Then I went home and read Bob Dunning who was whipping the neighbors of the Horse Ranch development proposal who live on Caravaggio, at least I think that’s what we was doing, because suddenly almost in midstream he turned the whip on the City Council for packing the development like sardines.
Do we ignore the pleas of neighbors as shear NIMBYISM? Do we drive for denser and denser because that means we will be more compact and less sprawled? Or is there some middle ground here?
I understand and even appreciate some of the logic behind Kevin Wolf’s densification drive. The idea here is that we protect the periphery of Davis, preserve the farmlands, and yet we still need to grow, at least in Kevin Wolf’s world (which I don’t mean derisively, just to say it’s his world view, as opposed to say my own. On the other hand, I am about to use Mr. Wolf as a convenient foil here.).
The problem with Mr. Wolf’s vision is that it is flawed and contradictory. He was a leading proponent of Covell Village. Covell Village was perhaps the antithesis of this vision. Whether or not we need to grow, and whether or not we need densification, Covell Village encroaches onto farm land, builds a large number of big homes, which means less density, and oh yeah, creates traffic problems at the corner of Poleline and Covell that leads to more, not less, emissions. In short, if carbon neutral is what you are going for, Covell is not the way to go.
But back to the densification issue at this point. I understand both Mr. Wolf and Mr. Dunning’s concerns about density. I also understand their concern that the neighbors out of NIMBYISM are often going to oppose all new development on their own borders, adjacent to their neighborhood. That they will attempt to get the smallest and least dense project they can get for a variety of reasons.
At the same time, why the hell should they not? It is not like most of these people are wealthy people developing lots haphazardly. Most people who live in Davis have put their life’s savings into buying their home, living in a nice community with a good quality of life. Why should they not fight to protect them?
And maybe we do not grant them veto power over projects, but the idea that they get no say, as Kevin Wolf suggests, that we instruct the City Council to ignore the pleas of neighbors, is shear arrogance on our part. They have the right to weigh in and be heard. The city council has the duty to take their views seriously as they are just as much a part of this city as anyone.
If we are concerned about the character of this city, don’t they have the right to be concerned about the character of their neighborhood?
I do not see this as a Manichean struggle for good and evil. I do not think this needs to be a zero-sum game where someone wins and someone loses.
As someone else pointed out on Thursday, look we can have a dense project in a high rise but as long as we surround it with open space it is not going to be a problem.
That gets me to the next point. We need to talk about densification. We need to listen to the neighbors. But at the end of the day, there is no reason why we cannot build highly dense developments that maintain the nature and character of the adjacent neighborhood. At the end of the day, the neighborhood should fit like a zig saw puzzle, interlocking into the existing landscape, while at the same time looking to maximize both density, open space, greenbelts, etc.
And those are not antithetical views. They are not in contradiction to each other. The problem is that we have allowed our planning to become complacent and lazy. And we also need to understand that we do not fix densification issues by jamming people together into the new developments. That doesn’t fix the issues of sprawl. If we do this, we will be looking like little Manhattan.
Finally the biggest question we need to answer is not how dense we are to become, it is not how dense we should make it, but rather how much we ought to grow and how fast. Everyone talks about fair share growth. A city of Davis’ size should not be forced to become a city of 100,000 or 120,000 people. That’s not fair share of growth, that’s allowing certain interests to turn this city into something it is not. There many other cities with the infrastructure and the drive to take on more growth than we do.
However, that point aside, at the end of the day we cannot simply ignore the cries of neighbors. They have bought into a promise of this city. They invested in the fact that we have safe streets. They invested in the fact that we have good schools. They invested in the character and the quality of life in Davis. In fact, they overpaid -most likely- for those features. So if we are about to pull the rug out from under them and change the landscape of their investment, do we not at least owe it to them to hear them out?
When I hear it said that we ought to direct the council to ignore complaints of neighbors it makes me very nervous, because as soon as we become arrogant enough to ignore one group of people, we begin to ignore all. And then, we cease to be a democracy.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Excellent article DPD! How would council members like it if all of a sudden there was a more dense development next to their home? To their neighborhood? How do you think the people who live next to the super size Target feel? They invested their hard earned money. the public needs to be engaged. We moved to Davis because of the character of the town and what it offers and they are attempting to change that unilaterally.
I am very much in favor of densification, but it needs to be appropriate for the neighborhood.
Thank you DPD!
Excellent article DPD! How would council members like it if all of a sudden there was a more dense development next to their home? To their neighborhood? How do you think the people who live next to the super size Target feel? They invested their hard earned money. the public needs to be engaged. We moved to Davis because of the character of the town and what it offers and they are attempting to change that unilaterally.
I am very much in favor of densification, but it needs to be appropriate for the neighborhood.
Thank you DPD!
Excellent article DPD! How would council members like it if all of a sudden there was a more dense development next to their home? To their neighborhood? How do you think the people who live next to the super size Target feel? They invested their hard earned money. the public needs to be engaged. We moved to Davis because of the character of the town and what it offers and they are attempting to change that unilaterally.
I am very much in favor of densification, but it needs to be appropriate for the neighborhood.
Thank you DPD!
Excellent article DPD! How would council members like it if all of a sudden there was a more dense development next to their home? To their neighborhood? How do you think the people who live next to the super size Target feel? They invested their hard earned money. the public needs to be engaged. We moved to Davis because of the character of the town and what it offers and they are attempting to change that unilaterally.
I am very much in favor of densification, but it needs to be appropriate for the neighborhood.
Thank you DPD!
I would be highly suspect of Kevin Wolf’s outcry for densification and dissing the interests of the neighbors. His comments are an obvious ploy to manipulate the Davis voters by promoting densification anger and fear, attempting to make peripheral development(Covell Village) of his patrons more politically palatable.
As for Dunning comments, it is just “standard” Dunning, playing the Everyman provocateur; his goal is to inflame passions and increase his readership.
I would be highly suspect of Kevin Wolf’s outcry for densification and dissing the interests of the neighbors. His comments are an obvious ploy to manipulate the Davis voters by promoting densification anger and fear, attempting to make peripheral development(Covell Village) of his patrons more politically palatable.
As for Dunning comments, it is just “standard” Dunning, playing the Everyman provocateur; his goal is to inflame passions and increase his readership.
I would be highly suspect of Kevin Wolf’s outcry for densification and dissing the interests of the neighbors. His comments are an obvious ploy to manipulate the Davis voters by promoting densification anger and fear, attempting to make peripheral development(Covell Village) of his patrons more politically palatable.
As for Dunning comments, it is just “standard” Dunning, playing the Everyman provocateur; his goal is to inflame passions and increase his readership.
I would be highly suspect of Kevin Wolf’s outcry for densification and dissing the interests of the neighbors. His comments are an obvious ploy to manipulate the Davis voters by promoting densification anger and fear, attempting to make peripheral development(Covell Village) of his patrons more politically palatable.
As for Dunning comments, it is just “standard” Dunning, playing the Everyman provocateur; his goal is to inflame passions and increase his readership.
Good point Davisite. We do have to question Wolf’s motives.
Excellent article, DPD! This is a real problem. I am fully in support of densification, if we have to continue to grow for some reason, as I believe we really cannot continue to pave over our good farmland and survive. There are a number of places in Davis where this type of growth–dense–can occur without changing the character of an exiting neighborhood. One such is the PG&E site on L Street. I have heard that you do not support that for various reasons, but that is short-sighted. PG&E has expressed a desire to move to the periphery of Davis in the past. That site, if they do move, is an excellent place for dense development for townhouses, condos, etc. It is not in an existing neighborhood, it is pretty much surrounded by commercial development. It is close to downtown. It is an eyesore presently. There are other such places as well that we should utilize and just forget about any more peripheral sprawl.
I do agree that we absolutely do need to listen to the neighbors when we talk about densification in existing neighborhoods. I do not at all agree with Kevin Wolf’s suggested approach.
Maybe it is time to talk about how big we want to grow or should grow. Maybe we just don’t want to continue to sprawl our way into another valley town. This is the conversation we need to have some time soon, most likely as part of our efforts to cut our carbon footprint. With global warming and the threat of drastic climate change, we cannot continue to follow the same model.
Good point Davisite. We do have to question Wolf’s motives.
Excellent article, DPD! This is a real problem. I am fully in support of densification, if we have to continue to grow for some reason, as I believe we really cannot continue to pave over our good farmland and survive. There are a number of places in Davis where this type of growth–dense–can occur without changing the character of an exiting neighborhood. One such is the PG&E site on L Street. I have heard that you do not support that for various reasons, but that is short-sighted. PG&E has expressed a desire to move to the periphery of Davis in the past. That site, if they do move, is an excellent place for dense development for townhouses, condos, etc. It is not in an existing neighborhood, it is pretty much surrounded by commercial development. It is close to downtown. It is an eyesore presently. There are other such places as well that we should utilize and just forget about any more peripheral sprawl.
I do agree that we absolutely do need to listen to the neighbors when we talk about densification in existing neighborhoods. I do not at all agree with Kevin Wolf’s suggested approach.
Maybe it is time to talk about how big we want to grow or should grow. Maybe we just don’t want to continue to sprawl our way into another valley town. This is the conversation we need to have some time soon, most likely as part of our efforts to cut our carbon footprint. With global warming and the threat of drastic climate change, we cannot continue to follow the same model.
Good point Davisite. We do have to question Wolf’s motives.
Excellent article, DPD! This is a real problem. I am fully in support of densification, if we have to continue to grow for some reason, as I believe we really cannot continue to pave over our good farmland and survive. There are a number of places in Davis where this type of growth–dense–can occur without changing the character of an exiting neighborhood. One such is the PG&E site on L Street. I have heard that you do not support that for various reasons, but that is short-sighted. PG&E has expressed a desire to move to the periphery of Davis in the past. That site, if they do move, is an excellent place for dense development for townhouses, condos, etc. It is not in an existing neighborhood, it is pretty much surrounded by commercial development. It is close to downtown. It is an eyesore presently. There are other such places as well that we should utilize and just forget about any more peripheral sprawl.
I do agree that we absolutely do need to listen to the neighbors when we talk about densification in existing neighborhoods. I do not at all agree with Kevin Wolf’s suggested approach.
Maybe it is time to talk about how big we want to grow or should grow. Maybe we just don’t want to continue to sprawl our way into another valley town. This is the conversation we need to have some time soon, most likely as part of our efforts to cut our carbon footprint. With global warming and the threat of drastic climate change, we cannot continue to follow the same model.
Good point Davisite. We do have to question Wolf’s motives.
Excellent article, DPD! This is a real problem. I am fully in support of densification, if we have to continue to grow for some reason, as I believe we really cannot continue to pave over our good farmland and survive. There are a number of places in Davis where this type of growth–dense–can occur without changing the character of an exiting neighborhood. One such is the PG&E site on L Street. I have heard that you do not support that for various reasons, but that is short-sighted. PG&E has expressed a desire to move to the periphery of Davis in the past. That site, if they do move, is an excellent place for dense development for townhouses, condos, etc. It is not in an existing neighborhood, it is pretty much surrounded by commercial development. It is close to downtown. It is an eyesore presently. There are other such places as well that we should utilize and just forget about any more peripheral sprawl.
I do agree that we absolutely do need to listen to the neighbors when we talk about densification in existing neighborhoods. I do not at all agree with Kevin Wolf’s suggested approach.
Maybe it is time to talk about how big we want to grow or should grow. Maybe we just don’t want to continue to sprawl our way into another valley town. This is the conversation we need to have some time soon, most likely as part of our efforts to cut our carbon footprint. With global warming and the threat of drastic climate change, we cannot continue to follow the same model.
I have been making this case concerning densification since I first became involved in Davis politics.
Whatever the important cause of the times, be it affordable housing or climate change, the developers and building industry will co-opt it to further their profit margins.
I don’t believe that we will end up reducing our carbon footprint if we make our neighborhood and our city less liveable.
There are changes we can make that will reduce our carbon footprint and enhance our quality of life.
If we make changes that degrade our quality of life, there will be unintended secondary consequences that will increase our carbon footprint, like more vacation homes, auto and plane travel and weekends and holidays, and flight to cities that embrace urban sprawl. The devil is in the details.
I have been discussing this point at council meetings, forums and conferences for some time.
I have been making this case concerning densification since I first became involved in Davis politics.
Whatever the important cause of the times, be it affordable housing or climate change, the developers and building industry will co-opt it to further their profit margins.
I don’t believe that we will end up reducing our carbon footprint if we make our neighborhood and our city less liveable.
There are changes we can make that will reduce our carbon footprint and enhance our quality of life.
If we make changes that degrade our quality of life, there will be unintended secondary consequences that will increase our carbon footprint, like more vacation homes, auto and plane travel and weekends and holidays, and flight to cities that embrace urban sprawl. The devil is in the details.
I have been discussing this point at council meetings, forums and conferences for some time.
I have been making this case concerning densification since I first became involved in Davis politics.
Whatever the important cause of the times, be it affordable housing or climate change, the developers and building industry will co-opt it to further their profit margins.
I don’t believe that we will end up reducing our carbon footprint if we make our neighborhood and our city less liveable.
There are changes we can make that will reduce our carbon footprint and enhance our quality of life.
If we make changes that degrade our quality of life, there will be unintended secondary consequences that will increase our carbon footprint, like more vacation homes, auto and plane travel and weekends and holidays, and flight to cities that embrace urban sprawl. The devil is in the details.
I have been discussing this point at council meetings, forums and conferences for some time.
I have been making this case concerning densification since I first became involved in Davis politics.
Whatever the important cause of the times, be it affordable housing or climate change, the developers and building industry will co-opt it to further their profit margins.
I don’t believe that we will end up reducing our carbon footprint if we make our neighborhood and our city less liveable.
There are changes we can make that will reduce our carbon footprint and enhance our quality of life.
If we make changes that degrade our quality of life, there will be unintended secondary consequences that will increase our carbon footprint, like more vacation homes, auto and plane travel and weekends and holidays, and flight to cities that embrace urban sprawl. The devil is in the details.
I have been discussing this point at council meetings, forums and conferences for some time.
Point of clarification, I’m not opposed to PGE just not sure it is feasible.
Point of clarification, I’m not opposed to PGE just not sure it is feasible.
Point of clarification, I’m not opposed to PGE just not sure it is feasible.
Point of clarification, I’m not opposed to PGE just not sure it is feasible.
“Whatever the important cause of the times, be it affordable housing or climate change, the developers and building industry will co-opt it to further their profit margins.”
In other words, people in business try to provide the product that the market is demanding. Pleasing your customers is usually a good way to make money.
“How do you think the people who live next to the super size Target feel?”
Target hasn’t been built. When it is, it will be 220 feet from the nearest houses, with a landscaped berm in between. That’s a very substantial setback.
Having your house hundreds of feet from the back side of a department store, with trees as a buffer, is nothing compared to the far larger number of people in Davis whose houses back up to Highway 113, Interstate 80 or the railroad tracks.
When Arroyo Drive was built, the land to its south was zoned “industrial.” Is a distant shopping mall so bad compared with a noisy, smelly factory?
“We moved to Davis because of the character of the town and what it offers and they are attempting to change that unilaterally.”
Who are they? The majority of voters who voted in favor of Target?
“Whatever the important cause of the times, be it affordable housing or climate change, the developers and building industry will co-opt it to further their profit margins.”
In other words, people in business try to provide the product that the market is demanding. Pleasing your customers is usually a good way to make money.
“How do you think the people who live next to the super size Target feel?”
Target hasn’t been built. When it is, it will be 220 feet from the nearest houses, with a landscaped berm in between. That’s a very substantial setback.
Having your house hundreds of feet from the back side of a department store, with trees as a buffer, is nothing compared to the far larger number of people in Davis whose houses back up to Highway 113, Interstate 80 or the railroad tracks.
When Arroyo Drive was built, the land to its south was zoned “industrial.” Is a distant shopping mall so bad compared with a noisy, smelly factory?
“We moved to Davis because of the character of the town and what it offers and they are attempting to change that unilaterally.”
Who are they? The majority of voters who voted in favor of Target?
“Whatever the important cause of the times, be it affordable housing or climate change, the developers and building industry will co-opt it to further their profit margins.”
In other words, people in business try to provide the product that the market is demanding. Pleasing your customers is usually a good way to make money.
“How do you think the people who live next to the super size Target feel?”
Target hasn’t been built. When it is, it will be 220 feet from the nearest houses, with a landscaped berm in between. That’s a very substantial setback.
Having your house hundreds of feet from the back side of a department store, with trees as a buffer, is nothing compared to the far larger number of people in Davis whose houses back up to Highway 113, Interstate 80 or the railroad tracks.
When Arroyo Drive was built, the land to its south was zoned “industrial.” Is a distant shopping mall so bad compared with a noisy, smelly factory?
“We moved to Davis because of the character of the town and what it offers and they are attempting to change that unilaterally.”
Who are they? The majority of voters who voted in favor of Target?
“Whatever the important cause of the times, be it affordable housing or climate change, the developers and building industry will co-opt it to further their profit margins.”
In other words, people in business try to provide the product that the market is demanding. Pleasing your customers is usually a good way to make money.
“How do you think the people who live next to the super size Target feel?”
Target hasn’t been built. When it is, it will be 220 feet from the nearest houses, with a landscaped berm in between. That’s a very substantial setback.
Having your house hundreds of feet from the back side of a department store, with trees as a buffer, is nothing compared to the far larger number of people in Davis whose houses back up to Highway 113, Interstate 80 or the railroad tracks.
When Arroyo Drive was built, the land to its south was zoned “industrial.” Is a distant shopping mall so bad compared with a noisy, smelly factory?
“We moved to Davis because of the character of the town and what it offers and they are attempting to change that unilaterally.”
Who are they? The majority of voters who voted in favor of Target?
I laugh when Mace Ranch residents complain about Target, or Wildhorse residents complain about Wildhorse Ranch. It’s like they all suffer from collective amnesia.
Word to Mace Ranch, you are the ugly stepchild that no one wanted but was dropped off on our doorstep.
I laugh when Mace Ranch residents complain about Target, or Wildhorse residents complain about Wildhorse Ranch. It’s like they all suffer from collective amnesia.
Word to Mace Ranch, you are the ugly stepchild that no one wanted but was dropped off on our doorstep.
I laugh when Mace Ranch residents complain about Target, or Wildhorse residents complain about Wildhorse Ranch. It’s like they all suffer from collective amnesia.
Word to Mace Ranch, you are the ugly stepchild that no one wanted but was dropped off on our doorstep.
I laugh when Mace Ranch residents complain about Target, or Wildhorse residents complain about Wildhorse Ranch. It’s like they all suffer from collective amnesia.
Word to Mace Ranch, you are the ugly stepchild that no one wanted but was dropped off on our doorstep.
All this babble about carbon footprints is just nonsense. The biggest employer in the county is UC Davis so if you don’t provide adequate housing for those employees and they are forced to commute from Woodland, Dixon, West Sac or even farther by a lack of affordably priced housing you are perpetuating policies that increase carbon dioxide production globally while reducing it locally. The Mayor’s policies turn the think globally act locally rhetoric of the 70’s on its head. Her policies are more like think locally who cares about globally.
It seems that the Mayor is against densification and she is also against sprawl so what is she for? It seems that she is for nobody who doesn’t already live here being able to move here a position that is only consistant in its self serving selfishness. Of course that is representative of her constituency as well.
All this babble about carbon footprints is just nonsense. The biggest employer in the county is UC Davis so if you don’t provide adequate housing for those employees and they are forced to commute from Woodland, Dixon, West Sac or even farther by a lack of affordably priced housing you are perpetuating policies that increase carbon dioxide production globally while reducing it locally. The Mayor’s policies turn the think globally act locally rhetoric of the 70’s on its head. Her policies are more like think locally who cares about globally.
It seems that the Mayor is against densification and she is also against sprawl so what is she for? It seems that she is for nobody who doesn’t already live here being able to move here a position that is only consistant in its self serving selfishness. Of course that is representative of her constituency as well.
All this babble about carbon footprints is just nonsense. The biggest employer in the county is UC Davis so if you don’t provide adequate housing for those employees and they are forced to commute from Woodland, Dixon, West Sac or even farther by a lack of affordably priced housing you are perpetuating policies that increase carbon dioxide production globally while reducing it locally. The Mayor’s policies turn the think globally act locally rhetoric of the 70’s on its head. Her policies are more like think locally who cares about globally.
It seems that the Mayor is against densification and she is also against sprawl so what is she for? It seems that she is for nobody who doesn’t already live here being able to move here a position that is only consistant in its self serving selfishness. Of course that is representative of her constituency as well.
All this babble about carbon footprints is just nonsense. The biggest employer in the county is UC Davis so if you don’t provide adequate housing for those employees and they are forced to commute from Woodland, Dixon, West Sac or even farther by a lack of affordably priced housing you are perpetuating policies that increase carbon dioxide production globally while reducing it locally. The Mayor’s policies turn the think globally act locally rhetoric of the 70’s on its head. Her policies are more like think locally who cares about globally.
It seems that the Mayor is against densification and she is also against sprawl so what is she for? It seems that she is for nobody who doesn’t already live here being able to move here a position that is only consistant in its self serving selfishness. Of course that is representative of her constituency as well.
In response to Mace Ranch comment by anonymous:
Whether or not the development was wanted by you is not a measure of the people who live there. They did not vote for Mace Ranch: the people living in Davis at the time did. And what development do you live in? Or is your house exempt because it happened to pave over farmland before 1975?
In response to Mace Ranch comment by anonymous:
Whether or not the development was wanted by you is not a measure of the people who live there. They did not vote for Mace Ranch: the people living in Davis at the time did. And what development do you live in? Or is your house exempt because it happened to pave over farmland before 1975?
In response to Mace Ranch comment by anonymous:
Whether or not the development was wanted by you is not a measure of the people who live there. They did not vote for Mace Ranch: the people living in Davis at the time did. And what development do you live in? Or is your house exempt because it happened to pave over farmland before 1975?
In response to Mace Ranch comment by anonymous:
Whether or not the development was wanted by you is not a measure of the people who live there. They did not vote for Mace Ranch: the people living in Davis at the time did. And what development do you live in? Or is your house exempt because it happened to pave over farmland before 1975?
The more I read this blog the more I appreciate Bob Dunning.
The more I read this blog the more I appreciate Bob Dunning.
The more I read this blog the more I appreciate Bob Dunning.
The more I read this blog the more I appreciate Bob Dunning.
The more I read this blog, the less I read Bob Dunning.
The more I read this blog, the less I read Bob Dunning.
The more I read this blog, the less I read Bob Dunning.
The more I read this blog, the less I read Bob Dunning.
Davis voters were presented with two measures to approve Mace Ranch. They passed by 60% and 64%.
Target passed by 673 votes.
Sorry, Rich, but 220′ is going to be an insignificant setback for a retailer that will be receiving deliveries from double semi trucks several dozen times a week and generating thousands of car trips per day, not to mention the lighting that will be necessary to prevent crime.
Davis voters were presented with two measures to approve Mace Ranch. They passed by 60% and 64%.
Target passed by 673 votes.
Sorry, Rich, but 220′ is going to be an insignificant setback for a retailer that will be receiving deliveries from double semi trucks several dozen times a week and generating thousands of car trips per day, not to mention the lighting that will be necessary to prevent crime.
Davis voters were presented with two measures to approve Mace Ranch. They passed by 60% and 64%.
Target passed by 673 votes.
Sorry, Rich, but 220′ is going to be an insignificant setback for a retailer that will be receiving deliveries from double semi trucks several dozen times a week and generating thousands of car trips per day, not to mention the lighting that will be necessary to prevent crime.
Davis voters were presented with two measures to approve Mace Ranch. They passed by 60% and 64%.
Target passed by 673 votes.
Sorry, Rich, but 220′ is going to be an insignificant setback for a retailer that will be receiving deliveries from double semi trucks several dozen times a week and generating thousands of car trips per day, not to mention the lighting that will be necessary to prevent crime.
Don the semis that bring stuff to Davis will have a smaller carbon output than the thousands of trips to the Woodland Target from people who live in town and don’t want to pay small town little box prices.
This is the problem with all this carbon budgeting, it depends on how you define the system. Define as Davis alone like so many on here do and you get a different answer than the one you get if you define it globally.
Don the semis that bring stuff to Davis will have a smaller carbon output than the thousands of trips to the Woodland Target from people who live in town and don’t want to pay small town little box prices.
This is the problem with all this carbon budgeting, it depends on how you define the system. Define as Davis alone like so many on here do and you get a different answer than the one you get if you define it globally.
Don the semis that bring stuff to Davis will have a smaller carbon output than the thousands of trips to the Woodland Target from people who live in town and don’t want to pay small town little box prices.
This is the problem with all this carbon budgeting, it depends on how you define the system. Define as Davis alone like so many on here do and you get a different answer than the one you get if you define it globally.
Don the semis that bring stuff to Davis will have a smaller carbon output than the thousands of trips to the Woodland Target from people who live in town and don’t want to pay small town little box prices.
This is the problem with all this carbon budgeting, it depends on how you define the system. Define as Davis alone like so many on here do and you get a different answer than the one you get if you define it globally.
It’s never been clear to me that there is as much of a gain as some have claimed.
On the one hand, it is true that people will no longer drive from Davis to Woodland to go specifically to Target. I mean I can probably count the number of times I have done that on my hands and I’ve lived here for over 10 years.
On the other hand, you have people driving across town to go to Target in Davis, which is not that much shorter and driving through town, you get the stop lights and traffic signals. You may actually burn more gas driving from West Davis to Target on 2nd and Mace than driving to Woodland.
But there is another factor not counted in that equation. If I am a regular to Target and have to drive out of town, I may make one trip over a given period and load up on what I need. If it is across town, I may make multiple trips buying fewer on each visit.
Thus the distance covered may be less but because of the perceived convenience, the number of trips may increase.
It’s never been clear to me that there is as much of a gain as some have claimed.
On the one hand, it is true that people will no longer drive from Davis to Woodland to go specifically to Target. I mean I can probably count the number of times I have done that on my hands and I’ve lived here for over 10 years.
On the other hand, you have people driving across town to go to Target in Davis, which is not that much shorter and driving through town, you get the stop lights and traffic signals. You may actually burn more gas driving from West Davis to Target on 2nd and Mace than driving to Woodland.
But there is another factor not counted in that equation. If I am a regular to Target and have to drive out of town, I may make one trip over a given period and load up on what I need. If it is across town, I may make multiple trips buying fewer on each visit.
Thus the distance covered may be less but because of the perceived convenience, the number of trips may increase.
It’s never been clear to me that there is as much of a gain as some have claimed.
On the one hand, it is true that people will no longer drive from Davis to Woodland to go specifically to Target. I mean I can probably count the number of times I have done that on my hands and I’ve lived here for over 10 years.
On the other hand, you have people driving across town to go to Target in Davis, which is not that much shorter and driving through town, you get the stop lights and traffic signals. You may actually burn more gas driving from West Davis to Target on 2nd and Mace than driving to Woodland.
But there is another factor not counted in that equation. If I am a regular to Target and have to drive out of town, I may make one trip over a given period and load up on what I need. If it is across town, I may make multiple trips buying fewer on each visit.
Thus the distance covered may be less but because of the perceived convenience, the number of trips may increase.
It’s never been clear to me that there is as much of a gain as some have claimed.
On the one hand, it is true that people will no longer drive from Davis to Woodland to go specifically to Target. I mean I can probably count the number of times I have done that on my hands and I’ve lived here for over 10 years.
On the other hand, you have people driving across town to go to Target in Davis, which is not that much shorter and driving through town, you get the stop lights and traffic signals. You may actually burn more gas driving from West Davis to Target on 2nd and Mace than driving to Woodland.
But there is another factor not counted in that equation. If I am a regular to Target and have to drive out of town, I may make one trip over a given period and load up on what I need. If it is across town, I may make multiple trips buying fewer on each visit.
Thus the distance covered may be less but because of the perceived convenience, the number of trips may increase.
“Davis voters were presented with two measures to approve Mace Ranch. They passed by 60% and 64%.”
..Let’s not forget that Mace Ranch was foisted upon the Davis voter through fear and intimidation. We were threatened with the County building there if we didn’t approve a city Mace Ranch development. This was the origin of the Pass-Through agreement. This was also the time of the Rosenberg Council.. Dave being the original teflon, slippery Pete politician who always seemed to lose these political battles to the developer interests while proclaiming his staunch populist credentials.
“Davis voters were presented with two measures to approve Mace Ranch. They passed by 60% and 64%.”
..Let’s not forget that Mace Ranch was foisted upon the Davis voter through fear and intimidation. We were threatened with the County building there if we didn’t approve a city Mace Ranch development. This was the origin of the Pass-Through agreement. This was also the time of the Rosenberg Council.. Dave being the original teflon, slippery Pete politician who always seemed to lose these political battles to the developer interests while proclaiming his staunch populist credentials.
“Davis voters were presented with two measures to approve Mace Ranch. They passed by 60% and 64%.”
..Let’s not forget that Mace Ranch was foisted upon the Davis voter through fear and intimidation. We were threatened with the County building there if we didn’t approve a city Mace Ranch development. This was the origin of the Pass-Through agreement. This was also the time of the Rosenberg Council.. Dave being the original teflon, slippery Pete politician who always seemed to lose these political battles to the developer interests while proclaiming his staunch populist credentials.
“Davis voters were presented with two measures to approve Mace Ranch. They passed by 60% and 64%.”
..Let’s not forget that Mace Ranch was foisted upon the Davis voter through fear and intimidation. We were threatened with the County building there if we didn’t approve a city Mace Ranch development. This was the origin of the Pass-Through agreement. This was also the time of the Rosenberg Council.. Dave being the original teflon, slippery Pete politician who always seemed to lose these political battles to the developer interests while proclaiming his staunch populist credentials.
DPD you could be correct about passenger miles to Target. My point is that all this carbon footprint nonsense is just an excuse for whatever position the author wants. Its all how you define your system just as the physicists will tell you about thermodynamics. These energy and carbon budgets are not easy to calculate as we saw this last week about the carbon dioxide pay back time for bringing new land into cultivation for biofuels. When I read Kevin Wolf I think psudo science developer greenwash envirobabble. When I read Sue Greenwald I think nimbybabble. I find them both self serving and annoying when they start talking about carbon and energy budgets. Unless they can publish the math they should put a cork in it.
DPD you could be correct about passenger miles to Target. My point is that all this carbon footprint nonsense is just an excuse for whatever position the author wants. Its all how you define your system just as the physicists will tell you about thermodynamics. These energy and carbon budgets are not easy to calculate as we saw this last week about the carbon dioxide pay back time for bringing new land into cultivation for biofuels. When I read Kevin Wolf I think psudo science developer greenwash envirobabble. When I read Sue Greenwald I think nimbybabble. I find them both self serving and annoying when they start talking about carbon and energy budgets. Unless they can publish the math they should put a cork in it.
DPD you could be correct about passenger miles to Target. My point is that all this carbon footprint nonsense is just an excuse for whatever position the author wants. Its all how you define your system just as the physicists will tell you about thermodynamics. These energy and carbon budgets are not easy to calculate as we saw this last week about the carbon dioxide pay back time for bringing new land into cultivation for biofuels. When I read Kevin Wolf I think psudo science developer greenwash envirobabble. When I read Sue Greenwald I think nimbybabble. I find them both self serving and annoying when they start talking about carbon and energy budgets. Unless they can publish the math they should put a cork in it.
DPD you could be correct about passenger miles to Target. My point is that all this carbon footprint nonsense is just an excuse for whatever position the author wants. Its all how you define your system just as the physicists will tell you about thermodynamics. These energy and carbon budgets are not easy to calculate as we saw this last week about the carbon dioxide pay back time for bringing new land into cultivation for biofuels. When I read Kevin Wolf I think psudo science developer greenwash envirobabble. When I read Sue Greenwald I think nimbybabble. I find them both self serving and annoying when they start talking about carbon and energy budgets. Unless they can publish the math they should put a cork in it.
and I might add sequester their methane production
and I might add sequester their methane production
and I might add sequester their methane production
and I might add sequester their methane production
I guess where I would come down is less in terms of math and more in terms of big picture. If you believe that global warming is real and a real threat, then we must look at the way in which we live and conduct our lives. If you don’t believe it is real, there are probably other ecological concerns more distant on the horizon.
I guess where I would come down is less in terms of math and more in terms of big picture. If you believe that global warming is real and a real threat, then we must look at the way in which we live and conduct our lives. If you don’t believe it is real, there are probably other ecological concerns more distant on the horizon.
I guess where I would come down is less in terms of math and more in terms of big picture. If you believe that global warming is real and a real threat, then we must look at the way in which we live and conduct our lives. If you don’t believe it is real, there are probably other ecological concerns more distant on the horizon.
I guess where I would come down is less in terms of math and more in terms of big picture. If you believe that global warming is real and a real threat, then we must look at the way in which we live and conduct our lives. If you don’t believe it is real, there are probably other ecological concerns more distant on the horizon.
“Sorry, Rich, but 220′ is going to be an insignificant setback for a retailer that will be receiving deliveries from double semi trucks several dozen times a week”
Several dozen semis drive by my house on Highway 113 every hour. My house is less than 220 feet from the highway and there are two homes between me and 113. Every house on the west side of Acacia Lane is roughly 50 feet from 113.
And while I would not put money on it, I would not be surprised if you measured today the ambient sound on Arroyo Drive (in front of the house closest to Target) and compare that with the noise at the same time of day after Target opens and find that it is noisier now, because Target will block a lot of the I-80 sound.
“Sorry, Rich, but 220′ is going to be an insignificant setback for a retailer that will be receiving deliveries from double semi trucks several dozen times a week”
Several dozen semis drive by my house on Highway 113 every hour. My house is less than 220 feet from the highway and there are two homes between me and 113. Every house on the west side of Acacia Lane is roughly 50 feet from 113.
And while I would not put money on it, I would not be surprised if you measured today the ambient sound on Arroyo Drive (in front of the house closest to Target) and compare that with the noise at the same time of day after Target opens and find that it is noisier now, because Target will block a lot of the I-80 sound.
“Sorry, Rich, but 220′ is going to be an insignificant setback for a retailer that will be receiving deliveries from double semi trucks several dozen times a week”
Several dozen semis drive by my house on Highway 113 every hour. My house is less than 220 feet from the highway and there are two homes between me and 113. Every house on the west side of Acacia Lane is roughly 50 feet from 113.
And while I would not put money on it, I would not be surprised if you measured today the ambient sound on Arroyo Drive (in front of the house closest to Target) and compare that with the noise at the same time of day after Target opens and find that it is noisier now, because Target will block a lot of the I-80 sound.
“Sorry, Rich, but 220′ is going to be an insignificant setback for a retailer that will be receiving deliveries from double semi trucks several dozen times a week”
Several dozen semis drive by my house on Highway 113 every hour. My house is less than 220 feet from the highway and there are two homes between me and 113. Every house on the west side of Acacia Lane is roughly 50 feet from 113.
And while I would not put money on it, I would not be surprised if you measured today the ambient sound on Arroyo Drive (in front of the house closest to Target) and compare that with the noise at the same time of day after Target opens and find that it is noisier now, because Target will block a lot of the I-80 sound.
“Anonymous Anonymous said…
Don the semis that bring stuff to Davis will have a smaller carbon output than the thousands of trips to the Woodland Target from people who live in town and don’t want to pay small town little box prices. “
I wasn’t addressing the carbon output. I have no idea how it will balance out, and I’m not really into the whole carbon footprint calculation argument. For example, the Target trucks will be delivering from the same central distribution sites, whether the store is in Woodland or Davis, and — just to make another point — travel greater distances than the suppliers most of us “little box” stores get our merchandise from. How the local traffic will compare vs. traveling 8 – 10 miles north is anyone’s guess.
My point was that the Target store will have a huge, undeniable impact on the Mace Ranch neighbors, and that the 220′ setback and promised landscaping will not mitigate that impact very much.
“Anonymous Anonymous said…
Don the semis that bring stuff to Davis will have a smaller carbon output than the thousands of trips to the Woodland Target from people who live in town and don’t want to pay small town little box prices. “
I wasn’t addressing the carbon output. I have no idea how it will balance out, and I’m not really into the whole carbon footprint calculation argument. For example, the Target trucks will be delivering from the same central distribution sites, whether the store is in Woodland or Davis, and — just to make another point — travel greater distances than the suppliers most of us “little box” stores get our merchandise from. How the local traffic will compare vs. traveling 8 – 10 miles north is anyone’s guess.
My point was that the Target store will have a huge, undeniable impact on the Mace Ranch neighbors, and that the 220′ setback and promised landscaping will not mitigate that impact very much.
“Anonymous Anonymous said…
Don the semis that bring stuff to Davis will have a smaller carbon output than the thousands of trips to the Woodland Target from people who live in town and don’t want to pay small town little box prices. “
I wasn’t addressing the carbon output. I have no idea how it will balance out, and I’m not really into the whole carbon footprint calculation argument. For example, the Target trucks will be delivering from the same central distribution sites, whether the store is in Woodland or Davis, and — just to make another point — travel greater distances than the suppliers most of us “little box” stores get our merchandise from. How the local traffic will compare vs. traveling 8 – 10 miles north is anyone’s guess.
My point was that the Target store will have a huge, undeniable impact on the Mace Ranch neighbors, and that the 220′ setback and promised landscaping will not mitigate that impact very much.
“Anonymous Anonymous said…
Don the semis that bring stuff to Davis will have a smaller carbon output than the thousands of trips to the Woodland Target from people who live in town and don’t want to pay small town little box prices. “
I wasn’t addressing the carbon output. I have no idea how it will balance out, and I’m not really into the whole carbon footprint calculation argument. For example, the Target trucks will be delivering from the same central distribution sites, whether the store is in Woodland or Davis, and — just to make another point — travel greater distances than the suppliers most of us “little box” stores get our merchandise from. How the local traffic will compare vs. traveling 8 – 10 miles north is anyone’s guess.
My point was that the Target store will have a huge, undeniable impact on the Mace Ranch neighbors, and that the 220′ setback and promised landscaping will not mitigate that impact very much.
“Several dozen semis drive by my house on Highway 113 every hour.”
I’m assuming you knew that when you bought your house, unless you’ve lived there since Hwy 113 was widened in 1974.
“Several dozen semis drive by my house on Highway 113 every hour.”
I’m assuming you knew that when you bought your house, unless you’ve lived there since Hwy 113 was widened in 1974.
“Several dozen semis drive by my house on Highway 113 every hour.”
I’m assuming you knew that when you bought your house, unless you’ve lived there since Hwy 113 was widened in 1974.
“Several dozen semis drive by my house on Highway 113 every hour.”
I’m assuming you knew that when you bought your house, unless you’ve lived there since Hwy 113 was widened in 1974.
DPD,
Global warming is real but we must be honest about the calculations and do them first and calculate them globally something Wolf and Greenwald fail to do.
DPD,
Global warming is real but we must be honest about the calculations and do them first and calculate them globally something Wolf and Greenwald fail to do.
DPD,
Global warming is real but we must be honest about the calculations and do them first and calculate them globally something Wolf and Greenwald fail to do.
DPD,
Global warming is real but we must be honest about the calculations and do them first and calculate them globally something Wolf and Greenwald fail to do.
anonymous, you are clearly an intelligent and thoughtful person. Why do you choose not to sign your posts?
Its a puzzlement.
anonymous, you are clearly an intelligent and thoughtful person. Why do you choose not to sign your posts?
Its a puzzlement.
anonymous, you are clearly an intelligent and thoughtful person. Why do you choose not to sign your posts?
Its a puzzlement.
anonymous, you are clearly an intelligent and thoughtful person. Why do you choose not to sign your posts?
Its a puzzlement.
DPD said:
But there is another factor not counted in that equation. If I am a regular to Target and have to drive out of town, I may make one trip over a given period and load up on what I need. If it is across town, I may make multiple trips buying fewer on each visit.
Thus the distance covered may be less but because of the perceived convenience, the number of trips may increase.
Based on this logic we should get rid of all the grocery and drug stores in Davis and surrounding communities. The further away the better, since it would lower the number of trips.
DPD said:
But there is another factor not counted in that equation. If I am a regular to Target and have to drive out of town, I may make one trip over a given period and load up on what I need. If it is across town, I may make multiple trips buying fewer on each visit.
Thus the distance covered may be less but because of the perceived convenience, the number of trips may increase.
Based on this logic we should get rid of all the grocery and drug stores in Davis and surrounding communities. The further away the better, since it would lower the number of trips.
DPD said:
But there is another factor not counted in that equation. If I am a regular to Target and have to drive out of town, I may make one trip over a given period and load up on what I need. If it is across town, I may make multiple trips buying fewer on each visit.
Thus the distance covered may be less but because of the perceived convenience, the number of trips may increase.
Based on this logic we should get rid of all the grocery and drug stores in Davis and surrounding communities. The further away the better, since it would lower the number of trips.
DPD said:
But there is another factor not counted in that equation. If I am a regular to Target and have to drive out of town, I may make one trip over a given period and load up on what I need. If it is across town, I may make multiple trips buying fewer on each visit.
Thus the distance covered may be less but because of the perceived convenience, the number of trips may increase.
Based on this logic we should get rid of all the grocery and drug stores in Davis and surrounding communities. The further away the better, since it would lower the number of trips.
I live in this town and my wife would kill me if I out myself. Additionally the mayor has no idea what I really think of her when she sees me which feeds my fodder.
I live in this town and my wife would kill me if I out myself. Additionally the mayor has no idea what I really think of her when she sees me which feeds my fodder.
I live in this town and my wife would kill me if I out myself. Additionally the mayor has no idea what I really think of her when she sees me which feeds my fodder.
I live in this town and my wife would kill me if I out myself. Additionally the mayor has no idea what I really think of her when she sees me which feeds my fodder.
I read Bob Dunning’s piece on this proposed development too. Wherein he wrote:
“Davis has an obligation to take its fair share of growth in the region, but packing people like fish in a can is something we are not obliged to do. Densification will make our town much more like the congested and crowded cities we have fought so hard not to become.”
If you read between the lines, Bob is slyly, with the phrase, “Davis is obligated to take its fair share of growth…” promoting sprawl. I mean, what other kind of growth is there besides densification and growth? He’s not if favor of Davis becoming a gridlocked city, but, rather, a gridlocked bedroom community, it would seem
I read Bob Dunning’s piece on this proposed development too. Wherein he wrote:
“Davis has an obligation to take its fair share of growth in the region, but packing people like fish in a can is something we are not obliged to do. Densification will make our town much more like the congested and crowded cities we have fought so hard not to become.”
If you read between the lines, Bob is slyly, with the phrase, “Davis is obligated to take its fair share of growth…” promoting sprawl. I mean, what other kind of growth is there besides densification and growth? He’s not if favor of Davis becoming a gridlocked city, but, rather, a gridlocked bedroom community, it would seem
I read Bob Dunning’s piece on this proposed development too. Wherein he wrote:
“Davis has an obligation to take its fair share of growth in the region, but packing people like fish in a can is something we are not obliged to do. Densification will make our town much more like the congested and crowded cities we have fought so hard not to become.”
If you read between the lines, Bob is slyly, with the phrase, “Davis is obligated to take its fair share of growth…” promoting sprawl. I mean, what other kind of growth is there besides densification and growth? He’s not if favor of Davis becoming a gridlocked city, but, rather, a gridlocked bedroom community, it would seem
I read Bob Dunning’s piece on this proposed development too. Wherein he wrote:
“Davis has an obligation to take its fair share of growth in the region, but packing people like fish in a can is something we are not obliged to do. Densification will make our town much more like the congested and crowded cities we have fought so hard not to become.”
If you read between the lines, Bob is slyly, with the phrase, “Davis is obligated to take its fair share of growth…” promoting sprawl. I mean, what other kind of growth is there besides densification and growth? He’s not if favor of Davis becoming a gridlocked city, but, rather, a gridlocked bedroom community, it would seem
Oops, I meant what other kinds of growth are there besides densification and sprawl?
Oops, I meant what other kinds of growth are there besides densification and sprawl?
Oops, I meant what other kinds of growth are there besides densification and sprawl?
Oops, I meant what other kinds of growth are there besides densification and sprawl?
“Based on this logic we should get rid of all the grocery and drug stores in Davis and surrounding communities. The further away the better, since it would lower the number of trips.”
Not really because food is perishable so there is a regular interval that you buy food unlike purchasing non-perishable products (primarily) at a place like Target. The actual answer for both is local neighborhood stores that supply people with the majority of their needs with either short car trips or even non-car trips.
“Based on this logic we should get rid of all the grocery and drug stores in Davis and surrounding communities. The further away the better, since it would lower the number of trips.”
Not really because food is perishable so there is a regular interval that you buy food unlike purchasing non-perishable products (primarily) at a place like Target. The actual answer for both is local neighborhood stores that supply people with the majority of their needs with either short car trips or even non-car trips.
“Based on this logic we should get rid of all the grocery and drug stores in Davis and surrounding communities. The further away the better, since it would lower the number of trips.”
Not really because food is perishable so there is a regular interval that you buy food unlike purchasing non-perishable products (primarily) at a place like Target. The actual answer for both is local neighborhood stores that supply people with the majority of their needs with either short car trips or even non-car trips.
“Based on this logic we should get rid of all the grocery and drug stores in Davis and surrounding communities. The further away the better, since it would lower the number of trips.”
Not really because food is perishable so there is a regular interval that you buy food unlike purchasing non-perishable products (primarily) at a place like Target. The actual answer for both is local neighborhood stores that supply people with the majority of their needs with either short car trips or even non-car trips.
“Bob is slyly….. promoting sprawl.”
There is orderly growth on the edge. Peripheral growth is not by definition sprawl. As an example Covell Village is closer to downtown and the University than Mace Ranch.
I have been thinking about densification. The other day I was walking down F st. There were two guys tilling the soil between the sidewalk and the street. It was deep dark rich class I soil. It made me think about how people lived back when Davis was the Berkeley farm. People lived in small houses on big lots with fabulous gardens. I’m sure they had formal or informal garden competitions or took produce to their neighbors or the county fair in Woodland. So when people talk about preserving Davis through densification as the mayor does what are they trying to preserve? They are trying to preserve their own static romanticized version of what Davis is based on their own time frame of reference here. Now you don’t need to be an Einstein in the 21at century to know that time frames are relative. So by promoting densification they are really promoting a new type of lifestyle where people live on very small lots. Now I understand the argument about preserving ag land especially the class I soils but Davis could double in size by building on its frontier periphery without any leapfrog sprawl or a huge loss of ag land to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley. It could do so with lots that are bigger and give people a little land for a garden. If we built enough the lots would get cheaper as supply and demand came more into balance with the surrounding communities, young families could afford to live here and save our schools including Valley Oak. University employees would be better able to afford to live here with a shorter commute. Alternative modes of transportation to get around town could be promoted further reducing the carbon intensity of this lifestyle since it is easier to bike in from the edge of Davis than the edge of Woodland. Finally, while preserving ag land is a laudable goal the dogmatic we must save it all to preseve our way of life philosophy denies the fact that very few people live that lifestyle. Most of the people in Davis don’t farm and only drive by that lifestyle but if they lived on big lots with rich gardens they would be a lot closer to living it than if they were crammed into row houses like Baltimore, walk ups in Chicago or Brownstones in New York.
“Bob is slyly….. promoting sprawl.”
There is orderly growth on the edge. Peripheral growth is not by definition sprawl. As an example Covell Village is closer to downtown and the University than Mace Ranch.
I have been thinking about densification. The other day I was walking down F st. There were two guys tilling the soil between the sidewalk and the street. It was deep dark rich class I soil. It made me think about how people lived back when Davis was the Berkeley farm. People lived in small houses on big lots with fabulous gardens. I’m sure they had formal or informal garden competitions or took produce to their neighbors or the county fair in Woodland. So when people talk about preserving Davis through densification as the mayor does what are they trying to preserve? They are trying to preserve their own static romanticized version of what Davis is based on their own time frame of reference here. Now you don’t need to be an Einstein in the 21at century to know that time frames are relative. So by promoting densification they are really promoting a new type of lifestyle where people live on very small lots. Now I understand the argument about preserving ag land especially the class I soils but Davis could double in size by building on its frontier periphery without any leapfrog sprawl or a huge loss of ag land to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley. It could do so with lots that are bigger and give people a little land for a garden. If we built enough the lots would get cheaper as supply and demand came more into balance with the surrounding communities, young families could afford to live here and save our schools including Valley Oak. University employees would be better able to afford to live here with a shorter commute. Alternative modes of transportation to get around town could be promoted further reducing the carbon intensity of this lifestyle since it is easier to bike in from the edge of Davis than the edge of Woodland. Finally, while preserving ag land is a laudable goal the dogmatic we must save it all to preseve our way of life philosophy denies the fact that very few people live that lifestyle. Most of the people in Davis don’t farm and only drive by that lifestyle but if they lived on big lots with rich gardens they would be a lot closer to living it than if they were crammed into row houses like Baltimore, walk ups in Chicago or Brownstones in New York.
“Bob is slyly….. promoting sprawl.”
There is orderly growth on the edge. Peripheral growth is not by definition sprawl. As an example Covell Village is closer to downtown and the University than Mace Ranch.
I have been thinking about densification. The other day I was walking down F st. There were two guys tilling the soil between the sidewalk and the street. It was deep dark rich class I soil. It made me think about how people lived back when Davis was the Berkeley farm. People lived in small houses on big lots with fabulous gardens. I’m sure they had formal or informal garden competitions or took produce to their neighbors or the county fair in Woodland. So when people talk about preserving Davis through densification as the mayor does what are they trying to preserve? They are trying to preserve their own static romanticized version of what Davis is based on their own time frame of reference here. Now you don’t need to be an Einstein in the 21at century to know that time frames are relative. So by promoting densification they are really promoting a new type of lifestyle where people live on very small lots. Now I understand the argument about preserving ag land especially the class I soils but Davis could double in size by building on its frontier periphery without any leapfrog sprawl or a huge loss of ag land to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley. It could do so with lots that are bigger and give people a little land for a garden. If we built enough the lots would get cheaper as supply and demand came more into balance with the surrounding communities, young families could afford to live here and save our schools including Valley Oak. University employees would be better able to afford to live here with a shorter commute. Alternative modes of transportation to get around town could be promoted further reducing the carbon intensity of this lifestyle since it is easier to bike in from the edge of Davis than the edge of Woodland. Finally, while preserving ag land is a laudable goal the dogmatic we must save it all to preseve our way of life philosophy denies the fact that very few people live that lifestyle. Most of the people in Davis don’t farm and only drive by that lifestyle but if they lived on big lots with rich gardens they would be a lot closer to living it than if they were crammed into row houses like Baltimore, walk ups in Chicago or Brownstones in New York.
“Bob is slyly….. promoting sprawl.”
There is orderly growth on the edge. Peripheral growth is not by definition sprawl. As an example Covell Village is closer to downtown and the University than Mace Ranch.
I have been thinking about densification. The other day I was walking down F st. There were two guys tilling the soil between the sidewalk and the street. It was deep dark rich class I soil. It made me think about how people lived back when Davis was the Berkeley farm. People lived in small houses on big lots with fabulous gardens. I’m sure they had formal or informal garden competitions or took produce to their neighbors or the county fair in Woodland. So when people talk about preserving Davis through densification as the mayor does what are they trying to preserve? They are trying to preserve their own static romanticized version of what Davis is based on their own time frame of reference here. Now you don’t need to be an Einstein in the 21at century to know that time frames are relative. So by promoting densification they are really promoting a new type of lifestyle where people live on very small lots. Now I understand the argument about preserving ag land especially the class I soils but Davis could double in size by building on its frontier periphery without any leapfrog sprawl or a huge loss of ag land to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley. It could do so with lots that are bigger and give people a little land for a garden. If we built enough the lots would get cheaper as supply and demand came more into balance with the surrounding communities, young families could afford to live here and save our schools including Valley Oak. University employees would be better able to afford to live here with a shorter commute. Alternative modes of transportation to get around town could be promoted further reducing the carbon intensity of this lifestyle since it is easier to bike in from the edge of Davis than the edge of Woodland. Finally, while preserving ag land is a laudable goal the dogmatic we must save it all to preseve our way of life philosophy denies the fact that very few people live that lifestyle. Most of the people in Davis don’t farm and only drive by that lifestyle but if they lived on big lots with rich gardens they would be a lot closer to living it than if they were crammed into row houses like Baltimore, walk ups in Chicago or Brownstones in New York.
Anonymous said…
I live in this town and my wife would kill me if I out myself. Additionally the mayor has no idea what I really think of her when she sees me which feeds my fodder.
Understood, but to make your voice unique, not just part of the Anonymous wilderness, may I suggest you pick a pseudonym and use it instead of Anonymous (by clicking on the Nickname button). Perhaps “My Wife Would Kill Me” might work. 8>)
Anonymous said…
I live in this town and my wife would kill me if I out myself. Additionally the mayor has no idea what I really think of her when she sees me which feeds my fodder.
Understood, but to make your voice unique, not just part of the Anonymous wilderness, may I suggest you pick a pseudonym and use it instead of Anonymous (by clicking on the Nickname button). Perhaps “My Wife Would Kill Me” might work. 8>)
Anonymous said…
I live in this town and my wife would kill me if I out myself. Additionally the mayor has no idea what I really think of her when she sees me which feeds my fodder.
Understood, but to make your voice unique, not just part of the Anonymous wilderness, may I suggest you pick a pseudonym and use it instead of Anonymous (by clicking on the Nickname button). Perhaps “My Wife Would Kill Me” might work. 8>)
Anonymous said…
I live in this town and my wife would kill me if I out myself. Additionally the mayor has no idea what I really think of her when she sees me which feeds my fodder.
Understood, but to make your voice unique, not just part of the Anonymous wilderness, may I suggest you pick a pseudonym and use it instead of Anonymous (by clicking on the Nickname button). Perhaps “My Wife Would Kill Me” might work. 8>)
Zorro? Black Bart? The Lone Ranger?
Why not Anonymous she has all the best quotes anyway.
Zorro? Black Bart? The Lone Ranger?
Why not Anonymous she has all the best quotes anyway.
Zorro? Black Bart? The Lone Ranger?
Why not Anonymous she has all the best quotes anyway.
Zorro? Black Bart? The Lone Ranger?
Why not Anonymous she has all the best quotes anyway.
How’s that?
How’s that?
How’s that?
How’s that?
Knife,
Looks like a winner to me!
Knife,
Looks like a winner to me!
Knife,
Looks like a winner to me!
Knife,
Looks like a winner to me!
your’s too so I guess you understand
your’s too so I guess you understand
your’s too so I guess you understand
your’s too so I guess you understand
About those trucks delivering to Target in Mace Ranch: They will be diesel and they will be idling for long periods, giving off some of the worst air pollution there is. This will not only impact the neighbors, but also greatly add to green house gas emissions.
Regarding the “thousands” of cars trips to the Woodland Target: I doubt that people make the trip to Target in Woodland and no where else. I will speculate that even if we do get a Target here, people will still be driving to Woodland and other towns to shop. But that aside, the person who pointed out that driving across town in stop and go traffic produces more pollution than driving on a free way for the same length of time is right. That was brought out in the campaign with data to back it up.
So, Target here might provide a small modicum of convenience to some, but it will definitely result in increased air pollution. That was clear in the EIR–this was the one impact that could not be mitigated. Not to mention the impact on local businesses and the people who live in Mace Ranch and soon will have a mall behind their homes.
Nothing is simple, but I repeat: we cannot continue to pave over our farmland. If we want to stop sprawling on our periphery and elsewhere, where do you propose to grow? How do we provide housing for people? I believe we have to densify, keeping the quality of life of existing residents in mind, of course.
In my opinion, anyone who continues to advocate for “well-planned” growth on ag land on our borders is either a developer or has something to gain from one.
About those trucks delivering to Target in Mace Ranch: They will be diesel and they will be idling for long periods, giving off some of the worst air pollution there is. This will not only impact the neighbors, but also greatly add to green house gas emissions.
Regarding the “thousands” of cars trips to the Woodland Target: I doubt that people make the trip to Target in Woodland and no where else. I will speculate that even if we do get a Target here, people will still be driving to Woodland and other towns to shop. But that aside, the person who pointed out that driving across town in stop and go traffic produces more pollution than driving on a free way for the same length of time is right. That was brought out in the campaign with data to back it up.
So, Target here might provide a small modicum of convenience to some, but it will definitely result in increased air pollution. That was clear in the EIR–this was the one impact that could not be mitigated. Not to mention the impact on local businesses and the people who live in Mace Ranch and soon will have a mall behind their homes.
Nothing is simple, but I repeat: we cannot continue to pave over our farmland. If we want to stop sprawling on our periphery and elsewhere, where do you propose to grow? How do we provide housing for people? I believe we have to densify, keeping the quality of life of existing residents in mind, of course.
In my opinion, anyone who continues to advocate for “well-planned” growth on ag land on our borders is either a developer or has something to gain from one.
About those trucks delivering to Target in Mace Ranch: They will be diesel and they will be idling for long periods, giving off some of the worst air pollution there is. This will not only impact the neighbors, but also greatly add to green house gas emissions.
Regarding the “thousands” of cars trips to the Woodland Target: I doubt that people make the trip to Target in Woodland and no where else. I will speculate that even if we do get a Target here, people will still be driving to Woodland and other towns to shop. But that aside, the person who pointed out that driving across town in stop and go traffic produces more pollution than driving on a free way for the same length of time is right. That was brought out in the campaign with data to back it up.
So, Target here might provide a small modicum of convenience to some, but it will definitely result in increased air pollution. That was clear in the EIR–this was the one impact that could not be mitigated. Not to mention the impact on local businesses and the people who live in Mace Ranch and soon will have a mall behind their homes.
Nothing is simple, but I repeat: we cannot continue to pave over our farmland. If we want to stop sprawling on our periphery and elsewhere, where do you propose to grow? How do we provide housing for people? I believe we have to densify, keeping the quality of life of existing residents in mind, of course.
In my opinion, anyone who continues to advocate for “well-planned” growth on ag land on our borders is either a developer or has something to gain from one.
About those trucks delivering to Target in Mace Ranch: They will be diesel and they will be idling for long periods, giving off some of the worst air pollution there is. This will not only impact the neighbors, but also greatly add to green house gas emissions.
Regarding the “thousands” of cars trips to the Woodland Target: I doubt that people make the trip to Target in Woodland and no where else. I will speculate that even if we do get a Target here, people will still be driving to Woodland and other towns to shop. But that aside, the person who pointed out that driving across town in stop and go traffic produces more pollution than driving on a free way for the same length of time is right. That was brought out in the campaign with data to back it up.
So, Target here might provide a small modicum of convenience to some, but it will definitely result in increased air pollution. That was clear in the EIR–this was the one impact that could not be mitigated. Not to mention the impact on local businesses and the people who live in Mace Ranch and soon will have a mall behind their homes.
Nothing is simple, but I repeat: we cannot continue to pave over our farmland. If we want to stop sprawling on our periphery and elsewhere, where do you propose to grow? How do we provide housing for people? I believe we have to densify, keeping the quality of life of existing residents in mind, of course.
In my opinion, anyone who continues to advocate for “well-planned” growth on ag land on our borders is either a developer or has something to gain from one.
A house in the Davis school district that is what I hope to gain.
A house in the Davis school district that is what I hope to gain.
A house in the Davis school district that is what I hope to gain.
A house in the Davis school district that is what I hope to gain.
“we cannot continue to pave over our farmland.”
You do know that there is far more farmland in California now than there was when Davis was created? There is about the same amount of land in farms today, despite sprawl, as there was 80 years ago. We have been paving over some farm land for decades, yet always opening up new farmland* at the same time.
Sprawl may be an issue for quality of life. Low density development may create other undesirable problems. However, the loss of farmland is really not one of them.
For a review of land in farms from 1850 to the present, take a look at this USDA survey.
* In some cases, that is trading away high quality soils for lower quality soils. But not always. A lot of the farmland that is being paved over has been irrigated for a long time, and as such has problems with too much salt in the soil.
“we cannot continue to pave over our farmland.”
You do know that there is far more farmland in California now than there was when Davis was created? There is about the same amount of land in farms today, despite sprawl, as there was 80 years ago. We have been paving over some farm land for decades, yet always opening up new farmland* at the same time.
Sprawl may be an issue for quality of life. Low density development may create other undesirable problems. However, the loss of farmland is really not one of them.
For a review of land in farms from 1850 to the present, take a look at this USDA survey.
* In some cases, that is trading away high quality soils for lower quality soils. But not always. A lot of the farmland that is being paved over has been irrigated for a long time, and as such has problems with too much salt in the soil.
“we cannot continue to pave over our farmland.”
You do know that there is far more farmland in California now than there was when Davis was created? There is about the same amount of land in farms today, despite sprawl, as there was 80 years ago. We have been paving over some farm land for decades, yet always opening up new farmland* at the same time.
Sprawl may be an issue for quality of life. Low density development may create other undesirable problems. However, the loss of farmland is really not one of them.
For a review of land in farms from 1850 to the present, take a look at this USDA survey.
* In some cases, that is trading away high quality soils for lower quality soils. But not always. A lot of the farmland that is being paved over has been irrigated for a long time, and as such has problems with too much salt in the soil.
“we cannot continue to pave over our farmland.”
You do know that there is far more farmland in California now than there was when Davis was created? There is about the same amount of land in farms today, despite sprawl, as there was 80 years ago. We have been paving over some farm land for decades, yet always opening up new farmland* at the same time.
Sprawl may be an issue for quality of life. Low density development may create other undesirable problems. However, the loss of farmland is really not one of them.
For a review of land in farms from 1850 to the present, take a look at this USDA survey.
* In some cases, that is trading away high quality soils for lower quality soils. But not always. A lot of the farmland that is being paved over has been irrigated for a long time, and as such has problems with too much salt in the soil.
Gotcha reposts directed at a word or phrase are tiresome and denigate the critical thinking process. Does the facile argument that farmland has not decreased significantly since 1850 take into account the fact that there was considerable undeveloped land(farmland,pasture and undeveloped natural habitat) that was consumed to maintain this reportedly stable percentage of California “farmland”?
Gotcha reposts directed at a word or phrase are tiresome and denigate the critical thinking process. Does the facile argument that farmland has not decreased significantly since 1850 take into account the fact that there was considerable undeveloped land(farmland,pasture and undeveloped natural habitat) that was consumed to maintain this reportedly stable percentage of California “farmland”?
Gotcha reposts directed at a word or phrase are tiresome and denigate the critical thinking process. Does the facile argument that farmland has not decreased significantly since 1850 take into account the fact that there was considerable undeveloped land(farmland,pasture and undeveloped natural habitat) that was consumed to maintain this reportedly stable percentage of California “farmland”?
Gotcha reposts directed at a word or phrase are tiresome and denigate the critical thinking process. Does the facile argument that farmland has not decreased significantly since 1850 take into account the fact that there was considerable undeveloped land(farmland,pasture and undeveloped natural habitat) that was consumed to maintain this reportedly stable percentage of California “farmland”?
The amount of land dedicated to agriculture in the United States peaked in the late 1920s. That has remained very stable ever since then.
In California, the peak for land in farms was in the early 1960s, and that level of acreage has remained steady ever since.
Of course, agricultural production has steadily increased. We can now produce many times as much corn, wheat, tomatoes, alfalfa, grapes, etc on the same amount of land as 50 years ago. So if yield were taken into account, we would be at an all time peak for farming.
The amount of land dedicated to agriculture in the United States peaked in the late 1920s. That has remained very stable ever since then.
In California, the peak for land in farms was in the early 1960s, and that level of acreage has remained steady ever since.
Of course, agricultural production has steadily increased. We can now produce many times as much corn, wheat, tomatoes, alfalfa, grapes, etc on the same amount of land as 50 years ago. So if yield were taken into account, we would be at an all time peak for farming.
The amount of land dedicated to agriculture in the United States peaked in the late 1920s. That has remained very stable ever since then.
In California, the peak for land in farms was in the early 1960s, and that level of acreage has remained steady ever since.
Of course, agricultural production has steadily increased. We can now produce many times as much corn, wheat, tomatoes, alfalfa, grapes, etc on the same amount of land as 50 years ago. So if yield were taken into account, we would be at an all time peak for farming.
The amount of land dedicated to agriculture in the United States peaked in the late 1920s. That has remained very stable ever since then.
In California, the peak for land in farms was in the early 1960s, and that level of acreage has remained steady ever since.
Of course, agricultural production has steadily increased. We can now produce many times as much corn, wheat, tomatoes, alfalfa, grapes, etc on the same amount of land as 50 years ago. So if yield were taken into account, we would be at an all time peak for farming.
* In some cases, that is trading away high quality soils for lower quality soils. But not always. A lot of the farmland that is being paved over has been irrigated for a long time, and as such has problems with too much salt in the soil.”
The reason UC Davis took the Campbell farm just west of 113 by eminent domain in 1951 was because it was recognized as the, bar none, richest soil in the world. It’s been used for myriad ag research projects, many taking place over decades, because of the quality of this soil.
Now UC Davis in its eminent wisdom wants to pave over the soil it took over.
* In some cases, that is trading away high quality soils for lower quality soils. But not always. A lot of the farmland that is being paved over has been irrigated for a long time, and as such has problems with too much salt in the soil.”
The reason UC Davis took the Campbell farm just west of 113 by eminent domain in 1951 was because it was recognized as the, bar none, richest soil in the world. It’s been used for myriad ag research projects, many taking place over decades, because of the quality of this soil.
Now UC Davis in its eminent wisdom wants to pave over the soil it took over.
* In some cases, that is trading away high quality soils for lower quality soils. But not always. A lot of the farmland that is being paved over has been irrigated for a long time, and as such has problems with too much salt in the soil.”
The reason UC Davis took the Campbell farm just west of 113 by eminent domain in 1951 was because it was recognized as the, bar none, richest soil in the world. It’s been used for myriad ag research projects, many taking place over decades, because of the quality of this soil.
Now UC Davis in its eminent wisdom wants to pave over the soil it took over.
* In some cases, that is trading away high quality soils for lower quality soils. But not always. A lot of the farmland that is being paved over has been irrigated for a long time, and as such has problems with too much salt in the soil.”
The reason UC Davis took the Campbell farm just west of 113 by eminent domain in 1951 was because it was recognized as the, bar none, richest soil in the world. It’s been used for myriad ag research projects, many taking place over decades, because of the quality of this soil.
Now UC Davis in its eminent wisdom wants to pave over the soil it took over.