On Tuesday’s City Council Agenda, Staff is recommending an ordinance and resolutions by the end of the year to place the renewal of Measure J on the June 2010 ballot for voter consideration with only technical edits and no provision for a business park exemption.
Back in June, the council was unanimous in support for the renewal of Measure J basically as is. Council was divided on the sunset date which was ultimately determined to be in ten years–longer than staff and perhaps some of the council wanted, but shorter than the permanency that Councilmembers Lamar Heystek and Sue Greenwald would have preferred.
Not one person on any of those commission recommended an exemption for a business park to the renewal of Measure J.
Commentary
Still it will be very interesting to see how the discussion on Tuesday plays out, as the climate in the city has changed very rapidly in the three months since the initial vote on Measure J. In June, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Measure J would probably pass again with little opposition. Now that may not be true.
I understand people are going to be upset by this comment, but what I am increasingly hearing is that developers in this town do not believe the Measure J process works. They believe that the burden is too high. That the council and members of the public can exact too high a price on development. And there is some belief out there that if the current Measure J vote does not pass, that the anti-Measure J forces will rally behind it as proof that Measure J makes development impossible. Their argument would be that if a relatively small project that is highly green and innovative cannot pass a Measure J vote during a low-turnout election, no project can.
None of that may be true, and I suspect I will read a lot of arguments as to why it is not true, but that is the perception I am hearing in discussions in this community with a large number of people who are frankly on all sides of the Measure P issue.
Some will claim I am using this as a reason for people to vote for Measure P, I would argue that regardless of the outcome of Measure P, this sentiment will still exist. They will simply point to how much the developers have had to give on this project in terms of trying to make it fiscally neutral, in terms of the cost of the sustainability component, in terms of the huge cost that has not really been discussed here of the accessibility component.
That is also not to say that the developers will win even if they push against Measure J. The public will have the ultimate say and in democracy, one thing that rarely if ever occurs would be the voters voting for less democracy. In other words, voters will rarely vote against giving themselves the ultimate say on projects through votes.
One barometer on where this process stands could be the vote on Tuesday. On June 9, no one opposed Measure J on the council, the only discussion was how long and whether to make exemptions. Will that change now? The second question is whether anyone comes forward an opposes Measure J from the public. That will be a test.
Of course a lot is going to happen between now and the vote on Measure J. We have Measure P on the ballot in November. We have the Covell Project coming forward in January. We may have another Measure J vote on ballot in June along with a Council election and a tax measure. Regardless of what happens on Measure P, the Progressive Community needs to come together because the next nine months may be the most important in determining the future of the city as we have seen in the last decade.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“We may have another Measure J vote on ballot in June along with a Council election and a tax measure. “
What is the ‘may’ part?
I am sorry David but I am tired of the manipulation of WHR folks, this being the latest. Vote for P or Jay be in jeopardy. Right now my vote is no because I feel manipulated.
I heart Parlin is the owner of Bining Ranch. What is the status of that? It seems to be a leveled field with a fence…..and that is all. Will those be green ranchettes or up to what folks who buy the lots?
I trust voters to make the right decision, on Measure P and Measure J. One has nothing to do with the other.
If Measure P is defeated, it will be because WHR is too dense, the townhomes are not “affordable workforce housing”; the “affordable” housing is not affordable at $1,000 + per month rent for most of them; it is a net fiscal negative to the city after 15 years; the solar panels are making the housing too expensive; there is already enough housing and no more is needed at the moment in light of the soured economy.
There is no reason to think voters are going to defeat Measure J now, when it has worked just as it was intended to when it was originally approved. City staff/City Council recognized citizens nor commissions are interested in tinkering with Measure J, and want it renewed as is, no exceptions.
DPD, your bias is showing. Sometimes it is difficult to keep objective, when you feel strongly in favor of a development project. I think you need to ask yourself if you would feel the same about the chances of Measure J passing if you were opposed to WHR?
“What is the ‘may’ part?”
To my knowledge, Covell II hasn’t been placed on the ballot for June yet and the decision hasn’t been made. Hence the “may.”
My comments for the most part had less to do with P specifically than I think the general perception after watching the process unfold. The growing perception is that Measure J makes development impossible and that perception could doom it. I specifically said, you shouldn’t base your vote on that, but I’m sorry folks, this is a fact, I was told this by numerous people. You may not like this fact, but it is a fact.
“DPD, your bias is showing. Sometimes it is difficult to keep objective, when you feel strongly in favor of a development project. I think you need to ask yourself if you would feel the same about the chances of Measure J passing if you were opposed to WHR?”
My concern is showing more than my bias at this point. I’m very concerned about the way things have unfolded and as I have told a lot people in this community, WHR and Measure P are relatively low on my list of priorities compared to a lot of other issues. It’s a hot topic among some in this community and there is an election coming up, but it would probably not make my top 10 list at this point. And frankly defeating Covell II and preserving Measure J rank much higher.
SODA’ite wrote:
“I heart {sic} Parlin is the owner of Bining Ranch.”
True indeed, look at their website: http://www.parlindevelopment.com/projects.htm
You will see they also own an adjoining “Covell” lot of 75 acres which is right adjacent to Binning Ranch, future “large peripheral development” coming towards West Davis, ala Parlin Development! (who by the way, are “Really Green” and “Really Affordable” as the nice ad below reminds us)
[i]I understand people are going to be upset by this comment, but what I am increasingly hearing is that developers in this town do not believe the Measure J process works. They believe that the burden is too high.[/i]
In the view of informed people who don’t live in Davis, developers in this town are correct. Measure J is a draconian stroke of direct democracy that is destined to write Davis out of regional growth. It’s our local answer to Proposition 13. Mike Harrington summarized the core function of Measure J when he asked about a particular project, “What’s in it for those who live here now?” Both Measure J and Proposition 13 are measures that say, “We got here first.”
As you say, Measure P is a low priority. It’s a small project weighed down with a huge green ransom. If it is meant as a showcase to prove that Measure J isn’t what it appears to be, then it’s not convincing.
But that doesn’t mean that Measure J won’t be renewed! Those who got here first, got here first. I like to express my opinion, but I’m no politician. I also have no connection whatsoever to developers. So no one should be afraid of me as any sort of leader of opposition.
Exactly Greg, just like in rat city an experiment where you put rats in a cage and give them lots of food and let them reproduce. The early rats establish territory and don’t let those who come after them do the same. I was thinking about this yesterday and it occurred to me that for all their intellectual capacity many in Davis only use their intelligence when evaluating issues related to growth to rationalize their compulsion for the lowest level of mammalian animal behavior about competition for territory.
While I was telling someone, who likes me favors growth, about the features of P I don’t like, that person said something that really made me question my opposition to P. He said simply “That’s okay, you don’t have to live there.” How civilized and erudite this voice of reason in a shrill nativistic sea of Malthusian fear of the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Let me see if I understand David’s logic
1. Voters will vote no on Measure P
2. The same voters will be dismayed by the result of Measure P and vote against Measure J
That makes a lot of sense.
Get Real:
It would be helpful if you characterized my article and argument correctly.
First I said:
“Developers in this town do not believe the Measure J process works. They believe that the burden is too high.”
That argument is related to Measure P but only somewhat. They are simply evaluating Measure J by watching how Measure P has played out.
Then I say:
“Their argument would be that if a relatively small project that is highly green and innovative cannot pass a Measure J vote during a low-turnout election, no project can.”
That’s an argument I have heard. However, notice I then discount it.
“Some will claim I am using this as a reason for people to vote for Measure P, [u]I would argue that regardless of the outcome of Measure P, this sentiment will still exist[/u]. “
The point here is that Measure P isn’t really critical, my concern here is with Measure J and the perception among some in the community that it might create too high a burden.
Then I even discount the likelihood of Measure J being defeated when I say:
“That is also not to say that the developers will win even if they push against Measure J. The public will have the ultimate say and in democracy, one thing that rarely if ever occurs would be the voters voting for less democracy. In other words, voters will rarely vote against giving themselves the ultimate say on projects through votes.”
Bottom line, right now I am concerned about Measure J, I think the process of Measure P has harmed it, I think blame lies with all sides for that, but it is where we are.
I think the process of Measure P has harmed it, I think blame lies with all sides for that, but it is where we are.
How about starting some of the blame on Lamar Heystek, who ran in 2006 as a “slow growth” advocate; on the council meeting 0n 7/28, both Saylor and Ruth (notorious pro-growthers) both stated their concerns that WHR needed further review of its fiscal impact (and not at 12:30am!), and yet Lamar still decides to give his populist speech on how the citizens “deserved” the right to vote on the project, and then Saylor and Ruth decided to vote on the motion; why is that with six weeks to go to election (on 9/15) the Council was still debating the Developer Agreement and essentially had to force Parlin to agree to build the affordable housing (which is one the cornerstone messages of the Yes on P campaign) and not hand off to a non-profit builder and the City to pick up the tab?
The process has been TERRIBLE for this project, and if voters approve it, why will any future developers/ City staff try to strive to do any better???
“there is some belief out there that if the current Measure J vote does not pass, that the anti-Measure J forces will rally behind it as proof that Measure J makes development impossible.”
Of course they would use a loss on Measure P (which I assume is what you meant) as an arguing point against renewal of Measure J. That doesn’t mean that argument would prevail.
I think that a clear majority of the voters of Davis like having the right to exercise democracy about planning and development decisions. Davis voters have voted on Mace Ranch, Wildhorse, Target, Covell Village, and the widening of Richards Blvd. The voters approved the first three, rejected the last two. Note that they did so in spite of broad support in some cases from the established leadership of the city, and in some cases in spite of support from the “progressive” faction for one position or another (nearly every civic leader supported widening Richards). The voters don’t always vote down a development proposal, even when it involves a major change in the general plan (Target) or a huge peripheral development (Mace Ranch).
“….what I am increasingly hearing is that developers in this town do not believe the Measure J process works. They believe that the burden is too high.”
They believed that in 2000 when it was on the ballot in the first place. There is a sizable faction of voters in Davis opposed to growth control and who will vote for any development project, including Covell Village I, II, III, or whatever. But they are in the minority.
Measure J passed in 2000 by 53.6% to 46.3%. I would bet that it will pass by a higher margin at the next opportunity, and that will happen regardless of WHR, yea or nay. Our current city council members are very astute. There are at least one or two who would be supporting changes in Measure J if they thought it would muster support with the voters. Note that Measure J appears now to be pretty untouchable.
Maybe it’s time to put Measure L back on the ballot, just to reinforce for future councils what the sense of the Davis electorate really is about growht issues.
David:
I have heard several times now that CV II might be on the June 2010 ballot. I am not sure I see how that could happen. Since an entirely new EIR would have to be done, it seems to me that the process would take at least a year or more before that project could come up for a vote.
Am I missing something?
I don’t know. That’s what I’ve heard from people, but you could be right, and I hope you are.
To Don Shor: I think you are on to something. Put J and another Measure L on the ballot in June. The L supports the J analysis.
I think the chances are 60/40 that we are going to need to force a J renewal onto the ballot in June via signature campaign, as a competition to what the CC majority will offer the voters.
The current CC majority sent it to the commissions, trying to buy some time and maybe get a favorable vote to tinker with the language.
Look at Mr. Green Wow Factor: trying to stick in a business park exemption to J. (From the same politico who thought he could get a mongo sports park out of Gidero, the guy who gave Steve his seat in 2004.)
There will be more attempts at tinkering with J language to structurally weaken it while appearing to vote in support to put on the ballot.
If I could put J on the ballot, I would eliminate the sunset clause, and add in a J vote and a required 2/1 outboard adjacent land mitigation to the Nightmare on Lewis Street 100-acre parcel. The parcel is 100 acres of R&D and light industrial. If someone wants to rezone, put it to a vote, and treat it like other land around the city edge with the mitigation.
Everyone: here is what is coming soon. Watch for CV to try to buy Conagra/Lewis. Staff and CC majority want to “master plan” the entire 100 + 440 acre parcels. Lewis is pulled out and gone.
To Lewis’ local consultant: I will be watching if you come out for the master plan concept, like you did when you supported the Lewis plan with street arrows in Grande North and Covell Villege to the west, and you appeared as the sweet feature girl on the cover of the main Wildhorse brochure 11 years ago.
I have no doubt that J will be renewed independently of what happens to P. My hope is that somebody takes J to court. I’m not a lawyer so I have no idea what the grounds would be but I imagine that the defeat of P helps make the case that nothing would ever pass under J.
David wrote:
“I understand people are going to be upset by this comment, but what I am increasingly hearing is that developers in this town do not believe the Measure J process works. They believe that the burden is too high. That the council and members of the public can exact too high a price on development. And there is some belief out there that if the current Measure J vote does not pass, that the anti-Measure J forces will rally behind it as proof that Measure J makes development impossible. Their argument would be that if a relatively small project that is highly green and innovative cannot pass a Measure J vote during a low-turnout election, no project can.”
There is a very interesting assumption underlying this claim that Measure J makes the burden too high for developers. And that assumption is that developers have a god-given right to develop open land on the periphery of Davis. Measure J, then, interferes with that “right.” I assume all the pro-growth people on this blog agree that such a god-given right exists. Lyn Lofland
Lyn: That’s certainly not my viewpoint, though my concern is that people who do believe that will try to find a way to defeat Measure J.
David Greenwald says:[quote]I understand people are going to be upset by this comment, but what I am increasingly hearing is that developers in this town do not believe the Measure J process works. They believe that the burden is too high. That the council and members of the public can exact too high a price on development. [/quote]Of course the developers don’t think the Measure J process works -= for them. They never did. Pardon me for being a little blunt, but the only thing that has changed is David Greenwald’s perspective.
In fact, Davis does not extract as much from developers as many other jurisdictions. We saw that when we analyzed the Livermore Trails subdivision proposal in Livermore. I hear it when I talk to water engineers who are familiar with Tracy. I hear it when I talk with acquaintances who have worked as staff helping to negotiate development agreements in other cities and counties.
There are phenomenal profits made when we sign that piece of paper turning ag land into housing. There is absolutely no justification for not allowing the public to take part in the windfall.
Yet projects like Wildhorse Ranch not only do not allow the public a share of the profits; the public subsidizes them over the long run.
Measure J allows the public to say “no”. But only the city council can negotiate a fair deal for the public, and this council will not do this, Measure J or no Measure J.
Harrington says:[quote]Everyone: here is what is coming soon. Watch for CV to try to buy Conagra/Lewis. Staff and CC majority want to “master plan” the entire 100 + 440 acre parcels. Lewis is pulled out and gone.[/quote]This could certainly happen, and if it does, it will be fought effectively by the citizens.
Remember, Parlin owns a massive piece of land on the northwest border of Davis. In fact, we have had proposals from developers around most of the periphery of Davis.
At the rate that this council wants to grow — 325 units a year — we would blow through the Wildhorse Ranch units in 7 months.
The argument that Wildhorse Ranch will stop any of these proposals, from Covell Village II to Parlin II, makes no sense.
The best way to stop Parlin II and Covell Village II and all the massive peripheral proposals is for an electable slow-growth citizen to actually come forth in the next few weeks to run for the June council election.
Mike,
Your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze everyone. You have a vested interest in the Parlington Wildhorse project going through. Everyone knows that you rent offices in your downtown building to Parlin, Ritter and Associates (political hired gun), and the solar group doing the solar for Parlin’s development. So Mike aren’t you the least embarrassed to be taking in a steady stream of money from the Parlin developers and the Yes on Measure P “camp”?
Also, as Sue points out PARLIN has a huge parcel in the north-west quadrant that they are salivating to develop. So Mike, for the record, where do you stand on the development of Parlin’s north-west quadrant parcel?
And DPD, you never had this concern before about the “cost” of Measure J especially when Covell Village was raised. In fact you always pointed out the benefits to the citizens and the need for Measure J. Now as you promote the Parlin Wildhorse project you suddenly point out this “concern”. Also is Parlin getting a special break on their advertising in the Vanguard? Sorry DPD, but your blog had become the Vanguard of Parlin and lost credibility.
While the right to do what one wants with their property is not derived from the almighty it is deeply rooted in our traditions going all the way back to John Locke who wrote of the right to life, liberty and property. I will recognize that since our system is a system of the people, by the people and for the people the rights to liberty and property are not absolute. I would however argue that they are so deeply ingrained in our system that depriving people of adding value to their property through development without good cause just because you are jealous of their success or afraid that your own property value might be negatively impacted by the added supply of housing is actually the radical position that contradicts our traditions going all the way back to the age of reason.
[i]There is a very interesting assumption underlying this claim that Measure J makes the burden too high for developers. And that assumption is that developers have a god-given right to develop open land on the periphery of Davis.[/i]
I can’t speak for anyone else who is unimpressed with Measure J, but certainly this is not how I see it. I don’t believe in God, and I’m not particularly concerned with the rights of developers. I only know well one person who later became a developer (in another state), and he is one of the least honest people that I have ever met. The only one of his rights that much interests me is his right to take a long walk on a short pier.
However, this whole discussion is missing something. It’s easy to see how anti-growth residents would have no use for developers, because they build houses for people who can’t presently vote in Davis. Developers have customers, and those customers have even more at stake than the developers themselves. As a matter of progressive jargon, the comfortable way to ever criticize anything is to blame it on the big bad corporation. But in a more honest discussion, the biggest issue is not the corporation itself, but the service that it provides.
For instance, many people read this blog through a Comcast subscription. Comcast is a much bigger, more powerful, and more profitable company than any developer that has ever built a house in Davis. If we invested even more in direct democracy, we could charge aggressive fees to shackle Comcast, and then demand a public vote for any change in those fees. Of course, Davis voters are Comcast customers, and they like the service that it provides. There no chance of a measure J-C aimed at Comcast.
I own property in Davis, and I have no connection whatsoever to developers. But I do not like to vote selfishly. My selfish move would be not to vote at all; when I vote, I do it as a good deed. I also like Davis a lot, but my admiration for Davis isn’t tribal. I don’t see why I should care more about people who live in Davis, than people who want to live in Davis.
“While the right to do what one wants with their property is not derived from the almighty it is deeply rooted in our traditions…”
We have zoning laws and community-based planning processes (general plans, citizen commissions) to balance the impact that individual property development can have on neighbors.
[i]We have zoning laws and community-based planning processes (general plans, citizen commissions) to balance the impact that individual property development can have on neighbors.[/i]
Don, I agree with that. But you have to admit that in Davis, what began as balance has become a thumb on the scale.
I might not even disagree with you on the narrow question of Measure P or Covell Village II. But look at the big picture. West Village is practically a zoning war between the city and the university. And people count West Village as the major current growth in Davis.
“We have zoning laws and community-based planning processes (general plans, citizen commissions) to balance the impact that individual property development can have on neighbors.”
Yes to balance but not to eliminate as measure j effectively does.
All cities stop growing eventually, either when they consciously create an urban limit line, as Berkeley, Oakland and Richmond did in the 1920’s with the creation of the East Bay Regional Park, or when they bump into another city.
Were Berkeley, Oakland and Richmond selfish by creating an urban limit line? Should Marin County have continued to approve residential growth because I can’t afford to live there?
Reasonable people can disagree on where urban limit lines should be drawn, or whether or not the de facto urban limit lines should be the neighboring city, as happened in New Jersey and LA.
Moral arguments can be evoked by either side, but ultimately it is a city planning decision, not a religious one.
“Should Marin County have continued to approve residential growth because I can’t afford to live there?”
Don’t you mean let them eat cake!
[quote]Don’t you mean let them eat cake! — Typhoid Mary[/quote]
When Davis bumps into Woodland, West Sacramento and Dixon and housing prices still too high, will you be satisfied? San Francisco is much larger than Davis, and the housing prices are higher.
Sue: [i]All cities stop growing eventually, either when they consciously create an urban limit line, as Berkeley, Oakland and Richmond did in the 1920’s with the creation of the East Bay Regional Park, or when they bump into another city.[/i]
First, this is a false history. EBRPD was never an urban limit line. It was always just a set of parks that left plenty of room for the East Bay to keep growing. What is true is that Contra Costa County created an urban limit line in 1990. This is indeed an anti-growth line that is similar in some ways to Measure J in Davis.
With the crucial difference that Contra Costa has 7 times the population density of Yolo County. Moreover, calling a line between two cities an urban limit line is bogus.
Yes, all politics is a matter of degree. But what Measure J has done to Davis is extreme. Davis has voted itself a special deal that isn’t possible for most of the Sacramento area. Worse, the policy is as much anti-higher-education as it is anti-urban.
I can’t really blame people too much for voting on behalf of their property values. Maybe two billion dollars in extra real estate value is at stake, and it’s only human to have strong feelings about it. What bothers me the most is the manufactured progressive ideology. I just don’t believe that either farmland, or commuting distance, or the big bad developer is the real concern.
For instance, you cited water as the reason that regional growth is not sustainable. Well, farmland uses more water than city land. If that were the real concern, Measure J would be a step backwards. On the other hand, growth in Placer County really does make the water situation worse.
I also don’t think that you should label a basic fairness argument as “religious”. I didn’t pray to Jesus to decide any of this.
Davis will not bump into any of these other places because of the causeway and conservation easements. Of course if it did then housing prices would be significantly lower as it is in those other cities.
Greg: “But what Measure J has done to Davis is extreme.”
There has only been one Measure J vote so far. Prior to that, Davis voters approved large developments, including Mace Ranch and Wildhorse. The only difference Measure J creates is that peripheral or rezoning projects go to a vote automatically, rather than requiring citizens to initiate a referendum. It’s not that big a deal, and Davis voters are less anti-growth than people think.
zorro: “Davis will not bump into any of these other places because of the causeway and conservation easements.”
At the rate Woodland is oozing down Road 102, it may happen sooner than you think!
The housing market in Woodland has collapsed. It will be many many years, at least a generation, before Woodland develops down 102 all the way to Davis.
[i]There has only been one Measure J vote so far.[/i]
Of course, as with mandated ballots under Prop 13, you should also count proposals that people know not to try.
I’d have to study the politics of Wildhorse and Mace, but roughly speaking those two were just before the tipping point against growth. As measured by property values, the stakes are much higher now than they were then. Meanwhile, the Richards measure was only indirectly a growth referendum; it was also expensive public works for the sake of public works. And the issue with Target is retail sales, not houses.
I agree that not everyone in Davis is as anti-growth as people think. All it takes is a majority.
“…but roughly speaking those two were just before the tipping point against growth.”
Davis has had a slow-growth reputation for as long as I’ve lived here (1974).
“the issue with Target is retail sales, not houses.”
That was how the proponents preferred to frame the issue. But it was also an issue about peripheral development. Had Target proposed a 30,000 square foot store in an existing neighborhood shopping center, it wouldn’t have even required city council approval, much less have been put to a public vote.
“you should also count proposals that people know not to try.”
It is impossible to know what proposals people have known not to try. The only project that I’m aware of having been withdrawn is Lewis Planned Community’s Cannery Park, which was not subject to a Measure J vote.
If Measure J prevents developers from putting forth poorly-conceived large peripheral developments such as we see in Dixon, Vacaville, Woodland, West Sacramento, and Fairfield, then I would say it is working very well.
There is a greenbelt between CR 27 and 29 that will prevent Davis and Woodland from ever growing together, regardless of the pace of development. There is also a less formal Davis/Dixon Greenbelt to do the same.
Davisites have little reason to worry about Davis growing together with any other city. For the no-growth contingent, their only barely hidden concern is maintaining a high price for existing housing.
Greg says:[quote][s]First, this is a false history. EBRPD was never an urban limit line. It was always just a set of parks that left plenty of room for the East Bay to keep growing.[/s][/quote]Not so, Greg. The East Bay Regional Park was the result of a conscious urban limit line movement, and a knowledge that without it, Berkeley and Oakland would sprawl over the hills.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to strike through your words Greg. I don’t know how that happened.
Also, I should add that some people who advocate slow growth may well harbor the belief that some new subdivisions will lower housing prices, and some might not want lower housing prices, but most people I know are concerned with the quality of life. Some slow growth advocates are tenants. Some are students. You’re really overgeneralizing here.
Whose quality of life?
Sue: [i]”The East Bay Regional Park was the result of a conscious urban limit line movement.”[/i]
You might be right. I don’t know. (I greatly favor urban limit lines myself. In 2005, I wrote this column ([url]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/SsA3fuhKT5I/AAAAAAAAAMY/MSqbLu6rhJ8/s1600-h/Perimeter+Park.jpg[/url]), laying out my vision for a defined perimeter park in Davis, paid for with Measure O money.) However, this history from the Sierra Club ([url]http://sfbay.sierraclub.org/chapter/aboutus/chapterhistory.htm[/url]) suggests Greg’s skepticism is not unfounded.
The Sierra Club notes that in 1934, “The East Bay Regional Park District is established, cheered on by the Chapter and other conservation groups.” However, no mention of urban limit lines in connection with the District is mentioned.
Yet later in that same history, it documents the establishment of the urban limit lines in the Bay Area in the 1990s. This is from 1998: “The Chapter plays major role in persuading the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to begin reversing urban growth policies in favor of tightening county urban limit lines, and to adopt a strengthened Industrial Safety Ordinance. Urban sprawl and transportation issues mount and continue to absorb the San Francisco Bay Chapter.”
Again, that does not prove you are wrong in your assertion. But it seems likely that in 1934, at the height of the Depression, most folks in the Bay Area were not so concerned with too much housing being constructed on the urban periphery and this Sierra Club history suggests that, as well.
[i]Davis has had a slow-growth reputation for as long as I’ve lived here (1974).[/i]
Reputation or faction or desire, maybe. If you look at the actual growth curve, 2002 was a clear tipping point, and it clearly was Measure J with a two-year lag.
[i]The East Bay Regional Park was the result of a conscious urban limit line movement, and a knowledge that without it, Berkeley and Oakland would sprawl over the hills.[/i]
This is still an unreasonably loose comparison between an urban area that created parks where people can recreate; and a city that created a no-build doughnut that its residents only look at. The EBRP system left directions for the East Bay to grow; it was not a choke-growth plan.
Greg and Rich,
Berkeley was pretty close to being built out when the East Bay regional park system was established. There was huge development pressure. Developers were trying to buy the Wildcat Canyon area around that time (I am not sure of the exact year), but the conservations prevailed.
Voters voted to tax themselves to purchase the land for open space 1934, during the great depression. I have read that the popular conservationist movement explicitly expressed the desire to keep Berkeley from sprawling over the East Bay Hills; it was very much part of the discourse.
The East Bay was more urbanized than Yolo County, but I don’t see the big difference between Berkeley at the time or Davis; you could describe both cities as “choked off” and the regions in which each city lay/lies as still having some room to grow.
Of course there is no movement to buy the land around Davis to keep it as open space. Measure J keeps land from being annexed into the city.
Livable for whom?
Sue, I agree that a slow growth majority on the CC would help a lot. You and Lamar certainly will need some assistance when he is re-elected in June 2010.
I doubt that Halloween IV is going to get an EIR done and ready for J vote by June 2010. It will take at least a year from date of first application, or from expected date of January 2010.
Or, maybe we should start calling the new CV something like “Sun City Nightmare”? It’s basically just housing for a national market that they will pull in with slick ads.
They are using the senior housing as a bait and switch to get the early approval of the remaining 2/3rds of the land. Guess we will have to pull out and dust off the old traffic and smog exhibits we used to knock down CV III in Nov 05. When you add in the rest of the 2/3rds land, it’s all the same. Just more tired, boring sprawl.
My business relationships with Parlin, Ritter and Talbot Solar: so what? I happen to believe in the project and hope it wins. At least I post under my own name, and I am proud of my tenants. I have all their names on the street listing.
In fact, one of the frequent posters against the project is also one of my tenants, and is here constantly with her organization. She took the 1 am photo of my tenant sign out front that was posted a month ago. (Thanks for the good advertising.)
If any of you have a problem with the above, come by to see me, or use your name when you post.
DPD said:
“And there is some belief out there that if the current Measure J vote does not pass, that the anti-Measure J forces will rally behind it as proof that Measure J makes development impossible. Their argument would be that if a relatively small project that is highly green and innovative cannot pass a Measure J vote during a low-turnout election, no project can.”
This kind of “reporting” quickly followed by a disclaimer of any bias since he is not saying that he is expressing HIS opinion, even though he has argued the same in previous Vanguard pieces, is approaching the level of Bill O’Reilly on Fox News. David, your credibility is shot on this one.. just go with your biases, you’re entitled to have them.
[quote]Comcast is a much bigger, more powerful, and more profitable company than any developer that has ever built a house in Davis.[/quote]Comcast is not the best example, Greg. Grass-roots citizens’ groups are already focused on telecom monopoly power.
Greg: “Reputation or faction or desire, maybe. If you look at the actual growth curve, 2002 was a clear tipping point, and it clearly was Measure J with a two-year lag.”
Growth curve starting when? The slow-growth reputation dates back to the pivotal election of 1972 and growth-control policies that were enacted then. That was during the build-out of Stonegate. A large project had been discussed in South Davis, where growth was an issue during that campaign (according to Mike Fitch’s history on the city web site). Prior to that election, Davis had grown 7% in a single year.
Then there was a lull; then Davis grew dramatically between 1990 – 2000, with the development of Mace Ranch and Wildhorse. At times Davis has been the fastest growing city in Yolo County; at other times there are few projects in the pipeline.
Measure J made it impossible for a simple council majority to approve any peripheral development. It blocked Covell Village, which the council would have approved. In that sense it was a tipping point, because surely the landowners of other peripheral properties recognized what is involved in selling a major project to the voters (rather than just 3 councilmembers(. But CV would surely have been subject to a citizen-initiated referendum; it was a huge project. Davis voters don’t like big projects.
Don: Here is a table of how much Davis grew in each decade over the previous decade, from Wikipedia plus what I remember from the state site:
1960 150.7%
1970 163.6%
1980 56.0%
1990 26.1%
2000 30.5%
2010 10% (or so; rough projection)
So there is some truth to what you are saying, but only some. The Davis of 1972 was anti-growth in the sense that it ended the explosive growth of the prior 30 years. Growth ambled forward for the next 30 years, and then in 2002 it hit a wall.
[i]In that sense it was a tipping point, because surely the landowners of other peripheral properties recognized what is involved in selling a major project to the voters[/i]
By your account, the developers would always have recognized what is involved in selling a major project to the voters, although the bar may have moved over time. A change with Measure J, though, is that even minor projects have to be sold to the voters. Even a minor project now requires an expensive campaign, not very welcome public attention, and (what could be the biggest deterrent) planning uncertainty.
[i]I have read that the popular conservationist movement explicitly expressed the desire to keep Berkeley from sprawling over the East Bay Hills; it was very much part of the discourse.[/i]
I can see that part of your logic is that is that when Albany and El Cerrito grew just over the border with Berkeley, that still counted as slow growth for Berkeley because it wasn’t incorporated in Berkeley.
But that’s nonsense. What mattered for either the real estate market or quality of life is that the houses were built, not which city council approved them. Tilden Park and Wildcat Canyon park were set up to be used as parks, not to stop growth in the East Bay.
I can see how you might think of Tilden Park and the Covell farm as the same effort to stop the big bad developer. But I have lived in El Cerrito and in Berkeley, and I’ve been to Tilden Park. (In fact, I got married in Tilden Park.) These two cases are not remotely the same.
[i]Grass-roots citizens’ groups are already focused on telecom monopoly power.[/i]
Yes, Sue, but what they are not going to do is run every telecom out of town. Obviously the customers would never vote for that.
ol’ timer: I put it under commentary, first of all. Second of all, you quote it out of context. I then go on to argue that it doesn’t matter what happens with Measure P, the sentiment about Measure J is etched in stone. I don’t care if you disagree with me, but don’t take my comments out of context and then call me biased (in the section called commentary).
We are witnessing a fundamental change in the US economy/relation to the world economy which has been in place essentially since the end of WWII over 50 years ago. For the foreseeable future, we will be seeing more seniors SHARING their larger homes with their married children and family as an extended family. The return of the extended family living and sharing a life together is, in my opinion, a net positive to the current US phenomenon of mutual isolation of nuclear families and their parents. Sun Cities will be possible in the future to an increasingly small % of seniors from the most “well-off” extended families.
Ol’ timer: agree with your analysis as to senior living with extended families. hahahah! Poor Max, someday gonna have me lurking around the garage apt in the back!
Mike,
Everytime you post something you really dig a hole deeper for Parlin’s Wildhorse development. This project is nothing more than another project with affordable housing that is going to cost Davis taxpayers with a little “green” window dressing as a “come on”.
As usual you post your lame attempts try to excuse yourself from taking a steady stream of money from Parlin and the rest of the “Yes on P” camp (Ritter and the solar group, all renters of yours). But you did not answer the question “What is your position on development of the huge Parlin parcel in the north-west quadrant? So what about it Mike? Where are you on development of Parlin’s north-west quadrant parcel for the record?
“I don’t see why I should care more about people who live in Davis, than people who want to live in Davis.”
So you’re OK with pricing current citizens right out of their homes? Bc that is what happens when development is allowed that has a negative fiscal impact on the city. Taxes must be raised to offset the negatives, and some on fixed incomes cannot muster the money to pay those taxes. Sue Greenwald is absolutely correct – the city needs to strike better deals with developers, so developments pencil out not to be a negative to the current citizens.
“If Measure J prevents developers from putting forth poorly-conceived large peripheral developments such as we see in Dixon, Vacaville, Woodland, West Sacramento, and Fairfield, then I would say it is working very well.”
Amen!
“Reputation or faction or desire, maybe. If you look at the actual growth curve, 2002 was a clear tipping point, and it clearly was Measure J with a two-year lag.”
We’ve only had one Measure J vote that I am aware of, for crying out loud. You can’t draw any conclusions from a sampling of 1!
“Even a minor project now requires an expensive campaign, not very welcome public attention, and (what could be the biggest deterrent) planning uncertainty.”
First of all, ad campaigns are the cost of doing business, and are passed on to the customer. Secondly, part of the problem is that city staff so tightly controls the process, developers are not getting a chance to “sell” their projects to various commissions, who could vet a lot of potential problems and get them worked out, so that the project would be more palatable to voters. WHR is a perfect example. The developers were not allowed to come to the Budget and Finance Commission, for instance, where the fiscal neutrality issue could have been debated and possibly corrected to the benefit of all citizens.
“Yes, Sue, but what they are not going to do is run every telecom out of town. Obviously the customers would never vote for that.”
And the voters are not going to run every developer out of town either.
“Sun Cities will be possible in the future to an increasingly small % of seniors from the most “well-off” extended families.”
I would further add there is going to be a push back from citizens, when Sun Cities don’t pencil out to be fiscally nuetral to the city they are proposed to be built in. Citizens do not want to be priced out of their own homes, to make way for the Sun Cities of the country.
[i]So you’re OK with pricing current citizens right out of their homes?[/i]
You have to understand that I am a current resident of Davis and a Davis homeowner.
I understand the concern that a new development could add costs to the city. Some of the warnings about it don’t particularly sound like the whole truth, but I understand that there is a calculation to do. I also understand the argument about quality of life — people don’t want more traffic and bigger crowds. Although the quality-of- life issue does overlap with property values and how much people are willing to share a good thing.
In the end, as a Davis homeowner, I just don’t feel all that put upon. On the contrary, home values have gone up so much that I’ve practically been paid to live here. I also don’t see that Davis was particularly damaged by the growth that led to Measure J. I think that it’s a great place to live.
[i]And the voters are not going to run every developer out of town either.[/i]
Since 2002, they really just about have.
The lion’s share of development “in” Davis is West Village. Just months after Measure J passed, Vanderhoef hired John Meyer away from the city and announced West Village as the university’s answer to Measure J. Now West Village is the main part of its SACOG quota. The message is that Davis needs to be strong-armed to take its share of regional growth.
So still no response from Mike on what his position is on developing Parlin’s large north-west quadrant parcel. But I did notice a correction needed on my RE: Mike Parlington posting. The second sentence was referring to another UNaffordable housing project being proposed (this time by Parlin).
Here is the posting again as it was intended.
Mike,
Everytime you post something you really dig a hole deeper for Parlin’s Wildhorse development. This project is nothing more than another project with UNaffordable housing that is going to cost Davis taxpayers with a little “green” window dressing as a “come on”.
As usual you post your lame attempts try to excuse yourself from taking a steady stream of money from Parlin and the rest of the “Yes on P” camp (Ritter, and the solar group hired for Parlin’s project, all renters of yours). But you did not answer the question “What is your position on development of the huge Parlin parcel in the north-west quadrant? So what about it Mike? Where are you on development of Parlin’s north-west quadrant parcel for the record?
Don or whoever: I scratched up the data from the state estimates for the population of Davis since 1970. In a spreadsheet, I then added the average growth rate over the previous three years, to smooth out the leap and stall of building permits. The historical growth policies of Davis are then clear. Until the late 1970s, the policy was a rapid 5% growth per year. For the next 25 years, growth drifted in the 1.5% to 3.5% range. Sorely provoked by planned 3.5% growth, the electorate passed Measure J. 2004 was the last gasp of growth above 1% percent; ever since then, the policy has been 0.5% (half percent) growth.
The populations since 1981 are for January 1. It’s clear that the half-percent policy will continue through 2011. Measure J is indeed a new era of growth well below the regional share.
1970 23488
1971 24750
1972 26300
1973 27850 5.84%
1974 29850 6.44%
1975 31600 6.31%
1976 33250 6.09%
1977 34350 4.79%
1978 35500 3.96%
1979 35900 2.59%
1980 36640 2.17%
1981 36700 1.11%
1982 37700 1.64%
1983 38100 1.31%
1984 38900 1.96%
1985 40450 2.37%
1986 40650 2.18%
1987 41200 1.93%
1988 42500 1.66%
1989 44650 3.18%
1990 45850 3.63%
1991 47055 3.45%
1992 48876 3.06%
1993 50124 3.02%
1994 51071 2.77%
1995 52523 2.43%
1996 53543 2.22%
1997 54451 2.16%
1998 55920 2.11%
1999 57256 2.26%
2000 59796 3.17%
2001 61935 3.46%
2002 63482 3.50%
2003 64020 2.30%
2004 64744 1.49%
2005 64553 0.56%
2006 64830 0.42%
2007 65230 0.25%
2008 65568 0.52%
2009 66005 0.60%
Greg, get a clue. The reason Measure J was passed is bc too many people who were not wealthy had to leave town bc they could not afford to live here anymore. No one wants to be next. Taxes to pay for city services were and are ever increasing. The lighting and landscape tax started out at $32 PER YEAR. Look at it now! (I’d have to go get my bill to give you exact figures, and I just don’t have the time right now.) Water/sewer rate increases are going to be astromical.
People have begun to recognize that uncontrolled growth has enormous costs attached to it – costs in increased city services, infrastructure, that developers are not paying for. Costs citizens cannot afford… The reason you don’t see this is bc you are one of the wealthier people in this town (UC faculty are relatively wealthy). The increase in taxes doesn’t hit you that hard. But for the middle and low income, it is driving folks right out of town.
Furthermore, from 1973 to 2003 is a trend. From 2004 to 2009 is not enough of a timeframe to make much of a judgment about trend. I suspect (and this is only MY GUESS) that development has slowed down for a bit bc we have had a fast buildup recently, West Village is coming online, and the economy stinks. There is very little doubt in my mind building will pick up again in the future, when the time and project are right. Besides, my question to you is “What are you afraid of in allowing citizens to decide the development issue?”
[i]Greg, get a clue. The reason Measure J was passed is bc too many people who were not wealthy had to leave town bc they could not afford to live here anymore. No one wants to be next.[/i]
ANON: you are only looking at part of the equation; and that is the less important part; and you are overstating (tremendously) its effects.
Let me get to that last part first, the effects: It is true that some housing developments, largely because our ordinance requires developers to include a substantial percentage of so-called low-income housing projects, are slight negatives to the city budget. But the key word is slight. Not one housing development built in the City of Davis has been any kind of budget buster. And in fact, most of the recent developments, like Verona and Chiles Ranch, should be slightly positive in their effects on the city budget. So your belief that residential development or housing growth is [i]the reason[/i] for our city’s current (and long-term) budget mess is incorrect.
The part of the equation you left out — by far the most important part — is the increase in compensation to firefighters, cops and to other high-paid members of the city staff. If our council had been more fiscally prudent in the past and restricted the growth of total compensation (including unfunded future retiree benefits) to the long-term growth of city revenues, we would not have any kind of long-term budget trouble. (We would still have a short term budget problem, due to the steep recession we are in.)
Although Prop 13 inflates long-term property rates at a rate lower than our normal rate of inflation, even that would not be a significant problem in providing city services, if we got rid of the low-income housing ordinance. The reason I believe that is so is twofold: 1) market rate housing in Davis is, because Davis is such a nice town, expensive to start with. So the property tax rates paid from the start for new market-rate houses will be higher than needed to provide police and fire for those homes; and 2) high-priced market-rate homes don’t demand very much for the long-term in police or fire services when compared with lower-priced housing. If you take an established central Davis neighborhood full of owner-occupied residences, because of Prop 13, they are taxed well below a market-rate. Yet those older owners generally are not demanding much in service from the police or fire department, and thus not causing the city budget a problem, except when the city overpays its employees.
[i]From 2004 to 2009 is not enough of a timeframe to make much of a judgment about trend.[/i]
But since I used three-year averages, the actual time frame is from 2002 to 2009. In those 7 years, Davis grew at a rate of 0.55% per year. Moreover, the comparisons are for January 1 of each year. It’s clear from housing starts (or the lack of them) that this record-low growth will continue at least until January 1, 2011. That is then nine years of record low growth, which is the same time scale as Measure J itself.
In fact, since January 1 of this year, 2009, what housing starts have there been in Davis?
West Village is an interesting term in the equation, because it is expected to add about 6.5% to the population of Davis, but only if it is annexed by the city. Indeed, it truly doesn’t count as city policy: The city had to be strong-armed by the university to have this growth. The 6.5% figure is also boosted from what it would be by the fact that West Village packs in a lot of students. (The students would ideally be discounted because a student lives in a much smaller footprint.)
Rich Rifkin,
Housing is not a “slight” negative for the budget. In Wildhorse Ranch, for example, the AVERAGE market rate house would have to sell for almost $800,000 to break even without the temporary tax overrides, and this is according to our very developer-friendly fiscal model which doesn’t take into account factors such as: Our PERS payments are being kicked down the road, and our unfunded retiree health liability will come due just about the time our long-term forecast ends.
[quote]“Housing is not a “slight” negative for the budget.”[/quote]For every project which I’ve looked at which has come before the council in the last 5 years, everyone has been slightly negative or slightly positive or neutral. Not one of them has been a big money loser. Wildhorse Ranch is deemed to be about neutral for the next 15 years [i]if it is approved by the voters.[/i] It projects to be negative after that. However, if you consider the long-term budget troubles before the City, a small housing project like WHR will be a negligible component of the problem. The point ANON was making was that we have had to raise huge taxes and fees in Davis on existing residents in order to cover our great losses from housing developments. I think that point is incorrect. We have had to raise taxes and fees in Davis in order to allow 50 year old cops and firefighters who are highly paid now and desk workers, many of whom are overpaid, the chance to retire with a 6-figure pension and full medical insurance for themselves and for their families. If the City Council had for the last 15-20 years been tighter with its labor contracts, we would not have any long-term budget worries. [quote]In Wildhorse Ranch, for example, the AVERAGE market rate house would have to sell for almost $800,000 to break even without the temporary tax overrides.[/quote]I’d appreciate your showing me the math — here on Vanguard — that calculation. It’s the first I’d heard of it. But assuming it is true, it is likely true only because with WHR, the city’s share of the property tax revenues are terribly small; and because the calculation presumes that people who buy $800,000 new homes make the same demands on police and fire that folks who are low-income do. I think that’s a dubious assumption to start with.
Your comment raises a question in my mind: You have said a number of times that the formula is a “developer-friendly fiscal model.” What makes it developer-friendly? How would you change it?
Hi folks, Davis Media Access was at the Measure P debate at Birch Lane. You can watch the meeting online at http://www.davismedia.org or you can view it on DCTV cable channel 15 at the following times (note they are in reverse order):
+ Wed, 10/07/09, 04:30 PM, Channel 15
+ Tue, 10/06/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Mon, 10/05/09, 01:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Sun, 10/04/09, 04:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Thu, 10/01/09, 07:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Wed, 09/30/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Tue, 09/29/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15
But Sue you would be against this project no matter what so whether or not it pencils out is irrelevent to you. Admit it, Sue, you are just using the economics as a red herring because you don’t like building housing and you don’t want people to come to Davis. You said it yourself if we don’t build housing people can’t come and will move to other places.
If we demand every project to pencil out what would we ever build, only people with million dollar homes could build but then you were against Covell Village too. So what should we do Sue build nothing? I’m sure that would make you happy
Hi folks, Davis Media Access was at the Measure P debate at Birch Lane. You can watch the meeting online at http://www.davismedia.org or you can view it on DCTV cable channel 15 at the following times (note they are in reverse order):
+ Wed, 10/07/09, 04:30 PM, Channel 15
+ Tue, 10/06/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Mon, 10/05/09, 01:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Sun, 10/04/09, 04:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Thu, 10/01/09, 07:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Wed, 09/30/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Tue, 09/29/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15
Thanks Jeff for this heads-up. I just viewed it online, http://www.davismedia.org. I encourage everyone to email at least 5 Davis voters and ask them to view this debate between the Davis citizen No on P spokespeople and Yes on P spokespeople who all have a financial interest in the outcome. Request that your email recipients send the same info to 5 of their friends, etc. etc. A chain-letter email to view this debate should help level the playing field and counter the slick mailers, paid door to door “volunteers” and paid organized voter turnout that Parlin will launch on election day.
“but don’t take my comments out of context and then call me biased (in the section called commentary).”
David… I was not referring to your statement about a Measure J defeat not being etched in stone but rather the statement about what you are hearing around town.. and quickly disclaiming it as not YOUR opinion, just something I’m hearing even though you have taken ownership of that very same “opinion” before…. I looks like you’re mightily trying to have it both ways on this WHR issue … stick to Commentary and freely express your personal opinion.
“The part of the equation you left out — by far the most important part — is the increase in compensation to firefighters, cops and to other high-paid members of the city staff.”
The heck I did! The more development, if large enough, the more we need in firefighters, police, etc. Hello!
“But since I used three-year averages, the actual time frame is from 2002 to 2009. In those 7 years, Davis grew at a rate of 0.55% per year. Moreover, the comparisons are for January 1 of each year. It’s clear from housing starts (or the lack of them) that this record-low growth will continue at least until January 1, 2011.”
“You don’t know that. You are just guessing. If Covell Village IV is approved in 2010, you could be dead wrong. But again, why are you so afraid of letting voters decide what they want? You trust the CC majority to know what citizens want better than citizens themselves?
“For every project which I’ve looked at which has come before the council in the last 5 years, everyone has been slightly negative or slightly positive or neutral. Not one of them has been a big money loser.”
According to city staff, who are notoriously pro-development? Small changes in assumptions reap huge changes in the figures as to whether the city will run a fiscal negative for a particular project. Get a clue. Don’t believe everything city staff tells you!
“If we demand every project to pencil out what would we ever build, only people with million dollar homes could build but then you were against Covell Village too. So what should we do Sue build nothing? I’m sure that would make you happy”
Asked and answered. Give it a rest. Broken records need to be trashed.
[quote]The heck I did! The more development, if large enough, the more we need in firefighters, police, etc. Hello! [/quote]Nobody is denying that. The question is how many police, how many firemen, and how much they will cost in the out years.
Your argument that new residential development projects are [i]the reason we have increased taxes on existing residents[/i] does not hold muster. The cause is not housing. The cause is our overly generous labor contracts.
If we build more new housing, there is no reason we will have to increase taxes further on existing residents, as long as we hold the line on the compensation packages we give [i]in the future[/i] to city employees. [quote]According to city staff, who are notoriously pro-development? Small changes in assumptions reap huge changes in the figures as to whether the city will run a fiscal negative for a particular project. Get a clue. Don’t believe everything city staff tells you! [/quote] I spoke with Sue Greenwald yesterday about this very topic. I asked her what was so “pro-developer” about the model staff uses. She told me it is “pro-developer” because it does not presume the City of Davis is going to have substantially higher costs for its pension payments to CalPERS into the future. I agree with her, that the model should presume that. However, if we had a council today which was serious about the long-term fiscal health of our city, we could abate much of that long-term problem, this year.
We need to reduce most employee wages back to 2005 levels; get rid of 3% at 50 for all new safety employees; get rid of 2.5% at 55 for all new non-safety employees; stop giving retiree medical benefits to all retirees under 65; and make all non-safety employees pay the employee share of their pensions. (Davis is one of the few communities in the PERS system which pays both the employer share and the employee share for pensions.*)
*Our public safety employees, by contrast, do pay the employee share. However, because their plan is so much more lucrative, the employer share is much larger with the safety employees’ plan.
“If we build more new housing, there is no reason we will have to increase taxes further on existing residents, as long as we hold the line on the compensation packages we give in the future to city employees.”
You’ve got to be kidding? You cannot be that stupid? If the housing proposed is large enough, e.g. Covell Village IV, it could require a fourth fire station, more police, more water/sewer infrastructure, more city and county services. Do you really believe that building more housing doesn’t cost the city anything? Did you not follow the fiscal neutrality debates on WHR? Are you clueless? Now you’ve lost all credibility!