The first of these study areas is the Northwest Quadrant at Oeste Ranch. This area is to the west of Sutter-Davis Hospital and north of Covell Blvd. The recommendation is for “revenue generating opportunities and special needs housing (e.g. seniors).” The property totals roughly 650 acres and would encompass roughly 2000 units. It would connect the Binning Tract with the rest of Davis.
The second of these study areas is what they are terming the I-80 “Innovation Corridor.” This is a 1520 acre development that extends from the city limits, east of Mace Boulevard to the Yolo Bypass levee. They are looking at this for both research and biotech uses as well as commercial development.
The third special study area would be the “Covell Village” property that is north of Covell Blvd, east of F Street and west of Poleline. This would include roughly 383 acres of new commercial and mixed uses. The existing general plan designation is industrial and it is the largest available piece of industrially designated property within the county.
Each of these properties are subject to quite a bit of controversy. The Northwest Quadrant has been discussed in the Davis General Plan Housing Element Update as well. At a recent joint meeting between the Senior Citizens Commission and the Social Services Commission, the view was expressed by a number of commissioners that Davis really is not in need of any more senior housing and that this project would simply import seniors into the community where the county would have to provide a large amount in social services.
The county is arguing that this development would be a revenue generator, but it is not clear how they have figured upon that, and in fact, recall that the original staff report recommended against development on this property because it had questionable revenue potential.
This was the initial recommendation from county staff:
“On the residential side, staff is recommending against the addition of 2,100 residences within the unincorporated area near the northwest quadrant of Davis, as these units are not likely to have fiscal benefits for the county that would justify the growth given concerns regarding inconsistency with long-standing growth policies, provision of infrastructure and services, and effects on the city/county pass-through agreement.”
So how did this become part of staff recommendations for study areas? And what role did Davis’ supervisors play in this? Why is the county now looking to go away from long-standing growth policies and possibly violate the pass-through agreement which would endanger $2 million per year and possibly as much as $72 million over the course of the life of the Davis Redevelopment Agency.
The Covell Village property is also problematic in that Davis voters less than two years ago overwhelmingly rejected development there by a 60-40 margin. Now the county is proposing development there? By what authority?
Finally, the massive development along I-80 is just the tip of the iceberg. The county also plans to take up the Tskaopoulos proposal that includes not only a stem cell research facility but also roughly 7500 housing units. There was a good article on that proposal in this week’s Sacramento News and Review.
The article makes reference to this blog:
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.”
Discussion on this issue figures to be intense, with much concern in Davis about the massive scope of these three projects and concern as to what the county means by “special study area.” As one Supervisor suggested, the proposals for special study areas in Davis do not look different from the development proposals in the rest of the county. Davis residents should be very concerned about these proposals as a means to impose growth on the periphery of Davis.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
This will come down to measure J! Measure J is in eminent danger of being “modified” by the next city Council when it is presented to the voters for renewal in 2010. THIS is the campaign issue for the 2008 Council election. No candidate should be elected who does not explicitedly commit to offering Measure J for renewal WITHOUT CHANGES. The “study area” concept for Davis only is perhaps because we are the only ones in Yolo with a measure J and the idea is to
terrorize us into submission…Davisites, we need to stand our ground! Provenza looked like a shoe-in for Supervisor but he better step up now and let us know where he stands.
This will come down to measure J! Measure J is in eminent danger of being “modified” by the next city Council when it is presented to the voters for renewal in 2010. THIS is the campaign issue for the 2008 Council election. No candidate should be elected who does not explicitedly commit to offering Measure J for renewal WITHOUT CHANGES. The “study area” concept for Davis only is perhaps because we are the only ones in Yolo with a measure J and the idea is to
terrorize us into submission…Davisites, we need to stand our ground! Provenza looked like a shoe-in for Supervisor but he better step up now and let us know where he stands.
This will come down to measure J! Measure J is in eminent danger of being “modified” by the next city Council when it is presented to the voters for renewal in 2010. THIS is the campaign issue for the 2008 Council election. No candidate should be elected who does not explicitedly commit to offering Measure J for renewal WITHOUT CHANGES. The “study area” concept for Davis only is perhaps because we are the only ones in Yolo with a measure J and the idea is to
terrorize us into submission…Davisites, we need to stand our ground! Provenza looked like a shoe-in for Supervisor but he better step up now and let us know where he stands.
This will come down to measure J! Measure J is in eminent danger of being “modified” by the next city Council when it is presented to the voters for renewal in 2010. THIS is the campaign issue for the 2008 Council election. No candidate should be elected who does not explicitedly commit to offering Measure J for renewal WITHOUT CHANGES. The “study area” concept for Davis only is perhaps because we are the only ones in Yolo with a measure J and the idea is to
terrorize us into submission…Davisites, we need to stand our ground! Provenza looked like a shoe-in for Supervisor but he better step up now and let us know where he stands.
Davisite: Measure J has no impact on County Land use decisions.
Davisite: Measure J has no impact on County Land use decisions.
Davisite: Measure J has no impact on County Land use decisions.
Davisite: Measure J has no impact on County Land use decisions.
The decision to annex or not will be a critical factor in the County’s evaluation of the fiscal soundness of a County project on our periphery.The scenerio will, most likely, be similar to the defeated CV project. A proposal to the Davis Council, and then put to a mandatory Measure J vote with the threat of the County building anyway hanging over our heads… back to the old County squeeze play that was used for Mace Ranch. It worked and the Pass-Through agreement was created to prevent this happening again..Of course, this was BEFORE the passage of Measure J which significantly strengthened the Davis voter’s hand in a potential stand-off.
The decision to annex or not will be a critical factor in the County’s evaluation of the fiscal soundness of a County project on our periphery.The scenerio will, most likely, be similar to the defeated CV project. A proposal to the Davis Council, and then put to a mandatory Measure J vote with the threat of the County building anyway hanging over our heads… back to the old County squeeze play that was used for Mace Ranch. It worked and the Pass-Through agreement was created to prevent this happening again..Of course, this was BEFORE the passage of Measure J which significantly strengthened the Davis voter’s hand in a potential stand-off.
The decision to annex or not will be a critical factor in the County’s evaluation of the fiscal soundness of a County project on our periphery.The scenerio will, most likely, be similar to the defeated CV project. A proposal to the Davis Council, and then put to a mandatory Measure J vote with the threat of the County building anyway hanging over our heads… back to the old County squeeze play that was used for Mace Ranch. It worked and the Pass-Through agreement was created to prevent this happening again..Of course, this was BEFORE the passage of Measure J which significantly strengthened the Davis voter’s hand in a potential stand-off.
The decision to annex or not will be a critical factor in the County’s evaluation of the fiscal soundness of a County project on our periphery.The scenerio will, most likely, be similar to the defeated CV project. A proposal to the Davis Council, and then put to a mandatory Measure J vote with the threat of the County building anyway hanging over our heads… back to the old County squeeze play that was used for Mace Ranch. It worked and the Pass-Through agreement was created to prevent this happening again..Of course, this was BEFORE the passage of Measure J which significantly strengthened the Davis voter’s hand in a potential stand-off.
You’re being naive. There are many ways around the scenario that you describe IF council majority is complicit in the deal. With Helen and Mariko working with Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson, Davis’ periphery is under siege.
You’re being naive. There are many ways around the scenario that you describe IF council majority is complicit in the deal. With Helen and Mariko working with Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson, Davis’ periphery is under siege.
You’re being naive. There are many ways around the scenario that you describe IF council majority is complicit in the deal. With Helen and Mariko working with Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson, Davis’ periphery is under siege.
You’re being naive. There are many ways around the scenario that you describe IF council majority is complicit in the deal. With Helen and Mariko working with Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson, Davis’ periphery is under siege.
Davisite does not get it. This has nothing to do with Measure J or annexation.
Seems pretty obvious.
Davisite does not get it. This has nothing to do with Measure J or annexation.
Seems pretty obvious.
Davisite does not get it. This has nothing to do with Measure J or annexation.
Seems pretty obvious.
Davisite does not get it. This has nothing to do with Measure J or annexation.
Seems pretty obvious.
This does have to do with Measure J. Our council majority wanted Covell Village very badly. In fact, I would hazard a guess that they would lean toward wanting most development proposed for around Davis. They are pro-growth and got into office with developer dollars. All they have to do is let the county continue to push for forcing development on our borders until we are all in a frenzy of fear, and then they will tell us they have no choice but to annex this land into Davis so we can at least plan development there ourselves. Then Measure J would come into play, and we would be faced with more horribly devisive campaigns. With the threat of county development on those properties if we do not annex and build, we will lose those campaigns.
This does have to do with Measure J. Our council majority wanted Covell Village very badly. In fact, I would hazard a guess that they would lean toward wanting most development proposed for around Davis. They are pro-growth and got into office with developer dollars. All they have to do is let the county continue to push for forcing development on our borders until we are all in a frenzy of fear, and then they will tell us they have no choice but to annex this land into Davis so we can at least plan development there ourselves. Then Measure J would come into play, and we would be faced with more horribly devisive campaigns. With the threat of county development on those properties if we do not annex and build, we will lose those campaigns.
This does have to do with Measure J. Our council majority wanted Covell Village very badly. In fact, I would hazard a guess that they would lean toward wanting most development proposed for around Davis. They are pro-growth and got into office with developer dollars. All they have to do is let the county continue to push for forcing development on our borders until we are all in a frenzy of fear, and then they will tell us they have no choice but to annex this land into Davis so we can at least plan development there ourselves. Then Measure J would come into play, and we would be faced with more horribly devisive campaigns. With the threat of county development on those properties if we do not annex and build, we will lose those campaigns.
This does have to do with Measure J. Our council majority wanted Covell Village very badly. In fact, I would hazard a guess that they would lean toward wanting most development proposed for around Davis. They are pro-growth and got into office with developer dollars. All they have to do is let the county continue to push for forcing development on our borders until we are all in a frenzy of fear, and then they will tell us they have no choice but to annex this land into Davis so we can at least plan development there ourselves. Then Measure J would come into play, and we would be faced with more horribly devisive campaigns. With the threat of county development on those properties if we do not annex and build, we will lose those campaigns.
New book idea:
“State of Denial in Yolo County: How two county supervisors sold open space/ag land in Davis.”
If Mariko voted NO ON X why is she even agreeing to having CV as a “study area?”
This is double speak if I ever saw it.
Let’s face it if you are a firm “no vote” on peripheral growth why even agree to have CV as a “study area?”
New book idea:
“State of Denial in Yolo County: How two county supervisors sold open space/ag land in Davis.”
If Mariko voted NO ON X why is she even agreeing to having CV as a “study area?”
This is double speak if I ever saw it.
Let’s face it if you are a firm “no vote” on peripheral growth why even agree to have CV as a “study area?”
New book idea:
“State of Denial in Yolo County: How two county supervisors sold open space/ag land in Davis.”
If Mariko voted NO ON X why is she even agreeing to having CV as a “study area?”
This is double speak if I ever saw it.
Let’s face it if you are a firm “no vote” on peripheral growth why even agree to have CV as a “study area?”
New book idea:
“State of Denial in Yolo County: How two county supervisors sold open space/ag land in Davis.”
If Mariko voted NO ON X why is she even agreeing to having CV as a “study area?”
This is double speak if I ever saw it.
Let’s face it if you are a firm “no vote” on peripheral growth why even agree to have CV as a “study area?”
That seems to be what the supes want to add to Davis’ periphery.
Gosh, Mariko, you COULD have been the lone “no” vote on these “study areas.”
I agree that one litmus test for the 2008 city council elections must be a position to make no change to Measure J. We can’t stop the supes from doing what they do on the periphery, but we need Provenza to take a stand supporting Measure J and against Davis periphery growth during his campaign.
That seems to be what the supes want to add to Davis’ periphery.
Gosh, Mariko, you COULD have been the lone “no” vote on these “study areas.”
I agree that one litmus test for the 2008 city council elections must be a position to make no change to Measure J. We can’t stop the supes from doing what they do on the periphery, but we need Provenza to take a stand supporting Measure J and against Davis periphery growth during his campaign.
That seems to be what the supes want to add to Davis’ periphery.
Gosh, Mariko, you COULD have been the lone “no” vote on these “study areas.”
I agree that one litmus test for the 2008 city council elections must be a position to make no change to Measure J. We can’t stop the supes from doing what they do on the periphery, but we need Provenza to take a stand supporting Measure J and against Davis periphery growth during his campaign.
That seems to be what the supes want to add to Davis’ periphery.
Gosh, Mariko, you COULD have been the lone “no” vote on these “study areas.”
I agree that one litmus test for the 2008 city council elections must be a position to make no change to Measure J. We can’t stop the supes from doing what they do on the periphery, but we need Provenza to take a stand supporting Measure J and against Davis periphery growth during his campaign.
I thought that the part of the reason that CV was not in the current general plan so shouldn’t be developed now. That the city didn’t have the infrastructure in place to plan for this unexpected development.
Why wouldn’t it be considered during the upcoming general plan (2010-2020) process along with all other areas, in and near the City? The CV site doesn’t need to be included as a whole, but maybe some acreage there that would connect the peripheral green belt around the city? Sustainable urban design.
The extremism that I’m hearing is disconcerting. Measure J was not about “No to all peripheral growth.” All it did was give Davis voters a way to approve or disapprove the growth. Otherwise the Measure would have been stated differently – such as “no annexation, no development outside the present Davis footprint.” To my knowledge that is not what the measure stated…and I am a bit annoyed that my power/right to choose is being discouraged here.
I thought that the part of the reason that CV was not in the current general plan so shouldn’t be developed now. That the city didn’t have the infrastructure in place to plan for this unexpected development.
Why wouldn’t it be considered during the upcoming general plan (2010-2020) process along with all other areas, in and near the City? The CV site doesn’t need to be included as a whole, but maybe some acreage there that would connect the peripheral green belt around the city? Sustainable urban design.
The extremism that I’m hearing is disconcerting. Measure J was not about “No to all peripheral growth.” All it did was give Davis voters a way to approve or disapprove the growth. Otherwise the Measure would have been stated differently – such as “no annexation, no development outside the present Davis footprint.” To my knowledge that is not what the measure stated…and I am a bit annoyed that my power/right to choose is being discouraged here.
I thought that the part of the reason that CV was not in the current general plan so shouldn’t be developed now. That the city didn’t have the infrastructure in place to plan for this unexpected development.
Why wouldn’t it be considered during the upcoming general plan (2010-2020) process along with all other areas, in and near the City? The CV site doesn’t need to be included as a whole, but maybe some acreage there that would connect the peripheral green belt around the city? Sustainable urban design.
The extremism that I’m hearing is disconcerting. Measure J was not about “No to all peripheral growth.” All it did was give Davis voters a way to approve or disapprove the growth. Otherwise the Measure would have been stated differently – such as “no annexation, no development outside the present Davis footprint.” To my knowledge that is not what the measure stated…and I am a bit annoyed that my power/right to choose is being discouraged here.
I thought that the part of the reason that CV was not in the current general plan so shouldn’t be developed now. That the city didn’t have the infrastructure in place to plan for this unexpected development.
Why wouldn’t it be considered during the upcoming general plan (2010-2020) process along with all other areas, in and near the City? The CV site doesn’t need to be included as a whole, but maybe some acreage there that would connect the peripheral green belt around the city? Sustainable urban design.
The extremism that I’m hearing is disconcerting. Measure J was not about “No to all peripheral growth.” All it did was give Davis voters a way to approve or disapprove the growth. Otherwise the Measure would have been stated differently – such as “no annexation, no development outside the present Davis footprint.” To my knowledge that is not what the measure stated…and I am a bit annoyed that my power/right to choose is being discouraged here.
What about the pass-through money? I believe Davis should act now to stop any further payments to the county until this bullying stops. Can we legally take back money already passed through? If we had a legal agreement with the county, and they are violating it, doesn’t that void the agreement? Shouldn’t we be able to extract dollars from the county for this? Any lawyers out there know?
“The extremism that I’m hearing is disconcerting.”
Me too.
We have proposals for growth on four portions of Davis–NW, North, SW, and East. The goal here is clearly to make Davis a city of 120,000 people. If that is what people want, then so be it. But understand that that is the direction that this city is moving in.
Personally I’m opposed to that vision of Davis.
What about the pass-through money? I believe Davis should act now to stop any further payments to the county until this bullying stops. Can we legally take back money already passed through? If we had a legal agreement with the county, and they are violating it, doesn’t that void the agreement? Shouldn’t we be able to extract dollars from the county for this? Any lawyers out there know?
“The extremism that I’m hearing is disconcerting.”
Me too.
We have proposals for growth on four portions of Davis–NW, North, SW, and East. The goal here is clearly to make Davis a city of 120,000 people. If that is what people want, then so be it. But understand that that is the direction that this city is moving in.
Personally I’m opposed to that vision of Davis.
What about the pass-through money? I believe Davis should act now to stop any further payments to the county until this bullying stops. Can we legally take back money already passed through? If we had a legal agreement with the county, and they are violating it, doesn’t that void the agreement? Shouldn’t we be able to extract dollars from the county for this? Any lawyers out there know?
“The extremism that I’m hearing is disconcerting.”
Me too.
We have proposals for growth on four portions of Davis–NW, North, SW, and East. The goal here is clearly to make Davis a city of 120,000 people. If that is what people want, then so be it. But understand that that is the direction that this city is moving in.
Personally I’m opposed to that vision of Davis.
What about the pass-through money? I believe Davis should act now to stop any further payments to the county until this bullying stops. Can we legally take back money already passed through? If we had a legal agreement with the county, and they are violating it, doesn’t that void the agreement? Shouldn’t we be able to extract dollars from the county for this? Any lawyers out there know?
“The extremism that I’m hearing is disconcerting.”
Me too.
We have proposals for growth on four portions of Davis–NW, North, SW, and East. The goal here is clearly to make Davis a city of 120,000 people. If that is what people want, then so be it. But understand that that is the direction that this city is moving in.
Personally I’m opposed to that vision of Davis.
I agree. It does seem to be massive growth or zero growth. Each extreme is disconcerting.
I agree. It does seem to be massive growth or zero growth. Each extreme is disconcerting.
I agree. It does seem to be massive growth or zero growth. Each extreme is disconcerting.
I agree. It does seem to be massive growth or zero growth. Each extreme is disconcerting.
I agree with Davisite that Measure J must be protected and renewed without changes. We need to support city council and supervisor candidates who will pledge to protect and renew Measure J. But, as important as Measure J is, it is after all only a last resort for the people to overrule their elected officials when those officials are promoting unsustainable and unnecessary development upon us.
It is vital to elect councilmembers and supervisors who will head off this type of development before a Measure J vote is even necessary.
It is vital to hold our existing councilmembers and supervisors accountable to stop any and all development schemes which promote urban sprawl with its traffic congestion, unaffordable costs as well as threaten the pass-through-agreements before a Measure J vote is necessary.
Our own county supervisors Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada should voice strong opposition to the three development schemes being proposed in the current county staff report as should our current city councilmembers.
I agree with Davisite that Measure J must be protected and renewed without changes. We need to support city council and supervisor candidates who will pledge to protect and renew Measure J. But, as important as Measure J is, it is after all only a last resort for the people to overrule their elected officials when those officials are promoting unsustainable and unnecessary development upon us.
It is vital to elect councilmembers and supervisors who will head off this type of development before a Measure J vote is even necessary.
It is vital to hold our existing councilmembers and supervisors accountable to stop any and all development schemes which promote urban sprawl with its traffic congestion, unaffordable costs as well as threaten the pass-through-agreements before a Measure J vote is necessary.
Our own county supervisors Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada should voice strong opposition to the three development schemes being proposed in the current county staff report as should our current city councilmembers.
I agree with Davisite that Measure J must be protected and renewed without changes. We need to support city council and supervisor candidates who will pledge to protect and renew Measure J. But, as important as Measure J is, it is after all only a last resort for the people to overrule their elected officials when those officials are promoting unsustainable and unnecessary development upon us.
It is vital to elect councilmembers and supervisors who will head off this type of development before a Measure J vote is even necessary.
It is vital to hold our existing councilmembers and supervisors accountable to stop any and all development schemes which promote urban sprawl with its traffic congestion, unaffordable costs as well as threaten the pass-through-agreements before a Measure J vote is necessary.
Our own county supervisors Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada should voice strong opposition to the three development schemes being proposed in the current county staff report as should our current city councilmembers.
I agree with Davisite that Measure J must be protected and renewed without changes. We need to support city council and supervisor candidates who will pledge to protect and renew Measure J. But, as important as Measure J is, it is after all only a last resort for the people to overrule their elected officials when those officials are promoting unsustainable and unnecessary development upon us.
It is vital to elect councilmembers and supervisors who will head off this type of development before a Measure J vote is even necessary.
It is vital to hold our existing councilmembers and supervisors accountable to stop any and all development schemes which promote urban sprawl with its traffic congestion, unaffordable costs as well as threaten the pass-through-agreements before a Measure J vote is necessary.
Our own county supervisors Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada should voice strong opposition to the three development schemes being proposed in the current county staff report as should our current city councilmembers.
anonymous 11:35 am:
I don’t want zero growth. My problem is that all the growth that has been proposed has been massive projects. Actually that’s not quite true, there have been some growth proposals that have been acceptable, most of those have not made this blog. We only hear about the controversies on here, which makes a degree of sense.
Give me proposals that I can support and you’ll see, unfortunately these are not them. These are the kinds of proposals we must fight against with all that we have. I am not against growth, I am against these growth proposals.
anonymous 11:35 am:
I don’t want zero growth. My problem is that all the growth that has been proposed has been massive projects. Actually that’s not quite true, there have been some growth proposals that have been acceptable, most of those have not made this blog. We only hear about the controversies on here, which makes a degree of sense.
Give me proposals that I can support and you’ll see, unfortunately these are not them. These are the kinds of proposals we must fight against with all that we have. I am not against growth, I am against these growth proposals.
anonymous 11:35 am:
I don’t want zero growth. My problem is that all the growth that has been proposed has been massive projects. Actually that’s not quite true, there have been some growth proposals that have been acceptable, most of those have not made this blog. We only hear about the controversies on here, which makes a degree of sense.
Give me proposals that I can support and you’ll see, unfortunately these are not them. These are the kinds of proposals we must fight against with all that we have. I am not against growth, I am against these growth proposals.
anonymous 11:35 am:
I don’t want zero growth. My problem is that all the growth that has been proposed has been massive projects. Actually that’s not quite true, there have been some growth proposals that have been acceptable, most of those have not made this blog. We only hear about the controversies on here, which makes a degree of sense.
Give me proposals that I can support and you’ll see, unfortunately these are not them. These are the kinds of proposals we must fight against with all that we have. I am not against growth, I am against these growth proposals.
“I don’t want zero growth. My problem is that all the growth that has been proposed has been massive projects. Actually that’s not quite true, there have been some growth proposals that have been acceptable, most of those have not made this blog.”
Vincente,
If you are for smaller projects on our periphery, then what is your position on the project (64 homes, I believe) east of Wildhorse (called Wildhorse Ranch)?
Is that acceptable?
It will come up for a Measure J vote — I would guess next year.
“I don’t want zero growth. My problem is that all the growth that has been proposed has been massive projects. Actually that’s not quite true, there have been some growth proposals that have been acceptable, most of those have not made this blog.”
Vincente,
If you are for smaller projects on our periphery, then what is your position on the project (64 homes, I believe) east of Wildhorse (called Wildhorse Ranch)?
Is that acceptable?
It will come up for a Measure J vote — I would guess next year.
“I don’t want zero growth. My problem is that all the growth that has been proposed has been massive projects. Actually that’s not quite true, there have been some growth proposals that have been acceptable, most of those have not made this blog.”
Vincente,
If you are for smaller projects on our periphery, then what is your position on the project (64 homes, I believe) east of Wildhorse (called Wildhorse Ranch)?
Is that acceptable?
It will come up for a Measure J vote — I would guess next year.
“I don’t want zero growth. My problem is that all the growth that has been proposed has been massive projects. Actually that’s not quite true, there have been some growth proposals that have been acceptable, most of those have not made this blog.”
Vincente,
If you are for smaller projects on our periphery, then what is your position on the project (64 homes, I believe) east of Wildhorse (called Wildhorse Ranch)?
Is that acceptable?
It will come up for a Measure J vote — I would guess next year.
Remember CV: It was zoned as light industrial by the County and still this County land was proposed for residential development and approved by the Council majority. Did we hear any uproar from the BOS that we couldn’t consider this development because they didn’t have it zoned for residential development? Supervisor Helen Thomson spread the rumor that the BOS was going to approve other massive peripheral growth without our approval.. We called that bluff and I don’t see Gidaro building on the Mace curve. Measure J is not about NO peripheral growth.. it is about Davis voters deciding where, when and how it will pursue future peripheral growth.
Remember CV: It was zoned as light industrial by the County and still this County land was proposed for residential development and approved by the Council majority. Did we hear any uproar from the BOS that we couldn’t consider this development because they didn’t have it zoned for residential development? Supervisor Helen Thomson spread the rumor that the BOS was going to approve other massive peripheral growth without our approval.. We called that bluff and I don’t see Gidaro building on the Mace curve. Measure J is not about NO peripheral growth.. it is about Davis voters deciding where, when and how it will pursue future peripheral growth.
Remember CV: It was zoned as light industrial by the County and still this County land was proposed for residential development and approved by the Council majority. Did we hear any uproar from the BOS that we couldn’t consider this development because they didn’t have it zoned for residential development? Supervisor Helen Thomson spread the rumor that the BOS was going to approve other massive peripheral growth without our approval.. We called that bluff and I don’t see Gidaro building on the Mace curve. Measure J is not about NO peripheral growth.. it is about Davis voters deciding where, when and how it will pursue future peripheral growth.
Remember CV: It was zoned as light industrial by the County and still this County land was proposed for residential development and approved by the Council majority. Did we hear any uproar from the BOS that we couldn’t consider this development because they didn’t have it zoned for residential development? Supervisor Helen Thomson spread the rumor that the BOS was going to approve other massive peripheral growth without our approval.. We called that bluff and I don’t see Gidaro building on the Mace curve. Measure J is not about NO peripheral growth.. it is about Davis voters deciding where, when and how it will pursue future peripheral growth.
I’m supportive of the Wild Horse development in theory, I liked a lot of the mitigation ideas that came about when the council took up the issue. I don’t foresee that there is going to be a lot of opposition to it.
I’m supportive of the Wild Horse development in theory, I liked a lot of the mitigation ideas that came about when the council took up the issue. I don’t foresee that there is going to be a lot of opposition to it.
I’m supportive of the Wild Horse development in theory, I liked a lot of the mitigation ideas that came about when the council took up the issue. I don’t foresee that there is going to be a lot of opposition to it.
I’m supportive of the Wild Horse development in theory, I liked a lot of the mitigation ideas that came about when the council took up the issue. I don’t foresee that there is going to be a lot of opposition to it.
“Our own county supervisors Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada should voice strong opposition…”
Helen Thomson is reported to be retiring from politics so she feels free to thumb her nose at those who put her in office. We’ll see whether Mariko Yamada plays a strong advocate role for Tskaopoulos’ proposal. I don’t think that she will.
“Our own county supervisors Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada should voice strong opposition…”
Helen Thomson is reported to be retiring from politics so she feels free to thumb her nose at those who put her in office. We’ll see whether Mariko Yamada plays a strong advocate role for Tskaopoulos’ proposal. I don’t think that she will.
“Our own county supervisors Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada should voice strong opposition…”
Helen Thomson is reported to be retiring from politics so she feels free to thumb her nose at those who put her in office. We’ll see whether Mariko Yamada plays a strong advocate role for Tskaopoulos’ proposal. I don’t think that she will.
“Our own county supervisors Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada should voice strong opposition…”
Helen Thomson is reported to be retiring from politics so she feels free to thumb her nose at those who put her in office. We’ll see whether Mariko Yamada plays a strong advocate role for Tskaopoulos’ proposal. I don’t think that she will.
Concerned Davisite asks
“If we had a legal agreement…”
My understanding is that the Pass-Through agreement is not a contract but rather an agreement that can be voided by either side without penalty. Of course, then the payments would cease.
Concerned Davisite asks
“If we had a legal agreement…”
My understanding is that the Pass-Through agreement is not a contract but rather an agreement that can be voided by either side without penalty. Of course, then the payments would cease.
Concerned Davisite asks
“If we had a legal agreement…”
My understanding is that the Pass-Through agreement is not a contract but rather an agreement that can be voided by either side without penalty. Of course, then the payments would cease.
Concerned Davisite asks
“If we had a legal agreement…”
My understanding is that the Pass-Through agreement is not a contract but rather an agreement that can be voided by either side without penalty. Of course, then the payments would cease.
Davisite has no clothes said…
“Davisite does not get it. This has nothing to do with Measure J or annexation.”
In this game, like chess, it’s critical to look ahead a few moves or you find yourself in checkmate.
Davisite has no clothes said…
“Davisite does not get it. This has nothing to do with Measure J or annexation.”
In this game, like chess, it’s critical to look ahead a few moves or you find yourself in checkmate.
Davisite has no clothes said…
“Davisite does not get it. This has nothing to do with Measure J or annexation.”
In this game, like chess, it’s critical to look ahead a few moves or you find yourself in checkmate.
Davisite has no clothes said…
“Davisite does not get it. This has nothing to do with Measure J or annexation.”
In this game, like chess, it’s critical to look ahead a few moves or you find yourself in checkmate.
Chess.. then Davisite is a pawn. We just don’t know whose pawn.
Chess.. then Davisite is a pawn. We just don’t know whose pawn.
Chess.. then Davisite is a pawn. We just don’t know whose pawn.
Chess.. then Davisite is a pawn. We just don’t know whose pawn.
“I don’t foresee that there is going to be a lot of opposition to it.”
I haven’t given any specific thought to that proposal. However, in general, I oppose the idea of stretching out our borders in two directions, when there is another space — what would have been Covell Village — which is undeveloped, yet surrounded on 3 sides by the City of Davis.
I agree that our first priority should be infill, where possible. But if we do annex county land, the CV land makes the most sense to me.
Of course, there is a huge scale difference between the failed CV proposal and WHR. So one certainly could share my feelings on annexation issues and yet oppose CV, while supporting WHR.
“I don’t foresee that there is going to be a lot of opposition to it.”
I haven’t given any specific thought to that proposal. However, in general, I oppose the idea of stretching out our borders in two directions, when there is another space — what would have been Covell Village — which is undeveloped, yet surrounded on 3 sides by the City of Davis.
I agree that our first priority should be infill, where possible. But if we do annex county land, the CV land makes the most sense to me.
Of course, there is a huge scale difference between the failed CV proposal and WHR. So one certainly could share my feelings on annexation issues and yet oppose CV, while supporting WHR.
“I don’t foresee that there is going to be a lot of opposition to it.”
I haven’t given any specific thought to that proposal. However, in general, I oppose the idea of stretching out our borders in two directions, when there is another space — what would have been Covell Village — which is undeveloped, yet surrounded on 3 sides by the City of Davis.
I agree that our first priority should be infill, where possible. But if we do annex county land, the CV land makes the most sense to me.
Of course, there is a huge scale difference between the failed CV proposal and WHR. So one certainly could share my feelings on annexation issues and yet oppose CV, while supporting WHR.
“I don’t foresee that there is going to be a lot of opposition to it.”
I haven’t given any specific thought to that proposal. However, in general, I oppose the idea of stretching out our borders in two directions, when there is another space — what would have been Covell Village — which is undeveloped, yet surrounded on 3 sides by the City of Davis.
I agree that our first priority should be infill, where possible. But if we do annex county land, the CV land makes the most sense to me.
Of course, there is a huge scale difference between the failed CV proposal and WHR. So one certainly could share my feelings on annexation issues and yet oppose CV, while supporting WHR.
Rich:
The horse ranch is surrounded on three sides by Davis. Covell Village would too large with a lack of supporting infrastructure. Now we have four proposals for expansion outward including West Village, if you add up the units and the likely inhabitants you quickly realize that those four projects would possibly 30,000 new residents to the Davis area. That’s a 50 percent increase in the size of Davis at least.
Rich:
The horse ranch is surrounded on three sides by Davis. Covell Village would too large with a lack of supporting infrastructure. Now we have four proposals for expansion outward including West Village, if you add up the units and the likely inhabitants you quickly realize that those four projects would possibly 30,000 new residents to the Davis area. That’s a 50 percent increase in the size of Davis at least.
Rich:
The horse ranch is surrounded on three sides by Davis. Covell Village would too large with a lack of supporting infrastructure. Now we have four proposals for expansion outward including West Village, if you add up the units and the likely inhabitants you quickly realize that those four projects would possibly 30,000 new residents to the Davis area. That’s a 50 percent increase in the size of Davis at least.
Rich:
The horse ranch is surrounded on three sides by Davis. Covell Village would too large with a lack of supporting infrastructure. Now we have four proposals for expansion outward including West Village, if you add up the units and the likely inhabitants you quickly realize that those four projects would possibly 30,000 new residents to the Davis area. That’s a 50 percent increase in the size of Davis at least.
Vincente..sorry to hear such pessimism which is contradicted by the Measure X victory. Of course, they would catch their breath and try again… we are talking about megabucks here.
Vincente..sorry to hear such pessimism which is contradicted by the Measure X victory. Of course, they would catch their breath and try again… we are talking about megabucks here.
Vincente..sorry to hear such pessimism which is contradicted by the Measure X victory. Of course, they would catch their breath and try again… we are talking about megabucks here.
Vincente..sorry to hear such pessimism which is contradicted by the Measure X victory. Of course, they would catch their breath and try again… we are talking about megabucks here.
Yeah we won Measure X, but you know what, it was a very costly victory. A lot of energy and resources were used up in Measure X that could have gone to Stan and Lamar. Instead of getting Lamar elected Mayor Pro Tem, and Stan to the council, we got Ruth Mayor Pro Tem and Lamar clinging on just ahead of Mike Levy. Moreover, while there was an awesome grassroots movement against Target, key people like Dick Livingston were not involved due in part to fatigue. Had he been involved, we could have won Target too. So, let’s not count on costly and expensive and tiresome Measure J votes.
Yeah we won Measure X, but you know what, it was a very costly victory. A lot of energy and resources were used up in Measure X that could have gone to Stan and Lamar. Instead of getting Lamar elected Mayor Pro Tem, and Stan to the council, we got Ruth Mayor Pro Tem and Lamar clinging on just ahead of Mike Levy. Moreover, while there was an awesome grassroots movement against Target, key people like Dick Livingston were not involved due in part to fatigue. Had he been involved, we could have won Target too. So, let’s not count on costly and expensive and tiresome Measure J votes.
Yeah we won Measure X, but you know what, it was a very costly victory. A lot of energy and resources were used up in Measure X that could have gone to Stan and Lamar. Instead of getting Lamar elected Mayor Pro Tem, and Stan to the council, we got Ruth Mayor Pro Tem and Lamar clinging on just ahead of Mike Levy. Moreover, while there was an awesome grassroots movement against Target, key people like Dick Livingston were not involved due in part to fatigue. Had he been involved, we could have won Target too. So, let’s not count on costly and expensive and tiresome Measure J votes.
Yeah we won Measure X, but you know what, it was a very costly victory. A lot of energy and resources were used up in Measure X that could have gone to Stan and Lamar. Instead of getting Lamar elected Mayor Pro Tem, and Stan to the council, we got Ruth Mayor Pro Tem and Lamar clinging on just ahead of Mike Levy. Moreover, while there was an awesome grassroots movement against Target, key people like Dick Livingston were not involved due in part to fatigue. Had he been involved, we could have won Target too. So, let’s not count on costly and expensive and tiresome Measure J votes.
Vincente..Glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full? Lamar Heystek came within 100 votes of being Mayor Pro Tem.. a remarkable achievement. As for Target, a rather inexperienced grassroots campaign losing by 500 votes to the resources of the Target Corp. should not get one terribly downhearted.
Vincente..Glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full? Lamar Heystek came within 100 votes of being Mayor Pro Tem.. a remarkable achievement. As for Target, a rather inexperienced grassroots campaign losing by 500 votes to the resources of the Target Corp. should not get one terribly downhearted.
Vincente..Glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full? Lamar Heystek came within 100 votes of being Mayor Pro Tem.. a remarkable achievement. As for Target, a rather inexperienced grassroots campaign losing by 500 votes to the resources of the Target Corp. should not get one terribly downhearted.
Vincente..Glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full? Lamar Heystek came within 100 votes of being Mayor Pro Tem.. a remarkable achievement. As for Target, a rather inexperienced grassroots campaign losing by 500 votes to the resources of the Target Corp. should not get one terribly downhearted.
Davisite:
Because of that the HRC was disbanded, Target was put on the ballot, Target passed, 3rd and B passed, the Housing Element Steering Committee is stacked with developers, the city is under fire from the county because the council majority is consorting with certain supervisors, etc. We may be able to undo the damage, we may be able to stop some of the damage, but I’m telling you right now that you had better take your head out of your john brown hindparts before we’re surrendering the character of this great city.
Davisite:
Because of that the HRC was disbanded, Target was put on the ballot, Target passed, 3rd and B passed, the Housing Element Steering Committee is stacked with developers, the city is under fire from the county because the council majority is consorting with certain supervisors, etc. We may be able to undo the damage, we may be able to stop some of the damage, but I’m telling you right now that you had better take your head out of your john brown hindparts before we’re surrendering the character of this great city.
Davisite:
Because of that the HRC was disbanded, Target was put on the ballot, Target passed, 3rd and B passed, the Housing Element Steering Committee is stacked with developers, the city is under fire from the county because the council majority is consorting with certain supervisors, etc. We may be able to undo the damage, we may be able to stop some of the damage, but I’m telling you right now that you had better take your head out of your john brown hindparts before we’re surrendering the character of this great city.
Davisite:
Because of that the HRC was disbanded, Target was put on the ballot, Target passed, 3rd and B passed, the Housing Element Steering Committee is stacked with developers, the city is under fire from the county because the council majority is consorting with certain supervisors, etc. We may be able to undo the damage, we may be able to stop some of the damage, but I’m telling you right now that you had better take your head out of your john brown hindparts before we’re surrendering the character of this great city.
” Davisite: if this is a game of chess, then we’ve all been checkmated long before we even knew the game had really begun.”
Vincente.. sorry if I misinterpreted your comments.. your chess analogy suggested to me that you were saying that defeat was inevitable.. My comments were not polyanna-ish but rather were refuting this with facts that suggest that this is not necessarily true.
” Davisite: if this is a game of chess, then we’ve all been checkmated long before we even knew the game had really begun.”
Vincente.. sorry if I misinterpreted your comments.. your chess analogy suggested to me that you were saying that defeat was inevitable.. My comments were not polyanna-ish but rather were refuting this with facts that suggest that this is not necessarily true.
” Davisite: if this is a game of chess, then we’ve all been checkmated long before we even knew the game had really begun.”
Vincente.. sorry if I misinterpreted your comments.. your chess analogy suggested to me that you were saying that defeat was inevitable.. My comments were not polyanna-ish but rather were refuting this with facts that suggest that this is not necessarily true.
” Davisite: if this is a game of chess, then we’ve all been checkmated long before we even knew the game had really begun.”
Vincente.. sorry if I misinterpreted your comments.. your chess analogy suggested to me that you were saying that defeat was inevitable.. My comments were not polyanna-ish but rather were refuting this with facts that suggest that this is not necessarily true.
Davisite,
Vincente is correct and not “contradicted” as you state by the No on Measure X victory.
The No on X victory took an enormous amount of time, energy and money from ordinary citizens to defeat a million dollar plus campaign waged by the Covell Village Partners. The Covell Village Partners had their paid local political operatives, paid PR and paid consultants on their payroll for years. The partners also had the majority of elected officials supporting their venture. To defeat their measure was a progressive triumph, but a costly one. You state, “Of course, they would catch their breath and try again…we are talking about megabucks here.” Correct, yes indeed, as this is the business of big time developers. Therefore, we need politicians on the front lines (at council & at the board of supervisors) pushing back against these massive developments. We don’t need our politicians stating an interest in keeping “an open mind” on project “study areas” whose very scale and location are inappropriate for Davis. Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada and Davis councilmembers need to serve us, not the developers.
Vincente is also on point: why should we not hold our current councilmembers and supervisors accountable as well as future office holders to defend our borders and slow growth land use principles?
The first line of defense in protecting Davis borders is holding our current elected officials accountable and then electing future councilmembers and supervisors who will defend the right of our community to control our own growth and resist massive urban sprawl. Measure J should be in the calculation, but only as a last resort when our politicians fail us.
Davisite,
Vincente is correct and not “contradicted” as you state by the No on Measure X victory.
The No on X victory took an enormous amount of time, energy and money from ordinary citizens to defeat a million dollar plus campaign waged by the Covell Village Partners. The Covell Village Partners had their paid local political operatives, paid PR and paid consultants on their payroll for years. The partners also had the majority of elected officials supporting their venture. To defeat their measure was a progressive triumph, but a costly one. You state, “Of course, they would catch their breath and try again…we are talking about megabucks here.” Correct, yes indeed, as this is the business of big time developers. Therefore, we need politicians on the front lines (at council & at the board of supervisors) pushing back against these massive developments. We don’t need our politicians stating an interest in keeping “an open mind” on project “study areas” whose very scale and location are inappropriate for Davis. Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada and Davis councilmembers need to serve us, not the developers.
Vincente is also on point: why should we not hold our current councilmembers and supervisors accountable as well as future office holders to defend our borders and slow growth land use principles?
The first line of defense in protecting Davis borders is holding our current elected officials accountable and then electing future councilmembers and supervisors who will defend the right of our community to control our own growth and resist massive urban sprawl. Measure J should be in the calculation, but only as a last resort when our politicians fail us.
Davisite,
Vincente is correct and not “contradicted” as you state by the No on Measure X victory.
The No on X victory took an enormous amount of time, energy and money from ordinary citizens to defeat a million dollar plus campaign waged by the Covell Village Partners. The Covell Village Partners had their paid local political operatives, paid PR and paid consultants on their payroll for years. The partners also had the majority of elected officials supporting their venture. To defeat their measure was a progressive triumph, but a costly one. You state, “Of course, they would catch their breath and try again…we are talking about megabucks here.” Correct, yes indeed, as this is the business of big time developers. Therefore, we need politicians on the front lines (at council & at the board of supervisors) pushing back against these massive developments. We don’t need our politicians stating an interest in keeping “an open mind” on project “study areas” whose very scale and location are inappropriate for Davis. Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada and Davis councilmembers need to serve us, not the developers.
Vincente is also on point: why should we not hold our current councilmembers and supervisors accountable as well as future office holders to defend our borders and slow growth land use principles?
The first line of defense in protecting Davis borders is holding our current elected officials accountable and then electing future councilmembers and supervisors who will defend the right of our community to control our own growth and resist massive urban sprawl. Measure J should be in the calculation, but only as a last resort when our politicians fail us.
Davisite,
Vincente is correct and not “contradicted” as you state by the No on Measure X victory.
The No on X victory took an enormous amount of time, energy and money from ordinary citizens to defeat a million dollar plus campaign waged by the Covell Village Partners. The Covell Village Partners had their paid local political operatives, paid PR and paid consultants on their payroll for years. The partners also had the majority of elected officials supporting their venture. To defeat their measure was a progressive triumph, but a costly one. You state, “Of course, they would catch their breath and try again…we are talking about megabucks here.” Correct, yes indeed, as this is the business of big time developers. Therefore, we need politicians on the front lines (at council & at the board of supervisors) pushing back against these massive developments. We don’t need our politicians stating an interest in keeping “an open mind” on project “study areas” whose very scale and location are inappropriate for Davis. Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada and Davis councilmembers need to serve us, not the developers.
Vincente is also on point: why should we not hold our current councilmembers and supervisors accountable as well as future office holders to defend our borders and slow growth land use principles?
The first line of defense in protecting Davis borders is holding our current elected officials accountable and then electing future councilmembers and supervisors who will defend the right of our community to control our own growth and resist massive urban sprawl. Measure J should be in the calculation, but only as a last resort when our politicians fail us.
Davisite:
Vincente..Glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full? Lamar Heystek came within 100 votes of being Mayor Pro Tem.. a remarkable achievement. As for Target, a rather inexperienced grassroots campaign losing by 500 votes to the resources of the Target Corp. should not get one terribly downhearted.
There are no moral victories here. Lamar was close, but ultimately will not be mayor this term. No on K was close, but Target still won.
The No on X leaders spent too much time admiring their handywork on Measure X and not enough time maintaining their momentum by working on the subsequent council campaigns and Measure K vote.
Davisite:
Vincente..Glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full? Lamar Heystek came within 100 votes of being Mayor Pro Tem.. a remarkable achievement. As for Target, a rather inexperienced grassroots campaign losing by 500 votes to the resources of the Target Corp. should not get one terribly downhearted.
There are no moral victories here. Lamar was close, but ultimately will not be mayor this term. No on K was close, but Target still won.
The No on X leaders spent too much time admiring their handywork on Measure X and not enough time maintaining their momentum by working on the subsequent council campaigns and Measure K vote.
Davisite:
Vincente..Glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full? Lamar Heystek came within 100 votes of being Mayor Pro Tem.. a remarkable achievement. As for Target, a rather inexperienced grassroots campaign losing by 500 votes to the resources of the Target Corp. should not get one terribly downhearted.
There are no moral victories here. Lamar was close, but ultimately will not be mayor this term. No on K was close, but Target still won.
The No on X leaders spent too much time admiring their handywork on Measure X and not enough time maintaining their momentum by working on the subsequent council campaigns and Measure K vote.
Davisite:
Vincente..Glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full? Lamar Heystek came within 100 votes of being Mayor Pro Tem.. a remarkable achievement. As for Target, a rather inexperienced grassroots campaign losing by 500 votes to the resources of the Target Corp. should not get one terribly downhearted.
There are no moral victories here. Lamar was close, but ultimately will not be mayor this term. No on K was close, but Target still won.
The No on X leaders spent too much time admiring their handywork on Measure X and not enough time maintaining their momentum by working on the subsequent council campaigns and Measure K vote.
Davisite said: “As for Target, a rather inexperienced grassroots campaign losing by 500 votes to the resources of the Target Corp. should not get one terribly downhearted.”
Really? Inexperienced. I’m sure Holly Bishop and Pam Nieberg would love hearing that you’re calling them “inexperienced.” We did everything by the book and we ran a great campaign, grassroots or not. Vincent is correct; we DID NOT get key people supporting us. That is why we lost, not because Target poured nearly 1/2 mil into the campaign. As treasurer and anything else I was asked to do for that campaign, I busted my ass. It’s insulting to me for you to blame our loss on “inexperience.”
Davisite said: “As for Target, a rather inexperienced grassroots campaign losing by 500 votes to the resources of the Target Corp. should not get one terribly downhearted.”
Really? Inexperienced. I’m sure Holly Bishop and Pam Nieberg would love hearing that you’re calling them “inexperienced.” We did everything by the book and we ran a great campaign, grassroots or not. Vincent is correct; we DID NOT get key people supporting us. That is why we lost, not because Target poured nearly 1/2 mil into the campaign. As treasurer and anything else I was asked to do for that campaign, I busted my ass. It’s insulting to me for you to blame our loss on “inexperience.”
Davisite said: “As for Target, a rather inexperienced grassroots campaign losing by 500 votes to the resources of the Target Corp. should not get one terribly downhearted.”
Really? Inexperienced. I’m sure Holly Bishop and Pam Nieberg would love hearing that you’re calling them “inexperienced.” We did everything by the book and we ran a great campaign, grassroots or not. Vincent is correct; we DID NOT get key people supporting us. That is why we lost, not because Target poured nearly 1/2 mil into the campaign. As treasurer and anything else I was asked to do for that campaign, I busted my ass. It’s insulting to me for you to blame our loss on “inexperience.”
Davisite said: “As for Target, a rather inexperienced grassroots campaign losing by 500 votes to the resources of the Target Corp. should not get one terribly downhearted.”
Really? Inexperienced. I’m sure Holly Bishop and Pam Nieberg would love hearing that you’re calling them “inexperienced.” We did everything by the book and we ran a great campaign, grassroots or not. Vincent is correct; we DID NOT get key people supporting us. That is why we lost, not because Target poured nearly 1/2 mil into the campaign. As treasurer and anything else I was asked to do for that campaign, I busted my ass. It’s insulting to me for you to blame our loss on “inexperience.”
“The horse ranch is surrounded on three sides by Davis.”
I stand corrected. I just looked on a city map exactly where Wildhorse Ranch is proposed, and it is, as you say, wrapped by Wildhorse on its south, north and west. (I hadn’t realized that it was entirely consumed by Caravaggio on its north.)
But looking at the map raises this question — isn’t that within the current boundaries of the City of Davis? I have a couple of city maps, and each of them shows that property within our current borders. The reason I ask this question is because I have read that Wildhorse Ranch will trigger a Measure J vote. But I thought, apparently incorrectly, that we only would have Measure J votes when a development proposed to annex Yolo County farm land into the city.
I am therefore guessing that Measure J is triggered here because the City of Davis had zoned this land “ag.” And in order to change that zoning to residential, Measure J requires a vote?
If that guess is correct, then why would the change in zoning on Cannery Park not require a Measure J vote? I have read that it will not.
“The horse ranch is surrounded on three sides by Davis.”
I stand corrected. I just looked on a city map exactly where Wildhorse Ranch is proposed, and it is, as you say, wrapped by Wildhorse on its south, north and west. (I hadn’t realized that it was entirely consumed by Caravaggio on its north.)
But looking at the map raises this question — isn’t that within the current boundaries of the City of Davis? I have a couple of city maps, and each of them shows that property within our current borders. The reason I ask this question is because I have read that Wildhorse Ranch will trigger a Measure J vote. But I thought, apparently incorrectly, that we only would have Measure J votes when a development proposed to annex Yolo County farm land into the city.
I am therefore guessing that Measure J is triggered here because the City of Davis had zoned this land “ag.” And in order to change that zoning to residential, Measure J requires a vote?
If that guess is correct, then why would the change in zoning on Cannery Park not require a Measure J vote? I have read that it will not.
“The horse ranch is surrounded on three sides by Davis.”
I stand corrected. I just looked on a city map exactly where Wildhorse Ranch is proposed, and it is, as you say, wrapped by Wildhorse on its south, north and west. (I hadn’t realized that it was entirely consumed by Caravaggio on its north.)
But looking at the map raises this question — isn’t that within the current boundaries of the City of Davis? I have a couple of city maps, and each of them shows that property within our current borders. The reason I ask this question is because I have read that Wildhorse Ranch will trigger a Measure J vote. But I thought, apparently incorrectly, that we only would have Measure J votes when a development proposed to annex Yolo County farm land into the city.
I am therefore guessing that Measure J is triggered here because the City of Davis had zoned this land “ag.” And in order to change that zoning to residential, Measure J requires a vote?
If that guess is correct, then why would the change in zoning on Cannery Park not require a Measure J vote? I have read that it will not.
“The horse ranch is surrounded on three sides by Davis.”
I stand corrected. I just looked on a city map exactly where Wildhorse Ranch is proposed, and it is, as you say, wrapped by Wildhorse on its south, north and west. (I hadn’t realized that it was entirely consumed by Caravaggio on its north.)
But looking at the map raises this question — isn’t that within the current boundaries of the City of Davis? I have a couple of city maps, and each of them shows that property within our current borders. The reason I ask this question is because I have read that Wildhorse Ranch will trigger a Measure J vote. But I thought, apparently incorrectly, that we only would have Measure J votes when a development proposed to annex Yolo County farm land into the city.
I am therefore guessing that Measure J is triggered here because the City of Davis had zoned this land “ag.” And in order to change that zoning to residential, Measure J requires a vote?
If that guess is correct, then why would the change in zoning on Cannery Park not require a Measure J vote? I have read that it will not.
“Vincente is also on point: why should we not hold our current councilmembers and supervisors accountable as well as future office holders to defend our borders and slow growth land use principles?”
Of course we should, but the reality is that the political split is too close in Davis to count on a new Council majority in 2008. Candidates Saylor and Souza(and perhaps Levy) must be made to declare their position on presenting Measure J to the Davis voters without change in 2010.
“Vincente is also on point: why should we not hold our current councilmembers and supervisors accountable as well as future office holders to defend our borders and slow growth land use principles?”
Of course we should, but the reality is that the political split is too close in Davis to count on a new Council majority in 2008. Candidates Saylor and Souza(and perhaps Levy) must be made to declare their position on presenting Measure J to the Davis voters without change in 2010.
“Vincente is also on point: why should we not hold our current councilmembers and supervisors accountable as well as future office holders to defend our borders and slow growth land use principles?”
Of course we should, but the reality is that the political split is too close in Davis to count on a new Council majority in 2008. Candidates Saylor and Souza(and perhaps Levy) must be made to declare their position on presenting Measure J to the Davis voters without change in 2010.
“Vincente is also on point: why should we not hold our current councilmembers and supervisors accountable as well as future office holders to defend our borders and slow growth land use principles?”
Of course we should, but the reality is that the political split is too close in Davis to count on a new Council majority in 2008. Candidates Saylor and Souza(and perhaps Levy) must be made to declare their position on presenting Measure J to the Davis voters without change in 2010.
“Of course we should, but the reality is that the political split is too close in Davis to count on a new Council majority in 2008.”
So far, I think only Saylor and Souza have declared for 2008. I guess one other person in their faction will run, as three seats are open. Mike Levy does not seem unlikely. He was close to winning last time, and he probably learned from his mistakes the first time around. Insofar as Saylor and Souza have made some controversial votes, a third person on that faction’s team might have a chance to surpass the incumbents.
On the other side, I suppose Mayor Greenwald is going to run again. Has anyone made it known that he or she will run on the Greenwaldian ticket? Might David Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald also run? Would it not be fun to have a party composed of Greenwald and Greenwald and Greenwald?
If we don’t have choice voting by then — I wish we had it already — I hope that no spoiler candidates enter the race. It seems rather undemocratic to me when some individuals lose out on being elected to the city council because someone else who holds similar views steals away from them a couple of hundred votes from them (assuming those voters would have voted at all if the spoiler had not been in the race).
“Of course we should, but the reality is that the political split is too close in Davis to count on a new Council majority in 2008.”
So far, I think only Saylor and Souza have declared for 2008. I guess one other person in their faction will run, as three seats are open. Mike Levy does not seem unlikely. He was close to winning last time, and he probably learned from his mistakes the first time around. Insofar as Saylor and Souza have made some controversial votes, a third person on that faction’s team might have a chance to surpass the incumbents.
On the other side, I suppose Mayor Greenwald is going to run again. Has anyone made it known that he or she will run on the Greenwaldian ticket? Might David Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald also run? Would it not be fun to have a party composed of Greenwald and Greenwald and Greenwald?
If we don’t have choice voting by then — I wish we had it already — I hope that no spoiler candidates enter the race. It seems rather undemocratic to me when some individuals lose out on being elected to the city council because someone else who holds similar views steals away from them a couple of hundred votes from them (assuming those voters would have voted at all if the spoiler had not been in the race).
“Of course we should, but the reality is that the political split is too close in Davis to count on a new Council majority in 2008.”
So far, I think only Saylor and Souza have declared for 2008. I guess one other person in their faction will run, as three seats are open. Mike Levy does not seem unlikely. He was close to winning last time, and he probably learned from his mistakes the first time around. Insofar as Saylor and Souza have made some controversial votes, a third person on that faction’s team might have a chance to surpass the incumbents.
On the other side, I suppose Mayor Greenwald is going to run again. Has anyone made it known that he or she will run on the Greenwaldian ticket? Might David Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald also run? Would it not be fun to have a party composed of Greenwald and Greenwald and Greenwald?
If we don’t have choice voting by then — I wish we had it already — I hope that no spoiler candidates enter the race. It seems rather undemocratic to me when some individuals lose out on being elected to the city council because someone else who holds similar views steals away from them a couple of hundred votes from them (assuming those voters would have voted at all if the spoiler had not been in the race).
“Of course we should, but the reality is that the political split is too close in Davis to count on a new Council majority in 2008.”
So far, I think only Saylor and Souza have declared for 2008. I guess one other person in their faction will run, as three seats are open. Mike Levy does not seem unlikely. He was close to winning last time, and he probably learned from his mistakes the first time around. Insofar as Saylor and Souza have made some controversial votes, a third person on that faction’s team might have a chance to surpass the incumbents.
On the other side, I suppose Mayor Greenwald is going to run again. Has anyone made it known that he or she will run on the Greenwaldian ticket? Might David Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald also run? Would it not be fun to have a party composed of Greenwald and Greenwald and Greenwald?
If we don’t have choice voting by then — I wish we had it already — I hope that no spoiler candidates enter the race. It seems rather undemocratic to me when some individuals lose out on being elected to the city council because someone else who holds similar views steals away from them a couple of hundred votes from them (assuming those voters would have voted at all if the spoiler had not been in the race).
wtf said:
“There are no moral victories here…”
I could not disagree more. Close contests should be a tonic for the next “contest” . Alternatively, a sense of despair and turning on one another dooms grassroots campaigns.
wtf said:
“There are no moral victories here…”
I could not disagree more. Close contests should be a tonic for the next “contest” . Alternatively, a sense of despair and turning on one another dooms grassroots campaigns.
wtf said:
“There are no moral victories here…”
I could not disagree more. Close contests should be a tonic for the next “contest” . Alternatively, a sense of despair and turning on one another dooms grassroots campaigns.
wtf said:
“There are no moral victories here…”
I could not disagree more. Close contests should be a tonic for the next “contest” . Alternatively, a sense of despair and turning on one another dooms grassroots campaigns.
If that guess is correct, then why would the change in zoning on Cannery Park not require a Measure J vote? I have read that it will not.
I believe Measure J is triggered when changing zoning from ag to residential. I also believe (but may be wrong) that the Cannery Park site is currently not zoned ag, but rather light industrial, which is why it would not trigger a Measure J vote.
If that guess is correct, then why would the change in zoning on Cannery Park not require a Measure J vote? I have read that it will not.
I believe Measure J is triggered when changing zoning from ag to residential. I also believe (but may be wrong) that the Cannery Park site is currently not zoned ag, but rather light industrial, which is why it would not trigger a Measure J vote.
If that guess is correct, then why would the change in zoning on Cannery Park not require a Measure J vote? I have read that it will not.
I believe Measure J is triggered when changing zoning from ag to residential. I also believe (but may be wrong) that the Cannery Park site is currently not zoned ag, but rather light industrial, which is why it would not trigger a Measure J vote.
If that guess is correct, then why would the change in zoning on Cannery Park not require a Measure J vote? I have read that it will not.
I believe Measure J is triggered when changing zoning from ag to residential. I also believe (but may be wrong) that the Cannery Park site is currently not zoned ag, but rather light industrial, which is why it would not trigger a Measure J vote.
Anonymous is correct. Measure J is triggered when the designation on the land use map is changed from Ag to urban. The horse ranch is designated ag, so it triggers a J vote. The Cannery Park is designated light industrial so it would not trigger the vote.
Anonymous is correct. Measure J is triggered when the designation on the land use map is changed from Ag to urban. The horse ranch is designated ag, so it triggers a J vote. The Cannery Park is designated light industrial so it would not trigger the vote.
Anonymous is correct. Measure J is triggered when the designation on the land use map is changed from Ag to urban. The horse ranch is designated ag, so it triggers a J vote. The Cannery Park is designated light industrial so it would not trigger the vote.
Anonymous is correct. Measure J is triggered when the designation on the land use map is changed from Ag to urban. The horse ranch is designated ag, so it triggers a J vote. The Cannery Park is designated light industrial so it would not trigger the vote.
You’re missing a key part of Measure J: any time that you bring an area outside of the city to inside the city for development it requires a vote.
You’re missing a key part of Measure J: any time that you bring an area outside of the city to inside the city for development it requires a vote.
You’re missing a key part of Measure J: any time that you bring an area outside of the city to inside the city for development it requires a vote.
You’re missing a key part of Measure J: any time that you bring an area outside of the city to inside the city for development it requires a vote.
Doug Paul, your comment illuminates a significant loophole in Measure J. If the developer chooses to not want annnexation, then Measure J isn’t invoked, regardless of whether ag land is being converted.
Dan Ramos, with his “Vineyards @ El Macero” project was attempting to do exactly that. He proposed annexing his project to El Macero. 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.
Doug Paul, your comment illuminates a significant loophole in Measure J. If the developer chooses to not want annnexation, then Measure J isn’t invoked, regardless of whether ag land is being converted.
Dan Ramos, with his “Vineyards @ El Macero” project was attempting to do exactly that. He proposed annexing his project to El Macero. 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.
Doug Paul, your comment illuminates a significant loophole in Measure J. If the developer chooses to not want annnexation, then Measure J isn’t invoked, regardless of whether ag land is being converted.
Dan Ramos, with his “Vineyards @ El Macero” project was attempting to do exactly that. He proposed annexing his project to El Macero. 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.
Doug Paul, your comment illuminates a significant loophole in Measure J. If the developer chooses to not want annnexation, then Measure J isn’t invoked, regardless of whether ag land is being converted.
Dan Ramos, with his “Vineyards @ El Macero” project was attempting to do exactly that. He proposed annexing his project to El Macero. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 11:04am said:
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.
Be careful what what you ask….this type of requirement would actually mean that the ONLY development that would be feasible is one large enough to provide for its own sewage, water etc.
Anonymous 11:04am said:
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.
Be careful what what you ask….this type of requirement would actually mean that the ONLY development that would be feasible is one large enough to provide for its own sewage, water etc.
Anonymous 11:04am said:
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.
Be careful what what you ask….this type of requirement would actually mean that the ONLY development that would be feasible is one large enough to provide for its own sewage, water etc.
Anonymous 11:04am said:
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.
Be careful what what you ask….this type of requirement would actually mean that the ONLY development that would be feasible is one large enough to provide for its own sewage, water etc.
“…this type of requirement would actually mean that the ONLY development that would be feasible is one large enough to provide for its own sewage, water etc.”
Of course, the above must be studied and considered. My non-expert opinion is that the financial risks to the local developers(something to which that they clearly have a strong aversion) and the County of a large developement with all the support infrastructure and services would make this option quite unattractive.
“…this type of requirement would actually mean that the ONLY development that would be feasible is one large enough to provide for its own sewage, water etc.”
Of course, the above must be studied and considered. My non-expert opinion is that the financial risks to the local developers(something to which that they clearly have a strong aversion) and the County of a large developement with all the support infrastructure and services would make this option quite unattractive.
“…this type of requirement would actually mean that the ONLY development that would be feasible is one large enough to provide for its own sewage, water etc.”
Of course, the above must be studied and considered. My non-expert opinion is that the financial risks to the local developers(something to which that they clearly have a strong aversion) and the County of a large developement with all the support infrastructure and services would make this option quite unattractive.
“…this type of requirement would actually mean that the ONLY development that would be feasible is one large enough to provide for its own sewage, water etc.”
Of course, the above must be studied and considered. My non-expert opinion is that the financial risks to the local developers(something to which that they clearly have a strong aversion) and the County of a large developement with all the support infrastructure and services would make this option quite unattractive.
Hahaha. You could have had Mike Corbett’s Village Homes #2, now you’re going to get some megaMcMansions approved by the county.
Hahaha. You could have had Mike Corbett’s Village Homes #2, now you’re going to get some megaMcMansions approved by the county.
Hahaha. You could have had Mike Corbett’s Village Homes #2, now you’re going to get some megaMcMansions approved by the county.
Hahaha. You could have had Mike Corbett’s Village Homes #2, now you’re going to get some megaMcMansions approved by the county.