The Ballot statements for and against Measure P have been submitted to the County Clerk. These are both of them verbatim.
Signing the ballot statement for Measure P are Jay Gerber, Business Owner/ former President Davis Chamber of Commerce; Tansey Thomas, former City Council Candidate and Community Activist; Stan Forbes Business Owner and former Davis City Councilmember; Pam Nieberg, Environmental Activist; and Ken Wagstaff, Former Mayor of Davis.
ARGUMENT FOR MEASURE P:
Measure P will bring to Davis a neighborhood of 191 affordable, environmentally responsible homes.
The neighborhood is designed to be affordable so those who work in Davis including our teachers, police and families with children can live in Davis.
Because this project will be a model for sustainable development, not just in Davis but also across the state, our area’s leading environmentalists support Measure P.
Davis can take pride in this project, like the eco-friendly Village Homes 30 years ago.
Measure P’s Wildhorse Ranch neighborhood uses environmentally responsible design and green building practices. Solar panels on every unit will provide nearly all of the project’s power, and the project will exceed by 50% the State’s goals for reducing energy use.
Wildhorse Ranch has designed its solar energy systems to reduce energy consumption to the point that fully 90% of its green house gas emissions are eliminated.
Measure P and the Wildhorse Ranch neighborhood:
• Ensures the majority ofthe homes are affordable for working families.
• Dedicates nearly 40% of the neighborhood to open space, including an urban forest.
• Preserves 67 acres of agricultural land around Davis, helping to create more open space.
• Provides 100% accessibility apartments for our mobility challenged residents.
This is a community plan. It is the result of a five-year collaboration between the City Council, residents who live near the site, and leaders and activists in Davis.
Davis is a great community in which to live and raise a family. Measure P and Wildhorse Ranch allow us to keep our small-town character while providing much needed affordable and environmentally responsible homes.
Please join in supporting Measure P.
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE P:
Davis Has Enough Approved Housing For Now:
• 2,000 units are entitled and unbuilt in Davis and adjacent University property.
o According to City staff, Davis has over 500 unbuilt units. UC Davis approved 475 houses and 3,000 student beds (1,000 dwelling-unit equivalents) in its massive West Village
development.
• The City has exceeded its current state-issued growth targets.
o Counting West Village and City-approved housing, Davis will have grown almost 70% since 1988 — hardly slow growth!
• This project is not needed to address school enrollment.
o We have 1,000 non-student unbuilt units, most able to accommodate families with children.
• This project is not unique.
o West Village is a zero net energy plan, is closer to campus and downtown, while Wildhorse Ranch is located on Davis’ periphery.
o Most greenhouse gases come from auto emissions, which the developer’s analysis ignored.
• This project provides no student housing or owner-occupied affordable housing.
o The least expensive ownership units are $425,000 townhouses.
• Disgracefully rushed to the ballot by Council after midnight without sufficient analysis.
This Project Will Drain City Finances:
• According to City staff, Wildhorse Ranch will cost more to service than it will generate in tax revenue each year because the City’s share of property taxes for this project is 11.8%, significantly below the citywide average of 17.5%.
o The deficit will increase over time, even with the additional $300 CFD fees.
• According to staff, this project will bring no additional net revenue to the City except for the standard, modest, onetime construction tax.
o The Impact and Quimby fees only pay for the development’s share of infrastructure costs.
o Wildhorse Ranch compares unfavorably to the recently-approved Verona and Chiles Ranch projects. Verona contributed $12,000 per market-rate unit, plus standard tees; Wildhorse
Ranch requires no such contributions.
www.2000HomesAreEnough.org.
HELP SLOW PERIPHERAL SPRAWL. 2000 UNBUILT UNITS ARE ENOUGH FOR NOW!!
Vote No on P
Quick Note
The rebuttals will be submitted at the end of next week. It will be interesting to see who signs those statements.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Wildhorse Ranch has designed its solar energy systems to reduce energy consumption to the point that fully 90% of its green house gas emissions are eliminated.”
Above is not a statement of fact. The 90% GHG reduction on site “promise” was never articulated by the developer consultants beyond saying that as yet unknown,undescribed difficult design work will have to be done to reach the 90% goal on-site. At the public podium, they never said that they could install(or would install) whatever solar energy system was necessary to meet their promise to the Davis voters to reach a 90% GHG reduction on site. It is interesting that the pro Measure P ballot measure does not even mention that this 90% GHG on-site reduction is supposed to be “mandated”,although there is nothing in place to enforce such a mandate.
“• Ensures the majority of the homes are affordable for working families.”
I invite Jay, Tansey, Stan, Pam, or Ken to explain how they arrived at this conclusion.
Don Shor: “”• Ensures the majority of the homes are affordable for working families.”
I invite Jay, Tansey, Stan, Pam, or Ken to explain how they arrived at this conclusion.”
Amen. The affordability aspect is the sticking point for me. As per a lengthy blog discussion on the def’n of “affordable workforce housing”, the conclusion reached was the absolute upper limit for “affordable workforce housing” is $325,000 (w $20,000 down). Many of us were far more comfortable with $300,000 as the upper limit. WHR represents above market rate townhomes on tiny lots, with the average price at $425,000. To me, that is nowhere near affordable. Nor is it sensible from a marketing perspective.
“2000 Homes are Enough” That says it all for me; for all you “slow-growthers” out there who have jumped on the WHR “green bandwagon”, the question is not if we need a “green” project; the question is do we need any more housing???
[quote]… this project will be a model for sustainable development, not just in Davis but also across the state[/quote]If this is so, why isn’t the project being LEED certified?
LEED is the international standard for sustainable green development. If the project presumes to be a model for both Davis and the state, it seems rather obvious that we would want to get the project certified by an independent body with an appropriate level of credibility. I posted this question late in a couple of other threads and it didn’t stimulate any legitimate discussion.
It was dismissed out-of-hand by one poster, who said that WHR blows the doors off of LEED – implying, I suppose, that it’s not worth the trouble to get LEED certification. This line of response is obviously beside the point.
It reminded me of the line from that old movie “The Treasure of Davis Ag Land” starring Parlin T. Bogart.
“LEED certification? We ain’t got no LEED certification. This is WHR, we don’t need no LEED certification! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ LEED certification!”
Part of the problem here is that 1000 of them are basically dorms and you are counting them as homes.
By this logic, apartments rented to students in Davis aren’t really apartments. No wonder we have such a low vacancy rate!
The point is that campus dorms are not the same things as houses. Do you dispute that or do you wish to continue to make absurd analogies that just avoid the point?
I’ll concede your point if the “units” don’t have kitchens. To claim that they are dorms simply because they are occupied by students is you trying to avoid and deflect the point made by “2000 Homes are Enough!”, Sue Greenwald, and others.
I think they count for something, but I don’t agree that they are equivalent to houses. Sue’s point is disengenuous because in that 2000, she is counting 1000 student housing units on campus and she is counting units that are entitled but will never be built. The function number of housing units is closer to 800 rather than 2000.
Now I agree with you that even 800 is really all we need.
The reason I support this particular project is that it’s small, the project is green, and the project will serve people who work in Davis rather than external demand. I think the passage of this preclude Cannery or Covell Village which combined are about 1400 units–talk about big project. This is 191 units.
Wikipedia defines affordable housing as typically referring to rental costs. But since the posts on this and prior threads seem apply “affordable housing” to ownership costs… I’ll go down that road (temporarily) as well. The WHR homes, with all their exciting sustainability merits (and I’m not convinced the merits are guaranteed), are definitely not affordable ownership opportunities for low income buyers in Davis.
An affordable house for a low income household in Davis is approximately $1,334/month with a range of $1,026-$1,642/month (Wikipedia: Affordable housing = 30% gross income; low income households = 50% – 80% of AMI. The AMI in Davis is $6,845… according to money.cnn.com. This gives a low income range of $3,422-$5,476. Given 6% interest, 10% down, 1.25% taxes, 0.1% insurance… a home priced at $204,000 would lead to a low-income affordable PITI of $1,330/mo.
I presume a Davis developer could build and be profitable on small units at $340/sf. To keep the price at $204,000, this would be a 2 bedroom, 1 bath, 600sf house. The least expensive properties currently on the market in Davis are 7 condos between 800sf and 1,000sf listed between $155K and $226K. Given that they are all 15+ years old and some are pending sale, it’s likely that new 600sf units in an aesthetically pleasing community could sell for $204,000.
Two questions are: Who’s buying the current resale units (investors or owner/occupants)? Would new/small/affordable units sell to the owner/occupied workforce or to investors?
If the current supply is being bought by any owner/occupants… then the city council should require (should have required) new developments (WHR) to include affordable housing ownership opportunities (homes at $204K).
If all the small (read “affordable”) units are being bought by investors, it’s a sign that people would rather rent than buy an affordable home in Davis. If people would rather rent a larger home than buy an affordable home, then WHR is not at issue with regard to affordable housing… the affordability issue is a matter of our expectations and we need to go back to the original definition where affordable housing refers to renting costs.
On sustainability, I like the sound of the project (especially in comparison to the other abysmal developments). But the project should definitely be LEED certified and the project should guarantee GHG reduction with guarantee bonds or something similar.
My family is a working family (1.5 FTE). We fall within the low income range for Davis and there is affordable housing available in Davis (rentals for $1,334/mo or less). I haven’t decided to vote up or down.
“Sue’s point is disengenuous because in that 2000, she is counting 1000 student housing units on campus and she is counting units that are entitled but will never be built.”
So we have we never counted student housing in the total housing mix; students have equal value and impact to Davis, why suddenly are we counting them as “non-residents”, unless, you are schilling for the developer’s cause that these WHR units are really necessary!
I don’t think we’ve ever counted on campus student housing in the housing mix before, but you are welcome to call SACOG and see what they think.
“The 90% GHG reduction on site “promise” was never articulated by the developer consultants beyond saying that as yet unknown,undescribed difficult design work will have to be done to reach the 90% goal on-site.”
This is not a true statement. They sent a detailed letter to the city that laid out exactly how they will get to 90%.
“I like the sound of the project (especially in comparison to the other abysmal developments). But the project should definitely be LEED certified and the project should guarantee GHG reduction with guarantee bonds or something similar.”
LEED Certification is actually a pretty low barrier, you can get leed certified in most cases for having trees and a solar panel. I jest slightly, but I’m not sure why you think LEED is the way to go, it’s basically a developer’s tool to market developments.
If you want more affordable housing, build more apartments. Simple as that.
Furthermore, you CANNOT count on-campus student housing! One good reason is that once they build West Village, they are going to decommission other on-campus student housing, such as Castilian Hall and Leach Hall.
So why not get their claims certified by the LEED process?
That would also shine some light on all the other sustainability issues that are being lost in the fog.
I’m sure they sent a fine letter to the city, but I don’t think the voters should take their word for it. If it’s a credible plan, then it should have no problem receiving certification from an independent oversite body with appropriate expertise. Consultants for the city or developer don’t count.
TO LEED CERTIFICATION: There are several levels of certification. I’m no expert… but it looks like the Platinum level is significant. Why not have a recognized independent body certify your project at its highest certification level to confirm what you are saying you are building is true? It also addresses the construction process (which is avoided when simply promoting the end product).
What is the process by which it could be certified? I must admit, I have no faith in leed certification after it certified Target. I mean, what could be a bigger suckage of GHG’s then all the imports into a building. Might as well have a leed certified hummer shop.
Since this development is being pushed through the entitlement process in part because it is supposedly going to attract state-wide attention because of its energy efficiency and sustainability, I think [u]at the very least[/u] it should meet the low bar of LEED certification at the Platinum level.
And what are those requirements?
To Jeremy: Student Housing is building Tercero South II right now (opening 2010 w/ 579 beds) and has plans to build Tercero South III (opening 2014 w/ 400 beds). The decommission of Leach and Castilian will remove 680 beds. Thus a net gain of 299 beds.
The city has always counted student housing and living groups as housing. We used the official city calculation for “dwelling unit equivalents, which is three beds equals one unit.
These are old numbers based on older, higher occupancy per unit, and are hence very conservative. If we had used today’s average person per dwelling unit figure of 2.61, which is the figure the city uses to determine the Quimby Act fee on new construction, I believe, we would count the student housing as 1,150 units.
There is no valid argument against counting student housing as housing.
They have counted on-campus student housing? Show me the documents please.
LEED CERTIFICATION:
For Homes…. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3638 (See page 13).
For Retail… http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=4504 (see page 11). Was Target was “platinum” certified. The “certified” level only requires half of the points as “platinum” certification.
Correction: Was Target “platinum” certified?
Target was certified at the lowest level.
From the spec sheet, it looks like this project would easily qualify, of course who knows the time period for certification. I would assume you would support the project should it gain leed certification?
We said we are talking about new housing approved by the University and the city. It is the same market, in that it will meet the needs of those who work and study in Davis. Even SACOG took West Village into account when they assigned our current figures. The council voted to pursue annexation of West village.
Only people arguing to grow faster than the SACOG requirements would not count the student housing in West Village.
These are the metrics that are scored. Getting a plain vanilla certification is considerably easier than reaching the Platinum level. To denigrate the LEED system because the Target building was certified is not a valid argument. It is possible to have a green and sustainable development that involves a land use one doesn’t like.
I would truly like to have an independent authority weigh in to tell us if WHR is really green and sustainable.
[u]Sustainable Sites[/u]
– Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
– Site Selection
– Development Density & Community Connectivity
– Brownfield Redevelopment
– Alternative Transportation (Public Transportation Access; Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms; Low Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles; Parking Capacity)
– Site Development (Protect or Restore Habitat; Maximize Open Space)
– Stormwater Design: Quantity Control
– Heat Island Effect (Non-Roof; Roof)
– Light Pollution Reduction
[u]Water Efficiency[/u]
– Water Efficient Landscaping (Potable Water Use or No Irrigation)
– Innovative Wastewater Technologies
– Water Use Reduction
[u]Energy & Atmosphere[/u]
– Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems
– Minimum Energy Performance
– Fundamental Refrigerant Management
– Optimize Energy Performance
– On-Site Renewable Energy
– Enhanced Commissioning
– Enhanced Refrigerant Management
– Measurement & Verification
– Green Power
[u]Materials & Resources[/u]
– Storage & Collection of Recyclables
– Building Reuse
– Construction Waste Management
– Materials Reuse
– Recycled Content
– Regional Materials (i.e. Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regionally)
– Rapidly Renewable Materials
– Certified Wood
[u]Indoor Environmental Quality[/u]
– Minimum IAQ Performance
– Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
– Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring
– Increased Ventilation
– Construction IAQ Management Plan (During Construction; Before Occupancy; Low-Emitting Materials; Adhesives & Sealants; Paints & Coatings; Carpet Systems; Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products)
– Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control
– Controllability of Systems (Lighting; Thermal Comfort
– Thermal Comfort: Design
– Thermal Comfort: Verification
– Daylight & Views
[u]Innovation & Design Process[/u]
– Innovation in Design
– LEED Accredited Professional
Has the city ever recognized on-campus student housing towards its housing allocation?
As many of us have stated Sue, on the basis of housing needs alone, we agree with you that we don’t need the project. Most of us are supporting it because it is a small project, it prevents Covell and Cannery, heck you already got Steve on record saying we have enough housing, how is he going to turn around and support Covell and Cannery, it will expand the baseline for environmental sustainability, that is why people should support it, not because we need to grow faster–we don’t. However to equate a home with on-campus student housing is misleading to the public. When you say there are 2000 units of housing, that is misleading if people don’t understand that half of those are on-campus student housing and another 200 are units that are technically entitled but unlikely to ever be developed. That means the real number we are looking at is 800 not 2000.
Through the looking glass: do you commit to supporting the project if it passes leed certification at the platnum level?
What I’m looking for is:
1) LEED certification at the Platinum level
2) Credible oversight and enforceability language regarding the 90% GHG reduction in the Measure P baseline project features
3) Credible oversight and enforceability language regarding the project features related to LEED certification in the Development Agreement
If these conditions are met – I will vote for the project, lobby for the project, and write a check supporting the project.
Do you commit to opposing the project if it doesn’t pass the low bar of LEED certification at the Platinum level?
LEED CERTIFICATION:
I would support the project if:
1) It guaranteed Platinum certified through enforceable measures
2) It guaranteed the 90% GHG reduction through enforceable measures
3) It was determined that no owner/occupants would purchase a 2 bedroom, 1 bath, 600sf home for $204,000.
11:33 AM poster: (How come Don Shor and I are the only people posting under our own names? Who are the rest of you and why on earth won’t you use your real names? If you think you are right, what are you hiding?)
I already explained why we are counting West Village in the post that you are answering. It provides housing for a large fraction of those who work in and study and Davis, and it does so much more effectively than Wildhorse Ranch would, since a majority of Wildhorse Ranch houses will likely be purchased by those who don’t work in Davis.
I don’t know why you think that this project is more likely to be built than other projects. West Village has already broken ground and invested in infrastructure. Unlike West Village, this project could be sold the minute it is entitled to another speculator. Remember, that is what happened with Wildhorse itself.
We are in a very bad housing market, and might be for some time. I expect many resale units to start flooding the market when people realize that the days of the bubble market are gone for a long, long time. Many of the single family rentals that were bought during the last 6 years were bought with appreciation expectation. They are probably net losers for their owners at this point.
And I really don’t understand your reasoning that this development will keep Cannery Park and Covell Village from being developed as housing. If this council majority intends to approve 325 units a year, as they have repeatedly stated, this project would hold off the other projects for about nine months. On the other hand, if the voters of Davis show that they are willing to exceed SACOG requirements, the sky is the limit.
If the council wants green projects, they should just require them in the future. These developers, (and we don’t even know if they will retain ownership) sure didn’t appear eager to put their green promises in the project baseline features.
“Most of us are supporting it because it is a small project, it prevents Covell and Cannery”
Are you so deluded to think the if this project wins, Covell Village II will not re-appear; I’m sure Witcomb loves that mindset! Covell Village II will come back (the whole “senior housing” track will be their pitch, just like “green project” is for WHR/Parlin); as for “small project” (alone it is; in addition to the 2000 housing units approved to be built, it adds another 10%!)
Sue: Good question. Unfortunately most people are not willing to put their name behind their argument.
“If this council majority intends to approve 325 units a year, as they have repeatedly stated, this project would hold off the other projects for about nine months.”
I don’t understand your argument here. You told me a few weeks ago you think this is a great project. You explained why you did not vote for it, I understand your rationale and respect it.
But the 2000 unit argument is not a good argument.
If you believe that council will vote to approve Cannery and Covell, then what difference does it make if there is an additional 191 units of the best and most green and innovative project that you have seen during your tenure on the council? If you can stop this project at 191 units, you should easily be able to stop Covell at 800.
I agree with some of the anonymous people here, let’s create the firewall against further development, let’s create 90% or higher at the baseline for all future projects, let’s pass a darn good project that is by no means perfect.
“If the council wants green projects, they should just require them in the future. “
You know what, you are the council, find a third vote and do it.
I hate the fact that we are letting past mistakes get in the way of a good and green project.
I’m sorry people, as was explained to me, LEED is not a viable option right now, the process takes too long, it’s expensive, it’s mostly designed for commercial buildings, and certainly not for small residential, and frankly it’s not as good a standard as Title 24 and Greenhouse Gas Reductions.
It sounds like you want some sort of a guarantee that the project will be green, look at the people who signed their names to this project, do you think Pam Nieberg who is greener than anyone in this town is going to sign her name to a project unless she is convinced that they are committed to 90%? Do you think Ken Wagstaff or Stan Forbes are going to support and sign their name without that degree of certainty?
I guarantee you that I would not be speaking favorably on this project without the 90% GHG, in fact, I’ll tell you right now when it was just 60% I told the developers that they had to at least pass San Francisco standards. They did that.
Sue I just want that firewall and I think this is the best way to get it.
Sue…
I’m not posting under my name because:
1) I’m undecided
2) For a point of reference in my analysis of affordability (10:23AM), I disclosed that I’m technically in the low income category. I don’t really want this disclosure to be a topic of interest with acquaintances.
“Are you so deluded to think the if this project wins, Covell Village II will not re-appear; I’m sure Witcomb loves that mindset!”
Covell Village II will be introduced in January, I want this project in our back pockets when it is and I want to beat them over the head with it for the next six months. I also don’t want the anti-Measure J forces to argue that Measure J doesn’t work and use WHR to kill Measure J.
First of all, despite what you wrote in your op-ed piece on Sunday (in response to Dunning) you are CLEARLY SUPPORTNG Wildhorse Ranch in your reply to Sue; so why don’t you stop the double-speak
Second:
“I also don’t want the anti-Measure J forces to argue that Measure J doesn’t work and use WHR to kill Measure J.”
Please explain; if this project is voted down, then Measure J “doesn’t work”???
Lastly:
“…do you think Pam Nieberg who is greener than anyone in this town is going to sign her name to a project unless she is convinced that they are committed to 90%? Do you think Ken Wagstaff or Stan Forbes are going to support and sign their name without that degree of certainty?”
Is it also possible that all of these mentioned individuals are supporting the project due to their political/personal affiliations with Bill Ritter?
The argument posed by the No on J people will be that Measure J makes it impossible for developments to be approved and they will point to the small size and innovative features and argue if this project could not get approved, no project can. I’m not saying they are correct, but that will be their argument and it will be very difficult to counter.
As for affiliations, I have a very strong affiliation with Lamar Hestek, I did not support him on the charter. It was a bad charter and would have done considerable damage. I ended up siding with Don Saylor on that issue. Bill Ritter working on this project get it someone working on it who would push for a project that we could support, it did not mean that it would get our support. I was opposed to the original project in January of 2008 and would still be if the project had not been very drastically improved upon regardless of who was working on it.
David…
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=147 shows that LEED certification would cost less than $100/unit. As far as timing goes… I thought it was disclosed in a previous thread that the project really was several years out. As far as whose names are signed to a project… I’m new to this town and don’t know the people or what connections are motivating them to sign on (or not sign on) to a project. But it does seem that the developer has not provided specific financial guarantees for the project’s GHG reduction. And, in the past, good people have been turned on when guarantees are not in place and money is on the table.
Sue G.: [i]”this project could be sold the minute it is entitled to another speculator. Remember, that is what happened with Wildhorse itself.”[/i]
If you are just stating a fact here, then fine. What you say is true. However, if that is supposed to be an argument against WHR, I don’t get it. Why should anyone care who the actual development company is which develops a subdivision. Parlin is located in Rancho Cordova. Is it any different for Davis if a developer from Woodland, Winters or West Sacramento builds WHR?
The argument posed by the No on J people will be that Measure J makes it impossible for developments to be approved and they will point to the small size and innovative features and argue if this project could not get approved, no project can. I’m not saying they are correct, but that will be their argument and it will be very difficult to counter.
I think that the voters will either reject or accept this project based on its merits vs. weaknesses; any attempt to try to mix that with a potential argument for future anti-Measure J issues is misleading and in my opinion, a scare tactic, to convince voters to approve this project
David Greenwald wrote:[quote]I’m sorry people, as was explained to me, LEED is not a viable option right now, the process takes too long, it’s expensive, it’s mostly designed for commercial buildings, and certainly not for small residential, and frankly it’s not as good a standard as Title 24 and Greenhouse Gas Reductions.[/quote]I’m sorry David, but I’m really not focused on the developer’s bottom line. All developers complain about time and money, and it’s a sorry day in the progressive community when those issues are granted standing.
Regarding your understanding that LEED is not an appropriate standard for small residential, here is a link to a list of the 238 registered neighborhood development projects in the US and Canada that are already seeking LEED certification.
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3546
Forty-five projects are listed in California (including, interestingly enough, Cannery Park). There are certainly projects on this list that would classify as small residential.
The Emeryville Marketplace project was the first to receive Platinum certification under what is called the LEED ND (neighborhood development) pilot program. This was almost one year ago. It is a 17 acre mixed use project that will be much more intensively developed than what would be acceptable in Davis. However, it proves the point that innovative residential development can indeed receive LEED Platinum certification in California.
Regarding the argument that ”we don’t need no stinkin’ LEED certification” — GHG and Title 24 are important parts of sustainability, but certainly not the whole story. More importantly, LEED and GHG/Title 24 are not mutually exclusive.
Both Platinum certification [u]and[/u] the developer’s energy efficiency goals would be fine with me.
Another point …
I’m beginning to wonder if the resistance to LEED is grounded in a concern that the WHR project is strong in GHG and Title 24 but has significant weaknesses elsewhere on the sustainability spectrum. This is something I would think should be examined in the coming months.
An extreme example to illustrate the point — Living in a tent under a PV panel would certainly be ultra energy efficient, but not very sustainable for most people.
A Yes on P takes the year-long work of the Housing Steering Committee and throws it in the trash can. Putting this proposal on the Nov. ballot after it has come to the Davis voter’s attention just a few weeks ago( yes, I understand that there have been “negotiations” going on for some time but this is not the same as getting the voter’s attention). I do not remember this blog having any lengthy discussions( or in-depth Greenwald articles, for that matter) prior to the July 1 AM approval by Saylor, Asmundson and Heystek. The Open Space Commission and Budget and Finance Commission were not allowed to weigh in on this proposal. A calculated effort is underway to drastically reduce the significance of the Housing Elememt Steering Committee’s findings and the ability of the voters to be fully informed in order toe xpress their will through Measure J. Those who say that Whitcomb is “tickled pink” with the 1 AM vote are correct; we’re almost back to square 1 with regard to Council majority control of the process. This should be a “bright line” for any populist progressive. A NO vote puts the powers-that-be on notice that this will not be tolerated by the citizens of Davis.
One thing I might suggest to everyone, the other article today which has exactly 1 comment will affect your lives far more than this issue.
David,
I said that I thought the project looked better than the Verona or Chiles Ranch projects, but that it didn’t take the neighbors’ concerns into account sufficiently.
But that is irrelevant. The Chiles Ranch project and the Verona project seemed very mediocre to me. You and I had a long talk about the disregard for the neighbors’ concerns, and the way the neighbors were being told that they had to agree to support the project before their concerns were addressed.
But, as you say, that doesn’t mean we should approve the project. We have 2000 units approved, and have surpassed our SACOG targets. By your logic, every peripheral piece of land should be developed now if the developer comes in with the same green building proposals. Then we could be a model “green” peripheral sprawl community (a bit of an oxymoron.)
When I say the project is better than Chiles Ranch and Verona, I was talking only about design and energy features. In terms of the fiscal implication
s for the city, it is far worth. First, the city retains only 11.8% of the Wildhorse Horseranch property tax, which is significantly below the citywide average of 17.5%. Secondly, Wildhorse Horseranch does not pay any fees over and above the fees which merely offset the infrastructure costs to the city.
The Verona and Chiles Ranch projects do pay additional fees.
Fiscally, Wildhorse Horseranch is NOT a fair deal for the city.
P.S., I agree that the LEED issue is probably a diversion. I am not an expert, but I suspect that the energy requirements in the baseline project features will exceed LEED standards. If someone has any data that proves otherwise, please provide it.
It is so refreshing to have true “slow-growth” Council members like Sue Greenwald (it’s no wonder she gets re-elected every time) not like these “slow growth” wannabe’s like Lamar, and Stan Forbes (who couldn’t even get elected last time!)
Sue,
With, all due respect, LEED is about more than energy efficiency. While you may personally consider it a diversion, it is [u]not[/u] smart politics to unceremoniously dismiss an important portion of the No on P coalition with such an impolitic comment. I understand that your core argument is 2000 is enough. That’s fine. Now you have to decide if you want go it alone or enlist support from other groups with some common ground.
Through the Looking Glass says:
[quote]With, all due respect, LEED is about more than energy efficiency. While you may personally consider it a diversion, it is not smart politics to unceremoniously dismiss an important portion of the No on P coalition with such an impolitic comment.[/quote]
Why so tetchy? I don’t even know who you are; you didn’t sign your name. How can this be so important? Where is the insult? No insult was intended.
You don’t know when to bite your tongue, do you? Carefully read my posts on the WV threads and then we’ll chat.
What EXACTLY is a 90% reduction in GHG for a townhouse residence? My guess is that GHG emissions would be due mainly to natural gas burning for hot water, heating and cooking. I think that the burning of natural gas is not described as a major producer of GHG. What are the absolute figures that we are talking about? 90% reduction to a minor amount of GHG generation may not be a big deal. My understanding is that the major culprits in GHG generation are coal-burning energy plants and automobile emissions.
[quote]“If this council majority intends to approve 325 units a year, as they have repeatedly stated, this project would hold off the other projects for about nine months.”
I don’t understand your argument here. — David Greenwald[/quote]
I thought this was pretty clear. The council majority is wedded to the notion of approving 325 units a year — very fast growth; equivalent to one subdivision the size of all Wildhorse itself every three years.
The Wildhorse Ranch project is 199 units. It would take approximately 7.5 months (not 9) to build 199 units at a rate of 35 a year. So the Wildhorse Ranch project would postpone Covell Village II or Lewis Homes for 7.5 months, given current council “guidelines”.
It seems to me that the only way to keep Covell Village II at bay is strong voter expression against fast growth, and, with 2,000 units approved, we have fast growth.
Correction:
It would take approximately 7.5 months (not 9) to build 199 units at a rate of 325 a year.
Citizen Q said: “This is not a true statement. They sent a detailed letter to the city that laid out exactly how they will get to 90%.
Citzen Q, my post was a very close paraphrasing of EXACTLY what the consultant said at the public podium, i.e., “first 30 % easy, second 30 % doable , last 30% requiring some real difficult design work( which he did not describe in even the most general terms).
Correct and what you didn’t read was the detailed description in their letter to the city as to how this would be done. The blog’s post on the “wow” factor paraphrases some of it. David should probably post the letter so we can all tear it apart, but it’s quite detailed.
If you all Pro Parlin – Pro Zero Energy Development at All Costs – supporters think this project means the end of Cannery and Covell projects, and that its the new Village Homes, you are so misguided. This has become a battle among old “no/slow growth” friends. Its fun to observe, but unfortunately the personal attacks among respected members of our community is just starting. The cannibalism is unfortunate and will not serve us well in the future. Its a no win situation, but perhaps too late to remedy. Think about the hard work and personal sacrifice all of us have made to protect what we treasure in Davis before you make personal attacks. One reason why I do not give much credence to this and other such blogs is because its not even close to being a balanced and factual based conversation. Get a grip on reality. This measure has no chance of passing, but will poison friendships forever. I have never been a Sue supporter, but perhaps now is the time to send her some love.
I agree with your sentiment; perhaps it is important to understand the root of all this infighting “among old no/slow growth friends”; and it is clearly the doings of one BILL RITTER, a washed up political operative who is trying to resurrect his career with this campaign; he was hired by Parlin to help the developers understand the forces which sank Measure X and how to not to repeat mistakes made by Witcomb and others; now, what we have is an attempt by Ritter to split the opponents of Measure X at all costs, and I think, whether Measure P passes or not, that is the greatest tragedy of all for our community
It is interesting that on the one hand you complain about the split of the Measure X opponents, on the other you perpetuate it. In fact, I would argue that of all people who have posted on this blog on this subject, you are the most guilty of that. It doesn’t have to be this way. But every single post you have chosen to direct at someone personally whether it is Bill Ritter, David Greenwald, or someone else. You and you alone have the power to change the tone and yet you and to a good degree you alone are guilty of poisoning the tone. Before you point at someone else, look at yourself.
[quote]You don’t know when to bite your tongue, do you? Carefully read my posts on the WV threads and then we’ll chat. — “Through the Looking Glass”
[/quote]
This quote illustrates the problem with anonymous posts.
First, you are demanding that I carefully read your posts from previous days and remember them. But it is difficult to remember pseudonyms. If you had used your real name in the WV thread, I guarantee you I would have remembered your arguments.
Second, posting pseudonymously seems to enable rude and unproductive comments that hinder discussion.
So Sue once again argues that the economy of housing should prevent us from building because housing prices are going down. Of course on the way up she argued that we couldn’t build enough to drive down prices. I recall her making faulty arguments about elasticity of demand. The fact of the matter is that Sue thinks we shouldn’t build houses and although I disagree with her I appreciate the consistency of her position. The thing that I find disengenuous is that she uses completely contradictory economic arguments under opposite market conditions. A more honest approach would be for her to abondon any pretense of economic analysis and articulate her real reason for opposing more housing, whatever it might be, but as John Steinbeck said in In Dubious Battle ” A good organizer uses whatever he has.”
An interesting article out of Solano County today put 60% of Solano County mortgages as being upside down or where the owner owes more than the property is worth. Davis has been an island of resistance buffeted by depreciating real estate bubbles all around us. Why, because Davis didn’t build into the bubble and you can always rent your house in Davis if you get stuck. However with the state and university contracting I expect prices in Davis will start decreasing at a faster pace. I think building housing that you expect to sell for over $400,000 on postage sized lots or 3 stories high away from the town center is a pipedream. Maybe the developers can make a profit even if they sell for less. Clearly they have it penciled in that they will make money if they have a top line income of 76million on the project but they aren’t saying where the break even point is at.
I disagree on how P and J are linked. If P passes than people can say that J works. But if P fails you can also argue that J works its just that people may not like the way it works.
“Affordable” is a tough one. If you are pursuing The American Dream chances are you want a new house. I can’t see a new “house” in Davis being sold for anything less than 400,000. Therefore, for the American Dreamers, that is “affordable”- if only because of the willingness to go into deep debt.
If you are not pursuing The American Dream, you have options. You can buy an old Suburban Home with The Big Garage out in front and rent out one room in the house to a student to help you pay the mortgage. The house and the street were not designed for your more community-centric lifestyle, but can be reclaimed in a sense, as many in Davis do. And so what would be great, of course, is to build new housing aimed at that demographic: people that aren’t interested in pursuing the American Dream but are looking for a high quality of life nonetheless. What this means is: small footprint for the house (but big kitchen!), public transportation nearby, proximity to food shopping, diverse socio-economic strata of people, safe infrastructure for walking / biking, and as much nature as possible- gardens or xeriscaping.
Whether or not a development like this scenario above pencils out, I have no idea. Perhaps building the Big Houses is the only way to build the Small Houses- in which case the compromise design accomplishes very little towards satisfying the dream of either group.
In which case we are left asking: what happened to the really good ideas anyway?
http://tinyurl.com/cld56h
[quote]So Sue once again argues that the economy of housing should prevent us from building because housing prices are going down — Typhoid Mary[/quote]
Mary, you are putting words in my mouth. I have never argued that we shouldn’t build more housing because housing prices are going down. I have argued that we shouldn’t build because we have too many units in the pipeline. It has to do with my perception of the negative effect that too much growth has on the quality of life.
I am not necessarily determined to draw a line in the sand at our current borders. But, on the other hand, the logic that we always need to grow means that we must keep growing until we bump into Woodland and Dixon.
Would that be a good thing?
Many students, faculty and other residents appreciate the quality of life in our smaller town. Many have come from places like LA and want no part of recreating sprawl. Many value the bicycle and pedestrian-friendly lifestyle, and the sense of community that is available in Davis, and fear that too much growth will jeopardize that.
In the 1920’s, a citizen movement began in the East Bay cities of Berkeley, Oakland and Richmond to keep these cities from sprawling over the East Bay hills. They enabled the acquisition of the East Bay regional park in order to create permanent boundaries and stop the growth of their cities.
I am sure that the developers and the growth-related industries made all the same arguments that we hear today about the evils and unfairness of stopping the growth of these cities.
But I also would note that in hindsight, no one regrets the creation of the permanent open-space boundary that preserved hills and kept the East Bay cities from bumping into Walnut Creek and Concord. Babies are born in Berkeley, new people still move to Berkeley, and people decide to leave Berkeley. Housing still turns over.
It is a bit ironic that when I was a student in Berkeley, some of my friends felt “forced” to go to Davis due to a shortage of jobs and, perhaps (although I do not believe this was a major reason), due to limited housing in Berkeley. So they built a great community in Davis, and now we have two great communities. Perhaps I am prejudiced, but I even feel that Davis is better.
[quote]So Sue once again argues that the economy of housing should prevent us from building because housing prices are going down — Typhoid Mary[/quote]
Mary, you are putting words in my mouth. I have never argued that we shouldn’t build more housing because housing prices are going down. I have argued that we shouldn’t build because we have too many units in the pipeline. It has to do with my perception of the negative effect that too much growth has on the quality of life.
I am not necessarily determined to draw a line in the sand at our current borders. But, on the other hand, the logic that we always need to grow means that we must keep growing until we bump into Woodland and Dixon.
Would that be a good thing?
Many students, faculty and other residents appreciate the quality of life in our smaller town. Many have come from places like LA and want no part of recreating sprawl. Many value the bicycle and pedestrian-friendly lifestyle, and the sense of community that is available in Davis, and fear that too much growth will jeopardize that.
In the 1920’s, a citizen movement began in the East Bay cities of Berkeley, Oakland and Richmond to keep these cities from sprawling over the East Bay hills. They enabled the acquisition of the East Bay regional park in order to create permanent boundaries and stop the growth of their cities.
I am sure that the developers and the growth-related industries made all the same arguments that we hear today about the evils and unfairness of stopping the growth of these cities.
But I also would note that in hindsight, no one regrets the creation of the permanent open-space boundary that preserved hills and kept the East Bay cities from bumping into Walnut Creek and Concord. Babies are born in Berkeley, new people still move to Berkeley, and people decide to leave Berkeley. Housing still turns over.
It is a bit ironic that when I was a student in Berkeley, some of my friends felt “forced” to go to Davis due to a shortage of jobs and, perhaps (although I do not believe this was a major reason), due to limited housing in Berkeley. So they built a great community in Davis, and now we have two great communities. Perhaps I am prejudiced, but I even feel that Davis is better.
[quote]To: Observer said . . .
I agree with your sentiment; perhaps it is important to understand the root of all this infighting “among old no/slow growth friends”; and it is clearly the doings of one BILL RITTER, a washed up political operative who is trying to resurrect his career with this campaign; he was hired by Parlin to help the developers understand the forces which sank Measure X and how to not to repeat mistakes made by Witcomb and others; now, what we have is an attempt by Ritter to split the opponents of Measure X at all costs, and I think, whether Measure P passes or not, that is the greatest tragedy of all for our community[/quote]
So if I hear you right, you believe that all the Pro-Parlin progressives have placed their personal friendships with Ritter ahead of their personal principles. Is that right?
How does Ritter have that much time to make that many close friendships. I hardly know the man. I’ve met him barely 10 times in my life, and I can’t remember when one of those meetings wasn’t in a public situation. He didn’t appear to be that charismatic. Hep me understand the root of your belief.
Sue Greenwald said: “We are in a very bad housing market, and might be for some time. I expect many resale units to start flooding the market when people realize that the days of the bubble market are gone for a long, long time. Many of the single family rentals that were bought during the last 6 years were bought with appreciation expectation. They are probably net losers for their owners at this point.”
Sorry Sue if I inferred incorrectly that your argument is that we should not build because the very bad housing market means we should not add to supply by building more housing with this project. Oh please take the time to redirect me as to the meaning of the above statement.
But Sue you also said “The figure of 2000 already approved but unbuilt units between the city and West Village is a conservative number, and it would be a huge number even in hot market. It is a ridiculous number in a market predicted to be slow for years to come.”
So please redirect me on this one as well.
All kidding aside, I think its clear that you are now arguing just what I said. Notice in my first post I didn’t directly quote you and I hope you don’t make me go find those rediculous statements about regional supply and demand and elasticiy from last year where you argued about not being able to build enough supply to satisfy demand. Can we please stipulate that your former position is opposite your current one.This is the kind of thing politicians due when they deny one day what they were communicating on another day. Its the sort of thing that gave Nixon the name Tricky Dick. It would be much better if you would give up the dishonest economic arguments and tell us why you really don’t want to build more housing?
Sue + David: totally agree w/ you both about anon posters. People hide behind labels and often say stupid things. I (and hopefully others) do appreciate your willingness to use your real names.
This is another unaffordable housing project. I went thru the mortgage/income analysis at length on Chiles.
[quote]It is a bit ironic that when I was a student in Berkeley, some of my friends felt “forced” to go to Davis due to a shortage of jobs and, perhaps (although I do not believe this was a major reason), due to limited housing in Berkeley. So they built a great community in Davis, and now we have two great communities. Perhaps I am prejudiced, but I even feel that Davis is better.[/quote]So that’s how it happened! You do realize of course with this one bizarre assertion you’ve managed to destroy the credibility of everything else you wrote in the post.
How do you know when someone is on target with their analysis, when people complain about their anonimity.
Commenting on Observer’s posting: I believe that the unnecessarily personal attack on Bill Ritter tends to obscure the truths of his/her observations.
Clearly, Bill Ritter was hired to bring HIS progressive faction on board the project as well as offer the developer’s campaign his thoughts to avoid Whitcomb’s “mistakes” in his Measure J campaign. The political progressive faction in Davis,tragically, has been split for as long as I can remember. It has its roots, unfortunately, more in ego clashes and perceived never-to-be-forgiven personal and political slights as much as real political differences. While Bill Ritter has always remained mainly behind the scenes in Davis’ political campaigns, he does puts his time,resources(and $$$)where his mouth is. Political IOU’s are a reality and progressives are not immune to this realpolitik,
[quote]People hide behind labels and often say stupid things.[/quote]And people that use their real names often say stupid things.
[quote]typhoid mary said . . .
I disagree on how P and J are linked. If P passes than people can say that J works. But if P fails you can also argue that J works its just that people may not like the way it works.[/quote]
Mary, I agree with you on the two scenarios you described. There is a third scenario that I believe you have overlooked. If Council had chosen not to send this project to the people for a vote then a serious argument could be made by the anti-J forces, “If this really good project can’t even make it to a Measure J vote, then what project possibly can? Measure J is an impossible hurdle to vault!!” Setting aside the process problems leading up to the Council vote, I believe this project had risen to a level of quality that the Davis voters deserved an opportunity to weigh in on it . . . and in the process show that Measure J does indeed work.
20/20 hindsight says that everyone might have been better served by choosing April rather than November (I believe June would have been a mistake). 20/20 hindsight says that the public would have gotten a better look at the contents of the letter delivered by Parlin that committed to the 90% onsite GHG reduction if the Council had first agreed on the April election date and then scheduled the discussion of the details of the Measure J baseline and development agreement commitments in September.
However, we will have to use the time between now and Novemeber to look at those things in the public discussions of the project, as well as in the Council discussions of the development agreement.
For me, the ideal solution to this would be if Freddy Oakley took matters in her own hands and asked both the City and the Developer if they would object to moving the election from November to April. That way she could have a robust test of the expected “all-mail” process that election is rumored to be going to use. However, I don’t expect that ideal solution to happen.
Mary,
Now you are just using insinuation to try to avoid discussing the points I was raising. There is a difference between trying to control growth with an aim of trying to keep housing prices high, and controlling growth to keep Davis livable.
Historically in Davis, years in which Davis has grown quickly, its housing prices have not declined relative to the regional prices, due, it seems reasonable to assume, the elasticity of demand. You can make all the ad hominem attacks you want, but you have discussed the substance of the debate.
This is not to say that there might not be a catastrophic collapse in some markets that have overbuilt during the peak of the bubble, such as the Sacramento region recently, but I suspect that the price differential between Davis and other towns in the region will realign eventually closer to the historical difference.
If you want a concrete, graphic example of the elasticity of demand, all you have to do is walk a street in a new subdivision, and you will see that people from all over have come to live in Davis because they perceive the quality of life to be higher. That will always be reflected in the relative prices, except for employee-dedicated housing like West Village.
Correction:
Typhoid Mary: You can make all the ad hominem attacks you want, but you have not discussed the substance of the debate.
[quote]Davis has been an island of resistance buffeted by depreciating real estate bubbles all around us.– Typhoid Mary[/quote]
Davis has not collapsed as catastrophically as the rest of the region, but Davis prices have declined 23% since the peak. Many economists expect the that the price declines in the lower priced markets have bottomed, while price in the higher-priced markets will continue to decline.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the historical difference between, for example, Davis and Woodland, to reestablish itself. I predict that, over time, the relative difference in prices between Woodland and Davis will only change if Woodland is perceived as increasing its quality of life (including schools), or Davis is perceived as having a decrease in its quality of life.
Sue, I would go further. I believe that new factors such as the increase in high-end cultural activity in the form of the Mondavi Center will support a wider difference than the one that existed historically. Not everyone is interested in the Mondavi activities, but the people who are typically have more disposable income and are willing to spend it on quality of life amenities like live music.
Now if we could get The Palms back to Davis, housing prices would skyrocket.
Sue,how would you define livable and livable for whom?
By the way if you are really interested in squeezing speculators out of the housing market you would support more construction that would cause prices to fall even more precipitiously. Yes on P will help drive prices down in the rest of Davis and force speculators to sell making housing more affordable for everyone.
Mary, the 191 units in WHR won’t even make a blip on the prices radar. Only 73 of those units are single family detached homes.
Adding to supply will effect prices putting downward pressure in an already weak market. If people were really interested in driving out speculators and making home ownership affordable they would build and build and build but as I said to the girl who only wanted to be friends and is now my wife “You have to start somewhere.”
“Adding to supply will effect prices putting downward pressure in an already weak market. If people were really interested in driving out speculators and making home ownership affordable they would build and build and build…””
I assume you are in favor of big developments like Covell Village II and the Cannery? The problem with too much building is that it brings with it too much cost to resident citizens, who will literally be priced out of their homes when taxes and utility costs become too high. Is that what you want? Or are you just in favor of WHR, for whatever reasons, but not necessarily in favor of bigger projects? Please clarify your position…
Matt Williams said:”… However, I don’t expect that ideal solution to happen.”
This CAN happen if Councilman Heystek brings the vote for a November Measure J ballot measure up for Reconsideration when the Council returns in September. Sue Greenwald and Steve Souza would most likely vote with Lamar in a 3-2 vote for Reconsideration. Councilman Heystek in all manner of form and gesture indicated that a later date was his preference(..expressing his desire to hear more from the community and publicly ruminating about not being afraid to have his reelection bid on the same ballot in June with the WHR Mesure J vote). Why he appeared to change direction with his vote at 1AM remains an open question as well as an open political wound. Returning to his measure J process core-principles with a vote for reconsideration will go a long way in healing this wound.
Yes build them all WHR, the Cannery, Covell, West Village. It will drive prices down and drive out the speculators making Davis affordable for people who want to live here.
Mike Harrington made a statement a few threads back claiming that Bill Ritter was instrumental in putting Lamar in office. Do you believe the claim? What do you think about the theory that Lamar’s vote was more about this relationship (and by proxy the Vanguard) than his core principles? Do you really think Lamar has the political courage to throw his political allies under the bus with a motion for reconsideration?
In my opinion, if he’s got the guts to do this then his political career escape with just a minor blemish (we can rationalize his erratic behavior by blaming it on fatigue, and the justifiable pressure to bring the meeting to a conclusion so he could get on the road). If he doesn’t, in the eyes of many he will be forever viewed as a sell-out — no different than the caricature we routinely paint of the pro-growth council members in bed with the developers.
Why do you think changing the election date would be throwing anyone under the bus? I really don’t think Parlin or Ritter would have a preference of a November election over an April election.
If the reconsideration were for the vote altogether, then they would care.
“…. Do you believe the claim?”
I personally believe that Lamar would have won without the level of “support” that Bill Ritter offered to Lamar’s campaign, however, there is no question that Bill Ritter did contribute significant “support” to Lamar’s campaign. I believe that Lamar was quite conflicted and extremely fatigued when he cast his vote at 1 AM . His vote uncharacteristically did not jibe with the political reputation he has justly earned( and,in my opinion, has seriously damaged) as someone whom we could count upon to defend populist principles and stand by the populist Measure J process principles that he argued in his opposition to Measure X. Reconsideration to move the WHR Measure J vote to the Spring (perhaps June, when the largest number of Davis voters would be participating) is what the Lamar Heystek that I “know” would support.
Sue Greenwald said: “It seems to me that the only way to keep Covell Village II at bay is strong voter expression against fast growth, and, with 2,000 units approved, we have fast growth.”
Ol’ Timer said: “Those who say that Whitcomb is “tickled pink” with the 1 AM vote are correct; we’re almost back to square 1 with regard to Council majority control of the process. This should be a “bright line” for any populist progressive. A NO vote puts the powers-that-be on notice that this will not be tolerated by the citizens of Davis.”
These two statements take the opposite position to the effect of a Yes on Measure J vote in November with regard to the Covell II and Cannery projects that will be before the Council soon.
It’s up to the reader to decide which is more plausible.
Sue Greenwald said: “It seems to me that the only way to keep Covell Village II at bay is strong voter expression against fast growth, and, with 2,000 units approved, we have fast growth.”
Ol’ Timer said: “Those who say that Whitcomb is “tickled pink” with the 1 AM vote are correct; we’re almost back to square 1 with regard to Council majority control of the process. This should be a “bright line” for any populist progressive. A NO vote puts the powers-that-be on notice that this will not be tolerated by the citizens of Davis.”
These two statements take the opposite position to the effect of a Yes on Measure J vote in November with regard to the Covell II and Cannery projects that will be before the Council soon.
It’s up to the reader to decide which is more plausible.
To clarify… the Yes on Measure P in November proponents claim that a Yes vote will somehow stymie Council approval of Cannery and Covell II approval to a Measure J vote.
[quote]I really don’t think Parlin or Ritter would have a preference of a November election over an April election.[/quote]I think their agenda is to avoid high voter turnout at all cost.
They’ve corrupted the Measure J process and to close the deal they need a low voter turnout election that can be bought with developer financed propaganda, push polls, and GOV.
Lamar’s only path back from political purgatory is a vote to reconsider that results in the Measure P vote being moved to June.
If he does this, I think the disaffected members of his base will probably forgive the misstep. If not, he’ll be forever labeled by some as sell-out without the courage of his convictions or the courage to correct a political mistake.
Staying cozy with the R&A/ Parlin/Vanguard gang has a high price, and I hope this young politician can find the strength to reclaim his integrity and stand on his own two feet.
[quote]I personally believe that Lamar would have won without the level of “support” that Bill Ritter offered to Lamar’s campaign, however, there is no question that Bill Ritter did contribute significant “support” to Lamar’s campaign.[/quote]If I’m reading you correctly, it sounds like you believe that Harrington’s claim that Ritter was instrumental is an overstatement? Is that correct? This sounds plausible to me since I also recall another statement from Harrington claiming undo credit for the Measure X effort (according to several other posters that were directly involved in the campaign).
However, I’m still having trouble with the conflicted and fatigued excuse. Did he cave to an aggressive lobbying effort? Was there some promise of future political support (remember Sue’s allegation that Harrington offered her a quid quo pro)?
Most people don’t generally abandon their core values just because they are tired and not thinking straight.
“Yes build them all WHR, the Cannery, Covell, West Village. It will drive prices down and drive out the speculators making Davis affordable for people who want to live here.”
And how do you propose that the city pay for all the new infrastructure/services that will require? Increase taxes to an extreme degree, so only the wealthy can afford to live here? You are living in la la land my dear…
A little bit of knowledge is a very dangerous thing. Both of you know very little about this, but you have taken what little you know and have speculated. Ol Timer, you were not in Lamar’s inner circle during his campaign, so why are you stating things when it’s obvious that you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about?
[quote]Ol’ Timer said . . .
Those who say that Whitcomb is “tickled pink” with the 1 AM vote are correct; we’re almost back to square 1 with regard to Council majority control of the process. This should be a “bright line” for any populist progressive. A NO vote puts the powers-that-be on notice that this will not be tolerated by the citizens of Davis.[/quote]
Ol’ Timer, when you say “this will not be tolerated by the citizens of Davis.” what is the this you are referring to? Is it the abridgment of the process? Or is it WHR itself?
I can imagine that Whitcombe would take heart in the former, but not the latter.
So why don’t you clue us in? Was Ritter instrumental in putting Lamar in office as Harrington claims? Was this an overstatement as ol’ timer claims? Do you have another characterization?
Were you in Lamar’s inner circle, or are you speculating as well?
[quote]ol’ timer said . . .
To clarify… the Yes on Measure P in November proponents claim that a Yes vote will somehow stymie Council approval of Cannery and Covell II approval to a Measure J vote.[/quote]
I’m confused. Cannery and a Measure J vote? If I have heard her correctly, Sue has been telling us otherwise in her process of advocating for a business park there.
is that you don’t know anything and you ought not be shooting in the dark and speculating on stuff you really don’t know anything about.
You’ve said [u]nothing[/u] to establish that [u]you[/u] know what you’re talking about. Although you are obviously trying to imply that you are an insider, I have my doubts in the absence of any evidence.
So spare us the lecture, and add something substantive to the dialog.
You already admitted you don’t know anything.
The only thing I know, Bill, is that your check is in the mail.
You really are clueless aren’t you
To “Who cares”
You obviously care.
Do you see the tactic hear folks? The thread was going in a direction that was adverse to the AOW, and someone jumps on anonymously and diverts the dialog. The next step in the pattern is a debate over anonymous posting.
In the meantime – no discussion of Lamar’s vote, no discussion of process, no discussion of the impacts of WHR on Measure J, and so on.
Just ignore trolls.
[quote]Is it the abridgment of the process? Or is it WHR itself?
I can imagine that Whitcombe would take heart in the former, but not the latter.[/quote]Since WHR and Covell II represent different segments of the housing market, I’m not buying this argument that Whitcombe really cares about the WHR outcome. I agree that he is probably intensely watching the process.
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t someone make a cogent argument a while back that once we cross the threshold on wastewater, surface water, etc. then it is to everyone’s advantage to increase the pool of rate payers?
You anonymous post about things you don’t know anything about and then when someone else anonymously calls bs, you suddenly get self-righteous about it. Want proof folks that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he never once refuted me. The funny thing, is I don’t know anything either I just saw right through your crap.
[quote]I don’t know anything[/quote]Nuff said. Bye.
You got punked.
Sounds like there is agreement all around . . . Whitcombe isn’t interested in WHR. He is interested in identifiable ways to manipulate the process to an outcome that he likes.
Matt: I am definitely referring to the abridgement of the process. As I said before, the WHR proposal will stand or fall with its measure J vote based upon the evaluation of a fully informed Davisite electorate, hopefully at a ballot date that will draw the maximum number of voters.
For myself, I do not yet know whether I will support or not support this project based upon the limited public discussion that has been permitted.
……let me add that I may very well support this project AFTER a full Measure J process is permitted. As it stands now, I will vote NO based upon what I perceive to be an attack on the Measure J process. This is of primary importance and I do not have to look any further into the issue.
To Cannery-Measure J
You are correct, Cannery does not need a Measure J vote, Covell Village does. Voting to approve Measure P in November does two things, in addition to allowing the Measure J process to be manipulated which makes Covell Village II more likely. One, it dismisses the year-long citizen Housing Element Committee findings as irrelevant and second it supports the current Council majority’s expected plan to ignore SACOG’s housing numbers for Davis.
[quote]
To “Under the Bus??” said . . .
Lamar’s only path back from political purgatory is a vote to reconsider that results in the Measure P vote being moved to June.
If he does this, I think the disaffected members of his base will probably forgive the misstep. If not, he’ll be forever labeled by some as sell-out without the courage of his convictions or the courage to correct a political mistake.
Staying cozy with the R&A/ Parlin/Vanguard gang has a high price, and I hope this young politician can find the strength to reclaim his integrity and stand on his own two feet.[/quote]
Your assessment assumes that A) a politician has to be perfect, B) a politician has to be consistent, C) a politician can entertain no compromise positions and D) a politician can not have a mind of his/her own.
Bottom-line, I have complete faith that Lamar consistently has a mind of his own, recognizes that there are times when compromise is the only realistic option, and is humanly imperfect. I think the majority of voters would agree with me, and therefore the damage you perceive he has done to himself politically is largely a figment of your imagination.
What a profoundly insightful analysis. And that little insult at the end? What a nice touch. That really proved your point.
I’m sure Lamar feels much better about his “compromise” now that you’ve weighed in.
Ahhh anonymity by any other name thou art just as beautiful. Despite the use of pseudonyms I believe both Figment and Cannery = are both right.
How can that be you ask? They espouse diametrically opposite perspectives. My answer to that question is simple. Both of them are expressing personal opinions that in the immediate timeframe can neither be proved nor disproved. Which of course makes both of their comments little more than campaign rhetoric. But that is okay by me. That’s the way our political system works.
FWIW, I find myself more drawn to Cannery =’s argument, but again that is just an opinion.
This is a good reminder said:
“Ol Timer, you were not in Lamar’s inner circle during his campaign, so why are you stating things when it’s obvious that you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about?”
While never claiming to be in Lamar”s “inner circle”(whatever THAT means) in his campaign, my facts are based upon personal and direct knowledge as an active campaign worker and under-a-$100 contributor to Lamar’s election bid to the Council. I have been clear in expressing what are my opinions and what are the historical facts.