Vanguard Examines Measure R Ballot Statements –
Given the popularity of Davis seminal land use ordinance which requires voter approval on projects that the Council has approved which would convert agricultural land to urban uses, and to develop any land which is outside of the current boundaries of the city.
Signing the Argument in Favor of Measure R are former Mayors Ken Wagstaff and Bill Kopper along with citizens Mark Spencer, Pam Nieberg, and Eileen Samitz who had worked to create the original ordinance.
They write:
“Measure J is a citizen-based ordinance drafted by Davis residents and passed by voters in 2000. It is neither pro-growth nor anti-growth. It is neutral. It simply requires the City provide all project descriptions, environmental impact reports, fiscal analyses, and other information to the public prior to a vote for approval or denial.”
There have been two Measure J votes in Davis since Measure J was enacted ten years ago. The first Measure X, Covell Village was defeated 60-40 in 2005 and the second, Measure P, Wildhorse Ranch, was defeated 75-25 by the voters in 2009. Opponents might argue that this makes it problematic that the city will approve new development outside of its borders, but we might remind those critics that such measures have passed prior to Measure X, for instance the voters approved development for Wildhorse despite strong community-based opposition to that development.
It is perhaps most surprising that Joseph Whitcombe, the son of Covell Village developer John Whitcombe would be the name in opposition to Measure R. It was the Covell Village project that was the first test of Measure J and provided the elder Whitcombe with a stinging defeat.
Mr. Whitcombe argues several different points. First, he argued that Measure R has not slowed growth, but has “instead pushed growth toward neighborhood open space and bordering jurisdictions.” He cites West Village for UC Davis and a number of neighborhood projects that will not require a Measure J vote.
He writes:
“Projects in existing neighborhoods do not require voter approval, so the City now looks to recreational land. It has designated Civic Center Fields, Little League Fields, Nuggets Fields, a community garden, and school sites for housing.”
Second, he argues that Measure R has failed as an urban planning tool as it has not fostered innovative neighborhoods.
Third, he argues that it removes the community benefits of development without removing the impacts.
Fourth, he argues that it prevents the City from responding to identified housing needs.
Fifth, he argues that it is a ticking bomb.
“In 2013, the Sacramento Area Council Of Governments will require Davis to approve 1,000 to 3000 new housing units. Under Measure R, these units likely would be placed in existing neighborhoods, and thus will not generate funds for traffic safety improvements or schools. Such shortsighted planning could lead to even worse funding imbalances than our town and schools are currently experiencing.”
His argument while interesting, is making the wrong argument at the wrong time.
West Village puts in about 500 units of housing for a specified population over a 5 to ten year period. That’s really over the course of Measure J and soon-to-be Measure R less than 25-50 units per year. Moreover it is probably a one-shot deal. The rest of the housing is student dorms, which would likely be built with or without Measure J.
I do not really understand the second argument. The city did not have innovative neighborhoods prior to Measure R either, certainly the most recent large developments are far from innovative and whether it was Mace Ranch, Wildhorse, or others, there was never a real plan.
The third argument, also makes little sense. First, given current projections, there will not be another school closure in the foreseeable future, so that argument is a canard. Second, the failure of the city to gain proper mitigations is not a product of Measure J but rather the council’s failure to drive a tough bargain with developers.
The fourth argument is completely transparently aimed toward the new Whitcombe, Sr., sponsored senior housing project. He argues that a need has gone unmet without citing evidence of a need.
The argument is a supposition and another scare-tactic. Moreover, it presumes that a project will never be passed under a Measure J/ R vote, when in fact if you go back to the 1990s, such projects have been approved at times by voters. In the middle of a real estate downturn is not the best time to propose new housing, nor is proposing a sprawling 2000 unit project without proper traffic mitigations.
In short the argument is filled with a number of scare-tactics, a transparent appeal for their own economic benefit, and some untruths and presumptions.
It is our belief that Measure R will pass overwhelmingly but it is revealing that Mr. Whitcombe is spear-heading an effort to take it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Argument For Measure R:
Measure J is a citizen-based ordinance drafted by Davis residents and passed by voters in 2000. It is neither pro-growth nor anti-growth. It is neutral. It simply requires the City provide all project descriptions, environmental impact reports, fiscal analyses, and other information to the public prior to a vote for approval or denial. Measure R renews Measure J, giving citizens the leverage needed to get the best-designed projects with amenities and other features that would not otherwise be achieved. It gives developers the incentive to offer the most and the best in a proposal.
As with Measure J, Measure R insists developers deliver on commitments by requiring the identification of “baseline project features” that cannot be changed without a subsequent vote of the people.
Transparency is a hallmark of honest government, and a reapproved Measure J ensures relevant project information will be available and widely disseminated to the community. Measure J is democracy pure and simple. For 10 years it has proven an effective guarantor of full citizen participation in some of the most important development decisions affecting Davis’ fiscal sustainability and quality of life.
Please vote YES on Measure R. It renews Measure J, enabling Davis citizens to continue to have the final word on planning the future of their community.
Signed: Mark Spencer, Pam Nieberg, Eileen Samitz, Ken Wagstaff, Bill Kopper
Argument Against Measure R:
Measure R has not slowed growth. but instead pushed growth toward neighborhood open space and bordering jurisdictions. UC Davis responded to Measure R by starting a housing project, on land the City of Davis now hopes to annex.
Projects in existing neighborhoods do not require voter approval, so the City now looks to recreational land. It has designated Civic Center Fields, Little League Fields, Nuggets Fields, a community garden, and school sites for housing.
Measure R has failed as an urban planning tool.
Measure R has not fostered innovative neighborhoods. Development locations have followed no overall plan, and locales are questionable. For example, the City approved construction of about 200 residential units right on Interstate 80.
Measure R removes the community benefits of development, but not the impacts.
Housing approved under Measure R has generated no significant revenue for the City or schools, or contributed to needed traffic improvements. If Measure R is renewed, expect more under-mitigated development, and worsening fiscal problems for the City and schools. Will the next school closure be in your neighborhood?
Measure R prevents the City from responding to identified housing needs. Measure R creates economic disincentives that discourage construction of senior housing. Consequently, this pressing need has gone unmet.
Measure R is a ticking time bomb.
In 2013, the Sacramento Area Council Of Governments will require Davis to approve 1,000 to 3000 new housing units. Under Measure R, these units likely would be placed in existing neighborhoods, and thus will not generate funds for traffic safety improvements or schools. Such shortsighted planning could lead to even worse funding imbalances than our town and schools are currently experiencing.
Vote “NO” on Measure R.
Learn more at www.helpsavedavis.org
Signed: Joseph Whitcombe
CITY ATTORNEY’S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE R:
The Davis General Plan establishes land use designations for property within the Davis Planning Area. Land use designations include urban uses such as residential, commercial, and industrial, and non-urban uses such as agriculture, and urban reserve. Urban reserve means land designated for potential urban development after the lands designated for urban uses are developed.
Measure J, adopted by the voters at the March 2000 election, enacted a General Plan policy, in effect until December 31, 2010, that requires voter approval for (1) any proposed amendment of a land use designation on the 1987 General Plan Land Use Map from an agricultural or urban reserve designation to an urban or urban reserve designation; and (2) any development proposal on Covell Center or Nishi. Covell Center is approximately 386 acres, located north of Covell Boulevard between F Street and Pole Line Road. Nishi is approximately 44 acres, located west of Olive Drive between Interstate 80 and the railroad tracks.
Measure J also enacted an amendment to the Davis Municipal Code, in effect until December 31, 2010, which requires that proposals to amend a land use designation from an agricultural or urban reserve designation to an urban or urban reserve designation and proposals for development on Covell Center or Nishi first be approved by the City Council, after compliance with all applicable laws, and then be approved by the voters, by majority vote of those voting. The proposal placed before the voters would designate baseline project features that could not be changed without voter approval. Proposal applicants would pay election costs to consider a proposal. The Code also specifies exemptions to the voter approval requirement for: public schools, public parks, and City facilities that require large acreage; the Urban Reserve property adjacent and north of the Sutter/Davis hospital, if used for medical facilities; and any property that had a vested right to develop prior to the adoption of the Measure J. There is also an exemption for housing if necessary to meet the City’s fair share housing requirement or the growth rate in the Pass-Through Agreement for up to 5 acres per year. All housing approved under this exemption must be permanently affordable.
If Measure R is approved by a majority of the voters, Measure J, as amended by Measure R, would remain in effect until December 31, 2020 unless modified or repealed earlier by the voters, by majority vote. Prior to its expiration, the City Council must submit the Ordinance to the voters for renewal, amendment or repeal.
Signed: Harriet Steiner, Davis City Attorney
Is the collection of signers for the ballot statement complete?…..one signature, Whitcombe JR., against renewing Measure J?…..looks like public opposition to renewing Measure J is like publicly supporting infanticide.
“I do not really understand the second argument. The city did not have innovative neighborhoods prior to Measure R either, certainly the most recent large developments are far from innovative and whether it was Mace Ranch, Wildhorse, or others, there was never a real plan.”
You are spot on David. Davis has lost its way with innovation. All the new ‘hoods’ in Davis look like Elk Grove.. ho hum poorly built houses, no solar design whatsoever..
Remember when world leaders came to Davis to look at real innovation like village homes? Davis is now cruising along on an old reputation.. it isn’t worthy of it any more. We’ve become a big box company town with a decaying core… thanks to the Saylor’s and other sell outs.
The ever increasing number of ” jail-house” security doors (bars) being installed around town ought to tell us something.. Davis has lost its luster.. It also does not want any bad press getting out about the stabbings that are happening around town. You have to read the newspapers in neighboring communities to find out what is really happening in this town… disgusting.
I don’t get where you guys get your info that Wildhorse was a poorly designed plan with poorly built houses? Have you actually walked Wildhorse’s streets with the neighborhood parks, par course, many bike paths and green belts, wide streets, beautiful abundantly landscaped entrance and grounds with a golf course to boot. Morrison was one of the big builders in the area that is known for quality built homes. Granted that solar panels weren’t incorporated into the houses but none the less they were built energy efficient.
“but it is revealing that Mr. Whitcombe is spear-heading an effort to take it.”
I think it is great. I am glad to see a local developer engaging directly on this issue, and hope that Joseph Whitcombe will feel comfortable posting here about it.
If he believes that “Measure R creates economic disincentives that discourage construction of senior housing,” perhaps he can be specific as to how senior housing is uniquely disincentivized. If he believes there is a need for senior housing that is greater than the need for, say, rental housing, perhaps he can explain the basis of that assertion. I’d rather have the discussion directly between the opposing sides than through proxy groups.
I hate the fact that everyone (myself included) refers to these measures by their letter titles and not their names. People will make reference to Measure K, not saying which Measure K they are speaking of. Here, Mr. Whitcombe never refers to Measure J of 2000. He calls it over and over Measure R.
[b]NO ON R:[/b] [i]”Measure R has not slowed growth, but instead ….
“UC Davis responded to Measure R by starting a housing project, on land the City of Davis now hopes to annex. …
“Measure R has failed as an urban planning tool. …
“Measure R has not fostered innovative neighborhoods. …
“Housing approved under Measure R has generated no significant revenue …
“If Measure R is renewed, expect more under-mitigated development …”[/i]
My preference would be that either people use the letter and year as the title. That is, Measure J of 2000 or Measure R of 2010 or Measure P of 1997, etc. Or much better, we give a clear name to each initiative.
Measure R is actually called, “Citizens’ Right to Vote on Future Use of Open Space and Agricultural Lands.” That is cumbersome. I suggest instead, PDV or “Peripheral Development Vote.” Thus, if Measure R passes (it will, of course), our community will then conduct a PDV after the city council approves a plan on ag lands. Regardless of which letter the county assigns in the future to this process, we will always have a PDV.
I realize this is a very minor concern. But ask yourself this: “After Measure R of 2010 passes, will you stop calling peripheral development votes “the Measure J process?”
Hi David,
As to your criticisms of my arguments:
1. Growth in and around Davis is substantially the same as before Measure J. You can exclude 1000+ apartments from growth for rhetorical purposes, but the impacts that students have on traffic and public services are real.
2. To argue that Davis didn’t have innovative neighborhoods before Measure R is simply incorrect.
“It seems to me that we’re building a lot of crummy little neighborhoods, and that’s not Davis.” Councilwoman Sue Greenwald, 03/16/2010
3. No more school closures? Boy, I hope your right about that. But with increasing enrollment declines and an ever worsening fiscal situation, I’d be surprised if there isn’t some major consolidation of facilities (i.e. school closures) in the next 10 years, absent some source of major funds.
4. At least you admit that development under Measure R has been under-mitigated. On that we agree. But please understand that infill projects have high land, staging, and building costs, and no economies of scale. They simply cannot afford to provide significant benefits to the City or community. Its simple financial physics. No matter how hard the Council tries, they can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.
5. As a Real Estate Broker, I see the need for senior housing all the time. It is a truly pressing need, and has been for years.
6. Forgive my “scare tactic.” But I’m actually scared. To suggest that any part of our SACOG allocation will be filled with projects subject to Measure R (and thus potentially beneficial to the community) is a real stretch. I frankly don’t think any housing development can pass the voters in the form of an initiative. I’m deeply concerned that the entire character of Davis will be forever altered if we continue for 10 more years.
7. To be clear: Whether property values rise or fall under Measure R depends on whether there is enough restriction of housing supply to dominate any declines in the quality of life and schools in Davis. Of course, if quality of life and schools improve under Measure R, property values would rise. But I just don’t see how the later could occur.
That said, I think its disingenuous for either of us to suggest that property values, and thus the community tax base, and thus the funding levels for our City and schools, are not an important issue to Davis voters.
Best,
Joe Whitcombe
“I realize this is a very minor concern….”
I do not believe for a minute that referring to Measure R is innocent but rather a very calculated effort to disconnect Measure J from Measure R in the vain hope that there will be enough confused voters who will vote NO on R, not realizing that they are actually voting No on renewal of Measure J.
To defeat this, prudence calls for a serious campaign, including a blizzard of lawn signs that clearly state that Yes on R = Measure J renewed until 2020.
Joe, thank you for posting. Reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably. I hope those who disagree with your positions take the high road as well.
Your post prompts a few questions:
2. Other than Village Homes, what Davis neighborhoods would you call innovative? I truly love Davis, but architecturally we have an incredibly pedestrian town. Please help me out of my ignorance.
3. Why do you see some consolidation of facilities as a bad thing?
5. I don’t disagree with you that there is some need for Senior Housing. Wouldn’t it be nice to quantify what that need is and what economic sectors it stems from? We appeared to be headed in that direction at one time. Do you agree that it is time to rejuvenate a scientifically sound Senior Housing Need study.
6. I don’t share your fears of the next SACOG RHNA allocation. Davis had absolutely no problem meeting its RHNA allocation from SACOG during this most recent Housing Element process, and the underlying reasons why that was the case will still be in place during the next Housing Element cycle.
The reason I believe that is so is that Davis has a huge inventory of housing sites that are fully zoned and entitled, but whose owners have little or no intention (or desire) to commence building a residence on their zoned and entitled lot. Neither SACOG, nor the City, nor the State, can force a landowner to “build or else.” As a result that same core “land available” inventory will give Davis a huge leg up in meeting its next RHNA target.
7. What declines in quality of life do you anticipate? I may be simply a cock-eyed optimist, but I don’t see any such declines looming on Davis’ horizons . . . other than the same ones every nook and cranny of California is facing.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Whitcombe,
I criticized three specific infill projects: Chiles Ranch, Verona and recent Willowbank project. There was nothing about Measure J that would have precluded the council majority from planning these neighborhoods nicely. The lack of open space in these projects was a decision by the council majority and was not dictated by Measure J.
Sue makes a very good point. But given what I have watched on cable of the Council meetings it was consistently City staff led by Katherine Hess who sold out the neighbors. Chiles Ranch and now Willowbank Park are examples of where she disregarded the neighbors concerns and pushed for badly planned projects. Hess has alienated the community on these projects and now the NewPath cell tower mess which she is also responsible for. The only good news is that she is no longer the head of the Community Development Department so we can hope for an end to this period of shafting the public.
At least Measure J allows the public to vote on a project and if it’s a poorly planned project like these others were, the public gets to say no. It’s pretty obvious that Measure J supports good planning so that even if City staff does try to sell out the public with a bad project, the project ultimately comes to a vote of the public.
[i]”Other than Village Homes*, what Davis neighborhoods would you call innovative?”[/i]
If by innovative you mean including space-age technology, then Davis is not innovative. I would love to see more houses built which are 100% solar; or some which use straw-bale construction. But nonetheless, when you compare our standards in Davis to those elsewhere in the Sacramento region, we are still ahead of the pack.
More importantly to me, because I don’t live in anyone else’s house by my own ordinary mid-1960s tract house, I think the landscape architecture all over Davis is extremely pleasant; and in the case of Covell Park, innovative for its time.
There were not too many neighborhoods anywhere in California towns which included greenbelts. Now most do, including all neighborhoods in Davis which have followed.
I also appreciate, as in the case of Wildhorse, the undeveloped perimeter belt, which makes a great place to jog or walk a dog. (It is much the same on the northern edge of town near the Bird Streets and North Davis Farms.)
Alas, in the newer neighborhoods, most of the lots are just too small, given the large homes on them, to support what I have on my older lot–three very large trees (and 6 fruit trees and dozens of shrubs and so on).
But most of the houses in the newer neighborhoods are superior. They are energy efficient, if not solar. Haters tend to call them McMansions, but it seems to me anyone would love to live in one. And they all have great parks and greenbelts.
Ultimately, a house is a house. If you have more money for better technology or a better architect, you can get that here. Other than restricting growth and pushing for smaller lots, there is not much the City of Davis is doing to discourage innovation. I think WHR would have been a great (somewhat innovative) new development. But even that, in the end, would have simply been housing.
*The Progressives of Davis unanimously opposed it, but Mike Corbett, who designed Village Homes (with Judy Corbett), said that Covell Village would have been our most innovative development ever, surpassing his work at Village Homes.
Correction: “I don’t live in anyone else’s house [b]but[/] my own ordinary mid-1960s tract house …”
Whitcombe: “5. As a Real Estate Broker, I see the need for senior housing all the time. It is a truly pressing need, and has been for years.”
What is your definition of “senior housing”?
A “pressing need” for senior housing by who exactly?
A “pressing need” for what type of senior housing and how many of which type?
A “pressing need” for how much senior housing than is already available?
How much “senior housing” is already available?
What is a “pressing need” for senior housing?
And what will be the fiscal impact of the costs in additional city services required, if we build more senior housing?
What about the infrastructure costs and the like with respect to the senior housing you want built?
And what will the developer of a large new senior housing project do for the seniors who cannot afford the higher taxes resulting from the need for additional city services/infrastructure costs of the new senior housing?
Whitcombe: “3. No more school closures? Boy, I hope your right about that. But with increasing enrollment declines and an ever worsening fiscal situation, I’d be surprised if there isn’t some major consolidation of facilities (i.e. school closures) in the next 10 years, absent some source of major funds.”
How is building more senior housing going to help avoid school closures?
Why shouldn’t voters be allowed to weigh in on any proposed peripheral development projects?
Good questions Elaine, along those lines, I find a few arguments a bit odd from Mr. Whitcombe.
First, “1. Growth in and around Davis is substantially the same as before Measure J.”
That’s not really a problem if it is true, because Measure J is supposed to give people authority to determine growth outside of the city boundaries, it does not necessarily limit growth.
Second, you mention school closures, why do you believe there is a risk of school closures if Davis is growing at the same rate as before? And why is senior housing a remedy for that?
The reason a single school closed had to do with over-extension by the school district and a temporary decline in enrollment. Enrollment has now stabilized and is expected to remain stable and the district has already said no new closures for the foreseeable future, so isn’t that really a non-issue?
Hi Matt,
2. I would agree with Rich, generally, in terms of Davis urban planning. We’ve always been ahead of our time, until Measure J.
3. Regarding school closures, I concede that for some, that may not be a bad thing. For others, families with kids in the effected neighborhoods, it might be considered bad. I just hope to make sure this issue is discussed.
5. I didn’t really follow the senior housing study discussions, so forgive my ignorance. I would say that as a general matter (based on my experience as a Real Estate Broker), most seniors don’t think they need senior housing until some “event” takes place, like a fall, a break-in, an injury doing yard work, a health-related event, a major maintenance issue, etc. Then, they suddenly decide that they would like a patio home or something, and start thinking about the other advantages of age restricted housing. So taking a “survey” (I assume that means a scientific poll) would, in my judgment, only identify seniors who have already experienced an “event”. Many such seniors will likely have (somewhat regretfully) already moved from Davis to a more senior-friendly community (my Uncle is a precise example of this), and would thus not be surveyed. I would guess that, therefore, the vast majority of people who will in fact need or want senior housing in the near future will nevertheless indicate an intent to stay in their current home. So I think a poll would identify the seniors that need senior housing “now” but have not yet moved, but dramatically understate the need in coming years, even next year.
Just off the top of my head, maybe a better approach would be to use demographic data to somehow determine how many senior households in a given year will likely have an “event”, and determine the yearly need for senior housing on that basis.
6. Many of the units we used to satisfy our last SACOG allocation will have been built-out by the next allocation. These represent the “low handing fruits” of infill sites, i.e. the big vacant sites in town. The next round may well require really squeezing units into existing neighborhoods. Further, I’m informed that the next allocation will likely be substantially larger than the last (I do take this with a grain of salt, but that’s the conventional wisdom). Finally, I’m not sure that the City is going to be able to “double count” the vacant lots that it used to satisfy its last allocation. Indeed, there is an argument that these lots are not practically likely to be built-out during the allocation period. Under that logic, SACOG might perceive that those lots should not have even been counted in the last allocation, let alone using them twice.
On balance, I think its pretty clear that under any set of circumstances, we are going to have problems of a magnitude we’ve never experienced, if Measure R passes.
7. As to quality of life declines, we have already experience many over the last 10 years. Rising crime, struggling schools, City budget crisis, worsening traffic, vacant retail space everywhere, etc. Obviously, the overall economy is a major contributor to this. But I think its just a fact that without Measure J, these problems would either not exist, or at least be much less severe. The main issue is simply that Measure J/R, as a practical matter, only permits developments (at least housing developments) that can’t afford to provide significant community benefits, or forces impact-causing developments to outside jurisdictions where they provide little or no benefit to the City or schools.
Hi,
I don’t think I was directly arguing that more senior housing is going to help schools. However, a substantial portion of property tax revenue would go to schools, and more students might be generated if families move into vacated large homes as Davis seniors move (assuming the availability of attractive senior housing increased the rate at which seniors vacate large homes). This might prop-up enrollments.
Generally, I’d like to say that I do think senior housing is a legitimate issue for discussion, but given the magnitude of the other issues at stake, it is only a minor one.
Mr. Whitcombe:
“However, a substantial portion of property tax revenue would go to schools”
That might be good for the city of Davis, assuming that the service costs don’t outweigh the property taxes, but schools are funded by ADA, not local property taxes.
Whitcombe: “5. I didn’t really follow the senior housing study discussions, so forgive my ignorance.”
I would strongly suggest you read the Senior Housing Strategy (you can find it online at the City of Davis website). You might find it enlightening. Senior housing is a very complex issue, and building senior housing without a full analysis beforehand can have unintended and very unfortunate consequences.
Joe, thank you for your response. I welcome the dialogue and look forward to more.
“2. I would agree with Rich, generally, in terms of Davis urban planning. We’ve always been ahead of our time, until Measure J.”
I’m not as charitable about Davis design innovation. California design in general is very pedestrian for good reason . . . we spend such a large proportion of our time outside in our spectacular venues in spectacular weather that sinking big time money into innovative home design is not a high priority.
With that said, is your perceived change a result of the passage of Measure J, or is it the result of changes in home buying economics. The tripling (or more) of home prices and the steep rise in energy costs (and impacts) in recent years have IMHO caused the changes you noted. In simple terms the same budget simply doesn’t go as far, and the innovations that are labelled as “nice to have” and “doable” at the time measure J passed are now more often than not “nice to have” but “not in our budget.” Additional evidence —->> Lot sizes have decreased. Density has increased.
“3. Regarding school closures, I concede that for some, that may not be a bad thing. For others, families with kids in the effected neighborhoods, it might be considered bad. I just hope to make sure this issue is discussed.”
Is that “bad” simply that kids have to go further to school? At the risk of sonding like a dotty old fart, but when I went to school in suburban Philadelphia we all had to go to school in busses because the distances between any two schools was typically greater than the distance across the entire width of the City of Davis.
In effect we are in a process of “right sizing” the Davis School District from a size that assumed that the growth rates that got us to 65,000 population were going to continue unabated until we got to 100,000 population. In effect we have over built. The result is the discussions of a second high school have dissapeared . . . and the physical plant maintainance costs of certain buildings have exposed their singularly non-innovative, low quality design.
“7. As to quality of life declines, we have already experience many over the last 10 years. [u]Rising crime, struggling schools, City budget crisis, worsening traffic, vacant retail space everywhere, etc.[/u] Obviously, the overall economy is a major contributor to this. But I think its just a fact that without Measure J, these problems would either not exist, or at least be much less severe. The main issue is simply that Measure J/R, as a practical matter, only permits developments (at least housing developments) that can’t afford to provide significant community benefits, or forces impact-causing developments to outside jurisdictions where they provide little or no benefit to the City or schools.
How do more homes prevent rising crime? If anything I would imagine that more homes will increase crime even more. The supply of perpetrators far exceeds the supply of crime targets. Increasing the number of targets is only going to increase the number of crimes.
If one looks at Elk Grove for instance, have more homes done anything to cause any lower level of struggling within the schools? Your laying the cause of schools struggling at the feet of the nationwide economic problems is right on in my opinion.
As was shown during the Wildhorse Ranch community-wide discussions and during the Housing Element Steering Committee meetings, new housing simply doesn’t generate enough money to any more than cover the costs of the services that the residents will require from the City. Given that, how do you think Measure J has contributed to the City budget crisis?
How has Measure J contributed to worsening traffic? More cars per household. More students at UCD. More “bedroom community neighborhoods” like Mace Ranch and Wildhorse. Those are contributors to worsening traffic. Help me understand why you believe Measure J should join those factors.
I’ll address your comments on both Senior Housing and SACOG in a separate post.
That might be good for the city of Davis, assuming that the service costs don’t outweigh the property taxes, but schools are funded by ADA, not local property taxes.
Partially true. Funding from schools comes from property taxes and state funding. Mostly from state funding. There are a few very affluent districts that can fund their schools entirely on their high property tax revenues (Palo Alto, Woodside, Orinda, for instance). Such districts don’t take any money from the state and are called, ironically, “basic aid” districts. Davis is a long way from becoming a basic aid district, with or without Measure J or R or whichever.
[url]http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2009/090202_SFF_HowSchoolsGetTheirMoney.pdf[/url]
True, I should have said Davis. I actually grew up in a basic aid school district, San Luis Obispo, thanks to the nuclear power plant ironically enough. Don’t get any ideas…
[i]”There are a few very affluent districts that can fund their schools entirely on their high property tax revenues (Palo Alto, Woodside, Orinda, for instance).”[/i]
Those few basic aid districts–Carmel is another one–are not that way exclusively because they are rich with high property values. They have three things in common, all of which are important due to the details of the Serrano decision:
1. They had very high property values in the early 1970s;
2. Their property values since that time grew at a rate faster than the state as a whole; and
3. They have lost student enrollment since the early 1970s.
There are some very wealthy districts which are not “basic aid” because they don’t fit all three criteria.
True, I should have said Davis. I actually grew up in a basic aid school district, San Luis Obispo, thanks to the nuclear power plant ironically enough. Don’t get any ideas…
Like propose a nuclear power plant to go on the Covell Gardens site and try to push that through a Measure J vote on the rationale that it will solve the budget issues for DJUSD???
That would be a very interesting campaign….
Joe, your comments on Senior Housing were very thought provoking, especially your comment, 5. I would say that as a general matter (based on my experience as a Real Estate Broker), most seniors don’t think they need senior housing until some “event” takes place, like a fall, a break-in, an injury doing yard work, a health-related event, a major maintenance issue, etc. Then, they suddenly decide that they would like a patio home or something, and start thinking about the other advantages of age restricted housing.
As our household average age is now 65, my wife and I live in the :event” world you describe. As we walked the dogs this morning we discussed your comment. Bottom-line, we both agreed your comment is an important parameter that needs to be included in any attempt to quantify Davis’ Senior Housing Demand.
However, I don’t think you go far enough when you say, . . . maybe a better approach would be to use demographic data to somehow determine how many senior households in a given year will likely have an “event”, and determine the yearly need for senior housing on that basis. While the world of “events” may be somewhat predictable, I’m not sure that the various ways that the Seniors confronted with an “event” choose to deal with that “event” will differ quite a bit. A substantial proportion of Seniors choose to move to a location where one or more of their children reside. So integrating questions about potential options regarding “event planning” into a Senior Housing Survey makes a whole lot of sense.
In a very real sense, the individual and group discussions your father and Bill Streng have been having are “event planning” sessions. The people who have chosen to attend and ultimately create CHA are being proactive about their futures. They have the fiscal where-with-all to be able to try and deal with “event” inevitability now.
Unfortunately not all Seniors in Davis are fortunate enough to be able to be that proactive. Some are emotionally averse to confronting their own mortality so directly. Some simply don’t have the fiscal strength to handle anything more than their own personal daily realities. However, it is incumbent on us as the community as a whole to ensure that Senior Planning does not ignore (or leave behind) any segment of Davis’ Seniors. That is why I strongly support the process incorporated in the Senior Housing Strategy.