No Decision Yet on Fate of Valley Oak

Share:
Last night, the Davis Joint Unified School Board met for nearly four hours listening to more information from the Task Force, representatives of the Davis OPEN group, and the general public. In the end, given the late hour they decided to forestall a staff presentation and board comments until a special meeting on Monday, March 19, 2007.

In the meantime, critical information was presented to the board. In particular the board was given answers to question of a half-mile distance from Valley Oak. At the March 1, 2007 meeting and in the report, the Task Force presented travel distances for one mile walking distance and one and one half mile walking distance. These data showed virtually no change in the walking distance for student if Valley Oak were closed down.

However, the problem with that data is that especially for young students, one mile distance is not walkable. Indeed, the Davis OPEN group in their presentation showed that ideally, a six year old would take 44 minutes to walk a mile but only 22 minutes to walk half a mile. Moreover as we discussed last time, few people would allow their Kindergartener to third grader to walk that distance to school.

The board asked for the distances for half-mile and the results of that data show a very large difference between leaving Valley Oak open and closing it down.

In an email from Scott Torlucci of Davis Demographics & Planning, Inc. (DDP) to the Davis School Board, of 100 K-3 students who reside in the Valley Oak attendance zone and attend Valley Oak, 50 are within half a mile of Valley Oak. If Valley Oak were to close, only 2 of those 100 students would be within half a mile of an alternate school.

Of the students outside of that half mile walking distance to Valley Oak, 27 of them appear to be closer to Valley Oak than to an alternative school while 9 appear closer to an alliterative school than to Valley Oak. There are also 14 that reside on Olive Drive and are not close to any school.

The Task Force defended their findings suggesting that only around a quarter of all students live within half-mile of a school and that would impose a standard that is not used anywhere else in the district.

Unfortunately, they completely miss the point here. First of all, this data conclusively demonstrates that closing the school would have a negative impact on the specific students that attend Valley Oak regardless of the standards for the rest of the district. Second, many students at Valley Oak have transportation issues since they are Title 1 students and this close would be a larger burden on them than on students in other attendance areas going to other schools.

The Davis OPEN group was able to present their counter-proposal for a good length of time last night. They reported that 1600 people signed their petition to keep all nine elementary schools open–a figure that represents a very impressive number.

Baki Tezcan presented evidence that cast some doubt on the methodology used to come up with the projections. His presentation was impressive enough to prompt Task Force Chair Kirk Trost to come back up to clarify their findings with numbers that did not seem to match the numbers used by Tezcan.

Baki Tezcan pointed out as we did the change in the projections from December 2006 to January 2007. The key difference was the use of Mobility #3 in December to using Mobility #2 in December and that shifted the finding from a stable +/- 186 K-12 students to an approximate decline of 400.

Tezcan said that method #2 compared all students in each attendance area from year to year while method #3 had a sampling of students. He suggested that sampling was the more preferred method for projecting and that it was the Task Force rather than DDP that made that call to switch to Method #2.

Tezcan then presented three sets of projections, the third one being “October projections” based on 2005 student data. These data show an actual small increase in enrollment. Tezcan demonstrated that the projections using this methodology more closely were demonstrated by actual numbers than the preferred methodology of the Task Force. When he averaged those three studies, he found a slight increase rather than decrease in enrollment over the next few years.

He then cited Stuart Sweeney, a professor at UC Santa Barbara:

“Beyond three to five years, projections are ‘not at all certain and shouldn’t be portrayed as such. Forecasting is never an exact science and ultimately rests on the validity of the assumptions used to initiate the model. … Which assumptions are the ‘correct’ ones can certainly be influenced by politics.'”

Rick Gonzales presented data on the EL program. His main case was that the EL program at Valley Oak was exemplary. A higher percentage of students end up graduating from the program than is the norm in the district. Moreover a number of students go from EL to GATE which is extraordinary. Finally, the programs take a total commitment by staff and students. They take two years to put into place and closing the school would put these students who are already at risk, at even greater risk.

A number of parents and past students gave very emotional testimony about how much this school and this program had helped them and that they feared it closing.

The school board now has a number of factors to consider–first whether they can even close down a school at this late date and second whether they should close down the school. While the parents in attendance give perhaps a skewed view of the numbers in the community who support this, the near unanimity of the speakers in support of Valley Oak along with the 1600 collected signatures speaks volumes for the community. The decision is now in the hands of the school board who have not heard yet from staff on a variety of issues including fiscal ones and have yet to really discuss it among themselves. Meanwhile the parents at Valley Oak, wait with baited breath.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

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

Related posts

56 thoughts on “No Decision Yet on Fate of Valley Oak”

  1. Davisite

    The Task Forces argued that the 1/2 mile walking distance is not the standard accepted by the experts . This 1/2 mile walking distance suggested that closing VO would have a significant impact. They then rejected the mobility sampling standard(accepted as the standard by experts) projection data that does not support closing VO. By the end of the evening, it was clear that the data had been “cheery-picked” to support the recommendation to close VO(immediately). The presentations by OPEN and public comment last evening were awesome…makes me proud to be a Davisite.

    It was interesting to learn that 45% of possible areas for infill (non-measure J) are located in the Valley Oak region. How this interface of the Valley Oak closing
    and developer interests plays itself out in this decision by the school board needs to be closely monitored.

  2. Davisite

    The Task Forces argued that the 1/2 mile walking distance is not the standard accepted by the experts . This 1/2 mile walking distance suggested that closing VO would have a significant impact. They then rejected the mobility sampling standard(accepted as the standard by experts) projection data that does not support closing VO. By the end of the evening, it was clear that the data had been “cheery-picked” to support the recommendation to close VO(immediately). The presentations by OPEN and public comment last evening were awesome…makes me proud to be a Davisite.

    It was interesting to learn that 45% of possible areas for infill (non-measure J) are located in the Valley Oak region. How this interface of the Valley Oak closing
    and developer interests plays itself out in this decision by the school board needs to be closely monitored.

  3. Davisite

    The Task Forces argued that the 1/2 mile walking distance is not the standard accepted by the experts . This 1/2 mile walking distance suggested that closing VO would have a significant impact. They then rejected the mobility sampling standard(accepted as the standard by experts) projection data that does not support closing VO. By the end of the evening, it was clear that the data had been “cheery-picked” to support the recommendation to close VO(immediately). The presentations by OPEN and public comment last evening were awesome…makes me proud to be a Davisite.

    It was interesting to learn that 45% of possible areas for infill (non-measure J) are located in the Valley Oak region. How this interface of the Valley Oak closing
    and developer interests plays itself out in this decision by the school board needs to be closely monitored.

  4. Davisite

    The Task Forces argued that the 1/2 mile walking distance is not the standard accepted by the experts . This 1/2 mile walking distance suggested that closing VO would have a significant impact. They then rejected the mobility sampling standard(accepted as the standard by experts) projection data that does not support closing VO. By the end of the evening, it was clear that the data had been “cheery-picked” to support the recommendation to close VO(immediately). The presentations by OPEN and public comment last evening were awesome…makes me proud to be a Davisite.

    It was interesting to learn that 45% of possible areas for infill (non-measure J) are located in the Valley Oak region. How this interface of the Valley Oak closing
    and developer interests plays itself out in this decision by the school board needs to be closely monitored.

  5. Baki

    I must correct a statement made by Mr. Kirk Trost at public comment. The difference between the first set of projections and the last, as far as K-6 enrollments are concerned, is 323. See the first set of projections, the ones I called “October Projections with Mobility X,” which I will be posting on http://www.davisopen.org shortly; look at the K-6 total number for 2012 (4,513), and compare it with the Final Report, p. 19, where you will find that the total K-6 projections for the same year is 4,190; thus 4,513 – 4,190 = 323.

    The October projections do not go beyond 2012. So when Mr. Trost compared the December and January K-6 projections for 2016, he purposefully dismissed a key set of data, which are the only projections that are actually proven to be sound — the October projections were done using 2005 student data and estimated our 2006 enrollments correctly.

  6. Baki

    I must correct a statement made by Mr. Kirk Trost at public comment. The difference between the first set of projections and the last, as far as K-6 enrollments are concerned, is 323. See the first set of projections, the ones I called “October Projections with Mobility X,” which I will be posting on http://www.davisopen.org shortly; look at the K-6 total number for 2012 (4,513), and compare it with the Final Report, p. 19, where you will find that the total K-6 projections for the same year is 4,190; thus 4,513 – 4,190 = 323.

    The October projections do not go beyond 2012. So when Mr. Trost compared the December and January K-6 projections for 2016, he purposefully dismissed a key set of data, which are the only projections that are actually proven to be sound — the October projections were done using 2005 student data and estimated our 2006 enrollments correctly.

  7. Baki

    I must correct a statement made by Mr. Kirk Trost at public comment. The difference between the first set of projections and the last, as far as K-6 enrollments are concerned, is 323. See the first set of projections, the ones I called “October Projections with Mobility X,” which I will be posting on http://www.davisopen.org shortly; look at the K-6 total number for 2012 (4,513), and compare it with the Final Report, p. 19, where you will find that the total K-6 projections for the same year is 4,190; thus 4,513 – 4,190 = 323.

    The October projections do not go beyond 2012. So when Mr. Trost compared the December and January K-6 projections for 2016, he purposefully dismissed a key set of data, which are the only projections that are actually proven to be sound — the October projections were done using 2005 student data and estimated our 2006 enrollments correctly.

  8. Baki

    I must correct a statement made by Mr. Kirk Trost at public comment. The difference between the first set of projections and the last, as far as K-6 enrollments are concerned, is 323. See the first set of projections, the ones I called “October Projections with Mobility X,” which I will be posting on http://www.davisopen.org shortly; look at the K-6 total number for 2012 (4,513), and compare it with the Final Report, p. 19, where you will find that the total K-6 projections for the same year is 4,190; thus 4,513 – 4,190 = 323.

    The October projections do not go beyond 2012. So when Mr. Trost compared the December and January K-6 projections for 2016, he purposefully dismissed a key set of data, which are the only projections that are actually proven to be sound — the October projections were done using 2005 student data and estimated our 2006 enrollments correctly.

  9. Susan Larson

    It was clear after watching last nights board meeting that the board members have their work cut out for them. It is very interesting how different the interpretation of ‘facts’ can be depending upon the techniques used. How did the people who were chosen to be on the task force get picked? Does anyone know?

  10. Susan Larson

    It was clear after watching last nights board meeting that the board members have their work cut out for them. It is very interesting how different the interpretation of ‘facts’ can be depending upon the techniques used. How did the people who were chosen to be on the task force get picked? Does anyone know?

  11. Susan Larson

    It was clear after watching last nights board meeting that the board members have their work cut out for them. It is very interesting how different the interpretation of ‘facts’ can be depending upon the techniques used. How did the people who were chosen to be on the task force get picked? Does anyone know?

  12. Susan Larson

    It was clear after watching last nights board meeting that the board members have their work cut out for them. It is very interesting how different the interpretation of ‘facts’ can be depending upon the techniques used. How did the people who were chosen to be on the task force get picked? Does anyone know?

  13. Doug Paul Davis

    The members were picked by the previous board. They were looking for “experts” and the board was created to look into the best uses of school facilities. It then devolved into a “close a school” task force, but that was not its original purpose–they were supposed to look into programs and facilities usage.

    The problem with any model that has to take current data and project is that those projections are heavily based on what assumptions they use.

    My main objection to the Task Force is I think they advocated too forcefully for a particular position rather than fully researched and reported on several options and allowed the school board itself to decide on a course of action.

  14. Doug Paul Davis

    The members were picked by the previous board. They were looking for “experts” and the board was created to look into the best uses of school facilities. It then devolved into a “close a school” task force, but that was not its original purpose–they were supposed to look into programs and facilities usage.

    The problem with any model that has to take current data and project is that those projections are heavily based on what assumptions they use.

    My main objection to the Task Force is I think they advocated too forcefully for a particular position rather than fully researched and reported on several options and allowed the school board itself to decide on a course of action.

  15. Doug Paul Davis

    The members were picked by the previous board. They were looking for “experts” and the board was created to look into the best uses of school facilities. It then devolved into a “close a school” task force, but that was not its original purpose–they were supposed to look into programs and facilities usage.

    The problem with any model that has to take current data and project is that those projections are heavily based on what assumptions they use.

    My main objection to the Task Force is I think they advocated too forcefully for a particular position rather than fully researched and reported on several options and allowed the school board itself to decide on a course of action.

  16. Doug Paul Davis

    The members were picked by the previous board. They were looking for “experts” and the board was created to look into the best uses of school facilities. It then devolved into a “close a school” task force, but that was not its original purpose–they were supposed to look into programs and facilities usage.

    The problem with any model that has to take current data and project is that those projections are heavily based on what assumptions they use.

    My main objection to the Task Force is I think they advocated too forcefully for a particular position rather than fully researched and reported on several options and allowed the school board itself to decide on a course of action.

  17. Rich Rifkin

    I think it might be helpful to have a “Best Uses of School District Personnel” task force, one that investigated whether all the layers of administrative overhead at each campus and at the district headquarters is necessary and whether it might not be possible to have say, 5 principals to oversee the 9 elementary campuses.

    It might work to have 1 principal for Montgomery/Pioneer; 1 for Korematsu/Valley Oak; 1 for Birch/North Davis; 1 for Chavez; and 1 for Willett/Patwin.

    Likewise, the administrative staff that serves under the principals could possibly be consolidated.

    If that were done, there would absolutely no need to shutter Valley Oak or any other school.

  18. Rich Rifkin

    I think it might be helpful to have a “Best Uses of School District Personnel” task force, one that investigated whether all the layers of administrative overhead at each campus and at the district headquarters is necessary and whether it might not be possible to have say, 5 principals to oversee the 9 elementary campuses.

    It might work to have 1 principal for Montgomery/Pioneer; 1 for Korematsu/Valley Oak; 1 for Birch/North Davis; 1 for Chavez; and 1 for Willett/Patwin.

    Likewise, the administrative staff that serves under the principals could possibly be consolidated.

    If that were done, there would absolutely no need to shutter Valley Oak or any other school.

  19. Rich Rifkin

    I think it might be helpful to have a “Best Uses of School District Personnel” task force, one that investigated whether all the layers of administrative overhead at each campus and at the district headquarters is necessary and whether it might not be possible to have say, 5 principals to oversee the 9 elementary campuses.

    It might work to have 1 principal for Montgomery/Pioneer; 1 for Korematsu/Valley Oak; 1 for Birch/North Davis; 1 for Chavez; and 1 for Willett/Patwin.

    Likewise, the administrative staff that serves under the principals could possibly be consolidated.

    If that were done, there would absolutely no need to shutter Valley Oak or any other school.

  20. Rich Rifkin

    I think it might be helpful to have a “Best Uses of School District Personnel” task force, one that investigated whether all the layers of administrative overhead at each campus and at the district headquarters is necessary and whether it might not be possible to have say, 5 principals to oversee the 9 elementary campuses.

    It might work to have 1 principal for Montgomery/Pioneer; 1 for Korematsu/Valley Oak; 1 for Birch/North Davis; 1 for Chavez; and 1 for Willett/Patwin.

    Likewise, the administrative staff that serves under the principals could possibly be consolidated.

    If that were done, there would absolutely no need to shutter Valley Oak or any other school.

  21. Susan Larson

    At last night’s meeting a very involved and passionate Valley Oak parent (very late at night), questioned the board about ‘the money’ issues and said he couldn’t understand how the board could pay both David Murphy’s salary and a new superintendant as well and referred to David Murphy as a ‘pillar of this community’. This individual obviously isn’t aware that it was under David Murphy’s ‘leadership’ and fierce loyalty to Tahir Ahad that almost 5 million dollars was lost (due to Mr. Ahad’s negligence and focus towards his ‘other’ job that he was allowed to do WHILE he was being paid full time as the CBO of Davis Schools. I think the school board got disgusted with cleaning up the HUGE messes that they kept incurring and quite possibly the district will end up saving money now that they can search for a much more competent superintendant. The King High mess, the Grande fiasco, the lost millions of dollars – I know – lets close Valley Oak!

  22. Susan Larson

    At last night’s meeting a very involved and passionate Valley Oak parent (very late at night), questioned the board about ‘the money’ issues and said he couldn’t understand how the board could pay both David Murphy’s salary and a new superintendant as well and referred to David Murphy as a ‘pillar of this community’. This individual obviously isn’t aware that it was under David Murphy’s ‘leadership’ and fierce loyalty to Tahir Ahad that almost 5 million dollars was lost (due to Mr. Ahad’s negligence and focus towards his ‘other’ job that he was allowed to do WHILE he was being paid full time as the CBO of Davis Schools. I think the school board got disgusted with cleaning up the HUGE messes that they kept incurring and quite possibly the district will end up saving money now that they can search for a much more competent superintendant. The King High mess, the Grande fiasco, the lost millions of dollars – I know – lets close Valley Oak!

  23. Susan Larson

    At last night’s meeting a very involved and passionate Valley Oak parent (very late at night), questioned the board about ‘the money’ issues and said he couldn’t understand how the board could pay both David Murphy’s salary and a new superintendant as well and referred to David Murphy as a ‘pillar of this community’. This individual obviously isn’t aware that it was under David Murphy’s ‘leadership’ and fierce loyalty to Tahir Ahad that almost 5 million dollars was lost (due to Mr. Ahad’s negligence and focus towards his ‘other’ job that he was allowed to do WHILE he was being paid full time as the CBO of Davis Schools. I think the school board got disgusted with cleaning up the HUGE messes that they kept incurring and quite possibly the district will end up saving money now that they can search for a much more competent superintendant. The King High mess, the Grande fiasco, the lost millions of dollars – I know – lets close Valley Oak!

  24. Susan Larson

    At last night’s meeting a very involved and passionate Valley Oak parent (very late at night), questioned the board about ‘the money’ issues and said he couldn’t understand how the board could pay both David Murphy’s salary and a new superintendant as well and referred to David Murphy as a ‘pillar of this community’. This individual obviously isn’t aware that it was under David Murphy’s ‘leadership’ and fierce loyalty to Tahir Ahad that almost 5 million dollars was lost (due to Mr. Ahad’s negligence and focus towards his ‘other’ job that he was allowed to do WHILE he was being paid full time as the CBO of Davis Schools. I think the school board got disgusted with cleaning up the HUGE messes that they kept incurring and quite possibly the district will end up saving money now that they can search for a much more competent superintendant. The King High mess, the Grande fiasco, the lost millions of dollars – I know – lets close Valley Oak!

  25. Anonymous

    It is a good idea to examine the interplay between school closure and our growth plans. Closing schools in the center of the city creates an obstacle for infill and makes it less attractive as a growth policy. The whole idea of infill is to make better use of resources, like building homes near where we already have schools, parks, shopping centers and the like. By removing some of these resources from the town, we actually create an obstacle to good, viable infill development. The City is working toward completing the new General Plan Housing Element proposal by late summer. If the Council accepts the draft plan, the large Cannery Park project may continue through the planning process according to the City’s website. The developers have not withdrawn their proposal and it is still a pending development proposal. Even if students from this project didn’t attend Valley Oak School, their numbers would be large enough to justify keeping the school. According to the Task Force report projections, if Cannery Park were started in 2009, after five years it would produce about 120 students. Adding this enrollment to North Davis Elementary would push that school to about 650 students (using the task force’s report projections) – not counting any reassigned Valley Oak students. Putting them over at Birch Lane would get that school up to nearly 600 – not counting any reassigned Valley Oak students. It’s not a good idea to close schools right where they may be most needed.

  26. Anonymous

    It is a good idea to examine the interplay between school closure and our growth plans. Closing schools in the center of the city creates an obstacle for infill and makes it less attractive as a growth policy. The whole idea of infill is to make better use of resources, like building homes near where we already have schools, parks, shopping centers and the like. By removing some of these resources from the town, we actually create an obstacle to good, viable infill development. The City is working toward completing the new General Plan Housing Element proposal by late summer. If the Council accepts the draft plan, the large Cannery Park project may continue through the planning process according to the City’s website. The developers have not withdrawn their proposal and it is still a pending development proposal. Even if students from this project didn’t attend Valley Oak School, their numbers would be large enough to justify keeping the school. According to the Task Force report projections, if Cannery Park were started in 2009, after five years it would produce about 120 students. Adding this enrollment to North Davis Elementary would push that school to about 650 students (using the task force’s report projections) – not counting any reassigned Valley Oak students. Putting them over at Birch Lane would get that school up to nearly 600 – not counting any reassigned Valley Oak students. It’s not a good idea to close schools right where they may be most needed.

  27. Anonymous

    It is a good idea to examine the interplay between school closure and our growth plans. Closing schools in the center of the city creates an obstacle for infill and makes it less attractive as a growth policy. The whole idea of infill is to make better use of resources, like building homes near where we already have schools, parks, shopping centers and the like. By removing some of these resources from the town, we actually create an obstacle to good, viable infill development. The City is working toward completing the new General Plan Housing Element proposal by late summer. If the Council accepts the draft plan, the large Cannery Park project may continue through the planning process according to the City’s website. The developers have not withdrawn their proposal and it is still a pending development proposal. Even if students from this project didn’t attend Valley Oak School, their numbers would be large enough to justify keeping the school. According to the Task Force report projections, if Cannery Park were started in 2009, after five years it would produce about 120 students. Adding this enrollment to North Davis Elementary would push that school to about 650 students (using the task force’s report projections) – not counting any reassigned Valley Oak students. Putting them over at Birch Lane would get that school up to nearly 600 – not counting any reassigned Valley Oak students. It’s not a good idea to close schools right where they may be most needed.

  28. Anonymous

    It is a good idea to examine the interplay between school closure and our growth plans. Closing schools in the center of the city creates an obstacle for infill and makes it less attractive as a growth policy. The whole idea of infill is to make better use of resources, like building homes near where we already have schools, parks, shopping centers and the like. By removing some of these resources from the town, we actually create an obstacle to good, viable infill development. The City is working toward completing the new General Plan Housing Element proposal by late summer. If the Council accepts the draft plan, the large Cannery Park project may continue through the planning process according to the City’s website. The developers have not withdrawn their proposal and it is still a pending development proposal. Even if students from this project didn’t attend Valley Oak School, their numbers would be large enough to justify keeping the school. According to the Task Force report projections, if Cannery Park were started in 2009, after five years it would produce about 120 students. Adding this enrollment to North Davis Elementary would push that school to about 650 students (using the task force’s report projections) – not counting any reassigned Valley Oak students. Putting them over at Birch Lane would get that school up to nearly 600 – not counting any reassigned Valley Oak students. It’s not a good idea to close schools right where they may be most needed.

  29. Davisite

    Putting aside the Cannery Park development(infill on our periphery), it is well-known that city infill residential development produces significantly less profit for developers than building on open land on our periphery.

  30. Davisite

    Putting aside the Cannery Park development(infill on our periphery), it is well-known that city infill residential development produces significantly less profit for developers than building on open land on our periphery.

  31. Davisite

    Putting aside the Cannery Park development(infill on our periphery), it is well-known that city infill residential development produces significantly less profit for developers than building on open land on our periphery.

  32. Davisite

    Putting aside the Cannery Park development(infill on our periphery), it is well-known that city infill residential development produces significantly less profit for developers than building on open land on our periphery.

  33. Rich Rifkin

    “…it is well-known that city infill residential development produces significantly less profit for developers than building on open land on our periphery.”

    Who cares about the developer’s profit other than the developer herself? That’s her business, not yours. It’s not as if profit is some kind of bad thing. Every single person who has a business, or has a good labor contract (which in a sense is a business) is doing so in hopes of making a profit. Whining about someone else’s profit is idiotic.

    Also, it makes no difference whatsoever in terms of impact if “infill” is done at the Cannery site or next door at the Covell Village site. The actual “city limit” boundaries are completely arbitrary, there. (We are not talking about crossing the Rubicon, or even crossing the Putah.) When the original Hunt’s factory was built, that was outside of the city limits. Davis had to annex that land to bring it inside our borders. No streams had to be re-routed (though Putah Creek was re-routed in order to build downtown Davis).

  34. Rich Rifkin

    “…it is well-known that city infill residential development produces significantly less profit for developers than building on open land on our periphery.”

    Who cares about the developer’s profit other than the developer herself? That’s her business, not yours. It’s not as if profit is some kind of bad thing. Every single person who has a business, or has a good labor contract (which in a sense is a business) is doing so in hopes of making a profit. Whining about someone else’s profit is idiotic.

    Also, it makes no difference whatsoever in terms of impact if “infill” is done at the Cannery site or next door at the Covell Village site. The actual “city limit” boundaries are completely arbitrary, there. (We are not talking about crossing the Rubicon, or even crossing the Putah.) When the original Hunt’s factory was built, that was outside of the city limits. Davis had to annex that land to bring it inside our borders. No streams had to be re-routed (though Putah Creek was re-routed in order to build downtown Davis).

  35. Rich Rifkin

    “…it is well-known that city infill residential development produces significantly less profit for developers than building on open land on our periphery.”

    Who cares about the developer’s profit other than the developer herself? That’s her business, not yours. It’s not as if profit is some kind of bad thing. Every single person who has a business, or has a good labor contract (which in a sense is a business) is doing so in hopes of making a profit. Whining about someone else’s profit is idiotic.

    Also, it makes no difference whatsoever in terms of impact if “infill” is done at the Cannery site or next door at the Covell Village site. The actual “city limit” boundaries are completely arbitrary, there. (We are not talking about crossing the Rubicon, or even crossing the Putah.) When the original Hunt’s factory was built, that was outside of the city limits. Davis had to annex that land to bring it inside our borders. No streams had to be re-routed (though Putah Creek was re-routed in order to build downtown Davis).

  36. Rich Rifkin

    “…it is well-known that city infill residential development produces significantly less profit for developers than building on open land on our periphery.”

    Who cares about the developer’s profit other than the developer herself? That’s her business, not yours. It’s not as if profit is some kind of bad thing. Every single person who has a business, or has a good labor contract (which in a sense is a business) is doing so in hopes of making a profit. Whining about someone else’s profit is idiotic.

    Also, it makes no difference whatsoever in terms of impact if “infill” is done at the Cannery site or next door at the Covell Village site. The actual “city limit” boundaries are completely arbitrary, there. (We are not talking about crossing the Rubicon, or even crossing the Putah.) When the original Hunt’s factory was built, that was outside of the city limits. Davis had to annex that land to bring it inside our borders. No streams had to be re-routed (though Putah Creek was re-routed in order to build downtown Davis).

  37. Davisite

    “Who cares about the developer’s profit other than the developer herself? That’s her business, not yours….”

    Profits have no effect on local Davis politics(and this VO closure is essentially political)?

    …..GIVE ME A BREAK!

  38. Davisite

    “Who cares about the developer’s profit other than the developer herself? That’s her business, not yours….”

    Profits have no effect on local Davis politics(and this VO closure is essentially political)?

    …..GIVE ME A BREAK!

  39. Davisite

    “Who cares about the developer’s profit other than the developer herself? That’s her business, not yours….”

    Profits have no effect on local Davis politics(and this VO closure is essentially political)?

    …..GIVE ME A BREAK!

  40. Davisite

    “Who cares about the developer’s profit other than the developer herself? That’s her business, not yours….”

    Profits have no effect on local Davis politics(and this VO closure is essentially political)?

    …..GIVE ME A BREAK!

  41. Anonymous

    The only one claiming a “structural deficit” is Mr. Trost.
    Mr. Colby stated there is no deficit Thursday evening.
    Phyllis York asked a great question, “Are there still unallocated funds in the current budget?” There must be if there is enough money to make new positions within the district and pay for two superintendents.
    A copy of the budget can be picked up at Mr. Colby’s office. It is public information. Anyone?
    Lost state money for building and improvements doesn’t affect operating budgets. Those funds can’t be mingled. Missing out on $5 million in state matching funds for facilities doesn’t affect this situation.
    One wonders how far the Task Force’s own progeny were required to walk to school daily. If the Task Force is so concerned about our children’s obesity…

  42. Anonymous

    The only one claiming a “structural deficit” is Mr. Trost.
    Mr. Colby stated there is no deficit Thursday evening.
    Phyllis York asked a great question, “Are there still unallocated funds in the current budget?” There must be if there is enough money to make new positions within the district and pay for two superintendents.
    A copy of the budget can be picked up at Mr. Colby’s office. It is public information. Anyone?
    Lost state money for building and improvements doesn’t affect operating budgets. Those funds can’t be mingled. Missing out on $5 million in state matching funds for facilities doesn’t affect this situation.
    One wonders how far the Task Force’s own progeny were required to walk to school daily. If the Task Force is so concerned about our children’s obesity…

  43. Anonymous

    The only one claiming a “structural deficit” is Mr. Trost.
    Mr. Colby stated there is no deficit Thursday evening.
    Phyllis York asked a great question, “Are there still unallocated funds in the current budget?” There must be if there is enough money to make new positions within the district and pay for two superintendents.
    A copy of the budget can be picked up at Mr. Colby’s office. It is public information. Anyone?
    Lost state money for building and improvements doesn’t affect operating budgets. Those funds can’t be mingled. Missing out on $5 million in state matching funds for facilities doesn’t affect this situation.
    One wonders how far the Task Force’s own progeny were required to walk to school daily. If the Task Force is so concerned about our children’s obesity…

  44. Anonymous

    The only one claiming a “structural deficit” is Mr. Trost.
    Mr. Colby stated there is no deficit Thursday evening.
    Phyllis York asked a great question, “Are there still unallocated funds in the current budget?” There must be if there is enough money to make new positions within the district and pay for two superintendents.
    A copy of the budget can be picked up at Mr. Colby’s office. It is public information. Anyone?
    Lost state money for building and improvements doesn’t affect operating budgets. Those funds can’t be mingled. Missing out on $5 million in state matching funds for facilities doesn’t affect this situation.
    One wonders how far the Task Force’s own progeny were required to walk to school daily. If the Task Force is so concerned about our children’s obesity…

  45. Rich Rifkin

    “To emphasize Davisite’s point: developer profits are what drive political pressure which influence the political process.”

    What profits actually do is they send a signal to the market: that “this” is a good business to invest in. Profits encourage competition.

    However, when governmental bodies interfere excessively in the marketplace, profits tend to increase dramatically, because competition is restricted. And when that happens, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

    Ideally, government should try to create the conditions where private individuals or companies can compete against each other to the fullest extent. That will benefit consumers and it will drive profits* to zero.

    —–

    * You should understand that in economic terms, “profit” means a return on investment in excess of the risk involved.

  46. Rich Rifkin

    “To emphasize Davisite’s point: developer profits are what drive political pressure which influence the political process.”

    What profits actually do is they send a signal to the market: that “this” is a good business to invest in. Profits encourage competition.

    However, when governmental bodies interfere excessively in the marketplace, profits tend to increase dramatically, because competition is restricted. And when that happens, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

    Ideally, government should try to create the conditions where private individuals or companies can compete against each other to the fullest extent. That will benefit consumers and it will drive profits* to zero.

    —–

    * You should understand that in economic terms, “profit” means a return on investment in excess of the risk involved.

  47. Rich Rifkin

    “To emphasize Davisite’s point: developer profits are what drive political pressure which influence the political process.”

    What profits actually do is they send a signal to the market: that “this” is a good business to invest in. Profits encourage competition.

    However, when governmental bodies interfere excessively in the marketplace, profits tend to increase dramatically, because competition is restricted. And when that happens, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

    Ideally, government should try to create the conditions where private individuals or companies can compete against each other to the fullest extent. That will benefit consumers and it will drive profits* to zero.

    —–

    * You should understand that in economic terms, “profit” means a return on investment in excess of the risk involved.

  48. Rich Rifkin

    “To emphasize Davisite’s point: developer profits are what drive political pressure which influence the political process.”

    What profits actually do is they send a signal to the market: that “this” is a good business to invest in. Profits encourage competition.

    However, when governmental bodies interfere excessively in the marketplace, profits tend to increase dramatically, because competition is restricted. And when that happens, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

    Ideally, government should try to create the conditions where private individuals or companies can compete against each other to the fullest extent. That will benefit consumers and it will drive profits* to zero.

    —–

    * You should understand that in economic terms, “profit” means a return on investment in excess of the risk involved.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

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