However, this has all changed this year, you can see it in the focus from the scientific community, you can see it the production and publicity that Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” has received, and you can see in the response at the state, county, and local government levels.
Global warming is a well-documented problem that is far bigger than just the city of Davis. However, many of the changes needed on an international level begin with practices at the local level.
Tuesday night at the Davis City Council meeting, there was an agenda item on global warming and the things that the city needs to do to reduce emissions.
The real question I had after watching both the presentation and the council exchange following it is whether or not this is window dressing by the council majority to appear to be environmentally friendly and socially conscious or whether this marks the beginning of real changes–tough changes–that we have to make in order to affect the global climate and must be undertaken at a community-by-community level.
The city is putting together an action plan to reduce the carbon footprint which they claim is already low and already many of these items are in place. The big one of course is to drive less. Vehicle emissions represent a huge amount of the carbon problem.
An interesting thing that came up at the county level perhaps a month or month and a half ago was Duane Chamberlain, the County Supervisor who represents much of rural Yolo County talked about his conversations with local farmers about how much fuel they used per acre of their land. It was a fairly low number when he compared it to how much fuel was used in a medium density city neighborhood. You are talking about multiple dwellings on that land where people are using hundreds if not thousands of gallons of fuel individually, and you may have several dwellings on that acre. Whereas, Chamberlain was suggesting that many farmers perhaps used 40-60 gallons per acre.
And that is just driving fuel. What that suggests is in terms of carbon footprint, urban land use is much higher than rural land use.
The council majority of course suggests their support for these types of issues and yet their policies do not seem consistent.
At the previous meeting there was a long and sustained debate as to whether they should mandate solar panels for a new housing development. The council majority’s position was that it should be optional. If you have a commitment to reduction of energy usage, how can solar panels which are clean and sustainable uses of energy be optional?
Moreover, one of the big problems of the Covell Village proposal, was the traffic impacts. Increasing traffic adds greatly to carbon emissions because the higher the intensity of the traffic, the more vehicles idle and less efficient they use their fuel. Covell Village would have produced vast traffic problems and that would have increased greatly the amount of carbon emissions in Davis. That does not mean that we can never develop or add subdivisions or communities, but it does mean that we need to start planning for traffic, alternative transportation and cleaner burner transportation at the very least in conjunction with new housing development.
Then there is the entire Target and big-box issue. This is a corporation with a huge and vast global carbon footprint. This is the type of non-sustainable use of resources that we need to start changing. The debate over this was glossed over last fall. The Target building in Davis was marketed to the Davis consumer and voter as being green–the color of the building is green, it is put in a LEED certified building. As one person put it last fall–you can put a Hummer car dealership in a LEED certified building, that is not going to make it environmentally friendly or address the top concerns of global warming at a local level.
So the council majority is going to have to decide if global warming and reducing our carbon footprint is an actual priority.
Are they willing to make actual tough choices that impact people’s lives?
They talked about easy to implement plans that require “no vision” to implement–those are things that we can all agree on and we should do. But to really get into this problem we need to make tough choices on development and building construction and neighborhood planning.
There was also talk about not reinventing the wheel. I think Councilmember Lamar Heystek make the crucial point, “in terms of a vision, I think we need to look at what other communities do and then exceed them. I think competition is a good thing.”
Mayor Sue Greenwald finally pointed out that there was no mention in the action plan about city planning, land use patterns, floor area ratios for houses, she asked if there was anything about making use of land use planning. Staff gave a vague answer on this but suggested it was an important component.
Councilmember Saylor suggested at one point–“it is not a question of who is greener than the other one”–and yet I think it is exactly a question of that. Are some of the land use policies that this city employs consistent with the goal of dealing with global warming? I think Sue Greenwald was exactly right that this component of the discussion was largely missing.
Councilmember Souza made the point that the burning of fossil fuels is what is the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions and that in this area that is the consumption of gasoline. And I agree with that, what I was disappointed in is the lack of recognition that fuel usage is not merely a site-based problem. That if we consume goods that need transportation or that were manufactured elsewhere, guess what, we are contributing to the greenhouse gas emissions in a real way, even though the emissions are occurring elsewhere and the rest of the world is also doing the same thing.
Finally concern was raised by both Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek about the 18 month visioning process. Both suggested we should do things quicker. Mayor Greenwald was concerned that we would lose momentum and also fall behind what other communities are doing. Heystek suggested earlier in the discussion that this ought to be a one-year process rather than an 18-month process.
My overall concerns echo these–there are things we can and should do now and we also have to discuss the tough issues of land use, city planning, commercial development, and transportation.
Davis indeed does many good things environmentally, however, we should not pretend that the current policies and recent developments have moved us in the right direction.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
This is a good subject and I’m glad you raised it. I’ll address three areas where energy efficiency improvements can be made, their benefits, and drawbacks: housing, land use, and transportation.
Energy Efficiency and Housing: First, should solar panels be mandated? An argument for that can be made since they can be integrated into the mortgage without too much effect and easily pay themselves back so should not count against the homebuyer in their loan qualification amount. However, solar panels are sensitive to placement, shade, and orientation. So long as roofs are built with enough southern exposure, then the mandate would work. However, solar panels are currently fairly large and a 2.5KW system like mine requires 18 good size panels and maybe as much as 250 sq feet. Keep in mind, solar rebates for residential purposes are not what they used to be so the cost is rising, unless the Governor’s bill to promote solar panel is implemented. Also keep in mind, PG &E is no friend of solar power and will not allow solar produces to overproduce, so there is no incentive to purchase a system larger than you need, so you usually end up with a system smaller than one that produces 100% of a household’s electricity requirements. Another option to mandate or strongly encourage is on-demand hot water. These also cover their costs very quickly through energy efficiency. If anyone attended the Green Expo at the Sac convention center a few weeks back, you’d have seen many interesting household energy improvement products.
Transportation: Many improvements can be made locally, and if altruism were to work anywhere, this would be the place. But it does not fundamentally affect travel behavior. About 10% of all trips in Davis are by alternative mode. Unfortunately, this is considered phenomenal by US standards except in very high density cities. But, probably 90% of those are made by the students. So my guess is that Davis is only marginally better than other communities. Personal observations suggest Davisites are much more sensitive regarding the type of vehicles they drive. Far fewer SUVs, pickups, etc. than other communities (try visiting Texas). However, in the automobile realm, there is a huge opportunity being missed to encourage neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs). This town is simply the perfect location for families to dump the second car and purchase an NEV. It is a sad commentary that towns catering to seniors such as Lincoln have taken the lead on encouraging and implementing use of NEVs. There is a limit to what the City can do but they can be incentivized by, for example, allowing NEVs unmetered parking downtown, annual parcel tax credits (not sure how this would work considering taxes are administered by the County), and a major outreach campaign. I have been saddened by this supposedly “progressive” communities response to NEVs, which I will explain in my next post. Regarding bicycling and walking, distances and travel times are too great for many trips, especially with children, but a lot of progress can be made. Also, considering too many residential neighborhoods without support retail to “plug into” discourages walking and bicycling, despite the City’s overall relatively compact footprint.
Land Use: The best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while still trying to meet objectives of affordable housing is will smart growth infill and redevelopment. For example, we need to intensify uses on many corridors so neighborhoods can “plug into” amenities within walking distance. This includes higher intensity mixed use residential along arterials. It will provide housing, reduce the number of automobile trips and the distances traveled. This could fundamentally change the character of many parts of town. However, in my opinion, for the better. These include the PG & E site, Downtown, Olive Drive north, 8th Street commercial strip mall, possibly 2nd street, the vacant Chiles Rd properties, Covell Blvd west of HWY 113, 5th Street/L Street area. Smart growth development in these locations would reduce the need for peripheral development. But there are real tradeoffs here and I imagine would push way beyond city residents’ comfort level.
Development on the Covell Village site makes sense because it can be done in accordance with high energy efficiency, smart growth, urban design, and provide more amenities closer to a very large population base (Wildhorse, Mace Ranch, east Davis, etc.) that really only has the Nugget shopping center in close walking or bicycling proximity. With mixed use retail fronting Covell Blvd and Pole Line road, many trips (and energy) that are currently going to the Marketplace, downtown, or elsewhere in town by automobile, would occur within the Covell/Pole Line activity space.
So my apologies for the long winded post.
This is a good subject and I’m glad you raised it. I’ll address three areas where energy efficiency improvements can be made, their benefits, and drawbacks: housing, land use, and transportation.
Energy Efficiency and Housing: First, should solar panels be mandated? An argument for that can be made since they can be integrated into the mortgage without too much effect and easily pay themselves back so should not count against the homebuyer in their loan qualification amount. However, solar panels are sensitive to placement, shade, and orientation. So long as roofs are built with enough southern exposure, then the mandate would work. However, solar panels are currently fairly large and a 2.5KW system like mine requires 18 good size panels and maybe as much as 250 sq feet. Keep in mind, solar rebates for residential purposes are not what they used to be so the cost is rising, unless the Governor’s bill to promote solar panel is implemented. Also keep in mind, PG &E is no friend of solar power and will not allow solar produces to overproduce, so there is no incentive to purchase a system larger than you need, so you usually end up with a system smaller than one that produces 100% of a household’s electricity requirements. Another option to mandate or strongly encourage is on-demand hot water. These also cover their costs very quickly through energy efficiency. If anyone attended the Green Expo at the Sac convention center a few weeks back, you’d have seen many interesting household energy improvement products.
Transportation: Many improvements can be made locally, and if altruism were to work anywhere, this would be the place. But it does not fundamentally affect travel behavior. About 10% of all trips in Davis are by alternative mode. Unfortunately, this is considered phenomenal by US standards except in very high density cities. But, probably 90% of those are made by the students. So my guess is that Davis is only marginally better than other communities. Personal observations suggest Davisites are much more sensitive regarding the type of vehicles they drive. Far fewer SUVs, pickups, etc. than other communities (try visiting Texas). However, in the automobile realm, there is a huge opportunity being missed to encourage neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs). This town is simply the perfect location for families to dump the second car and purchase an NEV. It is a sad commentary that towns catering to seniors such as Lincoln have taken the lead on encouraging and implementing use of NEVs. There is a limit to what the City can do but they can be incentivized by, for example, allowing NEVs unmetered parking downtown, annual parcel tax credits (not sure how this would work considering taxes are administered by the County), and a major outreach campaign. I have been saddened by this supposedly “progressive” communities response to NEVs, which I will explain in my next post. Regarding bicycling and walking, distances and travel times are too great for many trips, especially with children, but a lot of progress can be made. Also, considering too many residential neighborhoods without support retail to “plug into” discourages walking and bicycling, despite the City’s overall relatively compact footprint.
Land Use: The best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while still trying to meet objectives of affordable housing is will smart growth infill and redevelopment. For example, we need to intensify uses on many corridors so neighborhoods can “plug into” amenities within walking distance. This includes higher intensity mixed use residential along arterials. It will provide housing, reduce the number of automobile trips and the distances traveled. This could fundamentally change the character of many parts of town. However, in my opinion, for the better. These include the PG & E site, Downtown, Olive Drive north, 8th Street commercial strip mall, possibly 2nd street, the vacant Chiles Rd properties, Covell Blvd west of HWY 113, 5th Street/L Street area. Smart growth development in these locations would reduce the need for peripheral development. But there are real tradeoffs here and I imagine would push way beyond city residents’ comfort level.
Development on the Covell Village site makes sense because it can be done in accordance with high energy efficiency, smart growth, urban design, and provide more amenities closer to a very large population base (Wildhorse, Mace Ranch, east Davis, etc.) that really only has the Nugget shopping center in close walking or bicycling proximity. With mixed use retail fronting Covell Blvd and Pole Line road, many trips (and energy) that are currently going to the Marketplace, downtown, or elsewhere in town by automobile, would occur within the Covell/Pole Line activity space.
So my apologies for the long winded post.
This is a good subject and I’m glad you raised it. I’ll address three areas where energy efficiency improvements can be made, their benefits, and drawbacks: housing, land use, and transportation.
Energy Efficiency and Housing: First, should solar panels be mandated? An argument for that can be made since they can be integrated into the mortgage without too much effect and easily pay themselves back so should not count against the homebuyer in their loan qualification amount. However, solar panels are sensitive to placement, shade, and orientation. So long as roofs are built with enough southern exposure, then the mandate would work. However, solar panels are currently fairly large and a 2.5KW system like mine requires 18 good size panels and maybe as much as 250 sq feet. Keep in mind, solar rebates for residential purposes are not what they used to be so the cost is rising, unless the Governor’s bill to promote solar panel is implemented. Also keep in mind, PG &E is no friend of solar power and will not allow solar produces to overproduce, so there is no incentive to purchase a system larger than you need, so you usually end up with a system smaller than one that produces 100% of a household’s electricity requirements. Another option to mandate or strongly encourage is on-demand hot water. These also cover their costs very quickly through energy efficiency. If anyone attended the Green Expo at the Sac convention center a few weeks back, you’d have seen many interesting household energy improvement products.
Transportation: Many improvements can be made locally, and if altruism were to work anywhere, this would be the place. But it does not fundamentally affect travel behavior. About 10% of all trips in Davis are by alternative mode. Unfortunately, this is considered phenomenal by US standards except in very high density cities. But, probably 90% of those are made by the students. So my guess is that Davis is only marginally better than other communities. Personal observations suggest Davisites are much more sensitive regarding the type of vehicles they drive. Far fewer SUVs, pickups, etc. than other communities (try visiting Texas). However, in the automobile realm, there is a huge opportunity being missed to encourage neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs). This town is simply the perfect location for families to dump the second car and purchase an NEV. It is a sad commentary that towns catering to seniors such as Lincoln have taken the lead on encouraging and implementing use of NEVs. There is a limit to what the City can do but they can be incentivized by, for example, allowing NEVs unmetered parking downtown, annual parcel tax credits (not sure how this would work considering taxes are administered by the County), and a major outreach campaign. I have been saddened by this supposedly “progressive” communities response to NEVs, which I will explain in my next post. Regarding bicycling and walking, distances and travel times are too great for many trips, especially with children, but a lot of progress can be made. Also, considering too many residential neighborhoods without support retail to “plug into” discourages walking and bicycling, despite the City’s overall relatively compact footprint.
Land Use: The best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while still trying to meet objectives of affordable housing is will smart growth infill and redevelopment. For example, we need to intensify uses on many corridors so neighborhoods can “plug into” amenities within walking distance. This includes higher intensity mixed use residential along arterials. It will provide housing, reduce the number of automobile trips and the distances traveled. This could fundamentally change the character of many parts of town. However, in my opinion, for the better. These include the PG & E site, Downtown, Olive Drive north, 8th Street commercial strip mall, possibly 2nd street, the vacant Chiles Rd properties, Covell Blvd west of HWY 113, 5th Street/L Street area. Smart growth development in these locations would reduce the need for peripheral development. But there are real tradeoffs here and I imagine would push way beyond city residents’ comfort level.
Development on the Covell Village site makes sense because it can be done in accordance with high energy efficiency, smart growth, urban design, and provide more amenities closer to a very large population base (Wildhorse, Mace Ranch, east Davis, etc.) that really only has the Nugget shopping center in close walking or bicycling proximity. With mixed use retail fronting Covell Blvd and Pole Line road, many trips (and energy) that are currently going to the Marketplace, downtown, or elsewhere in town by automobile, would occur within the Covell/Pole Line activity space.
So my apologies for the long winded post.
This is a good subject and I’m glad you raised it. I’ll address three areas where energy efficiency improvements can be made, their benefits, and drawbacks: housing, land use, and transportation.
Energy Efficiency and Housing: First, should solar panels be mandated? An argument for that can be made since they can be integrated into the mortgage without too much effect and easily pay themselves back so should not count against the homebuyer in their loan qualification amount. However, solar panels are sensitive to placement, shade, and orientation. So long as roofs are built with enough southern exposure, then the mandate would work. However, solar panels are currently fairly large and a 2.5KW system like mine requires 18 good size panels and maybe as much as 250 sq feet. Keep in mind, solar rebates for residential purposes are not what they used to be so the cost is rising, unless the Governor’s bill to promote solar panel is implemented. Also keep in mind, PG &E is no friend of solar power and will not allow solar produces to overproduce, so there is no incentive to purchase a system larger than you need, so you usually end up with a system smaller than one that produces 100% of a household’s electricity requirements. Another option to mandate or strongly encourage is on-demand hot water. These also cover their costs very quickly through energy efficiency. If anyone attended the Green Expo at the Sac convention center a few weeks back, you’d have seen many interesting household energy improvement products.
Transportation: Many improvements can be made locally, and if altruism were to work anywhere, this would be the place. But it does not fundamentally affect travel behavior. About 10% of all trips in Davis are by alternative mode. Unfortunately, this is considered phenomenal by US standards except in very high density cities. But, probably 90% of those are made by the students. So my guess is that Davis is only marginally better than other communities. Personal observations suggest Davisites are much more sensitive regarding the type of vehicles they drive. Far fewer SUVs, pickups, etc. than other communities (try visiting Texas). However, in the automobile realm, there is a huge opportunity being missed to encourage neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs). This town is simply the perfect location for families to dump the second car and purchase an NEV. It is a sad commentary that towns catering to seniors such as Lincoln have taken the lead on encouraging and implementing use of NEVs. There is a limit to what the City can do but they can be incentivized by, for example, allowing NEVs unmetered parking downtown, annual parcel tax credits (not sure how this would work considering taxes are administered by the County), and a major outreach campaign. I have been saddened by this supposedly “progressive” communities response to NEVs, which I will explain in my next post. Regarding bicycling and walking, distances and travel times are too great for many trips, especially with children, but a lot of progress can be made. Also, considering too many residential neighborhoods without support retail to “plug into” discourages walking and bicycling, despite the City’s overall relatively compact footprint.
Land Use: The best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while still trying to meet objectives of affordable housing is will smart growth infill and redevelopment. For example, we need to intensify uses on many corridors so neighborhoods can “plug into” amenities within walking distance. This includes higher intensity mixed use residential along arterials. It will provide housing, reduce the number of automobile trips and the distances traveled. This could fundamentally change the character of many parts of town. However, in my opinion, for the better. These include the PG & E site, Downtown, Olive Drive north, 8th Street commercial strip mall, possibly 2nd street, the vacant Chiles Rd properties, Covell Blvd west of HWY 113, 5th Street/L Street area. Smart growth development in these locations would reduce the need for peripheral development. But there are real tradeoffs here and I imagine would push way beyond city residents’ comfort level.
Development on the Covell Village site makes sense because it can be done in accordance with high energy efficiency, smart growth, urban design, and provide more amenities closer to a very large population base (Wildhorse, Mace Ranch, east Davis, etc.) that really only has the Nugget shopping center in close walking or bicycling proximity. With mixed use retail fronting Covell Blvd and Pole Line road, many trips (and energy) that are currently going to the Marketplace, downtown, or elsewhere in town by automobile, would occur within the Covell/Pole Line activity space.
So my apologies for the long winded post.
But while we can do as much as possible at the local level, reduction in greenhouse gases really needs to come from the state or federal government in the form of greenhouse gas emissions standards, CAFÉ increases, or fuel taxes, but benefits from GHG and CAFÉ standards take a long time to realize because of the turnover rate of the vehicle fleet. VMT fees and/or increased fuel taxes are the only immediate way to achieve wholesale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Considering the state legislature has not increased the fuel tax since the early 1990s and it doesn’t even keep pace with inflation, we can almost forget that option. It looks like the effect of peak oil on the market is having an effect as it was always assumed the $4.00/gallon gasoline was required to have an impact on automobile travel behavior.
But while we can do as much as possible at the local level, reduction in greenhouse gases really needs to come from the state or federal government in the form of greenhouse gas emissions standards, CAFÉ increases, or fuel taxes, but benefits from GHG and CAFÉ standards take a long time to realize because of the turnover rate of the vehicle fleet. VMT fees and/or increased fuel taxes are the only immediate way to achieve wholesale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Considering the state legislature has not increased the fuel tax since the early 1990s and it doesn’t even keep pace with inflation, we can almost forget that option. It looks like the effect of peak oil on the market is having an effect as it was always assumed the $4.00/gallon gasoline was required to have an impact on automobile travel behavior.
But while we can do as much as possible at the local level, reduction in greenhouse gases really needs to come from the state or federal government in the form of greenhouse gas emissions standards, CAFÉ increases, or fuel taxes, but benefits from GHG and CAFÉ standards take a long time to realize because of the turnover rate of the vehicle fleet. VMT fees and/or increased fuel taxes are the only immediate way to achieve wholesale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Considering the state legislature has not increased the fuel tax since the early 1990s and it doesn’t even keep pace with inflation, we can almost forget that option. It looks like the effect of peak oil on the market is having an effect as it was always assumed the $4.00/gallon gasoline was required to have an impact on automobile travel behavior.
But while we can do as much as possible at the local level, reduction in greenhouse gases really needs to come from the state or federal government in the form of greenhouse gas emissions standards, CAFÉ increases, or fuel taxes, but benefits from GHG and CAFÉ standards take a long time to realize because of the turnover rate of the vehicle fleet. VMT fees and/or increased fuel taxes are the only immediate way to achieve wholesale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Considering the state legislature has not increased the fuel tax since the early 1990s and it doesn’t even keep pace with inflation, we can almost forget that option. It looks like the effect of peak oil on the market is having an effect as it was always assumed the $4.00/gallon gasoline was required to have an impact on automobile travel behavior.
One more comment, as I stated in my previous post, I am quite disheartened by the Davis community’s response to NEVs. Allow me to tell you a story. We have friends who recently purchased a used NEV (I actually found it for them). This is a young family of four who are symbolic of the value system I thought represented Davis. They are extremely socially and environmentally conscious. Really good people, friends, and neighbors. They even considered selling the one car they own to become an NEV-only household. But two events really left a bad taste in my mouth regarding our “progressive” city.
One day, our friend took her two children in the NEV to a donut shop. When she returned, there was a note on her steering wheel saying “I pray for the safety of your children” or something very similar to that. This is a completely appalling thing to do to someone and very much upset our friend. She even considered selling her NEV because it affected her that much.
Another day, I’m riding my bike back from the train station and I stop at the 5th & L Street intersection heading north on L. I pull behind a cyclist who I see is talking to a woman in a Honda Civic with a child seat in the back. My friend is with her children in the NEV in the left turn lane on 5th Street waiting to turn left on L. I see these two people looking at my friend and shaking their heads. As I overheard their conversation, they said things like “I can’t believe that, that is so unsafe!” and “Can you believe that?” My heart just sunk and I couldn’t bring myself to tell our friends about this occurrence. This woman felt superior to my friend not realizing that the risk she was putting her child in a Honda Civic at freeway speeds was likely greater than driving an NEV on local streets. Does anyone make these kinds of comments about families on bike trains sharing the streets with automobiles. I’m sure some somebody in a Suburban is saying the same thing about her. What exactly is so unsafe about driving an NEV? I’ll address that subject in a minute.
These are merely two circumstances that I’m even aware of. Who knows how many other similar conversations passing judgement on NEV owners are occurring around town? It is a disappointing commentary on this “progressive” community. It sometimes makes me second-guess Davis’ identity.
So, for the record, let’s talk about NEV safety. First, NEVS are limited to 25 mph. So if they hit something, it will likely be at very low speeds. Second, they are very visible. They look different from other vehicles and are easy to see. Our sight is drawn toward them sooner than other cars because they are so distinctive looking. Safety is all about visual awareness and NEVs excel here. Third, I don’t know if there has been a single collision between NEVs and automobiles in Davis. Granted, NEVs are not subject to crash safety standards like cars and often don’t have doors, or the doors they do have are not designed for side impact mitigation. But NEVs should not be compared to regular automobiles. They are a vehicle classified between a bicycle and an automobile and are limited to streets with speed limits of 35mph or less. There is no evidence that NEVs are unsafe and our community should be supporting these vehicles not justifying a superiority complex and automobile usage based on bogus “safety” claims. Fourth, in this town we don’t ostracize bicycles that also share the road with automobiles based on “safety”, so why NEVs?
One more comment, as I stated in my previous post, I am quite disheartened by the Davis community’s response to NEVs. Allow me to tell you a story. We have friends who recently purchased a used NEV (I actually found it for them). This is a young family of four who are symbolic of the value system I thought represented Davis. They are extremely socially and environmentally conscious. Really good people, friends, and neighbors. They even considered selling the one car they own to become an NEV-only household. But two events really left a bad taste in my mouth regarding our “progressive” city.
One day, our friend took her two children in the NEV to a donut shop. When she returned, there was a note on her steering wheel saying “I pray for the safety of your children” or something very similar to that. This is a completely appalling thing to do to someone and very much upset our friend. She even considered selling her NEV because it affected her that much.
Another day, I’m riding my bike back from the train station and I stop at the 5th & L Street intersection heading north on L. I pull behind a cyclist who I see is talking to a woman in a Honda Civic with a child seat in the back. My friend is with her children in the NEV in the left turn lane on 5th Street waiting to turn left on L. I see these two people looking at my friend and shaking their heads. As I overheard their conversation, they said things like “I can’t believe that, that is so unsafe!” and “Can you believe that?” My heart just sunk and I couldn’t bring myself to tell our friends about this occurrence. This woman felt superior to my friend not realizing that the risk she was putting her child in a Honda Civic at freeway speeds was likely greater than driving an NEV on local streets. Does anyone make these kinds of comments about families on bike trains sharing the streets with automobiles. I’m sure some somebody in a Suburban is saying the same thing about her. What exactly is so unsafe about driving an NEV? I’ll address that subject in a minute.
These are merely two circumstances that I’m even aware of. Who knows how many other similar conversations passing judgement on NEV owners are occurring around town? It is a disappointing commentary on this “progressive” community. It sometimes makes me second-guess Davis’ identity.
So, for the record, let’s talk about NEV safety. First, NEVS are limited to 25 mph. So if they hit something, it will likely be at very low speeds. Second, they are very visible. They look different from other vehicles and are easy to see. Our sight is drawn toward them sooner than other cars because they are so distinctive looking. Safety is all about visual awareness and NEVs excel here. Third, I don’t know if there has been a single collision between NEVs and automobiles in Davis. Granted, NEVs are not subject to crash safety standards like cars and often don’t have doors, or the doors they do have are not designed for side impact mitigation. But NEVs should not be compared to regular automobiles. They are a vehicle classified between a bicycle and an automobile and are limited to streets with speed limits of 35mph or less. There is no evidence that NEVs are unsafe and our community should be supporting these vehicles not justifying a superiority complex and automobile usage based on bogus “safety” claims. Fourth, in this town we don’t ostracize bicycles that also share the road with automobiles based on “safety”, so why NEVs?
One more comment, as I stated in my previous post, I am quite disheartened by the Davis community’s response to NEVs. Allow me to tell you a story. We have friends who recently purchased a used NEV (I actually found it for them). This is a young family of four who are symbolic of the value system I thought represented Davis. They are extremely socially and environmentally conscious. Really good people, friends, and neighbors. They even considered selling the one car they own to become an NEV-only household. But two events really left a bad taste in my mouth regarding our “progressive” city.
One day, our friend took her two children in the NEV to a donut shop. When she returned, there was a note on her steering wheel saying “I pray for the safety of your children” or something very similar to that. This is a completely appalling thing to do to someone and very much upset our friend. She even considered selling her NEV because it affected her that much.
Another day, I’m riding my bike back from the train station and I stop at the 5th & L Street intersection heading north on L. I pull behind a cyclist who I see is talking to a woman in a Honda Civic with a child seat in the back. My friend is with her children in the NEV in the left turn lane on 5th Street waiting to turn left on L. I see these two people looking at my friend and shaking their heads. As I overheard their conversation, they said things like “I can’t believe that, that is so unsafe!” and “Can you believe that?” My heart just sunk and I couldn’t bring myself to tell our friends about this occurrence. This woman felt superior to my friend not realizing that the risk she was putting her child in a Honda Civic at freeway speeds was likely greater than driving an NEV on local streets. Does anyone make these kinds of comments about families on bike trains sharing the streets with automobiles. I’m sure some somebody in a Suburban is saying the same thing about her. What exactly is so unsafe about driving an NEV? I’ll address that subject in a minute.
These are merely two circumstances that I’m even aware of. Who knows how many other similar conversations passing judgement on NEV owners are occurring around town? It is a disappointing commentary on this “progressive” community. It sometimes makes me second-guess Davis’ identity.
So, for the record, let’s talk about NEV safety. First, NEVS are limited to 25 mph. So if they hit something, it will likely be at very low speeds. Second, they are very visible. They look different from other vehicles and are easy to see. Our sight is drawn toward them sooner than other cars because they are so distinctive looking. Safety is all about visual awareness and NEVs excel here. Third, I don’t know if there has been a single collision between NEVs and automobiles in Davis. Granted, NEVs are not subject to crash safety standards like cars and often don’t have doors, or the doors they do have are not designed for side impact mitigation. But NEVs should not be compared to regular automobiles. They are a vehicle classified between a bicycle and an automobile and are limited to streets with speed limits of 35mph or less. There is no evidence that NEVs are unsafe and our community should be supporting these vehicles not justifying a superiority complex and automobile usage based on bogus “safety” claims. Fourth, in this town we don’t ostracize bicycles that also share the road with automobiles based on “safety”, so why NEVs?
One more comment, as I stated in my previous post, I am quite disheartened by the Davis community’s response to NEVs. Allow me to tell you a story. We have friends who recently purchased a used NEV (I actually found it for them). This is a young family of four who are symbolic of the value system I thought represented Davis. They are extremely socially and environmentally conscious. Really good people, friends, and neighbors. They even considered selling the one car they own to become an NEV-only household. But two events really left a bad taste in my mouth regarding our “progressive” city.
One day, our friend took her two children in the NEV to a donut shop. When she returned, there was a note on her steering wheel saying “I pray for the safety of your children” or something very similar to that. This is a completely appalling thing to do to someone and very much upset our friend. She even considered selling her NEV because it affected her that much.
Another day, I’m riding my bike back from the train station and I stop at the 5th & L Street intersection heading north on L. I pull behind a cyclist who I see is talking to a woman in a Honda Civic with a child seat in the back. My friend is with her children in the NEV in the left turn lane on 5th Street waiting to turn left on L. I see these two people looking at my friend and shaking their heads. As I overheard their conversation, they said things like “I can’t believe that, that is so unsafe!” and “Can you believe that?” My heart just sunk and I couldn’t bring myself to tell our friends about this occurrence. This woman felt superior to my friend not realizing that the risk she was putting her child in a Honda Civic at freeway speeds was likely greater than driving an NEV on local streets. Does anyone make these kinds of comments about families on bike trains sharing the streets with automobiles. I’m sure some somebody in a Suburban is saying the same thing about her. What exactly is so unsafe about driving an NEV? I’ll address that subject in a minute.
These are merely two circumstances that I’m even aware of. Who knows how many other similar conversations passing judgement on NEV owners are occurring around town? It is a disappointing commentary on this “progressive” community. It sometimes makes me second-guess Davis’ identity.
So, for the record, let’s talk about NEV safety. First, NEVS are limited to 25 mph. So if they hit something, it will likely be at very low speeds. Second, they are very visible. They look different from other vehicles and are easy to see. Our sight is drawn toward them sooner than other cars because they are so distinctive looking. Safety is all about visual awareness and NEVs excel here. Third, I don’t know if there has been a single collision between NEVs and automobiles in Davis. Granted, NEVs are not subject to crash safety standards like cars and often don’t have doors, or the doors they do have are not designed for side impact mitigation. But NEVs should not be compared to regular automobiles. They are a vehicle classified between a bicycle and an automobile and are limited to streets with speed limits of 35mph or less. There is no evidence that NEVs are unsafe and our community should be supporting these vehicles not justifying a superiority complex and automobile usage based on bogus “safety” claims. Fourth, in this town we don’t ostracize bicycles that also share the road with automobiles based on “safety”, so why NEVs?
Correction on my first post: I meant to say that it is a sad commentary that Lincoln has taken the lead *over Davis* on encouraging NEV use. This is very much a missed opportunity considering our street network layout, lack of 6-lane arterials, etc.
Advertisement for a 2008 Council seat should read: VISION and commitment are prerequisites. Bureaurcrats, “bean counters” and self-annointed Davis “royalty” need not apply.
Correction on my first post: I meant to say that it is a sad commentary that Lincoln has taken the lead *over Davis* on encouraging NEV use. This is very much a missed opportunity considering our street network layout, lack of 6-lane arterials, etc.
Advertisement for a 2008 Council seat should read: VISION and commitment are prerequisites. Bureaurcrats, “bean counters” and self-annointed Davis “royalty” need not apply.
Correction on my first post: I meant to say that it is a sad commentary that Lincoln has taken the lead *over Davis* on encouraging NEV use. This is very much a missed opportunity considering our street network layout, lack of 6-lane arterials, etc.
Advertisement for a 2008 Council seat should read: VISION and commitment are prerequisites. Bureaurcrats, “bean counters” and self-annointed Davis “royalty” need not apply.
Correction on my first post: I meant to say that it is a sad commentary that Lincoln has taken the lead *over Davis* on encouraging NEV use. This is very much a missed opportunity considering our street network layout, lack of 6-lane arterials, etc.
Advertisement for a 2008 Council seat should read: VISION and commitment are prerequisites. Bureaurcrats, “bean counters” and self-annointed Davis “royalty” need not apply.
Brian: you bring up a good point on the NEVs and that is something that the city can do something about. I would like to see incentives and tax breaks for individuals who use NEVs. And perhaps stronger laws will be necessary down the line.
Brian: you bring up a good point on the NEVs and that is something that the city can do something about. I would like to see incentives and tax breaks for individuals who use NEVs. And perhaps stronger laws will be necessary down the line.
Brian: you bring up a good point on the NEVs and that is something that the city can do something about. I would like to see incentives and tax breaks for individuals who use NEVs. And perhaps stronger laws will be necessary down the line.
Brian: you bring up a good point on the NEVs and that is something that the city can do something about. I would like to see incentives and tax breaks for individuals who use NEVs. And perhaps stronger laws will be necessary down the line.
Okay, I’m dominating the discussion here, but another idea the University could pursue is a carsharing program. Currently, freshman are either discouraged or not allowed to bring a vehicle on campus. But many students in town do have cars and they contribute to traffic, parking issues, etc. just like we all do. If students simply had access to a car on those occasions where they really needed it, it would greatly reduce the discretionary trips currently being made by automobile. Centralized locations like apartment complexes are logical locations as well. The University and City can coordinate to encourage a CarShare company to establish a presence in Davis.
Okay, I’m dominating the discussion here, but another idea the University could pursue is a carsharing program. Currently, freshman are either discouraged or not allowed to bring a vehicle on campus. But many students in town do have cars and they contribute to traffic, parking issues, etc. just like we all do. If students simply had access to a car on those occasions where they really needed it, it would greatly reduce the discretionary trips currently being made by automobile. Centralized locations like apartment complexes are logical locations as well. The University and City can coordinate to encourage a CarShare company to establish a presence in Davis.
Okay, I’m dominating the discussion here, but another idea the University could pursue is a carsharing program. Currently, freshman are either discouraged or not allowed to bring a vehicle on campus. But many students in town do have cars and they contribute to traffic, parking issues, etc. just like we all do. If students simply had access to a car on those occasions where they really needed it, it would greatly reduce the discretionary trips currently being made by automobile. Centralized locations like apartment complexes are logical locations as well. The University and City can coordinate to encourage a CarShare company to establish a presence in Davis.
Okay, I’m dominating the discussion here, but another idea the University could pursue is a carsharing program. Currently, freshman are either discouraged or not allowed to bring a vehicle on campus. But many students in town do have cars and they contribute to traffic, parking issues, etc. just like we all do. If students simply had access to a car on those occasions where they really needed it, it would greatly reduce the discretionary trips currently being made by automobile. Centralized locations like apartment complexes are logical locations as well. The University and City can coordinate to encourage a CarShare company to establish a presence in Davis.
Brian.. your passion is obvious and much needed as it seems to be “drying up” in the Davis that I came to some 25 years ago. Suggestion: Pick a council candidate who shares your sense of VISION and work to get him/her elected in 2008.
Brian.. your passion is obvious and much needed as it seems to be “drying up” in the Davis that I came to some 25 years ago. Suggestion: Pick a council candidate who shares your sense of VISION and work to get him/her elected in 2008.
Brian.. your passion is obvious and much needed as it seems to be “drying up” in the Davis that I came to some 25 years ago. Suggestion: Pick a council candidate who shares your sense of VISION and work to get him/her elected in 2008.
Brian.. your passion is obvious and much needed as it seems to be “drying up” in the Davis that I came to some 25 years ago. Suggestion: Pick a council candidate who shares your sense of VISION and work to get him/her elected in 2008.
“Chamberlain was suggesting that many farmers perhaps used 40-60 gallons per acre. And that is just driving fuel. What that suggests is in terms of carbon footprint, urban land use is much higher than rural land use. The council majority of course suggests their support for these types of issues and yet their policies do not seem consistent.”
What the hell are you talking about, Greenwald? Are you saying that the council majority opposes rural land? Opposes farming, ranching and orcharding?
If you equate the approval of Covell Village with the marginal loss of rural land, you are completely wacked out of your skull. What the majority of voters in Davis did by rejecting Covell Village — which would have easily been the most environmentally friendly housing development not just in Davis but in the entire Sacramento region — was not to save to square foot of rural land.
No, what you are your fellow NIMBYs did was you told the 5,000 or so people who would have ended up living there to go live in Spring Lake or Natomas or Elk Grove. It’s not as if the denial of Covell Village reduced housing demand or population in California. All of those people will live somewhere — you’ve just pushed them into moving to somewhere where the development is much less environmentally friendly.
It would be nice if California still had as much undeveloped land in 2007 as it had in 1967. I for one wish that the houses that the so-called PROGRESSIVES in Davis were never built. In fact, I’d like all the Davis progressives who so hate developers to tear down their homes and move out of state and live in freaking tepees in North Dakota. By doing so, by getting rid of the people like David Greenwald, our carbon footprint would be far less impactful. We could plant a Valley Oak on your lot and put up a plaque honoring you for your environmental progressivism.
Of course, we cannot go back to 1967 because we have had 25 million people move into California — most from Mexico — in the last 40 years. The reality is that most of the environmental problems in our state, in our country and in our world would be far, far easier to solve if the human population were not so large and growing. While it is true that Mexico’s birth rate has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years, it still remains way too high. And we in California are paying the price for this as millions of Mexicans with few options at home come streaming into our state to improve their lives.
“Moreover, one of the big problems of the Covell Village proposal, was the traffic impacts. Increasing traffic adds greatly to carbon emissions because the higher the intensity of the traffic, the more vehicles idle and less efficient they use their fuel. Covell Village would have produced vast traffic problems and that would have increased greatly the amount of carbon emissions in Davis.”
The problem is actually called Global Warming, Greenwald. So the question is not weather Covell Village would have increased emissions in Davis, you doorknob. The question is whether Covell Village would have increased or decreased emissions in comparison with a development in Laguna or Natomas. Covell Village was defeated. No one will live there. But they will live in our state somewhere. Probably in Natomas or Woodland. So the question becomes, how much worse will the environment be because you rejected the most environmentally sensible development in the Sacramento area?
“That does not mean that we can never develop or add subdivisions or communities, but it does mean that we need to start planning for traffic, alternative transportation and cleaner burner transportation at the very least in conjunction with new housing development.”
Rejecting Covell Village did not create alternative transportation or cleaner burning transportation.
However, I think as a country, this is what our priority should be: to greatly reduce our consumption of oil and coal. And to whatever extent possible, to support technologies that sequester the carbon effluents from burning fossil fuels.
“Chamberlain was suggesting that many farmers perhaps used 40-60 gallons per acre. And that is just driving fuel. What that suggests is in terms of carbon footprint, urban land use is much higher than rural land use. The council majority of course suggests their support for these types of issues and yet their policies do not seem consistent.”
What the hell are you talking about, Greenwald? Are you saying that the council majority opposes rural land? Opposes farming, ranching and orcharding?
If you equate the approval of Covell Village with the marginal loss of rural land, you are completely wacked out of your skull. What the majority of voters in Davis did by rejecting Covell Village — which would have easily been the most environmentally friendly housing development not just in Davis but in the entire Sacramento region — was not to save to square foot of rural land.
No, what you are your fellow NIMBYs did was you told the 5,000 or so people who would have ended up living there to go live in Spring Lake or Natomas or Elk Grove. It’s not as if the denial of Covell Village reduced housing demand or population in California. All of those people will live somewhere — you’ve just pushed them into moving to somewhere where the development is much less environmentally friendly.
It would be nice if California still had as much undeveloped land in 2007 as it had in 1967. I for one wish that the houses that the so-called PROGRESSIVES in Davis were never built. In fact, I’d like all the Davis progressives who so hate developers to tear down their homes and move out of state and live in freaking tepees in North Dakota. By doing so, by getting rid of the people like David Greenwald, our carbon footprint would be far less impactful. We could plant a Valley Oak on your lot and put up a plaque honoring you for your environmental progressivism.
Of course, we cannot go back to 1967 because we have had 25 million people move into California — most from Mexico — in the last 40 years. The reality is that most of the environmental problems in our state, in our country and in our world would be far, far easier to solve if the human population were not so large and growing. While it is true that Mexico’s birth rate has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years, it still remains way too high. And we in California are paying the price for this as millions of Mexicans with few options at home come streaming into our state to improve their lives.
“Moreover, one of the big problems of the Covell Village proposal, was the traffic impacts. Increasing traffic adds greatly to carbon emissions because the higher the intensity of the traffic, the more vehicles idle and less efficient they use their fuel. Covell Village would have produced vast traffic problems and that would have increased greatly the amount of carbon emissions in Davis.”
The problem is actually called Global Warming, Greenwald. So the question is not weather Covell Village would have increased emissions in Davis, you doorknob. The question is whether Covell Village would have increased or decreased emissions in comparison with a development in Laguna or Natomas. Covell Village was defeated. No one will live there. But they will live in our state somewhere. Probably in Natomas or Woodland. So the question becomes, how much worse will the environment be because you rejected the most environmentally sensible development in the Sacramento area?
“That does not mean that we can never develop or add subdivisions or communities, but it does mean that we need to start planning for traffic, alternative transportation and cleaner burner transportation at the very least in conjunction with new housing development.”
Rejecting Covell Village did not create alternative transportation or cleaner burning transportation.
However, I think as a country, this is what our priority should be: to greatly reduce our consumption of oil and coal. And to whatever extent possible, to support technologies that sequester the carbon effluents from burning fossil fuels.
“Chamberlain was suggesting that many farmers perhaps used 40-60 gallons per acre. And that is just driving fuel. What that suggests is in terms of carbon footprint, urban land use is much higher than rural land use. The council majority of course suggests their support for these types of issues and yet their policies do not seem consistent.”
What the hell are you talking about, Greenwald? Are you saying that the council majority opposes rural land? Opposes farming, ranching and orcharding?
If you equate the approval of Covell Village with the marginal loss of rural land, you are completely wacked out of your skull. What the majority of voters in Davis did by rejecting Covell Village — which would have easily been the most environmentally friendly housing development not just in Davis but in the entire Sacramento region — was not to save to square foot of rural land.
No, what you are your fellow NIMBYs did was you told the 5,000 or so people who would have ended up living there to go live in Spring Lake or Natomas or Elk Grove. It’s not as if the denial of Covell Village reduced housing demand or population in California. All of those people will live somewhere — you’ve just pushed them into moving to somewhere where the development is much less environmentally friendly.
It would be nice if California still had as much undeveloped land in 2007 as it had in 1967. I for one wish that the houses that the so-called PROGRESSIVES in Davis were never built. In fact, I’d like all the Davis progressives who so hate developers to tear down their homes and move out of state and live in freaking tepees in North Dakota. By doing so, by getting rid of the people like David Greenwald, our carbon footprint would be far less impactful. We could plant a Valley Oak on your lot and put up a plaque honoring you for your environmental progressivism.
Of course, we cannot go back to 1967 because we have had 25 million people move into California — most from Mexico — in the last 40 years. The reality is that most of the environmental problems in our state, in our country and in our world would be far, far easier to solve if the human population were not so large and growing. While it is true that Mexico’s birth rate has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years, it still remains way too high. And we in California are paying the price for this as millions of Mexicans with few options at home come streaming into our state to improve their lives.
“Moreover, one of the big problems of the Covell Village proposal, was the traffic impacts. Increasing traffic adds greatly to carbon emissions because the higher the intensity of the traffic, the more vehicles idle and less efficient they use their fuel. Covell Village would have produced vast traffic problems and that would have increased greatly the amount of carbon emissions in Davis.”
The problem is actually called Global Warming, Greenwald. So the question is not weather Covell Village would have increased emissions in Davis, you doorknob. The question is whether Covell Village would have increased or decreased emissions in comparison with a development in Laguna or Natomas. Covell Village was defeated. No one will live there. But they will live in our state somewhere. Probably in Natomas or Woodland. So the question becomes, how much worse will the environment be because you rejected the most environmentally sensible development in the Sacramento area?
“That does not mean that we can never develop or add subdivisions or communities, but it does mean that we need to start planning for traffic, alternative transportation and cleaner burner transportation at the very least in conjunction with new housing development.”
Rejecting Covell Village did not create alternative transportation or cleaner burning transportation.
However, I think as a country, this is what our priority should be: to greatly reduce our consumption of oil and coal. And to whatever extent possible, to support technologies that sequester the carbon effluents from burning fossil fuels.
“Chamberlain was suggesting that many farmers perhaps used 40-60 gallons per acre. And that is just driving fuel. What that suggests is in terms of carbon footprint, urban land use is much higher than rural land use. The council majority of course suggests their support for these types of issues and yet their policies do not seem consistent.”
What the hell are you talking about, Greenwald? Are you saying that the council majority opposes rural land? Opposes farming, ranching and orcharding?
If you equate the approval of Covell Village with the marginal loss of rural land, you are completely wacked out of your skull. What the majority of voters in Davis did by rejecting Covell Village — which would have easily been the most environmentally friendly housing development not just in Davis but in the entire Sacramento region — was not to save to square foot of rural land.
No, what you are your fellow NIMBYs did was you told the 5,000 or so people who would have ended up living there to go live in Spring Lake or Natomas or Elk Grove. It’s not as if the denial of Covell Village reduced housing demand or population in California. All of those people will live somewhere — you’ve just pushed them into moving to somewhere where the development is much less environmentally friendly.
It would be nice if California still had as much undeveloped land in 2007 as it had in 1967. I for one wish that the houses that the so-called PROGRESSIVES in Davis were never built. In fact, I’d like all the Davis progressives who so hate developers to tear down their homes and move out of state and live in freaking tepees in North Dakota. By doing so, by getting rid of the people like David Greenwald, our carbon footprint would be far less impactful. We could plant a Valley Oak on your lot and put up a plaque honoring you for your environmental progressivism.
Of course, we cannot go back to 1967 because we have had 25 million people move into California — most from Mexico — in the last 40 years. The reality is that most of the environmental problems in our state, in our country and in our world would be far, far easier to solve if the human population were not so large and growing. While it is true that Mexico’s birth rate has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years, it still remains way too high. And we in California are paying the price for this as millions of Mexicans with few options at home come streaming into our state to improve their lives.
“Moreover, one of the big problems of the Covell Village proposal, was the traffic impacts. Increasing traffic adds greatly to carbon emissions because the higher the intensity of the traffic, the more vehicles idle and less efficient they use their fuel. Covell Village would have produced vast traffic problems and that would have increased greatly the amount of carbon emissions in Davis.”
The problem is actually called Global Warming, Greenwald. So the question is not weather Covell Village would have increased emissions in Davis, you doorknob. The question is whether Covell Village would have increased or decreased emissions in comparison with a development in Laguna or Natomas. Covell Village was defeated. No one will live there. But they will live in our state somewhere. Probably in Natomas or Woodland. So the question becomes, how much worse will the environment be because you rejected the most environmentally sensible development in the Sacramento area?
“That does not mean that we can never develop or add subdivisions or communities, but it does mean that we need to start planning for traffic, alternative transportation and cleaner burner transportation at the very least in conjunction with new housing development.”
Rejecting Covell Village did not create alternative transportation or cleaner burning transportation.
However, I think as a country, this is what our priority should be: to greatly reduce our consumption of oil and coal. And to whatever extent possible, to support technologies that sequester the carbon effluents from burning fossil fuels.
“Then there is the entire Target and big-box issue. This is a corporation with a huge and vast global carbon footprint. This is the type of non-sustainable use of resources that we need to start changing.”
Exactly how would the rejection of Target in Davis have reduced Global Warming?
I’m amazed at how incredibly naive some people can be about consumer behavior, even about human nature. People want to get good prices. They don’t want to be ripped off. If you deny them a Target in Davis, you are not stopping them from shopping at a big-box retailer. They will drive out of town to Target or to one of their competitors. Go to the Target in Woodland, sometime. Half the cars in the parking lot are Davis cars.
“The debate over this was glossed over last fall.”
Thank god for small blessings.
“The Target building in Davis was marketed to the Davis consumer and voter as being green–the color of the building is green, it is put in a LEED certified building.”
Your prejudice against this one company is blinding you, Greenwald. While I don’t think one person changed his vote in favor of Target because of the LEED certification, it’s still a good thing on the margin. It does not hurt anyone to have the building constructed to those LEED standards, does it?
“As one person put it last fall–you can put a Hummer car dealership in a LEED certified building, that is not going to make it environmentally friendly or address the top concerns of global warming at a local level.”
As a much smarter person put it, “rejecting Target would not ‘address the top concerns of global warming at a local level.'”
“Are they willing to make actual tough choices that impact people’s lives?”
Other than requiring new homes to be 100% solar — which I happen to agree with you on — what tough choices are you recommending that will reduce global warming, Greenwald?
“But to really get into this problem we need to make tough choices on development and building construction and neighborhood planning.”
Explain what that means specifically.
“Then there is the entire Target and big-box issue. This is a corporation with a huge and vast global carbon footprint. This is the type of non-sustainable use of resources that we need to start changing.”
Exactly how would the rejection of Target in Davis have reduced Global Warming?
I’m amazed at how incredibly naive some people can be about consumer behavior, even about human nature. People want to get good prices. They don’t want to be ripped off. If you deny them a Target in Davis, you are not stopping them from shopping at a big-box retailer. They will drive out of town to Target or to one of their competitors. Go to the Target in Woodland, sometime. Half the cars in the parking lot are Davis cars.
“The debate over this was glossed over last fall.”
Thank god for small blessings.
“The Target building in Davis was marketed to the Davis consumer and voter as being green–the color of the building is green, it is put in a LEED certified building.”
Your prejudice against this one company is blinding you, Greenwald. While I don’t think one person changed his vote in favor of Target because of the LEED certification, it’s still a good thing on the margin. It does not hurt anyone to have the building constructed to those LEED standards, does it?
“As one person put it last fall–you can put a Hummer car dealership in a LEED certified building, that is not going to make it environmentally friendly or address the top concerns of global warming at a local level.”
As a much smarter person put it, “rejecting Target would not ‘address the top concerns of global warming at a local level.'”
“Are they willing to make actual tough choices that impact people’s lives?”
Other than requiring new homes to be 100% solar — which I happen to agree with you on — what tough choices are you recommending that will reduce global warming, Greenwald?
“But to really get into this problem we need to make tough choices on development and building construction and neighborhood planning.”
Explain what that means specifically.
“Then there is the entire Target and big-box issue. This is a corporation with a huge and vast global carbon footprint. This is the type of non-sustainable use of resources that we need to start changing.”
Exactly how would the rejection of Target in Davis have reduced Global Warming?
I’m amazed at how incredibly naive some people can be about consumer behavior, even about human nature. People want to get good prices. They don’t want to be ripped off. If you deny them a Target in Davis, you are not stopping them from shopping at a big-box retailer. They will drive out of town to Target or to one of their competitors. Go to the Target in Woodland, sometime. Half the cars in the parking lot are Davis cars.
“The debate over this was glossed over last fall.”
Thank god for small blessings.
“The Target building in Davis was marketed to the Davis consumer and voter as being green–the color of the building is green, it is put in a LEED certified building.”
Your prejudice against this one company is blinding you, Greenwald. While I don’t think one person changed his vote in favor of Target because of the LEED certification, it’s still a good thing on the margin. It does not hurt anyone to have the building constructed to those LEED standards, does it?
“As one person put it last fall–you can put a Hummer car dealership in a LEED certified building, that is not going to make it environmentally friendly or address the top concerns of global warming at a local level.”
As a much smarter person put it, “rejecting Target would not ‘address the top concerns of global warming at a local level.'”
“Are they willing to make actual tough choices that impact people’s lives?”
Other than requiring new homes to be 100% solar — which I happen to agree with you on — what tough choices are you recommending that will reduce global warming, Greenwald?
“But to really get into this problem we need to make tough choices on development and building construction and neighborhood planning.”
Explain what that means specifically.
“Then there is the entire Target and big-box issue. This is a corporation with a huge and vast global carbon footprint. This is the type of non-sustainable use of resources that we need to start changing.”
Exactly how would the rejection of Target in Davis have reduced Global Warming?
I’m amazed at how incredibly naive some people can be about consumer behavior, even about human nature. People want to get good prices. They don’t want to be ripped off. If you deny them a Target in Davis, you are not stopping them from shopping at a big-box retailer. They will drive out of town to Target or to one of their competitors. Go to the Target in Woodland, sometime. Half the cars in the parking lot are Davis cars.
“The debate over this was glossed over last fall.”
Thank god for small blessings.
“The Target building in Davis was marketed to the Davis consumer and voter as being green–the color of the building is green, it is put in a LEED certified building.”
Your prejudice against this one company is blinding you, Greenwald. While I don’t think one person changed his vote in favor of Target because of the LEED certification, it’s still a good thing on the margin. It does not hurt anyone to have the building constructed to those LEED standards, does it?
“As one person put it last fall–you can put a Hummer car dealership in a LEED certified building, that is not going to make it environmentally friendly or address the top concerns of global warming at a local level.”
As a much smarter person put it, “rejecting Target would not ‘address the top concerns of global warming at a local level.'”
“Are they willing to make actual tough choices that impact people’s lives?”
Other than requiring new homes to be 100% solar — which I happen to agree with you on — what tough choices are you recommending that will reduce global warming, Greenwald?
“But to really get into this problem we need to make tough choices on development and building construction and neighborhood planning.”
Explain what that means specifically.
Go to the Target in Woodland, sometime. Half the cars in the parking lot are Davis cars.
Just curious, how can you tell which cars are from Davis and which from Woodland or elsewhere?
Go to the Target in Woodland, sometime. Half the cars in the parking lot are Davis cars.
Just curious, how can you tell which cars are from Davis and which from Woodland or elsewhere?
Go to the Target in Woodland, sometime. Half the cars in the parking lot are Davis cars.
Just curious, how can you tell which cars are from Davis and which from Woodland or elsewhere?
Go to the Target in Woodland, sometime. Half the cars in the parking lot are Davis cars.
Just curious, how can you tell which cars are from Davis and which from Woodland or elsewhere?
Just curious, how can you tell which cars are from Davis and which from Woodland or elsewhere?
In my case it is generally the UC Davis stickers or license plate frames, the sweatshirts of the folks getting in the cars, or the faces of people that you see around town all the time.
Just curious, how can you tell which cars are from Davis and which from Woodland or elsewhere?
In my case it is generally the UC Davis stickers or license plate frames, the sweatshirts of the folks getting in the cars, or the faces of people that you see around town all the time.
Just curious, how can you tell which cars are from Davis and which from Woodland or elsewhere?
In my case it is generally the UC Davis stickers or license plate frames, the sweatshirts of the folks getting in the cars, or the faces of people that you see around town all the time.
Just curious, how can you tell which cars are from Davis and which from Woodland or elsewhere?
In my case it is generally the UC Davis stickers or license plate frames, the sweatshirts of the folks getting in the cars, or the faces of people that you see around town all the time.
Hey Brian-your “superior” attitude is exactly why I moved to Lincoln from Davis after living there most of my life and I’m not a senior citizen! What, another town coouldn’t possibly measure up to Davis and take the lead on NEV use? UGH!
Hey Brian-your “superior” attitude is exactly why I moved to Lincoln from Davis after living there most of my life and I’m not a senior citizen! What, another town coouldn’t possibly measure up to Davis and take the lead on NEV use? UGH!
Hey Brian-your “superior” attitude is exactly why I moved to Lincoln from Davis after living there most of my life and I’m not a senior citizen! What, another town coouldn’t possibly measure up to Davis and take the lead on NEV use? UGH!
Hey Brian-your “superior” attitude is exactly why I moved to Lincoln from Davis after living there most of my life and I’m not a senior citizen! What, another town coouldn’t possibly measure up to Davis and take the lead on NEV use? UGH!
I also taught in Davis for several years and following all of the stuff that has been happening in the DJUSD I’m glad I moved. Being a minority in Davis is not safe for me, but that is an entirely different topic…
I also taught in Davis for several years and following all of the stuff that has been happening in the DJUSD I’m glad I moved. Being a minority in Davis is not safe for me, but that is an entirely different topic…
I also taught in Davis for several years and following all of the stuff that has been happening in the DJUSD I’m glad I moved. Being a minority in Davis is not safe for me, but that is an entirely different topic…
I also taught in Davis for several years and following all of the stuff that has been happening in the DJUSD I’m glad I moved. Being a minority in Davis is not safe for me, but that is an entirely different topic…
Hey Brian-your “superior” attitude is exactly why I moved to Lincoln from Davis after living there most of my life and I’m not a senior citizen! What, another town coouldn’t possibly measure up to Davis and take the lead on NEV use? UGH!
You misunderstood. It has nothing to do with Lincoln and everything to do with Davis NOT being a leader in that area where I feel it should. I commend Lincoln for setting an example for others to follow.
Hey Brian-your “superior” attitude is exactly why I moved to Lincoln from Davis after living there most of my life and I’m not a senior citizen! What, another town coouldn’t possibly measure up to Davis and take the lead on NEV use? UGH!
You misunderstood. It has nothing to do with Lincoln and everything to do with Davis NOT being a leader in that area where I feel it should. I commend Lincoln for setting an example for others to follow.
Hey Brian-your “superior” attitude is exactly why I moved to Lincoln from Davis after living there most of my life and I’m not a senior citizen! What, another town coouldn’t possibly measure up to Davis and take the lead on NEV use? UGH!
You misunderstood. It has nothing to do with Lincoln and everything to do with Davis NOT being a leader in that area where I feel it should. I commend Lincoln for setting an example for others to follow.
Hey Brian-your “superior” attitude is exactly why I moved to Lincoln from Davis after living there most of my life and I’m not a senior citizen! What, another town coouldn’t possibly measure up to Davis and take the lead on NEV use? UGH!
You misunderstood. It has nothing to do with Lincoln and everything to do with Davis NOT being a leader in that area where I feel it should. I commend Lincoln for setting an example for others to follow.
“In my case it is generally the UC Davis stickers or license plate frames, the sweatshirts of the folks getting in the cars, or the faces of people that you see around town all the time.”
Same for me. And I also recognize faces and see a lot of license plate frames that indicate a Davis household.
“In my case it is generally the UC Davis stickers or license plate frames, the sweatshirts of the folks getting in the cars, or the faces of people that you see around town all the time.”
Same for me. And I also recognize faces and see a lot of license plate frames that indicate a Davis household.
“In my case it is generally the UC Davis stickers or license plate frames, the sweatshirts of the folks getting in the cars, or the faces of people that you see around town all the time.”
Same for me. And I also recognize faces and see a lot of license plate frames that indicate a Davis household.
“In my case it is generally the UC Davis stickers or license plate frames, the sweatshirts of the folks getting in the cars, or the faces of people that you see around town all the time.”
Same for me. And I also recognize faces and see a lot of license plate frames that indicate a Davis household.
The Target in Woodland is attached to the County Fair Mall, so anyone parking there could be going to any number of stores other than Target.
“Half the cars in the parking lot are Davis cars.”
You made that number up and have no substantiation whatsoever for it.
In fact, last fall we were treated to a barrage of information about how many credit card purchases were made at the Target store in Woodland from 95616 residents.
Go back, find that number, double it, and tell me that you think you have determined the gross sales of Woodland’s Target store. Then I’m sure the folks at Target’s corporate headquarters will verify the sales figures for you….
The point of Target vis a vis carbon emissions is that it will damage the neighborhood shopping centers which have been traditionally part of the Davis planning process: small neighborhood centers within easy distance of population centers. We have two shopping centers already in trouble, before Target even opens. Interland is having difficulty finding tenants. People who are driving to Target won’t be traveling the shorter distances to their increasingly deserted neighborhood shopping centers.
The Target in Woodland is attached to the County Fair Mall, so anyone parking there could be going to any number of stores other than Target.
“Half the cars in the parking lot are Davis cars.”
You made that number up and have no substantiation whatsoever for it.
In fact, last fall we were treated to a barrage of information about how many credit card purchases were made at the Target store in Woodland from 95616 residents.
Go back, find that number, double it, and tell me that you think you have determined the gross sales of Woodland’s Target store. Then I’m sure the folks at Target’s corporate headquarters will verify the sales figures for you….
The point of Target vis a vis carbon emissions is that it will damage the neighborhood shopping centers which have been traditionally part of the Davis planning process: small neighborhood centers within easy distance of population centers. We have two shopping centers already in trouble, before Target even opens. Interland is having difficulty finding tenants. People who are driving to Target won’t be traveling the shorter distances to their increasingly deserted neighborhood shopping centers.
The Target in Woodland is attached to the County Fair Mall, so anyone parking there could be going to any number of stores other than Target.
“Half the cars in the parking lot are Davis cars.”
You made that number up and have no substantiation whatsoever for it.
In fact, last fall we were treated to a barrage of information about how many credit card purchases were made at the Target store in Woodland from 95616 residents.
Go back, find that number, double it, and tell me that you think you have determined the gross sales of Woodland’s Target store. Then I’m sure the folks at Target’s corporate headquarters will verify the sales figures for you….
The point of Target vis a vis carbon emissions is that it will damage the neighborhood shopping centers which have been traditionally part of the Davis planning process: small neighborhood centers within easy distance of population centers. We have two shopping centers already in trouble, before Target even opens. Interland is having difficulty finding tenants. People who are driving to Target won’t be traveling the shorter distances to their increasingly deserted neighborhood shopping centers.
The Target in Woodland is attached to the County Fair Mall, so anyone parking there could be going to any number of stores other than Target.
“Half the cars in the parking lot are Davis cars.”
You made that number up and have no substantiation whatsoever for it.
In fact, last fall we were treated to a barrage of information about how many credit card purchases were made at the Target store in Woodland from 95616 residents.
Go back, find that number, double it, and tell me that you think you have determined the gross sales of Woodland’s Target store. Then I’m sure the folks at Target’s corporate headquarters will verify the sales figures for you….
The point of Target vis a vis carbon emissions is that it will damage the neighborhood shopping centers which have been traditionally part of the Davis planning process: small neighborhood centers within easy distance of population centers. We have two shopping centers already in trouble, before Target even opens. Interland is having difficulty finding tenants. People who are driving to Target won’t be traveling the shorter distances to their increasingly deserted neighborhood shopping centers.
It should be noted that Chamberlain opposed creating a global warming task force because he thinks it: 1. Isn’t real. 2. Is just liberal hollywood elitists trying to tell us what to do.
Also, if I took my present energy use, but just moved to a larger piece of land, or course my fuel use per acre would go down.
Chamberlain isn’t all that visionary. But what can you expect from a former Farm Bureau president…oh, wait…just what we got.
It should be noted that Chamberlain opposed creating a global warming task force because he thinks it: 1. Isn’t real. 2. Is just liberal hollywood elitists trying to tell us what to do.
Also, if I took my present energy use, but just moved to a larger piece of land, or course my fuel use per acre would go down.
Chamberlain isn’t all that visionary. But what can you expect from a former Farm Bureau president…oh, wait…just what we got.
It should be noted that Chamberlain opposed creating a global warming task force because he thinks it: 1. Isn’t real. 2. Is just liberal hollywood elitists trying to tell us what to do.
Also, if I took my present energy use, but just moved to a larger piece of land, or course my fuel use per acre would go down.
Chamberlain isn’t all that visionary. But what can you expect from a former Farm Bureau president…oh, wait…just what we got.
It should be noted that Chamberlain opposed creating a global warming task force because he thinks it: 1. Isn’t real. 2. Is just liberal hollywood elitists trying to tell us what to do.
Also, if I took my present energy use, but just moved to a larger piece of land, or course my fuel use per acre would go down.
Chamberlain isn’t all that visionary. But what can you expect from a former Farm Bureau president…oh, wait…just what we got.
“The point of Target vis a vis carbon emissions is that it will damage the neighborhood shopping centers which have been traditionally part of the Davis planning process: small neighborhood centers within easy distance of population centers.”
This completely depends on where you live in relation to Target and to a “neighborhood shopping center.”
I don’t know how much you shop at “neighborhood” shopping centers in Davis Don, because I understand you live far outside of town.
However, I live between the University Mall, which used to be a neighborhood shopping center and The Marketplace, which still is. I do most of my grocery shopping at Safeway and Albertsons. When Target arrives, none of that will change. I also buy some small items at Longs, and that won’t change once Target arrives.
Currently, we go out of town to shop for all of our clothes — though I do buy some sportswear at Big 5, which is in The Marketplace. We also buy some other junk at Big Box stores — for example, I bought a Kodak EasyShare camera not too long ago at Wal-Mart in Woodland. On average, we make a trip once every two months to the Big Box stores.
When Target opens in Davis, I might go a bit more often, as it will be a bit closer. But I can’t see any reason why I would shop less often at my neighborhood shopping centers once Target is in business in East Mace Ranch. For me, and I think for most people in West Davis, the only difference will be that 1) Target is a bit closer and 2) the sales taxes will stay in town.
For people in South Davis and far East Davis, Target will to some extent be a neighborhood store. I’m sure that they will go there regularly, particularly the people who live in Mace Ranch.
However, your point seemed to be that the driving trips to Target will be long ones that will replace the short drives to neighborhood shopping centers. I don’t think that will be the case.
Maybe my shopping patterns are unusual. But if I am going a long way over to Target from West Davis, it will only be for major purchases, like clothes or appliances or cameras, etc. It won’t be for a dozen eggs and a birthday card, which is the kind of thing I pick up at The Marketplace Longs.
And of course, I’ll still go to the secondary neighborhood stores and restaurants, which, in the case of The Marketplace, are usually packed with customers every day.
“The point of Target vis a vis carbon emissions is that it will damage the neighborhood shopping centers which have been traditionally part of the Davis planning process: small neighborhood centers within easy distance of population centers.”
This completely depends on where you live in relation to Target and to a “neighborhood shopping center.”
I don’t know how much you shop at “neighborhood” shopping centers in Davis Don, because I understand you live far outside of town.
However, I live between the University Mall, which used to be a neighborhood shopping center and The Marketplace, which still is. I do most of my grocery shopping at Safeway and Albertsons. When Target arrives, none of that will change. I also buy some small items at Longs, and that won’t change once Target arrives.
Currently, we go out of town to shop for all of our clothes — though I do buy some sportswear at Big 5, which is in The Marketplace. We also buy some other junk at Big Box stores — for example, I bought a Kodak EasyShare camera not too long ago at Wal-Mart in Woodland. On average, we make a trip once every two months to the Big Box stores.
When Target opens in Davis, I might go a bit more often, as it will be a bit closer. But I can’t see any reason why I would shop less often at my neighborhood shopping centers once Target is in business in East Mace Ranch. For me, and I think for most people in West Davis, the only difference will be that 1) Target is a bit closer and 2) the sales taxes will stay in town.
For people in South Davis and far East Davis, Target will to some extent be a neighborhood store. I’m sure that they will go there regularly, particularly the people who live in Mace Ranch.
However, your point seemed to be that the driving trips to Target will be long ones that will replace the short drives to neighborhood shopping centers. I don’t think that will be the case.
Maybe my shopping patterns are unusual. But if I am going a long way over to Target from West Davis, it will only be for major purchases, like clothes or appliances or cameras, etc. It won’t be for a dozen eggs and a birthday card, which is the kind of thing I pick up at The Marketplace Longs.
And of course, I’ll still go to the secondary neighborhood stores and restaurants, which, in the case of The Marketplace, are usually packed with customers every day.
“The point of Target vis a vis carbon emissions is that it will damage the neighborhood shopping centers which have been traditionally part of the Davis planning process: small neighborhood centers within easy distance of population centers.”
This completely depends on where you live in relation to Target and to a “neighborhood shopping center.”
I don’t know how much you shop at “neighborhood” shopping centers in Davis Don, because I understand you live far outside of town.
However, I live between the University Mall, which used to be a neighborhood shopping center and The Marketplace, which still is. I do most of my grocery shopping at Safeway and Albertsons. When Target arrives, none of that will change. I also buy some small items at Longs, and that won’t change once Target arrives.
Currently, we go out of town to shop for all of our clothes — though I do buy some sportswear at Big 5, which is in The Marketplace. We also buy some other junk at Big Box stores — for example, I bought a Kodak EasyShare camera not too long ago at Wal-Mart in Woodland. On average, we make a trip once every two months to the Big Box stores.
When Target opens in Davis, I might go a bit more often, as it will be a bit closer. But I can’t see any reason why I would shop less often at my neighborhood shopping centers once Target is in business in East Mace Ranch. For me, and I think for most people in West Davis, the only difference will be that 1) Target is a bit closer and 2) the sales taxes will stay in town.
For people in South Davis and far East Davis, Target will to some extent be a neighborhood store. I’m sure that they will go there regularly, particularly the people who live in Mace Ranch.
However, your point seemed to be that the driving trips to Target will be long ones that will replace the short drives to neighborhood shopping centers. I don’t think that will be the case.
Maybe my shopping patterns are unusual. But if I am going a long way over to Target from West Davis, it will only be for major purchases, like clothes or appliances or cameras, etc. It won’t be for a dozen eggs and a birthday card, which is the kind of thing I pick up at The Marketplace Longs.
And of course, I’ll still go to the secondary neighborhood stores and restaurants, which, in the case of The Marketplace, are usually packed with customers every day.
“The point of Target vis a vis carbon emissions is that it will damage the neighborhood shopping centers which have been traditionally part of the Davis planning process: small neighborhood centers within easy distance of population centers.”
This completely depends on where you live in relation to Target and to a “neighborhood shopping center.”
I don’t know how much you shop at “neighborhood” shopping centers in Davis Don, because I understand you live far outside of town.
However, I live between the University Mall, which used to be a neighborhood shopping center and The Marketplace, which still is. I do most of my grocery shopping at Safeway and Albertsons. When Target arrives, none of that will change. I also buy some small items at Longs, and that won’t change once Target arrives.
Currently, we go out of town to shop for all of our clothes — though I do buy some sportswear at Big 5, which is in The Marketplace. We also buy some other junk at Big Box stores — for example, I bought a Kodak EasyShare camera not too long ago at Wal-Mart in Woodland. On average, we make a trip once every two months to the Big Box stores.
When Target opens in Davis, I might go a bit more often, as it will be a bit closer. But I can’t see any reason why I would shop less often at my neighborhood shopping centers once Target is in business in East Mace Ranch. For me, and I think for most people in West Davis, the only difference will be that 1) Target is a bit closer and 2) the sales taxes will stay in town.
For people in South Davis and far East Davis, Target will to some extent be a neighborhood store. I’m sure that they will go there regularly, particularly the people who live in Mace Ranch.
However, your point seemed to be that the driving trips to Target will be long ones that will replace the short drives to neighborhood shopping centers. I don’t think that will be the case.
Maybe my shopping patterns are unusual. But if I am going a long way over to Target from West Davis, it will only be for major purchases, like clothes or appliances or cameras, etc. It won’t be for a dozen eggs and a birthday card, which is the kind of thing I pick up at The Marketplace Longs.
And of course, I’ll still go to the secondary neighborhood stores and restaurants, which, in the case of The Marketplace, are usually packed with customers every day.
So do you believe that
–Target will have no effect on downtown businesses, and
–will have no effect on overall business at the neighborhood shopping centers of Davis?
If businesses are affected by the 30 – 50%+ that has been the norm in nearly every community studied, obviously the retail offerings in those shopping areas will change, and probably in the direction of less diversity and fewer of the products that Target will be selling.
If that happens, more shoppers will be traveling further. Peripheral development of mega-retailers has been studied ad nauseum; I’ve already provided you with reference materials on the subject. Do you still believe that the shopping patterns of the town won’t change? I’m sure Target believes they will.
It’s interesting: when I discussed this during the No on K campaign, I would cite the studies that show clearly what the impact of these big box stores is. Those studies are easy to find. Big Box Swindle is a good resource on the subject (and be sure to attend the talk by Stacey Mitchell that DIMA is sponsoring in May). In rebuttal, Target supporters would invariably describe their own shopping behavior, as though that anecdotal evidence somehow matched the extensive analyses that have been done.
So do you believe that
–Target will have no effect on downtown businesses, and
–will have no effect on overall business at the neighborhood shopping centers of Davis?
If businesses are affected by the 30 – 50%+ that has been the norm in nearly every community studied, obviously the retail offerings in those shopping areas will change, and probably in the direction of less diversity and fewer of the products that Target will be selling.
If that happens, more shoppers will be traveling further. Peripheral development of mega-retailers has been studied ad nauseum; I’ve already provided you with reference materials on the subject. Do you still believe that the shopping patterns of the town won’t change? I’m sure Target believes they will.
It’s interesting: when I discussed this during the No on K campaign, I would cite the studies that show clearly what the impact of these big box stores is. Those studies are easy to find. Big Box Swindle is a good resource on the subject (and be sure to attend the talk by Stacey Mitchell that DIMA is sponsoring in May). In rebuttal, Target supporters would invariably describe their own shopping behavior, as though that anecdotal evidence somehow matched the extensive analyses that have been done.
So do you believe that
–Target will have no effect on downtown businesses, and
–will have no effect on overall business at the neighborhood shopping centers of Davis?
If businesses are affected by the 30 – 50%+ that has been the norm in nearly every community studied, obviously the retail offerings in those shopping areas will change, and probably in the direction of less diversity and fewer of the products that Target will be selling.
If that happens, more shoppers will be traveling further. Peripheral development of mega-retailers has been studied ad nauseum; I’ve already provided you with reference materials on the subject. Do you still believe that the shopping patterns of the town won’t change? I’m sure Target believes they will.
It’s interesting: when I discussed this during the No on K campaign, I would cite the studies that show clearly what the impact of these big box stores is. Those studies are easy to find. Big Box Swindle is a good resource on the subject (and be sure to attend the talk by Stacey Mitchell that DIMA is sponsoring in May). In rebuttal, Target supporters would invariably describe their own shopping behavior, as though that anecdotal evidence somehow matched the extensive analyses that have been done.
So do you believe that
–Target will have no effect on downtown businesses, and
–will have no effect on overall business at the neighborhood shopping centers of Davis?
If businesses are affected by the 30 – 50%+ that has been the norm in nearly every community studied, obviously the retail offerings in those shopping areas will change, and probably in the direction of less diversity and fewer of the products that Target will be selling.
If that happens, more shoppers will be traveling further. Peripheral development of mega-retailers has been studied ad nauseum; I’ve already provided you with reference materials on the subject. Do you still believe that the shopping patterns of the town won’t change? I’m sure Target believes they will.
It’s interesting: when I discussed this during the No on K campaign, I would cite the studies that show clearly what the impact of these big box stores is. Those studies are easy to find. Big Box Swindle is a good resource on the subject (and be sure to attend the talk by Stacey Mitchell that DIMA is sponsoring in May). In rebuttal, Target supporters would invariably describe their own shopping behavior, as though that anecdotal evidence somehow matched the extensive analyses that have been done.
i have to agree with brian in davis here. the fact that the city council is so utterly cautious in thinking of ways to creatively reduce our carbon footprint does not reflect well on the city’s political culture, especially in comparison with what we did in the 70s during the last oil crisis.
our politics are so pedestrian this past decade or so, we love to talk about being visionary and unique (as if being an affluent suburb with good schools makes one a prodigy somehow), but when it comes down to it we’re looking to other cities, instead of trying to put the reseaqrch of the enviro engineers at UCD to practical use.
expanded bus routes to downtown and on weekends, creating a downtown shuttle bus from peripheral parking lots, incentives for electric cars, tighter energy standards on housing (even more than current ones), really pushing dense housing in a walkable downtown (yes, i’m a broken record), requiring solar and/or wind power (think of the delta breeze’s potential) on all new housing/commercial and government/school buildings, solar panels over every parking lot (also nice for the summers), requiring school lunch produce to come from as close as possible when available, and (i’ll say it again) lots more dense infill projects close to transportation networks and basic amenities (ie. downtown) so that people can actually manage to live carless.
and we should probably try again to get the heck out from under PG&E’s thumb, and start our own energy utility, even if only citywide.
i have to agree with brian in davis here. the fact that the city council is so utterly cautious in thinking of ways to creatively reduce our carbon footprint does not reflect well on the city’s political culture, especially in comparison with what we did in the 70s during the last oil crisis.
our politics are so pedestrian this past decade or so, we love to talk about being visionary and unique (as if being an affluent suburb with good schools makes one a prodigy somehow), but when it comes down to it we’re looking to other cities, instead of trying to put the reseaqrch of the enviro engineers at UCD to practical use.
expanded bus routes to downtown and on weekends, creating a downtown shuttle bus from peripheral parking lots, incentives for electric cars, tighter energy standards on housing (even more than current ones), really pushing dense housing in a walkable downtown (yes, i’m a broken record), requiring solar and/or wind power (think of the delta breeze’s potential) on all new housing/commercial and government/school buildings, solar panels over every parking lot (also nice for the summers), requiring school lunch produce to come from as close as possible when available, and (i’ll say it again) lots more dense infill projects close to transportation networks and basic amenities (ie. downtown) so that people can actually manage to live carless.
and we should probably try again to get the heck out from under PG&E’s thumb, and start our own energy utility, even if only citywide.
i have to agree with brian in davis here. the fact that the city council is so utterly cautious in thinking of ways to creatively reduce our carbon footprint does not reflect well on the city’s political culture, especially in comparison with what we did in the 70s during the last oil crisis.
our politics are so pedestrian this past decade or so, we love to talk about being visionary and unique (as if being an affluent suburb with good schools makes one a prodigy somehow), but when it comes down to it we’re looking to other cities, instead of trying to put the reseaqrch of the enviro engineers at UCD to practical use.
expanded bus routes to downtown and on weekends, creating a downtown shuttle bus from peripheral parking lots, incentives for electric cars, tighter energy standards on housing (even more than current ones), really pushing dense housing in a walkable downtown (yes, i’m a broken record), requiring solar and/or wind power (think of the delta breeze’s potential) on all new housing/commercial and government/school buildings, solar panels over every parking lot (also nice for the summers), requiring school lunch produce to come from as close as possible when available, and (i’ll say it again) lots more dense infill projects close to transportation networks and basic amenities (ie. downtown) so that people can actually manage to live carless.
and we should probably try again to get the heck out from under PG&E’s thumb, and start our own energy utility, even if only citywide.
i have to agree with brian in davis here. the fact that the city council is so utterly cautious in thinking of ways to creatively reduce our carbon footprint does not reflect well on the city’s political culture, especially in comparison with what we did in the 70s during the last oil crisis.
our politics are so pedestrian this past decade or so, we love to talk about being visionary and unique (as if being an affluent suburb with good schools makes one a prodigy somehow), but when it comes down to it we’re looking to other cities, instead of trying to put the reseaqrch of the enviro engineers at UCD to practical use.
expanded bus routes to downtown and on weekends, creating a downtown shuttle bus from peripheral parking lots, incentives for electric cars, tighter energy standards on housing (even more than current ones), really pushing dense housing in a walkable downtown (yes, i’m a broken record), requiring solar and/or wind power (think of the delta breeze’s potential) on all new housing/commercial and government/school buildings, solar panels over every parking lot (also nice for the summers), requiring school lunch produce to come from as close as possible when available, and (i’ll say it again) lots more dense infill projects close to transportation networks and basic amenities (ie. downtown) so that people can actually manage to live carless.
and we should probably try again to get the heck out from under PG&E’s thumb, and start our own energy utility, even if only citywide.
oh, and how could i forget: remaining true to the old city development plan of having neighborhood shopping options, with actual grocery stores that sell actual food and daily amenities, instead of just dumping the zoning laws the minute a store closes, and assuming that it’s cool for people to drive all the way across town, or (more rediculous from an energy perspective) to dixon for wal*mart). as another west davisite, it bugs me that i have to go several miles to get groceries. switching to a CSA vegetable box, with a closer pickup interestingly enough, helps reduce the trips into town a bit, but still, it was nice when we had state market and the mediocre but convenient farmtown/rays food place/food faire in the vicinity.
oh, and how could i forget: remaining true to the old city development plan of having neighborhood shopping options, with actual grocery stores that sell actual food and daily amenities, instead of just dumping the zoning laws the minute a store closes, and assuming that it’s cool for people to drive all the way across town, or (more rediculous from an energy perspective) to dixon for wal*mart). as another west davisite, it bugs me that i have to go several miles to get groceries. switching to a CSA vegetable box, with a closer pickup interestingly enough, helps reduce the trips into town a bit, but still, it was nice when we had state market and the mediocre but convenient farmtown/rays food place/food faire in the vicinity.
oh, and how could i forget: remaining true to the old city development plan of having neighborhood shopping options, with actual grocery stores that sell actual food and daily amenities, instead of just dumping the zoning laws the minute a store closes, and assuming that it’s cool for people to drive all the way across town, or (more rediculous from an energy perspective) to dixon for wal*mart). as another west davisite, it bugs me that i have to go several miles to get groceries. switching to a CSA vegetable box, with a closer pickup interestingly enough, helps reduce the trips into town a bit, but still, it was nice when we had state market and the mediocre but convenient farmtown/rays food place/food faire in the vicinity.
oh, and how could i forget: remaining true to the old city development plan of having neighborhood shopping options, with actual grocery stores that sell actual food and daily amenities, instead of just dumping the zoning laws the minute a store closes, and assuming that it’s cool for people to drive all the way across town, or (more rediculous from an energy perspective) to dixon for wal*mart). as another west davisite, it bugs me that i have to go several miles to get groceries. switching to a CSA vegetable box, with a closer pickup interestingly enough, helps reduce the trips into town a bit, but still, it was nice when we had state market and the mediocre but convenient farmtown/rays food place/food faire in the vicinity.
Actually, regardless of the disagreements, I see more good ideas in this thread than I have seen in any articles on the subject or the council discussion.
Actually, regardless of the disagreements, I see more good ideas in this thread than I have seen in any articles on the subject or the council discussion.
Actually, regardless of the disagreements, I see more good ideas in this thread than I have seen in any articles on the subject or the council discussion.
Actually, regardless of the disagreements, I see more good ideas in this thread than I have seen in any articles on the subject or the council discussion.
So do you believe that Target will have no effect on downtown businesses?
I never said that. Not once. However, I do think that our downtown will continue to do well in the wake of Target’s presence in Davis. There will be a few businesses hurt by Target, no doubt. But that won’t mean that we will not have a very healthy downtown for a long time to come. I do believe that.
“–will have no effect on overall business at the neighborhood shopping centers of Davis?”
It might. It won’t change my shopping habits at my neighborhood shopping center. I really think it won’t for most people in town, save those who live very close to Target and find it convenient to shop there all the time, not just for major purchases.
If businesses are affected by the 30 – 50%+ that has been the norm in nearly every community studied, obviously the retail offerings in those shopping areas will change, and probably in the direction of less diversity and fewer of the products that Target will be selling.
We shall see. I tend to doubt those highly generalized statistics when they are specifically applied to Davis, because I think Davis is different and because most Davis consumers already do most of their large purchase retail-shopping outside of town. But time will tell.
“If that happens, more shoppers will be traveling further.”
I certainly doubt that I will.
“Peripheral development of mega-retailers has been studied ad nauseum; I’ve already provided you with reference materials on the subject. Do you still believe that the shopping patterns of the town won’t change?”
I do believe they will change somewhat. Most importantly, I believe fewer Davis shoppers will be buying big-box items in Dixon, Vacaville, West Sac, Sacto, Woodland, etc. But of course, there will be some displacement for Davis retailers, especially those who sell very similar merchandise as Target sells, but for a higher price.
So do you believe that Target will have no effect on downtown businesses?
I never said that. Not once. However, I do think that our downtown will continue to do well in the wake of Target’s presence in Davis. There will be a few businesses hurt by Target, no doubt. But that won’t mean that we will not have a very healthy downtown for a long time to come. I do believe that.
“–will have no effect on overall business at the neighborhood shopping centers of Davis?”
It might. It won’t change my shopping habits at my neighborhood shopping center. I really think it won’t for most people in town, save those who live very close to Target and find it convenient to shop there all the time, not just for major purchases.
If businesses are affected by the 30 – 50%+ that has been the norm in nearly every community studied, obviously the retail offerings in those shopping areas will change, and probably in the direction of less diversity and fewer of the products that Target will be selling.
We shall see. I tend to doubt those highly generalized statistics when they are specifically applied to Davis, because I think Davis is different and because most Davis consumers already do most of their large purchase retail-shopping outside of town. But time will tell.
“If that happens, more shoppers will be traveling further.”
I certainly doubt that I will.
“Peripheral development of mega-retailers has been studied ad nauseum; I’ve already provided you with reference materials on the subject. Do you still believe that the shopping patterns of the town won’t change?”
I do believe they will change somewhat. Most importantly, I believe fewer Davis shoppers will be buying big-box items in Dixon, Vacaville, West Sac, Sacto, Woodland, etc. But of course, there will be some displacement for Davis retailers, especially those who sell very similar merchandise as Target sells, but for a higher price.
So do you believe that Target will have no effect on downtown businesses?
I never said that. Not once. However, I do think that our downtown will continue to do well in the wake of Target’s presence in Davis. There will be a few businesses hurt by Target, no doubt. But that won’t mean that we will not have a very healthy downtown for a long time to come. I do believe that.
“–will have no effect on overall business at the neighborhood shopping centers of Davis?”
It might. It won’t change my shopping habits at my neighborhood shopping center. I really think it won’t for most people in town, save those who live very close to Target and find it convenient to shop there all the time, not just for major purchases.
If businesses are affected by the 30 – 50%+ that has been the norm in nearly every community studied, obviously the retail offerings in those shopping areas will change, and probably in the direction of less diversity and fewer of the products that Target will be selling.
We shall see. I tend to doubt those highly generalized statistics when they are specifically applied to Davis, because I think Davis is different and because most Davis consumers already do most of their large purchase retail-shopping outside of town. But time will tell.
“If that happens, more shoppers will be traveling further.”
I certainly doubt that I will.
“Peripheral development of mega-retailers has been studied ad nauseum; I’ve already provided you with reference materials on the subject. Do you still believe that the shopping patterns of the town won’t change?”
I do believe they will change somewhat. Most importantly, I believe fewer Davis shoppers will be buying big-box items in Dixon, Vacaville, West Sac, Sacto, Woodland, etc. But of course, there will be some displacement for Davis retailers, especially those who sell very similar merchandise as Target sells, but for a higher price.
So do you believe that Target will have no effect on downtown businesses?
I never said that. Not once. However, I do think that our downtown will continue to do well in the wake of Target’s presence in Davis. There will be a few businesses hurt by Target, no doubt. But that won’t mean that we will not have a very healthy downtown for a long time to come. I do believe that.
“–will have no effect on overall business at the neighborhood shopping centers of Davis?”
It might. It won’t change my shopping habits at my neighborhood shopping center. I really think it won’t for most people in town, save those who live very close to Target and find it convenient to shop there all the time, not just for major purchases.
If businesses are affected by the 30 – 50%+ that has been the norm in nearly every community studied, obviously the retail offerings in those shopping areas will change, and probably in the direction of less diversity and fewer of the products that Target will be selling.
We shall see. I tend to doubt those highly generalized statistics when they are specifically applied to Davis, because I think Davis is different and because most Davis consumers already do most of their large purchase retail-shopping outside of town. But time will tell.
“If that happens, more shoppers will be traveling further.”
I certainly doubt that I will.
“Peripheral development of mega-retailers has been studied ad nauseum; I’ve already provided you with reference materials on the subject. Do you still believe that the shopping patterns of the town won’t change?”
I do believe they will change somewhat. Most importantly, I believe fewer Davis shoppers will be buying big-box items in Dixon, Vacaville, West Sac, Sacto, Woodland, etc. But of course, there will be some displacement for Davis retailers, especially those who sell very similar merchandise as Target sells, but for a higher price.
The reason why West Davis doesn’t have local grocery shopping (and will have a hard time attracting one) is because too many people shop for groceries at Wal*Mart. One stop shopping indeed. Still think big box has no effect on a community. Just look to the west. Soon to follow will be the east when the Target mall comes (…and I’ll just start now, I disagree, Rich.)
The reason why West Davis doesn’t have local grocery shopping (and will have a hard time attracting one) is because too many people shop for groceries at Wal*Mart. One stop shopping indeed. Still think big box has no effect on a community. Just look to the west. Soon to follow will be the east when the Target mall comes (…and I’ll just start now, I disagree, Rich.)
The reason why West Davis doesn’t have local grocery shopping (and will have a hard time attracting one) is because too many people shop for groceries at Wal*Mart. One stop shopping indeed. Still think big box has no effect on a community. Just look to the west. Soon to follow will be the east when the Target mall comes (…and I’ll just start now, I disagree, Rich.)
The reason why West Davis doesn’t have local grocery shopping (and will have a hard time attracting one) is because too many people shop for groceries at Wal*Mart. One stop shopping indeed. Still think big box has no effect on a community. Just look to the west. Soon to follow will be the east when the Target mall comes (…and I’ll just start now, I disagree, Rich.)
“The reason why West Davis doesn’t have local grocery shopping (and will have a hard time attracting one) is because too many people shop for groceries at Wal*Mart.”
I highly doubt that is the case. Do you know anyone who lives in West Davis who really does that?
The reason that the Lake Blvd. grocery stores have failed is because A) the site is too small to house a full service supermarket, and that is what most customers want; and B) the people who live west of 113 just drive over to the Marketplace and shop at Safeway or another few blocks up Covell and shop at Albertsons.
If you want to have a successful supermarket on Lake Blvd., it will have to be at least as big as the new Nugget or one of the Safeways.
Side Note: I went into a Wal-Mart grocery store — I assume they are all the same — to see what it looked like and found that A) the physical layout of the grocery store was so unappealing that I wouldn’t want to shop there; B) the prices were nothing special, mostly the same as or higher than Safeway’s prices; and C) with gas at $3.20/gallon, who in the world is going to drive 16 miles round trip to Wal-Mart to buy groceries, when we have Safeway and Albertsons and Nugget and so on right here in Davis?
“The reason why West Davis doesn’t have local grocery shopping (and will have a hard time attracting one) is because too many people shop for groceries at Wal*Mart.”
I highly doubt that is the case. Do you know anyone who lives in West Davis who really does that?
The reason that the Lake Blvd. grocery stores have failed is because A) the site is too small to house a full service supermarket, and that is what most customers want; and B) the people who live west of 113 just drive over to the Marketplace and shop at Safeway or another few blocks up Covell and shop at Albertsons.
If you want to have a successful supermarket on Lake Blvd., it will have to be at least as big as the new Nugget or one of the Safeways.
Side Note: I went into a Wal-Mart grocery store — I assume they are all the same — to see what it looked like and found that A) the physical layout of the grocery store was so unappealing that I wouldn’t want to shop there; B) the prices were nothing special, mostly the same as or higher than Safeway’s prices; and C) with gas at $3.20/gallon, who in the world is going to drive 16 miles round trip to Wal-Mart to buy groceries, when we have Safeway and Albertsons and Nugget and so on right here in Davis?
“The reason why West Davis doesn’t have local grocery shopping (and will have a hard time attracting one) is because too many people shop for groceries at Wal*Mart.”
I highly doubt that is the case. Do you know anyone who lives in West Davis who really does that?
The reason that the Lake Blvd. grocery stores have failed is because A) the site is too small to house a full service supermarket, and that is what most customers want; and B) the people who live west of 113 just drive over to the Marketplace and shop at Safeway or another few blocks up Covell and shop at Albertsons.
If you want to have a successful supermarket on Lake Blvd., it will have to be at least as big as the new Nugget or one of the Safeways.
Side Note: I went into a Wal-Mart grocery store — I assume they are all the same — to see what it looked like and found that A) the physical layout of the grocery store was so unappealing that I wouldn’t want to shop there; B) the prices were nothing special, mostly the same as or higher than Safeway’s prices; and C) with gas at $3.20/gallon, who in the world is going to drive 16 miles round trip to Wal-Mart to buy groceries, when we have Safeway and Albertsons and Nugget and so on right here in Davis?
“The reason why West Davis doesn’t have local grocery shopping (and will have a hard time attracting one) is because too many people shop for groceries at Wal*Mart.”
I highly doubt that is the case. Do you know anyone who lives in West Davis who really does that?
The reason that the Lake Blvd. grocery stores have failed is because A) the site is too small to house a full service supermarket, and that is what most customers want; and B) the people who live west of 113 just drive over to the Marketplace and shop at Safeway or another few blocks up Covell and shop at Albertsons.
If you want to have a successful supermarket on Lake Blvd., it will have to be at least as big as the new Nugget or one of the Safeways.
Side Note: I went into a Wal-Mart grocery store — I assume they are all the same — to see what it looked like and found that A) the physical layout of the grocery store was so unappealing that I wouldn’t want to shop there; B) the prices were nothing special, mostly the same as or higher than Safeway’s prices; and C) with gas at $3.20/gallon, who in the world is going to drive 16 miles round trip to Wal-Mart to buy groceries, when we have Safeway and Albertsons and Nugget and so on right here in Davis?