One of the critical questions posed by those who question a housing or mixed-used development is whether a business park can work at the Cannery site. Some have questioned the commitment of the site owners, whether it be Lewis Planned Communities or ConAgra, to seek viable developers for a business park concept.
That remains an open question to this day. However, the Vanguard has received a copy of a listing from LoopNet, a realtors’ database, that clearly shows that the Cannery was at least offered as a business park back in 2008 by Colliers International, a huge real estate firm, globally headquartered in Seattle, but with offices in Fairfield and Sacramento.
The listing for a “Davis Business Park” located at 111 East Covell Blvd., portrayed the “Cannery Park” as a “100-acre master planned development” that “provides a unique opportunity to plant your business in Davis, California.”
“The City of Davis is a vibrant and active city with a population of approximately 65,000 and boasts a small-town friendliness with an international flavor,” they write. “Davis offers an exceptional quality of life with its pedestrian-friendly atmosphere, ample parks, open space, and alternative transportation systems; executive housing opportunities, and work force housing in the City or within nearby proximity; a safe environment/low crime rate; a diverse, active, and educated labor force of over 38,000; an outstanding K-12 school system, and is home to the University of California at Davis (UC Davis), one of the nation’s top 20 universities in research funding.”
The 12-page listing includes a full write-up on the city, a three-page description of the current zoning, and maps that situate the city and the property within the city.
We are told that, despite this effort, the property proposal for a business park received no credible offers.
One of the critical questions is whether the timing was wrong. The city is now emphasizing business and economic development. It has brought in Rob White as its chief innovation officer. It has put forth an Innovation Park Task Force.
There are a number of studies of the viability of the Cannery Park site. The ESG study from 2008 cited in the Innovation Park Task Force report concluded, “Davis, like most desirable areas has high barriers of entry. Based on the 10 year historic and current supply of vacant parcels available for office and flex development would be absorbed in about 15 years. The Cannery Park site is in a strong competitive position to capture future business park demand, due to the existing balance of the current vacant inventory that could accommodate business park demand. Once Interland and Mace Ranch build out, the Cannery Park site will have no significant business park competition, given the existing land supply.”
However, there are concerns about Cannery as a business park location. As we noted earlier this week, Davis faces losing another large business if it cannot find the space to accommodate their expressed needs. They want to stay in Davis, but Cannery is not an option for them.
In addition to the unwillingness by the owner to pursue an industrial park, there are some other problems that consistently come up with regard to simply building a business park at the Cannery site.
As the city’s CIO, Rob White noted in a comment last week, “Many industrial uses are incompatible with residential… Noise, dust, traffic, and light can all be drivers that create hostilities within neighborhoods.”
He notes that accessibility is a challenge for the site, even as a housing development. However, the general belief is that, with 650 housing units, we could expect about 1200 residents in the housing development.
When Rob White did the calculations on traffic impacts, he cited traffic models from the February 2013 Public Draft EIR, and he noted that the current zoning “would allow for about 2.14 million square feet of light industrial and generate an estimated 15,884 trips by vehicles, based on the current transportation model.”
The mixed-use housing unit plan would generate about 12,040 additional trips. Thus, Mr. White concludes, “The current zoning is 1.3 times more traffic than the proposed housing/mixed-use development based on this info.”
Covell Blvd., he reasons, cannot accommodate that level of traffic, but we wonder if it can reasonably accommodate the housing traffic on a daily basis, either. That has led some to wonder about joint planning with Covell Village – however, remember that in 2005, traffic impacts were a huge concern for the Covell Village development and Pole Line/Road 102 has even more traffic impacts now than it did eight years ago.
There are cost issues, as well. Mr. White notes, “Infrastructure takes money, and financing in the commercial world rarely takes big risks. The formulas are pretty straightforward and can be looked up online, but the approximately $25 million for infrastructure for a business park is unlikely to be found in the market.”
That, of course, leads us to wonder where we are going to get funding for other sites that have been proposed.
Finally, he notes, as we have heard a number of times, “Maybe most importantly, the businesses we have talked to have stated they have no interest in the Cannery.”
“It is commonly known in the brokerage community, and for many of the reasons above. I specifically asked (three) users this last week if they would consider that site (working not to sway the discussion), and they said very adamantly that if that is their option, they will look in other towns,” Rob White wrote. “These three businesses represent about 50 acres of total need, so I take what they are saying with some element of truth.”
The public seems divided on the mixed-use development proposed here by ConAgra. Some have told us that they would put a measure on the ballot, a referendum. A referendum would take a lot of effort to gain about 5000 signatures needed, to ensure they reach the 3765 threshold within 30 days to get a measure on the ballot that would put the ordinance up for a yes or no vote.
Discussions have heated up. The Vanguard would like to talk with the site project managers to see if there are ways to alleviate at least some of those concerns.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Can a business park work at Cannery?
In a word – no.
The same individuals that are objecting to the details of the Cannery proposal as they roll out will go totally insane if presented with the details of a real technology park proposal at that site.
[quote]Can a business park work at Cannery?
In a word – no.[/quote]
Your credentials, please?
“There is a concept called “On the market”. What that means is a seller actually putting the property out as being available for sale. Usually that involves listing the property and letting people know its for sale. I know you are probably visualizing a sign, balloons etc. But it doesn’t always work that way. For the ConAgra site for example in 2009, Lewis Homes gave the property back to ConAgra. It didn’t go on the market- it simply gave the property back to the note-holder. In June, again, the property wasn’t “on the market” when the county payed $2.6M. I suggest you find a friend here in town who works in real estate and I am sure they can explain this all to you. Your continued efforts to explain commercial real estate values, while ignoring the price the property we are actually talking about is just kinda weird.”
-Yesterday’s weird quote from Mike Hart at odds with David’s reporting
Mike, in the context of The Cannery project, you’ve posted multiple times your concern about speculators/developers/landowners ripping off the community. You’ve also expressed your civic-mindedness. Presumably, the community can count on your civic-mindedness in our ongoing efforts to negotiate with you access to surface water from the Sac River by going under your railroad right-of-way. I’m sure there’s some urge to take advantage of the opportunity to gouge a payday out of the community, but you have made it absolutely clear that your concern for the welfare of the community is paramount.
-Michael Bisch
Not going to go there. If David ends his policy of anonymous posting, then I will post under my own name. Until then …
Getting back on topic – one of Mike Hart’s plans was a diesel locomotive research and retrofitting operation. Great idea in some nasty industrial zone in a big city. Stupid idea in Davis at a site that will ultimately have residential on all four sides.
Speaking of which registration should be working again. There are now additional steps needed including the confirmation in an email that will hopefully end our spam problem.
DT Businessman: On the topic of ripping off the community, Mike Hart owns the railroad trestle up by the I-5 bridge over the Sacramento River. This structure impedes the flow of water through the Yolo bypass and puts the entire north end of Woodland at significantly greater flood risk. Mike will make a another fortune off the federal and state taxpayer dollars that will go to fixing this problem. Great example of public risk and private profit.
So is it attack Mike Hart time because he’s for having a business park at the Cannery? News for you, I’ll bet a majority of Davis agree with him.
can’t attack the idea, attack the messenger
DP……precisely…
At least Mike Hart posts under his own name so thereby owns what he says.
[quote]Not going to go there. If David ends his policy of anonymous posting, then I will post under my own name. Until then …[/quote]
Until then, your assertions have no substance.
I continue to be unimpressed with development leadership in this town. Without the university we would be recognized as much less sophisticated than most of the communities around us.
We have land to develop, but those treating it as sacred and protected by the Gods of agriculture make it artificially forbidden. Never mind that agriculture is just another type of business-use of the land that provides minimal social benefit per acre, uses up our limited water supplies, puts chemicals and dust into the environment… for these folks farming seems to provide some level of secular spirituality replacement void of any connection to the REAL natural world.
[b]New Urbanism[/b] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism[/url] is old hat at this point, but we seem to be even lagging with respect to these community development principles.
No matter what planning and development best-practices we adopt, a key in all them for the last 40 years is the following:
[quote]the balanced development of jobs and housing[/quote]
All major parcel development plans should address this principle.
Here is an comparable community doing things the right way…
Chico [b]Meriam Park[/b] development…
[url]http://www.sethharry.com/tnd_meriam_6.html[/url]
[url]http://www.northstareng.com/meriam-park-subdivision/[/url]
[quote]The project consists of approximately 1500 homes and over a 1,000,000 sf of office, retail, & commercial on 240 acres.[/quote]
If ConAgra cannot be motivated to submit an impressive proposal that hits on all of the new urbanism key principles, instead of buying up peripheral ag land to satiate our fear of change, we should purchase this parcel and do it right.
[quote]Without the university we would be recognized as much less sophisticated than most of the communities around us. [/quote]
Without the university, we would be Dixon.
[quote]If ConAgra cannot be motivated to submit an impressive proposal that hits on all of the new urbanism key principles, instead of buying up peripheral ag land to satiate our fear of change, we should purchase this parcel and do it right.[/quote]
We agree!
Amazing, Frankly, Don and I all agree. That doesn’t happen too often. lol
LOL! If too many people start agreeing with me, I will lose my motivation to post.
But then medwoman will probably keep me going!
[quote]If ConAgra cannot be motivated to submit an impressive proposal that hits on all of the new urbanism key principles, instead of buying up peripheral ag land to satiate our fear of change, we should purchase this parcel and do it right. [/quote]
While I applaud the idea of turning down the ho-hum Cannery proposal, I’m frankly astounded (pun intended) at the proposition that the city develop the parcel. The city is simply not equipped to undertake a project anywhere near that size, and any effort to do so would be almost guaranteed to either fail entirely or become an expensive albatross around the taxpayers’ necks.
Public entities make poor entrepreneurs. They have too many masters, little in the way of entrepreneurial instincts, and are highly influenced by political pressures that have nothing to do with the enterprise at hand.
Although I have no hard evidence to show, I’ve heard rumors that UCD learned this the hard way at West Village.
As I appear to have a personal Davis-based troll, do I have to get it licensed and spayed?
A question came up about the locomotive project- I don’t really see the connection to the ConAgra site, but it appears the poster is afraid it is some sort of environmental evil… I should point out that the US EPA thought enough of it to name me an “Environmental Hero” for the work back in 2002.
On the access for the Davis-Woodland waterline, again, totally fail to see the connection to the current discussion. As a private property owner and only seek fair compensation at the current rate for the use of the land, nothing more or less.
On the issue of the Fremont Trestle (whew, you guys are really digging here aren’t you?). Yes, I have been involved in an effort to try to help resolve the Sacramento region’s flooding problems. I would like to point out in our defense that our trestle was there first- and the public agencies routed water onto us without any legal agreement to do so. I am trying to find a re-route that will not only solve a flood problem but also eliminate rail traffic in Woodland, Davis and West Sacramento. How you see this as a bad thing baffles me…
In short, it appears that no one has come up with any logical argument against what I have said and instead are trying to come up with some tangential issues to discredit me? I should point out that I also have a couple of speeding tickets, failed two classes back at UCD (due to oversleeping finals) and also can’t golf to save my life. Perhaps those will help your position. What they won’t do is help you in the least overcome your blinding lack of understanding about the ConAgra situation.
David- would you care to share the published price from the 2008 LoopNet?
[i]The city is simply not equipped to undertake a project anywhere near that size[/i]
Ok Jim. Good point. I lambast the lack of development leadership, and then advocate that the city take on the development responsibility.
But then back to my point that we seem to be underwhelming chumps when it comes to envisioning and driving innovative community development projects. See the following story:
[b]Meriam Park: neighborhood by design[/b]
[quote]As the clock ticked past 10 on Monday night, the caffeine- and adrenaline-fueled development design team members looked nowhere near running out of steam. Fine-tip pens and plastic cups scattered the floor, tracing-paper sketches were stuck to the walls with adhesive dots, and a boombox on the stairs alternated Mozart with Dire Straits CDs at the makeshift think tank for the one of the most significant building projects in Chico’s recent history.
The old Oser’s/Sports LTD store at 240 Main St. formed the design studio for 25 professionals from all over the nation—even Europe—working 12-hour-plus days in a meeting of the minds that will result in the design for a nearly 250-acre piece of property south of Humboldt Road and west of Bruce Road.
The khaki-clad group worked late into the night for seven days, having sandwiches delivered and pausing only to chat amiably with citizens who dropped by to learn more about the project and the planning process. Almost as quickly as the drawings were completed, they were scanned into computers.
The charrette culminated in a Dec. 9 presentation of what they’d come up with and the revelation that the project would be named for one of Chico’s most prominent and revered civic leaders, the late Ted Meriam.
“It’s meant to honor him and in a larger way honor a tradition of civil engagement and contribution,” said Tom DiGiovanni, the Chico developer who, along with Florida investors, purchased the property formerly owned by Enloe Health System.
“We’re imposing a high standard on ourselves,” he acknowledged. “We do it because in some ways we think it will be a reminder of what we’re shooting for: a place that will stand the test of time.”
More than 100 people showed up to hear the final presentation and were largely complimentary, lobbing a few questions about environmental effects, density and the need to maintain Chico’s character. Heritage Partners will file its plans with the city in March 2004.
The project falls into the urban planning category of Traditional Neighborhood Development, intended to create a “sense of place” by virtue of mixed uses and streets that are laid out in a pre-World War II grid-like pattern that promotes traffic flow and allows residents to walk almost anywhere they need to go in five minutes.
Meriam Park will include almost everything, from residential to retail to civic uses. But it won’t be an island unto itself, promised DiGiovanni, “It [will become] part of the cultural and social traditions of Chico.”
DiGiovanni’s firm hired the design team at a cost in the six-figure range, and that bought a level of intellect that several participants noted exceeded any previous planning process they’d been involved in.
Throughout the process, citizens were welcomed to drop by and share their own ideas. One of them even gave design team leader Leon Krier, who flew in from Luxembourg, an unwanted gift—the flu.
Geoffrey Mouen, who was the town architect for Celebration, Fla., where he now lives, said the visitors were quite welcome. “It’s kind of a break once in awhile,” he said, and the more ideas the better.[/quote]
[quote]Mouen said the houses they’ve sketched have ranged in size from 500 to 3,000 square feet, and the sheer size of the project should ensure that many of them are in reach of the average wage-earner in Chico. “We’re trying to meet everybody’s needs,” he said.
“Architecture is not for experts, but for the general public,” the captivating Krier told the assembled audience on the final night.
Maryland-based architect Seth Harry described a “café row” reminiscent of the south of France, along with realistic parking areas and a large, open marketplace with offices built above it.
John Anderson, also with Heritage Partners, showed visitors a hypothetical high school. Because it’s been allocated four acres rather than the state-required 40, it would have to be privately run, but its students could share yard space with other entities.
The design will preserve native trees and allow the creek, spanned in two spots by bridges, to meander naturally, said Darin Dinsmore of Truckee, whose field is landscape architecture. “I’ve been out to the site eight times,” he said. “Every time you go out you get inspired by something.”
Anne Deutsch, a Berkeley-based expert in sustainable design and green building, said that even with so many experts working closely for so long, there haven’t been any memorable arguments. “We’re all designers, and we all have our own opinions and want things to come out beautifully,” Deutsch said. “But everyone’s been very democratic.”
DiGiovanni, for one, seemed to be beaming the entire week. “We tend to recognize places that are cared for,” he said. “It’s ongoing and it takes a long time for the town—the civic, physical and social place—to become in the heart and mind a ‘place.'”
[/quote]
Mike: It says “Quoted on a per deal basis.”
As a Chico State grad and someone who is still heavily connected to Chico (my son starts as a freshman there next Thurs, and I am on the Advisory Boards for the Colleges of Engineering and Natural Sciences), I can attest to the creativity of this process. The hazard to avoid in a process like this is the potential for ‘incrementalism’ in planning, where a grand vision is avoided because of too many threats to a project. This process was used to create an environment of certainty, but that means everyone must agree to come to the table and accept the joint outcomes, even if it doesn’t meet their individual needs.
rob:
questions.
“the creativity” of which process?
what kind of incrementalism are you concerned about? what is the grand vision?
i’m a little lost here, help me out.
Thanks David. In short, there never was a listing in 2008:
Former ConAgra Site, 100 acres in city limits zoned light industrial and 320 acres of offsite ag land together for the low, low price of $____________ (whatever they turned it over to ConAgra for in 2009)…
Lewis Homes perhaps was willing to sell sites retail, Mr. Bisch is entirely correct about the price per foot that they sought, perhaps $10-20 per foot, I have no idea. But it obviously was not attractive enough for either buyers or seller back in the depths of the recession.
[quote]“Not going to go there. If David ends his policy of anonymous posting, then I will post under my own name. Until then …
“Until then, your assertions have no substance.”[/quote]Don, what are you saying? Anonymous comments should be assumed to be without substance and to be discredited? How about judging “assertions” on whether they’re true or not?
Are you also outing everyone who posts under a name that sounds like a real one? While I assume that Joe Smith really is [u]that[/u] Joe Smith, I didn’t really know that “Joe Smith” wasn’t a pseudonym until you confirmed it for us.
I think JusSaying is completely correct. We should encourage David should eliminate psuedonyms entirely and replace it with names verified by credit card payments (which I am sure would help the Vanguard’s finances). We could take it a step further and add profiles so you know “which” Joe Smith you are talking to and have a better idea of where they are coming from.
Good idea!
[i]This process was used to create an environment of certainty, but that means everyone must agree to come to the table and accept the joint outcomes, even if it doesn’t meet their individual needs[/i]
Agreed. Critics are a dime-a-dozen and in this town they multiply like flies on a dead bird when development projects come up for debate.
What we need in are workshops to teach residents HOW to constructively participate in collaborative and creative planning efforts.
Here is a fundamental difference between what this Chico project demonstrates and what we see in Davis.
In Chico, 75% of the population will be excited about innovative new urbanism projects in their community. Out of that 75%, 5-10% will demonstrate positive-leadership to participate in making it the best it can be and make it happen. Conversely, the other 25% will supply 2-5% negative-leadership that are hell-bent on blocking it.
In Davis, 75% of the population could be made to be excited about innovative new urbanism projects if it wasn’t for the high number of vocal and active negative-leaders working to block and prevent any and all significant development projects… and the lack of positive leadership to beat them back.
When I use the word “leader” or “leadership” I am talking about an and all members of the community working for or against a project.
There is something in the water, or our demographics, or both… that makes Davis more prone to negative reaction-ism, and less likely to exert positive energy to help innovatively and creatively progress our community.
I could see in the fall 2006 that the real estate market was already turning, and by 2007 it was falling. Why would any self-loving business buy raw land for a business park in 2008 unless it was a giveaway just to get rid of the 100 acres?
Whatever it is, put the project on the ballot.
[i]We should encourage David should eliminate psuedonyms entirely and replace it with names verified by credit card payments [/i]
Watch Vanguard participation plummet.
I know a prolific poster that used a real name, but then had to drop off and change to a pseudonym when his business was threatened by readers in disagreement, and his business was harmed by exclusion from programs by politicians that disliked what was written about them.
I would counsel business owners like Mike Hart to be careful and be prepared to take it in the shorts at some point. Once you post something using your name, it is there for eternity. You might be willing to stand by your words and opinions for eternity, but there are those in power that would think nothing of – for instance – taking it out on your business or a family member. When our politicians use the IRS for political purposes without being held accountable, it is a clear sign that we don’t live in a society where freedom of expression still exists.
true frankly, the credit card verification would cause the participation to plummet, although it reminds me i need to make another donation to the vanguard.
“As a private property owner and only seek fair compensation at the current rate for the use of the land, nothing more or less.” -Mike Hart
So when you do it, you’re only seeking fair compensation. When ConAgra does it, they’re raping/pillaging the community? You’re the one that raised the issue of the raping/pillaging developer/speculator profiting at the expense of the community. Do you see any connection yet? What are you doing that’s any different than what you’re condemning ConAgra of?
-Michael Bisch
From the minutes of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency June 20,2013
“Agency staff has attempted to negotiate a fair purchase price with railroad representatives; however,
negotiations have failed and the parties are far apart. There have been numerous meetings and contact
since 2009. In December 2011, the parties agreed upon the terms of a pipeline license agreement,
except for price.”
“In February 2012, Agency staff shared appraisal data and an easement acreage value of $6,600 per acre
and requested a price from the railroad. In September 2012, the Agency received a written proposal of
around $366,000 per year, which, applying the railroad’s proposed 20 x (times) the annual price
formula, translates to a one-time price of $7.3 million.”
I guess by my calculations you think a water pipe easement fair value is $1000/day. With that and those traffic tickets its starting to pile up.
[quote]Don, what are you saying? Anonymous comments should be assumed to be without substance and to be discredited? How about judging “assertions” on whether they’re true or not? [/quote]
Here’s what “Silent Majority” posted:
[quote]Can a business park work at Cannery? In a word – no.[/quote]
I asked for credentials, not identity. SM refused. So we have no way to judge whether SM knows what SM is talking about.
Frankly has good reasons for a pseudonym, and it is possible that SM does as well. Frankly has also provided, at times, some indication of his areas of expertise — i.e., his credentials — without divulging his identity. So on some topics we know that he knows whereof he speaks and can judge his assertions.
We can’t do that with Silent Majority. So, as I said, his statement that a business park can’t work is meaningless. On this particular topic, it seems to be mostly anonymous sources that tell us, over and over, with great certainty and not a hint of qualifying adjectives (not it ‘probably won’t work’ or any similarly hedged statement) that a business park won’t work there. But we don’t have any real estate people, or business park developers, or local start-up CEO’s telling us that. Just anonymous posters on a blog who present no credentials and who refuse to identify themselves.
Hey, I have a garden center. I think a business park might work there. So I guess I’m just as qualified to make an assertion about it. Except in my case, you can judge for yourself that I probably have zero expertise on the subject.
It would make a great place for a really, really big nursery.
Thanks for the info, Toad. So if I have this right, Hart is insisting that the city take formal action to force ConAgra to recognize that their Davis light-industrial land is worth only $50k/acre when light-industrial acreage elsewhere in the city is trading at $250k-$400k. Meanwhile, Hart, in his negotiations with the Water-Agency, is taking the position that a fraction of an acre of land UNDERNEATH his rail-right-of-way, which passes through county ag land, is worth $7.3 million. Not being an ag land broker, somebody please tell me what am I’m missing here. Some feedback on whether I’m off subject would also be helpful.
-Michael Bisch
The cheerleaders for ConAgra seem to be dead set on trying to find something other than the realities of the situation there that they can croak about…
Mr. Toad- to put it mildly, the comments you quote are off by more than an order of magnitude and the attorney later had to retract them. We had shared the price per foot that we regularly receive from a half-dozen utility customers in the same bit of property. Their calculation was off by quite a bit. That bit of correction aside, I don’t get your point. Once again, I am focused on what is actual, not speculation. I was sharing actual hard data (backed up by the actual lease agreements), not a guess. As I don’t know who you are, I have no idea if you are the Head of ConAgra development, Mr. Whitcombe or a teenager borrowing your mother’s computer- so I don’t really know your reasoning to continue to bring up random googled factoids about me personally, but I can only guess that you simply don’t have an argument about this specific issue (or are really bored)…
Back to the matter at hand, I am encouraging the people who are honestly thinking about this issue at ConAgra to stop speculating about what the land might be worth but rather simply look at what it HAS been sold for and actual data, not guesses or inadequate comparisons. The property owner has put it on the market and that value is of record ($12.5M), that was before 400,000 square feet of buildings were destroyed and the 320-acre ag parcel was sold.
What the property is worth today, with the current zoning, should be determined in the marketplace if the owner puts it on the market. My guess is not very much… I am encouraging the city to keep the current zoning in place so this inexpensive light industrial property can return to the market to create jobs for the community, not riches for ConAgra and more housing that in my personal opinion aren’t needed. I am not on this site to argue about the merits of housing, I have seen about 200 posts on the issue- my own opinion isn’t particularly relevant on the topic. I am simply saying that in my opinion, inexpensive light industrial land is in short supply and I would love to see it available for our community’s future.
Mr. Bisch- not clear at all of your point. “Raping and pillaging”? Really? I am a property owner being asked by the agency to use our utility corridor for a utillity purpose and am charging the same price per foot as we already receive from a half-dozen other utilities. We have asked nothing and am responding to a request.
ConAgra is trying to rezone their property and asking the community to accept the loss of this opportunity.
Your comparison is odd at best…
Guess I thought you were talking about SM’s “assertions” (very specific ones) about Mike Hart’s proposals and supposed locomotive business interests, as opposed to his one-word answer that conflicts with your cannery business park stand.
I’m not sure that SM’s “No” response was anything more than just a take-off on David’s headline question–not really a question since we know his oft-repeated opinion that the answer is “Yes.”
Use of a pseudonym doesn’t have much to do with non-responsive responses and making the same point over and over. There are several regulars here who (supposedly) use their own names and who post barely supported assertions over and over and over.
I’m not sure that you’d give Michael Harrington’s terse, repetitive comments more or less weight because you see his name here, you think you know him and that he’s an attorney.
Finally, I’d still support your idea for really, really big nursery at the cannery site even if you posted anonymously with no credentials. What a perfect companion to the retiree housing we’ll buy when when sell out “bad subdivision” home in order to downsize.
“Mr. Toad- to put it mildly, the comments you quote are off by more than an order of magnitude and the attorney later had to retract them. We had shared the price per foot that we regularly receive from a half-dozen utility customers in the same bit of property. Their calculation was off by quite a bit. That bit of correction aside, I don’t get your point.”
“As a private property owner and only seek fair compensation at the current rate for the use of the land, nothing more or less.” -Mike Hart
i was trying to reconcile the second statement and stumbled across the water Agency Minutes. if these numbers are wrong and retracted perhaps you could enlighten us as to the current state of the negotiations?
[quote]“I am simply saying that in my opinion, inexpensive light industrial land is in short supply and I would love to see it available for our community’s future. “[/quote] Are you sure this is a simple as you claim it is? Inexpensive light industrial land inside the city limits of Davis is nonexistent. Even the land you claim is “light industrial” is that only by arbitrary, temporary designation. Do you really believe this property is worth “not very much” when it’s value is significantly determined by its zoning at the time of valuation?
DP
[quote]true frankly, the credit card verification would cause the participation to plummet, although it reminds me i need to make another donation to the vanguard. [/quote]
I’m laughing out loud at this post and I think you know why.
no idea
js:
“Even the land you claim is “light industrial” is that only by arbitrary, temporary designation.”
isn’t that true of most undeveloped zoning?
while I appreciate your interest in the water-line negotiations, it really isn’t relevant to this thread.
What about negotiations for a bike path easement between the railroad and Conagra?
[quote]“Even the land you claim is “light industrial” is that only by arbitrary, temporary designation.”
“isn’t that true of most undeveloped zoning?”[/quote]My point, exactly. Glad we agree.
Mr. Toad- I don’t represent the California Northern Railroad which runs adjacent to the ConAgra property. I am unaware of the status of those negotiations, though for whatever purpose the property ends up being used for, bike access would be a great addition.
I do know that the proposal that I developed and have supported for the past decade would allow Davis, Woodland and the county to purchase the alignment from UP and Cal Northern and it could be turned into a bike corridor between the communities. For this to work, my railroad would work with Cal Northern, the UP, the county and three cities to build an alternative alignment that would have the added benefit of being able to remove our fremont trestle and provide flood relief.
Thanks i don’t know why those negotiations failed but it saddens me that they have not been more fruitful. As for describing your negotiations in public about the water system I don’t blame you for wanting to keep your business interests off this board just look how everyone thinks they should be able to weigh in on someone else’s business. Its shameful. Still it would be nice to know the actual numbers when you say “off by an order magnitude .”
By those negotiations I mean the ones for a bike path.
Mr. Toad- I can tell you that from my own experience, the major reason that railroads have a lot of difficulty in approving encroachments, like bike paths etc. is they operate under a great deal of regulations from the Federal Railroad Adminstration (FRA) and the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC). All of these regulations are designed to protect the public, but they frequently frustrate the public that wish to use a right-of-way for other purposes. The standard for grade separation is very high and frequently requires underpasses etc. which themselves can create an enormous impact on rail operations. The risk and hassle for the railroad is significant and there really isn’t any economic benefit so it is hard to make it work as a win-win for everyone involved. That being said, I hope that this can be resolved here.
Mike Hart said . . .
[i]”While I appreciate your interest in the water-line negotiations, it really isn’t relevant to this thread.”[/i]
I agree with Mike Hart 110% in his comment above. The Fremont Trestle is incredibly far afield from the discussions in this thread. I can not understand even the remotest possible connection.
Mike Hart said . . .
[I]”Mr. Toad- I don’t represent the California Northern Railroad which runs adjacent to the ConAgra property. I am unaware of the status of those negotiations, though for whatever purpose the property ends up being used for, bike access would be a great addition.
I do know that the proposal that I developed and have supported for the past decade would allow Davis, Woodland and the county to purchase the alignment from UP and Cal Northern and it could be turned into a bike corridor between the communities. For this to work, my railroad would work with Cal Northern, the UP, the county and three cities to build an alternative alignment that would have the added benefit of being able to remove our Fremont trestle and provide flood relief.”[/I]
I also agree with Mike in this comment . . . which of course doesn’t change the fact that it has nothing to do with The Cannery discussion in this thread.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”What about negotiations for a bike path easement between the railroad and Conagra?”[/i]
Toad, are the bike path easement discussions between ConAgra and the railroad? I could be wrong, but what I heard was that they were between ConAgra and Cranbrook Apartments.
Bisch and Hart were talking about it so I put in a google search and found the quote with the numbers Hart denies although he doesn’t want to correct them anymore than to say they were off by an order of magnitude. What made them relevant was his claim to be seeking fair compensation. Obviously the contested numbers, if verified, would call into question that claim. I tried to get the last word and then brought it back to Cannery but you opened it up again so I’ll try to get the last word again. Mom, may she rest in peace, always complained that I was forever trying to get the last word. I just wish she had left me a computer that would capitilize the letter i when i wanted.
“Back to the matter at hand, I am encouraging the people who are honestly thinking about this issue at ConAgra to stop speculating about what the land might be worth but rather simply look at what it HAS been sold for and actual data, not guesses or inadequate comparisons. The property owner has put it on the market and that value is of record ($12.5M), that was before 400,000 square feet of buildings were destroyed and the 320-acre ag parcel was sold. “
Of course if I owned a property that I thought would gain greatly in value by being rezoned I wouldn’t care at all about appraisals based on current zoning. This would be especially true If I had been in negotiations with the government that had the authority to rezone and been invited by that body to offer proposals. Now if the apple cart gets upset I might be forced to sit on the land and pay the taxes or sell at its current value based on its current zoning but since the value of the land increases by an order of magnitude if my speculation pays off I would be inclined to pursue the value added option of the rezone. The fact that others are waiting for me to fail, perhaps to try to buy my property for less than i believe i can get out of it, wouldn’t be more than an annoyance. Now if I’m a multinational corporation with a $14.7 billion market cap i wouldn’t even bother to consider a low ball, market rate offer, would you?
Good points Mr. Toad. One more consideration… the economy and hence the RRE and CRE market is certainly on the upswing at this point. Sitting on property that will eventually succumb to pressure to be developed is not a bad investment strategy.
Don Shor brings up the point of blight.
Mike Hart suggests a Measure R vote to fix it as commercial and eliminate the opportunity for residential development.
I’m not sure how and if the property can be condemned, or if and how we could use some maneuver relative to blight to force the owner to sell or develop as zoned. I don’t think the owner will move to agree to develop as zoned while there is a potential for making it housing.
But I don’t think the owner will budge even if there is a successful vote to eliminate the housing option. Honestly too, I don’t think it would pass in this town at this point.
What I would like to see is a compromise that provides for an innovative mixed-zoned residential, open-space and light industrial (office and low-noise-impact business), maybe some retail… development proposal.
How does something like that got done?
I think one of the roadblocks is the group of people that believe this parcel is the ONLY business-park development parcel that Davis will ever need and ever have. It is not feasible. And so if we don’t want the thing to be a 100% residential development, it seems that a compromise is our best approach.
We have a need for both housing, and for business. We should be working to rezone and get ConAgra to submit a zoning-compliant proposal.
Then if they won’t, I would look at our options for condemning the property. In fact, I wonder if the decision to destroy the buildings on site had something to do with the risk of condemnation. I’m not sure if vacant land can be condemned.
I personally do not support the idea of condemnation. The property belongs to ConAgra and they have the right to do what they wish with it- subject to zoning.
My personal belief is that they sold it once before and would probably try to sell it again if they did not see housing as a strong option (remember, they just need three votes right now, so not a bad option).
Frankly raises the issue of mixed use- I can’t speak for anyone else on this point, but to retain the opportunity for some light industrial is better than none. But it would have to be inexpensive to make it work.
Often, when developers propose taking some farmland or wilderness and take it out of open space and turn it into housing, they have to provide an “offset” of an equal or greater number of acres set-aside in perpetuity for open space. In this case, the developer is proposing taking light industrial land and turning it to housing. Perhaps the same compromise works here? Take some amount of land and donate it along with the needed infrastructure to the city of davis to build an innovation park? It is uncommon for a project of this magnitude to be built without some sort of offset.
As I have said, I am in favor of developing the property- but very strongly opposed to the total loss of opportunity for business. Perhaps this doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game…
“What I would like to see is a compromise that provides for an innovative mixed-zoned residential, open-space and light industrial (office and low-noise-impact business), maybe some retail… development proposal.”
I think that is exactly what is being proposed. What is sad is how quickly people are ready to dismiss the plan before even seeing the final draft.
” In fact, I wonder if the decision to destroy the buildings on site had something to do with the risk of condemnation. I’m not sure if vacant land can be condemned.”
i wouldn’t know but my guess is the structures were becoming a liability issue. Eminent Domain is a power granted to government by the 5th amendment “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” So the answer is yes it could be done but its doubtful that it would be done, certainly not by this council that has acted in good faith to try to work with the owners to come up with a plan for the site, Some future council might take up the issue but I’m doubtful of that too. Conagra would tie the City up in court for a long time and the City would end up on the hook for huge legal bills and the cost of the land worth millions of dollars the City doesn’t want to spend. Not to mention how unpopular such a seizure would be locally even among those opposed to more housing.
Since my concerns aren’t about the details, but rather about the broader land uses involved, the final plan isn’t likely to change that. But here is it, at least according to the website:
[url]http://thecannerydavis.com/wp-content/uploads/TheCanneryDavisProjectDescription20121220a.pdf[/url]
“We have a need for both housing, and for business. We should be working to rezone and get ConAgra to submit a zoning-compliant proposal. Then if they won’t, I would look at our options for condemning the property. In fact, I wonder if the decision to destroy the buildings on site had something to do with the risk of condemnation. I’m not sure if vacant land can be condemned.”
I don’t think it’s letitimate to condemn property in order to turn it to some other developer’s advantage for a different type of development than the current owner’s planned project. Don stated his idea of designating the property as blighted didn’t include condemnation, but it’s unclear how the city otherwise could force a sale to itself by using a blight designation.
Or, where the city would come up with the money. Or, why well secured vacant land is blight. Or, why the landowner wouldn’t just turn it in to ag land to correct the “blight.” Or, why such a patently anti-business move would be undertaken by a city government that’s enroute to approving the current property owner’s development request.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Since my concerns aren’t about the details, [b]but rather about the broader land uses involved, the final plan isn’t likely to change that.[/b] But here it is, at least according to the website:
http://thecannerydavis.com/wp-…21220a.pdf”[/i]
Fair enough Don.
Matt, Don’t you mean unfair enough?
Frankly
[quote]What I would like to see is a compromise that provides for an innovative mixed-zoned residential, open-space and light industrial (office and low-noise-impact business), maybe some retail… development proposal.
[/quote]
I hate to disappoint you, but we are actually in agreement here also. I just would prefer that the plan be truly innovative and have a very heavy, if not exclusive focus on low cost housing.
“while I appreciate your interest in the water-line negotiations, it really isn’t relevant to this thread.” -Mike Hart
Mike, you’re right, it wasn’t at all relevant until you opened the door by:
1) Vilifying private property owners for attempting to maximize their profit.
2) Insisting the community pass an ordinance to force the Cannery site value to $50k/acre.
3) Insisting $50/acre for the Cannery site represents fair market value.
So then I compared your position on the Cannery site to your CURRENT negotiating position on your rail right of way. You are most definitely talking out the side of both sides of your mouth.
As for the disagreement between Toad and Hart about the value Hart is putting on his right of way, is there no one out there that can shed light on this matter? Toad claims his quotation is from the minutes of a public meeting. Hart says they’re retracted comments from some attorney. How hard is it to get to the truth of it? In any event, Hart, are you saying you are valuing the small bit of your right of way needed for the water pipeline to cross under your rail line is an order of magnitude less than $50k/acre?
-Michael Bisch
Somebody quite wise once told me “In politics you don’t get everything you want.” So the question isn’t what do I want? The question is what can I live with?
Yet with the proponents aware of the political situation and trying their best to come up with something acceptable we have everyone weighing in with what they think should happen and all of them haven’t a penny at risk in this deal. If that wasn’t bad enough their attitude is I’m going to oppose anything that doesn’t meet my vision of whatever, instead of asking did they try to do something good, or can I live with this?
Still, most outrageous of all is the dismissive remark of an editorial member of the Davis Vanguard Editorial Board that goes unchallenged by another member of the board “Since my concerns aren’t about the details, but rather about the broader land uses involved, the final plan isn’t likely to change that.”
So then, what this person is saying is that it doesn’t matter, there is nothing these people can do short of abandoning this project that will be acceptable. i am flabbergasted by this and think that it is important for the community to recognize the closed minded, obstinate, knee jerk dogmatism this remark reflects. The saddest part of it all is that short of condemnation by those that oppose the project it can only be assumed that this opinion is reflective of the greater sentiments expressed by those who concur in their opposition and that the Vanguard call for an election is, as I have said before, more about obstruction than than it is about having an honest debate.
Time out, Toad. I looked up the June 20, 2013 Water Agency minutes a moment ago, but could not find your excerpt. Please provide the link, then resume your fascinating analysis of VG editorial comments.
-Michael Bisch
http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/Agenda_Packet-Part_I_WDCWA_06-20-2013.pdf
See item 5.
Mr. Toad
[quote]Still, most outrageous of all is the dismissive remark of an editorial member of the Davis Vanguard Editorial Board that goes unchallenged by another member of the board “Since my concerns aren’t about the details, but rather about the broader land uses involved, the final plan isn’t likely to change that.” [/quote]
Now I am curious. Why would you think that it is the responsibility of a member of the Vanguard Editorial Board to challenge the opinion of another member in this way. One member may have the over all land use issue as their major concern, another may have other issues entirely. Just because you personally disapprove of one members concern does not mean that every one need feel the same way.
Mr. Toad
[quote]all of them haven’t a penny at risk in this deal.[/quote]
What makes you think that one , some, or all of the opponents may have a considerable amount of pennies at risk in this deal ? Do you think that only those who have an immediate direct interest should have a say ?
Or do you think that those who feel there will be a negative, and potentially costly impact on the community at large should also have a say ? What about those who may see their property value decrease ? Is this not having a “penny at risk” ? I can’t help but wonder what makes you feel that one person’s penny is more valuable than another’s ?
[quote]“I just would prefer that the plan be truly innovative and have a very heavy, if not exclusive focus on low cost housing.”[/quote]We used to call this living in The Projects. It was not a pleasant life.
But, seriously, why should Davis build such a massive, expensive, exclusive enclave in a town of expensive houses owned by well-to-do doctors, government employees, professors and and retirees? How can it even be accomplished? Who will pay for such a development?
Other than that, I also agree with Frankly and you about a neighborhood of compatible, mixed uses at the cannery.
[quote]Still, most outrageous of all is the dismissive remark of an editorial member of the Davis Vanguard Editorial Board that goes unchallenged by another member of the board “Since my concerns aren’t about the details, but rather about the broader land uses involved, the final plan isn’t likely to change that.” [/quote]
I am not a member of the editorial board of the Davis Vanguard. I never have been. I don’t actually even know who is on the editorial board at the moment, although I seem to recall that Matt is. [b]I volunteer to moderate the board.[/b] I am independent of any of the editorial decisions made by David Greenwald. I do not give him input on content, nor do I know what he is going to post before you do. My opinions expressed here are my own.
[quote]So then, what this person is saying is that it doesn’t matter, there is nothing these people can do short of abandoning this project that will be acceptable. i am flabbergasted by this and think that it is important for the community to recognize the closed minded, obstinate, knee jerk dogmatism this remark reflects. The saddest part of it all is that short of condemnation by those that oppose the project it can only be assumed that this opinion is reflective of the greater sentiments expressed by those who concur in their opposition and that the Vanguard call for an election is, as I have said before, more about obstruction than than it is about having an honest debate.[/quote]
With regard to this comment of yours, I will say that they don’t have to abandon the project. But they would have to substantially revise it to increase housing density, thereby creating market-based affordable housing (apartments etc.). Or they would have to give over a very substantial portion of it for business use in the office/light commercial zoning.
I would note that the kinds of uses that Rob White describes as ‘incompatible with residential’ can be controlled by conditions on the development agreement, much as there are numerous conditions on the development agreement that was created when Second Street Crossing was rezoned.
The Vanguard has not, to my knowledge, called for an election. You should probably check with David Greenwald about that, but I certainly haven’t read anywhere that he has called for an election.
I have framed the housing issue and given you reams of facts. That is part of an honest debate.
So you have misrepresented my position at the Vanguard, misrepresented my views, and called me a bunch of names while doing all that. Nice job.
Yes but its a pretty outrageous statement and, i believe, a great example of the closed minded nature of the opposition. Anyway when another member recognizes that remark with a “Fair enough” retort instead of rightfully calling it out it does seem to me that the second person finds the remark of the first to be an acceptable position to hold. In fact, i would submit, that the objectionable statement is reflective of the attitude of many posting here that nothing that has housing as a major component would ever be acceptable, It is no wonder that the description I posted yesterday by my friend Quiensabe in response to your remark about the lack of innovation drew not a word of response. What is becoming clear is that the dogged opposition of the Davis Vanguard, members of its editorial board and many commentators here is that your opposition to new housing at Cannery is predetermined and that you through up rhetoric about innovation, greedy developers, sprawl, housing economics, insidious process, traffic, and access not because you are evaluating the pros and cobs of this plan, but rather because you have already made up your minds and are simply looking for ways to discredit the project.
Forgive me I retract member of the editorial board and replace it with someone who volunteers to moderate this board. i stand by the rest of my remarks.
The council could opt to put the matter to a vote themselves with three votes, as a showing of good faith. The Vanguard has not spoken to any councilmembers regarding this possibility.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]your opposition to new housing at Cannery is predetermined and that you through up rhetoric about innovation, greedy developers, sprawl, housing economics, insidious process, traffic, and access not because you are evaluating the pros and cobs of this plan, but rather because you have already made up your minds and are simply looking for ways to discredit the project.[/quote]
I have never mentioned traffic.
I have not mentioned greedy developers, at least that I can recall.
I have not discussed the innovations on this project because I think the project itself does not serve the community’s needs, therefore the innovations are not relevant.
I have not discussed access.
Sprawl is not an issue on this site. It’s already in the city limits.
So if you
[quote]stand by the rest of my remarks[/quote]
including your characterizations of me, then you now have several more things to retract.
[quote]The council could opt to put the matter to a vote themselves with three votes, as a showing of good faith. The Vanguard has not spoken to any councilmembers regarding this possibility.
—David M. Greenwald reporting[/quote]
Splendid. If you want to debate David’s comments, go for it. But don’t accuse me of making them. Don’t mistake my opinions with those he expresses.
That was in response to Medwoman and reflective of the remarks of many people not just yourself.
“In fact, i would submit, that the objectionable statement is reflective of the attitude of[u] many posting here [/u]that nothing that has housing as a major component would ever be acceptable,”
[quote]“In fact, i would submit, that the objectionable statement is reflective of the attitude of many posting here that nothing that has housing as a major component would ever be acceptable,”[/quote]
But that would not be reflective of my views. I have been very clear about that. Nice try.
I see why you are confused. I was responding to Medwoman but the computer put your remark up in between. My9:14 post should have started with:
Medwoman:
“If you want to debate David’s comments, go for it. But don’t accuse me of making them. Don’t mistake my opinions with those he expresses.”
I don’t see that I did.
“But that would not be reflective of my views. I have been very clear about that. Nice try.”
Problem is that what you are asking for to sign off is impossible and due to the economics of building new apartments with current codes for things like sprinklers for fire suppression apartments in the density you are demanding would never be profitable.
[quote]due to the economics of building new apartments with current codes for things like sprinklers for fire suppression apartments in the density you are demanding would never be profitable.[/quote]
Your credentials, please?
“I don’t got to show you no stinking badges”
I just had to say that. I always wanted to use that line thanks.
The Uniform Building Code has continually evolved over the past two decades and has made it nearly cost prohibitive to build apartments in most places due to all the additional fire, handicap and energy standards required for multi unit structures. Its costs at least 50% more per square foot to build an apartment versus a house…so unless your land values are sky high or your rents are even higher than in Davis, it is tough to make apartments pencil out.
Thanks, Toad, for the link. So, Mike Hart, these aren’t retracted comments from some attorney. These are staff comments in the approved minutes of the Agency’s public meeting from just a couple of months ago. Agency staff has an appraisal that the easement acreage value is $6,600/acre (which sounds about right to me, a grand here or there). Staff says they received a written proposal from you for around $366,000 PER YEAR!!! Meanwhile you’re accusing ConAgra of profiting at the community’s expense? Now that’s some chutzpa! Well is it really “chutzpa”? If you’re now disowning the letter, that seems rather timid now doesn’t it? Anyway, I digress. Who has a copy of Mike’s letter? Surely it’s a public document? How does this stuff go on without public scrutiny anyway? Where’s the Vanguard when you need it?
Whoa, just a minute. Toad, you didn’t read far enough into the minutes. Hart at the meeting said, “The $7.3 million amount was not an offer, but was just a benchmark of fair value.” Not only were these not retracted comments from some attorney, as Hart has claimed on the Vanguard, in addition to them being staff comments in approved minutes, they were also the public comments of Mike Hart himself.
To recap, Davis and Woodland should pay Hart $7.3 million over 20 years for something less than an acre in the far back of beyond. Meanwhile, Davis should pass an ordinance to help Hart purchase The Cannery for $50k/acre inside the City limits. I really can’t wrap my brain around this one, but I’m sure somewhere, someplace, in some era this makes sense.
PS: Keep in mind, this is for a perpendicular easement crossing under the railroad trestle. What’s the impacted area? A tenth of an acre? A quarter acre? Half an acre? Does anybody out there know? Don, you’re normally real good at researching these kinds of details. Perhaps you can help out.
PS PS: The minutes state that staff rejected Hart’s position with the agency board authorizing eminent domain proceedings. That said, they gave Hart a 5 day grace period to come to his senses before proceeding with the filing. I have no idea what has ensued.
-Michael Bisch
I’m sorry to hear that. Tandem must be really struggling. [url]http://tandemproperties.com/communities/[/url]
Sorry, sorry! I got it somewhat wrong. Hart’s written proposal was for a $366,000 annual fee OR a one-time $7.3 million acquisition price. Not to shabby!
-David Greenwald not reporting
When were they built? Of course if you are referring to new on campus housing they get the land for free and this explains why someone posted that new rentals on campus have higher rents than older ones in town.
Mike Harrington, you might want to rethink your support of Mike Hart. The minutes also state that Hart “explained that he lives in Davis and supports the water supply project.”
Well, for $7.3 million, so would I.
-David Greenwald not reporting
Tandem has so many older properties that the economics could also be different due to depreciation, amortization, taxes, interest expenses and land costs.
I once got an A in economics.
[quote]“The Vanguard has not, to my knowledge, called for an election. You should probably check with David Greenwald about that, but I certainly haven’t read anywhere that he has called for an election.” [/quote]Easy to check, just ask David. When even casual observers think David’s coverage obviously supports one side or another after months or years, he’s been able to respond that “I’ve never taken an official stand on that.” You may think you know what he’s for (or against), but guess again.[quote]“Staff says they received a written proposal from (Mike Hart) for around $366,000 PER YEAR!!! Meanwhile you’re accusing ConAgra of profiting at the community’s expense? Now that’s some chutzpa….”[/quote]This discussion seems very off topic and very confusing. David, would you please investigate these charges and provide [i]Vanguard[/i] readers an understanding of what’s happening, what’s accurate, what’s misleading, what’s significant? It sounds like an interesting story, but….
I fail to see how it’s off topic to point out that the 1st landowner is accusing the 2nd landowner of ripping off the community while the 1st landowner is himself ripping off the community. As Dunning would say, “I’m not making this up!”
Or was your comment tongue-in-cheek, JS?
-Michael Bisch
I would expect new rentals to have higher rents than old ones, regardless. I think there’s a lot built into the West Village pricing. They may even be recouping some of the fixed-equity profit they’re forgoing on other projects. I have no idea how UCD arrived at their market price. If someone builds apartments on the cannery site, they will cost more at first than the average older apartment in town. But at least they’ll be apartments, reducing the bed deficit. The current housing proposal doesn’t do that because it’s aimed mostly at a different demographic.
I’ve explained why I think the current proposal doesn’t meet the community’s needs. Usually, in the past, when we’ve gotten to this stage of a project proposal, you get some councilmembers who say ‘well, this is the best we’re going to get, so let’s squeeze a little more greenbelt and a few more solar panels out of them so we can say we’ve improved it’. But it isn’t, in my judgment, the best use of the property. Higher-density housing focused largely on the rental market, and/or business development on the site, would meet the things that I think are higher priorities for Davis. Homes in that price range are, in my judgment, a far lower priority.
We have a property owner who seems unwilling to change the project substantively, probably because they judge (correctly) that they have the votes on the council to proceed with very minor tweaking. But if it had to go to a vote, they’d probably lose. At least, that’s my guess based on past voter behavior. The question, if the council approves it, isn’t whether it will go to a vote of the public. It is how and when.
In my view, we’re at a bit of a standoff. I don’t get a sense that this project has a lot of support in town. It also doesn’t have the same built-in strong opposition that others have had. Eileen Samitz, as an important example, supports it. If I were on the council, I’d reject the rezoning. Dan and Rochelle have pretty much signaled that they will support it and probably vote for the project. Lucas is unknown, but seems likely for various reasons. Any councilmember who wishes to seek reelection will probably see the advisability of putting this before the voters.
[i]But in order for me to support it, they would have to substantially revise it to increase housing density, thereby creating market-based affordable housing (apartments etc.). Or they would have to give over a very substantial portion of it for business use in the office/light commercial zoning.[/i]
I need to understand this fixation on high density apartment development.
I suppose if you believe that Davis is going to continue to face student housing shortages, this makes some sense. However, I don’t. In fact, I think we would be making a BIG mistake building student housing expecting historical enrollment trends. Technology in education is going to change the game, and there will be fewer students having to move out of their family homes and pay expensive Davis rent.
We need balance, and balance means some apartments, some affordable single-family housing, some executive housing, open-space, office and light industrial and retail.
But we also need larger industrial business and office space. We need to open development to attract business that will attract and retain young professionals and families to replace those that will go as a result of declining enrollment at UCD. And we will need some more housing too, because young professionals and families do not like to live in apartments.
“So does ConAgra.”
Not exactly. Tandem gets the land for free but my guess is the university owns the land and Tandem has some sort of 99 year lease agreement. i have no idea if Tandem pays property taxes on the rentals or the land but i doubt the university actually transfered them title and certainly its also doubtful the university did so in fee.
Conagra already owns the land but the present value is substantial and the value added by a zone change is even greater.
If you want to discount the value of the land assuming that would make apartments pencil out in order to satisfy your demands for ridiculously dense apartments you are valuing the land at zero and arguing Conagra should get no return on investment for its equity instead of the 100% equity Conagra now has. In other words, under this scenario, eminent domain would be better for Conagra because they would actually get something for their asset.
i should have double majored Botany and Econ.
[quote]“Higher-density housing focused largely on the rental market, and/or business development on the site, would meet the things that I think are higher priorities for Davis.”[/quote]I still don’t understand why you think rental housing for UCD students should be placed on the opposite side of town when there are so many acres of university property and the Nishi property right next door.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”Yes but its a pretty outrageous statement and, i believe, a great example of the closed minded nature of the opposition. [b]Anyway when another member recognizes that remark with a “Fair enough” retort instead of rightfully calling it out[/b] it does seem to me that the second person finds the remark of the first to be an acceptable position to hold.”[/i]
Toad, I don’t think you understand what “fair enough” means if you interpret it the way that you say you did. Don’s comment clarified his earlier statement about his opinion. “Fair enough” simply acknowledges that he has sufficiently explained his opinion for it to be no longer unclear as to its meaning. “Fair enough” does not in any way indicate agreement with the opinion, only that it is sufficiently described.
If you google the term “fair enough” you will get the following definition [i]”fair enough = something that you say in order to show that you understand why someone has said or done something”[/i]
The vote to approve will be at least 3 yes but more likely 5 yes. i think the vote to proceed with planning was 4-1 with Brett voting no. i wouldn’t expect the council to use this much staff time and the owners resources and then reject the final project, maybe ask for further revisions but not kill it. The change in the Affordable Housing Ordinance allowing Granny flats to count as 1/2 a unit was direction on how to proceed so since Rochelle, Joe and Brett voted for that i think they must be on board. Dan and Lucas won the election and Sue lost while Sue made opposing Cannery as anything but a business park a major issue in the campaign. My sense is that Dan and Lucas will vote yes as well because the person most opposed was rejected by the voters. They also voted to approve the planning. Politics can be strange sometimes and with joe, Dan and Rochelle, if she runs, facing voters next year anything can happen but i just don’t see the council putting everyone through all this work and then pulling the plug. Just like those demanding an election, if the council was going to say no they should have already done so.
Fair enough!
Sorry for the confusion
No, sorry you became collateral damage. i just couldn’t let Don’s remark go without challenge.
Mr. Toad:[quote]
in order to satisfy your demands for ridiculously dense apartments[/quote]
I don’t want them ‘ridiculously dense’. The picture I posted earlier showed a relatively open plan apartment complex in South Davis, Sorrento Apartments on Valdora. That same property ownership includes some duplex units, by the way, on Barony and Valdora. You could fit several of those on just the lower half of the cannery site.
Frankly: [quote] I need to understand this fixation on high density apartment development. [/quote]
As I explained before, we are short thousands of beds already. 12,500 or so, once you add in the 2020 initiative.
[quote] In fact, I think we would be making a BIG mistake building student housing expecting historical enrollment trends.[/quote]
I’m not using historical trends, I’m using our existing severe shortage and the projected enrollment increase which is already well underway. You can believe what you want about an education bubble, but I am addressing our current housing crisis which is reflected in the current vacancy rate.
Just Saying [quote] I still don’t understand why you think rental housing for UCD students should be placed on the opposite side of town when there are so many acres of university property and the Nishi property right next door.[/quote]
Given that we are short 12,500 beds, we will need all of those and the cannery site, and probably those won’t be enough. Especially if the university actually believes they have done enough with their current plans.
It wouldn’t be any more ‘opposite side of town’ than many of the other apartment complexes already in North and South Davis. It should include a strong transit component.
Look, its not happening at Cannery whatever your calculations are they don’t make economic sense. You don’t own the land, the city is not asking for what you are asking for on that site. You are not a stake holder. Do you even vote in Davis? You are saying unless your pipe dream is accepted or some other plan adopted that is different than what has been developed through a multi-year planning process you are going to be an outspoken opponent. You seem to be conceding that there is nothing short of a total reversal of direction that you will support. i think standing by my earlier remarks is appropriate.
Repost from yesterday:
Based on data from UCD housing and their own surveys:
Enrollment 1997: 24,299
Enrollment 2012: 32,354
Increase in enrollment: 8,055
Total Apartments 1997: 7,591 Vacancy rate: 1.4%
Total Apartments 2012: 8,032 Vacancy rate: 1.7%
Increase number of apartments: 441
So with all the new buildings added, and all the units torn down, UCD and the city of Davis have added less than 500 units in 15 years. The vacancy rate has varied, but only once has it exceeded 4%. During 11 of the 15 years it has been less than 2%.
Please put these numbers in front of John Meyer. 8,000 new students, 441 net increase in apartments. Do you see why I say West Village barely covers the past insufficiency in housing for previous enrollment increases? In fact, it doesn’t even do that. And it certainly won’t cover the need for 5,000 more beds.
What does West Village provide?
“A home for 3,000 students, faculty and staff. At build-out, the project will include 662 apartments, 343 single-family homes, 42,500 square feet of commercial space, a recreation center and study facilities. The development also includes a site for a preschool/day care center.”
So UCD is adding 5000 students by 2020, 300+ faculty, probably at least 300+ staff, large numbers of graduate students.
We have a deficit of 7500 beds already.
They are adding a need for 5000 beds just for the student enrollment increase.
Total need: 12,500 beds.
They’re adding 3000 beds.
More historical data: http://housing.ucdavis.edu/about/history.asp
In the absence of apartments, where do the students go when they leave the on-campus housing in their second year and up? Out into the lower-cost housing in town, where the homes that young families would purchase are occupied by groups of students. Building high-end housing to allow affordability to trickle down to young families has not worked in the past, because UC Davis has not provided their share of housing. West Village won’t cover the deficit from the past fifteen years. It won’t even begin to cover the increased enrollment by 2020. So all the housing proposed for the cannery site will barely put a dent in the demand created by the absence of housing needed for young adults.
Squeezed in all of this are the young adults who live here and work for our businesses and on campus. They pay a premium due to the low vacancy rate. Or they move out of Davis and commute in. With the very poor transit options coming into Davis from surrounding communities, they almost invariably drive.
From the current vacancy rate survey:
“Changes in housing stock
In fall 2012, UC Davis made available about 500 beds for incoming freshman in Primero Grove (third party owned and operated apartments on campus). This was done to compensate for lost beds at Pierce and Thille halls, which closed in June 2011 (800 beds). Castilian Hall was also closed with a loss of 495 beds. Construction began in 2012 for a 1,200-bed housing project to open in the fall of 2014. The Castilian buildings have been demolished and Real Estate Services is negotiating a ground lease to repurpose the location for single graduate student housing.”
UCD has barely added to its housing stock. To repeat: West Village doesn’t even cover the deficit from 15 years of minimal net increase. The city has barely added apartments in that same time period, but fortunately quite a few were added in the previous decade. If they build out West Village, and no new apartments are added citywide, the vacancy rate will likely be below 2% for a decade or more. The only remaining large site that could house a large number of students and young adults is the cannery site. Or it could have a business park. Both of those uses would fulfill provable needs. The current plan does not.
Bottom line: student renters are a significant factor in the shortage of affordable single family homes. And duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes are often the housing of choice for young families.
I really believe the housing shortage caused by UCD’s failure to provide in the past, coupled with the enrollment increases of the Chancellor’s 2020 initiative, create the most pressing planning problem facing the city of Davis.
The burden of that housing shortage falls most heavily on the lowest end of the income spectrum. The need of the business community for more room for expansion is, in my view, a lower priority than our unmet housing needs for the lower-income demographics.
We need to be realistic about the impact of UCD’s growth. We need thousands of beds. Divide # of beds by 2.5 – 3 to get # of housing units needed.
I made this point during the water campaign as our supply needs were debated. I’ve made it during economic development debates as people tout jobs as a higher priority.
Mark West has made the point that we need to plan more effectively and make some community decisions about what we really need and want here. We have tradeoffs between land for businesses and land for housing, with Measure R hanging over all decisions.
I’ve given the numbers; you can see the housing shortfall. The city needs to partner with UCD in providing this housing, and both entities need to get going on it soon.
So as I look at a development proposal, my question is whether it meets the community’s needs in anything like the priority of urgency. First: lower-cost housing that will be effective in bringing down the rental vacancy rate. Second: economic development. Last on my list would be more homes at the high end of the price range. I fully understand those are most profitable. But that isn’t the community’s issue.
“UC Davis has not provided their share of housing. West Village won’t cover the deficit from the past fifteen years’
So why should the failures of 15 years of planning be placed upon the Cannery? It makes no sense.
[quote]So why should the failures of 15 years of planning be placed upon the Cannery? It makes no sense.[/quote]
Of course it makes sense. Planning for housing is a community process. Where would you “place” the responsibility for providing that housing, if not on land that is going to be developed?
[quote]Look, its not happening at Cannery whatever your calculations are they don’t make economic sense. You don’t own the land, the city is not asking for what you are asking for on that site. You are not a stake holder. Do you even vote in Davis? You are saying unless your pipe dream is accepted or some other plan adopted that is different than what has been developed through a multi-year planning process you are going to be an outspoken opponent. You seem to be conceding that there is nothing short of a total reversal of direction that you will support. i think standing by my earlier remarks is appropriate.[/quote]
Good luck in that election, then.
Do [i]you[/i] vote in Davis?
I am urging the city to go in a different direction than what they have allowed to go forward, so far, on that site. We are all stakeholders. We have kids and staff who rent in this town. We sent our kids to these schools, donate to them, participate actively in the community. We pay taxes here, and we are part of the community. At least, I do and I am. Do you? Are you?
If I were acting out of self interest, I’d urge a bunch of single family homes. High density housing does nothing for my business. So my interests here are several steps removed from any self-interest. Are yours?
“Last on my list would be more homes at the high end of the price range. I fully understand those are most profitable. But that isn’t the community’s issue.”
Of course the Cannery must be profitable for anything to happen. in fact the strategic planning people at Conagra need to see that investing capital at Cannery must generate a better ROI than other opportunities the company has (econ 1). Now if you or any of the innovation crazed zealots would be patient enough to actually study the plan instead of dismissing it because it doesn’t meet some pie in the sky ideal found in your imaginations you will see that only a small fraction will be high end housing. You all act like Conagra has been going along its merry way without regard to the political process that could force a referendum on the zoning change when in reality they have been working with City staff to come up with something the community will accept. That said they still have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders as well (econ 101).
‘Where would you “place” the responsibility for providing that housing,’
At U.C.
So i take it then you don’t vote in davis.
“So UCD is adding 5000 students by 2020, 300+ faculty, probably at least 300+ staff, large numbers of graduate students.
We have a deficit of 7500 beds already.
They are adding a need for 5000 beds just for the student enrollment increase.
Total need: 12,500 beds.
They’re adding 3000 beds.”
No, it does not make sense to expect the city to come up with 10,000 beds on the opposite side of town, to forego other types of housing or even business park development, simply because UCD announces it plans to increase enrollment.
What you describe is essentially a crisis delivered upon the city by the university, a crisis that neither even cares to acknowledge or solve. You very well may be correct. Why, then, aren’t we working with UCD to meet this dramatic need?
Why aren’t we aggressively working to develop the Nishi property (the closest, most logical place for more off-campus student housing (that also could include our mutually desired start-up business park)? Why isn’t the university already planning and constructing of the most logical rapid-increase student housing (dormitories)? Why would the city continue aesthetics building codes that restrict the numbers of students who can live in UCD’s fraternities and sororities?
medwoman wants the cannery to become a low-cost housing project. You want it to become a student rental apartment project. I don’t see why we’re compelled to fulfill either public works project need. And, have we even considered the prospect that large communities of either type of housing could lead to the cannery ending up as a blight area in the decades ahead?
[quote]‘Where would you “place” the responsibility for providing that housing,’
At U.C.[/quote]
I hope they will provide more than the current 3,000 beds that West Village will add on campus. But they won’t provide 7,500 more. It’s a shared responsibility. So your position is unrealistic.
[quote]Why aren’t we aggressively working to develop the Nishi property (the closest, most logical place for more off-campus student housing (that also could include our mutually desired start-up business park)? Why isn’t the university already planning and constructing of the most logical rapid-increase student housing (dormitories)? Why would the city continue aesthetics building codes that restrict the numbers of students who can live in UCD’s fraternities and sororities? [/quote]
Planning for Nishi is going forward, I am told. It will include housing.
I was very disturbed to read David Greenwald’s comment from John Meyer that they think their current and planned housing will somehow fulfill the housing needs, as they will fall way, way short of doing that. But providing housing in a university town is a shared responsibility. it involves some joint planning, discussion of annexation, water project plans. Some of that is certainly underway; I know the water supply issue has been planned.
I just don’t think our political leaders are being realistic in their assessment of what the city is going to need to do to provide our part of this housing need. I am not sure the university is being realistic, either. That is why I keep posting about this.
What will be the consequences of poorly planned enrollment increase? A tighter vacancy rate, higher costs to student and other renters, less availability of affordable housing for young families, more students and staff commuting in from nearby cities. But none of those constituents are organized or vocal enough to get the attention of city council members.
[quote]No, it does not make sense to expect the city to come up with 10,000 beds on the opposite side of town, to forego other types of housing or even business park development, simply because UCD announces it plans to increase enrollment. [/quote]
When UCD announces it plans to increase enrollment, those people have to live somewhere. I believe the Chancellor’s 2020 initiative upended our planning process, which was already behind in terms of dealing with student housing. So the only questions then were: was she serious? Were they actually going to achieve those enrollment goals? Would they provide for them?
The answers are: yes, yes, and not sufficiently.
When you host a major university in a small city, what the university does has a big impact. People who oppose growth may not like it, but the university drives our planning process. It is the reason our housing market is so skewed, it is the reason for many of the planning issues we face. We may not like it, but the university is, frankly, the reason most of us are here.
Don, probably more than any other Vanguard poster, I have agreed and supported your assessment of the serious need for additional apartment units in Davis. Mrs. Katehi’s 5,000 additional student plan will only make that situation worse.
I understand the numbers that you have shared with us to illustrate the shortfall, but there is one component that your numbers do not capture that I would like you to address please. Specifically, if we are in a 12,500 bed shortfall situation, why has the apartment vacancy rate been increasing over the past few years? I realize it is still very, very low, but given a shortfall of 12,500 beds, I would expect it would consistently be zero. Can you help me understand 1) why there is any vacancy rate, and 2) where the shortfall students who aren’t living in rental housing in Davis or rental housing on Campus are actually living? Thanks.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/UCDvacancyrate.jpg[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/UCDvacancyrate.jpg[/url]
Due to fluctuations in enrollment, and changes in the amount of housing stock. Most of the changes in housing stock have to do with UCD tearing down dorms and rebuilding them.
There have been times when the vacancy rate has been very, very, very low. Unbelievably low. And a couple years where it spiked up. But as noted above: the vacancy rate has varied, but only once has it exceeded 4%. During 11 of the 15 years it has been less than 2%. In all the years I’ve lived here it has never been 5% to my recollection.
This is the vacancy rate in apartments. Not houses. So the students who aren’t living in apartments or dorms are living in houses. Thousands of them. Students living in houses are affecting the availability of duplexes, modular houses, and older homes in town for young families. And presumably some are living in nearby cities and commuting in. Many will prefer to live in groups in houses, as Sue Greenwald liked to point out in the past. But a lot are doing so simply because there are not enough apartments. We can certainly build other lower-cost housing types for renters. Regardless of what is built, renters will occupy whatever is available. UCD added 8,000 students without providing for that over the last 15 years. We need to drive that point home to our elected officials. Any answer to the effect of ‘they should live on campus’ is simply unrealistic. Lots of them should, if possible, in which case our elected officials need to verify exactly what UCD plans to provide. The evidence we have isn’t very reassuring as to their willingness or even how realistic they’re being.
To be clear: we have a 7,500 bed shortage. We are on our way to a 12,500 bed need. West Village will provide about 3,000 of that. Some of the on-campus renovations will add to the housing stock; how much is unclear.
So let’s pretend we build 700 units on the cannery site. Students will occupy some of those, though at the higher price probably not many. And that might briefly free up some lower-cost older homes as families move up into the cannery. But as we add 6 – 700 more students [i]each year[/i], they will quickly fill up those older homes as well. In fact, at the pace of buildout on the cannery, I expect the increased availability of homes for young families (the demographic that seems to be driving this political decision) will be negligible. It will be overwhelmed, as usual, by student renters.
If we don’t build apartments, and the campus doesn’t expand housing options dramatically, where are they going to live?
In case you’re wondering when we added the 8,000 students, here’s an older vacancy rate table:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/UCDvacancyrateolder.jpg[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/UCDvacancyrateolder.jpg[/url]
Campus housing numbers: April 26 2013 Vacancy rate report.
Campus enrollment and housing
Total enrollment for fall 2012 is at 32,354, [u]up 622 from fall 2011[/u]. Not all students attend classes on the Davis campus itself, and enrollment averaged over the three academic quarters is typically lower than fall enrollment.
UC Davis guarantees housing to all incoming freshman and transfer students, and this year’s incoming freshman class is also guaranteed housing in 2013-14. The university has about 4,800 students living in residence halls. An additional 476 families and single graduate students live in Orchard and Solano parks and 1,940 students live in privately managed housing complexes on campus, such as The Colleges at La Rue or master leased space, such as The Lexington.
Changes in housing stock
In fall 2012, UC Davis made available about 500 beds for incoming freshman in Primero Grove (third party owned and operated apartments on campus). This was done to compensate for lost beds at Pierce and Thille halls, which closed in June 2011 (800 beds). Castilian Hall was also closed with a loss of 495 beds. Construction began in 2012 for a 1,200-bed housing project to open in the fall of 2014. The Castilian buildings have been demolished and Real Estate Services is negotiating a ground lease to repurpose the location for single graduate student housing.
By the way I don’t disagree with you about the need for more rentals. My disagreement is two fold.
First I don’t think high density living is good for people especially people with children. I also have leadership by example issues with you but I don’t want to go there now.
Second my problem is your fixation with demanding your personal choice become the focus of the development at the Cannery and your stated opposition to anything that doesn’t meet your vision. You demand something totally unrealistic from an economic standpoint and from a planning perspective, that nobody else envisions, and, then you aren’t even willing to give what is being planned a fair evaluation because it doesn’t meet your Fantasyland ideal. Then you get all bent out of shape and claim that your view will carry the day if and when an election is held. Well maybe it will, but if you read back through the comments of others, there are a number of people who seem to be scratching their heads and taking you to task on various arguments you have made on demanding ultra dense apartments being built at Cannery. I guess your desperation is that Cannery is the last big site available that doesn’t need a measure R vote. A good argument can be made that the Cannery is an unintended consequence of measure R. Whose fault is that? Certainly not Conagra’s.
“First I don’t think high density living is good for people especially people with children.”
So you don’t living in big cities in general is good for people? San Francisco, New York and other major cities are out?
I think you will find that as density increases the number of children per household decreases. This is why they invented suburbia.
Take a look at this article from last week it lays it out pretty well.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/003873-how-can-we-be-so-dense-anti-sprawl-policies-threaten-americas-future
Mr. Toad
[quote]First I don’t think high density living is good for people especially people with children.” [/quote]
Then again, I will ask you a simple question. Given that Davis has geographic boundaries that will not allow for further population growth at some point, and you now are appearing to oppose “high density living”, what do you view as the maximum population at which you feel that Davis would represent a community that is “good for children” ? If you are promoting growth, and recognize that there must be some logical end point to growth, what are you estimating as that point beyond which further growth is detrimental ?
All know from my previous posts that I feel that we are already approaching, if not past, that point. While I agree with David that some large, very dense cities are certainly “good” places for many people who prefer that atmosphere, I believe that there are others ( such as myself ) who prefer a small city atmosphere. I am wondering what you would consider the optimal population for Davis ? You have stated previously that you don’t know care to specify a number, but feel we can absorb “many more”. My position is that we are not able
to rationally plan without some concept of the limitations of growth, and our overall vision for the community.
Perhaps I have missed it, but I have not seen that in your posts.
For those who are interested, here is the link to the full report, entitled [b][i]2012 THE CITY OF DAVIS VACANCY AND RENTAL RATE SURVEY UC DAVIS STUDENT HOUSING [/i][/b][url]http://housing.ucdavis.edu/_pdownloads/2012_vacancy_report.pdf[/url]
It appears that the apartment occupancy numbers are over and above the on-campus numbers. Questions and comments about the survey can be sent to [url]studenthousing@ucdavis.edu[/url].
One question that comes to my mind is, [i]”How many beds does each apartment contain on average?”[/i]
Another important piece of background information with respect to UC Housing is the 2001 report entitled [i]UC Housing in the 21st Century[/i][url]http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/busfin/htfreport.pdf[/url]
[quote]The long enrollment boom that swelled American colleges — and helped drive up their prices — is over, with grim implications for many schools.
College enrollment fell 2 percent in 2012-13, the first significant decline since the 1990s, but nearly all of that drop hit for-profit and community colleges; now, signs point to 2013-14 being the year when traditional four-year, nonprofit colleges begin a contraction that will last for several years. The college-age population is dropping after more than a decade of sharp growth, and many adults who opted out of a forbidding job market and went back to school during the recession have been drawn back to work by the economic recovery.
Colleges fear that their high prices and the concern over rising student debt are turning people away, and on Wednesday, President Obama again challenged them to rein in tuition increases. Colleges have resorted to deeper discounts and accelerated degree programs. In all, the four-year residential college experience as a presumed rite of passage for middle-class students is coming under scrutiny.
The most striking signs of change came from Loyola University New Orleans and St. Mary’s College of Maryland. After the usual May 1 deadline for applicants to choose a college, Loyola and St. Mary’s each found that their admission offers had been accepted by about one-third fewer students than expected. Both institutions were forced to make millions of dollars in budget cuts and a late push for more enrollment.[/quote]
[quote] Technologies like broadband Internet and social media have helped make MOOCs possible and “reduce the friction that is holding together the building blocks” of higher education, said panel moderator Bernd Girod, Senior Associate Dean for Online Learning and Professional Development and the Robert L. and Audrey S. Hancock Professor in the Stanford School of Engineering.
“MOOCs could be to higher education what Napster was to the music industry,” said Girod, referring to the music-sharing system that created a seismic shift in how music is purchased and consumed. ”Online technologies have repeatedly enabled an unbundling, which disrupted the respective industries and their traditional business models.
Mitchell Stevens, an Associate Professor of Education at Stanford, said the move to online education is driven not by technology but by factors like contracting state budgets, which put pressure on many colleges to reduce costs at the same time they are facing growing scrutiny around performance.
“The digital revolution is a match igniting a large terrain of dry ground,’’ he said. One implication of digital educational delivery mechanisms, he said, is that they provide college educators the ability to measure and improve performance.[/quote]
[url]http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21580136-new-technology-poised-disrupt-americas-schools-and-then-worlds-catching-last[/url]
Bottom line:
Five to ten years from now, the business of higher-learning is going to be a fight between those clinging to traditional delivery models, and those working to replace them with new lower-cost delivery models. The old-guard is going to lose. Silicon Valley will kick their ass just like they have for every other industry they have attacked.
Parents seeing the opportunity to spend half or less of what they would otherwise have to spend for Johnny to get his degree, while also having more assurance that they would not be funding a 5-year drinking, sex and pot party, will jump at the chance.
Higher learning has a big problem in how it markets… it relies on prestige, ego shrines and student “good times”. However, in terms of the actual quality of education service… you know that service where the actual professor never shows up to teach his class instead of sending teaching assistants as he desperately to be published more times than his peers… there is not much going on to make it better.
We might have a shortage of beds right now, but we will have a surplus going forward.
You can stick your head in the sand believing that UCD’s sacred model of $150,000 – $200,000 undergraduate degrees is safe, but then you will require a big branded “L” on your forehead when the next Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates of education unleashes their products and services on the industry of education.
[quote]Five to ten years from now, the business of higher-learning is going to be a fight between those clinging to traditional delivery models, and those working to replace them with new lower-cost delivery models.[/quote]
Bottom line: Davis will compete well in both categories, because of its core programs.
[quote]We might have a shortage of beds right now, but we will have a surplus going forward. [/quote]
This analysis of yours has no basis as a foundation for Davis growth and planning policies. I’ve already shown you how high the applicant to enrollment ratio is at Davis. UC Merced might have a problem going forward. Not UC Davis.
“If we don’t build apartments, and the campus doesn’t expand housing options dramatically, where are they going to live?”
The same places that other people who don’t live in Davis live.
Why are you so ready to accept and build for unrestrained university growth (as opposed to building to meet the needs of young families)?
There many benefits to living in Davis or any other university town, but that one aspect shouldn’t drive our planning and zoning to the exclusion of maintaining the other things that we want to encourage. Surely we don’t need to be securing development property by calling blight.
——
Mr.T: “First I don’t think high density living is good for people especially people with children.”
DG: “So you don’t living in big cities in general is good for people? San Francisco, New York and other major cities are out?”
medw: “Given that Davis has geographic boundaries that will not allow for further population growth at some point, and you now are appearing to oppose ‘high density living’, what do you view as the maximum population at which you feel that Davis would represent a community that is ‘good for children’?”
So, now we want to emulate New York City when we abhor Sacramento living? But, to answer your question, I do think that living is a “bad” Davis subdivision is better for families than living in SF, NYC and Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit and other major cities. I suspect you agree.
Nothing prohibits Davis from choosing to expand rather than be forced into high-density living. What “geographic boundaries that will not allow for further population growth” exist here? The city limits I know of are artificial ones that already are making Davis a less family friendly place.
Medwoman, you are a physician who has taken an oath to do no harm and i believe you have strived to served in your profession honorably. You have raised lifestyle and health issues as reasons that guide your view. As such i would ask you to read the article i linked on why high density living is a less than optimal way to organize human habitat.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/003873-how-can-we-be-so-dense-anti-sprawl-policies-threaten-americas-future