In addition to Supervisor Yamada’s response in the Vanguard last week, she has now appeared in three separate publications–the Sacramento Bee, the Davis Enterprise, and most recently the Sacramento News and Review.
Here she is in her own quoted words.
Sacramento Bee, June 28, 2007:
“We are in the 21st century, and we need to keep an open mind about how we are going to approach land use and the I-80 corridor from the Bay Area to Sacramento.”
“There are already so many research organizations along the I-80 corridor. That’s why it’s called the Innovation Corridor. Yolo County should not be the only county that’s not in the conversation.”
Davis Enterprise, June 28, 2007:
“I’ve been approached; it’s in my district.”
“We’re looking at all aspects of this proposal… And the university is in discussions too. It’s all part of the county’s General Plan update process.”
“It’s part of the new direction the county is going in.”
Sacramento News and Review, July 5, 2007:
Attending one of the Tsakopoulos-hosted private dinners were Yolo County supervisors Mike McGowan and Mariko Yamada, both of whom were quoted in the Bee article as positively inclined toward considering some type of research center in a stretch of the I-80 corridor. But Yamada told SN&R that there was no mention made of any housing development. “No, I heard nothing proposed about housing development at that dinner,” Yamada says.
Yamada told SN&R that she would not support any housing development there, as the land sits unprotected in the Yolo Basin flood plain.
Yamada, who is chairwoman of the county board, already has emerged as the target of criticism on a community Web site, with accusations that she has moved from being a “slow-growther” to a politician more accommodating to development. While passionately defending her commitment to preserving Yolo County’s farmland and open space as top priority, Yamada is running for the state Assembly seat being vacated next year by Lois Wolk. Campaign professionals suggest she will have to raise at least $500,000 to be competitive with primary opponent Christopher Cabaldon, the mayor of West Sacramento. But, Yamada firmly asserts, “I don’t practice checkbook politics.”
Note that Supervisor Yamada told the News and Review that she would not support a housing development in that location.
As our article on June 29, 2007 made clear, the objection to the project was the idea of building homes on the property (not to mention the location of the stem cell facility on agricultural land).
As I wrote:
“The issue here is not about a stem-cell research center. If Mr. Tsakopoulos wants to build a research center, I would greatly be supportive of it on the UC Davis campus. However, this is basically a means by which to build homes and other development projects on prime agricultural land and that, I cannot support.”
Supervisor Yamada on July 3, 2007, was given space to respond to the Vanguard’s criticism. She chose to emphasize her record on land use while being a county supervisor.
Supervisor Yamada however at that time never came out against the housing development, instead she spoke only of the research facility:
“The idea of a stem cell research facility in Yolo County is conceptual; there is no specific proposal to be considered at this time. At present, I am keeping an open mind about the research, educational, and life-saving potential such a facility might bring to the region.”
It might seem then that Supervisor Yamada is either clarifying her position or backtracking on this. It is hard to say at this point which. However, 1500 of those units is being studied in the general plan as part of the joint study area.
For my part, I will continue to argue that all aspects of this project are inappropriate for consideration by the county. The city of Davis should have land-use authority on the periphery of Davis as the pass-through agreement states. Remember that the pass-through agreement provides $2 million per year to the county in exchange for land-use authority in the city’s “sphere of influence.” The county may be able to generate more than $2 million on individual development agreements, but that is one-time money. There is no way, that over the course of the 25 year pass-through agreement, the county will surpass the revenue that Davis’ Redevelopment Agency passes-through to them.
This discussion along with the County General plan is pushing the city and county on a collision course. If this is not halted, future cooperation is going to be severely altered. Davis elected both Supervisors Mariko Yamada and Helen Thomson to represent the issues, values, and principles of this community. These type of proposals are in conflict with the general hard-fought land use principles that Davis voters elected their representatives on the Board of Supervisors to protect. We can only hope that as this process moves on, that they remember who elected them and who they represent.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Today’s Enterprise includes a story about the opening of the new Benicia bridge on I-680, eliminating the traffic bottleneck on that Interstate. The Yolo Causeway is already a significant bottleneck on I-80 east of Davis. It is hard to imagine how much worse it will be if AKT begins building 25,000 homes as proposed.
I appreciate the fact that Supervisor Yamada wants to take the time to understand all the facets of the Tsakopoulos proposal, but the negatives are so significant that one wonders how long the listening period needs to last before the answer becomes clear to everyone.
Matt Williams
Today’s Enterprise includes a story about the opening of the new Benicia bridge on I-680, eliminating the traffic bottleneck on that Interstate. The Yolo Causeway is already a significant bottleneck on I-80 east of Davis. It is hard to imagine how much worse it will be if AKT begins building 25,000 homes as proposed.
I appreciate the fact that Supervisor Yamada wants to take the time to understand all the facets of the Tsakopoulos proposal, but the negatives are so significant that one wonders how long the listening period needs to last before the answer becomes clear to everyone.
Matt Williams
Today’s Enterprise includes a story about the opening of the new Benicia bridge on I-680, eliminating the traffic bottleneck on that Interstate. The Yolo Causeway is already a significant bottleneck on I-80 east of Davis. It is hard to imagine how much worse it will be if AKT begins building 25,000 homes as proposed.
I appreciate the fact that Supervisor Yamada wants to take the time to understand all the facets of the Tsakopoulos proposal, but the negatives are so significant that one wonders how long the listening period needs to last before the answer becomes clear to everyone.
Matt Williams
Today’s Enterprise includes a story about the opening of the new Benicia bridge on I-680, eliminating the traffic bottleneck on that Interstate. The Yolo Causeway is already a significant bottleneck on I-80 east of Davis. It is hard to imagine how much worse it will be if AKT begins building 25,000 homes as proposed.
I appreciate the fact that Supervisor Yamada wants to take the time to understand all the facets of the Tsakopoulos proposal, but the negatives are so significant that one wonders how long the listening period needs to last before the answer becomes clear to everyone.
Matt Williams
Calbadon is the candidate of the Yolo political machine that is backrolled by Yolo developers. This is supposed to “buy” exclusive access to the BOS’
consideration of future growth development plans. If Yamada supports allowing Tskaopoulos to get through the door to present proposals as the Yolo BOS works on its General Plan Update, I wouldn’t get all bent out of shape. Compared to the public record of Yolo developer-backed local politicians like Thomson,Wolk,Saylor and Souza , Mariko Yamada’s record of political integrity makes her the clear choice for the voters of Davis.
Calbadon is the candidate of the Yolo political machine that is backrolled by Yolo developers. This is supposed to “buy” exclusive access to the BOS’
consideration of future growth development plans. If Yamada supports allowing Tskaopoulos to get through the door to present proposals as the Yolo BOS works on its General Plan Update, I wouldn’t get all bent out of shape. Compared to the public record of Yolo developer-backed local politicians like Thomson,Wolk,Saylor and Souza , Mariko Yamada’s record of political integrity makes her the clear choice for the voters of Davis.
Calbadon is the candidate of the Yolo political machine that is backrolled by Yolo developers. This is supposed to “buy” exclusive access to the BOS’
consideration of future growth development plans. If Yamada supports allowing Tskaopoulos to get through the door to present proposals as the Yolo BOS works on its General Plan Update, I wouldn’t get all bent out of shape. Compared to the public record of Yolo developer-backed local politicians like Thomson,Wolk,Saylor and Souza , Mariko Yamada’s record of political integrity makes her the clear choice for the voters of Davis.
Calbadon is the candidate of the Yolo political machine that is backrolled by Yolo developers. This is supposed to “buy” exclusive access to the BOS’
consideration of future growth development plans. If Yamada supports allowing Tskaopoulos to get through the door to present proposals as the Yolo BOS works on its General Plan Update, I wouldn’t get all bent out of shape. Compared to the public record of Yolo developer-backed local politicians like Thomson,Wolk,Saylor and Souza , Mariko Yamada’s record of political integrity makes her the clear choice for the voters of Davis.
Really what is Mariko’s record of “public integrity”?
She told us that she was a No on Xer and then we find out from the people involved in campaign that she didn’t disclose her opposition until the measure had been soundly defeated.
She told us that she was opposed to Target but the Target people told us that she had never taken a position.
What integrity? And how does integrity excuse the fact that she is now proposing that the county look into developing three sites on the Davis periphery?
For me this is not about Cabaldon v. Mariko. We have Mariko for the next year and half on the BOS when these land use changes will be encoded into law. That is what I’m worried about–preventing those three areas around Davis from having their land use designations changed. My vote for Assembly is irrelevant to that. Once those land use changes are put into place, that is permanent. Then it becomes only a matter of time before the land gets developed.
Really what is Mariko’s record of “public integrity”?
She told us that she was a No on Xer and then we find out from the people involved in campaign that she didn’t disclose her opposition until the measure had been soundly defeated.
She told us that she was opposed to Target but the Target people told us that she had never taken a position.
What integrity? And how does integrity excuse the fact that she is now proposing that the county look into developing three sites on the Davis periphery?
For me this is not about Cabaldon v. Mariko. We have Mariko for the next year and half on the BOS when these land use changes will be encoded into law. That is what I’m worried about–preventing those three areas around Davis from having their land use designations changed. My vote for Assembly is irrelevant to that. Once those land use changes are put into place, that is permanent. Then it becomes only a matter of time before the land gets developed.
Really what is Mariko’s record of “public integrity”?
She told us that she was a No on Xer and then we find out from the people involved in campaign that she didn’t disclose her opposition until the measure had been soundly defeated.
She told us that she was opposed to Target but the Target people told us that she had never taken a position.
What integrity? And how does integrity excuse the fact that she is now proposing that the county look into developing three sites on the Davis periphery?
For me this is not about Cabaldon v. Mariko. We have Mariko for the next year and half on the BOS when these land use changes will be encoded into law. That is what I’m worried about–preventing those three areas around Davis from having their land use designations changed. My vote for Assembly is irrelevant to that. Once those land use changes are put into place, that is permanent. Then it becomes only a matter of time before the land gets developed.
Really what is Mariko’s record of “public integrity”?
She told us that she was a No on Xer and then we find out from the people involved in campaign that she didn’t disclose her opposition until the measure had been soundly defeated.
She told us that she was opposed to Target but the Target people told us that she had never taken a position.
What integrity? And how does integrity excuse the fact that she is now proposing that the county look into developing three sites on the Davis periphery?
For me this is not about Cabaldon v. Mariko. We have Mariko for the next year and half on the BOS when these land use changes will be encoded into law. That is what I’m worried about–preventing those three areas around Davis from having their land use designations changed. My vote for Assembly is irrelevant to that. Once those land use changes are put into place, that is permanent. Then it becomes only a matter of time before the land gets developed.
I will not take the time to refute Vincente’s “arguments”. Of course, the hyped attacks on Mariko in postings such as vincente’s post above, are calculated to erode Mariko Yamada’s support in Davis for her primary challenge against the Yolo machine candidate Cabaldon.
I will not take the time to refute Vincente’s “arguments”. Of course, the hyped attacks on Mariko in postings such as vincente’s post above, are calculated to erode Mariko Yamada’s support in Davis for her primary challenge against the Yolo machine candidate Cabaldon.
I will not take the time to refute Vincente’s “arguments”. Of course, the hyped attacks on Mariko in postings such as vincente’s post above, are calculated to erode Mariko Yamada’s support in Davis for her primary challenge against the Yolo machine candidate Cabaldon.
I will not take the time to refute Vincente’s “arguments”. Of course, the hyped attacks on Mariko in postings such as vincente’s post above, are calculated to erode Mariko Yamada’s support in Davis for her primary challenge against the Yolo machine candidate Cabaldon.
Give me a break. Right now I care far more about the Yolo County General Plan than about the Assembly race.
Give me a break. Right now I care far more about the Yolo County General Plan than about the Assembly race.
Give me a break. Right now I care far more about the Yolo County General Plan than about the Assembly race.
Give me a break. Right now I care far more about the Yolo County General Plan than about the Assembly race.
” Once those land use changes are put into place, that is permanent.”
Vincente.. I do not think that this is accurate. I thought that the BOS could change these designations at any time by a majority vote.
” Once those land use changes are put into place, that is permanent.”
Vincente.. I do not think that this is accurate. I thought that the BOS could change these designations at any time by a majority vote.
” Once those land use changes are put into place, that is permanent.”
Vincente.. I do not think that this is accurate. I thought that the BOS could change these designations at any time by a majority vote.
” Once those land use changes are put into place, that is permanent.”
Vincente.. I do not think that this is accurate. I thought that the BOS could change these designations at any time by a majority vote.
davisite is correct. State law specifically allows a County to “amend its General Plan 4 times a year.” The BOS is the ultimate decision maker on such amendments.
With that said, David Morrison in testimony before the BOS said, “Yolo County has only amended its General Plan a handful of times in the fifty plus years the County has had a General Plan” There is nothing to indicate that that historical pattern will change anytime soon.
Matt Williams
davisite is correct. State law specifically allows a County to “amend its General Plan 4 times a year.” The BOS is the ultimate decision maker on such amendments.
With that said, David Morrison in testimony before the BOS said, “Yolo County has only amended its General Plan a handful of times in the fifty plus years the County has had a General Plan” There is nothing to indicate that that historical pattern will change anytime soon.
Matt Williams
davisite is correct. State law specifically allows a County to “amend its General Plan 4 times a year.” The BOS is the ultimate decision maker on such amendments.
With that said, David Morrison in testimony before the BOS said, “Yolo County has only amended its General Plan a handful of times in the fifty plus years the County has had a General Plan” There is nothing to indicate that that historical pattern will change anytime soon.
Matt Williams
davisite is correct. State law specifically allows a County to “amend its General Plan 4 times a year.” The BOS is the ultimate decision maker on such amendments.
With that said, David Morrison in testimony before the BOS said, “Yolo County has only amended its General Plan a handful of times in the fifty plus years the County has had a General Plan” There is nothing to indicate that that historical pattern will change anytime soon.
Matt Williams
“There is nothing to indicate that that historical pattern will change anytime soon.”
Breaking the grip of Yolo developers on the politics of Yolo County could very well change this historical pattern.
“There is nothing to indicate that that historical pattern will change anytime soon.”
Breaking the grip of Yolo developers on the politics of Yolo County could very well change this historical pattern.
“There is nothing to indicate that that historical pattern will change anytime soon.”
Breaking the grip of Yolo developers on the politics of Yolo County could very well change this historical pattern.
“There is nothing to indicate that that historical pattern will change anytime soon.”
Breaking the grip of Yolo developers on the politics of Yolo County could very well change this historical pattern.
The grip of the developers would have to tighten, not break, if the historical pattern is to change. As it is now, the very, very few amendments mean that developers have to get their parcels included in the General Plan, or they will have to wait until the year 2030 to try again during the next General Plan Update.
That is why it is very important to address the Tsakopoulos situation now … so that it doesn’t get into the current plan.
Matt Williams
The grip of the developers would have to tighten, not break, if the historical pattern is to change. As it is now, the very, very few amendments mean that developers have to get their parcels included in the General Plan, or they will have to wait until the year 2030 to try again during the next General Plan Update.
That is why it is very important to address the Tsakopoulos situation now … so that it doesn’t get into the current plan.
Matt Williams
The grip of the developers would have to tighten, not break, if the historical pattern is to change. As it is now, the very, very few amendments mean that developers have to get their parcels included in the General Plan, or they will have to wait until the year 2030 to try again during the next General Plan Update.
That is why it is very important to address the Tsakopoulos situation now … so that it doesn’t get into the current plan.
Matt Williams
The grip of the developers would have to tighten, not break, if the historical pattern is to change. As it is now, the very, very few amendments mean that developers have to get their parcels included in the General Plan, or they will have to wait until the year 2030 to try again during the next General Plan Update.
That is why it is very important to address the Tsakopoulos situation now … so that it doesn’t get into the current plan.
Matt Williams
When I was growing up in San Diego in the 1960’s, most of the political battles focused on growth issues. The county board of supervisors routinely approved large developments in unincorporated areas, without providing infrastructure or mitigating the impact on nearby school districts. Then Mayor Pete Wilson, who was re-elected repeatedly on a slow-growth platform (he was never the developers’ candidate, and had to shake his liberal Republican credentials in order to run statewide) aggressively pushed to annex any and all land under development consideration so that the city would not be at the mercy of a bare majority of nearsighted county supervisors.
Yes, it does force the city electorate to argue and vote on each large development proposal. But it takes the decision out of the hands of decision-makers at the county level, and it’s important to consider that county governments are more cash-starved than city governments — and that Yolo County is one of the most cash-starved counties in the state. It doesn’t surprise me that newly-elected supervisors start looking around for ways to increase cash flow. If you believe in providing social services at the county level, you’re going to start looking for revenue.
If Davis doesn’t want development on peripheral land, Davis should annex all the land under consideration.
When I was growing up in San Diego in the 1960’s, most of the political battles focused on growth issues. The county board of supervisors routinely approved large developments in unincorporated areas, without providing infrastructure or mitigating the impact on nearby school districts. Then Mayor Pete Wilson, who was re-elected repeatedly on a slow-growth platform (he was never the developers’ candidate, and had to shake his liberal Republican credentials in order to run statewide) aggressively pushed to annex any and all land under development consideration so that the city would not be at the mercy of a bare majority of nearsighted county supervisors.
Yes, it does force the city electorate to argue and vote on each large development proposal. But it takes the decision out of the hands of decision-makers at the county level, and it’s important to consider that county governments are more cash-starved than city governments — and that Yolo County is one of the most cash-starved counties in the state. It doesn’t surprise me that newly-elected supervisors start looking around for ways to increase cash flow. If you believe in providing social services at the county level, you’re going to start looking for revenue.
If Davis doesn’t want development on peripheral land, Davis should annex all the land under consideration.
When I was growing up in San Diego in the 1960’s, most of the political battles focused on growth issues. The county board of supervisors routinely approved large developments in unincorporated areas, without providing infrastructure or mitigating the impact on nearby school districts. Then Mayor Pete Wilson, who was re-elected repeatedly on a slow-growth platform (he was never the developers’ candidate, and had to shake his liberal Republican credentials in order to run statewide) aggressively pushed to annex any and all land under development consideration so that the city would not be at the mercy of a bare majority of nearsighted county supervisors.
Yes, it does force the city electorate to argue and vote on each large development proposal. But it takes the decision out of the hands of decision-makers at the county level, and it’s important to consider that county governments are more cash-starved than city governments — and that Yolo County is one of the most cash-starved counties in the state. It doesn’t surprise me that newly-elected supervisors start looking around for ways to increase cash flow. If you believe in providing social services at the county level, you’re going to start looking for revenue.
If Davis doesn’t want development on peripheral land, Davis should annex all the land under consideration.
When I was growing up in San Diego in the 1960’s, most of the political battles focused on growth issues. The county board of supervisors routinely approved large developments in unincorporated areas, without providing infrastructure or mitigating the impact on nearby school districts. Then Mayor Pete Wilson, who was re-elected repeatedly on a slow-growth platform (he was never the developers’ candidate, and had to shake his liberal Republican credentials in order to run statewide) aggressively pushed to annex any and all land under development consideration so that the city would not be at the mercy of a bare majority of nearsighted county supervisors.
Yes, it does force the city electorate to argue and vote on each large development proposal. But it takes the decision out of the hands of decision-makers at the county level, and it’s important to consider that county governments are more cash-starved than city governments — and that Yolo County is one of the most cash-starved counties in the state. It doesn’t surprise me that newly-elected supervisors start looking around for ways to increase cash flow. If you believe in providing social services at the county level, you’re going to start looking for revenue.
If Davis doesn’t want development on peripheral land, Davis should annex all the land under consideration.
Tightening the grip of Yolo developers on the BOS General Plan makes it more likely that there can be a BOS majority that will amend the Plan to reverse a residential land use designation?..doesn’t compute.
Tightening the grip of Yolo developers on the BOS General Plan makes it more likely that there can be a BOS majority that will amend the Plan to reverse a residential land use designation?..doesn’t compute.
Tightening the grip of Yolo developers on the BOS General Plan makes it more likely that there can be a BOS majority that will amend the Plan to reverse a residential land use designation?..doesn’t compute.
Tightening the grip of Yolo developers on the BOS General Plan makes it more likely that there can be a BOS majority that will amend the Plan to reverse a residential land use designation?..doesn’t compute.
“If Davis doesn’t want development on peripheral land, Davis should annex all the land under consideration. “
Catch 22 Don, if Davis annexes all the land under consideration then the city council would be able to develop it without a measure J vote. Actually, I don’t know how that would work exactly.
“If Davis doesn’t want development on peripheral land, Davis should annex all the land under consideration. “
Catch 22 Don, if Davis annexes all the land under consideration then the city council would be able to develop it without a measure J vote. Actually, I don’t know how that would work exactly.
“If Davis doesn’t want development on peripheral land, Davis should annex all the land under consideration. “
Catch 22 Don, if Davis annexes all the land under consideration then the city council would be able to develop it without a measure J vote. Actually, I don’t know how that would work exactly.
“If Davis doesn’t want development on peripheral land, Davis should annex all the land under consideration. “
Catch 22 Don, if Davis annexes all the land under consideration then the city council would be able to develop it without a measure J vote. Actually, I don’t know how that would work exactly.
“Yes, it does force the city electorate to argue and vote on each large development proposal. But it takes the decision out of the hands of decision-makers at the county level…”
This is essentially what the Davis voters, in their wisdom, created with the Pass-Through agreement and Measure J.
“Yes, it does force the city electorate to argue and vote on each large development proposal. But it takes the decision out of the hands of decision-makers at the county level…”
This is essentially what the Davis voters, in their wisdom, created with the Pass-Through agreement and Measure J.
“Yes, it does force the city electorate to argue and vote on each large development proposal. But it takes the decision out of the hands of decision-makers at the county level…”
This is essentially what the Davis voters, in their wisdom, created with the Pass-Through agreement and Measure J.
“Yes, it does force the city electorate to argue and vote on each large development proposal. But it takes the decision out of the hands of decision-makers at the county level…”
This is essentially what the Davis voters, in their wisdom, created with the Pass-Through agreement and Measure J.
“…then the city council would be able to develop it without a measure J vote.”
The city council reflects the will of Davis voters, like it or not. The county board of supervisors has other priorities. So if Davis voters don’t like the direction of development, they can elect a new majority, or they can force a referendum on any particular development proposal.
Davis voters can even pass a measure requiring a vote on any large development proposal, as has been proposed in the past by Bob Dunning and others.
The point is that relying on the Board of Supervisors to prevent development in or around Davis is a narrow reed upon which to lean. Davis voters should take control of their own destiny. And it’s worth repeating: the current council majority reflects the will of the Davis voters, who elected them. They don’t reflect the voters’ views on every subject, but they did get the most votes.
“…then the city council would be able to develop it without a measure J vote.”
The city council reflects the will of Davis voters, like it or not. The county board of supervisors has other priorities. So if Davis voters don’t like the direction of development, they can elect a new majority, or they can force a referendum on any particular development proposal.
Davis voters can even pass a measure requiring a vote on any large development proposal, as has been proposed in the past by Bob Dunning and others.
The point is that relying on the Board of Supervisors to prevent development in or around Davis is a narrow reed upon which to lean. Davis voters should take control of their own destiny. And it’s worth repeating: the current council majority reflects the will of the Davis voters, who elected them. They don’t reflect the voters’ views on every subject, but they did get the most votes.
“…then the city council would be able to develop it without a measure J vote.”
The city council reflects the will of Davis voters, like it or not. The county board of supervisors has other priorities. So if Davis voters don’t like the direction of development, they can elect a new majority, or they can force a referendum on any particular development proposal.
Davis voters can even pass a measure requiring a vote on any large development proposal, as has been proposed in the past by Bob Dunning and others.
The point is that relying on the Board of Supervisors to prevent development in or around Davis is a narrow reed upon which to lean. Davis voters should take control of their own destiny. And it’s worth repeating: the current council majority reflects the will of the Davis voters, who elected them. They don’t reflect the voters’ views on every subject, but they did get the most votes.
“…then the city council would be able to develop it without a measure J vote.”
The city council reflects the will of Davis voters, like it or not. The county board of supervisors has other priorities. So if Davis voters don’t like the direction of development, they can elect a new majority, or they can force a referendum on any particular development proposal.
Davis voters can even pass a measure requiring a vote on any large development proposal, as has been proposed in the past by Bob Dunning and others.
The point is that relying on the Board of Supervisors to prevent development in or around Davis is a narrow reed upon which to lean. Davis voters should take control of their own destiny. And it’s worth repeating: the current council majority reflects the will of the Davis voters, who elected them. They don’t reflect the voters’ views on every subject, but they did get the most votes.
There is a significant loophole in the structure of Measure J. If a developer chooses to not want annnexation by the City, then Measure J isn’t invoked regardless of whether ag land is being converted.
Dan Ramos, with his “Vineyards @ El Macero” project has been attempting to do exactly that. He proposed annexing his project to El Macero, which would give him access to water and sewer services. Fortunately, the residents of El Macero voted (in a 69% voter turnout on 6/26/07) 83% to 17% against the Ramos proposal.
The key to this type of developer tactic would be the Davis City Council. If they vote to agree with the developer’s plan to remain in the County, then no Measure J vote would ensue … even if the parcel is in the area covered by the Pass-Through Agreement.
There is a significant loophole in the structure of Measure J. If a developer chooses to not want annnexation by the City, then Measure J isn’t invoked regardless of whether ag land is being converted.
Dan Ramos, with his “Vineyards @ El Macero” project has been attempting to do exactly that. He proposed annexing his project to El Macero, which would give him access to water and sewer services. Fortunately, the residents of El Macero voted (in a 69% voter turnout on 6/26/07) 83% to 17% against the Ramos proposal.
The key to this type of developer tactic would be the Davis City Council. If they vote to agree with the developer’s plan to remain in the County, then no Measure J vote would ensue … even if the parcel is in the area covered by the Pass-Through Agreement.
There is a significant loophole in the structure of Measure J. If a developer chooses to not want annnexation by the City, then Measure J isn’t invoked regardless of whether ag land is being converted.
Dan Ramos, with his “Vineyards @ El Macero” project has been attempting to do exactly that. He proposed annexing his project to El Macero, which would give him access to water and sewer services. Fortunately, the residents of El Macero voted (in a 69% voter turnout on 6/26/07) 83% to 17% against the Ramos proposal.
The key to this type of developer tactic would be the Davis City Council. If they vote to agree with the developer’s plan to remain in the County, then no Measure J vote would ensue … even if the parcel is in the area covered by the Pass-Through Agreement.
There is a significant loophole in the structure of Measure J. If a developer chooses to not want annnexation by the City, then Measure J isn’t invoked regardless of whether ag land is being converted.
Dan Ramos, with his “Vineyards @ El Macero” project has been attempting to do exactly that. He proposed annexing his project to El Macero, which would give him access to water and sewer services. Fortunately, the residents of El Macero voted (in a 69% voter turnout on 6/26/07) 83% to 17% against the Ramos proposal.
The key to this type of developer tactic would be the Davis City Council. If they vote to agree with the developer’s plan to remain in the County, then no Measure J vote would ensue … even if the parcel is in the area covered by the Pass-Through Agreement.
“The city council reflects the will of Davis voters, like it or not. The county board of supervisors has other priorities. So if Davis voters don’t like the direction of development, they can elect a new majority, or they can force a referendum on any particular development proposal.”
That’s nonsense. The City Council voted 4-1 in favor of Covell Village and the citizens voted 60-40 against. Doesn’t seem like the idea of majority rule would have worked very well. That’s why people enacted Measure J. I prefer the city to have land-use authority in part because the citizens of Davis will ultimately get a say over the process.
“The city council reflects the will of Davis voters, like it or not. The county board of supervisors has other priorities. So if Davis voters don’t like the direction of development, they can elect a new majority, or they can force a referendum on any particular development proposal.”
That’s nonsense. The City Council voted 4-1 in favor of Covell Village and the citizens voted 60-40 against. Doesn’t seem like the idea of majority rule would have worked very well. That’s why people enacted Measure J. I prefer the city to have land-use authority in part because the citizens of Davis will ultimately get a say over the process.
“The city council reflects the will of Davis voters, like it or not. The county board of supervisors has other priorities. So if Davis voters don’t like the direction of development, they can elect a new majority, or they can force a referendum on any particular development proposal.”
That’s nonsense. The City Council voted 4-1 in favor of Covell Village and the citizens voted 60-40 against. Doesn’t seem like the idea of majority rule would have worked very well. That’s why people enacted Measure J. I prefer the city to have land-use authority in part because the citizens of Davis will ultimately get a say over the process.
“The city council reflects the will of Davis voters, like it or not. The county board of supervisors has other priorities. So if Davis voters don’t like the direction of development, they can elect a new majority, or they can force a referendum on any particular development proposal.”
That’s nonsense. The City Council voted 4-1 in favor of Covell Village and the citizens voted 60-40 against. Doesn’t seem like the idea of majority rule would have worked very well. That’s why people enacted Measure J. I prefer the city to have land-use authority in part because the citizens of Davis will ultimately get a say over the process.
Another litmus test issue for the upcoming 2008 Davis Council election, in addition to a pledge to offer Measure J for renewal without changes, is a pledge that any peripheral development that fails a Measure J vote will be DENIED the ability to hook up with Davis’ utilities, sewer, water, waste treatment, etc.
Anonymous 9:12, inserts in this thread Mariko Yamada’s bid for the state assembly and states: “Mariko Yamada’s record of political integrity makes her the clear choice for the voters of Davis.”
Mariko Yamada’s recent commentary on the Davis Vanguard (7/3) makes two dubious, if not false, claims concerning her environmental record:
“City of Davis Measure X—NO”
“City of Davis Target—NO”
Yamada made these statements opposing both Covell Village and Target as proof of her taking pro-environmental stands. She is playing games with the truth, as she did not publicly oppose either measure prior to their respective elections as previous posts have proven.
Mariko Yamada’s deliberate exaggeration of her record on both measures is troubling especially since her proclaimed “integrity” has been one of her strongest selling points among her supporters.
Another litmus test issue for the upcoming 2008 Davis Council election, in addition to a pledge to offer Measure J for renewal without changes, is a pledge that any peripheral development that fails a Measure J vote will be DENIED the ability to hook up with Davis’ utilities, sewer, water, waste treatment, etc.
Anonymous 9:12, inserts in this thread Mariko Yamada’s bid for the state assembly and states: “Mariko Yamada’s record of political integrity makes her the clear choice for the voters of Davis.”
Mariko Yamada’s recent commentary on the Davis Vanguard (7/3) makes two dubious, if not false, claims concerning her environmental record:
“City of Davis Measure X—NO”
“City of Davis Target—NO”
Yamada made these statements opposing both Covell Village and Target as proof of her taking pro-environmental stands. She is playing games with the truth, as she did not publicly oppose either measure prior to their respective elections as previous posts have proven.
Mariko Yamada’s deliberate exaggeration of her record on both measures is troubling especially since her proclaimed “integrity” has been one of her strongest selling points among her supporters.
Another litmus test issue for the upcoming 2008 Davis Council election, in addition to a pledge to offer Measure J for renewal without changes, is a pledge that any peripheral development that fails a Measure J vote will be DENIED the ability to hook up with Davis’ utilities, sewer, water, waste treatment, etc.
Anonymous 9:12, inserts in this thread Mariko Yamada’s bid for the state assembly and states: “Mariko Yamada’s record of political integrity makes her the clear choice for the voters of Davis.”
Mariko Yamada’s recent commentary on the Davis Vanguard (7/3) makes two dubious, if not false, claims concerning her environmental record:
“City of Davis Measure X—NO”
“City of Davis Target—NO”
Yamada made these statements opposing both Covell Village and Target as proof of her taking pro-environmental stands. She is playing games with the truth, as she did not publicly oppose either measure prior to their respective elections as previous posts have proven.
Mariko Yamada’s deliberate exaggeration of her record on both measures is troubling especially since her proclaimed “integrity” has been one of her strongest selling points among her supporters.
Another litmus test issue for the upcoming 2008 Davis Council election, in addition to a pledge to offer Measure J for renewal without changes, is a pledge that any peripheral development that fails a Measure J vote will be DENIED the ability to hook up with Davis’ utilities, sewer, water, waste treatment, etc.
Anonymous 9:12, inserts in this thread Mariko Yamada’s bid for the state assembly and states: “Mariko Yamada’s record of political integrity makes her the clear choice for the voters of Davis.”
Mariko Yamada’s recent commentary on the Davis Vanguard (7/3) makes two dubious, if not false, claims concerning her environmental record:
“City of Davis Measure X—NO”
“City of Davis Target—NO”
Yamada made these statements opposing both Covell Village and Target as proof of her taking pro-environmental stands. She is playing games with the truth, as she did not publicly oppose either measure prior to their respective elections as previous posts have proven.
Mariko Yamada’s deliberate exaggeration of her record on both measures is troubling especially since her proclaimed “integrity” has been one of her strongest selling points among her supporters.
Vincente said…
“That’s nonsense. The City Council voted 4-1 in favor of Covell Village and the citizens voted 60-40 against. Doesn’t seem like the idea of majority rule would have worked very well. That’s why people enacted Measure J.”
Vincente, you missed don’s point. He was simply stating that the Davis voters truly have a say in who all 5 of their Council members are. We only have a say in 2 of the 5 Supervisors, and as individual voters, only 1 of the 5.
Yes, the Council’s vote and the Measure X vote were at odds with one another. Our options going forward are much better in that situation than in a Supervisors 4-1 vote that we don’t like.
Vincente said…
“That’s nonsense. The City Council voted 4-1 in favor of Covell Village and the citizens voted 60-40 against. Doesn’t seem like the idea of majority rule would have worked very well. That’s why people enacted Measure J.”
Vincente, you missed don’s point. He was simply stating that the Davis voters truly have a say in who all 5 of their Council members are. We only have a say in 2 of the 5 Supervisors, and as individual voters, only 1 of the 5.
Yes, the Council’s vote and the Measure X vote were at odds with one another. Our options going forward are much better in that situation than in a Supervisors 4-1 vote that we don’t like.
Vincente said…
“That’s nonsense. The City Council voted 4-1 in favor of Covell Village and the citizens voted 60-40 against. Doesn’t seem like the idea of majority rule would have worked very well. That’s why people enacted Measure J.”
Vincente, you missed don’s point. He was simply stating that the Davis voters truly have a say in who all 5 of their Council members are. We only have a say in 2 of the 5 Supervisors, and as individual voters, only 1 of the 5.
Yes, the Council’s vote and the Measure X vote were at odds with one another. Our options going forward are much better in that situation than in a Supervisors 4-1 vote that we don’t like.
Vincente said…
“That’s nonsense. The City Council voted 4-1 in favor of Covell Village and the citizens voted 60-40 against. Doesn’t seem like the idea of majority rule would have worked very well. That’s why people enacted Measure J.”
Vincente, you missed don’s point. He was simply stating that the Davis voters truly have a say in who all 5 of their Council members are. We only have a say in 2 of the 5 Supervisors, and as individual voters, only 1 of the 5.
Yes, the Council’s vote and the Measure X vote were at odds with one another. Our options going forward are much better in that situation than in a Supervisors 4-1 vote that we don’t like.
Fair enough, I was interpreting his point to mean that we didn’t need measure J. But if I misinterpreted that, I apologize.
A secondary point is that really Davis has more sway on Davis related development than 2/5ths of the vote because, Chamberlain and Rexroad will in most cases defer to the will of the Davis Sups in hope that they will get the same courtesy on votes in their jurisdiction.
Fair enough, I was interpreting his point to mean that we didn’t need measure J. But if I misinterpreted that, I apologize.
A secondary point is that really Davis has more sway on Davis related development than 2/5ths of the vote because, Chamberlain and Rexroad will in most cases defer to the will of the Davis Sups in hope that they will get the same courtesy on votes in their jurisdiction.
Fair enough, I was interpreting his point to mean that we didn’t need measure J. But if I misinterpreted that, I apologize.
A secondary point is that really Davis has more sway on Davis related development than 2/5ths of the vote because, Chamberlain and Rexroad will in most cases defer to the will of the Davis Sups in hope that they will get the same courtesy on votes in their jurisdiction.
Fair enough, I was interpreting his point to mean that we didn’t need measure J. But if I misinterpreted that, I apologize.
A secondary point is that really Davis has more sway on Davis related development than 2/5ths of the vote because, Chamberlain and Rexroad will in most cases defer to the will of the Davis Sups in hope that they will get the same courtesy on votes in their jurisdiction.
…One more time, NO on X supporter!
Mariko Yamada’s political integrity was demonstrated exactly BECAUSE she did not publicly take a position on Measure X as all the Board of Supervisor members had agreed to. Her cryptic statement NO on X is certainly her personal position(she references the list,as I remember, as both personal and political positions). Your speculation that her sole motivation for being out there at the FM, supporting the NO on X position, was because she was at odds with Helen Thomson’s betrayal of the BOS agreement mentioned above, is just that- your speculation.
…One more time, NO on X supporter!
Mariko Yamada’s political integrity was demonstrated exactly BECAUSE she did not publicly take a position on Measure X as all the Board of Supervisor members had agreed to. Her cryptic statement NO on X is certainly her personal position(she references the list,as I remember, as both personal and political positions). Your speculation that her sole motivation for being out there at the FM, supporting the NO on X position, was because she was at odds with Helen Thomson’s betrayal of the BOS agreement mentioned above, is just that- your speculation.
…One more time, NO on X supporter!
Mariko Yamada’s political integrity was demonstrated exactly BECAUSE she did not publicly take a position on Measure X as all the Board of Supervisor members had agreed to. Her cryptic statement NO on X is certainly her personal position(she references the list,as I remember, as both personal and political positions). Your speculation that her sole motivation for being out there at the FM, supporting the NO on X position, was because she was at odds with Helen Thomson’s betrayal of the BOS agreement mentioned above, is just that- your speculation.
…One more time, NO on X supporter!
Mariko Yamada’s political integrity was demonstrated exactly BECAUSE she did not publicly take a position on Measure X as all the Board of Supervisor members had agreed to. Her cryptic statement NO on X is certainly her personal position(she references the list,as I remember, as both personal and political positions). Your speculation that her sole motivation for being out there at the FM, supporting the NO on X position, was because she was at odds with Helen Thomson’s betrayal of the BOS agreement mentioned above, is just that- your speculation.
I concur with davisite on this one. Mariko was visible at the Farmers Market, and her position on X was clear. Her role as Supervisor does mean she (and all her fellow Supervisors) will be silent on lots of Incorporated City issues … in Davis, Woodland, Winters and West Sac.
I concur with davisite on this one. Mariko was visible at the Farmers Market, and her position on X was clear. Her role as Supervisor does mean she (and all her fellow Supervisors) will be silent on lots of Incorporated City issues … in Davis, Woodland, Winters and West Sac.
I concur with davisite on this one. Mariko was visible at the Farmers Market, and her position on X was clear. Her role as Supervisor does mean she (and all her fellow Supervisors) will be silent on lots of Incorporated City issues … in Davis, Woodland, Winters and West Sac.
I concur with davisite on this one. Mariko was visible at the Farmers Market, and her position on X was clear. Her role as Supervisor does mean she (and all her fellow Supervisors) will be silent on lots of Incorporated City issues … in Davis, Woodland, Winters and West Sac.
….One more time, Davisite!
Mariko Yamada’s personal, private, secret positions are of no interest to her constituents or voters. What matters is her public positions, verifiable positions she takes such as votes and public endorsements and statements in support or in opposition to an issue. Yamada and you are trying to give her credit for being a leader on environmental issues and she cites as examples:
“City of Davis Measure X—NO”
“City of Davis Target—NO”
She only revealed her opposition to those measures after the election. Her personal, private, secret views are of no help to the voters and citizens who look to their leaders for leadership.
By the way, my knowledge of her motivation for being at Farmer’s Market is not due to “speculation”, but observation. I was there when she was at Farmer’s Market that last weekend and never once did she announce her support for No on X. She was mad at Helen Thomson’s “boogyman” letter and that motivated her to come out on the last Saturday before the election. How do I know that? She told us so.
As I stated on an earlier post: Yamada “was not a leader or supporter of a No vote on Measure X. She did come to the Farmer’s Market No on X table on the final weekend before the election but not as a supporter of our efforts, but as a protester of Helen Thomson’s misleading politics. That is to be applauded too, but again she did not lead any effort against Measure X, period.”
“My objection to her today taking credit for a NO position on Measure X is that she never took that position prior to the election, yet you now wish to claim her last minute effort against Helen Thomson’s misleading letter gives her the right to say she did. It would have been more honest had she taken credit for what she actually did and not mislead people in today’s commentary.”
Davisite, your constant promoting and now embellishing of Yamada’s record is interesting, in view of the facts. Talk about integrity. Talk about speculation. How about the two of you taking credit for what she did do and not what she did not do and you might also consider ending the stretching of the truth.
….One more time, Davisite!
Mariko Yamada’s personal, private, secret positions are of no interest to her constituents or voters. What matters is her public positions, verifiable positions she takes such as votes and public endorsements and statements in support or in opposition to an issue. Yamada and you are trying to give her credit for being a leader on environmental issues and she cites as examples:
“City of Davis Measure X—NO”
“City of Davis Target—NO”
She only revealed her opposition to those measures after the election. Her personal, private, secret views are of no help to the voters and citizens who look to their leaders for leadership.
By the way, my knowledge of her motivation for being at Farmer’s Market is not due to “speculation”, but observation. I was there when she was at Farmer’s Market that last weekend and never once did she announce her support for No on X. She was mad at Helen Thomson’s “boogyman” letter and that motivated her to come out on the last Saturday before the election. How do I know that? She told us so.
As I stated on an earlier post: Yamada “was not a leader or supporter of a No vote on Measure X. She did come to the Farmer’s Market No on X table on the final weekend before the election but not as a supporter of our efforts, but as a protester of Helen Thomson’s misleading politics. That is to be applauded too, but again she did not lead any effort against Measure X, period.”
“My objection to her today taking credit for a NO position on Measure X is that she never took that position prior to the election, yet you now wish to claim her last minute effort against Helen Thomson’s misleading letter gives her the right to say she did. It would have been more honest had she taken credit for what she actually did and not mislead people in today’s commentary.”
Davisite, your constant promoting and now embellishing of Yamada’s record is interesting, in view of the facts. Talk about integrity. Talk about speculation. How about the two of you taking credit for what she did do and not what she did not do and you might also consider ending the stretching of the truth.
….One more time, Davisite!
Mariko Yamada’s personal, private, secret positions are of no interest to her constituents or voters. What matters is her public positions, verifiable positions she takes such as votes and public endorsements and statements in support or in opposition to an issue. Yamada and you are trying to give her credit for being a leader on environmental issues and she cites as examples:
“City of Davis Measure X—NO”
“City of Davis Target—NO”
She only revealed her opposition to those measures after the election. Her personal, private, secret views are of no help to the voters and citizens who look to their leaders for leadership.
By the way, my knowledge of her motivation for being at Farmer’s Market is not due to “speculation”, but observation. I was there when she was at Farmer’s Market that last weekend and never once did she announce her support for No on X. She was mad at Helen Thomson’s “boogyman” letter and that motivated her to come out on the last Saturday before the election. How do I know that? She told us so.
As I stated on an earlier post: Yamada “was not a leader or supporter of a No vote on Measure X. She did come to the Farmer’s Market No on X table on the final weekend before the election but not as a supporter of our efforts, but as a protester of Helen Thomson’s misleading politics. That is to be applauded too, but again she did not lead any effort against Measure X, period.”
“My objection to her today taking credit for a NO position on Measure X is that she never took that position prior to the election, yet you now wish to claim her last minute effort against Helen Thomson’s misleading letter gives her the right to say she did. It would have been more honest had she taken credit for what she actually did and not mislead people in today’s commentary.”
Davisite, your constant promoting and now embellishing of Yamada’s record is interesting, in view of the facts. Talk about integrity. Talk about speculation. How about the two of you taking credit for what she did do and not what she did not do and you might also consider ending the stretching of the truth.
….One more time, Davisite!
Mariko Yamada’s personal, private, secret positions are of no interest to her constituents or voters. What matters is her public positions, verifiable positions she takes such as votes and public endorsements and statements in support or in opposition to an issue. Yamada and you are trying to give her credit for being a leader on environmental issues and she cites as examples:
“City of Davis Measure X—NO”
“City of Davis Target—NO”
She only revealed her opposition to those measures after the election. Her personal, private, secret views are of no help to the voters and citizens who look to their leaders for leadership.
By the way, my knowledge of her motivation for being at Farmer’s Market is not due to “speculation”, but observation. I was there when she was at Farmer’s Market that last weekend and never once did she announce her support for No on X. She was mad at Helen Thomson’s “boogyman” letter and that motivated her to come out on the last Saturday before the election. How do I know that? She told us so.
As I stated on an earlier post: Yamada “was not a leader or supporter of a No vote on Measure X. She did come to the Farmer’s Market No on X table on the final weekend before the election but not as a supporter of our efforts, but as a protester of Helen Thomson’s misleading politics. That is to be applauded too, but again she did not lead any effort against Measure X, period.”
“My objection to her today taking credit for a NO position on Measure X is that she never took that position prior to the election, yet you now wish to claim her last minute effort against Helen Thomson’s misleading letter gives her the right to say she did. It would have been more honest had she taken credit for what she actually did and not mislead people in today’s commentary.”
Davisite, your constant promoting and now embellishing of Yamada’s record is interesting, in view of the facts. Talk about integrity. Talk about speculation. How about the two of you taking credit for what she did do and not what she did not do and you might also consider ending the stretching of the truth.
No on X supporter said…
“As I stated on an earlier post: Yamada “was not a leader or supporter of a No vote on Measure X.”
There is a huge difference between being a leader (which Mariko was not) and a supporter (which Mariko was)of a No vote on Measure X. You are expecting an unreasonable level of involvement from her on an item on the Davis ballot. If Measure X were a County ballot, your criticism would be reasonable, but the reality is it wasn’t.
No on X supporter said…
“My objection to her today taking credit for a NO position on Measure X is that she never took that position prior to the election.”
Here too your level of expectation exceeds reasonability … and in this case credibility as well. I know for a fact that she took her personal position prior to the
election. She and I discussed that very fact at the Farmers
Market prior to the election.
No on X supporter said…
“As I stated on an earlier post: Yamada “was not a leader or supporter of a No vote on Measure X.”
There is a huge difference between being a leader (which Mariko was not) and a supporter (which Mariko was)of a No vote on Measure X. You are expecting an unreasonable level of involvement from her on an item on the Davis ballot. If Measure X were a County ballot, your criticism would be reasonable, but the reality is it wasn’t.
No on X supporter said…
“My objection to her today taking credit for a NO position on Measure X is that she never took that position prior to the election.”
Here too your level of expectation exceeds reasonability … and in this case credibility as well. I know for a fact that she took her personal position prior to the
election. She and I discussed that very fact at the Farmers
Market prior to the election.
No on X supporter said…
“As I stated on an earlier post: Yamada “was not a leader or supporter of a No vote on Measure X.”
There is a huge difference between being a leader (which Mariko was not) and a supporter (which Mariko was)of a No vote on Measure X. You are expecting an unreasonable level of involvement from her on an item on the Davis ballot. If Measure X were a County ballot, your criticism would be reasonable, but the reality is it wasn’t.
No on X supporter said…
“My objection to her today taking credit for a NO position on Measure X is that she never took that position prior to the election.”
Here too your level of expectation exceeds reasonability … and in this case credibility as well. I know for a fact that she took her personal position prior to the
election. She and I discussed that very fact at the Farmers
Market prior to the election.
No on X supporter said…
“As I stated on an earlier post: Yamada “was not a leader or supporter of a No vote on Measure X.”
There is a huge difference between being a leader (which Mariko was not) and a supporter (which Mariko was)of a No vote on Measure X. You are expecting an unreasonable level of involvement from her on an item on the Davis ballot. If Measure X were a County ballot, your criticism would be reasonable, but the reality is it wasn’t.
No on X supporter said…
“My objection to her today taking credit for a NO position on Measure X is that she never took that position prior to the election.”
Here too your level of expectation exceeds reasonability … and in this case credibility as well. I know for a fact that she took her personal position prior to the
election. She and I discussed that very fact at the Farmers
Market prior to the election.
” Vincente said…
Fair enough, I was interpreting his point to mean that we didn’t need measure J.”
Yes, Matt clarified my point. Davis voters control the makeup of their city council. Obviously the council members won’t always exactly reflect the public will.
The county is broke. The supervisors are dealing with growth issues all around the cities. While current supes may defer to their colleagues about projects within those districts, they don’t have to. Counting on the county to hold the line on peripheral Davis development is not prudent. Threats of withholding money, refusing hookups, and other forms of brinkmanship are not going to be effective for very long and further poison an already tense atmosphere.
Actually, we need Davis voters to have a say in large development projects within the city limits, as well as Measure J.
For greatest control of land use issues:
1. Annex everything that is in the joint study consideration, and anything else that might be.
2. Enact a measure by which Davis voters automatically vote on large develoment proposals (e.g., anything over 100 units goes to the voters).
3. Ban contributions to local campaigns by outside corporations (this is already in the works).
4. At the county level, enact a measure such as Solano County’s Measure A, which restricted growth to existing cities. This stymies ‘new city’ proposals such as the Manzanita project that was proposed next to Winters (over the county line in Solano) a couple of decades ago.
County-wide initiatives such as this last one would be more difficult to pass. The first three items on my list can all be done, either by the city council or by the citizens.
” Vincente said…
Fair enough, I was interpreting his point to mean that we didn’t need measure J.”
Yes, Matt clarified my point. Davis voters control the makeup of their city council. Obviously the council members won’t always exactly reflect the public will.
The county is broke. The supervisors are dealing with growth issues all around the cities. While current supes may defer to their colleagues about projects within those districts, they don’t have to. Counting on the county to hold the line on peripheral Davis development is not prudent. Threats of withholding money, refusing hookups, and other forms of brinkmanship are not going to be effective for very long and further poison an already tense atmosphere.
Actually, we need Davis voters to have a say in large development projects within the city limits, as well as Measure J.
For greatest control of land use issues:
1. Annex everything that is in the joint study consideration, and anything else that might be.
2. Enact a measure by which Davis voters automatically vote on large develoment proposals (e.g., anything over 100 units goes to the voters).
3. Ban contributions to local campaigns by outside corporations (this is already in the works).
4. At the county level, enact a measure such as Solano County’s Measure A, which restricted growth to existing cities. This stymies ‘new city’ proposals such as the Manzanita project that was proposed next to Winters (over the county line in Solano) a couple of decades ago.
County-wide initiatives such as this last one would be more difficult to pass. The first three items on my list can all be done, either by the city council or by the citizens.
” Vincente said…
Fair enough, I was interpreting his point to mean that we didn’t need measure J.”
Yes, Matt clarified my point. Davis voters control the makeup of their city council. Obviously the council members won’t always exactly reflect the public will.
The county is broke. The supervisors are dealing with growth issues all around the cities. While current supes may defer to their colleagues about projects within those districts, they don’t have to. Counting on the county to hold the line on peripheral Davis development is not prudent. Threats of withholding money, refusing hookups, and other forms of brinkmanship are not going to be effective for very long and further poison an already tense atmosphere.
Actually, we need Davis voters to have a say in large development projects within the city limits, as well as Measure J.
For greatest control of land use issues:
1. Annex everything that is in the joint study consideration, and anything else that might be.
2. Enact a measure by which Davis voters automatically vote on large develoment proposals (e.g., anything over 100 units goes to the voters).
3. Ban contributions to local campaigns by outside corporations (this is already in the works).
4. At the county level, enact a measure such as Solano County’s Measure A, which restricted growth to existing cities. This stymies ‘new city’ proposals such as the Manzanita project that was proposed next to Winters (over the county line in Solano) a couple of decades ago.
County-wide initiatives such as this last one would be more difficult to pass. The first three items on my list can all be done, either by the city council or by the citizens.
” Vincente said…
Fair enough, I was interpreting his point to mean that we didn’t need measure J.”
Yes, Matt clarified my point. Davis voters control the makeup of their city council. Obviously the council members won’t always exactly reflect the public will.
The county is broke. The supervisors are dealing with growth issues all around the cities. While current supes may defer to their colleagues about projects within those districts, they don’t have to. Counting on the county to hold the line on peripheral Davis development is not prudent. Threats of withholding money, refusing hookups, and other forms of brinkmanship are not going to be effective for very long and further poison an already tense atmosphere.
Actually, we need Davis voters to have a say in large development projects within the city limits, as well as Measure J.
For greatest control of land use issues:
1. Annex everything that is in the joint study consideration, and anything else that might be.
2. Enact a measure by which Davis voters automatically vote on large develoment proposals (e.g., anything over 100 units goes to the voters).
3. Ban contributions to local campaigns by outside corporations (this is already in the works).
4. At the county level, enact a measure such as Solano County’s Measure A, which restricted growth to existing cities. This stymies ‘new city’ proposals such as the Manzanita project that was proposed next to Winters (over the county line in Solano) a couple of decades ago.
County-wide initiatives such as this last one would be more difficult to pass. The first three items on my list can all be done, either by the city council or by the citizens.
In reference to the “catch 22” mentioned by the 10:35 a.m. post: Measure J states that if the land use designation on the land use map is changed from ag to urban uses, then a measure J vote is required. So, if Davis annexed all the land around it (after working with the county and LAFCO) and at the same time changed the land use designation to urban, then a J vote would be required. If they annexed it as ag land, if in the future, a council decided to develop a parcel, since it would mean changing the designation from ag to urban, a Measure J vote would be required there also.
In reference to the “catch 22” mentioned by the 10:35 a.m. post: Measure J states that if the land use designation on the land use map is changed from ag to urban uses, then a measure J vote is required. So, if Davis annexed all the land around it (after working with the county and LAFCO) and at the same time changed the land use designation to urban, then a J vote would be required. If they annexed it as ag land, if in the future, a council decided to develop a parcel, since it would mean changing the designation from ag to urban, a Measure J vote would be required there also.
In reference to the “catch 22” mentioned by the 10:35 a.m. post: Measure J states that if the land use designation on the land use map is changed from ag to urban uses, then a measure J vote is required. So, if Davis annexed all the land around it (after working with the county and LAFCO) and at the same time changed the land use designation to urban, then a J vote would be required. If they annexed it as ag land, if in the future, a council decided to develop a parcel, since it would mean changing the designation from ag to urban, a Measure J vote would be required there also.
In reference to the “catch 22” mentioned by the 10:35 a.m. post: Measure J states that if the land use designation on the land use map is changed from ag to urban uses, then a measure J vote is required. So, if Davis annexed all the land around it (after working with the county and LAFCO) and at the same time changed the land use designation to urban, then a J vote would be required. If they annexed it as ag land, if in the future, a council decided to develop a parcel, since it would mean changing the designation from ag to urban, a Measure J vote would be required there also.
” Threats of withholding money, refusing hookups, and other forms of brinkmanship….”
Don.. your list is excellent but until they are all in place, we need to use the tools that we have at hand..
When Davis does this massive peripheral annexation, doesn’t it immediately drive the value of the land (and the cost of future housing on it) through the roof.. only to the benefit of the developer/land speculators?
” Threats of withholding money, refusing hookups, and other forms of brinkmanship….”
Don.. your list is excellent but until they are all in place, we need to use the tools that we have at hand..
When Davis does this massive peripheral annexation, doesn’t it immediately drive the value of the land (and the cost of future housing on it) through the roof.. only to the benefit of the developer/land speculators?
” Threats of withholding money, refusing hookups, and other forms of brinkmanship….”
Don.. your list is excellent but until they are all in place, we need to use the tools that we have at hand..
When Davis does this massive peripheral annexation, doesn’t it immediately drive the value of the land (and the cost of future housing on it) through the roof.. only to the benefit of the developer/land speculators?
” Threats of withholding money, refusing hookups, and other forms of brinkmanship….”
Don.. your list is excellent but until they are all in place, we need to use the tools that we have at hand..
When Davis does this massive peripheral annexation, doesn’t it immediately drive the value of the land (and the cost of future housing on it) through the roof.. only to the benefit of the developer/land speculators?
Don writes: “The county is broke.”
Really? I don’t know where you get that idea.
The county revenues have been skyrocketting for the last few years. In the past fiscal year alone, property tax revenues are up $65 million. They were up similar amounts each year for the past 3 years.
Insofar as there is a budgetary problem at the county level right now, it would be due to a lack of restraint on spending every last dollar that comes through. I seem to recall reading about increases in salaries for quite a large number of employee groups in the county.
The longer term problem for county governments (all over California) is that whenever there is an economic downturn, the state will steal county monies and give them to the school districts. That relieves the state of its fiscal problems, but does no good for the counties.
However, that is most certainly not the current situation at the county level. Because of the massive inflation in real estate values since 2000, Yolo County is taking in unprecedented levels of property tax. And state revenues — mainly from the income tax of the wealthy — are way up, too.
Even though housing prices have receded some the last 12 months in Yolo County, that won’t affect the county government’s income too much for some years.
What might hurt Yolo County more is if Davis, Woodland and West Sacto stop adding new (expensive) homes.
Don writes: “The county is broke.”
Really? I don’t know where you get that idea.
The county revenues have been skyrocketting for the last few years. In the past fiscal year alone, property tax revenues are up $65 million. They were up similar amounts each year for the past 3 years.
Insofar as there is a budgetary problem at the county level right now, it would be due to a lack of restraint on spending every last dollar that comes through. I seem to recall reading about increases in salaries for quite a large number of employee groups in the county.
The longer term problem for county governments (all over California) is that whenever there is an economic downturn, the state will steal county monies and give them to the school districts. That relieves the state of its fiscal problems, but does no good for the counties.
However, that is most certainly not the current situation at the county level. Because of the massive inflation in real estate values since 2000, Yolo County is taking in unprecedented levels of property tax. And state revenues — mainly from the income tax of the wealthy — are way up, too.
Even though housing prices have receded some the last 12 months in Yolo County, that won’t affect the county government’s income too much for some years.
What might hurt Yolo County more is if Davis, Woodland and West Sacto stop adding new (expensive) homes.
Don writes: “The county is broke.”
Really? I don’t know where you get that idea.
The county revenues have been skyrocketting for the last few years. In the past fiscal year alone, property tax revenues are up $65 million. They were up similar amounts each year for the past 3 years.
Insofar as there is a budgetary problem at the county level right now, it would be due to a lack of restraint on spending every last dollar that comes through. I seem to recall reading about increases in salaries for quite a large number of employee groups in the county.
The longer term problem for county governments (all over California) is that whenever there is an economic downturn, the state will steal county monies and give them to the school districts. That relieves the state of its fiscal problems, but does no good for the counties.
However, that is most certainly not the current situation at the county level. Because of the massive inflation in real estate values since 2000, Yolo County is taking in unprecedented levels of property tax. And state revenues — mainly from the income tax of the wealthy — are way up, too.
Even though housing prices have receded some the last 12 months in Yolo County, that won’t affect the county government’s income too much for some years.
What might hurt Yolo County more is if Davis, Woodland and West Sacto stop adding new (expensive) homes.
Don writes: “The county is broke.”
Really? I don’t know where you get that idea.
The county revenues have been skyrocketting for the last few years. In the past fiscal year alone, property tax revenues are up $65 million. They were up similar amounts each year for the past 3 years.
Insofar as there is a budgetary problem at the county level right now, it would be due to a lack of restraint on spending every last dollar that comes through. I seem to recall reading about increases in salaries for quite a large number of employee groups in the county.
The longer term problem for county governments (all over California) is that whenever there is an economic downturn, the state will steal county monies and give them to the school districts. That relieves the state of its fiscal problems, but does no good for the counties.
However, that is most certainly not the current situation at the county level. Because of the massive inflation in real estate values since 2000, Yolo County is taking in unprecedented levels of property tax. And state revenues — mainly from the income tax of the wealthy — are way up, too.
Even though housing prices have receded some the last 12 months in Yolo County, that won’t affect the county government’s income too much for some years.
What might hurt Yolo County more is if Davis, Woodland and West Sacto stop adding new (expensive) homes.
Rich, I see no reason to believe that Yolo county employees are overpaid or that the increases they received were out of proportion or inappropriate. I wouldn’t use terms like “skyrocketing” and I would be curious where you would cut a budget that is only 14% discretionary.
This is from 2005:
Critical Crossroads for Yolo County, Singh says
County generates the lowest amount of property and sales taxes in the region
(Woodland, CA) – The Board of Supervisors considered the significant economic consequences of its traditional land stewardship policies in a 2005-06 budget workshop held Tuesday in the Board of Supervisors Chambers. The County is facing a projected net budget deficit of at least $1.6 million for the 2005-06 budget year.
The total County budget is $251.9 million, with $150.1 million coming from state and federal sources. Once local funds (required to support these state and federal programs) are added, expenditures for these services increase to approximately 80% of the total budget.
“Yolo County is at a critical crossroads,” County Administrative Officer Vic Singh told the Board. “We’ve directed growth to the cities to preserve agriculture,” Singh stated. “This has limited economic development in the unincorporated areas and has kept sales tax dollars going into the cities,” he said.
“At the same time,” Singh noted, “a growing population, whether the growth is in the cities or in the county, will mean increased demands on public services. We are having to provide services to a growing Yolo County population with a County workforce that has been steadily decreasing over the last few years.
“This will be the third consecutive year the County must rely on its general reserves to balance the budget,” Singh said. “We either have to lower service expectations and make service cuts or increase revenues. Currently, we generate less in sales and property taxes than Sutter or Yuba County,” Singh said.
“And they were the most poverty-stricken of all the northern counties,” Chairwoman Helen Thomson added.
Sales tax revenues are projected at $2 million and property taxes $17.6 million for the 2005-06 budget. The County keeps only 1% of the 7-1/4 % sales tax collected in Yolo County and approximately ten cents of every dollar collected in property taxes.
The discretionary portion of the County’s budget, $34.5 million or 14% of the total budget is used for a variety of programs and services for the public. Counties rich in agricultural lands typically generate less discretionary revenue per person, Sharon Jensen, Assistant County Administrative Officer, stated.
“No county with more than 70% farm land is above the statewide, per person, revenue average. Without an infusion of new ongoing revenues,” said Jensen, “the County faces this level of shortfall, or greater, for years to come.” Discretionary funds are not completely at the Board’s discretion, Jensen noted. State law places many demands on these discretionary funds for mandated programs.
The County not only generates less property tax and sales tax revenues per capita than other counties in the region, it also spends less per capita than the statewide average, according to the budget staff report.
“Stewardship of lands in Yolo County has been our fundamental policy,” stated Supervisor Mike McGowan, District 1. “But that has a high price tag. It is imperative as we go forward with our General Plan update that we consider the economic consequences of this policy.
“Sooner or later,” he said, “there needs to be a reckoning with the folks who live in our cities. The cities will have to engage in a new form of revenue-sharing with the County if they want continued agricultural preservation in Yolo County,” McGowan said.
——–
Rich, I see no reason to believe that Yolo county employees are overpaid or that the increases they received were out of proportion or inappropriate. I wouldn’t use terms like “skyrocketing” and I would be curious where you would cut a budget that is only 14% discretionary.
This is from 2005:
Critical Crossroads for Yolo County, Singh says
County generates the lowest amount of property and sales taxes in the region
(Woodland, CA) – The Board of Supervisors considered the significant economic consequences of its traditional land stewardship policies in a 2005-06 budget workshop held Tuesday in the Board of Supervisors Chambers. The County is facing a projected net budget deficit of at least $1.6 million for the 2005-06 budget year.
The total County budget is $251.9 million, with $150.1 million coming from state and federal sources. Once local funds (required to support these state and federal programs) are added, expenditures for these services increase to approximately 80% of the total budget.
“Yolo County is at a critical crossroads,” County Administrative Officer Vic Singh told the Board. “We’ve directed growth to the cities to preserve agriculture,” Singh stated. “This has limited economic development in the unincorporated areas and has kept sales tax dollars going into the cities,” he said.
“At the same time,” Singh noted, “a growing population, whether the growth is in the cities or in the county, will mean increased demands on public services. We are having to provide services to a growing Yolo County population with a County workforce that has been steadily decreasing over the last few years.
“This will be the third consecutive year the County must rely on its general reserves to balance the budget,” Singh said. “We either have to lower service expectations and make service cuts or increase revenues. Currently, we generate less in sales and property taxes than Sutter or Yuba County,” Singh said.
“And they were the most poverty-stricken of all the northern counties,” Chairwoman Helen Thomson added.
Sales tax revenues are projected at $2 million and property taxes $17.6 million for the 2005-06 budget. The County keeps only 1% of the 7-1/4 % sales tax collected in Yolo County and approximately ten cents of every dollar collected in property taxes.
The discretionary portion of the County’s budget, $34.5 million or 14% of the total budget is used for a variety of programs and services for the public. Counties rich in agricultural lands typically generate less discretionary revenue per person, Sharon Jensen, Assistant County Administrative Officer, stated.
“No county with more than 70% farm land is above the statewide, per person, revenue average. Without an infusion of new ongoing revenues,” said Jensen, “the County faces this level of shortfall, or greater, for years to come.” Discretionary funds are not completely at the Board’s discretion, Jensen noted. State law places many demands on these discretionary funds for mandated programs.
The County not only generates less property tax and sales tax revenues per capita than other counties in the region, it also spends less per capita than the statewide average, according to the budget staff report.
“Stewardship of lands in Yolo County has been our fundamental policy,” stated Supervisor Mike McGowan, District 1. “But that has a high price tag. It is imperative as we go forward with our General Plan update that we consider the economic consequences of this policy.
“Sooner or later,” he said, “there needs to be a reckoning with the folks who live in our cities. The cities will have to engage in a new form of revenue-sharing with the County if they want continued agricultural preservation in Yolo County,” McGowan said.
——–
Rich, I see no reason to believe that Yolo county employees are overpaid or that the increases they received were out of proportion or inappropriate. I wouldn’t use terms like “skyrocketing” and I would be curious where you would cut a budget that is only 14% discretionary.
This is from 2005:
Critical Crossroads for Yolo County, Singh says
County generates the lowest amount of property and sales taxes in the region
(Woodland, CA) – The Board of Supervisors considered the significant economic consequences of its traditional land stewardship policies in a 2005-06 budget workshop held Tuesday in the Board of Supervisors Chambers. The County is facing a projected net budget deficit of at least $1.6 million for the 2005-06 budget year.
The total County budget is $251.9 million, with $150.1 million coming from state and federal sources. Once local funds (required to support these state and federal programs) are added, expenditures for these services increase to approximately 80% of the total budget.
“Yolo County is at a critical crossroads,” County Administrative Officer Vic Singh told the Board. “We’ve directed growth to the cities to preserve agriculture,” Singh stated. “This has limited economic development in the unincorporated areas and has kept sales tax dollars going into the cities,” he said.
“At the same time,” Singh noted, “a growing population, whether the growth is in the cities or in the county, will mean increased demands on public services. We are having to provide services to a growing Yolo County population with a County workforce that has been steadily decreasing over the last few years.
“This will be the third consecutive year the County must rely on its general reserves to balance the budget,” Singh said. “We either have to lower service expectations and make service cuts or increase revenues. Currently, we generate less in sales and property taxes than Sutter or Yuba County,” Singh said.
“And they were the most poverty-stricken of all the northern counties,” Chairwoman Helen Thomson added.
Sales tax revenues are projected at $2 million and property taxes $17.6 million for the 2005-06 budget. The County keeps only 1% of the 7-1/4 % sales tax collected in Yolo County and approximately ten cents of every dollar collected in property taxes.
The discretionary portion of the County’s budget, $34.5 million or 14% of the total budget is used for a variety of programs and services for the public. Counties rich in agricultural lands typically generate less discretionary revenue per person, Sharon Jensen, Assistant County Administrative Officer, stated.
“No county with more than 70% farm land is above the statewide, per person, revenue average. Without an infusion of new ongoing revenues,” said Jensen, “the County faces this level of shortfall, or greater, for years to come.” Discretionary funds are not completely at the Board’s discretion, Jensen noted. State law places many demands on these discretionary funds for mandated programs.
The County not only generates less property tax and sales tax revenues per capita than other counties in the region, it also spends less per capita than the statewide average, according to the budget staff report.
“Stewardship of lands in Yolo County has been our fundamental policy,” stated Supervisor Mike McGowan, District 1. “But that has a high price tag. It is imperative as we go forward with our General Plan update that we consider the economic consequences of this policy.
“Sooner or later,” he said, “there needs to be a reckoning with the folks who live in our cities. The cities will have to engage in a new form of revenue-sharing with the County if they want continued agricultural preservation in Yolo County,” McGowan said.
——–
Rich, I see no reason to believe that Yolo county employees are overpaid or that the increases they received were out of proportion or inappropriate. I wouldn’t use terms like “skyrocketing” and I would be curious where you would cut a budget that is only 14% discretionary.
This is from 2005:
Critical Crossroads for Yolo County, Singh says
County generates the lowest amount of property and sales taxes in the region
(Woodland, CA) – The Board of Supervisors considered the significant economic consequences of its traditional land stewardship policies in a 2005-06 budget workshop held Tuesday in the Board of Supervisors Chambers. The County is facing a projected net budget deficit of at least $1.6 million for the 2005-06 budget year.
The total County budget is $251.9 million, with $150.1 million coming from state and federal sources. Once local funds (required to support these state and federal programs) are added, expenditures for these services increase to approximately 80% of the total budget.
“Yolo County is at a critical crossroads,” County Administrative Officer Vic Singh told the Board. “We’ve directed growth to the cities to preserve agriculture,” Singh stated. “This has limited economic development in the unincorporated areas and has kept sales tax dollars going into the cities,” he said.
“At the same time,” Singh noted, “a growing population, whether the growth is in the cities or in the county, will mean increased demands on public services. We are having to provide services to a growing Yolo County population with a County workforce that has been steadily decreasing over the last few years.
“This will be the third consecutive year the County must rely on its general reserves to balance the budget,” Singh said. “We either have to lower service expectations and make service cuts or increase revenues. Currently, we generate less in sales and property taxes than Sutter or Yuba County,” Singh said.
“And they were the most poverty-stricken of all the northern counties,” Chairwoman Helen Thomson added.
Sales tax revenues are projected at $2 million and property taxes $17.6 million for the 2005-06 budget. The County keeps only 1% of the 7-1/4 % sales tax collected in Yolo County and approximately ten cents of every dollar collected in property taxes.
The discretionary portion of the County’s budget, $34.5 million or 14% of the total budget is used for a variety of programs and services for the public. Counties rich in agricultural lands typically generate less discretionary revenue per person, Sharon Jensen, Assistant County Administrative Officer, stated.
“No county with more than 70% farm land is above the statewide, per person, revenue average. Without an infusion of new ongoing revenues,” said Jensen, “the County faces this level of shortfall, or greater, for years to come.” Discretionary funds are not completely at the Board’s discretion, Jensen noted. State law places many demands on these discretionary funds for mandated programs.
The County not only generates less property tax and sales tax revenues per capita than other counties in the region, it also spends less per capita than the statewide average, according to the budget staff report.
“Stewardship of lands in Yolo County has been our fundamental policy,” stated Supervisor Mike McGowan, District 1. “But that has a high price tag. It is imperative as we go forward with our General Plan update that we consider the economic consequences of this policy.
“Sooner or later,” he said, “there needs to be a reckoning with the folks who live in our cities. The cities will have to engage in a new form of revenue-sharing with the County if they want continued agricultural preservation in Yolo County,” McGowan said.
——–
2007:
WOODLAND — The Yolo County Board of Supervisors adopted a budget for the 2007-08 fiscal year that is 9.3 percent larger than last year’s budget.
The action Tuesday provides a budget of $326,794,405, according to a news release.
———
There has been an increase in property tax revenues, as you note. But the underlying finances of the county have been unstable since Prop. 13. It isn’t surprising that supervisors look to broaden the income sources.
2007:
WOODLAND — The Yolo County Board of Supervisors adopted a budget for the 2007-08 fiscal year that is 9.3 percent larger than last year’s budget.
The action Tuesday provides a budget of $326,794,405, according to a news release.
———
There has been an increase in property tax revenues, as you note. But the underlying finances of the county have been unstable since Prop. 13. It isn’t surprising that supervisors look to broaden the income sources.
2007:
WOODLAND — The Yolo County Board of Supervisors adopted a budget for the 2007-08 fiscal year that is 9.3 percent larger than last year’s budget.
The action Tuesday provides a budget of $326,794,405, according to a news release.
———
There has been an increase in property tax revenues, as you note. But the underlying finances of the county have been unstable since Prop. 13. It isn’t surprising that supervisors look to broaden the income sources.
2007:
WOODLAND — The Yolo County Board of Supervisors adopted a budget for the 2007-08 fiscal year that is 9.3 percent larger than last year’s budget.
The action Tuesday provides a budget of $326,794,405, according to a news release.
———
There has been an increase in property tax revenues, as you note. But the underlying finances of the county have been unstable since Prop. 13. It isn’t surprising that supervisors look to broaden the income sources.
“When Davis does this massive peripheral annexation, doesn’t it immediately drive the value of the land (and the cost of future housing on it) through the roof.. only to the benefit of the developer/land speculators?”
I’m not an expert on this kind of thing, but it seems to me that the increase in value occurs regardless of whether the prospective development land is in the city or the county. If it is perceived that there will be housing allowed on it, the value goes up.
If the land is annexed, and then the Davis General Plan identifies it as, say, wildlife habitat, flood management, ag preserve, or greenbelt, then the value doesn’t go up. Maybe someone with experience in appraisal or development could answer this.
“When Davis does this massive peripheral annexation, doesn’t it immediately drive the value of the land (and the cost of future housing on it) through the roof.. only to the benefit of the developer/land speculators?”
I’m not an expert on this kind of thing, but it seems to me that the increase in value occurs regardless of whether the prospective development land is in the city or the county. If it is perceived that there will be housing allowed on it, the value goes up.
If the land is annexed, and then the Davis General Plan identifies it as, say, wildlife habitat, flood management, ag preserve, or greenbelt, then the value doesn’t go up. Maybe someone with experience in appraisal or development could answer this.
“When Davis does this massive peripheral annexation, doesn’t it immediately drive the value of the land (and the cost of future housing on it) through the roof.. only to the benefit of the developer/land speculators?”
I’m not an expert on this kind of thing, but it seems to me that the increase in value occurs regardless of whether the prospective development land is in the city or the county. If it is perceived that there will be housing allowed on it, the value goes up.
If the land is annexed, and then the Davis General Plan identifies it as, say, wildlife habitat, flood management, ag preserve, or greenbelt, then the value doesn’t go up. Maybe someone with experience in appraisal or development could answer this.
“When Davis does this massive peripheral annexation, doesn’t it immediately drive the value of the land (and the cost of future housing on it) through the roof.. only to the benefit of the developer/land speculators?”
I’m not an expert on this kind of thing, but it seems to me that the increase in value occurs regardless of whether the prospective development land is in the city or the county. If it is perceived that there will be housing allowed on it, the value goes up.
If the land is annexed, and then the Davis General Plan identifies it as, say, wildlife habitat, flood management, ag preserve, or greenbelt, then the value doesn’t go up. Maybe someone with experience in appraisal or development could answer this.
“Sooner or later,” he said, “there needs to be a reckoning with the folks who live in our cities. The cities will have to engage in a new form of revenue-sharing with the County if they want continued agricultural preservation in Yolo County,” McGowan said.
How about starting with some form of Pass-Through agreement for Winters, Woodland and West Sacramento?
“Sooner or later,” he said, “there needs to be a reckoning with the folks who live in our cities. The cities will have to engage in a new form of revenue-sharing with the County if they want continued agricultural preservation in Yolo County,” McGowan said.
How about starting with some form of Pass-Through agreement for Winters, Woodland and West Sacramento?
“Sooner or later,” he said, “there needs to be a reckoning with the folks who live in our cities. The cities will have to engage in a new form of revenue-sharing with the County if they want continued agricultural preservation in Yolo County,” McGowan said.
How about starting with some form of Pass-Through agreement for Winters, Woodland and West Sacramento?
“Sooner or later,” he said, “there needs to be a reckoning with the folks who live in our cities. The cities will have to engage in a new form of revenue-sharing with the County if they want continued agricultural preservation in Yolo County,” McGowan said.
How about starting with some form of Pass-Through agreement for Winters, Woodland and West Sacramento?
When the Council returned its designation of the County CV property from urban reserve back to agriculture, Sue Greenwald postulated that this would reduce its speculative land value. There was no challenge to this concept. Annexing County land would seem to operate in the same manner..perhaps in spades. Wouldn’t Davis also have responsibilities(to be budgeted) for this annexed land?
When the Council returned its designation of the County CV property from urban reserve back to agriculture, Sue Greenwald postulated that this would reduce its speculative land value. There was no challenge to this concept. Annexing County land would seem to operate in the same manner..perhaps in spades. Wouldn’t Davis also have responsibilities(to be budgeted) for this annexed land?
When the Council returned its designation of the County CV property from urban reserve back to agriculture, Sue Greenwald postulated that this would reduce its speculative land value. There was no challenge to this concept. Annexing County land would seem to operate in the same manner..perhaps in spades. Wouldn’t Davis also have responsibilities(to be budgeted) for this annexed land?
When the Council returned its designation of the County CV property from urban reserve back to agriculture, Sue Greenwald postulated that this would reduce its speculative land value. There was no challenge to this concept. Annexing County land would seem to operate in the same manner..perhaps in spades. Wouldn’t Davis also have responsibilities(to be budgeted) for this annexed land?
Davisite and others with similar concerns:
Why in the world would you be concerned with whether or not a landowner experienced an increase in land value. Those that invest take risks, some make money some lose. I just don’t understand why anyone in this blog would care about someone making money on his or her investment. I thought the concerns here were preserving a low growth environment for Davis residents?
Davisite and others with similar concerns:
Why in the world would you be concerned with whether or not a landowner experienced an increase in land value. Those that invest take risks, some make money some lose. I just don’t understand why anyone in this blog would care about someone making money on his or her investment. I thought the concerns here were preserving a low growth environment for Davis residents?
Davisite and others with similar concerns:
Why in the world would you be concerned with whether or not a landowner experienced an increase in land value. Those that invest take risks, some make money some lose. I just don’t understand why anyone in this blog would care about someone making money on his or her investment. I thought the concerns here were preserving a low growth environment for Davis residents?
Davisite and others with similar concerns:
Why in the world would you be concerned with whether or not a landowner experienced an increase in land value. Those that invest take risks, some make money some lose. I just don’t understand why anyone in this blog would care about someone making money on his or her investment. I thought the concerns here were preserving a low growth environment for Davis residents?
“Why in the world would you be concerned with whether or not a landowner experienced an increase in land value”
The increased value of the land translates into increased price of the homes built on it, increased price of open space and easment purchases.
“Why in the world would you be concerned with whether or not a landowner experienced an increase in land value”
The increased value of the land translates into increased price of the homes built on it, increased price of open space and easment purchases.
“Why in the world would you be concerned with whether or not a landowner experienced an increase in land value”
The increased value of the land translates into increased price of the homes built on it, increased price of open space and easment purchases.
“Why in the world would you be concerned with whether or not a landowner experienced an increase in land value”
The increased value of the land translates into increased price of the homes built on it, increased price of open space and easment purchases.
The land value might go up, or it might go down, depending on how its use is designated. I don’t really see why that matters one way or another.
There might be some costs; there would also probably be some benefits (any development that does occur would pay fees to the city). But the main point is that it would all be in the city’s control, and the voters could effect change directly by referendum or indirectly through the councilmembers.
Matt has pointed out that there are ways developers can currently bypass Measure J. Anonymous 2:25 has shown how annexation would probably lead to public vote on a piecemeal basis or at the time of annexation. The present situation is far more precarious in terms of peripheral growth.
The land value might go up, or it might go down, depending on how its use is designated. I don’t really see why that matters one way or another.
There might be some costs; there would also probably be some benefits (any development that does occur would pay fees to the city). But the main point is that it would all be in the city’s control, and the voters could effect change directly by referendum or indirectly through the councilmembers.
Matt has pointed out that there are ways developers can currently bypass Measure J. Anonymous 2:25 has shown how annexation would probably lead to public vote on a piecemeal basis or at the time of annexation. The present situation is far more precarious in terms of peripheral growth.
The land value might go up, or it might go down, depending on how its use is designated. I don’t really see why that matters one way or another.
There might be some costs; there would also probably be some benefits (any development that does occur would pay fees to the city). But the main point is that it would all be in the city’s control, and the voters could effect change directly by referendum or indirectly through the councilmembers.
Matt has pointed out that there are ways developers can currently bypass Measure J. Anonymous 2:25 has shown how annexation would probably lead to public vote on a piecemeal basis or at the time of annexation. The present situation is far more precarious in terms of peripheral growth.
The land value might go up, or it might go down, depending on how its use is designated. I don’t really see why that matters one way or another.
There might be some costs; there would also probably be some benefits (any development that does occur would pay fees to the city). But the main point is that it would all be in the city’s control, and the voters could effect change directly by referendum or indirectly through the councilmembers.
Matt has pointed out that there are ways developers can currently bypass Measure J. Anonymous 2:25 has shown how annexation would probably lead to public vote on a piecemeal basis or at the time of annexation. The present situation is far more precarious in terms of peripheral growth.
How about starting with some form of Pass-Through agreement for Winters, Woodland and West Sacramento?
Well, the big problem with that is that their citizens don’t want to pay the county so that they can approve reasonable growth plans. In reality, Davis is paying a big annual fee so that it can try to prevent growth. The real issue for Davis residents is that if we want the county to stop studying, and subsequently developing our periphery, our city is going to pay a much bigger annual fee to the county. Ready for increased taxes?
How about starting with some form of Pass-Through agreement for Winters, Woodland and West Sacramento?
Well, the big problem with that is that their citizens don’t want to pay the county so that they can approve reasonable growth plans. In reality, Davis is paying a big annual fee so that it can try to prevent growth. The real issue for Davis residents is that if we want the county to stop studying, and subsequently developing our periphery, our city is going to pay a much bigger annual fee to the county. Ready for increased taxes?
How about starting with some form of Pass-Through agreement for Winters, Woodland and West Sacramento?
Well, the big problem with that is that their citizens don’t want to pay the county so that they can approve reasonable growth plans. In reality, Davis is paying a big annual fee so that it can try to prevent growth. The real issue for Davis residents is that if we want the county to stop studying, and subsequently developing our periphery, our city is going to pay a much bigger annual fee to the county. Ready for increased taxes?
How about starting with some form of Pass-Through agreement for Winters, Woodland and West Sacramento?
Well, the big problem with that is that their citizens don’t want to pay the county so that they can approve reasonable growth plans. In reality, Davis is paying a big annual fee so that it can try to prevent growth. The real issue for Davis residents is that if we want the county to stop studying, and subsequently developing our periphery, our city is going to pay a much bigger annual fee to the county. Ready for increased taxes?
“The increased value of the land translates into increased price of the homes built on it…”
The value has only increased because it has been taken out of agricultural uses and designated for homes, or because homes built next to it cause land buyers to speculate on it (their risk, their gain or loss).
I don’t see how it matters whether it is in the city limits or in the county.
“The increased value of the land translates into increased price of the homes built on it…”
The value has only increased because it has been taken out of agricultural uses and designated for homes, or because homes built next to it cause land buyers to speculate on it (their risk, their gain or loss).
I don’t see how it matters whether it is in the city limits or in the county.
“The increased value of the land translates into increased price of the homes built on it…”
The value has only increased because it has been taken out of agricultural uses and designated for homes, or because homes built next to it cause land buyers to speculate on it (their risk, their gain or loss).
I don’t see how it matters whether it is in the city limits or in the county.
“The increased value of the land translates into increased price of the homes built on it…”
The value has only increased because it has been taken out of agricultural uses and designated for homes, or because homes built next to it cause land buyers to speculate on it (their risk, their gain or loss).
I don’t see how it matters whether it is in the city limits or in the county.
“Well, the big problem with that is that their citizens don’t want to pay the county so that they can approve reasonable growth plans.”
My understanding is that they do have pass-through agreements AND the county gets considerably less for them.
“Well, the big problem with that is that their citizens don’t want to pay the county so that they can approve reasonable growth plans.”
My understanding is that they do have pass-through agreements AND the county gets considerably less for them.
“Well, the big problem with that is that their citizens don’t want to pay the county so that they can approve reasonable growth plans.”
My understanding is that they do have pass-through agreements AND the county gets considerably less for them.
“Well, the big problem with that is that their citizens don’t want to pay the county so that they can approve reasonable growth plans.”
My understanding is that they do have pass-through agreements AND the county gets considerably less for them.
Matt Williams…..Mariko Yamada was not a public supporter for No on X prior to the election. According to you she was a private supporter. That is my point—Yamada took no public position prior to the election, yet she now wants her constituency to know she was opposed to it and get some credit for it.
Mr. Williams, if Yamada told you privately that she was opposed to Measure X and you are now vouching for her, that is nice. But no one in the leadership of the No on X campaign, of which I was a member, remembers her telling any of us of her opposition. And certainly the public did not know. It is not “unreasonable” to request our county supervisor who represents us as well as 2/3 of Davis voters and in whose district Covell Village was being proposed to take a position for or against the issue. Even our assemblywoman Lois Wolk took a public position and it was not a state issue, but it was a local issue within her district.
Measure X, had it passed, would have had direct effects on the services and the costs of those services provided by the city of Davis, Davis schools and Yolo County as well as our quality of life. Our county supervisor Yamada’s views were important to know as you yourself acknowledge.
It is interesting to know that you an El Macero constituent of Yamada’s knew her personal private position but those of us who are also her constituents and directly effected by and involved in defeating Measure X and who live in the city of Davis as well as Yolo County did not.
Matt Williams…..Mariko Yamada was not a public supporter for No on X prior to the election. According to you she was a private supporter. That is my point—Yamada took no public position prior to the election, yet she now wants her constituency to know she was opposed to it and get some credit for it.
Mr. Williams, if Yamada told you privately that she was opposed to Measure X and you are now vouching for her, that is nice. But no one in the leadership of the No on X campaign, of which I was a member, remembers her telling any of us of her opposition. And certainly the public did not know. It is not “unreasonable” to request our county supervisor who represents us as well as 2/3 of Davis voters and in whose district Covell Village was being proposed to take a position for or against the issue. Even our assemblywoman Lois Wolk took a public position and it was not a state issue, but it was a local issue within her district.
Measure X, had it passed, would have had direct effects on the services and the costs of those services provided by the city of Davis, Davis schools and Yolo County as well as our quality of life. Our county supervisor Yamada’s views were important to know as you yourself acknowledge.
It is interesting to know that you an El Macero constituent of Yamada’s knew her personal private position but those of us who are also her constituents and directly effected by and involved in defeating Measure X and who live in the city of Davis as well as Yolo County did not.
Matt Williams…..Mariko Yamada was not a public supporter for No on X prior to the election. According to you she was a private supporter. That is my point—Yamada took no public position prior to the election, yet she now wants her constituency to know she was opposed to it and get some credit for it.
Mr. Williams, if Yamada told you privately that she was opposed to Measure X and you are now vouching for her, that is nice. But no one in the leadership of the No on X campaign, of which I was a member, remembers her telling any of us of her opposition. And certainly the public did not know. It is not “unreasonable” to request our county supervisor who represents us as well as 2/3 of Davis voters and in whose district Covell Village was being proposed to take a position for or against the issue. Even our assemblywoman Lois Wolk took a public position and it was not a state issue, but it was a local issue within her district.
Measure X, had it passed, would have had direct effects on the services and the costs of those services provided by the city of Davis, Davis schools and Yolo County as well as our quality of life. Our county supervisor Yamada’s views were important to know as you yourself acknowledge.
It is interesting to know that you an El Macero constituent of Yamada’s knew her personal private position but those of us who are also her constituents and directly effected by and involved in defeating Measure X and who live in the city of Davis as well as Yolo County did not.
Matt Williams…..Mariko Yamada was not a public supporter for No on X prior to the election. According to you she was a private supporter. That is my point—Yamada took no public position prior to the election, yet she now wants her constituency to know she was opposed to it and get some credit for it.
Mr. Williams, if Yamada told you privately that she was opposed to Measure X and you are now vouching for her, that is nice. But no one in the leadership of the No on X campaign, of which I was a member, remembers her telling any of us of her opposition. And certainly the public did not know. It is not “unreasonable” to request our county supervisor who represents us as well as 2/3 of Davis voters and in whose district Covell Village was being proposed to take a position for or against the issue. Even our assemblywoman Lois Wolk took a public position and it was not a state issue, but it was a local issue within her district.
Measure X, had it passed, would have had direct effects on the services and the costs of those services provided by the city of Davis, Davis schools and Yolo County as well as our quality of life. Our county supervisor Yamada’s views were important to know as you yourself acknowledge.
It is interesting to know that you an El Macero constituent of Yamada’s knew her personal private position but those of us who are also her constituents and directly effected by and involved in defeating Measure X and who live in the city of Davis as well as Yolo County did not.
The tone of personal animus in No on X Supporter’s posts concerning Mariko Yamada reflects a phenomenon that,for decades, has fractured the Davis progressive vote and greatly reduced its political effectiveness. Ego-fits to perceived personal slights are a mill-stone around the neck of the Davis progressive electorate.
The tone of personal animus in No on X Supporter’s posts concerning Mariko Yamada reflects a phenomenon that,for decades, has fractured the Davis progressive vote and greatly reduced its political effectiveness. Ego-fits to perceived personal slights are a mill-stone around the neck of the Davis progressive electorate.
The tone of personal animus in No on X Supporter’s posts concerning Mariko Yamada reflects a phenomenon that,for decades, has fractured the Davis progressive vote and greatly reduced its political effectiveness. Ego-fits to perceived personal slights are a mill-stone around the neck of the Davis progressive electorate.
The tone of personal animus in No on X Supporter’s posts concerning Mariko Yamada reflects a phenomenon that,for decades, has fractured the Davis progressive vote and greatly reduced its political effectiveness. Ego-fits to perceived personal slights are a mill-stone around the neck of the Davis progressive electorate.
I don’t think Yamada will support the Tsakopolous project. I think she’s playing her cards close to her chest.
First, so as not to close a potential revenue stream and also to divert revenue from going to other candidates.
Second, if you notice in her commentary, she made no attempt to defend the Tsakopolous project idea, which she easily could have done and tried to explain its potential benefits. Instead, she cited her record on similar issues. Thus she’s subliminally asking her constituents to trust her on this.
Third, I think she was hoping the issue would sneak under the radar screen. But when DPD picked up her quote from the Bee story, it blew up. However, she certainly could have chosen a better quote.
While I don’t know Yamada’s record or positions on issues well enough to have a strong opinion about her, my instinct is that the more DPD covers this, the worse Yamada’s chances are for the Assembly district.
My theory anyway. Could be completely wrong.
I don’t think Yamada will support the Tsakopolous project. I think she’s playing her cards close to her chest.
First, so as not to close a potential revenue stream and also to divert revenue from going to other candidates.
Second, if you notice in her commentary, she made no attempt to defend the Tsakopolous project idea, which she easily could have done and tried to explain its potential benefits. Instead, she cited her record on similar issues. Thus she’s subliminally asking her constituents to trust her on this.
Third, I think she was hoping the issue would sneak under the radar screen. But when DPD picked up her quote from the Bee story, it blew up. However, she certainly could have chosen a better quote.
While I don’t know Yamada’s record or positions on issues well enough to have a strong opinion about her, my instinct is that the more DPD covers this, the worse Yamada’s chances are for the Assembly district.
My theory anyway. Could be completely wrong.
I don’t think Yamada will support the Tsakopolous project. I think she’s playing her cards close to her chest.
First, so as not to close a potential revenue stream and also to divert revenue from going to other candidates.
Second, if you notice in her commentary, she made no attempt to defend the Tsakopolous project idea, which she easily could have done and tried to explain its potential benefits. Instead, she cited her record on similar issues. Thus she’s subliminally asking her constituents to trust her on this.
Third, I think she was hoping the issue would sneak under the radar screen. But when DPD picked up her quote from the Bee story, it blew up. However, she certainly could have chosen a better quote.
While I don’t know Yamada’s record or positions on issues well enough to have a strong opinion about her, my instinct is that the more DPD covers this, the worse Yamada’s chances are for the Assembly district.
My theory anyway. Could be completely wrong.
I don’t think Yamada will support the Tsakopolous project. I think she’s playing her cards close to her chest.
First, so as not to close a potential revenue stream and also to divert revenue from going to other candidates.
Second, if you notice in her commentary, she made no attempt to defend the Tsakopolous project idea, which she easily could have done and tried to explain its potential benefits. Instead, she cited her record on similar issues. Thus she’s subliminally asking her constituents to trust her on this.
Third, I think she was hoping the issue would sneak under the radar screen. But when DPD picked up her quote from the Bee story, it blew up. However, she certainly could have chosen a better quote.
While I don’t know Yamada’s record or positions on issues well enough to have a strong opinion about her, my instinct is that the more DPD covers this, the worse Yamada’s chances are for the Assembly district.
My theory anyway. Could be completely wrong.
Anon 8:14: Mariko is not a progressive. She personally askews the term. In fact, she thumbs her nose at the group. Remember she is a Rosenberg person originally, that’s how she got the Supervisor position when he was elevated to Judge. Remember also she was Ted Puntillo’s campaign manager supported by none other than Souza, Saylor, Asmundson and guess what she endorsed none other than Souza, Saylor, Asmundson. It was only in 2006 that she endorsed Heystek, late and reluctantly.
Anon 8:14: Mariko is not a progressive. She personally askews the term. In fact, she thumbs her nose at the group. Remember she is a Rosenberg person originally, that’s how she got the Supervisor position when he was elevated to Judge. Remember also she was Ted Puntillo’s campaign manager supported by none other than Souza, Saylor, Asmundson and guess what she endorsed none other than Souza, Saylor, Asmundson. It was only in 2006 that she endorsed Heystek, late and reluctantly.
Anon 8:14: Mariko is not a progressive. She personally askews the term. In fact, she thumbs her nose at the group. Remember she is a Rosenberg person originally, that’s how she got the Supervisor position when he was elevated to Judge. Remember also she was Ted Puntillo’s campaign manager supported by none other than Souza, Saylor, Asmundson and guess what she endorsed none other than Souza, Saylor, Asmundson. It was only in 2006 that she endorsed Heystek, late and reluctantly.
Anon 8:14: Mariko is not a progressive. She personally askews the term. In fact, she thumbs her nose at the group. Remember she is a Rosenberg person originally, that’s how she got the Supervisor position when he was elevated to Judge. Remember also she was Ted Puntillo’s campaign manager supported by none other than Souza, Saylor, Asmundson and guess what she endorsed none other than Souza, Saylor, Asmundson. It was only in 2006 that she endorsed Heystek, late and reluctantly.
Do we currently have a County sales tax? If all the Yolo cities have pass-through agreements, a small increase spread all around might be more desirable than the County abrogating all of these agreements in search of more revenue.
Do we currently have a County sales tax? If all the Yolo cities have pass-through agreements, a small increase spread all around might be more desirable than the County abrogating all of these agreements in search of more revenue.
Do we currently have a County sales tax? If all the Yolo cities have pass-through agreements, a small increase spread all around might be more desirable than the County abrogating all of these agreements in search of more revenue.
Do we currently have a County sales tax? If all the Yolo cities have pass-through agreements, a small increase spread all around might be more desirable than the County abrogating all of these agreements in search of more revenue.
” brian in davis said…
I don’t think Yamada will support the Tsakopolous project. I think she’s playing her cards close to her chest.”
I agree. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and see how she plays this out during the County Plan Update. Mariko, as Assemblyperson, will have little of no influence on future Yolo land use policies. While not an avowed Davis progressive, her unwavering stance on social issues makes her a potentially important player in the progressive bloc of the Assembly.Finally, the Cabaldon/Yamada contest is an opportunity to demonstrate that the Yolo political machine,in the pockets of Yolo developer interests, CAN be defeated by a grassroots popular campaign. This may give our local politicians second thoughts when they so willingly throw in their lot with these interests.
” brian in davis said…
I don’t think Yamada will support the Tsakopolous project. I think she’s playing her cards close to her chest.”
I agree. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and see how she plays this out during the County Plan Update. Mariko, as Assemblyperson, will have little of no influence on future Yolo land use policies. While not an avowed Davis progressive, her unwavering stance on social issues makes her a potentially important player in the progressive bloc of the Assembly.Finally, the Cabaldon/Yamada contest is an opportunity to demonstrate that the Yolo political machine,in the pockets of Yolo developer interests, CAN be defeated by a grassroots popular campaign. This may give our local politicians second thoughts when they so willingly throw in their lot with these interests.
” brian in davis said…
I don’t think Yamada will support the Tsakopolous project. I think she’s playing her cards close to her chest.”
I agree. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and see how she plays this out during the County Plan Update. Mariko, as Assemblyperson, will have little of no influence on future Yolo land use policies. While not an avowed Davis progressive, her unwavering stance on social issues makes her a potentially important player in the progressive bloc of the Assembly.Finally, the Cabaldon/Yamada contest is an opportunity to demonstrate that the Yolo political machine,in the pockets of Yolo developer interests, CAN be defeated by a grassroots popular campaign. This may give our local politicians second thoughts when they so willingly throw in their lot with these interests.
” brian in davis said…
I don’t think Yamada will support the Tsakopolous project. I think she’s playing her cards close to her chest.”
I agree. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and see how she plays this out during the County Plan Update. Mariko, as Assemblyperson, will have little of no influence on future Yolo land use policies. While not an avowed Davis progressive, her unwavering stance on social issues makes her a potentially important player in the progressive bloc of the Assembly.Finally, the Cabaldon/Yamada contest is an opportunity to demonstrate that the Yolo political machine,in the pockets of Yolo developer interests, CAN be defeated by a grassroots popular campaign. This may give our local politicians second thoughts when they so willingly throw in their lot with these interests.
I’m not looking at this from an Assembly race perspective, I’m looking at this from the perspective of the Yolo County General Plan. So what she does or does not do on the Assembly is irrelevant to me.
I’m not looking at this from an Assembly race perspective, I’m looking at this from the perspective of the Yolo County General Plan. So what she does or does not do on the Assembly is irrelevant to me.
I’m not looking at this from an Assembly race perspective, I’m looking at this from the perspective of the Yolo County General Plan. So what she does or does not do on the Assembly is irrelevant to me.
I’m not looking at this from an Assembly race perspective, I’m looking at this from the perspective of the Yolo County General Plan. So what she does or does not do on the Assembly is irrelevant to me.
Vincente.. What I am saying is give her some space and see how she plays it…Calling the Assembly primary race irrelevant is, in my view, political “tunnel vision” that plays right into the hands of the Cabaldon campaign.
Vincente.. What I am saying is give her some space and see how she plays it…Calling the Assembly primary race irrelevant is, in my view, political “tunnel vision” that plays right into the hands of the Cabaldon campaign.
Vincente.. What I am saying is give her some space and see how she plays it…Calling the Assembly primary race irrelevant is, in my view, political “tunnel vision” that plays right into the hands of the Cabaldon campaign.
Vincente.. What I am saying is give her some space and see how she plays it…Calling the Assembly primary race irrelevant is, in my view, political “tunnel vision” that plays right into the hands of the Cabaldon campaign.
Mariko’s failure to strongly oppose development on the edge of Davis has already played right into the hands of Cabaldon, who has picked up out right endorsements from many of Davis’ progressives. Nevertheless, this fight is primarily about the 20 year Yolo General Plan, which in my opinion is FAR more important for Davis than who wins the Assembly Race.
Mariko’s failure to strongly oppose development on the edge of Davis has already played right into the hands of Cabaldon, who has picked up out right endorsements from many of Davis’ progressives. Nevertheless, this fight is primarily about the 20 year Yolo General Plan, which in my opinion is FAR more important for Davis than who wins the Assembly Race.
Mariko’s failure to strongly oppose development on the edge of Davis has already played right into the hands of Cabaldon, who has picked up out right endorsements from many of Davis’ progressives. Nevertheless, this fight is primarily about the 20 year Yolo General Plan, which in my opinion is FAR more important for Davis than who wins the Assembly Race.
Mariko’s failure to strongly oppose development on the edge of Davis has already played right into the hands of Cabaldon, who has picked up out right endorsements from many of Davis’ progressives. Nevertheless, this fight is primarily about the 20 year Yolo General Plan, which in my opinion is FAR more important for Davis than who wins the Assembly Race.
Prediction: Those Davis progressives for whom critical thinking takes precedence over their egos, will be back in the Yamada camp well before the Cabaldon/Yamada primary campaign takes off in earnest.
Prediction: Those Davis progressives for whom critical thinking takes precedence over their egos, will be back in the Yamada camp well before the Cabaldon/Yamada primary campaign takes off in earnest.
Prediction: Those Davis progressives for whom critical thinking takes precedence over their egos, will be back in the Yamada camp well before the Cabaldon/Yamada primary campaign takes off in earnest.
Prediction: Those Davis progressives for whom critical thinking takes precedence over their egos, will be back in the Yamada camp well before the Cabaldon/Yamada primary campaign takes off in earnest.
Are you kidding me anonymous, are you even aware of what is going on right now with Yamada? The Progressives are about to run her out of town on a rail.
Are you kidding me anonymous, are you even aware of what is going on right now with Yamada? The Progressives are about to run her out of town on a rail.
Are you kidding me anonymous, are you even aware of what is going on right now with Yamada? The Progressives are about to run her out of town on a rail.
Are you kidding me anonymous, are you even aware of what is going on right now with Yamada? The Progressives are about to run her out of town on a rail.
“this fight is primarily about the 20 year Yolo General Plan….”
Look at the 1987 Davis General Plan and all the “amendments” and new
“interpretations” that following Councils implemented. Don’t future BOS majorities have the same perogatives? Let’s not go ape…. over how the next 20 yr. County General Plan Update is set in stone.
“this fight is primarily about the 20 year Yolo General Plan….”
Look at the 1987 Davis General Plan and all the “amendments” and new
“interpretations” that following Councils implemented. Don’t future BOS majorities have the same perogatives? Let’s not go ape…. over how the next 20 yr. County General Plan Update is set in stone.
“this fight is primarily about the 20 year Yolo General Plan….”
Look at the 1987 Davis General Plan and all the “amendments” and new
“interpretations” that following Councils implemented. Don’t future BOS majorities have the same perogatives? Let’s not go ape…. over how the next 20 yr. County General Plan Update is set in stone.
“this fight is primarily about the 20 year Yolo General Plan….”
Look at the 1987 Davis General Plan and all the “amendments” and new
“interpretations” that following Councils implemented. Don’t future BOS majorities have the same perogatives? Let’s not go ape…. over how the next 20 yr. County General Plan Update is set in stone.
uh…a late word (or two hundred)to add here. Reading the exchange of Mr Shor with others I stumbled over the part that asserts that we need no J vote because…the Council reps the ‘will of the people’. (Without J, that will would have been in line with the VILLAGE PEOPLE’s, as in CVP already seeing the first house frames raised.)
There’s the real rub on Mr. T’s wonderous vision. County soups vote 3-2, 4-1 (5-0, why not) for the project. City Council approves agreement with the county 3-2 in its next meeting thereafter. Being a county project…no J vote.
There is always a way around the ‘will of the people’. Look at the whole Mace Ranch history and see…
Now, one could argue we need to get better people elected… but that is long time and large money away from today.
& we might be better served to ask who we should UN-elect (recall) from the Soups first (and I do NOT mean Ms Y with this).
Of course, maybe we SHOULD annex all that land, then secede from Yolo (as W. Sac threatened many years ago) and join Solano.
(last meandering thought: if we are talking annexation, why not gobble up El Macero and The Montgomery enclaves now. Good prop tax $$$ there already…)
uh…a late word (or two hundred)to add here. Reading the exchange of Mr Shor with others I stumbled over the part that asserts that we need no J vote because…the Council reps the ‘will of the people’. (Without J, that will would have been in line with the VILLAGE PEOPLE’s, as in CVP already seeing the first house frames raised.)
There’s the real rub on Mr. T’s wonderous vision. County soups vote 3-2, 4-1 (5-0, why not) for the project. City Council approves agreement with the county 3-2 in its next meeting thereafter. Being a county project…no J vote.
There is always a way around the ‘will of the people’. Look at the whole Mace Ranch history and see…
Now, one could argue we need to get better people elected… but that is long time and large money away from today.
& we might be better served to ask who we should UN-elect (recall) from the Soups first (and I do NOT mean Ms Y with this).
Of course, maybe we SHOULD annex all that land, then secede from Yolo (as W. Sac threatened many years ago) and join Solano.
(last meandering thought: if we are talking annexation, why not gobble up El Macero and The Montgomery enclaves now. Good prop tax $$$ there already…)
uh…a late word (or two hundred)to add here. Reading the exchange of Mr Shor with others I stumbled over the part that asserts that we need no J vote because…the Council reps the ‘will of the people’. (Without J, that will would have been in line with the VILLAGE PEOPLE’s, as in CVP already seeing the first house frames raised.)
There’s the real rub on Mr. T’s wonderous vision. County soups vote 3-2, 4-1 (5-0, why not) for the project. City Council approves agreement with the county 3-2 in its next meeting thereafter. Being a county project…no J vote.
There is always a way around the ‘will of the people’. Look at the whole Mace Ranch history and see…
Now, one could argue we need to get better people elected… but that is long time and large money away from today.
& we might be better served to ask who we should UN-elect (recall) from the Soups first (and I do NOT mean Ms Y with this).
Of course, maybe we SHOULD annex all that land, then secede from Yolo (as W. Sac threatened many years ago) and join Solano.
(last meandering thought: if we are talking annexation, why not gobble up El Macero and The Montgomery enclaves now. Good prop tax $$$ there already…)
uh…a late word (or two hundred)to add here. Reading the exchange of Mr Shor with others I stumbled over the part that asserts that we need no J vote because…the Council reps the ‘will of the people’. (Without J, that will would have been in line with the VILLAGE PEOPLE’s, as in CVP already seeing the first house frames raised.)
There’s the real rub on Mr. T’s wonderous vision. County soups vote 3-2, 4-1 (5-0, why not) for the project. City Council approves agreement with the county 3-2 in its next meeting thereafter. Being a county project…no J vote.
There is always a way around the ‘will of the people’. Look at the whole Mace Ranch history and see…
Now, one could argue we need to get better people elected… but that is long time and large money away from today.
& we might be better served to ask who we should UN-elect (recall) from the Soups first (and I do NOT mean Ms Y with this).
Of course, maybe we SHOULD annex all that land, then secede from Yolo (as W. Sac threatened many years ago) and join Solano.
(last meandering thought: if we are talking annexation, why not gobble up El Macero and The Montgomery enclaves now. Good prop tax $$$ there already…)
“City Council approves agreement with the county 3-2 in its next meeting thereafter. Being a county project…no J vote.”
The final play is refusal to hook up to Davis’ facilities and sue the County for impact damage to Davis’ roads and increased service the adjacent County development. Next move in this potential “who blinks first” struggle: a litmus test explicit position from our 2008 Council candidates concerning above. An addition to the Measure J renewal in 2010 to include a mandatory Council refusal to agree to infrastructure hook-up
if a Measure J vote denies annexation should also be considered.
“City Council approves agreement with the county 3-2 in its next meeting thereafter. Being a county project…no J vote.”
The final play is refusal to hook up to Davis’ facilities and sue the County for impact damage to Davis’ roads and increased service the adjacent County development. Next move in this potential “who blinks first” struggle: a litmus test explicit position from our 2008 Council candidates concerning above. An addition to the Measure J renewal in 2010 to include a mandatory Council refusal to agree to infrastructure hook-up
if a Measure J vote denies annexation should also be considered.
“City Council approves agreement with the county 3-2 in its next meeting thereafter. Being a county project…no J vote.”
The final play is refusal to hook up to Davis’ facilities and sue the County for impact damage to Davis’ roads and increased service the adjacent County development. Next move in this potential “who blinks first” struggle: a litmus test explicit position from our 2008 Council candidates concerning above. An addition to the Measure J renewal in 2010 to include a mandatory Council refusal to agree to infrastructure hook-up
if a Measure J vote denies annexation should also be considered.
“City Council approves agreement with the county 3-2 in its next meeting thereafter. Being a county project…no J vote.”
The final play is refusal to hook up to Davis’ facilities and sue the County for impact damage to Davis’ roads and increased service the adjacent County development. Next move in this potential “who blinks first” struggle: a litmus test explicit position from our 2008 Council candidates concerning above. An addition to the Measure J renewal in 2010 to include a mandatory Council refusal to agree to infrastructure hook-up
if a Measure J vote denies annexation should also be considered.
No on X supporter said…
“It is interesting to know that you an El Macero constituent of Yamada’s knew her personal private position but those of us who are also her constituents and directly effected by and involved in defeating Measure X and who live in the city of Davis as well as Yolo County did not.”
Perhaps you didn’t ask the right questions. My conversation with her was at the Farmers Market, not exactly a private venue. If I remember correctly, the conversation took place in very close physical proximity to the No on X booth.
I hear you regarding your desire to have her take a public position on the issue, but I respectfully disagree that it would have been the right thing to do. The issue was a City of Davis issue not a County issue. As an El Macero resident, I wasn’t even allowed to vote on it.
Regarding Lois Wolk’s more public position, any overlap between the perceived juristictions of the City and the Assembly is quite minimal. On the other hand the overlap between the County and the City is significant. Therefore, Mariko’s choice to be non-public about her views shows, to my way of thinking, a judicious respect for the autonomy of the City in managing and resolving the issue. I know you disagree, but that is the way I see it personally.
No on X supporter said…
“It is interesting to know that you an El Macero constituent of Yamada’s knew her personal private position but those of us who are also her constituents and directly effected by and involved in defeating Measure X and who live in the city of Davis as well as Yolo County did not.”
Perhaps you didn’t ask the right questions. My conversation with her was at the Farmers Market, not exactly a private venue. If I remember correctly, the conversation took place in very close physical proximity to the No on X booth.
I hear you regarding your desire to have her take a public position on the issue, but I respectfully disagree that it would have been the right thing to do. The issue was a City of Davis issue not a County issue. As an El Macero resident, I wasn’t even allowed to vote on it.
Regarding Lois Wolk’s more public position, any overlap between the perceived juristictions of the City and the Assembly is quite minimal. On the other hand the overlap between the County and the City is significant. Therefore, Mariko’s choice to be non-public about her views shows, to my way of thinking, a judicious respect for the autonomy of the City in managing and resolving the issue. I know you disagree, but that is the way I see it personally.
No on X supporter said…
“It is interesting to know that you an El Macero constituent of Yamada’s knew her personal private position but those of us who are also her constituents and directly effected by and involved in defeating Measure X and who live in the city of Davis as well as Yolo County did not.”
Perhaps you didn’t ask the right questions. My conversation with her was at the Farmers Market, not exactly a private venue. If I remember correctly, the conversation took place in very close physical proximity to the No on X booth.
I hear you regarding your desire to have her take a public position on the issue, but I respectfully disagree that it would have been the right thing to do. The issue was a City of Davis issue not a County issue. As an El Macero resident, I wasn’t even allowed to vote on it.
Regarding Lois Wolk’s more public position, any overlap between the perceived juristictions of the City and the Assembly is quite minimal. On the other hand the overlap between the County and the City is significant. Therefore, Mariko’s choice to be non-public about her views shows, to my way of thinking, a judicious respect for the autonomy of the City in managing and resolving the issue. I know you disagree, but that is the way I see it personally.
No on X supporter said…
“It is interesting to know that you an El Macero constituent of Yamada’s knew her personal private position but those of us who are also her constituents and directly effected by and involved in defeating Measure X and who live in the city of Davis as well as Yolo County did not.”
Perhaps you didn’t ask the right questions. My conversation with her was at the Farmers Market, not exactly a private venue. If I remember correctly, the conversation took place in very close physical proximity to the No on X booth.
I hear you regarding your desire to have her take a public position on the issue, but I respectfully disagree that it would have been the right thing to do. The issue was a City of Davis issue not a County issue. As an El Macero resident, I wasn’t even allowed to vote on it.
Regarding Lois Wolk’s more public position, any overlap between the perceived juristictions of the City and the Assembly is quite minimal. On the other hand the overlap between the County and the City is significant. Therefore, Mariko’s choice to be non-public about her views shows, to my way of thinking, a judicious respect for the autonomy of the City in managing and resolving the issue. I know you disagree, but that is the way I see it personally.
Anonymous 9:41 AM said…
“Are you kidding me anonymous, are you even aware of what is going on right now with Yamada? The Progressives are about to run her out of town on a rail.”
That does seem to be the direction things are going, but it does beg the question, “Who are the progressives who are jumping the Yamada ship going to support … and why?
Anonymous 9:41 AM said…
“Are you kidding me anonymous, are you even aware of what is going on right now with Yamada? The Progressives are about to run her out of town on a rail.”
That does seem to be the direction things are going, but it does beg the question, “Who are the progressives who are jumping the Yamada ship going to support … and why?
Anonymous 9:41 AM said…
“Are you kidding me anonymous, are you even aware of what is going on right now with Yamada? The Progressives are about to run her out of town on a rail.”
That does seem to be the direction things are going, but it does beg the question, “Who are the progressives who are jumping the Yamada ship going to support … and why?
Anonymous 9:41 AM said…
“Are you kidding me anonymous, are you even aware of what is going on right now with Yamada? The Progressives are about to run her out of town on a rail.”
That does seem to be the direction things are going, but it does beg the question, “Who are the progressives who are jumping the Yamada ship going to support … and why?
Mike Shepley said…
“uh…a late word (or two hundred)to add here. Reading the exchange of Mr Shor with others I stumbled over the part that asserts that we need no J vote because…the Council reps the ‘will of the people’. (Without J, that will would have been in line with the VILLAGE PEOPLE’s, as in CVP already seeing the first house frames raised.)
There’s the real rub on Mr. T’s wonderous vision. County soups vote 3-2, 4-1 (5-0, why not) for the project. City Council approves agreement with the county 3-2 in its next meeting thereafter. Being a county project…no J vote.
There is always a way around the ‘will of the people’. Look at the whole Mace Ranch history and see…
Now, one could argue we need to get better people elected… but that is long time and large money away from today. & we might be better served to ask who we should UN-elect (recall) from the Soups first (and I do NOT mean Ms Y with this).
Of course, maybe we SHOULD annex all that land, then secede from Yolo (as W. Sac threatened many years ago) and join Solano.
(last meandering thought: if we are talking annexation, why not gobble up El Macero and The Montgomery enclaves now. Good prop tax $$$ there already…)”
A lot to respond to Mike. Lets start with your last point. Annexation cannot proceed unilaterally. The decision on any annexation is made by the County LAFCO. Most annexations happen because both the annexer and the annexee are in agreement on the merits of the annexation. Even with such agreement, the annexer has to also come to an agree ment with the County on how taxes will be split and who will pay for services provided. Neither El Macero nor Willowbank want to be annexed by the City, and have repelled all past overtures by the City.
To apply this situation to don schor’s suggestion, the City would need to first approach each parcel owner individually and get their agreement that annexation was mutually desireable. Then the City would approach the County and hammer out a revenue/costs sharing agreement. Then an application would be sent to LAFCO and LAFCO would follow its procedures in rendering a decision on the annexation application.
Mike Shepley said…
“uh…a late word (or two hundred)to add here. Reading the exchange of Mr Shor with others I stumbled over the part that asserts that we need no J vote because…the Council reps the ‘will of the people’. (Without J, that will would have been in line with the VILLAGE PEOPLE’s, as in CVP already seeing the first house frames raised.)
There’s the real rub on Mr. T’s wonderous vision. County soups vote 3-2, 4-1 (5-0, why not) for the project. City Council approves agreement with the county 3-2 in its next meeting thereafter. Being a county project…no J vote.
There is always a way around the ‘will of the people’. Look at the whole Mace Ranch history and see…
Now, one could argue we need to get better people elected… but that is long time and large money away from today. & we might be better served to ask who we should UN-elect (recall) from the Soups first (and I do NOT mean Ms Y with this).
Of course, maybe we SHOULD annex all that land, then secede from Yolo (as W. Sac threatened many years ago) and join Solano.
(last meandering thought: if we are talking annexation, why not gobble up El Macero and The Montgomery enclaves now. Good prop tax $$$ there already…)”
A lot to respond to Mike. Lets start with your last point. Annexation cannot proceed unilaterally. The decision on any annexation is made by the County LAFCO. Most annexations happen because both the annexer and the annexee are in agreement on the merits of the annexation. Even with such agreement, the annexer has to also come to an agree ment with the County on how taxes will be split and who will pay for services provided. Neither El Macero nor Willowbank want to be annexed by the City, and have repelled all past overtures by the City.
To apply this situation to don schor’s suggestion, the City would need to first approach each parcel owner individually and get their agreement that annexation was mutually desireable. Then the City would approach the County and hammer out a revenue/costs sharing agreement. Then an application would be sent to LAFCO and LAFCO would follow its procedures in rendering a decision on the annexation application.
Mike Shepley said…
“uh…a late word (or two hundred)to add here. Reading the exchange of Mr Shor with others I stumbled over the part that asserts that we need no J vote because…the Council reps the ‘will of the people’. (Without J, that will would have been in line with the VILLAGE PEOPLE’s, as in CVP already seeing the first house frames raised.)
There’s the real rub on Mr. T’s wonderous vision. County soups vote 3-2, 4-1 (5-0, why not) for the project. City Council approves agreement with the county 3-2 in its next meeting thereafter. Being a county project…no J vote.
There is always a way around the ‘will of the people’. Look at the whole Mace Ranch history and see…
Now, one could argue we need to get better people elected… but that is long time and large money away from today. & we might be better served to ask who we should UN-elect (recall) from the Soups first (and I do NOT mean Ms Y with this).
Of course, maybe we SHOULD annex all that land, then secede from Yolo (as W. Sac threatened many years ago) and join Solano.
(last meandering thought: if we are talking annexation, why not gobble up El Macero and The Montgomery enclaves now. Good prop tax $$$ there already…)”
A lot to respond to Mike. Lets start with your last point. Annexation cannot proceed unilaterally. The decision on any annexation is made by the County LAFCO. Most annexations happen because both the annexer and the annexee are in agreement on the merits of the annexation. Even with such agreement, the annexer has to also come to an agree ment with the County on how taxes will be split and who will pay for services provided. Neither El Macero nor Willowbank want to be annexed by the City, and have repelled all past overtures by the City.
To apply this situation to don schor’s suggestion, the City would need to first approach each parcel owner individually and get their agreement that annexation was mutually desireable. Then the City would approach the County and hammer out a revenue/costs sharing agreement. Then an application would be sent to LAFCO and LAFCO would follow its procedures in rendering a decision on the annexation application.
Mike Shepley said…
“uh…a late word (or two hundred)to add here. Reading the exchange of Mr Shor with others I stumbled over the part that asserts that we need no J vote because…the Council reps the ‘will of the people’. (Without J, that will would have been in line with the VILLAGE PEOPLE’s, as in CVP already seeing the first house frames raised.)
There’s the real rub on Mr. T’s wonderous vision. County soups vote 3-2, 4-1 (5-0, why not) for the project. City Council approves agreement with the county 3-2 in its next meeting thereafter. Being a county project…no J vote.
There is always a way around the ‘will of the people’. Look at the whole Mace Ranch history and see…
Now, one could argue we need to get better people elected… but that is long time and large money away from today. & we might be better served to ask who we should UN-elect (recall) from the Soups first (and I do NOT mean Ms Y with this).
Of course, maybe we SHOULD annex all that land, then secede from Yolo (as W. Sac threatened many years ago) and join Solano.
(last meandering thought: if we are talking annexation, why not gobble up El Macero and The Montgomery enclaves now. Good prop tax $$$ there already…)”
A lot to respond to Mike. Lets start with your last point. Annexation cannot proceed unilaterally. The decision on any annexation is made by the County LAFCO. Most annexations happen because both the annexer and the annexee are in agreement on the merits of the annexation. Even with such agreement, the annexer has to also come to an agree ment with the County on how taxes will be split and who will pay for services provided. Neither El Macero nor Willowbank want to be annexed by the City, and have repelled all past overtures by the City.
To apply this situation to don schor’s suggestion, the City would need to first approach each parcel owner individually and get their agreement that annexation was mutually desireable. Then the City would approach the County and hammer out a revenue/costs sharing agreement. Then an application would be sent to LAFCO and LAFCO would follow its procedures in rendering a decision on the annexation application.
“Regarding Lois Wolk’s more public position….”
It is no coincidence that Helen Thomson and Lois Wolk (violated and pushed the envelope respectively) of political propriety as they are both products of the Yolo political machine where Yolo developers(the “Godfathers” of Yolo politics) call in their IOUs on such occasions.
“Regarding Lois Wolk’s more public position….”
It is no coincidence that Helen Thomson and Lois Wolk (violated and pushed the envelope respectively) of political propriety as they are both products of the Yolo political machine where Yolo developers(the “Godfathers” of Yolo politics) call in their IOUs on such occasions.
“Regarding Lois Wolk’s more public position….”
It is no coincidence that Helen Thomson and Lois Wolk (violated and pushed the envelope respectively) of political propriety as they are both products of the Yolo political machine where Yolo developers(the “Godfathers” of Yolo politics) call in their IOUs on such occasions.
“Regarding Lois Wolk’s more public position….”
It is no coincidence that Helen Thomson and Lois Wolk (violated and pushed the envelope respectively) of political propriety as they are both products of the Yolo political machine where Yolo developers(the “Godfathers” of Yolo politics) call in their IOUs on such occasions.
“Curious” wrote:
“Do we currently have a County sales tax? If all the Yolo cities have pass-through agreements, a small increase spread all around might be more desirable than the County abrogating all of these agreements in search of more revenue.”
Of course the elephant in the corner of the room is Proposition 13. The nuclear option as far as taking off county development pressure around the state would perhaps be to re-think, change Prop. 13?
“Curious” wrote:
“Do we currently have a County sales tax? If all the Yolo cities have pass-through agreements, a small increase spread all around might be more desirable than the County abrogating all of these agreements in search of more revenue.”
Of course the elephant in the corner of the room is Proposition 13. The nuclear option as far as taking off county development pressure around the state would perhaps be to re-think, change Prop. 13?
“Curious” wrote:
“Do we currently have a County sales tax? If all the Yolo cities have pass-through agreements, a small increase spread all around might be more desirable than the County abrogating all of these agreements in search of more revenue.”
Of course the elephant in the corner of the room is Proposition 13. The nuclear option as far as taking off county development pressure around the state would perhaps be to re-think, change Prop. 13?
“Curious” wrote:
“Do we currently have a County sales tax? If all the Yolo cities have pass-through agreements, a small increase spread all around might be more desirable than the County abrogating all of these agreements in search of more revenue.”
Of course the elephant in the corner of the room is Proposition 13. The nuclear option as far as taking off county development pressure around the state would perhaps be to re-think, change Prop. 13?
“….the City would need to first approach each parcel owner individually and get their agreement that annexation was mutually desireable. Then the City would approach the County and hammer out a revenue/costs sharing agreement. Then an application would be sent to LAFCO and LAFCO would follow its procedures in rendering a decision on the annexation application.”
Yes, I didn’t mean to imply that the city could just unilaterally annex anything it wanted to! I think the actual requirement is something like 75% of the property owners, with 75% of the actual property, must agree.
Involuntary annexations do occur, of course, but laws vary by state.
“….the City would need to first approach each parcel owner individually and get their agreement that annexation was mutually desireable. Then the City would approach the County and hammer out a revenue/costs sharing agreement. Then an application would be sent to LAFCO and LAFCO would follow its procedures in rendering a decision on the annexation application.”
Yes, I didn’t mean to imply that the city could just unilaterally annex anything it wanted to! I think the actual requirement is something like 75% of the property owners, with 75% of the actual property, must agree.
Involuntary annexations do occur, of course, but laws vary by state.
“….the City would need to first approach each parcel owner individually and get their agreement that annexation was mutually desireable. Then the City would approach the County and hammer out a revenue/costs sharing agreement. Then an application would be sent to LAFCO and LAFCO would follow its procedures in rendering a decision on the annexation application.”
Yes, I didn’t mean to imply that the city could just unilaterally annex anything it wanted to! I think the actual requirement is something like 75% of the property owners, with 75% of the actual property, must agree.
Involuntary annexations do occur, of course, but laws vary by state.
“….the City would need to first approach each parcel owner individually and get their agreement that annexation was mutually desireable. Then the City would approach the County and hammer out a revenue/costs sharing agreement. Then an application would be sent to LAFCO and LAFCO would follow its procedures in rendering a decision on the annexation application.”
Yes, I didn’t mean to imply that the city could just unilaterally annex anything it wanted to! I think the actual requirement is something like 75% of the property owners, with 75% of the actual property, must agree.
Involuntary annexations do occur, of course, but laws vary by state.
“Remember she is a Rosenberg person originally….”
I believe her support for Puntillo was in her position as Rosenberg’s chief of staff(Rosenberg was Puntillo’s mentor and puppet-master).
I don’t recall her throwing her support behind Souza, Saylor and Asmundson but if this did occur, I would guess that it was again at the direction of her boss, then Supervisor Rosenberg. Her own independent record as Supervisor more clearly reveals who future Assemblyperson Yamada is.
“Remember she is a Rosenberg person originally….”
I believe her support for Puntillo was in her position as Rosenberg’s chief of staff(Rosenberg was Puntillo’s mentor and puppet-master).
I don’t recall her throwing her support behind Souza, Saylor and Asmundson but if this did occur, I would guess that it was again at the direction of her boss, then Supervisor Rosenberg. Her own independent record as Supervisor more clearly reveals who future Assemblyperson Yamada is.
“Remember she is a Rosenberg person originally….”
I believe her support for Puntillo was in her position as Rosenberg’s chief of staff(Rosenberg was Puntillo’s mentor and puppet-master).
I don’t recall her throwing her support behind Souza, Saylor and Asmundson but if this did occur, I would guess that it was again at the direction of her boss, then Supervisor Rosenberg. Her own independent record as Supervisor more clearly reveals who future Assemblyperson Yamada is.
“Remember she is a Rosenberg person originally….”
I believe her support for Puntillo was in her position as Rosenberg’s chief of staff(Rosenberg was Puntillo’s mentor and puppet-master).
I don’t recall her throwing her support behind Souza, Saylor and Asmundson but if this did occur, I would guess that it was again at the direction of her boss, then Supervisor Rosenberg. Her own independent record as Supervisor more clearly reveals who future Assemblyperson Yamada is.
Souza’s open desire to run for Yamada’s seat in 2008 was stymied by Yamada’s support for Provenza, countering the argument that she was and is a Souza supporter in her own right.
Souza’s open desire to run for Yamada’s seat in 2008 was stymied by Yamada’s support for Provenza, countering the argument that she was and is a Souza supporter in her own right.
Souza’s open desire to run for Yamada’s seat in 2008 was stymied by Yamada’s support for Provenza, countering the argument that she was and is a Souza supporter in her own right.
Souza’s open desire to run for Yamada’s seat in 2008 was stymied by Yamada’s support for Provenza, countering the argument that she was and is a Souza supporter in her own right.
Mr. Williams…Although you and I disagree on Mariko Yamada’s participation or lack there of during the Covell Village campaign, I appreciate your thoughtful response and your point of view. Yes, you and I have different opinions of Ms. Yamada’s activities regarding Covell Village and the No on X campaign. From my vantage point it would have been helpful to have Supervisor Yamada’s constituents, both city and county residents, who make up her district know in advance of the election what her thinking was on the consequences of Measure X being approved or not. It would have been of value to know whether she felt it was a benefit or detriment to county government and our quality of life. I feel this information would have been of service to Ms. Yamada’s constituents of which the vast majority are city residents.
Mr. Williams…Although you and I disagree on Mariko Yamada’s participation or lack there of during the Covell Village campaign, I appreciate your thoughtful response and your point of view. Yes, you and I have different opinions of Ms. Yamada’s activities regarding Covell Village and the No on X campaign. From my vantage point it would have been helpful to have Supervisor Yamada’s constituents, both city and county residents, who make up her district know in advance of the election what her thinking was on the consequences of Measure X being approved or not. It would have been of value to know whether she felt it was a benefit or detriment to county government and our quality of life. I feel this information would have been of service to Ms. Yamada’s constituents of which the vast majority are city residents.
Mr. Williams…Although you and I disagree on Mariko Yamada’s participation or lack there of during the Covell Village campaign, I appreciate your thoughtful response and your point of view. Yes, you and I have different opinions of Ms. Yamada’s activities regarding Covell Village and the No on X campaign. From my vantage point it would have been helpful to have Supervisor Yamada’s constituents, both city and county residents, who make up her district know in advance of the election what her thinking was on the consequences of Measure X being approved or not. It would have been of value to know whether she felt it was a benefit or detriment to county government and our quality of life. I feel this information would have been of service to Ms. Yamada’s constituents of which the vast majority are city residents.
Mr. Williams…Although you and I disagree on Mariko Yamada’s participation or lack there of during the Covell Village campaign, I appreciate your thoughtful response and your point of view. Yes, you and I have different opinions of Ms. Yamada’s activities regarding Covell Village and the No on X campaign. From my vantage point it would have been helpful to have Supervisor Yamada’s constituents, both city and county residents, who make up her district know in advance of the election what her thinking was on the consequences of Measure X being approved or not. It would have been of value to know whether she felt it was a benefit or detriment to county government and our quality of life. I feel this information would have been of service to Ms. Yamada’s constituents of which the vast majority are city residents.
No on X supporter said…
From my vantage point it would have been helpful to have Supervisor Yamada’s constituents, both city and county residents, who make up her district know in advance of the election what her thinking was on the consequences of Measure X being approved or not. It would have been of value to know whether she felt it was a benefit or detriment to county government and our quality of life. I feel this information would have been of service to Ms. Yamada’s constituents of which the vast majority are city residents.
I appreciate your perspective, and were I on the front line, the way you seem to have been, I would no doubt agree that a public stance by Mariko would have been helpful. Heck, I can agree to that without having been there. However, my bottom-line was eloquently stated by one of your fellow No on Xers in another thread in this Blog. Specifically …
No on Xer said…
The County BOS correctly took the position that the Pass-Though agreement called for the Davis City Council, in the first place, and then citizens of Davis(through Measure J)to approve Davis peripheral development. Process dictated that the members of the BOS would not interject themselves in the Covell Village campaign. Only after Helen Thomson openly disregarded this agreement did Mariko Yamada publicly voice her concerns about the Covell Village project. The duties and responsibilites of Supervisor are not the same as those of the Davis City Council nor the State Assembly.
No on X supporter said…
From my vantage point it would have been helpful to have Supervisor Yamada’s constituents, both city and county residents, who make up her district know in advance of the election what her thinking was on the consequences of Measure X being approved or not. It would have been of value to know whether she felt it was a benefit or detriment to county government and our quality of life. I feel this information would have been of service to Ms. Yamada’s constituents of which the vast majority are city residents.
I appreciate your perspective, and were I on the front line, the way you seem to have been, I would no doubt agree that a public stance by Mariko would have been helpful. Heck, I can agree to that without having been there. However, my bottom-line was eloquently stated by one of your fellow No on Xers in another thread in this Blog. Specifically …
No on Xer said…
The County BOS correctly took the position that the Pass-Though agreement called for the Davis City Council, in the first place, and then citizens of Davis(through Measure J)to approve Davis peripheral development. Process dictated that the members of the BOS would not interject themselves in the Covell Village campaign. Only after Helen Thomson openly disregarded this agreement did Mariko Yamada publicly voice her concerns about the Covell Village project. The duties and responsibilites of Supervisor are not the same as those of the Davis City Council nor the State Assembly.
No on X supporter said…
From my vantage point it would have been helpful to have Supervisor Yamada’s constituents, both city and county residents, who make up her district know in advance of the election what her thinking was on the consequences of Measure X being approved or not. It would have been of value to know whether she felt it was a benefit or detriment to county government and our quality of life. I feel this information would have been of service to Ms. Yamada’s constituents of which the vast majority are city residents.
I appreciate your perspective, and were I on the front line, the way you seem to have been, I would no doubt agree that a public stance by Mariko would have been helpful. Heck, I can agree to that without having been there. However, my bottom-line was eloquently stated by one of your fellow No on Xers in another thread in this Blog. Specifically …
No on Xer said…
The County BOS correctly took the position that the Pass-Though agreement called for the Davis City Council, in the first place, and then citizens of Davis(through Measure J)to approve Davis peripheral development. Process dictated that the members of the BOS would not interject themselves in the Covell Village campaign. Only after Helen Thomson openly disregarded this agreement did Mariko Yamada publicly voice her concerns about the Covell Village project. The duties and responsibilites of Supervisor are not the same as those of the Davis City Council nor the State Assembly.
No on X supporter said…
From my vantage point it would have been helpful to have Supervisor Yamada’s constituents, both city and county residents, who make up her district know in advance of the election what her thinking was on the consequences of Measure X being approved or not. It would have been of value to know whether she felt it was a benefit or detriment to county government and our quality of life. I feel this information would have been of service to Ms. Yamada’s constituents of which the vast majority are city residents.
I appreciate your perspective, and were I on the front line, the way you seem to have been, I would no doubt agree that a public stance by Mariko would have been helpful. Heck, I can agree to that without having been there. However, my bottom-line was eloquently stated by one of your fellow No on Xers in another thread in this Blog. Specifically …
No on Xer said…
The County BOS correctly took the position that the Pass-Though agreement called for the Davis City Council, in the first place, and then citizens of Davis(through Measure J)to approve Davis peripheral development. Process dictated that the members of the BOS would not interject themselves in the Covell Village campaign. Only after Helen Thomson openly disregarded this agreement did Mariko Yamada publicly voice her concerns about the Covell Village project. The duties and responsibilites of Supervisor are not the same as those of the Davis City Council nor the State Assembly.