions, I do care how you express those opinions.”
Good for you.
“In the future, I am direct that all posts that refer to the moderation of this blog be emailed to me, rather than posted on this blog.”
I think that quote — without the adverbial mistake — comes verbatim from Brave New World. It’s good to know that at CPSLO they read Huxley.
“I do not want any more space to be wasted on this topic.”
Of course not. Space on this thread is terribly valuable.
“You have expressed your opinion in public and in private to me.”
Indeed.
“This is my blog, period.”
Indeed, again.
“You will follow my rules or you will go somewhere else.”
How about you send me to Siberia?
“Thank you,
signed David Greenwald”
John Hancock would be proud.
“Saying something is moronic is not a fact, it is an opinion.”
Good point, Sherlock.
“Second Blog Moderator could be any number of people and could just as easily be a she or as a he.”
In the English language, we use he for both the masculine and the neutral form of the third person singular subjective pronoun. I’m not convinced that your proctors at the California Polytechnic drilled that point into your bean.
“I’m going to say this for the last time–I do not care about your opinions, I do care how you express those opinions.”
Good for you.
“In the future, I am direct that all posts that refer to the moderation of this blog be emailed to me, rather than posted on this blog.”
I think that quote — without the adverbial mistake — comes verbatim from Brave New World. It’s good to know that at CPSLO they read Huxley.
“I do not want any more space to be wasted on this topic.”
Of course not. Space on this thread is terribly valuable.
“You have expressed your opinion in public and in private to me.”
Indeed.
“This is my blog, period.”
Indeed, again.
“You will follow my rules or you will go somewhere else.”
How about you send me to Siberia?
“Thank you,
signed David Greenwald”
John Hancock would be proud.
I would probably be better off not getting involved, but I think you are wrong on this point:
“In the English language, we use he for both the masculine and the neutral form of the third person singular subjective pronoun. I’m not convinced that your proctors at the California Polytechnic drilled that point into your bean.”
Perhaps in the dark ages when you went to school that was the case, but in modern English that practice has fallen into disuse and is in fact considered sexist by many.
I would probably be better off not getting involved, but I think you are wrong on this point:
“In the English language, we use he for both the masculine and the neutral form of the third person singular subjective pronoun. I’m not convinced that your proctors at the California Polytechnic drilled that point into your bean.”
Perhaps in the dark ages when you went to school that was the case, but in modern English that practice has fallen into disuse and is in fact considered sexist by many.
I would probably be better off not getting involved, but I think you are wrong on this point:
“In the English language, we use he for both the masculine and the neutral form of the third person singular subjective pronoun. I’m not convinced that your proctors at the California Polytechnic drilled that point into your bean.”
Perhaps in the dark ages when you went to school that was the case, but in modern English that practice has fallen into disuse and is in fact considered sexist by many.
I would probably be better off not getting involved, but I think you are wrong on this point:
“In the English language, we use he for both the masculine and the neutral form of the third person singular subjective pronoun. I’m not convinced that your proctors at the California Polytechnic drilled that point into your bean.”
Perhaps in the dark ages when you went to school that was the case, but in modern English that practice has fallen into disuse and is in fact considered sexist by many.
In any case, it was clear to everybody reading this blog who is a regular exactly who you were referring to when you wrote “the halfwitted Blog Administrator…” We know who you are referring to, so quick being a coward and hiding behind semantics, and antiquated ones at that.
In any case, it was clear to everybody reading this blog who is a regular exactly who you were referring to when you wrote “the halfwitted Blog Administrator…” We know who you are referring to, so quick being a coward and hiding behind semantics, and antiquated ones at that.
In any case, it was clear to everybody reading this blog who is a regular exactly who you were referring to when you wrote “the halfwitted Blog Administrator…” We know who you are referring to, so quick being a coward and hiding behind semantics, and antiquated ones at that.
In any case, it was clear to everybody reading this blog who is a regular exactly who you were referring to when you wrote “the halfwitted Blog Administrator…” We know who you are referring to, so quick being a coward and hiding behind semantics, and antiquated ones at that.
Since I know Rich will correct it–I meant “quit” rather than “quick”
Geesh, who gives a crap. Rich is taking the enjoyment out of this blog for me. Ban him Doug, ban him.
Since I know Rich will correct it–I meant “quit” rather than “quick”
Geesh, who gives a crap. Rich is taking the enjoyment out of this blog for me. Ban him Doug, ban him.
Since I know Rich will correct it–I meant “quit” rather than “quick”
Geesh, who gives a crap. Rich is taking the enjoyment out of this blog for me. Ban him Doug, ban him.
Since I know Rich will correct it–I meant “quit” rather than “quick”
Geesh, who gives a crap. Rich is taking the enjoyment out of this blog for me. Ban him Doug, ban him.
“Ban him Doug, ban him.”
That’s the spirit! You gotta love a good totalitarian toady.
“Ban him Doug, ban him.”
That’s the spirit! You gotta love a good totalitarian toady.
“Ban him Doug, ban him.”
That’s the spirit! You gotta love a good totalitarian toady.
“Ban him Doug, ban him.”
That’s the spirit! You gotta love a good totalitarian toady.
tansey thomas said…
Rich, you are impatient but you are right in that this discussion is not helped by factually unsupported assumptions. Having served on the Affordable Housing Task force, I am aware that there is a huge dilemma of sustaining a permanent stock of for sale affordable housing and keeping investors from buying them up. There are also other difficulties.
Thanks for making this point, Tansey.
I’d be very interested in your ideas about how to provide more affordable housing within the constraints of Measure J and in the absence of peripheral development.
tansey thomas said…
Rich, you are impatient but you are right in that this discussion is not helped by factually unsupported assumptions. Having served on the Affordable Housing Task force, I am aware that there is a huge dilemma of sustaining a permanent stock of for sale affordable housing and keeping investors from buying them up. There are also other difficulties.
Thanks for making this point, Tansey.
I’d be very interested in your ideas about how to provide more affordable housing within the constraints of Measure J and in the absence of peripheral development.
tansey thomas said…
Rich, you are impatient but you are right in that this discussion is not helped by factually unsupported assumptions. Having served on the Affordable Housing Task force, I am aware that there is a huge dilemma of sustaining a permanent stock of for sale affordable housing and keeping investors from buying them up. There are also other difficulties.
Thanks for making this point, Tansey.
I’d be very interested in your ideas about how to provide more affordable housing within the constraints of Measure J and in the absence of peripheral development.
tansey thomas said…
Rich, you are impatient but you are right in that this discussion is not helped by factually unsupported assumptions. Having served on the Affordable Housing Task force, I am aware that there is a huge dilemma of sustaining a permanent stock of for sale affordable housing and keeping investors from buying them up. There are also other difficulties.
Thanks for making this point, Tansey.
I’d be very interested in your ideas about how to provide more affordable housing within the constraints of Measure J and in the absence of peripheral development.
“Perhaps in the dark ages when you went to school that was the case, but in modern English that practice has fallen into disuse and is in fact considered sexist by many.”
Sexist, shmexist. It’s just a basic rule of English.
What is incorrect, yet often used by people who struggle with grammar, is the third person plural, they or them, in place of he, when a neutral singular pronoun is required. This sentence, for example:
“She loved to joke that if anyone ever broke into our home they would have not only the family to deal with, but they would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
Here, anyone is singular. It requires a singular matching pronoun. They is plural and does not match.
Corrected, this is how sentence should read:
“She loved to joke that if anyone ever broke into our home he would have not only the family to deal with, but he would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
If you are weighed down by political correctness, you could say “he or she” in place of he. That, however, is awkward and unnecessary, as “he” is neutral in this instance.
“Perhaps in the dark ages when you went to school that was the case, but in modern English that practice has fallen into disuse and is in fact considered sexist by many.”
Sexist, shmexist. It’s just a basic rule of English.
What is incorrect, yet often used by people who struggle with grammar, is the third person plural, they or them, in place of he, when a neutral singular pronoun is required. This sentence, for example:
“She loved to joke that if anyone ever broke into our home they would have not only the family to deal with, but they would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
Here, anyone is singular. It requires a singular matching pronoun. They is plural and does not match.
Corrected, this is how sentence should read:
“She loved to joke that if anyone ever broke into our home he would have not only the family to deal with, but he would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
If you are weighed down by political correctness, you could say “he or she” in place of he. That, however, is awkward and unnecessary, as “he” is neutral in this instance.
“Perhaps in the dark ages when you went to school that was the case, but in modern English that practice has fallen into disuse and is in fact considered sexist by many.”
Sexist, shmexist. It’s just a basic rule of English.
What is incorrect, yet often used by people who struggle with grammar, is the third person plural, they or them, in place of he, when a neutral singular pronoun is required. This sentence, for example:
“She loved to joke that if anyone ever broke into our home they would have not only the family to deal with, but they would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
Here, anyone is singular. It requires a singular matching pronoun. They is plural and does not match.
Corrected, this is how sentence should read:
“She loved to joke that if anyone ever broke into our home he would have not only the family to deal with, but he would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
If you are weighed down by political correctness, you could say “he or she” in place of he. That, however, is awkward and unnecessary, as “he” is neutral in this instance.
“Perhaps in the dark ages when you went to school that was the case, but in modern English that practice has fallen into disuse and is in fact considered sexist by many.”
Sexist, shmexist. It’s just a basic rule of English.
What is incorrect, yet often used by people who struggle with grammar, is the third person plural, they or them, in place of he, when a neutral singular pronoun is required. This sentence, for example:
“She loved to joke that if anyone ever broke into our home they would have not only the family to deal with, but they would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
Here, anyone is singular. It requires a singular matching pronoun. They is plural and does not match.
Corrected, this is how sentence should read:
“She loved to joke that if anyone ever broke into our home he would have not only the family to deal with, but he would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
If you are weighed down by political correctness, you could say “he or she” in place of he. That, however, is awkward and unnecessary, as “he” is neutral in this instance.
I agree that Measure J should be renewed. I’d be surprised if either of the council members up for re-election would disagree with that. I think that the city voters should pass judgment on any large development proposal. But I think it’s important to describe where you do see housing growth occurring if it isn’t going to be peripheral. I think Covell Village failed mostly because of its size, and that a smaller project for the same site could pass. So anti-growth advocates are going to risk the label of ‘elitist’ if you don’t state clearly what you mean when you say “I think we need to be looking at smart growth rather than fair share growth.“
A few weeks ago you stated that affordable housing should be a high priority. There is an inherent tension between growth control and affordable housing. How will you deal with that issue as you oppose growth?
I agree that Measure J should be renewed. I’d be surprised if either of the council members up for re-election would disagree with that. I think that the city voters should pass judgment on any large development proposal. But I think it’s important to describe where you do see housing growth occurring if it isn’t going to be peripheral. I think Covell Village failed mostly because of its size, and that a smaller project for the same site could pass. So anti-growth advocates are going to risk the label of ‘elitist’ if you don’t state clearly what you mean when you say “I think we need to be looking at smart growth rather than fair share growth.“
A few weeks ago you stated that affordable housing should be a high priority. There is an inherent tension between growth control and affordable housing. How will you deal with that issue as you oppose growth?
I agree that Measure J should be renewed. I’d be surprised if either of the council members up for re-election would disagree with that. I think that the city voters should pass judgment on any large development proposal. But I think it’s important to describe where you do see housing growth occurring if it isn’t going to be peripheral. I think Covell Village failed mostly because of its size, and that a smaller project for the same site could pass. So anti-growth advocates are going to risk the label of ‘elitist’ if you don’t state clearly what you mean when you say “I think we need to be looking at smart growth rather than fair share growth.“
A few weeks ago you stated that affordable housing should be a high priority. There is an inherent tension between growth control and affordable housing. How will you deal with that issue as you oppose growth?
I agree that Measure J should be renewed. I’d be surprised if either of the council members up for re-election would disagree with that. I think that the city voters should pass judgment on any large development proposal. But I think it’s important to describe where you do see housing growth occurring if it isn’t going to be peripheral. I think Covell Village failed mostly because of its size, and that a smaller project for the same site could pass. So anti-growth advocates are going to risk the label of ‘elitist’ if you don’t state clearly what you mean when you say “I think we need to be looking at smart growth rather than fair share growth.“
A few weeks ago you stated that affordable housing should be a high priority. There is an inherent tension between growth control and affordable housing. How will you deal with that issue as you oppose growth?
“She loved to joke that if anyone ever broke into our home they would have not only the family to deal with, but they would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
So rewrite it.
“She loved to joke that anyone who broke into our home would have not only the family to deal with, but would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
It is practically never necessary to use the ‘he’ = ‘everyone’ construction in a sentence. You just rewrite it and it still makes sense.
“She loved to joke that if anyone ever broke into our home they would have not only the family to deal with, but they would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
So rewrite it.
“She loved to joke that anyone who broke into our home would have not only the family to deal with, but would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
It is practically never necessary to use the ‘he’ = ‘everyone’ construction in a sentence. You just rewrite it and it still makes sense.
“She loved to joke that if anyone ever broke into our home they would have not only the family to deal with, but they would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
So rewrite it.
“She loved to joke that anyone who broke into our home would have not only the family to deal with, but would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
It is practically never necessary to use the ‘he’ = ‘everyone’ construction in a sentence. You just rewrite it and it still makes sense.
“She loved to joke that if anyone ever broke into our home they would have not only the family to deal with, but they would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
So rewrite it.
“She loved to joke that anyone who broke into our home would have not only the family to deal with, but would have the ‘palote’ to deal with too.”
It is practically never necessary to use the ‘he’ = ‘everyone’ construction in a sentence. You just rewrite it and it still makes sense.
“as “he” is neutral in this instance.
‘He’ ain’t never neutral nohow.
“as “he” is neutral in this instance.
‘He’ ain’t never neutral nohow.
“as “he” is neutral in this instance.
‘He’ ain’t never neutral nohow.
“as “he” is neutral in this instance.
‘He’ ain’t never neutral nohow.
“The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable.”
Vincente,
I owe you an apology. When you wrote the 15 percent figure above, I thought you pulled that number out of an orifice that I am not allowed to mention in this blog. However, I did not understand at that time that you were educated when 15 percent no longer meant 15 percent, just as you apparently went to a school where grammatical rules deemed sexist by some yenta made them no longer rules. So I am deeply sorry.
For others, however, who do understand that 15 percent means 15 percent, I found this in the October 13, 2004 Davis Enterprise:
“… the Davis City Council on Tuesday voted to increase the percentage of affordable units developers must include in projects, by adding a portion for middle-income residents, particularly local employees.
“When developers propose housing projects, they will have to ensure that 25 percent of the proposal’s for-sale units (not rentals) are sold to “middle-income” households: those who earn between $72,241 and $96,320, if a family of four.
“The 25 percent requirement is in addition to what developers already must include: 25 percent of for-sale housing targeted to households in designated “low” and “moderate” income categories. Rental projects today must include 35 percent of units for renters in “low” and “very low” categories.
“Mayor Ruth Asmundson pushed for a higher percentage required for the designated income groups, arguing that since those are deemed to represent the need, housing should be built primarily for them.
“Councilman Souza said the city has a responsibility to meet its housing need.
“‘We have these needs being generated not only through our prime employer, the university, but also through people who were born here,’ he said. ‘I think it’s irresponsible for us as a community to say to other communities, take our need because we’re not going to take care of it.'”
“Providing housing for employees results in social benefits to the community, a better connection between public safety personnel and the city they serve, environmental benefits and better morale and productivity for Davis businesses, Souza said.
“‘I just think it’s a moral, an ethical, responsibility that we have to tend to,’ he said.
“Said Councilman Ted Puntillo: ‘Any time we’re on the (cutting) edge of providing housing for people who aren’t rich, that’s a good thing.'”
“The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable.”
Vincente,
I owe you an apology. When you wrote the 15 percent figure above, I thought you pulled that number out of an orifice that I am not allowed to mention in this blog. However, I did not understand at that time that you were educated when 15 percent no longer meant 15 percent, just as you apparently went to a school where grammatical rules deemed sexist by some yenta made them no longer rules. So I am deeply sorry.
For others, however, who do understand that 15 percent means 15 percent, I found this in the October 13, 2004 Davis Enterprise:
“… the Davis City Council on Tuesday voted to increase the percentage of affordable units developers must include in projects, by adding a portion for middle-income residents, particularly local employees.
“When developers propose housing projects, they will have to ensure that 25 percent of the proposal’s for-sale units (not rentals) are sold to “middle-income” households: those who earn between $72,241 and $96,320, if a family of four.
“The 25 percent requirement is in addition to what developers already must include: 25 percent of for-sale housing targeted to households in designated “low” and “moderate” income categories. Rental projects today must include 35 percent of units for renters in “low” and “very low” categories.
“Mayor Ruth Asmundson pushed for a higher percentage required for the designated income groups, arguing that since those are deemed to represent the need, housing should be built primarily for them.
“Councilman Souza said the city has a responsibility to meet its housing need.
“‘We have these needs being generated not only through our prime employer, the university, but also through people who were born here,’ he said. ‘I think it’s irresponsible for us as a community to say to other communities, take our need because we’re not going to take care of it.'”
“Providing housing for employees results in social benefits to the community, a better connection between public safety personnel and the city they serve, environmental benefits and better morale and productivity for Davis businesses, Souza said.
“‘I just think it’s a moral, an ethical, responsibility that we have to tend to,’ he said.
“Said Councilman Ted Puntillo: ‘Any time we’re on the (cutting) edge of providing housing for people who aren’t rich, that’s a good thing.'”
“The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable.”
Vincente,
I owe you an apology. When you wrote the 15 percent figure above, I thought you pulled that number out of an orifice that I am not allowed to mention in this blog. However, I did not understand at that time that you were educated when 15 percent no longer meant 15 percent, just as you apparently went to a school where grammatical rules deemed sexist by some yenta made them no longer rules. So I am deeply sorry.
For others, however, who do understand that 15 percent means 15 percent, I found this in the October 13, 2004 Davis Enterprise:
“… the Davis City Council on Tuesday voted to increase the percentage of affordable units developers must include in projects, by adding a portion for middle-income residents, particularly local employees.
“When developers propose housing projects, they will have to ensure that 25 percent of the proposal’s for-sale units (not rentals) are sold to “middle-income” households: those who earn between $72,241 and $96,320, if a family of four.
“The 25 percent requirement is in addition to what developers already must include: 25 percent of for-sale housing targeted to households in designated “low” and “moderate” income categories. Rental projects today must include 35 percent of units for renters in “low” and “very low” categories.
“Mayor Ruth Asmundson pushed for a higher percentage required for the designated income groups, arguing that since those are deemed to represent the need, housing should be built primarily for them.
“Councilman Souza said the city has a responsibility to meet its housing need.
“‘We have these needs being generated not only through our prime employer, the university, but also through people who were born here,’ he said. ‘I think it’s irresponsible for us as a community to say to other communities, take our need because we’re not going to take care of it.'”
“Providing housing for employees results in social benefits to the community, a better connection between public safety personnel and the city they serve, environmental benefits and better morale and productivity for Davis businesses, Souza said.
“‘I just think it’s a moral, an ethical, responsibility that we have to tend to,’ he said.
“Said Councilman Ted Puntillo: ‘Any time we’re on the (cutting) edge of providing housing for people who aren’t rich, that’s a good thing.'”
“The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable.”
Vincente,
I owe you an apology. When you wrote the 15 percent figure above, I thought you pulled that number out of an orifice that I am not allowed to mention in this blog. However, I did not understand at that time that you were educated when 15 percent no longer meant 15 percent, just as you apparently went to a school where grammatical rules deemed sexist by some yenta made them no longer rules. So I am deeply sorry.
For others, however, who do understand that 15 percent means 15 percent, I found this in the October 13, 2004 Davis Enterprise:
“… the Davis City Council on Tuesday voted to increase the percentage of affordable units developers must include in projects, by adding a portion for middle-income residents, particularly local employees.
“When developers propose housing projects, they will have to ensure that 25 percent of the proposal’s for-sale units (not rentals) are sold to “middle-income” households: those who earn between $72,241 and $96,320, if a family of four.
“The 25 percent requirement is in addition to what developers already must include: 25 percent of for-sale housing targeted to households in designated “low” and “moderate” income categories. Rental projects today must include 35 percent of units for renters in “low” and “very low” categories.
“Mayor Ruth Asmundson pushed for a higher percentage required for the designated income groups, arguing that since those are deemed to represent the need, housing should be built primarily for them.
“Councilman Souza said the city has a responsibility to meet its housing need.
“‘We have these needs being generated not only through our prime employer, the university, but also through people who were born here,’ he said. ‘I think it’s irresponsible for us as a community to say to other communities, take our need because we’re not going to take care of it.'”
“Providing housing for employees results in social benefits to the community, a better connection between public safety personnel and the city they serve, environmental benefits and better morale and productivity for Davis businesses, Souza said.
“‘I just think it’s a moral, an ethical, responsibility that we have to tend to,’ he said.
“Said Councilman Ted Puntillo: ‘Any time we’re on the (cutting) edge of providing housing for people who aren’t rich, that’s a good thing.'”
The “middle-income” designation, created from the dais by the council majority, was a significantly higher income level than the city’s official “middle-income” level.
The “middle-income” designation, created from the dais by the council majority, was a significantly higher income level than the city’s official “middle-income” level.
The “middle-income” designation, created from the dais by the council majority, was a significantly higher income level than the city’s official “middle-income” level.
The “middle-income” designation, created from the dais by the council majority, was a significantly higher income level than the city’s official “middle-income” level.
Someone forgot to take his meds today!
Someone forgot to take his meds today!
Someone forgot to take his meds today!
Someone forgot to take his meds today!
The “middle-income” designation, created from the dais by the council majority, was a significantly higher income level than the city’s official “middle-income” level.
What are your figures on this? What exactly is the difference?
The “middle-income” designation, created from the dais by the council majority, was a significantly higher income level than the city’s official “middle-income” level.
What are your figures on this? What exactly is the difference?
The “middle-income” designation, created from the dais by the council majority, was a significantly higher income level than the city’s official “middle-income” level.
What are your figures on this? What exactly is the difference?
The “middle-income” designation, created from the dais by the council majority, was a significantly higher income level than the city’s official “middle-income” level.
What are your figures on this? What exactly is the difference?
as long as the investors keep bidding up the california housing market (and hopefully the current housing slide will lessen that practice, and drive the bubblechasers elsewhere), it might not be a bad idea to try and design housing that doesn’t appeal as much to the investor types, ie. apartments and much smaller houses on much smaller lots.
but as don pointed out, it’s either peripheral development, higher density infill, or no growth and an ever- tightening market. can’t have “none of the above.” already the university’s having trouble getting faculty to accept bids here because of the cost of housing, especially those without insane amounts of equity. the west village housing, if it ever gets built, will take the edge off of some of this, hopefully.
as long as the investors keep bidding up the california housing market (and hopefully the current housing slide will lessen that practice, and drive the bubblechasers elsewhere), it might not be a bad idea to try and design housing that doesn’t appeal as much to the investor types, ie. apartments and much smaller houses on much smaller lots.
but as don pointed out, it’s either peripheral development, higher density infill, or no growth and an ever- tightening market. can’t have “none of the above.” already the university’s having trouble getting faculty to accept bids here because of the cost of housing, especially those without insane amounts of equity. the west village housing, if it ever gets built, will take the edge off of some of this, hopefully.
as long as the investors keep bidding up the california housing market (and hopefully the current housing slide will lessen that practice, and drive the bubblechasers elsewhere), it might not be a bad idea to try and design housing that doesn’t appeal as much to the investor types, ie. apartments and much smaller houses on much smaller lots.
but as don pointed out, it’s either peripheral development, higher density infill, or no growth and an ever- tightening market. can’t have “none of the above.” already the university’s having trouble getting faculty to accept bids here because of the cost of housing, especially those without insane amounts of equity. the west village housing, if it ever gets built, will take the edge off of some of this, hopefully.
as long as the investors keep bidding up the california housing market (and hopefully the current housing slide will lessen that practice, and drive the bubblechasers elsewhere), it might not be a bad idea to try and design housing that doesn’t appeal as much to the investor types, ie. apartments and much smaller houses on much smaller lots.
but as don pointed out, it’s either peripheral development, higher density infill, or no growth and an ever- tightening market. can’t have “none of the above.” already the university’s having trouble getting faculty to accept bids here because of the cost of housing, especially those without insane amounts of equity. the west village housing, if it ever gets built, will take the edge off of some of this, hopefully.
Doug: Some have interpreted this stance to mean that myself or others like me oppose all growth. Nothing could be further from the truth…
Where should the city grow?
is a one percent growth rate, really a fair share for anyone?
How do you propose Californians accommodate our increased population? Where shall the housing be? What rate do you feel is appropriate for Davis to grow?
I think we need to be looking at smart growth rather than fair share growth.
What exactly do you mean by this, in terms of Davis housing policy?
The reason I ask these questions is that I expect there will be considerable discussion of the deliberations and recommendations of the housing task force. If you and others don’t have answers to these questions, the contradictions of your positions (affordable housing vs. development) will make your arguments untenable.
Doug: Some have interpreted this stance to mean that myself or others like me oppose all growth. Nothing could be further from the truth…
Where should the city grow?
is a one percent growth rate, really a fair share for anyone?
How do you propose Californians accommodate our increased population? Where shall the housing be? What rate do you feel is appropriate for Davis to grow?
I think we need to be looking at smart growth rather than fair share growth.
What exactly do you mean by this, in terms of Davis housing policy?
The reason I ask these questions is that I expect there will be considerable discussion of the deliberations and recommendations of the housing task force. If you and others don’t have answers to these questions, the contradictions of your positions (affordable housing vs. development) will make your arguments untenable.
Doug: Some have interpreted this stance to mean that myself or others like me oppose all growth. Nothing could be further from the truth…
Where should the city grow?
is a one percent growth rate, really a fair share for anyone?
How do you propose Californians accommodate our increased population? Where shall the housing be? What rate do you feel is appropriate for Davis to grow?
I think we need to be looking at smart growth rather than fair share growth.
What exactly do you mean by this, in terms of Davis housing policy?
The reason I ask these questions is that I expect there will be considerable discussion of the deliberations and recommendations of the housing task force. If you and others don’t have answers to these questions, the contradictions of your positions (affordable housing vs. development) will make your arguments untenable.
Doug: Some have interpreted this stance to mean that myself or others like me oppose all growth. Nothing could be further from the truth…
Where should the city grow?
is a one percent growth rate, really a fair share for anyone?
How do you propose Californians accommodate our increased population? Where shall the housing be? What rate do you feel is appropriate for Davis to grow?
I think we need to be looking at smart growth rather than fair share growth.
What exactly do you mean by this, in terms of Davis housing policy?
The reason I ask these questions is that I expect there will be considerable discussion of the deliberations and recommendations of the housing task force. If you and others don’t have answers to these questions, the contradictions of your positions (affordable housing vs. development) will make your arguments untenable.
Don:
Where should the city grow?
I think the appropriate question is not where should we grow, but how should we grow. I don’t think we should have set growth rates, because that may force us to take on projects that do not fit. I support smaller, higher density housing, with at least 50 percent of the units classified as affordable under the current city code. That growth can take place in any number of locations.
How do you propose Californians accommodate our increased population?
I think Californians need to look very carefully at available resources specifically water and future climate change and determine if in fact it should grow and if so, how.
Where shall the housing be?
I assume you are referring to in California. The housing should not be on prime agricultural land and the housing should not be in delicate environmental areas. Other than that, I have no particular preference, but as I suggest, Californians are going to have to think carefully. Even a growth rate of 1% is going to add a moderate sized state every few years to the existing population.
What rate do you feel is appropriate for Davis to grow?
As I said before, I don’t think Davis should have a set growth rate. We should evaluate projects on their merits and not be forced to take on growth out of some peculiar notion of what fair share is.
What exactly do you mean by this, in terms of Davis housing policy?
What I mean by this is that SACOG has established a 1 percent growth rate as taking on a fair share. I do not see any reason to be bound by that. That is much to fast a growth rate for Davis. I would like to see small, well constructed, well conceived housing projects in Davis that are environmentally friendly and fit in with our current city character. I don’t want to see any more large housing developments with tract homes that have been cheaply designed and poorly constructed.
I very strongly disagree with you that there is a contradiction between affordable housing and development. Development will not give us affordable housing because the housing market extends well beyond Davis and any housing that we add will be a mere drop in the bucket, moreover any housing we add will be in high demand. It is a fallacy that we can develop our way into affordability without serious negative effects. Therefore any affordability will have to come from ordinance and planning rather than development.
Don:
Where should the city grow?
I think the appropriate question is not where should we grow, but how should we grow. I don’t think we should have set growth rates, because that may force us to take on projects that do not fit. I support smaller, higher density housing, with at least 50 percent of the units classified as affordable under the current city code. That growth can take place in any number of locations.
How do you propose Californians accommodate our increased population?
I think Californians need to look very carefully at available resources specifically water and future climate change and determine if in fact it should grow and if so, how.
Where shall the housing be?
I assume you are referring to in California. The housing should not be on prime agricultural land and the housing should not be in delicate environmental areas. Other than that, I have no particular preference, but as I suggest, Californians are going to have to think carefully. Even a growth rate of 1% is going to add a moderate sized state every few years to the existing population.
What rate do you feel is appropriate for Davis to grow?
As I said before, I don’t think Davis should have a set growth rate. We should evaluate projects on their merits and not be forced to take on growth out of some peculiar notion of what fair share is.
What exactly do you mean by this, in terms of Davis housing policy?
What I mean by this is that SACOG has established a 1 percent growth rate as taking on a fair share. I do not see any reason to be bound by that. That is much to fast a growth rate for Davis. I would like to see small, well constructed, well conceived housing projects in Davis that are environmentally friendly and fit in with our current city character. I don’t want to see any more large housing developments with tract homes that have been cheaply designed and poorly constructed.
I very strongly disagree with you that there is a contradiction between affordable housing and development. Development will not give us affordable housing because the housing market extends well beyond Davis and any housing that we add will be a mere drop in the bucket, moreover any housing we add will be in high demand. It is a fallacy that we can develop our way into affordability without serious negative effects. Therefore any affordability will have to come from ordinance and planning rather than development.
Don:
Where should the city grow?
I think the appropriate question is not where should we grow, but how should we grow. I don’t think we should have set growth rates, because that may force us to take on projects that do not fit. I support smaller, higher density housing, with at least 50 percent of the units classified as affordable under the current city code. That growth can take place in any number of locations.
How do you propose Californians accommodate our increased population?
I think Californians need to look very carefully at available resources specifically water and future climate change and determine if in fact it should grow and if so, how.
Where shall the housing be?
I assume you are referring to in California. The housing should not be on prime agricultural land and the housing should not be in delicate environmental areas. Other than that, I have no particular preference, but as I suggest, Californians are going to have to think carefully. Even a growth rate of 1% is going to add a moderate sized state every few years to the existing population.
What rate do you feel is appropriate for Davis to grow?
As I said before, I don’t think Davis should have a set growth rate. We should evaluate projects on their merits and not be forced to take on growth out of some peculiar notion of what fair share is.
What exactly do you mean by this, in terms of Davis housing policy?
What I mean by this is that SACOG has established a 1 percent growth rate as taking on a fair share. I do not see any reason to be bound by that. That is much to fast a growth rate for Davis. I would like to see small, well constructed, well conceived housing projects in Davis that are environmentally friendly and fit in with our current city character. I don’t want to see any more large housing developments with tract homes that have been cheaply designed and poorly constructed.
I very strongly disagree with you that there is a contradiction between affordable housing and development. Development will not give us affordable housing because the housing market extends well beyond Davis and any housing that we add will be a mere drop in the bucket, moreover any housing we add will be in high demand. It is a fallacy that we can develop our way into affordability without serious negative effects. Therefore any affordability will have to come from ordinance and planning rather than development.
Don:
Where should the city grow?
I think the appropriate question is not where should we grow, but how should we grow. I don’t think we should have set growth rates, because that may force us to take on projects that do not fit. I support smaller, higher density housing, with at least 50 percent of the units classified as affordable under the current city code. That growth can take place in any number of locations.
How do you propose Californians accommodate our increased population?
I think Californians need to look very carefully at available resources specifically water and future climate change and determine if in fact it should grow and if so, how.
Where shall the housing be?
I assume you are referring to in California. The housing should not be on prime agricultural land and the housing should not be in delicate environmental areas. Other than that, I have no particular preference, but as I suggest, Californians are going to have to think carefully. Even a growth rate of 1% is going to add a moderate sized state every few years to the existing population.
What rate do you feel is appropriate for Davis to grow?
As I said before, I don’t think Davis should have a set growth rate. We should evaluate projects on their merits and not be forced to take on growth out of some peculiar notion of what fair share is.
What exactly do you mean by this, in terms of Davis housing policy?
What I mean by this is that SACOG has established a 1 percent growth rate as taking on a fair share. I do not see any reason to be bound by that. That is much to fast a growth rate for Davis. I would like to see small, well constructed, well conceived housing projects in Davis that are environmentally friendly and fit in with our current city character. I don’t want to see any more large housing developments with tract homes that have been cheaply designed and poorly constructed.
I very strongly disagree with you that there is a contradiction between affordable housing and development. Development will not give us affordable housing because the housing market extends well beyond Davis and any housing that we add will be a mere drop in the bucket, moreover any housing we add will be in high demand. It is a fallacy that we can develop our way into affordability without serious negative effects. Therefore any affordability will have to come from ordinance and planning rather than development.
DPD,
It appears to me you’re trying to recommend, growth, planning, and policy decisions based on idealism under the guise of smart growth and protecting quality life without any real understanding of whether it can or will work. As I stated in my rather lengthy post late last week, city residents clearly have no appetite for either sprawl or smart growth. Where do you propose “smart growth” to occur in Davis? As stated earlier, I analyzed sites within the city boundaries and there is generally a deficiency of underutilized sites and a definite deficiency of vacant sites, especially large ones. Larger sites (3-5 acres or more) would be necessary to impose a 50% affordability per your policy direction due to the high cost of land, especially if it is pre-zoned for “smart growth” (i.e. high density mixed use), which would tend to drive up the land value even more.
Larger plots of land, such as the Covell Village site can be developed in accordance with “smart growth” principles and exemplary urban design. I too had issues with Covell Village because of affordability issues and design. There is an opportunity to plan and design for that site as a community. Often times, economies of scale are necessary because the larger, more expensive homes must subsidize the below-market rate (“affordable”) and low-income/very low-income homes. Covell Village had the wrong balance, but Cannery Park is very close to getting it right.
How and where do you propose small scale infill? I identified some sites earlier, what sites do you propose? I identified:
1. Olive Drive, north. But this could be problematic politically, even though there are many vacant parcels there.
2. Fifth and L. The strip mall and gas station probably are not the highest and best use so close to downtown, considering everything in the strip mall could be preserved as ground floor retail(if they could afford the new leases).
3. The vacant site in North Davis greenbelt dedicated to a school. Think those residents want “smart growth” next to their single family homes?
4. Downtown. Do you really think residents would support raising the height restrictions and redeveloping with residential/retail mixed use? Probably not. Any new development that comes in will likely result in higher lease rates for the ground floor retail. This tends to drive out the local, independent business owner because the national chains have the deeper pockets to pay those rates. There are also people with misperceptions of taller buildings (3-5 stories) and don’t want to change the character of downtown. So “smart growth” infill in downtown is a landmine.
Also keep in mind that smart growth, small-scale infill is extremely challenging and very expensive to do at the medium to larger scales. At the smaller scale, especially with your conditions attached, my informed guess is they financially infeasible. Evidence to the contrary would be nice, though not expected.
Until you identify how and where small-scale infill development should occur given the political and site availability issues I’ve mentioned, it’s a hollow argument. And so long as you imply that smart growth and green field development are mutually exclusive, it just appears to me you’re giving lip service to smart growth without any idea of how to accomplish it.
DPD,
It appears to me you’re trying to recommend, growth, planning, and policy decisions based on idealism under the guise of smart growth and protecting quality life without any real understanding of whether it can or will work. As I stated in my rather lengthy post late last week, city residents clearly have no appetite for either sprawl or smart growth. Where do you propose “smart growth” to occur in Davis? As stated earlier, I analyzed sites within the city boundaries and there is generally a deficiency of underutilized sites and a definite deficiency of vacant sites, especially large ones. Larger sites (3-5 acres or more) would be necessary to impose a 50% affordability per your policy direction due to the high cost of land, especially if it is pre-zoned for “smart growth” (i.e. high density mixed use), which would tend to drive up the land value even more.
Larger plots of land, such as the Covell Village site can be developed in accordance with “smart growth” principles and exemplary urban design. I too had issues with Covell Village because of affordability issues and design. There is an opportunity to plan and design for that site as a community. Often times, economies of scale are necessary because the larger, more expensive homes must subsidize the below-market rate (“affordable”) and low-income/very low-income homes. Covell Village had the wrong balance, but Cannery Park is very close to getting it right.
How and where do you propose small scale infill? I identified some sites earlier, what sites do you propose? I identified:
1. Olive Drive, north. But this could be problematic politically, even though there are many vacant parcels there.
2. Fifth and L. The strip mall and gas station probably are not the highest and best use so close to downtown, considering everything in the strip mall could be preserved as ground floor retail(if they could afford the new leases).
3. The vacant site in North Davis greenbelt dedicated to a school. Think those residents want “smart growth” next to their single family homes?
4. Downtown. Do you really think residents would support raising the height restrictions and redeveloping with residential/retail mixed use? Probably not. Any new development that comes in will likely result in higher lease rates for the ground floor retail. This tends to drive out the local, independent business owner because the national chains have the deeper pockets to pay those rates. There are also people with misperceptions of taller buildings (3-5 stories) and don’t want to change the character of downtown. So “smart growth” infill in downtown is a landmine.
Also keep in mind that smart growth, small-scale infill is extremely challenging and very expensive to do at the medium to larger scales. At the smaller scale, especially with your conditions attached, my informed guess is they financially infeasible. Evidence to the contrary would be nice, though not expected.
Until you identify how and where small-scale infill development should occur given the political and site availability issues I’ve mentioned, it’s a hollow argument. And so long as you imply that smart growth and green field development are mutually exclusive, it just appears to me you’re giving lip service to smart growth without any idea of how to accomplish it.
DPD,
It appears to me you’re trying to recommend, growth, planning, and policy decisions based on idealism under the guise of smart growth and protecting quality life without any real understanding of whether it can or will work. As I stated in my rather lengthy post late last week, city residents clearly have no appetite for either sprawl or smart growth. Where do you propose “smart growth” to occur in Davis? As stated earlier, I analyzed sites within the city boundaries and there is generally a deficiency of underutilized sites and a definite deficiency of vacant sites, especially large ones. Larger sites (3-5 acres or more) would be necessary to impose a 50% affordability per your policy direction due to the high cost of land, especially if it is pre-zoned for “smart growth” (i.e. high density mixed use), which would tend to drive up the land value even more.
Larger plots of land, such as the Covell Village site can be developed in accordance with “smart growth” principles and exemplary urban design. I too had issues with Covell Village because of affordability issues and design. There is an opportunity to plan and design for that site as a community. Often times, economies of scale are necessary because the larger, more expensive homes must subsidize the below-market rate (“affordable”) and low-income/very low-income homes. Covell Village had the wrong balance, but Cannery Park is very close to getting it right.
How and where do you propose small scale infill? I identified some sites earlier, what sites do you propose? I identified:
1. Olive Drive, north. But this could be problematic politically, even though there are many vacant parcels there.
2. Fifth and L. The strip mall and gas station probably are not the highest and best use so close to downtown, considering everything in the strip mall could be preserved as ground floor retail(if they could afford the new leases).
3. The vacant site in North Davis greenbelt dedicated to a school. Think those residents want “smart growth” next to their single family homes?
4. Downtown. Do you really think residents would support raising the height restrictions and redeveloping with residential/retail mixed use? Probably not. Any new development that comes in will likely result in higher lease rates for the ground floor retail. This tends to drive out the local, independent business owner because the national chains have the deeper pockets to pay those rates. There are also people with misperceptions of taller buildings (3-5 stories) and don’t want to change the character of downtown. So “smart growth” infill in downtown is a landmine.
Also keep in mind that smart growth, small-scale infill is extremely challenging and very expensive to do at the medium to larger scales. At the smaller scale, especially with your conditions attached, my informed guess is they financially infeasible. Evidence to the contrary would be nice, though not expected.
Until you identify how and where small-scale infill development should occur given the political and site availability issues I’ve mentioned, it’s a hollow argument. And so long as you imply that smart growth and green field development are mutually exclusive, it just appears to me you’re giving lip service to smart growth without any idea of how to accomplish it.
DPD,
It appears to me you’re trying to recommend, growth, planning, and policy decisions based on idealism under the guise of smart growth and protecting quality life without any real understanding of whether it can or will work. As I stated in my rather lengthy post late last week, city residents clearly have no appetite for either sprawl or smart growth. Where do you propose “smart growth” to occur in Davis? As stated earlier, I analyzed sites within the city boundaries and there is generally a deficiency of underutilized sites and a definite deficiency of vacant sites, especially large ones. Larger sites (3-5 acres or more) would be necessary to impose a 50% affordability per your policy direction due to the high cost of land, especially if it is pre-zoned for “smart growth” (i.e. high density mixed use), which would tend to drive up the land value even more.
Larger plots of land, such as the Covell Village site can be developed in accordance with “smart growth” principles and exemplary urban design. I too had issues with Covell Village because of affordability issues and design. There is an opportunity to plan and design for that site as a community. Often times, economies of scale are necessary because the larger, more expensive homes must subsidize the below-market rate (“affordable”) and low-income/very low-income homes. Covell Village had the wrong balance, but Cannery Park is very close to getting it right.
How and where do you propose small scale infill? I identified some sites earlier, what sites do you propose? I identified:
1. Olive Drive, north. But this could be problematic politically, even though there are many vacant parcels there.
2. Fifth and L. The strip mall and gas station probably are not the highest and best use so close to downtown, considering everything in the strip mall could be preserved as ground floor retail(if they could afford the new leases).
3. The vacant site in North Davis greenbelt dedicated to a school. Think those residents want “smart growth” next to their single family homes?
4. Downtown. Do you really think residents would support raising the height restrictions and redeveloping with residential/retail mixed use? Probably not. Any new development that comes in will likely result in higher lease rates for the ground floor retail. This tends to drive out the local, independent business owner because the national chains have the deeper pockets to pay those rates. There are also people with misperceptions of taller buildings (3-5 stories) and don’t want to change the character of downtown. So “smart growth” infill in downtown is a landmine.
Also keep in mind that smart growth, small-scale infill is extremely challenging and very expensive to do at the medium to larger scales. At the smaller scale, especially with your conditions attached, my informed guess is they financially infeasible. Evidence to the contrary would be nice, though not expected.
Until you identify how and where small-scale infill development should occur given the political and site availability issues I’ve mentioned, it’s a hollow argument. And so long as you imply that smart growth and green field development are mutually exclusive, it just appears to me you’re giving lip service to smart growth without any idea of how to accomplish it.
I forgot to mention I also identified:
5. The PG &E site, which is an excellent infill opportunity, but I have no information on PG &E’s willingness to sell the property.
I forgot to mention I also identified:
5. The PG &E site, which is an excellent infill opportunity, but I have no information on PG &E’s willingness to sell the property.
I forgot to mention I also identified:
5. The PG &E site, which is an excellent infill opportunity, but I have no information on PG &E’s willingness to sell the property.
I forgot to mention I also identified:
5. The PG &E site, which is an excellent infill opportunity, but I have no information on PG &E’s willingness to sell the property.
The discrepency between the inflated “middle-income” designation by the council majority and the official city income designation was exposed during the campaign and was confirmed by K. Hesse. Check with her.
The discrepency between the inflated “middle-income” designation by the council majority and the official city income designation was exposed during the campaign and was confirmed by K. Hesse. Check with her.
The discrepency between the inflated “middle-income” designation by the council majority and the official city income designation was exposed during the campaign and was confirmed by K. Hesse. Check with her.
The discrepency between the inflated “middle-income” designation by the council majority and the official city income designation was exposed during the campaign and was confirmed by K. Hesse. Check with her.
Brian, I would say it is just the opposite, I have a very bleak view of the future mostly because growth is going to go headlong into natural resources and the losers in this will be the lesser offs in this society. If we do not change our planning practices, I do not think the future is sustainable. I do not see that as based on any sort of idealism, but rather on the cold hard reality of the situation. I would prefer to go to places like Target and the like for my consumer goods, but I don’t think that is a healthy practice for the environment or even the community.
What amazes me is that with the large focus now on global warming, the same people jumping on board are the same people’s whose planning practices are contributing to the problem.
Brian, I would say it is just the opposite, I have a very bleak view of the future mostly because growth is going to go headlong into natural resources and the losers in this will be the lesser offs in this society. If we do not change our planning practices, I do not think the future is sustainable. I do not see that as based on any sort of idealism, but rather on the cold hard reality of the situation. I would prefer to go to places like Target and the like for my consumer goods, but I don’t think that is a healthy practice for the environment or even the community.
What amazes me is that with the large focus now on global warming, the same people jumping on board are the same people’s whose planning practices are contributing to the problem.
Brian, I would say it is just the opposite, I have a very bleak view of the future mostly because growth is going to go headlong into natural resources and the losers in this will be the lesser offs in this society. If we do not change our planning practices, I do not think the future is sustainable. I do not see that as based on any sort of idealism, but rather on the cold hard reality of the situation. I would prefer to go to places like Target and the like for my consumer goods, but I don’t think that is a healthy practice for the environment or even the community.
What amazes me is that with the large focus now on global warming, the same people jumping on board are the same people’s whose planning practices are contributing to the problem.
Brian, I would say it is just the opposite, I have a very bleak view of the future mostly because growth is going to go headlong into natural resources and the losers in this will be the lesser offs in this society. If we do not change our planning practices, I do not think the future is sustainable. I do not see that as based on any sort of idealism, but rather on the cold hard reality of the situation. I would prefer to go to places like Target and the like for my consumer goods, but I don’t think that is a healthy practice for the environment or even the community.
What amazes me is that with the large focus now on global warming, the same people jumping on board are the same people’s whose planning practices are contributing to the problem.
Doug,
What you’re really talking about is carrying capacity and whether or not we’re on a sustainable path. Clearly our entire culture is unsustainable given current energy inputs. The question is whether the City should set land use policy with very real local tradeoffs here in town and implications based on unknown resource issues and the timing in which they may or may not occur.
Much of what you are proposing, in my opinion, will have the opposite effect you intend. This is because you’re picking and choosing certain variables without any real understanding of the variables you have chosen to ignore or, and more importantly, the economics of how to accomplish smart growth. You also take policy positions on growth subjects without considering who will pay for them. Who will pay for the gap financing that results from a small-scale mixed used development with a 50% affordability requirement? Without an answer to that question, your small-scale smart growth project never comes to fruition. Are you (and other city residents) going to champion the tradeoffs associated with real “smart growth” development by intensifying uses on Olive Drive, 5th Street or Downtown knowing that it will result in increased localized traffic congestion, yet also in many cases, reduce the distance and automobile mode share and provide more amenities for people to walk to? Are you going to champion a relaxation of Downtown building height restrictions so residential mixed-use can become economically feasible? You cannot punt on the questions that have been posed to you by Don and myself such as how and where should smart growth occur. With smart growth, the devil is in the details and the fact that you dismiss it and/or avoid direct conversation on it implies that you really don’t understand the concept.
Your failure to put all the pieces together to recommend realistic land use policy erodes your credibility on the subject. You hide behind vague terms such as “smart growth” and “small-scale development” and “quality of life” without connecting all the variables required that make it possible.
Doug,
What you’re really talking about is carrying capacity and whether or not we’re on a sustainable path. Clearly our entire culture is unsustainable given current energy inputs. The question is whether the City should set land use policy with very real local tradeoffs here in town and implications based on unknown resource issues and the timing in which they may or may not occur.
Much of what you are proposing, in my opinion, will have the opposite effect you intend. This is because you’re picking and choosing certain variables without any real understanding of the variables you have chosen to ignore or, and more importantly, the economics of how to accomplish smart growth. You also take policy positions on growth subjects without considering who will pay for them. Who will pay for the gap financing that results from a small-scale mixed used development with a 50% affordability requirement? Without an answer to that question, your small-scale smart growth project never comes to fruition. Are you (and other city residents) going to champion the tradeoffs associated with real “smart growth” development by intensifying uses on Olive Drive, 5th Street or Downtown knowing that it will result in increased localized traffic congestion, yet also in many cases, reduce the distance and automobile mode share and provide more amenities for people to walk to? Are you going to champion a relaxation of Downtown building height restrictions so residential mixed-use can become economically feasible? You cannot punt on the questions that have been posed to you by Don and myself such as how and where should smart growth occur. With smart growth, the devil is in the details and the fact that you dismiss it and/or avoid direct conversation on it implies that you really don’t understand the concept.
Your failure to put all the pieces together to recommend realistic land use policy erodes your credibility on the subject. You hide behind vague terms such as “smart growth” and “small-scale development” and “quality of life” without connecting all the variables required that make it possible.
Doug,
What you’re really talking about is carrying capacity and whether or not we’re on a sustainable path. Clearly our entire culture is unsustainable given current energy inputs. The question is whether the City should set land use policy with very real local tradeoffs here in town and implications based on unknown resource issues and the timing in which they may or may not occur.
Much of what you are proposing, in my opinion, will have the opposite effect you intend. This is because you’re picking and choosing certain variables without any real understanding of the variables you have chosen to ignore or, and more importantly, the economics of how to accomplish smart growth. You also take policy positions on growth subjects without considering who will pay for them. Who will pay for the gap financing that results from a small-scale mixed used development with a 50% affordability requirement? Without an answer to that question, your small-scale smart growth project never comes to fruition. Are you (and other city residents) going to champion the tradeoffs associated with real “smart growth” development by intensifying uses on Olive Drive, 5th Street or Downtown knowing that it will result in increased localized traffic congestion, yet also in many cases, reduce the distance and automobile mode share and provide more amenities for people to walk to? Are you going to champion a relaxation of Downtown building height restrictions so residential mixed-use can become economically feasible? You cannot punt on the questions that have been posed to you by Don and myself such as how and where should smart growth occur. With smart growth, the devil is in the details and the fact that you dismiss it and/or avoid direct conversation on it implies that you really don’t understand the concept.
Your failure to put all the pieces together to recommend realistic land use policy erodes your credibility on the subject. You hide behind vague terms such as “smart growth” and “small-scale development” and “quality of life” without connecting all the variables required that make it possible.
Doug,
What you’re really talking about is carrying capacity and whether or not we’re on a sustainable path. Clearly our entire culture is unsustainable given current energy inputs. The question is whether the City should set land use policy with very real local tradeoffs here in town and implications based on unknown resource issues and the timing in which they may or may not occur.
Much of what you are proposing, in my opinion, will have the opposite effect you intend. This is because you’re picking and choosing certain variables without any real understanding of the variables you have chosen to ignore or, and more importantly, the economics of how to accomplish smart growth. You also take policy positions on growth subjects without considering who will pay for them. Who will pay for the gap financing that results from a small-scale mixed used development with a 50% affordability requirement? Without an answer to that question, your small-scale smart growth project never comes to fruition. Are you (and other city residents) going to champion the tradeoffs associated with real “smart growth” development by intensifying uses on Olive Drive, 5th Street or Downtown knowing that it will result in increased localized traffic congestion, yet also in many cases, reduce the distance and automobile mode share and provide more amenities for people to walk to? Are you going to champion a relaxation of Downtown building height restrictions so residential mixed-use can become economically feasible? You cannot punt on the questions that have been posed to you by Don and myself such as how and where should smart growth occur. With smart growth, the devil is in the details and the fact that you dismiss it and/or avoid direct conversation on it implies that you really don’t understand the concept.
Your failure to put all the pieces together to recommend realistic land use policy erodes your credibility on the subject. You hide behind vague terms such as “smart growth” and “small-scale development” and “quality of life” without connecting all the variables required that make it possible.
As I read my post the tone may be interpreted as more hostile than I intended.
As I read my post the tone may be interpreted as more hostile than I intended.
As I read my post the tone may be interpreted as more hostile than I intended.
As I read my post the tone may be interpreted as more hostile than I intended.
Hey, landed on your blog, nice stuff. I found a cool new tool for our blogs… http://www.widgetmate.com It helps get latest news for our keywords directly on to our blog. I added it on mine. Worked like a charm.
Hey, landed on your blog, nice stuff. I found a cool new tool for our blogs… http://www.widgetmate.com It helps get latest news for our keywords directly on to our blog. I added it on mine. Worked like a charm.
Hey, landed on your blog, nice stuff. I found a cool new tool for our blogs… http://www.widgetmate.com It helps get latest news for our keywords directly on to our blog. I added it on mine. Worked like a charm.
Hey, landed on your blog, nice stuff. I found a cool new tool for our blogs… http://www.widgetmate.com It helps get latest news for our keywords directly on to our blog. I added it on mine. Worked like a charm.