Housing Element Status Report to Be Heard Tonight

In what figures to be an action-packed agenda this evening, the last meeting of 2007, the City Council will hear a status report from the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee.

As we discussed last week, the key question is now whether or not the council should maintain the 1% growth guideline (previously viewed by the council as a mandate for growth) and if so, where the city should grow in order to achieve that 1% growth guideline.

The item on the agenda this evening is strictly informational. The council has already vote once recently to maintain the 1% growth guideline under the guise at that time that they wished to wait until at least the Housing Element Steering Committee gave their update in December before revisiting the issue of the the 1% growth guideline. Of course, it is now interesting that the meeting in December has arrived and this item has been placed on the agenda as an informational item, which means no action can be taken with regards to the issue of the growth guideline.

There will be future discussion on this is during the Housing Element Steering Committee’s January 24 meeting.

Councilmember Souza argued during the previous discussion that we are a community that grows by initiative now.

“So it doesn’t matter if you have a one percent, a half percent, ten percent, whatever the percent may be. The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town. That’s the policy we have, and unless we’re going to amend that policy, that’s the true policy that determines when, where and how we’ll grow.”

Contrary to the viewpoint of Mr. Souza however, this is not a small issue. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) has set a substantially lower growth mandate for Davis than the current 1% guideline adopted by the council majority during a very different economy.

To put this into perspective, under the RHNA guidelines we would need to grow by only 498 units between now and 2013, of which a good percentage of them would be either in the process of being built or in the works. However, a 1% guideline is substantially higher–on the order of 300 units per year.

300 units per year may not sound like a large amount. But put this into perspective.

The Mayor, Sue Greenwald commented on this issue last week here on the Vanguard:

“One percent sounds small, but it isn’t. The policy aims at 325 units a year (the policy is actually 1% plus the affordable requirement), which would be the equivalent number of units contained in one subdivision the size of Wildhorse every three years.

And it doesn’t even count the University’s massive West Village project, which is to be almost the size of the City of Winters.

Even according to SACOG, the city has already met SACOG’s desired targets for our growth through 2013. “

So while 1% sounds small, we are talking about one Wildhorse size development every three years. That always seemed a bit too large for the taste of most Davisites, however, it is particularly so when the RHNA guideline directs growth at a much much lower rate and at a time when the economy and housing market are on the downturn.

Unfortunately, the council can only listen to status report this evening, they cannot act. It is exceedingly important that Davis citizens show up in large numbers for the January 24, 2008 meeting and show the Housing Element Steering Committee that the residents of Davis are opposed to 1% mandated growth.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

About The Author

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

Related posts

100 Comments

  1. Mike Hart

    Thank you for the warning. I think a lot of us would like to be there for the January meeting to encourage the council to think of the 1% as a maximum, and not a goal.

  2. Mike Hart

    Thank you for the warning. I think a lot of us would like to be there for the January meeting to encourage the council to think of the 1% as a maximum, and not a goal.

  3. Mike Hart

    Thank you for the warning. I think a lot of us would like to be there for the January meeting to encourage the council to think of the 1% as a maximum, and not a goal.

  4. Mike Hart

    Thank you for the warning. I think a lot of us would like to be there for the January meeting to encourage the council to think of the 1% as a maximum, and not a goal.

  5. No on Xer

    Anyone who has the time and interest to review the Council meeting archives during the Covell Village(Measure X) campaign will find that the Council Majority of
    Asmundson,Saylor and Souza were claiming that the 1% growth rate that THEY created was NOT a guideline but a REQUIREMENT that would somehow bring penalties if not met. Being elected public officials representing Davisites in 2007, they are spared the requirement to perform seppuku(harikari) but their reelection should be out of the question.

  6. No on Xer

    Anyone who has the time and interest to review the Council meeting archives during the Covell Village(Measure X) campaign will find that the Council Majority of
    Asmundson,Saylor and Souza were claiming that the 1% growth rate that THEY created was NOT a guideline but a REQUIREMENT that would somehow bring penalties if not met. Being elected public officials representing Davisites in 2007, they are spared the requirement to perform seppuku(harikari) but their reelection should be out of the question.

  7. No on Xer

    Anyone who has the time and interest to review the Council meeting archives during the Covell Village(Measure X) campaign will find that the Council Majority of
    Asmundson,Saylor and Souza were claiming that the 1% growth rate that THEY created was NOT a guideline but a REQUIREMENT that would somehow bring penalties if not met. Being elected public officials representing Davisites in 2007, they are spared the requirement to perform seppuku(harikari) but their reelection should be out of the question.

  8. No on Xer

    Anyone who has the time and interest to review the Council meeting archives during the Covell Village(Measure X) campaign will find that the Council Majority of
    Asmundson,Saylor and Souza were claiming that the 1% growth rate that THEY created was NOT a guideline but a REQUIREMENT that would somehow bring penalties if not met. Being elected public officials representing Davisites in 2007, they are spared the requirement to perform seppuku(harikari) but their reelection should be out of the question.

  9. Rich Rifkin

    STEPHEN SOUZA: “The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town.”

    DAVE GREENWALD: “Contrary to the viewpoint of Mr. Souza however, this is not a small issue.”

    Contrary? Contrary how?

    David,

    You explain how large the 1% growth target is, but you never contradict or deny Stephen’s point: that our growth rate will be determined by Measure J votes and not by any artificial targets the council has set.

    So when you say “this is not a small issue,” you don’t ever say why it is not.

    If you think the target set by the council will actually be enacted, regardless of Measure J votes, then explain that.

    And if you really believe that is the case, then explain where all of these thousands of houses which don’t need a Measure J vote are going to be constructed?

  10. Rich Rifkin

    STEPHEN SOUZA: “The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town.”

    DAVE GREENWALD: “Contrary to the viewpoint of Mr. Souza however, this is not a small issue.”

    Contrary? Contrary how?

    David,

    You explain how large the 1% growth target is, but you never contradict or deny Stephen’s point: that our growth rate will be determined by Measure J votes and not by any artificial targets the council has set.

    So when you say “this is not a small issue,” you don’t ever say why it is not.

    If you think the target set by the council will actually be enacted, regardless of Measure J votes, then explain that.

    And if you really believe that is the case, then explain where all of these thousands of houses which don’t need a Measure J vote are going to be constructed?

  11. Rich Rifkin

    STEPHEN SOUZA: “The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town.”

    DAVE GREENWALD: “Contrary to the viewpoint of Mr. Souza however, this is not a small issue.”

    Contrary? Contrary how?

    David,

    You explain how large the 1% growth target is, but you never contradict or deny Stephen’s point: that our growth rate will be determined by Measure J votes and not by any artificial targets the council has set.

    So when you say “this is not a small issue,” you don’t ever say why it is not.

    If you think the target set by the council will actually be enacted, regardless of Measure J votes, then explain that.

    And if you really believe that is the case, then explain where all of these thousands of houses which don’t need a Measure J vote are going to be constructed?

  12. Rich Rifkin

    STEPHEN SOUZA: “The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town.”

    DAVE GREENWALD: “Contrary to the viewpoint of Mr. Souza however, this is not a small issue.”

    Contrary? Contrary how?

    David,

    You explain how large the 1% growth target is, but you never contradict or deny Stephen’s point: that our growth rate will be determined by Measure J votes and not by any artificial targets the council has set.

    So when you say “this is not a small issue,” you don’t ever say why it is not.

    If you think the target set by the council will actually be enacted, regardless of Measure J votes, then explain that.

    And if you really believe that is the case, then explain where all of these thousands of houses which don’t need a Measure J vote are going to be constructed?

  13. Doug Paul Davis

    You can defeat a Measure J vote on an issue like Covell, you are not going to defeat it on smaller developments that will not generate the type of interest and grass roots organization that Measure X did. It’s that simple.

  14. Doug Paul Davis

    You can defeat a Measure J vote on an issue like Covell, you are not going to defeat it on smaller developments that will not generate the type of interest and grass roots organization that Measure X did. It’s that simple.

  15. Doug Paul Davis

    You can defeat a Measure J vote on an issue like Covell, you are not going to defeat it on smaller developments that will not generate the type of interest and grass roots organization that Measure X did. It’s that simple.

  16. Doug Paul Davis

    You can defeat a Measure J vote on an issue like Covell, you are not going to defeat it on smaller developments that will not generate the type of interest and grass roots organization that Measure X did. It’s that simple.

  17. housing element committee member

    The “meeting” on January 24th is actually a pulic workshop, much like the one previously held at the Teen Center several months ago.

    Attendees from the public will actively be participating in planned activities examining their respective priorities with regards to future growth.

    So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!

    Thursday, January 24, 2008 – Community Workshop #2 (Holmes Jr High Multi Purpose Room)

  18. housing element committee memb

    The “meeting” on January 24th is actually a pulic workshop, much like the one previously held at the Teen Center several months ago.

    Attendees from the public will actively be participating in planned activities examining their respective priorities with regards to future growth.

    So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!

    Thursday, January 24, 2008 – Community Workshop #2 (Holmes Jr High Multi Purpose Room)

  19. housing element committee memb

    The “meeting” on January 24th is actually a pulic workshop, much like the one previously held at the Teen Center several months ago.

    Attendees from the public will actively be participating in planned activities examining their respective priorities with regards to future growth.

    So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!

    Thursday, January 24, 2008 – Community Workshop #2 (Holmes Jr High Multi Purpose Room)

  20. housing element committee memb

    The “meeting” on January 24th is actually a pulic workshop, much like the one previously held at the Teen Center several months ago.

    Attendees from the public will actively be participating in planned activities examining their respective priorities with regards to future growth.

    So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!

    Thursday, January 24, 2008 – Community Workshop #2 (Holmes Jr High Multi Purpose Room)

  21. Another no on xer

    “So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!”

    I guess I don’t get this.

    First, why wouldn’t a member of the Housing Element want to identify themselves by name?

    Second, why would you tell people to quit complaining? People have legitimate concerns about this issue.

    A better approach would have been for this individual to have posted under their name, explain for us the process, and invite us to participate.

    As it stands now this has little credibility in my mind.

  22. Another no on xer

    “So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!”

    I guess I don’t get this.

    First, why wouldn’t a member of the Housing Element want to identify themselves by name?

    Second, why would you tell people to quit complaining? People have legitimate concerns about this issue.

    A better approach would have been for this individual to have posted under their name, explain for us the process, and invite us to participate.

    As it stands now this has little credibility in my mind.

  23. Another no on xer

    “So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!”

    I guess I don’t get this.

    First, why wouldn’t a member of the Housing Element want to identify themselves by name?

    Second, why would you tell people to quit complaining? People have legitimate concerns about this issue.

    A better approach would have been for this individual to have posted under their name, explain for us the process, and invite us to participate.

    As it stands now this has little credibility in my mind.

  24. Another no on xer

    “So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!”

    I guess I don’t get this.

    First, why wouldn’t a member of the Housing Element want to identify themselves by name?

    Second, why would you tell people to quit complaining? People have legitimate concerns about this issue.

    A better approach would have been for this individual to have posted under their name, explain for us the process, and invite us to participate.

    As it stands now this has little credibility in my mind.

  25. No on xer

    If a measure J vote is needed, why not abolish the Council Majority’s self-imposed 1% growth requirement that has been recently recycled as a “guideline” to reassure skeptical Davisites that Souza’s conversion to populism is genuine.

  26. No on xer

    If a measure J vote is needed, why not abolish the Council Majority’s self-imposed 1% growth requirement that has been recently recycled as a “guideline” to reassure skeptical Davisites that Souza’s conversion to populism is genuine.

  27. No on xer

    If a measure J vote is needed, why not abolish the Council Majority’s self-imposed 1% growth requirement that has been recently recycled as a “guideline” to reassure skeptical Davisites that Souza’s conversion to populism is genuine.

  28. No on xer

    If a measure J vote is needed, why not abolish the Council Majority’s self-imposed 1% growth requirement that has been recently recycled as a “guideline” to reassure skeptical Davisites that Souza’s conversion to populism is genuine.

  29. Rich Rifkin

    DG: “You can defeat a Measure J vote on an issue like Covell, you are not going to defeat it on smaller developments that will not generate the type of interest and grass roots organization that Measure X did. It’s that simple.”

    You still have failed to show why Stephen’s logic is not correct. If a smaller development is approved by a majority of people in Davis in a vote, then the people in Davis will decide, not the artificial 1% target.

    I don’t understand why you are blowing so much hot air over this now meaningless number. Is it simply to scapegoat Stephen Souza? Is this all about your personal animous? It certainly is not about logic or reality.

  30. Rich Rifkin

    DG: “You can defeat a Measure J vote on an issue like Covell, you are not going to defeat it on smaller developments that will not generate the type of interest and grass roots organization that Measure X did. It’s that simple.”

    You still have failed to show why Stephen’s logic is not correct. If a smaller development is approved by a majority of people in Davis in a vote, then the people in Davis will decide, not the artificial 1% target.

    I don’t understand why you are blowing so much hot air over this now meaningless number. Is it simply to scapegoat Stephen Souza? Is this all about your personal animous? It certainly is not about logic or reality.

  31. Rich Rifkin

    DG: “You can defeat a Measure J vote on an issue like Covell, you are not going to defeat it on smaller developments that will not generate the type of interest and grass roots organization that Measure X did. It’s that simple.”

    You still have failed to show why Stephen’s logic is not correct. If a smaller development is approved by a majority of people in Davis in a vote, then the people in Davis will decide, not the artificial 1% target.

    I don’t understand why you are blowing so much hot air over this now meaningless number. Is it simply to scapegoat Stephen Souza? Is this all about your personal animous? It certainly is not about logic or reality.

  32. Rich Rifkin

    DG: “You can defeat a Measure J vote on an issue like Covell, you are not going to defeat it on smaller developments that will not generate the type of interest and grass roots organization that Measure X did. It’s that simple.”

    You still have failed to show why Stephen’s logic is not correct. If a smaller development is approved by a majority of people in Davis in a vote, then the people in Davis will decide, not the artificial 1% target.

    I don’t understand why you are blowing so much hot air over this now meaningless number. Is it simply to scapegoat Stephen Souza? Is this all about your personal animous? It certainly is not about logic or reality.

  33. davisite

    “I don’t understand why you are blowing so much hot air over this now meaningless number.”

    That’s exactly the point. If you feel that it is truly meaningless, why don’t you support removing it from the General Plan which the current Council Majority inserted on a 3-2 vote?

  34. davisite

    “I don’t understand why you are blowing so much hot air over this now meaningless number.”

    That’s exactly the point. If you feel that it is truly meaningless, why don’t you support removing it from the General Plan which the current Council Majority inserted on a 3-2 vote?

  35. davisite

    “I don’t understand why you are blowing so much hot air over this now meaningless number.”

    That’s exactly the point. If you feel that it is truly meaningless, why don’t you support removing it from the General Plan which the current Council Majority inserted on a 3-2 vote?

  36. davisite

    “I don’t understand why you are blowing so much hot air over this now meaningless number.”

    That’s exactly the point. If you feel that it is truly meaningless, why don’t you support removing it from the General Plan which the current Council Majority inserted on a 3-2 vote?

  37. Rich Rifkin

    “If you feel that it is truly meaningless, why don’t you support removing it from the General Plan which the current Council Majority inserted on a 3-2 vote?”

    It’s meaningless. I have no stake whatsoever in what is done with it, Gene.

  38. Rich Rifkin

    “If you feel that it is truly meaningless, why don’t you support removing it from the General Plan which the current Council Majority inserted on a 3-2 vote?”

    It’s meaningless. I have no stake whatsoever in what is done with it, Gene.

  39. Rich Rifkin

    “If you feel that it is truly meaningless, why don’t you support removing it from the General Plan which the current Council Majority inserted on a 3-2 vote?”

    It’s meaningless. I have no stake whatsoever in what is done with it, Gene.

  40. Rich Rifkin

    “If you feel that it is truly meaningless, why don’t you support removing it from the General Plan which the current Council Majority inserted on a 3-2 vote?”

    It’s meaningless. I have no stake whatsoever in what is done with it, Gene.

  41. davisite

    If the current Council Majority ,whose public record suggests that it is clearly opposed to the current Measure J provisions, is reelected, their agenda will be to weaken Measure J before it is offered to the voters in 2010. Sufficiently weakened, the 1% growth guideline is not meaningless. This is the crux of the current Council Majority’s reluctance to remove their “meaningless” 1% growth contribution to our General Plan.

  42. davisite

    If the current Council Majority ,whose public record suggests that it is clearly opposed to the current Measure J provisions, is reelected, their agenda will be to weaken Measure J before it is offered to the voters in 2010. Sufficiently weakened, the 1% growth guideline is not meaningless. This is the crux of the current Council Majority’s reluctance to remove their “meaningless” 1% growth contribution to our General Plan.

  43. davisite

    If the current Council Majority ,whose public record suggests that it is clearly opposed to the current Measure J provisions, is reelected, their agenda will be to weaken Measure J before it is offered to the voters in 2010. Sufficiently weakened, the 1% growth guideline is not meaningless. This is the crux of the current Council Majority’s reluctance to remove their “meaningless” 1% growth contribution to our General Plan.

  44. davisite

    If the current Council Majority ,whose public record suggests that it is clearly opposed to the current Measure J provisions, is reelected, their agenda will be to weaken Measure J before it is offered to the voters in 2010. Sufficiently weakened, the 1% growth guideline is not meaningless. This is the crux of the current Council Majority’s reluctance to remove their “meaningless” 1% growth contribution to our General Plan.

  45. Mike Hart

    “meaningless” hmmm… sort of like the whole issue of timelines for Iraq. Either it matters or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t matter, remove it. If it does matter, lets discuss it and hopefully have the council agree that it should be removed.

  46. Mike Hart

    “meaningless” hmmm… sort of like the whole issue of timelines for Iraq. Either it matters or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t matter, remove it. If it does matter, lets discuss it and hopefully have the council agree that it should be removed.

  47. Mike Hart

    “meaningless” hmmm… sort of like the whole issue of timelines for Iraq. Either it matters or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t matter, remove it. If it does matter, lets discuss it and hopefully have the council agree that it should be removed.

  48. Mike Hart

    “meaningless” hmmm… sort of like the whole issue of timelines for Iraq. Either it matters or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t matter, remove it. If it does matter, lets discuss it and hopefully have the council agree that it should be removed.

  49. davisite

    Suggestion to Sue and Lamar:

    Call Souza’s bluff and ask him to support replacing the 1% growth General Plan amendment(which is not at all clear in its meaning) inserted by the current Council Majority with another General Plan amendment that explicitedly calls this a 1% growth guideline with no particular weight given to it in the deliberations of future Councils on growth policy.

  50. davisite

    Suggestion to Sue and Lamar:

    Call Souza’s bluff and ask him to support replacing the 1% growth General Plan amendment(which is not at all clear in its meaning) inserted by the current Council Majority with another General Plan amendment that explicitedly calls this a 1% growth guideline with no particular weight given to it in the deliberations of future Councils on growth policy.

  51. davisite

    Suggestion to Sue and Lamar:

    Call Souza’s bluff and ask him to support replacing the 1% growth General Plan amendment(which is not at all clear in its meaning) inserted by the current Council Majority with another General Plan amendment that explicitedly calls this a 1% growth guideline with no particular weight given to it in the deliberations of future Councils on growth policy.

  52. davisite

    Suggestion to Sue and Lamar:

    Call Souza’s bluff and ask him to support replacing the 1% growth General Plan amendment(which is not at all clear in its meaning) inserted by the current Council Majority with another General Plan amendment that explicitedly calls this a 1% growth guideline with no particular weight given to it in the deliberations of future Councils on growth policy.

  53. Rich Rifkin

    “If the current Council Majority, whose public record suggests that it is clearly opposed to the current Measure J provisions, is reelected, their agenda will be to weaken Measure J before it is offered to the voters in 2010.”

    How would Measure J be weakened?

    “Sufficiently weakened, the 1% growth guideline is not meaningless.”

    To my knowledge, Measure J requires voter approval for any development that the city council approves outside current city borders. I understand that it exempts the development of schools, parks and some affordable housing.

    Unless Measure J were overturned by the voters, the 1% number would continue to have no weight.

    As such, you’ve failed to make your argument. Standing up on a pulpit and calling people names doesn’t make you right. Try logical argument, next time.

  54. Rich Rifkin

    “If the current Council Majority, whose public record suggests that it is clearly opposed to the current Measure J provisions, is reelected, their agenda will be to weaken Measure J before it is offered to the voters in 2010.”

    How would Measure J be weakened?

    “Sufficiently weakened, the 1% growth guideline is not meaningless.”

    To my knowledge, Measure J requires voter approval for any development that the city council approves outside current city borders. I understand that it exempts the development of schools, parks and some affordable housing.

    Unless Measure J were overturned by the voters, the 1% number would continue to have no weight.

    As such, you’ve failed to make your argument. Standing up on a pulpit and calling people names doesn’t make you right. Try logical argument, next time.

  55. Rich Rifkin

    “If the current Council Majority, whose public record suggests that it is clearly opposed to the current Measure J provisions, is reelected, their agenda will be to weaken Measure J before it is offered to the voters in 2010.”

    How would Measure J be weakened?

    “Sufficiently weakened, the 1% growth guideline is not meaningless.”

    To my knowledge, Measure J requires voter approval for any development that the city council approves outside current city borders. I understand that it exempts the development of schools, parks and some affordable housing.

    Unless Measure J were overturned by the voters, the 1% number would continue to have no weight.

    As such, you’ve failed to make your argument. Standing up on a pulpit and calling people names doesn’t make you right. Try logical argument, next time.

  56. Rich Rifkin

    “If the current Council Majority, whose public record suggests that it is clearly opposed to the current Measure J provisions, is reelected, their agenda will be to weaken Measure J before it is offered to the voters in 2010.”

    How would Measure J be weakened?

    “Sufficiently weakened, the 1% growth guideline is not meaningless.”

    To my knowledge, Measure J requires voter approval for any development that the city council approves outside current city borders. I understand that it exempts the development of schools, parks and some affordable housing.

    Unless Measure J were overturned by the voters, the 1% number would continue to have no weight.

    As such, you’ve failed to make your argument. Standing up on a pulpit and calling people names doesn’t make you right. Try logical argument, next time.

  57. Anonymous

    I think there are two separate arguments posed here.

    One is that many deem the council majority and developer interests likely to attempt to water down a future Measure J.

    Second, many believe that if you constantly have measure J votes, the probability of defeating a measure decreases with each new iteration based on resource distribution and shear exhaustion from organizing against a property.

  58. Anonymous

    I think there are two separate arguments posed here.

    One is that many deem the council majority and developer interests likely to attempt to water down a future Measure J.

    Second, many believe that if you constantly have measure J votes, the probability of defeating a measure decreases with each new iteration based on resource distribution and shear exhaustion from organizing against a property.

  59. Anonymous

    I think there are two separate arguments posed here.

    One is that many deem the council majority and developer interests likely to attempt to water down a future Measure J.

    Second, many believe that if you constantly have measure J votes, the probability of defeating a measure decreases with each new iteration based on resource distribution and shear exhaustion from organizing against a property.

  60. Anonymous

    I think there are two separate arguments posed here.

    One is that many deem the council majority and developer interests likely to attempt to water down a future Measure J.

    Second, many believe that if you constantly have measure J votes, the probability of defeating a measure decreases with each new iteration based on resource distribution and shear exhaustion from organizing against a property.

  61. davisite

    Bill Emlen brought this issue up at a workshop. He asked the Council to clarify how the sunsetting Measure J would be presented to the voters. Would it have to be the original, could it be changed by the Council and presented in a modified form, would both versions have to presented to the voters if the Council made changes? There is currently no answer to these questions. There is no value is addressing the ways that Measure J can be weakened. They are myriad and given the opportunity(reelection of Saylor and Souza), will find their way into the developer’s “voice” on our Council advocating “improving” the existing Measure J ordinance.

  62. davisite

    Bill Emlen brought this issue up at a workshop. He asked the Council to clarify how the sunsetting Measure J would be presented to the voters. Would it have to be the original, could it be changed by the Council and presented in a modified form, would both versions have to presented to the voters if the Council made changes? There is currently no answer to these questions. There is no value is addressing the ways that Measure J can be weakened. They are myriad and given the opportunity(reelection of Saylor and Souza), will find their way into the developer’s “voice” on our Council advocating “improving” the existing Measure J ordinance.

  63. davisite

    Bill Emlen brought this issue up at a workshop. He asked the Council to clarify how the sunsetting Measure J would be presented to the voters. Would it have to be the original, could it be changed by the Council and presented in a modified form, would both versions have to presented to the voters if the Council made changes? There is currently no answer to these questions. There is no value is addressing the ways that Measure J can be weakened. They are myriad and given the opportunity(reelection of Saylor and Souza), will find their way into the developer’s “voice” on our Council advocating “improving” the existing Measure J ordinance.

  64. davisite

    Bill Emlen brought this issue up at a workshop. He asked the Council to clarify how the sunsetting Measure J would be presented to the voters. Would it have to be the original, could it be changed by the Council and presented in a modified form, would both versions have to presented to the voters if the Council made changes? There is currently no answer to these questions. There is no value is addressing the ways that Measure J can be weakened. They are myriad and given the opportunity(reelection of Saylor and Souza), will find their way into the developer’s “voice” on our Council advocating “improving” the existing Measure J ordinance.

  65. Get Real

    The problem is that the more you don’t make explicit what is meant, the more advantage the Council majority takes of inattention. It has gotten to the point that I look over every Consent Calendar of every City Council meeting, wondering what is trying to be slipped past without public comment.

    Souza keeps telling us not to worry because…yet is one of the worst offenders at slipping things under the radar screen. The criticisms of him are quite just.

  66. Get Real

    The problem is that the more you don’t make explicit what is meant, the more advantage the Council majority takes of inattention. It has gotten to the point that I look over every Consent Calendar of every City Council meeting, wondering what is trying to be slipped past without public comment.

    Souza keeps telling us not to worry because…yet is one of the worst offenders at slipping things under the radar screen. The criticisms of him are quite just.

  67. Get Real

    The problem is that the more you don’t make explicit what is meant, the more advantage the Council majority takes of inattention. It has gotten to the point that I look over every Consent Calendar of every City Council meeting, wondering what is trying to be slipped past without public comment.

    Souza keeps telling us not to worry because…yet is one of the worst offenders at slipping things under the radar screen. The criticisms of him are quite just.

  68. Get Real

    The problem is that the more you don’t make explicit what is meant, the more advantage the Council majority takes of inattention. It has gotten to the point that I look over every Consent Calendar of every City Council meeting, wondering what is trying to be slipped past without public comment.

    Souza keeps telling us not to worry because…yet is one of the worst offenders at slipping things under the radar screen. The criticisms of him are quite just.

  69. Matt Williams

    Well, in the end, the Council postponed the Housing Element Update agenda item until their first meeting in January.

    However, the evening was not a total loss. The discussion of the Development Impact Fees resolution was interesting to say the least. The bottom-line of that discussion was simple . . . Davis’ fees are nowhere near as high as they need to be, nor as high as the fees of other Northern California cities.

  70. Matt Williams

    Well, in the end, the Council postponed the Housing Element Update agenda item until their first meeting in January.

    However, the evening was not a total loss. The discussion of the Development Impact Fees resolution was interesting to say the least. The bottom-line of that discussion was simple . . . Davis’ fees are nowhere near as high as they need to be, nor as high as the fees of other Northern California cities.

  71. Matt Williams

    Well, in the end, the Council postponed the Housing Element Update agenda item until their first meeting in January.

    However, the evening was not a total loss. The discussion of the Development Impact Fees resolution was interesting to say the least. The bottom-line of that discussion was simple . . . Davis’ fees are nowhere near as high as they need to be, nor as high as the fees of other Northern California cities.

  72. Matt Williams

    Well, in the end, the Council postponed the Housing Element Update agenda item until their first meeting in January.

    However, the evening was not a total loss. The discussion of the Development Impact Fees resolution was interesting to say the least. The bottom-line of that discussion was simple . . . Davis’ fees are nowhere near as high as they need to be, nor as high as the fees of other Northern California cities.

  73. Anonymous

    Matt… your presentation at public comment last evening was worth hanging around for until midnight.
    You cut right to the chase and I would have really liked the camera to have been on the faces on the dais.
    Saylor was nervously twirling his pen all evening and I bet it switched into high gear during your presentation.

  74. Anonymous

    Matt… your presentation at public comment last evening was worth hanging around for until midnight.
    You cut right to the chase and I would have really liked the camera to have been on the faces on the dais.
    Saylor was nervously twirling his pen all evening and I bet it switched into high gear during your presentation.

  75. Anonymous

    Matt… your presentation at public comment last evening was worth hanging around for until midnight.
    You cut right to the chase and I would have really liked the camera to have been on the faces on the dais.
    Saylor was nervously twirling his pen all evening and I bet it switched into high gear during your presentation.

  76. Anonymous

    Matt… your presentation at public comment last evening was worth hanging around for until midnight.
    You cut right to the chase and I would have really liked the camera to have been on the faces on the dais.
    Saylor was nervously twirling his pen all evening and I bet it switched into high gear during your presentation.

  77. Matt Williams

    Thank you for your compliment. I believe it is very important for the Council to clarify that The “annual average growth parameter” passed in March 2005 is very clearly a guideline and not a target. And I believe they need to make that clarification officially, and on the record. Why?

    IMHO, the 1% Growth Parameter is useful as a method for ensuring that Davis has identified a sufficient inventory of potential housing sites, rather than a target for actual residential build-outs. The business rationale of my position is simple. If developers know that residential units their land can provide are needed to reach a target they (and the City) will be in a very different business bargaining position than if those same developers know that their units are part of a target that is expected to be met.

    Fostering competition between developers for a smaller number of new unit approval slots will mean the developers will perceive that they need to offer the City more concessions in order to garner one of a potentially small number of slots. In simple terms we need to have a supply/demand situation where they need the City rather than one where the City needs them.

    The reality is that if housing demand in Davis is high, both a guideline and a target will work well, but if the housing demand is low a guideline will work much better than a target. The Council needs to recognize that fact and take the appropriate steps to protect the quality of life and fiscal welfare of the City they serve.

  78. Matt Williams

    Thank you for your compliment. I believe it is very important for the Council to clarify that The “annual average growth parameter” passed in March 2005 is very clearly a guideline and not a target. And I believe they need to make that clarification officially, and on the record. Why?

    IMHO, the 1% Growth Parameter is useful as a method for ensuring that Davis has identified a sufficient inventory of potential housing sites, rather than a target for actual residential build-outs. The business rationale of my position is simple. If developers know that residential units their land can provide are needed to reach a target they (and the City) will be in a very different business bargaining position than if those same developers know that their units are part of a target that is expected to be met.

    Fostering competition between developers for a smaller number of new unit approval slots will mean the developers will perceive that they need to offer the City more concessions in order to garner one of a potentially small number of slots. In simple terms we need to have a supply/demand situation where they need the City rather than one where the City needs them.

    The reality is that if housing demand in Davis is high, both a guideline and a target will work well, but if the housing demand is low a guideline will work much better than a target. The Council needs to recognize that fact and take the appropriate steps to protect the quality of life and fiscal welfare of the City they serve.

  79. Matt Williams

    Thank you for your compliment. I believe it is very important for the Council to clarify that The “annual average growth parameter” passed in March 2005 is very clearly a guideline and not a target. And I believe they need to make that clarification officially, and on the record. Why?

    IMHO, the 1% Growth Parameter is useful as a method for ensuring that Davis has identified a sufficient inventory of potential housing sites, rather than a target for actual residential build-outs. The business rationale of my position is simple. If developers know that residential units their land can provide are needed to reach a target they (and the City) will be in a very different business bargaining position than if those same developers know that their units are part of a target that is expected to be met.

    Fostering competition between developers for a smaller number of new unit approval slots will mean the developers will perceive that they need to offer the City more concessions in order to garner one of a potentially small number of slots. In simple terms we need to have a supply/demand situation where they need the City rather than one where the City needs them.

    The reality is that if housing demand in Davis is high, both a guideline and a target will work well, but if the housing demand is low a guideline will work much better than a target. The Council needs to recognize that fact and take the appropriate steps to protect the quality of life and fiscal welfare of the City they serve.

  80. Matt Williams

    Thank you for your compliment. I believe it is very important for the Council to clarify that The “annual average growth parameter” passed in March 2005 is very clearly a guideline and not a target. And I believe they need to make that clarification officially, and on the record. Why?

    IMHO, the 1% Growth Parameter is useful as a method for ensuring that Davis has identified a sufficient inventory of potential housing sites, rather than a target for actual residential build-outs. The business rationale of my position is simple. If developers know that residential units their land can provide are needed to reach a target they (and the City) will be in a very different business bargaining position than if those same developers know that their units are part of a target that is expected to be met.

    Fostering competition between developers for a smaller number of new unit approval slots will mean the developers will perceive that they need to offer the City more concessions in order to garner one of a potentially small number of slots. In simple terms we need to have a supply/demand situation where they need the City rather than one where the City needs them.

    The reality is that if housing demand in Davis is high, both a guideline and a target will work well, but if the housing demand is low a guideline will work much better than a target. The Council needs to recognize that fact and take the appropriate steps to protect the quality of life and fiscal welfare of the City they serve.

  81. Sue Greenwald

    Don,
    Regarding today’s Enterprise article on the wastewater project, I posted something like the following on the Enterprise internet edition today:

    “I would like to emphasize that I am not “an opponent” of the surface water project.

    I am in favor of studying to the feasibility of phasing in the wastewater treatment plant and the surface water project, so that the new wastewater plant can be paid off before citizens have to start paying for the surface water project.

    I am proposing this only after having talked with the leading University water experts and a top state water rights expert, and having received feedback that postponing the surface water project was worthy of consideration.

    I suggest postponing the project because I am concerned about the cumulative impact of the costs of the new wastewater treatment plant and the surface water project.
    The combined projects are currently estimated to cost over $340 million dollars.

    If the water project goes through, supplementary charges on average the average home’s property tax bill (supplementary taxes, water, sewer and garbage fees) are now forecast to be around $3,300 in seven years, when the full costs of paying for the water and sewer projects kick in. (This doesn’t count the sales tax supplement). These charges are over and above the base property tax.

    This forecast does not include any of the new city or school district taxes that will probably be coming. The new $165 million wastewater treatment plant, which we must rebuild by law, and the new $175 million surface water project, are far and away the largest components of these supplementary charges.

    In short, I believe that we will need to import surface water sometime in the future, but that we should consider postponing the project.

    Again, I have consulted with top water and water rights experts, exploring with them all the pros and cons and fears and risks, before offering this suggestion.”

  82. Sue Greenwald

    Don,
    Regarding today’s Enterprise article on the wastewater project, I posted something like the following on the Enterprise internet edition today:

    “I would like to emphasize that I am not “an opponent” of the surface water project.

    I am in favor of studying to the feasibility of phasing in the wastewater treatment plant and the surface water project, so that the new wastewater plant can be paid off before citizens have to start paying for the surface water project.

    I am proposing this only after having talked with the leading University water experts and a top state water rights expert, and having received feedback that postponing the surface water project was worthy of consideration.

    I suggest postponing the project because I am concerned about the cumulative impact of the costs of the new wastewater treatment plant and the surface water project.
    The combined projects are currently estimated to cost over $340 million dollars.

    If the water project goes through, supplementary charges on average the average home’s property tax bill (supplementary taxes, water, sewer and garbage fees) are now forecast to be around $3,300 in seven years, when the full costs of paying for the water and sewer projects kick in. (This doesn’t count the sales tax supplement). These charges are over and above the base property tax.

    This forecast does not include any of the new city or school district taxes that will probably be coming. The new $165 million wastewater treatment plant, which we must rebuild by law, and the new $175 million surface water project, are far and away the largest components of these supplementary charges.

    In short, I believe that we will need to import surface water sometime in the future, but that we should consider postponing the project.

    Again, I have consulted with top water and water rights experts, exploring with them all the pros and cons and fears and risks, before offering this suggestion.”

  83. Sue Greenwald

    Don,
    Regarding today’s Enterprise article on the wastewater project, I posted something like the following on the Enterprise internet edition today:

    “I would like to emphasize that I am not “an opponent” of the surface water project.

    I am in favor of studying to the feasibility of phasing in the wastewater treatment plant and the surface water project, so that the new wastewater plant can be paid off before citizens have to start paying for the surface water project.

    I am proposing this only after having talked with the leading University water experts and a top state water rights expert, and having received feedback that postponing the surface water project was worthy of consideration.

    I suggest postponing the project because I am concerned about the cumulative impact of the costs of the new wastewater treatment plant and the surface water project.
    The combined projects are currently estimated to cost over $340 million dollars.

    If the water project goes through, supplementary charges on average the average home’s property tax bill (supplementary taxes, water, sewer and garbage fees) are now forecast to be around $3,300 in seven years, when the full costs of paying for the water and sewer projects kick in. (This doesn’t count the sales tax supplement). These charges are over and above the base property tax.

    This forecast does not include any of the new city or school district taxes that will probably be coming. The new $165 million wastewater treatment plant, which we must rebuild by law, and the new $175 million surface water project, are far and away the largest components of these supplementary charges.

    In short, I believe that we will need to import surface water sometime in the future, but that we should consider postponing the project.

    Again, I have consulted with top water and water rights experts, exploring with them all the pros and cons and fears and risks, before offering this suggestion.”

  84. Sue Greenwald

    Don,
    Regarding today’s Enterprise article on the wastewater project, I posted something like the following on the Enterprise internet edition today:

    “I would like to emphasize that I am not “an opponent” of the surface water project.

    I am in favor of studying to the feasibility of phasing in the wastewater treatment plant and the surface water project, so that the new wastewater plant can be paid off before citizens have to start paying for the surface water project.

    I am proposing this only after having talked with the leading University water experts and a top state water rights expert, and having received feedback that postponing the surface water project was worthy of consideration.

    I suggest postponing the project because I am concerned about the cumulative impact of the costs of the new wastewater treatment plant and the surface water project.
    The combined projects are currently estimated to cost over $340 million dollars.

    If the water project goes through, supplementary charges on average the average home’s property tax bill (supplementary taxes, water, sewer and garbage fees) are now forecast to be around $3,300 in seven years, when the full costs of paying for the water and sewer projects kick in. (This doesn’t count the sales tax supplement). These charges are over and above the base property tax.

    This forecast does not include any of the new city or school district taxes that will probably be coming. The new $165 million wastewater treatment plant, which we must rebuild by law, and the new $175 million surface water project, are far and away the largest components of these supplementary charges.

    In short, I believe that we will need to import surface water sometime in the future, but that we should consider postponing the project.

    Again, I have consulted with top water and water rights experts, exploring with them all the pros and cons and fears and risks, before offering this suggestion.”

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

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