Spoiler alert, if you are not interested in horse race analysis, do not read this. It has been a rare week in Davis where the big story has been not the city council election, but rather the judicial race.
That is good news for some, a sense of relief for others, and bad news for those on the outside looking in… at least perhaps.
Dan Wolk: Still in First Place
Dan Wolk was the smart money to finish first when this race started. Now with just over two weeks left in the election, nothing has changed. The joke in this election is that there are two factions and Dan Wolk is a part of both of them.
His campaign has been smooth and without huge waves. The one complaint is really that he has been a bit too handled and his campaign is a bit too slick. The full book of photos of Mr. Wolk that was mailed to voters rubbed a few in the wrong direction. We will forever make fun of his Madrigal days where he was decked out in tights.
He has taken the safe route at this point to his first election and likely ascension to Mayor Pro Tem and ultimately Mayor of Davis.
Second: Sue Greenwald
It gets a bit tricky here. At the start, we believed that Sue Greenwald was in second place, but that Lucas Frerichs would get to second place. We are not convinced he is there yet and given what has transpired, we do not believe he will get there.
The advantage that Sue Greenwald had and has over fellow incumbent Stephen Souza is that we believed her base was more intact. Little has happened to harm that view. And in fact, the attack mailer cements that view.
A letter to the Davis Enterprise sums up the thinking here: “I wasn’t planning to vote for Sue Greenwald, but I am now.” – Anne Elbrecht
How many of voters are of this belief at this point? It is difficult to gauge. The belief though is that Sue Greenwald was unfairly attacked and there is at least a segment out there that will rally around her. The biggest beneficiary of that attack mailer was Sue Greenwald. Right now we believe that she finishes second, though that could change.
That said, there are clearly segments in the community that believe that three terms has been enough. The question will be just how many people fall into that camp and where do the people who do not follow politics in Davis regularly or consistently come down.
Third: Lucas Frerichs
In some ways Lucas Frerichs is the most difficult candidate to gauge. It appears that among the establishment and more pro-development groups he is a solid second vote behind Dan Wolk.
It appears that he is out there and running strong. He has spent well over a decade meeting the establishment and those involved in Davis politics. Where it becomes more tricky to gauge is how much and how well his message is getting out and received in the general public.
While he has some clear intriguing facets to him and a wealth of experience, his responses to answers have been at times too guarded and too safe.
The budget issues continues to be a bit vexing for us. He continues to respond: “My top priority is to get the city’s “fiscal house in order”; we need to examine, prioritize and implement ways to achieve this.”
And yet, he continues to give the answer that we have criticized him on: “Conduct a comprehensive line-by-line look at the budget, finding ways to make the city more efficient and effective when delivering services.”
In our interview that will be posted tomorrow, we press him a bit and he acknowledges that this will not be enough to get our fiscal house in order, but he continues to focus on small programs like a $20,000 paid internship even in the midst of millions in needed cuts.
Does this caution serve him well? Perhaps. We shall see. Right now, we believe if the campaign ended tomorrow, Lucas Frerichs would be in the top three.
Fourth: Stephen Souza
If No.2 and No.3 are interchangeable, No.4 and No.5 are increasingly this as well. We believed that Stephen Souza was the more likely incumbent to suffer defeat. We said this because we believed his base was more fractured than Sue Greenwald’s.
The mailer may well have been his death-knell. It seems to have taken energy and the wind out of his sails.
As we now know, there is at least a possibility that the mailer sought to do that. When we spoke to Jon Li he was circumspect as to whether the intent was to take Stephen Souza out, but he acknowledged that was in fact the effect.
The truth is it is difficult to know what Stephen Souza is or is not doing. Two weeks ago, the Vanguard ran into a strong supporter of Stephen Souza’s at Farmer’s Market who was very critical of Mr. Souza’s efforts, including the fact that he had not been coming to the Market to meet the voters.
The revelations about the mailer this week had the opportunity to at least show that Mr. Souza was not behind the effort, but we are not sure what Stephen Souza has been doing this week.
From our vantage point it almost looks like he has given up. Maybe that is not accurate, but he failed to take advantage of news that could have at least exonerated his involvement and he has failed to mount any kind of visible counter-attack.
Fifth: Brett Lee
Brett Lee is frankly the biggest unknown in this race at this point. First, he is still largely unknown to the community.
Second, he is an unknown factor in this race. I put him fifth because it is the most defensible place for him to be at this time. But frankly he could in fact be fourth banging on the door of third.
Here is what we do know. First, he is the least known of the five candidates. Second, as he has gotten to know people he has impressed most of them with his intelligence, his compassion and his demeanor.
Can he storm into the council in the last two weeks? We believe so. But he is going to have to create a lot of momentum. The Enterprise endorsement from a couple of weeks ago gave him a shot, but it’s unclear how much he has done since then to build upon it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You have any polling data? Otherwise this is nothing but speculation.
So while we are at it let me tell you why I think you are wrong. Its called the Ruth vote. Four years ago Ruth finished finished first in a field of five. Sue came in third barely holding her seat over Sydney Vergis. While Ruth was mayor she called 911 during a council meeting blaming Sue, right or wrong, for her health issue. This was, of course, the attack put forward by the mailer. While the plumbers used what they thought was their best shot at Sue despite whatever their motives might have been, for Ruth’s friends, no mailer was required.
Ruth has deep roots in this community, she was a member of the University Farm Circle, the women’s auxiliary for the wives of the men who were at the university, when, there were few things to do at UCD, or, in Davis for that matter, for women. Her husband was a UCD Professor and a former mayor. Four years ago many of these people voted for Ruth but had two remaining votes. I think its fair to assume some of these additional votes went to Sue. The problem for Sue is that many of those votes are not going to Sue this time around.
You won’t see it posted on here or in letters to the editor. You won’t see it in lawn signs or at rally’s . The only place you would see it is in polling. You might get a hint from the donation list. These are not outspoken people, they are older people who have lived here a long time and are discrete in their politics preferring the sanctity of the ballot box to the soap box. While these people might be concerned about growth or water or housing values they also care about personal relationships and civility in the public arena and they are not going to vote for Sue Greenwald, the John Burton of Davis politics.
“You have any polling data? Otherwise this is nothing but speculation.”
NSS
What does NSS mean?
It means “no s- sherlock.”
Also your history is wrong, Sue and Ruth were never on the ballot at the same time. Don finished first four years ago which is why Dan is running now.
I guess it was six years ago in a field I think was four and Sue didn’t run against Ruth. So let me correct myself. Still, I think there are lots of Ruth’s old friends who will not vote for Sue this time.
Sorry Sherlock!
Yes perhaps you’ll try to dig deeper next time.
My guess is that the “attack” mailer gave Sue a needed boost and bumped Steve and Lucas out of the running . The question is, how big a bump ? I think Sue can ride this into the top spot and then look out for payback .
Also when Sue ran four years ago she did come in third barely beating Sydney Vergis. So her numbers were already slipping from the 2004 cycle where she came in first.
Davis politics are funny because friendships and loyalties often outweigh policy. While Sue has her base the question will be if the wall of opposition created by her Newt Gingrich like behavior is too high to surmount. Davis residents don’t want Newt Gingrich or John Burton style behavior in their politics. Do they want Sue’s?
There are a number of differences from 2008:
1. Saylor and Souza were at their peak
2. The economy had not collapsed
3. The budget problems were not evident yet
4. The biggest concern was declining enrollment and there was support for more development
5. Vergis was able to ride the coat tails of Saylor and Souza who worked hard
6. Sue did not work very hard and spent much of the campaign worrying about someone with a similar last name to her that is related to me
So yeah, you can argue that Sue lost support from 2004, but 2008 was the perfect storm against her. I remember Souza bragging about the balanced budget with a 15% as Sue was warning about unfunded liabilities.
Does anyone do polling on the Davis city council race?
David, what do you estimate the size of Sue’s base to be?
-Michael Bisch
OK… going out on a limb here, but I think I know three of the CC members who will be on the Council in July: Mayor Krovosa, Swanson, and Mayor Pro Tem Wolk. The average experience on the CC with those 3 will be a bit shy of 2 years.
“David, what do you estimate the size of Sue’s base to be?”
I would say she starts with 5000 votes, maybe even 6000
Dumb-thumbed and missed the other two:
If people want to go with “throw the rascals out”, and/or “new blood”, we’ll have Brett & Lucas, and an average of CC experience of about one year.
If folks want a “balance of total experience on the CC, it’ll be Souza & Greenwald.
If folks go for total community service and experience across areas, it’ll be Stephen & Lucas.
If folks want to have interesting “drama” at meetings, it will be a “bullet vote” for Sue (none of the others stand out for this factor [reverse goes if folks are weary of “drama’].
I suspect this is anyone’s race to win or lose. There are five good candidates, some of them incumbents with serious baggage. Many in the community are ready for serious change along with more a more collaborative rather than combative spirit on the City Council. I wouldn’t want to hazard a guess as to who will win – I don’t think it is clear at all…
I was talking to one of the candidates last week and the number that was kicked around in our conversation was 6,500 as the number of votes the third candidate will need in order to be elected. In our conversation, the speculation was that Dan was leading with about 7,500 votes. After a lot of speculation we settled on Lucas as the second highest vote tally with about 7,000.
No polls Toad … just speculation.
As a point of comparison here are the 2008 final numbers:
Turnout: 14,153 of 34,815 Registered Voters (40.7%)
Don Saylor…………….. 7,893 55.8%
Stephen Souza………….. 7,512 53.1%
Sue Greenwald………….. 6,598 46.6%
Sydney Vergis………….. 5,698 40.3%
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald 4,878 34.5%
Rob Roy……………….. 4,504 31.8%
Because UC students are much less likely to vote this year than in 2008 because of the absence of a Presidential Primary, it is hard to imagine the turnout will be as high as 14,000. However, if 14,000 voters hit the polls again, 6,500 probably won’t be enough to come in third.
Matt, the California presidential primary was on Super Tuesday in 2008. The council was a low turnout election because only local races were. On the ballot
Dunning’s first-ever almost-endorsement(she “keeps the Council honest”) for the reelection of Councilperson Greenwald is significant and very succinctly captures why she will be returned to her Council seat. Councilperson Greenwald’s political resume, now spanning over a decade,demonstrates that she can be relied upon by the Davis voters to first and foremost protect THEIR interests. Brett Lee, who is offered as the alternative progressive candidate is untested and has no significant local political resume for the Davis voter to evaluate. He would be better served to spend the next 2 years letting the Davis voters learn about him through his service on important Davis citizen committees and then run for Council in 2014.
“Brett Lee, who is offered as the alternative progressive candidate”
You get three votes. Brett is a second progressive candidate, not alternative. Who are your other two votes for?
[b]Fifth: Brett Lee [/b] [i]”Brett Lee is frankly the biggest unknown in this race at this point. … I put him fifth because it is the most defensible place for him to be at this time. But frankly he could in fact be fourth banging on the door of third.”[/i]
It may be because I am travelling to the wrong parts of town, but I feel like I am seeing more Brett Lee lawn signs than I am of any other candidate. If that is true, that Brett is leading the lawn-sign-contest, it suggests he has a passionate base, though not necessarily a large base.
Before the campaign got going, I thought Brett’s chances of finishing in 5th were quite strong. At the same time, I have always felt that the distance between 1st (Wolk) and 2nd will be larger than the difference between 2nd and 5th. So a slight improvement by the person who appeared to be starting out in 5th could put that candidate in the 2nd or 3rd seat on the Council.
My view has subsequently changed a bit from a few months ago. I really think the Plumbers & Pipefitters and Pooptakers & Placekickers did real and serious harm to Stephen Souza’s hopes (assuming Souza really had no foreknowledge of what those corrupters were up to and thus did not do this to himself).
This is my present prediction for order of finish:
5. Souza
4. Frerichs
3. Lee
2. Greenwald
1. Wolk
I think the Vanguard’s take on Wolk and Greenwald is right. I think Lee and Frerichs will be very close for 3rd/4th. I am giving 3rd to Lee now because I sense his voters will turn out, that his base may be small, but passionate enough to show up.
The issue I think which is most important (after integrity and an absence of corruption) is resolving our long-term budget troubles, largely by way of reforming our labor contracts and by reducing the share of the budget we are spending on the fire department. On that topic, I feel confident that whether the 2nd and 3rd seats are won by Sue and Lucas, or Sue and Brett, or (less likely) Lucas and Brett, the next Council* will have a solid majority which has the fortitude and smarts to get this solved.
*(By the way, I do expect the lion’s share of the job will be accomplished by the next Council, not this one, as the contracts expire June 30–after the new Council is seated–and because I expect all or most of the labor groups to do everything they legally can do to fight the reforms and retard the process.)
Lucas has experience as a commissioner, but that’s something of a negative — he’s been involved with the costly DACHA mess for many years. No sign of significant or effective leadership handling that
festering problem over the years. Likewise some other big issues.
It’s notable that he has suddenly distanced himself publicly from his good friend David Thompson.
Brett Lee on the other hand is openly endorsed by Evans/Thompson,
but he gives the appearance of being able to make up his own mind. And as
far as is known, his personal financial interests are not connected to
“cooperatives”.
Voters may be drawn to an independent thinker rather than dead wood.
[i]”Lucas has … been involved with the costly DACHA mess for many years.”[/i]
Can you explain Lucas’s involvement with DACHA?
Lucas was involved with the Davis Co-op not Twin Pines.
eagle eye: please provide an explanation for your comment about Lucas. It really can’t be allowed to stand as an unsubstantiated accusation.
[i]”Lucas was involved with the Davis [b](Food)[/b] Co-op not Twin Pines.”[/i]
There is a huge difference between DACHA and the Davis Food Co-op*. The Food Co-op has nothing to do with government subsidies or past policies of the Davis City Council.
Although it is a non-profit and its members own it, the Food Co-op is a privately owned and privately managed enterprise which does not get its money from the City or from any other arm of government (aside perhaps from some members who use food stamps).
DACHA, by contrast, was created with taxpayer money and was set-up with the approval of the Davis City Council and its owners, Luke Watkins and David Thompson (who is the husband of Ann Evans, who is a financial backer of Wolk, Frerichs and Lee), and the DACHA owners have filed two lawsuits against the City of Davis. It seems to me that if someone on the Council were closely tied to the owners of DACHA, he would have a hard time representing the interests of the people of Davis in relation to that lawsuit. The City Council, for the time being, is in a clearly adversarial relationship with Thompson and Watkins. It is a bit less clear that the candidates who have cozied up to Evans cannot act honestly on behalf of the people of Davis.
*Davis Food Co-op Board of Directors (1999-2008); Board President 2003-2005 ([url]http://lucasforcitycouncil.org/about-lucas[/url]).
Don… talked to several city employees in the know (names of current employees withheld)…. Lucas is too much a “newbie” on PC to have anything to do with anything but the most recent fall-out from DACHA. David G (NOT “T”)…. can you verify Lucas’ service start date(s) on any commissions related to DACHA? I did not vote for Lucas (vote by mail), but the earlier post looks like another “dirty trick”. Am not promoting Lucas’ candidacy, but he should not be “slimed”.
Should have read “… earlier post by Eagle Eye,… “
“Lucas was involved with the Davis (Food) Co-op not Twin Pines.”
It remains to be seen whether the multimillion dollar loan taken out by the Coop to renovate and expand its operations was a good idea or the pipe dream of the Coop Board (and president) to emulate the capitalist corporate model. A 6-7% annual growth rate(much like the 6% annual Davis property value increases that were to never end) was conjured up to handle the loan payments with competition from Trader Joes and expanding Nugget organic food offerings known to represent growing and serious competition. Now we have the addition of Davis Whole Foods. Candidate Lucas Frerich’s tenure as Coop Board president and steward of Coop finances may very well look a lot like the Saylor/Souza Council stewardship of Davis finances.
The renovation to the Co-Op made it better providing more space for products and better selection. Has it worked out long term? So far.
Your criticism of the Co-Op loan reminds me of the quote below from Zhou Enlai.
“The impact of the French Revolution? Too early to say. ”
[quote]Fifth: Brett Lee [b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]David: I retract my earlier allegations that Brett is “your guy” and FWIW note that my regard for your journalistic integrity has gone up several notches.
I made this initial assessment based on the observation that Brett Lee’s candidacy was organized around the same group of progressives that promoted both the candidacy of Lamar Heystek and the Parlin Development Wildhorse Ranch proposal. You were in this group and I extrapolated this to the 2012 election. My bad.
My current [s]handicapping of[/s] [i]idle speculation about[/i] the race:
First – Wolk
Second – Frerichs
Third/Fourth/Fifth – Greenwald/Lee/Souza (too close to call)
Wolk and Frerichs are safe bets. Steady, collaborative, and experienced.
Both multi-term incumbents have huge negatives that have been debated for years, and Lee has surprising negatives for a newcomer.
That is my idle speculation as well psdavis.
Matt: The big question in my mind is whether the voters will opt for collaboration or polarization.
A Krovoza/Swanson/Wolk/Frerichs council will be highly professional and collaborative. Will the voters insert disharmony and rancor into the mix by returning Sue to her seat?
I have not handicapped the race but have speculated as to whether the Ruth vote will hurt Sue. Of course with my anyone but Sue position no handicapping is needed although some polling would be helpful.
Looking back at the precinct maps of the 08 race it seems that the other candidates need to focus their attention in the area near downtown. Interestingly this is the area least affected by issues like the Cannery or West Village.
“A 6-7% annual growth rate(much like the 6% annual Davis property value increases that were to never end) was conjured up to handle the loan payments with competition from Trader Joes and expanding Nugget organic food offerings known to represent growing and serious competition. Now we have the addition of Davis Whole Foods.”
Very interesting. I had no idea that the Co-op was spending borrowed money like it (the Co-op) was going out of style.
We already see, at the very least, some level of irritation during council meetings on the part of the three newbies about the MOs of the two multi-termers mentioned by psdavis.
What would happen if we finally had a council that worked together collaboratively in spite of their different points of view? Can the council effectively lead our city with a minimum of drama and confrontation? And, what will happen when Harriet is their principal, municipal, institutional memory?
[i]”We already see, at the very least, some level of irritation during council meetings on the part of the three newbies about the MOs of the two multi-termers …”[/i]
I have not seen this. It seems to me that this Council (at least in open session) gets along well. It lacks all of the toxicity it had when Saylor was last on it.
You need to get out more and see it live and up close. The hostility is more subtle but you can see it in the body language of the others when Sue is droning on unprepared. The rolling of the eyes, embarrassed looks and red faces. Maybe you can’t see it on TV, I don’t know since I don’t have a working TV, but I have seen it the few times I have been dow there in person.
[quote]I have not seen this. It seems to me that this Council (at least in open session) gets along well. It lacks all of the toxicity it had when Saylor was last on it.[/quote]
It has greatly IMPROVED, but there is still some overt toxicity…
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”I have not seen this. It seems to me that this Council (at least in open session) gets along well. It lacks all of the toxicity it had when Saylor was last on it.”[/i]
Rich I have had reason to attend quite a few Council sessions in recent months and some familiar patterns have begun to surface (or if you will, resurface).
1) The Mayor has on a number of occasions cautioned Sue that rather than using the Questions period to [u]ask clarifying questions[/u] of the staff and/or experts who are sitting at the Staff table facing the dias, has rather [u]lectured[/u] the staff/experts on the wrongness of the information they have just presented to Council.
2) The expression, “I let you speak fully, please let me speak,” or “I let you speak fully, please do not interrupt me,” has graced the Chambers quite a bit more frequently of late than it had during the earlier months of Council activity.
Bottom-line, toxicity is clearly down, but the full flowering of collaboration and consensus building is still not the rule.
Rich, the reason that I find this resurfacing of old patterns troubling is that it is becoming increasingly clear that we simply can not achieve the kind of balanced budget that we desire solely by cutting costs and services. We need Council to be working as a team to identify and collectively and collaboratively pursue opportunities to 1) increase the revenues of the City, and 2) improve the health of the businesses that serve the City’s residents and workers.
“…it is becoming increasingly clear that we simply can not achieve the kind of balanced budget that we desire solely by cutting costs and services.”
How has this become “increasingly clear?” And how would a council full of newcomers be better able to achieve the end goal of cutting costs and services first?
“Very interesting. I had no idea that the Co-op was spending borrowed money like it (the Co-op) was going out of style.”
Are you a member? At the time the investment was approved it was fully vetted by the membership complete with the budgeting and blue prints being posted at the Co-Op. The process was completely transparent. Davisite is just trying to stir the pot.
Matt Williams said . . .
[i]”…it is becoming increasingly clear that we simply can not achieve the kind of balanced budget that we desire solely by cutting costs and services.”[/i]
Don Shor replied . . .
[i]”How has this become “increasingly clear?” And how would a council full of newcomers be better able to achieve the end goal of cutting costs and services first?”[/i]
The answer is two-fold:
1) Cutting costs has a definitional limit. Specifically, once a cost has been cut, the opportunity to cut that cost is no longer available for incremental cost cuts. For example, the reduction of the WWTP Upgrade down to $95 million was a very real accomplishment, but now that it has been done, there isn’t any opportunity to do it again. Conversely, if we accomplish a revenue increase (for example adding a sales tax source) it is not only a gift that keeps on giving, but it also can be incrementally added to. Costs by definition can only be reduced to zero. Revenues have no definitional upward limit.
2) The opportunity for incremental cost cuts (i.e. cost cuts that haven’t already been identified (such as savings in labor negotiations), or achieved (the afore mentioned WWTP Upgrade savings)) is at this point A) extremely limited or B) will be realized through the efforts of our City Manager much more than by our City Council. Bottom-line, we have either harvested or identified all the low hanging fruit, and even worked our way up the cost tree.
So, we need Council members who understand how to identify revenue sources, court those revenue sources, and close the deal. We don’t need Council members who talk a lot but don’t deliver the goods. Sue is quick to talk about a high tech business park at The Cannery, but has she yet brought even a single company on a site visit. In fact, has she even identified a possible high tech tennent company by name? I don’t know of any. Revenue development for Sue can be summed up by three letters PG&E. We need a Council member with a bigger alphabet.
Just because Joe isn’t confrontational (like Ruth and Don) does not mean the council is now functioning well. Far from it. And Joe has only had to deal with the problem for two years. His patience appears to be wearing quite thin. For some reason I can’t quite figure out, he is willing to tolerate extraordinary amounts of disrespect from the dais that is directed at the council’s policies and procedures, the mayorship, and himself personally. It makes him look weak and I don’t see that continuing indefinitely.
It should also be noted that Sue has really been on her best behavior since the Ruth incident. What’s it going to be like when the contentious issues on the horizon are in front of the council and she is completely unfettered from the need to run for reelection?
With all the above said, savings in labor negotiations and pension liabilities are indeed cost savings that will, like revenue increases, yield budgetary benefits each year. However, those recurring cost savings opportunities are well identified . . . hard to realize, but well identified . . . and the City Manager is much more likely than Council to bring those savings out of the realm of wish into the realm of reality.
Rochelle Swanson understands the above, Joe Krovoza understands the above, Dan Wolk understands the above, Brett Lee understands the above.
Adding a non-collaborative, non-consensus building, revenues blind, unnamed sources rich, non-listener to those four excellent Council members and/or Council candidates doesn’t increase the opportunities for increasing revenues, it only chases away revenues.
[quote]So, we need Council members who understand how to identify revenue sources, court those revenue sources, and close the deal. We don’t need Council members who talk a lot but don’t deliver the goods. [b]Matt Williams[/b][/quote]Matt: I agree. It’s worth pointing out that both PG&E and ConAgra have both sent correspondence to the city stating in no uncertain terms that they are not interested in considering Sue’s ideas. IMO these proposals have never been more than political rhetoric.
It’s also true that they have had no reason to do otherwise.
David: It’s because they are both dumb ideas.
So, Matt, I take it that you believe the ideal council would be Krovoza, Swanson, Wolk, Lee, and Frerichs? What revenue-enhancing proposals do you think they are going to move forward?
PS,
I think you are wrong.
I think it’s an exceedingly dumb idea to develop the last large parcel of land that could be a business park for housing. It would be one thing if the voters approve other land for urban uses, but to develop this as housing first makes no sense.
In terms of page it’s rather obvious that land is being misused. It was put to that use at a time when it was the periphery and now it’s land that should be used for housing.
I think you are letting your bias against Sue rob you of logic.
“For example, the reduction of the WWTP Upgrade down to $95 million was a very real accomplishment.”
Matt: I don’t see how you can characterize unrealized savings as an accomplishment. Right now everything is still very hypothetical. I don’t have your level of expertise on this topic, but all I see is a very normal process of fat-trimming and value-engineering that should occur in all public works projects in a down economy.
David: These projects only make sense if you completely ignore the practical business realities of bringing them online. With all due respect, you don’t have much of a clue about this type of economic development. It’s just not in your background. That’s absolutely 100% OK, but as Dirty Harry says “A man’s got to know his limitations.” On this issue, you don’t seem to know your limitations.
We’re not so “special” in Davis that we can suspend business reality just because we really, really want something to be a certain way. Sorry.
These are both dumb ideas.
I’m really not inclined to discuss things further with you. I find your tone condescending and degrading. My point regarding ConAgra deals with a political reality that you and the council have ignored. The point regarding pge is that it’s wasted space, they are taking up valuable land that can be put to better uses. You make assumptions that I somehow don’t recognize that we will need to make pge an incredible deal, but it is something that needs to happen.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”It’s also true that they have had no reason to do otherwise.”[/i]
psdavis replied . . .
[i]”David: It’s because they are both dumb ideas.”[/i]
That is an overstatement psdavis. ConAgra as a high tech business park is only an idea that doesn’t pencil out given the tactic Sue has chosen to pursue. She is stuck on the supply side and as long as the focus continues to be on the supply side (entitlements) her idea will never pencil out. However, if she would change her focus to the demand side (cold calling on tech companis, following up on the issues they raise and courting them incessantly) then her idea has the potential to have a fill rate that could cause it to indeed pencil out.
Sue has simply talked about PG&E’s potential. Others have engaged them in discusssions. PG&E is far from a dumb idea. Again the focus needs to be on the demand side (i.e. PG&E’s issues), instead of the supply side (i.e. what Davis’ dreams are).
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”So, Matt, I take it that you believe the ideal council would be Krovoza, Swanson, Wolk, Lee, and Frerichs? What revenue-enhancing proposals do you think they are going to move forward?”[/i]
Actually Don, my ideal council would be Krovoza, Swanson, Wolk, Lee, and . . . Shor. However you are not running. You would be both collaborative and a revenue builder.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”PS,
I think you are wrong.
[b]I think it’s an exceedingly dumb idea to develop the last large parcel of land that could be a business park for housing.[/b] It would be one thing if the voters approve other land for urban uses, but to develop this as housing first makes no sense.
In terms of pge it’s rather obvious that land is being misused. It was put to that use at a time when it was the periphery and now it’s land that should be used for housing.
I think you are letting your bias against Sue rob you of logic.”[/i]
David, until two weeks ago I would have agreed with you; however, in a conversation with a very knowledgeable County employee I found out that the common knowledge that the City and County have to split the property tax revenue of an annexed property is actually a myth. If my source is correct, then by law the County gets no incremental property tax from a property like Nishi that gets annexed into the City. So if that gets confirmed, then Cannery is the “last large parcel of land” in name only.
psdavis said . . .
[i]”Matt: I don’t see how you can characterize unrealized savings as an accomplishment. Right now everything is still very hypothetical. I don’t have your level of expertise on this topic, but all I see is a very normal process of fat-trimming and value-engineering that should occur in all public works projects in a down economy.”[/i]
Fair enough psdavis, but the chances are very low that the City will be spending budgetary money on untrimmed fat or value that won’t be immediately valuable.
With the above said, one of the “trimmed” items was the recycled water portion of the “total solution” design. Using recycled water (grey water) to irrigate is a “value” that many other cities are delivering to their communities. Said another way, a large part of the fat that Sue trimmed was not “fat” but rather “value.” I think the trimming she championed makes sense, but at some time down the road Davis is going to want (and probably pay for) a recycled water upgrade to the WWTP.
David: Sorry if my bluntness offended you – but spinning fairy tails for the community isn’t helpful. The voters will decide if we have a business park for mid-sized tech companies. If they say no, then we won’t. ConAgra is irrelevant. PG&E is a non-starter because of the costs to replace their existing infrastructure. There is no incredible deal that we can put on the table to make this problem go away.
The reference is a measure r vote not tax revenue
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I’m really not inclined to discuss things further with you. I find your tone condescending and degrading. [b]My point regarding ConAgra deals with a political reality that you and the council have ignored. The point regarding pge is that it’s wasted space, they are taking up valuable land that can be put to better uses.[/b] You make assumptions that I somehow don’t recognize that we will need to make pge an incredible deal, but it is something that needs to happen.”[/i]
I agree with your bolded point, but with that said, your term “wasted space” is a supply side reality. You too need to come over to the demand side.
With that said, in an ideal world what companies do you want to see as tenants of those spaces . . . and what steps do you think we should take to bring tose companies to those spaces?
What reference David?
[i] in an ideal world what companies do you want to see as tenants of those spaces [/i]
Actually, Matt, we have a lot of vacant retail space right now (and increasing), and retail space generates actual direct revenue to the city. Maybe we should focus on that for awhile before we embark on new sites.
David: “I think it’s an exceedingly dumb idea to develop the last large parcel of land that could be a business park for housing. “
David, the dumb idea is that this is the last large parcel of land available for a business park. There is plenty of land available here it is just outside the artificial limit line created by measure R. As an example, there is a fabulous parcel right next to the Cannery site available for development. Its called Covell Village, and if planned in conjunction with Cannery, as city staff recommended under Emlen, there is plenty of land available for all the needs expressed by all the candidates. The idea that the Cannery is the only place left is wrong and dumb. Those who perpetrate this mythology deserve to be called out on it every time they utter it. It is only true if you fail to look beyond the city limit, something that becomes shortsighted when you make a claim as if global warming had already put everything beyond the city limit under water.
Not only that, the university has a huge amount of land available for development. Look no farther than West Village, a peripheral development resulting from the idea that the City Council could stop peripheral development on its other borders. Everyone who opposed West Village should vote Sue Greenwald out! Her policies of opposing peripheral growth brought you West Village.
Matt,
I think a deal can be made at some point that can reimburse pge and bare in mind at some point that property and technology with e superfluous.
Toad,
It makes a lot more sense to develop land near the university for students than north of the city. I have a better idea for development closer to what Cal Poly did, but in the scheme of things west village isn’t the worst utilization of land
Don Shor said . .
[i]”Actually, Matt, we have a lot of vacant retail space right now (and increasing), and retail space generates actual direct revenue to the city. Maybe we should focus on that for awhile before we embark on new sites.”[/i]
Don, have you discussed that with Sue? If she agrees with you, why is she making ConAgra the focus of her revenue generation discussions?
Like housing on PG&E a business park at Cannery makes Sue look like she is for something when in reality she is for nothing, a popular position held by many in Davis. No wonder people like Harrington , Kopper and Davisite2 support Sue. Being for something that a land owner doesn’t want sounds good, but, in reality, because you can’t make a land owner build something they don’t want, unless you go through eminent domain condemnation, its really just a smokescreen for being for nothing. A position I’m sure Sue is comfortable with as an outcome. The interesting question I have is where is the demand for a business park? Can you tell me any company that wants it that has moved away or tried to move here but couldn’t be accommodated?
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt, I think a deal can be made at some point that can reimburse pge and bare in mind at some point that property and technology with e superfluous.”[/i]
I don’t disagree David . . . don’t disagree at all. Making that deal happen is what Sue should be focusing on, rather than simply talking about the potential of the site.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”The interesting question I have is where is the demand for a business park? Can you tell me any company that wants it that has moved away or tried to move here but couldn’t be accommodated?”[/i]
Toad, your first question is a supply side question. The answer to your second question is “no” because we haven’t focused on companies. It will be interesting to see if Sue can give us the name of a single company she has talked to about locating at ConAgra.
“Right now outside of the city limit isn’t viable or reliable politically. Art of the possible.”
So what, its only true because people like yourself made it that way. That’s fine but then don’t whine about how there isn’t anywhere to build something. The people who want to keep the city contained complaining that there isn’t enough space for what they and others want but what they want should be prioritized is so outrageous that only in a town like Davis would it be considered rational.
You are not following the conversation if you believe I am whining about not acing a place to build
Matt, don’t lose sight that my only point here was to demonstrate that the view wasn’t exceedingly dumb. If you want to argue it has not been approached ideally, I agree.
“It makes a lot more sense to develop land near the university for students than north of the city. I have a better idea for development closer to what Cal Poly did, but in the scheme of things west village isn’t the worst utilization of land”
West Village is peripheral sprawl, built on Class I soil. It was not annexed into the city nor did it have a measure J or R vote. They pre-exiting neighbors objected so vehemently to the traffic congestion it caused that people who live there don’t even have access to Russell Blvd. I think it even violates the pass through agreement although for all I know it may be exempt. It seems to represent everything you stand for yet you think its not the worst utilization of land. Well don’t let anyone ever accuse you of being consistent.
Why is it somehow okay but Cannery or Covell are not?
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt, don’t lose sight that my only point here was to demonstrate that the view wasn’t exceedingly dumb. If you want to argue it has not been approached ideally, I agree.”[/i]
I guess that makes us 2 for 2.
I’m following it perfectly David you said we should build a business park there because it was the last parcel available. I challenge that assumption then I challenge even more. The idea that I am not fully aware of the issues here or somehow not adequately engaged to offer an opinion that contradicts your assumptions is more insulting than anything I have hurled at you you here.
You write its the last parcel as if you were writing a book review of “The Nirvana Blues” well guess what, its not, no matter how dismissive anyone wants to be about looking at Davis with a reality that can see beyond the limit line.
Should read: Everything you stand against.
If you read me to say that we should do anything, then you did not follow it. My purpose in arguing here was only to establish a reasonable argument could be made. I think it’s exceedingly difficult to get people to approve development in the near future and if you want to put houses in ConAgra you ought to approve a bp elsewhere first.
Matt:[i] Don, have you discussed that with Sue? If she agrees with you, why is she making ConAgra the focus of her revenue generation discussions? [/i]
Why are you and others making anything else the focus of your revenue generation discussions? Our current problems, after the budget and contract issues, are retail vacancies and lower-cost housing. Tech parks are fine; go forward with Nishi — that and land along 2nd Street and in South Davis could probably take care of what any smaller firms would need. The university can develop land for bigger firms if they so desire. But spending time and energy chasing tech firms wouldn’t be my first priority right now.
Why? Where is the demand? If you want a business park you should first identify a land owner that wants to build one. Then you should find a business that wants to move there and then pursue financing to build it. That is generally how its done. You have none of that. Not only that you seem to be arguing that since we could not get a vote to annex a business park we should prioritize building one anyway. This is no more legitimate than saying we should build houses because we can’t get approval to annex land to build them. The difference is that you have a willing land owner and demand for rental housing, senior housing and housing for young families. Additionally, if you simply expanded the footprint and did the most rational thing, plan Covell and Cannery together you could have space for your business park too. Of course acting rationally is not the politically correct thing to do here in the land of measure R. So your argument that a business park should come first based on the failed idea of limited growth fails on so many fronts that those making the arguments for prioritizing it should be laughed out of town instead of being considered as a serious front runner for a council seat able to bend the ten billion dollar market cap Conagra to her will.
Mr. Toad: your arguments are with the Davis voters. Measure R, Covell Village, and Wildhorse Ranch pretty much tell us that the voters have the size and kind of city that they want. You can argue for peripheral development until you’re blue in the face; the reality is people here don’t want it. Sue Greenwald reflects that view. She didn’t shape it.
The university has a goal of providing a certain percentage of housing for its students (40%? I can’t remember exactly). West Village doesn’t even get UCD to that goal.
Don, West Village was built because Sue, Wagstaff and Harrington made it clear it Davis wasn’t going to build the housing needed for UCD to grow. UCD then hired Meyer away from the city and then started planning West Village. Sue not only precipitated the development of West Village she left the University no other choice. UCD had been underbuilding for years probably because the private sector in Davis was more than willing to do it for them. Sue and Wagstaff were also instrumental in placing on the ballot and arguing for measure J. It has shaped the city.
Sue not only reflected but provided leadership. Without her leadership the community vision of itself might be different today.If our leaders stood up and said to the people of Davis that the most logical course is to plan Covell and Cannery together the residents might be persuaded because of the logic of the argument. Anyway, you are correct peripheral growth is unpopular, I get that. What is infuriating is the idea that a business park should get priority over housing on the limited space we have inside the city limits especially when that argument is made by the most outspoken opponents to housing in the community who are in many ways responsible for the limited space for development they now argue they should control and keep from being used for housing.
[i]What is infuriating is the idea that a business park should get priority over housing on the limited space we have inside the city limits[/i]
At one point the city council moved to have an equal-weight EIR done. The property developer walked. There was a proposal for a 50:50 ratio of housing to business. I believe Sue proposed that; I’m sure she supported it. That got nowhere. Why? Because the property owner wants to build housing and nothing but housing. I’d like to see the city play hardball, since the property owner clearly is doing so. Accept 50/50 only, allow for highest density zonings only. The property owner has essentially said they’ll do nothing except what they propose; they’re willing to sit on it undeveloped rather than accede to any other proposal. Why? Because they seem to think that if they wait, they’ll get a council that is willing to go along. I think they’re two votes toward that already.
Toad: Business park doesn’t work on Covell either. Too far from the freeway.
Business park on ConAgra (100%, 50/50, whatever) is code for no growth. No housing on the site and no business park anywhere else in the city. The idea that ConAgra will bend to Sue’s plan if we just hold the line is complete nonsense.
“I think a deal can be made at some point that can reimburse pge” David Greenwald
Before you make statements like this you really should, if you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, do your homework and find out from PG&E what their infrastructure replacement costs are.
The costs are astronomical. Much to large for the city and a project of this size to adsorb. And in using the word “reimburse” are you actually suggesting that PG&E (a public utility) might front the money to the city?!
David Greenwald: “[i]The point regarding pge is that it’s wasted space, they are taking up valuable land that can be put to better uses[/i].”
Let us assume that PG&E is willing to move. Where do you propose they move to? What land will the City use to entice PG&E to swap? Are you proposing allowing PG&E to develop land on the periphery, or do you think they should move out of town, taking the jobs with them?
[i]Business park on ConAgra (100%, 50/50, whatever) is code for no growth. No housing on the site and no business park anywhere else in the city.[/i]
If the reason is that the property owner refuses to compromise, then nothing gets built on the site. The majority of Davis residents probably couldn’t care less. Nishi goes forward, land on Second Street gets developed, maybe land in South Davis, maybe land on the university. I’d love to see housing on the site if it is highest density. But it isn’t the end of the world if ConAgra sits on the site for another decade.
But if Lucas or Stephen get elected, then I predict ConAgra has the three votes they need to move forward with their current proposal anyway. I think they know that.
Don Shor: “[i]Because the property owner wants to build housing and nothing but housing. I’d like to see the city play hardball, since the property owner clearly is doing so.[/i]”
The property owner wants to make money. Until there is sufficient demand to fill a business park, with tenants waiting to sign, the property owner will not make money building a business park. Right now, housing is the only viable option for the property; the only way the owners will make money. They have no incentive to sell the land and no reason to build a money losing option.
If the City wants a business park at that location, they have to recruit, or grow, the demand for one. Playing hardball will simply result in more years of prime land sitting idle because the City does not have any leverage to force a deal, or money to sweeten it. Keep the zoning as it is and play hardball all you want, we will all lose that game.
[i]If the City wants a business park at that location, they have to recruit, or grow, the demand for one[/i]
Pretty hard to do when the landowner had made it clear they won’t accept anything other than what they’ve put before the city. This whole discussion is pretty circular. Neither staff nor any councilmember could make any headway discussing the site with a prospective business tenant when ConAgra has said they won’t consider it.
Look, I don’t really care that much what gets built on ConAgra. I would strongly prefer that there be high-density, low-cost housing, significantly more units than are currently being proposed. I just think it’s unfortunate that business sites keep getting rezoned for other purposes, and then people who advocate economic development bemoan the lack of business sites. The best location for a business park was right at the offramp where Mace comes off I-80. It was even zoned right. Now it’s retail.
All of this seems to be leading inexorably toward pressure for annexation for a peripheral business park, either on the Mace Curve or out west of town. The rationale will be that we don’t have enough land in the city limits. And when the voters reject it, we’ll be told Davis is anti-business.
“Keep the zoning as it is and play hardball all you want, we will all lose that game.”
Mark: I agree with you 100%. The only thing that I would add is that the disingenuous stalemate that was forced on the city by the no-growth crowd has done significant damage to our long term economic development potential. Had we advanced a serious economic development strategy in the last decade, we would now be positioned to capitalize on the next economic cycle as well as leverage UCD’s new push to both spin-out and recruit tech companies. Instead, we are still at least two or three years away – at best – from being able to put spin-outs on Nishi or mid-sized companies on a peripheral tech park. At some point it may become moot if attention shifts to West Sac or Solano County.
[i] or mid-sized companies on a peripheral tech park.[/i]
Where did you have in mind?
“Before you make statements like this you really should, if you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, do your homework and find out from PG&E what their infrastructure replacement costs are.”
Actually I did several years ago. It was listed in the letter to Ruth Asmundson. That’s part of my answer, you missed the second part which is that a lot of that infrastructure is going to be obsolete in a few years. As I said, you need to stop being so presumptuous.
Mark: “Let us assume that PG&E is willing to move.”
This is why it’s helpful to understand the context of my answer. I never said this was going to happen now, I simply was arguing against the notion of being incredibly dump. I think at some point, the city will be able to use some of their acquired land on the periphery to make the swap, but I’m looking ten to twenty years down the line as PG&E realizes that their equipment is obsolete and the land is better used for other purposes.
“But if Lucas or Stephen get elected, then I predict ConAgra has the three votes they need to move forward with their current proposal anyway. I think they know that.”
You’re assuming there won’t be a petition to put this on the ballot and turn this into a Measure R vote.
But then what David, where would you move PG&E to? Its a fair question.
Oh and where would you get the money to move PG&E? How about from the teachers or the firefighters.
We’ll see what things look like when the time come. I think most of the money for the move can come from the sale of entitled land swapped with land the city already owns.
“The rationale will be that we don’t have enough land in the city limits. And when the voters reject it, we’ll be told Davis is anti-business.”
Guess what Davis is anti-business already. Its anti-growth of any kind. Its protectionist for existing businesses like your own, Don, that would be wiped out by a big box category killer in about two seconds. Its no wonder you scream about Target. Just think how you would howl if it were a Home Depot trying to come in.
Its protectionist for little landlords like Sue, Harrington and Kopper; some of the most vociferous anti-growth advocates in town. We have measure R, the self imposed anti-growth zoning ordinance that makes it difficult for any sort of business or residential development to come in keeping vacancies low and rents high for existing landlords.
We have an elected official that tries to use her position to throw up every tactic she can muster from zoning to tantrums to scare tactics to growth control measures to make it impossible to get anything done. Don’t forget Sue wanted to make measure R permanent instead of putting in a 10 year renewal.
We have policies that force the biggest employer in the area, UCD, to build housing on campus then residents sue and force the people who live there to be isolated and use a convoluted route to get in and out because we don’t want them using “our streets.”
We have this fealty to the protection to ag land as if there is no higher value purpose for the land here whether its class I or class II we act as if tomatoes or alfalfa are more important to the states economy than educational mission of the University of California, where, by the way, one faculty FTE brings in more money to the local economy than ten acres of tomatoes.
So get off the high and mighty horse Davis is already anti-business.
“We’ll see what things look like when the time come. I think most of the money for the move can come from the sale of entitled land swapped with land the city already owns.”
We both know the maps David, where? And with clean up costs borne by whom?
So you want to simply swap PG&E to lower value land where they can rebuild from scratch and they are going to say sure no problem we need to start over anyway and since we are a private corporation with fiduciary responsibility to our share holders we won’t even demand fair value for the land we sell you negating their share of the value added by development. They will just say sure go ahead since you are going to put solar panels on the rooftops no problem.
And when to you think we could get this done? Is a timeline possible before we have grandkids?
“So you want to simply swap”
Again with the verb “want.” I’m not advocating this, only stating it is possible.
Where does the city have land to swap?
The city has acquired all sorts of land outside of the city. Now the interesting thing I think is that in 20 years a PGE power plant may look more like this:
[img]http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/06/photovoltaic_array.jpg[/img]
but where are the tomatoes
“Actually I did several years ago. It was listed in the letter to Ruth Asmundson. That’s part of my answer, you missed the second part which is that a lot of that infrastructure is going to be obsolete in a few years. As I said, you need to stop being so presumptuous.” David Geenwald
Then post the number – in all it’s glory – so that the community can see the cost of the existing infrastructure you are proposing to duplicate. I would also suggest that you do some actual reporting and get the contemporaneous number from PG&E. Then perhaps a discussion of fiscal responsibility would be in order.
On the second point, which you incorrectly presumed that I missed, are you seriously proposing that we base housing strategy on waiting for PG&E’s infrastructure to become obsolete? Really? This is just as silly as the notion that we should base economic development strategy on waiting for ConAgra to bend to Sue Greenwwald’s iron will.
“..[i].for existing businesses like your own, Don, that would be wiped out by a big box category killer in about two seconds. Its no wonder you scream about Target. Just think how you would howl if it were a Home Depot trying to come in.”[/i]
Small nurseries compete with Home Depot all the time. A Home Depot on the edge of town would be harmful for all the same reasons Target has been harmful. But it wouldn’t put us out of business. Garden centers are somewhat immune to the impact of generic large merchandisers because we have lots of product lines to choose from and plants take more product knowledge than most other things.
If a city has no urban limit and no geographical impediments to growth, it will always grow further and further out in all directions because it is cheaper and easier to develop peripheral land, and land is always more valuable for housing than for anything else. If you had your way, Davis would merge with Woodland and eventually with Winters, and would look like every other cookie-cutter suburb in California — with all the same chain stores.
David: “[i]I think at some point, the city will be able to use some of their acquired land on the periphery to make the swap, but I’m looking ten to twenty years down the line as PG&E realizes that their equipment is obsolete and the land is better used for other purposes.[/i]”
There is great value in planning 10, 20, even 50 years down the road, but that is not a valid answer for what do we need to do today. PG&E is a non-answer today, and therefore is a dumb idea in the context of our current needs. If you had prefaced your comments with – ‘twenty years from now…’ you may well have a valid argument.
PS: I remember the number being around $10 million. Is that what you have in your mind?
“If you had your way, Davis would merge with Woodland and eventually with Winters,”
Actually not as there are additional restrictions on growth between Davis and Dixon and Davis and Woodland. But a more realistic planning process would allow for needed growth and as I have said you could meet the needs of Davis for a decade, possibly more, by master planning Covell and Cannery. You could master plan and develop all the frontier properties surrounding Davis and it would get you at least a generations worth of growth done in a systematic manner without extending the borders of Davis more than one mile in any direction.
Mark: Fair enough. I wasn’t making a judgment as to today versus the future. To me the planning you do now you are doing for five to ten years down the road anyway.
If I had $10,000,000 I could bail out the schools. Priorities Priorities.
David: I think the number is closer to $20M, although I’ve heard higher estimates from credible sources. It would be better if you got the number directly from PG&E.
Toad: If you want to keep it real, then you must recognize that in the ConAgra situation joint planning one property within the city limits with a controversial property outside the city limits is a non-starter. Joint planning, like the 50/50 housing/business park split, is just more code for no project.
Yeah reality and sensibility don’t mix when it comes to Davis planning. I get that. It just shows the arbitrary nature and stupidity of the community. Take away measure R and planning them together gets you a better project with better planning. It allows you to meet the growth needs of the community while solving some of the access problems that hinder development of each parcel individually. Forgive me for letting logic get in the way of the self constructed reality of Davis politics.
[i]It just shows the arbitrary nature and stupidity of the community. Take away measure R and planning them together gets you a better project with better planning.[/i]
No, it shows you that Davis voters valued different things. Adding 4000+ people to a town of 60,000 didn’t meet the local definition of reasonable growth. It’s simple: you don’t share the values of Davis voters. That seems to make you unreasonably angry. There are other places to live that plan and grow the way you prefer.
How about a Home Depot next to target Don. Think of the reduction in the community carbon footprint with even fewer trips to Woodland. We could capture all that leaking sales tax money and bring competition reducing material prices for homeowners here in Davis. Its a win, win, win. I think we have a winner.
Hey, I never tell you where to live. In fact if you don’t live in town where do you get off going on about what sort of retail choices the people who live here should have? I find your insinuation that i should leave town insulting. Once in a while when someone tries to take on the local dogma there is some old anti-war hypocrite with the modern equivalent of an America love it or leave bumper sticker saying why don’t you move if you don’t like it. Is that all you have Don? What happened to Voltaire defending the right of those we disagree with to have their say. Why not order some freedom fries while you are at it?
“Adding 4000+ people to a town of 60,000 didn’t meet the local definition of reasonable growth.”
No but it met the state’s and that why we have West Village.
David: [i]”You’re assuming there won’t be a petition to put this on the ballot and turn this into a Measure R vote.”[/i]
If the City Council rezones the ConAgra site, all the power will lie with the landowners, not the would-be citizen-petitioners. I am not saying that the voters could not force a Measure R vote. However, if a negative Measure R vote meant that the landowners could not use their property as it is zoned (for housing and offices, etc., if that is what the Council were to approve), then the landowners would have a very serious case for a lawsuit on a “takings” basis ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingle_v._Chevron[/url]).
I’ve wondered about this too especially in light of the recent cases on the matter. Maybe someone with knowledge of this area of law could weigh in with a summary.
So, just to clarify: if the city council changes the zoning, and then it is put to a vote, and the voters vote it down, the city could be sued. But if the city council doesn’t change the zoning, there is no basis for a lawsuit.
LOL Now you’ve framed “no project” as a legal defense strategy. Unbelievable.
You should compile a list of 101 ways to make sure Davis continues to stagnate.
I’m not [i]proposing[/i] that, I just want to understand what the implications would be of a citizen challenge to any rezoning of the site. God knows we have citizens in Davis who would press such a challenge.
As I said before, I don’t have a strong preference for what gets built on the site. I already agreed with you once before that high-density housing would be acceptable.
“As I said before, I don’t have a strong preference for what gets built on the site. I already agreed with you once before that high-density housing would be acceptable.” Don Shor
I’m sure you saw this ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/features/sunday-best/illuminating-the-nature-of-the-community-of-davis-by-the-census-numbers/[/url]) in the Sunday Enterprise –[quote]According to a March 2012 report of Census Urban Area Facts, Davis ranks as one of the 10 most densely populated urbanized areas in the country.[/quote]What we were in agreement on was that it would be a good idea to replace the business park component with apartments. This would make the project 100% residential with a small amount of project serving retail.
We currently have about a 10 year supply of vacant business park zoned land within the city (exclusive of the ConAgra property). UCD is reportedly in the process of vacating the massive amount of privately owned space that they have been occupying, so we may also have a large excess of vacant existing space to adsorb in the coming decade.
The bottom line is that there is no demand for a small internal tech park, and such development will never occur on the ConAgra property no matter how much political rhetoric is thrown around.
What there is demand for is (1) space for small tech companies and startups within easy walking distance of downtown and UCD (Nishi) and large shovel ready parcels for mid-sized companies (Mace) that are either recruited to Davis or home-grown and ready to move into larger space.
[i]”I just want to understand what the implications would be of a citizen challenge to any rezoning of the site.”[/i]
My legal opinion–speaking as a non-lawyer–is just what you said, Don: If the City leaves the zoning alone, it is not at risk for a takings lawsuit. However, if it re-zones, and then (by a referendum) denies the owners the chance to develop based on the new zoning, I believe the City of Davis would be at risk.
In the Target case, the City Council got around this by leaving the re-zoning up to the voters. Likewise, in our Measure J votes (Covell Village and Wild Horse Ranch), the Council votes of approval did not change the zoning, but rather sent the final decision to the voters.
I would guess there is a way that sort of thing could be done with ConAgra. However, my suggestion of a takings problem regarded the way David Greenwald painted a picture of the Council first changing the zoning (by approving the project within the City limits) and then a citizens’ initiative would come later, overturning the approval of the project.