I have often read the arguments that paint the slow-growth position as a fundamentally selfish position – I have mine, they can’t move in, or the motivation is to protect one’s property value, or people are afraid of change and motivated by fear.
As one poster put it, “There is an assumption by some that advocates for slower growth are doing it out of a sense of greed rather than a sense of community purpose.” This belief was bolstered by a poster who noted that another poster’s “rejection of certain business growth might be related to his concern about the cost of labor increasing for his business.”
As I read the back and forth the other day and was prompted by members of my editorial board, I realized that we have all fallen into the trap of believing the worst of people’s motivations who disagree with our own viewpoints or vision for the future.
Are there people in our community motivated by greed, the profit motive, trying to keep the less desirables out of our midst? Sure. But I think most people’s views – even those with whom I disagree, are motivated by honest differences of opinion.
I am probably not a typical slow-growther. I came to the Davis community as a graduate student back in 1996. As an adult I have lived in a few more urban settings – Washington DC, Sacramento, and the East Bay. But I have stayed in the Davis community because I have found the suburban, college town lifestyle most suitable to my personality.
As a young adult, it was fun living in Washington DC, being able to use public transportation to get all around town for relatively cheap. But a trip to the supermarket could take well over an hour, whereas here in Davis I can get down to the neighborhood store and do my shopping and be back in less than 30 minutes.
I grew up in a town similar to Davis, and I like the lifestyle. I have stayed here knowingly making personal sacrifices so that I could keep my kids in Davis schools. If that means I end up never owning my own house, I am fine with that.
I would prefer to preserve the character of this community – that means growth that is slow, well planned, and fits our community model. At times, we have allowed new developments that fit better in Elk Grove or Natomas than Davis.
While I’m not for zero growth, I do believe that whatever growth we take on adds to the community, whether it be houses for families with kids or a business park to expand our economic base.
I’m not in favor of limiting growth to protect my property values – in fact I would wager that few people really are. Unless one is planning to move to another community, property values are probably not a huge motivating factor anyway.
As long as Davis remains a desirable place to live, housing costs are probably not going to go down much – the relative safety of the community combined with the schools will assure that.
Yes, we could probably temporarily flood the market with homes to reduce the price of housing, but even that would be temporary unless we continually did so.
At some point we could perhaps grow to the point where Davis resembled Fairfield or Elk Grove more than Davis, and then we might be able to reduce the cost of housing. But even that is somewhat questionable.
If we eliminate the boogey-men, the question I think we all need to ask is what should this community look like in the future?
How much should we grow in the next ten years, twenty years, fifty years? Where should that growth be?
The university is part of that discussion. The university is looking to expand by about 5000 students. Where will those students live?
The university is also investing to become a bigger engine for economic development through university spin-offs and high-tech companies. The city of Davis has traditionally been seen as relatively unfriendly to business, but they are trying to change that image.
With the city bringing in people like Rob White, who is well-respected within the high-tech industry, Davis has been making waves. However, the loss of native company Bayer-AgraQuest has also presented a challenge.
In other pieces, I have attempted to lay out where we might be able to development economically, while still preserving the character of the community.
For me, this is not just about preserving agricultural land – though I hold that value. For me, it is making sure that the Davis of the future preserves the positive characteristics that made we wish to stay in this community and raise my kids.
One idea that I have floated in recent weeks is going back to the drawing board to update our general plan. By doing that, we could identify areas where we might develop, and strategies to make sure we continue to grow slowly and intelligently.
I have seen various models by which Davis would allow growth in several key areas, while at the same time working to put land into conservation easements. That’s one reason why I like the discussion on Mace 391. It is not that I will or will not ultimately agree with the plan, but there are some endearing qualities of the plan that might set the stage for framing discussions on growth.
The idea of Mace 391 is that we allow the development of a business park on one piece of land, while locking in a much larger swath of land into conservation easements and agricultural usages. In so doing, we are then able to see that one move toward development will not lead to the fear of leapfrog or sprawl. By controlling the land around the parcel, we ensure that one step forward does not lead to development of several parcels around that step forward.
However, ultimately, we as a community may decide that this is not when or where or how we wish to grow.
The city needs to develop a multitude of different options. In terms of business parks, perhaps we are looking at densification of Interland, a land swap of Nishi for Solano Park, or the land west of Sutter-Davis.
For residential, perhaps we like the idea of Cannery, but perhaps we like the idea of Cannery and Covell developed in the lower-third, with two-thirds of the parcels locked into conservation through a 2-1 onboard mitigation policy. Perhaps we prefer dense infill at PG&E or the city’s Fifth Street property.
By laying out our plan and our vision, we can assure that whatever growth occurs is smart and well-planned, and make sure that we preserve the vital characteristics of our community.
However, at the same time, we need to understand that reasonable people can differ on their approach. We should avoid impugning people’s motivations. Clearly there are some people who will profit from development in the community – and we must be transparent as to our financial interests – but, for the most part, most people just want to live in a good community and they have different ideas of what that community will look like.
Our job, increasingly, is to provide the place for that discussion but, in order for a good and healthy discussion to take place, people need to feel safe and secure enough to express their opinions honestly. It is vitally important that we hear all voices as we move forward into a critical period for the future of our community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
There’s an argument that I haven’t heard made. It should be stated. The idea that long-time residents are slow-growth advocates to protect their property values certainly doesn’t apply to a lot of us!. For those who’ve lived in Davis for many years, own our own homes, and intend to stay here for the rest of our lives, an increase in property values is the LAST thing we want. The more our property values increase, the higher our property taxes go. I support slow, sustainable growth because I love the Davis community and want it to stay essentially the way I’ve known it for over 30 years.
[quote]The more our property values increase, the higher our property taxes go. [/quote]
Not true, prop 13 keeps a lid on it.
[quote]Not true, prop 13 keeps a lid on it.[/quote]
Prop 13 doesn’t eliminate tax increases, it merely limits the amount of the increase to 2%. That’s currently about 4 times the rate paid on safe short-term investments.
I have always wondered why we as a community don’t have a SPECIFIC plan for how we will grow. As it is our General Plan seems to allow developers to bring to the Planning Dept proposals that often don’t fit our goals for slow planned growth.
Why can’t we say to developers – “Here are the criteria for growth in Davis. If you have a proposal that fits these criteria we will entertain it. If not, don’t waste our time and yours.”
A number of comments over the years have commented on what will happen to property values if we do this or that. Many have defended these remarks as being the biggest investment most people have. Denying the use of property values as a motivating factor defies our history and human nature.
Thanks for that editorial, David. That really needed to be said.
[quote]Denying the use of property values as a motivating factor defies our history and human nature.[/quote]
No doubt some people are motivated by their property values. That doesn’t mean that all people are motivated by their property values, or that most people are motivated by their property values, or that people commenting on this blog are motivated by their property values.
I agree with David. I like this small-town community, having lived in other sorts of communities. I hate big cities and I hate the souless sprawl of the same big boxes over and over again. To me, Davis provides a good balance of “things to do” without being loud, crowded, smelly, and dangerous.
Our schools are begging for new students to operate, our roads are joke, and the City is on a cliff with their pension liabilities. The 800lb gorilla in this town has no intention of slowing down growth so how can we ignore the need to grow as well?
I live in Wildhorse, 3 of the 5 homes in the court are rentals. A young family just moved out because the landlord increased the rent by 20% because he could get it by renting out the bedrooms individually to students. I don’t blame the landlord nor do i think this trend will stop.
Thanks to measure J/R, only very large projects will come forward, each with potential to change our town for the better or worse. Its very hard to create cool, innovative projects on a 100 or 500 acres. Measure J/R do not foster slow growth, they mandate large projects that create 500 or 1000 homes or 1,000,000 sf of commercial/industrial space in one shot. Measure J/R makes large developers rich and encourages high risk/reward projects. Careful what wish for…
Jim Donovan
[i]”I agree with David. I like this small-town community, having lived in other sorts of communities. I hate big cities and I hate the souless sprawl of the same big boxes over and over again. To me, Davis provides a good balance of “things to do” without being loud, crowded, smelly, and dangerous.”[/i]
Want to improve the dialog to remove the assessment of selfish motives?, then stop inflating the negative impacts of growth. Stop sounding some alarm that the sky will fall and Davis will decline into Detroit. Allow the business park at Mace 391, and the Cannery project. Davis not only will be fine, it will be better. It will move it forward to real and sustainable budget solutions resulting from increased revenue that derives from only one thing… increased economic activity.
The population of a place is not any direct attribute. There are no “perfect populations” with respect to the size of a city. Lamenting the growth in population is indicative of either a hidden agenda, or else the lamenter has not done enough thinking to be able to explain their definitive concerns.
From the back and forth I have developed an understanding for some opposed to growth that they are concerned about a slippery-slope. They think that a business park on Mace 391 will send us down a path of new housing demand and Davis will start to explode in sprawl. Ignoring for the moment the extremism of that fatalistic view, I think what is missing from the opposition to growth – and maybe this is why I personally come on strong in challenging them – is the almost complete void of any sense of responsibility for Davis to help develop new revenue, for Davis to support the university in growing its profile, and for Davis to support growing jobs in the region and state.
We adults also have a larger responsibility to give something back in support of young people in our community and the region. And because the university is a state resource that we benefit from, I also think our responsibility extends to supporting young people in the state.
Davis can grow jobs, and hence we have some responsibility to do so. It will be good for Davis, good for the region, good for the university, good for the state and, most importantly, good for young people currently seeing much crappier job and career prospects than their parents had.
2cowherd said . . .
[i]”I have always wondered why we as a community don’t have a SPECIFIC plan for how we will grow. As it is our General Plan seems to allow developers to bring to the Planning Dept proposals that often don’t fit our goals for slow planned growth.
Why can’t we say to developers – “Here are the criteria for growth in Davis. If you have a proposal that fits these criteria we will entertain it. If not, don’t waste our time and yours.” [/i]
There actually is, as discussed in the September 27, 2007 Vanguard article “Council Majority Votes to Maintain One-Percent Growth For Davis.” Note: the One-Percent Growth “parameter” was clarified by Council in a subsequent meeting as a [u]Cap rather than as a Target[/u]. Council also clarified that there would be no “catch-up provisions” if any individual year did not have enough housing starts to reach the 1% Cap.
I have excerpted the key provisions of the ordinance below. Wherever you see […] that means that there is additional language omitted in this excerpted copy. The full language of the Ordinance is available at [url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=603:council-majority-votes-to-maintain-one-percent-growth-for-davis&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url] in the first comment in that article.
RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS TO AMEND DIRECTION TO STAFF TO IMPLEMENT AN ANNUAL CITY GROWTH PARAMETER, PREPARE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND
PHASED HOUSING ALLOCATION ORDINANCE, AND PREPARE A JOINTHOUSING STRATEGY WITH UC DAVIS
WHEREAS, the City Council is interested in basing future City growth on internal housing needs; and […]
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council finds that an annual average growth parameter for the City is appropriate for future growth management and planning after considering:
a. The internal housing needs identified in the “Internal Housing Needs Analysis” report.
b. The most recent and likely future fair share housing needs issued by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).
2. The City Council hereby directs staff to:
a. Prepare draft amendments to the growth management and housing sections of the General Plan and the Phased Housing Allocation Ordinance for City Council review. Base the amendments on the following concepts:
City growth concepts:
(1) One percent (1%) growth guideline. Implement an annual growth guideline for residential units of one percent (1%) to year 2010 based on internal housing needs.
(2) Exempted units. The following types of units are exempt and not subject to the annual growth guideline of 1%:
(a) Permanently affordable housing units […]
(b) Approved second units […]
(c) Residential units within “vertical” mixed use buildings.
(3) Control peripheral. Strictly control peripheral units to a maximum of 60% of
the 1% growth guideline per year. […]
(4) Manage infill. […]
(5) Allow for extraordinary project. […]
Growth management system concepts:
(1) Use development agreements where appropriate. […]
(2) Use tools to ensure that peripheral and infill development decisions are consistent with growth guidelines. […]
(3) Study changes to existing allocation ordinance. […]
(4) School impacts. Work with City and DJUSD legal counsel to determine means of mitigating school impacts.
(5) Study required findings. […]
As I said above, the whole text of the ordinance is available in the first comment of the 27 September 2007 Vanguard article at [url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=603:council-majority-votes-to-maintain-one-percent-growth-for-davis&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url]
Jim Donovan:
[quote]Thanks to measure J/R, only very large projects will come forward, each with potential to change our town for the better or worse. [/quote]
So are you saying that you’ve scrapped your proposed smaller project?
[quote]I’m not in favor of limiting growth to protect my property values – in fact I would wager that few people really are.[/quote]
I’m sure I will be corrected if I’m wrong on this but sing WIldhorse as an example I wonder how big a factor growth (building more houses) plays in determining property values in Davis. Housing prices did not go down after this development was built, but instead skyrocketed a few years later, and after the bubble broke Davis homes maintained a much larger percent of value then surrounding communities. So I’m not worried that increasing the inventory of homes will lower my property value. But I do worry that “bad” growth will change the qualities of the town that make it so desirable for people. If this happens not only will I not want to live here anymore, but I also won’t be able to sell my house because no one else will want to either.
B. Nice
[quote]I’m sure I will be corrected if I’m wrong on this but sing WIldhorse as an example I wonder how big a factor growth (building more houses) plays in determining property values in Davis. Housing prices did not go down after this development was built, but instead skyrocketed a few years later,[/quote]
Wildhorse came on line during a huge surge in housing values nationally. It was more of a case of good timing more than anything else.
[quote]Wildhorse came on line during a huge surge in housing values nationally. It was more of a case of good timing more than anything else.[/quote]
But this is kind of my point. Other issues beyond inventory will always be in play when determining property values. Which is why I think it’s more important for Davis to maintain the qualities that make people want to live here in tact when making growth decisions. If people stop wanting to live here inventory won’t really matter that much.
Another note on inventory, I’ve lived in Davis for over 20 years during which time a huge inventory of houses have been added. Houses are significantly more expensive now then they were 20 years ago.
Hi Growth Izzue,
Absolutely not, we will be submitting project to City next month. We are committed to seeing this project through, I want to live there.
Thanks,
Jim Donovan
Jim Donovan:
[quote]Absolutely not, we will be submitting project to City next month. We are committed to seeing this project through[/quote]
Then I don’t understand your rant about only big projects coming forward because of Measure J/R when your project is also subject to a vote and is very small.
B. Nice, if Measure X had gone through during the recession and housing bust you would’ve seen a whole different scenario than Wildhorse.
Hi all, Davis newbie here. Interesting discussion but I’m also interested in the question of what kind of growth, not just how much. Can anyone fill me in on the council positions on in-fill growth and traffic?
To me infill (to a point) is much better than building at the edge of town, the main reason being that it will generate much less traffic. Even though Davis is a great biking town, I feel that there are too many cars driving around the downtown area and I would not want to see many more than we have now.
[quote]B. Nice, if Measure X had gone through during the recession and housing bust you would’ve seen a whole different scenario than Wildhorse.[/quote]
If Measure X had gone through during recession maybe things would have been different during the recession. In the long term I’m not sure how much of an impact it would have had on overall housing prices. Even during the recession home prices in Davis exceeded their pre-housing boom value, and despite a significant increase in inventory over the past 20 years housing prices have continued, in general, to rise sharply.
In terms of housing values, increase the number of jobs and housing demand will increase and home values will increase. Just look at home values in Palo Alto.
Michael Bisch sent me the following message because he is again having technical difficulties posting
[quote]HI MATT, WOULD YOU MIND POSTING THE FOLLOWING FOR ME?
“This article along with most past debates frame the debate all wrong. The divide is somewhat about the future, but more importantly about the present. The true divide is between those that think our community is sustainable right now, i.e. “I like it the way it is right now”, and those that believe the present condition is not sustainable.
The true divide is easily recognizable in the comments. Those that think the community is sustainable in it’s present condition constantly challenge the change advocates to make their case while rarely making the attempt to make the case that we can sustain the present condition. Indeed, I have yet to hear a compelling argument that the present condition can be sustained.
There’s a certain amount of ostrich-head-buried-in-sand syndrome going on here. Are current revenue stream is incapable of sustaining the current level of city services, let alone maintain and upgrade already built infrastructure. Yet, we constantly hear these comments about preserving the status quo. What part of costs outpacing revenue is not registering?
It is provable that the present condition is not sustainable, that we must change, the question is what we as reasonable beings do about it. For those that disagree, it is incumbent upon them to make their case if the face of the evidence to the contrary.
-Michael Bisch”
THANKS![/quote]
Michael Bisch sent me the above message because he is again having technical difficulties posting
[quote]The true divide is between those that think our community is sustainable right now, i.e. “I like it the way it is right now”, and those that believe the present condition is not sustainable.[/quote]
I think that a great deal of the disagreement is not about whether Davis should grow, but about how fast, where, and what type of growth meets the city’s needs. Not just the city’s budget requirements, but which groups are under-served by the past growth patterns as well.
Hi Lewsir. Welcome onboard!
In terms of traffic, I think you have go a bit deeper in consideration. Traffic where?
Densify and infill the city and there will more traffic in the core areas. Allow some peripheral retail as an alternative to infill and densification, and you would potentially cause less traffic into the core area as there are more shopping alternatives for people not living in the core area.
In fact, one of the risks for city allowing too much peripheral retail is that it will diminish the customer traffic going downtown. That is the fear point often used by those blocking growth. However, Davis has a captive customer base in the university and the residents of the core area.. The downtown will always have enough shopper traffic to prevent the risk of decline that afflict other cities that develop on the periphery.
A key principle of the General Plan is that there shall be neighborhood shopping centers to serve the basic needs of residents, not magnet shopping centers that draw people to the outskirts of town. Peripheral retail harms neighborhood shopping centers as well as the downtown.
[quote]In terms of housing values, increase the number of jobs and housing demand will increase and home values will increase. Just look at home values in Palo Alto.[/quote]
But it’s not just about housing value, it’s about quality of life. Driving around Palo Alto is a nightmare. My brother lives 15 miles from his office but it’s takes him an hour to get there. Public transportation is inadequate so that is not an option, neither is riding a bike to work. Middle income families are completely priced out of the market so are forced to live further and further away from their jobs, expanding the traffic issues. I’m not against increasing the number of jobs, as long as we take more then economic factors into account when doing so
[i]It is provable that the present condition is not sustainable, that we must change, the question is what we as reasonable beings do about it. For those that disagree, it is incumbent upon them to make their case if the face of the evidence to the contrary. [/i]
Well said.
If I was on the no-change/minimal-change, team, I would be working hard to support innovating business park development because the revenue derived would help make my case going forward that Davis does not need other developments to shore up its budget, and the better fiscal health would allow the city to fund programs to address other needs… like repairing street, maintaining landscaping and helping disadvantaged kids get services to improve their dental health.
[quote]Even during the recession home prices in Davis exceeded their pre-housing boom value, and despite a significant increase in inventory over the past 20 years housing prices have continued, in general, to rise sharply.[/quote]
Maybe it would be useful to pause a moment to consider some of the factors that make this true. In the 26 years that I have lived here, I have spoken with many, many people about why they chose to live in Davis.
Amongst the most common reasons have been ( not in any particular order)
1) More affordable than the Bay area
2) Good public schools
3) An engaged community
4) The small city ambience with special features such as Farmer’s Market, the bicycling community and many others.
5) The recreational opportunities both in town and near by
6) The presence of the university
All of these comments about choice to live here have been about liking Davis as it is now.
I have yet to hear anyone say that they bought here because they saw Davis as the next Woodland, or Vacaville, or Folsom. Nor has anyone ever said to me that they bought here since they knew that there were so few houses available that once they had their’s they could “slam the door shut behind them”. Now maybe all of these folks were lying about their hidden motivations, but I think it is more likely that they were simply telling the truth about why the wanted to live in Davis as they found it at the time they came.
[i]In terms of housing values, increase the number of jobs and housing demand will increase and home values will increase. Just look at home values in Palo AltBut it’s not just about housing value, it’s a I’m not against increasing the number of jobs, as long as we take more then economic factors into account when doing so[/i]
Complete agreement.
Note that I was not making a case for being like Palo Alto, I was just pointing out to those apposing a business park development to keep their property values high would be better served supporting the business park development.
Thanks for the comments about infill. I’m skeptical that adding new developments that include local shopping will prevent an increase in general car traffic around Davis. People will still make driving trips into town a couple of times a week, and the bigger the radius of the city the more car traffic there will be everywhere.
As for the discussion of the “sustainability” of Davis with and without a certain amount of growth, I do think the burden of proof here should be on those who say that the city is not sustainable without growth. Any projections that could be shared, gets some numbers going here? Thanks,
[quote]If I was on the no-change/minimal-change, team.[/quote]
Are there 2 distinct teams on this issue? There may be some people against all change, and some totally for it, but most debate seems to revolve around best ways to implement change, balancing fiscal and quality of life issues.
Medwoman: “[i]Amongst the most common reasons have been ( not in any particular order)
1) More affordable than the Bay area
2) Good public schools
3) An engaged community
4) The small city ambience with special features such as Farmer’s Market, the bicycling community and many others.
5) The recreational opportunities both in town and near by
6) The presence of the university
All of these comments about choice to live here have been about liking Davis as it is now.[/i]”
Please explain how any of these ‘benefits’ will be negatively impacted by economic development? Or for that matter, by population growth consistent with the 1% annual growth cap for housing?
Don, I respectfully disagree. I don’t know of anyone who argues that ANY change is acceptable. All the pro-change advocates argue over which changes to pursue (you and I both fall into this category based on our postings). There are, however, plenty of change opponents who appear unwilling to accept any change at all (medwoman for instance). They insist that the pro-change forces make their case, but have never made the case that maintaining the status quo is acceptable or even achievable. Why is the bar set fairly high for one group, but no bar being set at all for the other group?
medwoman, where in your list does it state that people have moved here because we have a $2-$3 million budget deficit and do not generate sufficient revenue to maintain our current infrastructure let along improve our infrastruture or make progress as a community?
-Michael Bisch
Mark West
[quote]Please explain how any of these ‘benefits’ will be negatively impacted by economic development? Or for that matter, by population growth consistent with the 1% annual growth cap for housing?[/quote]
1) I don’t believe that I have ever written anything implying that I believe that economic development would
have a negative impact. I have asked a number of questions about the kinds of development people are
promoting and some of these questions have been interpreted as criticisms because I am interested in what
people see as optimal or maximal growth. I simply don’t have enough information to make a judgement
about business or tech parks. However, I do not see asking questions as synonymous with making negative
statements.
2) This is a moot point since the city has already adopted a 1% cap. I have stated my personal preference, and
am well aware that I do not live in a time machine capable of turning back time. But I also think it is apparent
that if I have a preference ( for whatever reason)for a community size of 66,000 + 1% growth and the city
exceeds this, it will be deleterious to my preference.
Let me be more direct. Who can make the case arithmetically that we can maintain the present condition, i.e. “I like things just the way they are”, without change? Keep in mind, we have already backslid a great deal from where we as a community peaked. The roads are much worse, social services have been cut, etc.
-Michael Bisch
Notes from the General Plan
Figure 7 showed Vacant Commercial Land Within City as of January 1998. It would be useful to have that updated so we can determine how much infill is still possible, and possibly find out what policies or obstacles are keeping those parcels undeveloped. Most of the land at that time was along Second Street, and across the freeway in South Davis.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/vacantcommercialold.jpg[/img]
There is an intriguing comment on page 55:
[quote]“• The General Plan should accommodate the expansion of the automotive sector, specifically the auto dealers, by approximately 50 percent over the next 20 years. Such an expansion of the current 20 acres in auto dealers could be accommodated on the additional 15 acres of undeveloped land in the auto center district.”[/quote]
If there is still undeveloped acreage suitable for auto dealerships, that could be a significant source of revenue for the city.
This paragraph on page 63 describes the guiding principle of retail development:
[quote] “It is the intent of this General Plan to prevent major concentrations of retail uses that would compete with the downtown and neighborhood centers. To implement this intent, prohibit new designations or rezonings for retail shopping centers outside of the downtown and neighborhood centers (a pattern commonly found in other suburban and urban edge cities) because such planning is considered inconsistent with desired goals related to community character, downtown primacy, alternate transportation (including pedestrian, bicycle and public transit) and the stability of existing and planned retail areas.” [/quote]
With regard to peripheral development:
[quote] “Policy LU 1.4 Establish a distinct permanent urban edge which shall be defined by an open space, hedgerows, tree rows, similar landscape features, passive recreation spaces, buffer containing transitional agricultural uses, or similar elements.
Actions
a.Require that projects adjacent to rural parcels be designed to minimize impacts on adjacent lands to prevent conversion to other land uses.” [/quote]
[quote] “d. …
Policy LU 1.5 Aggressively work to prevent urban sprawl on the periphery of Davis and in the region utilizing a variety of legislative / legal methods and strategic land acquisitions.” [/quote]
[quote]plenty of change opponents who appear unwilling to accept any change at all (medwoman for instance)[/quote]
Perhaps you missed several of my posts in which I have stated changes that I would like to see. So I will summarize for you briefly.
1) I agree with Don Shor that more apartments are needed
2) I believe that we should have more truly affordable housing. I am however, not of the just build it and they
will come and the market will solve everything school
3) I have never spoken out against a business or tech part ( I do not feel I have sufficient understanding to
either promote or oppose any suggestions with out more information about the pros and cons…in numbers
not just statements that more is bound to be better.
4) I would like to do away with cars altogether in the downtown area in favor of a walking / biking shopping
area. I had previously posted links to areas that have successfully done this. You can hardly say that this
is change averse. It’s just change you don’t favor.
5) I would like to see a drastic increase in public transportation both within Davis and to our surrounding
communities in order to lessen our dependence upon the private automobile, frequently with only one
occupant.
So, you see, there are many changes I would like to see. Since they do not conform to your view of the future of Davis, you like to label me as a proponent of zero change. This is demonstrably not true. I just would prefer a change to a different future than you appear to favor based on different values.
DT
[quote]Who can make the case arithmetically[/quote]
None of the main posters who call me anti change ( you, Mark West, Frankly ) have been willing to make an arithmetic case for just exactly how much growth, either business or population that you see as optimal. I believe that it is incumbent on those proposing change to explain the benefits of the change they are proposing.
All three of you have implied or expressly stated either that there is no maximum, or that it isn’t important, or that the market will “take care of itself”. Perhaps if an arithmetic case were made by those who are advocating for specific changes, it would be convincing to me. However, I haven’t seen it yet and more is better is simply not a compelling argument for me.
Actually Medwoman, you have made several posts the total impact of which questions the value of economic development and expressing your expectations that growth of any kind will diminish what you love about Davis. So I believe my question is anything but moot. You have listed a number of characteristics that you believe people move to Davis to enjoy, and I have asked which will be negatively impacted by our having more jobs, more business opportunity or more houses?
More to the point, how do you propose we maintain those positive attributes when we can no longer afford to pay for them? How long do you expect to maintain your cherished quality of life when our infrastructure is deteriorating and public services are being cut?
If we don’t increase revenues through economic development, we will need to do so through raising taxes. How much more are you willing to have everyone else pay in taxes to maintain the quality of life that you so value? How will those higher taxes impact those in town who are already economically disadvantaged? How long will Davis be considered a desirable place to live if our tax rates rise significantly higher than other cities in the region.
These are the questions you need to be willing to answer if you want to keep Davis ‘the way it is’ without significant economic growth.
Sales tax in Woodland is .25% higher than in Davis. A combination of infill, moderate economic development, continued rebound of the economy (especially auto sales), and increased local sales tax can probably eliminate our deficit. The problem is, I haven’t seen the specific numbers so I can’t prove that.
Medwoman: “[i]None of the main posters who call me anti change ( you, Mark West, Frankly ) have been willing to make an arithmetic case for just exactly how much growth, either business or population that you see as optimal.[/i]”
What is optimal? Enough to pay our bills and for the City to become economically sustainable.
You seem to want an absolute population number which I think is meaningless. We can become economically sustainable by many different combinations of decreasing expenses and increasing revenues. Asking someone to choose an ‘optimal’ population in advance is simply a nonsense question.
Actually Mark, what I have done is expressed a desire for population growth that is as slow as compatible under the law. This position takes into account the known anticipated growth of the University as described by
the chancellor.
Once again, I have made no specific statements against economic growth. I have asked a number of questions that you and others have chosen to trivialize and/or ignore. Questions do not equal opposition, although you seem to be implying that they do.
I am not opposed to raising taxes. It is true that I have supported every public school measure.
I believe in paying for one’s public benefits. I believe strongly that we should be maintaining our existing infrastructure. I do not believe that we should necessarily be creating a need for more when we are hard pressed to support what we have. I fail to see how my opposition to the Cannery Project as currently proposed would lead you to believe that I oppose support of existing infrastructure. The Cannery Project and the building of yet another downtown parking structure are the only two projects that I have opposed. Again, I am hard pressed to see how this is opposition to any economic change. Perhaps you could be more specific ?
Medwoman, how would you pay for truly affordable housing, eliminating cars downtown, and providing more transit across the region? I am puzzled because you also state you dont think the market mechanism will work. This sounds like the old Soviet model. Remember, our existing semi-socialist local government is running huge deficits, with the legislature in charge of pensions and beholden to the unions; Orwells Animal Farm.
medwoman, I challenge you on your hyper criticism of any and all economic development proposals to which you respond with some truly bizarre comments. For instance, how did I get lumped with Frankly and West. My economic development and land use postings are fairly closely aligned with Shor.
And how the heck do your proposals address the structural budget deficit? I don’t know, the issues I’m raising here are not registering with you at all for some reason. This is not about the ideal population or size. What the he k does that have to do with a hill of beans. This is about how a community is supposed to sustain itself, economically, socially & environmentally.
-Michael Bisch
[quote] I am puzzled because you also state you dont think the market mechanism will work[/quote]
I have not stated that I do not think the market mechanism will work. What I have asked is for the individuals who firmly believe that it will, demonstrate in numbers how they see that playing out. I am not a city planner,
real estate holder, developer or business person. As such, I do not have enough information about how much any given proposal would cost the city for what amount of anticipated revenue for the city. It is these numbers that I would want to see before I choose to either support or oppose any given project. That is where the math comes in.
I do not pretend to have the answers to your questions about city planning which are legitimate.
So I will address your questions about my beliefs in terms of something which I know very well. In 1945,
an industrialist, Henry Kaiser and a doctor, Sydney Garfield started a new form of pre paid medical care.
They were excoriated as promoting “socialized medicine” both were accused of being communists and of attempting to destroy private medical care as it existed at the time. They persisted in their vision of being able to provide less expensive medical care more efficiently and cost effectively. They succeeded. Today Kaiser is recognized as providing an efficient model of integrated, prevention oriented health care. If they had ducked and run because some one threw the words “socialist” at them, we would not have this system which other systems in our area are now attempting to emulate as in the words of the Sutter CEO, we are going to
“out Kaiser Kaiser”.
The “free market” is not always the best solution to every problem. Government has its strengths and weaknesses as does the market. Simplified references either to the short comings of leftist belief systems such as “Animal Farm” is no more meaningful than would be my firmly held belief that “Atlas Shrugged” does not represent a realistic template for a successful society unless of course your only measure of success is how much money the strongest can compile by exploiting those who are weaker.
Here are the best numbers I can find from the city’s website:
Total revenues FY 2012-13:
Adopted budget July 2012: $39,076,219
Adjusted budget January 2013: $39,605,923
Projected actual as of 3/14/13: $42,107,914
Total expenditures projected year-end FY 2012-13: $ 41,921,814
Sales tax budget adopted July 2012: $8,451,760
Projected actual as of 3/14/13: $9,400,000
Note: Local sales tax is 1%. A 0.25% increase would lead to $2 million+ in additional annual revenue.
The ‘structural deficit’ people refer to has to do with unmet and deferred costs. This budget reflects substantial reduction in personnel, but not all personnel savings have been achieved due to unresolved contracts.
Don: Do your numbers include the estimated costs of repairing or replacing our deteriorating roadways? Seems to me the estimate was considerably greater than what was included in the budget.
No, those would be some of the deferred costs. There was a Vanguard article about that a year or so ago. I’m remembering we needed $2 million+ per year just to not get further behind, and they were budgeting less than a million.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”In the 26 years that I have lived here, I have spoken with many, many people about why they chose to live in Davis. Amongst the most common reasons have been ( not in any particular order)
1) More affordable than the Bay area
2) Good public schools
3) An engaged community
4) The small city ambience with special features such as Farmer’s Market, the bicycling community and many others.
5) The recreational opportunities both in town and near by
6) The presence of the university
All of these comments about choice to live here have been about liking Davis as it is now. […] Now maybe all of these folks were lying about their hidden motivations, but I think it is more likely that they were simply telling the truth about why the wanted to live in Davis as they found it at the time they came.”[/i]
Excellent post medwoman. Lets drill down into it a bit. First, Davis has a 1% Growth Cap ordinance, and that makes the likelihood of Folsom-like or Roseville-like or Elk Grove-like growth virtually impossible, especially since the Ordinance has a no-catch-up provision. So if the full 1% is attained each and every year starting in 2014 with a 1% growth from a base-line of 66,000 in 2013, the 2040 population would only reach 86,000. At half a percent the number drops to 76,000. With those population numbers in mind, what is the impact on the six reasons you have providedut
1) More affordable than the Bay area. [b]That will still be absolutely true. In fact I would expect Davis will be even more afforadable.[/b]
2) Good public schools [b]That will also still be almost surely true. If we focus on jobs that leverage the core competencies of UCD, I would expect the influx of students to the schools (from the parents who fill those jobs) will be very high quality students.[/b]
3) An engaged community [b]I can’t imagine that will change. I expect the people filling the new jobs spinning out of UCD’s core competency academic programs will have a high appreciation of what makes Davis Davis, and will want to be engaged in perpetuating that.[/b]
4) The small city ambience with special features such as Farmer’s Market, the bicycling community and many others. [b]Will 10,000 to 20,000 additional residents employed in high quality jobs turn their backs on Davis’ special features? I really can’t imagine they will. It may take them 2 minutes longer to drive to Central Park on Saturday, but I would fully expect them to come . . . in droves.[/b]
5) The recreational opportunities both in town and near by [b]See my answer to 4) above.[/b]
6) The presence of the university [b]Since the vast majority of the 10,000 will have spun out of the University if we pursue a jobs-first approach, how will this reason be diminished? It won’t[/b]
I am all for smart growth, and for me that means solving our municipal budget crisis and adding jobs that leverage the core competencies that make UCD what it is, and Davis what it currently is. If we don’t solve the municipal budget crisis then what happens to your six reasons?
1) More affordable than the Bay area. [b]That will still be absolutely true, but the value for money calculation in Davis will suffer as our taxes go up and the services we receive contract or disappear.[/b]
2) Good public schools [b]That will still be true, but programs will face pressure to justify their existence, and if they can’t will disappear.[/b]
3) An engaged community [b]I can’t imagine that will change even with deficit budgets. Higher taxes will mean some personal cutbacks, but engagement will continue to be high in the aggregate.[/b]
4) The small city ambience with special features such as Farmer’s Market, the bicycling community and many others. [b]The ambience won’t change much. The downtown will get a bit quainter, and a few more vacancies will happen with more restaurants replacing non-restaurant businesses, but the ambience for the most part won’t change.[/b]
5) The recreational opportunities both in town and near by [b]See my answer to 4) above.[/b]
6) The presence of the university [b]It will be chugging along with 5,000 more students and 300 more faculty.[/b]
Bottom-line any change will be on the margins.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”None of the main posters who call me anti change ( DTB, Mark West, Frankly ) have been willing to make an arithmetic case for just exactly how much growth, either business or population that you see as optimal. I believe that it is incumbent on those proposing change to explain the benefits of the change they are proposing.
All three of you have implied or expressly stated either that there is no maximum, or that it isn’t important, or that the market will “take care of itself”. Perhaps if an arithmetic case were made by those who are advocating for specific changes, it would be convincing to me. However, I haven’t seen it yet and more is better is simply not a compelling argument for me.”[/i]
I guess I read your mind. Being the numbers person I naturally wen there. I had to chuckle when I clicked on the link for page 2 of these comments and saw your question.
Actually medwoman I answered your question in the [b]Critical Mass[/b] article comment thread when I said,
[quote]medwoman, I see your question as emblematic of everything that created the Dot Com Crash. By that I mean that you are starting from a preconceived solution and then reverse engineering the process to work your way back to a problem that may or may not exist. Said another way, the Dot Com Crash happened because there were a whole lot of companies who had created technological solutions and then spent their time looking for problems that their solutions could solve. Once the irrational investment of capital dollars in these companies reached a point where rationality finally prevailed, the fact that there were no problems for the solutions to solve meant that there was no one willing to pay money for the proffered solution and the company that created the solution went belly up.
We simply don’t know enough to be able to say what the “optimal increase in population for our town” is. We simply don’t know enough to be able to say what the “optimal increase in businesses for our town” is. We need to start not with a definition of the solution but rather with an analysis of the problem. Then once we have established the parameters of the problem we can begin scoping out the components of possible solutions for that problem.
That brings me back to the statement that Frankly fathered a bit over a week ago.
— The City of Davis municipal budget is currently running at a significant deficit, and that deficit is expected to increase.
— Significant cuts to costs such as the “3 on an engine” cuts to the Fire Department and the outsourcing of tree trimming have been implemented and/or proposed, and said cuts have produced significant pushback from substantial portions of the Davis community.
— Therefore, in order to balance its budget, it is apparent that Davis needs the tax revenue that derives from increased local business growth.
— As a community, we have a responsibility to work with the university and other regional economic development entities to grow the regional economy.
— If UCD’s core competencies are collaboratively leveraged, then Davis could end up growing business at a rate of growth per year that will mean that the municipal budget deficit will become a relic of the past.
— If that kind of economic growth and budget stabilization is achieved, then aggregate housing units across all classes (multi-family and single family) could possibly grow by as much as 1% per year, which is the upward bound of the One Percent Housing Growth Cap reaffirmed by the Davis City Council in September 2007
— Said housing growth should be predominately in the multi-family (apartment) class and the City should take proactive steps to incentivize the conversion of single family residences that are currently rented to groups of students back into either single family rental occupancy or single family owner-occupancy.
So the goal is not a specific population target as an outcome, but rather the achievement of a consistently balance municipal budget that supports the high quality of life that makes Davis such an attractive city to live in. [/quote]
Don, the City updated the vacant land inventory a year ago or so. It was probably part of the Innovation Park Task Force. As for the roads, my brain is mush, but I think the number is around $4M p.a., but only if we invest $18M-$20M this year. And I’m on board with your 4-step approach to addressing the deficit although I’m pretty sure your approach includes developing Nishi, right? Also, I think we should remain open to taking advantage of opportunities to generate better than moderate increases in economic activity so long as we weigh those opportunities against other community priorities. That said, there are many community needs, particularly health and social that are currently not being met.
medwoman, you’re making my point. You have a lot of critical questions regarding economic development proposals, yet you don’t have a lot of critical questions regarding maintaining the status quo. You are from being alone in this regard on the blog. Also, I take issue with your statement about lack of answers. More often than not, the staff reports for economic development proposals are accompanied by revenue projections. Where that hasn’t happened is in the Morris proposal. That, among many other reasons, is why I have hammered the Morris proposal. The difference between you and I is that you are selective in what you choose to criticaly analyze. Where the heck is your critical analysis of the failing status quo? Where is your critical analysis of the impact of your no-auto downtown? Where is your critical analysis of not constructing another parking structure? Etc.
-Michael Bisch
It will come as no surprise to you that I both identify with and like your list. The problem for me with your list is not what is on it, but what is not on it. Most glaringly missing is [b]”A city that can consistently both pay its bills and pay to proactively maintain its infrastructure.”[/b] Perhaps that omission is due to the fact that as a doctor, your income holds that kind of practical fiscal reality at bay.
One other item that many parents and grandparents who live in Davis repeat to me often is [b]”A city where the children who grow up as residents of the city and go to the city’s schools can come home to a robust job market and work and raise their own children in the city they call their hometown.” [/b]I came to Davis long after my son was grown and out of school, so I don’t have a personal identification with that sentiment, but nonetheless it does resonate for me.
Are you comfortable adding those two “values” to your list?
The existing general plan is post Great Recession. It is irrelevant at this point because it was based on broken assumptions of economic viability that has been proven false. As it turns out we were living on the false equity of hyper-inflated property values.
So, what next?
Do you mean pre Great Recession?
Good to see some numbers (as posted by Don) – but that makes it look like the city is spending 4x more than it takes in. This can’t be the whole picture…I certainly hope…
On a separate note, there seems to be an assumption that development increases revenues more than it increases municipal expenses. I know of other cities and counties that have over expanded and where this has not worked out. Again, I think the burden of proof (at least showing a plausible quantitative scenario) is on those who want to see new developments to show how they improve the fiscal picture for the city.
medwoman, I’m not sure why you’ve labeled me a free-marketer. I’ve posted frequent on the failings of the free market particulary in the healthcare sector (ignoring for the moment that we’ve never had free markets in the US at any time in our history).
Lewsir, I’m not sure why you equate economic development with real estate development (although medwoman frequently does the same thing). They’re not the same thing. And why is the burden of proof on the proponents and not the oppents when the proof is clear that the opponents model is failing?
-Michael Bisch
[quote] It is irrelevant at this point [/quote]
I doubt that the guiding principles I listed have changed in the views of a majority of Davis residents. More to the point: a General Plan is the guiding document for planning and growth. So if you think it’s irrelevant, then [i]nothing[/i] should happen until it’s updated, because we have no written guiding principles in place. I doubt you want that, since it takes a lot of time and money to update. Your view seems to be that the General Plan should be disregarded entirely? Then what would we use as we make planning decisions?
And why am I incapable of spelling correctly on rainy days?
-Michael Bisch
Here’s a Vanguard article on the roads: [url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5248:davis-road-maintenance-crisis&Itemid=79[/url]
Key graphic: [img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/road-maintenance-cost-2.png[/img]
[quote]Good to see some numbers (as posted by Don) – but that makes it look like the city is spending 4x more than it takes in. This can’t be the whole picture…I certainly hope… [/quote]
No, the city’s budget is balanced (it has to be). The only revenue source I showed was sales tax. Property taxes bring in more revenue for Davis than sales tax. Here’s the city’s link to a budget update earlier this year:
[url]http://administrative-services.cityofdavis.org/budget-and-financial-planning/city-of-davis-budgets/2013-2014-budget/fy-2012-13-budget-update-–-july-1-2012-–-january-31-2013-7-months[/url]
The city’s budget is balanced because a lot of stuff has been deferred.
Don, don’t get me started on the roads issue. From my public comment at Concil on May 28th this year.
[quote]Mayor Krovoza and members of City Council,
In a recent community dialogue about coming up with the funding for the millions of dollars needed to repair Davis’ roads, the following observation was shared.
[i]”Speaking of millions, you have the Request for Proposal for the wastewater project that is going out, which will cost us $95 million.
However, imagine if the project only costs about $65 million, which is what staff estimated the city could save going to a regional approach that the council voted down in late March.”[/i]
A Regional wastewater option is not the only one that offers Davis residents the possibility of saving $30 million. One of the Local wastewater options appears to be able to save Davis $20 million in capital costs and $1 million per year in Operating expense. Together those two amounts combine to yield a $47 million Net Present Value savings. [b]That comes very close to funding all of the $55 million needed to pursue the Plan A road repair.[/b]
[/quote]
“• The General Plan should accommodate the expansion of the automotive sector, specifically the auto dealers, by approximately 50 percent over the next 20 years. Such an expansion of the current 20 acres in auto dealers could be accommodated on the additional 15 acres of undeveloped land in the auto center district.”
“If there is still undeveloped acreage suitable for auto dealerships, that could be a significant source of revenue for the city.”
Another thing we ought to be tracking is how the great savior, Auto Row, is doing for us and what the future holds, I make several trips north on I-5 each year and see giant parking lots where auto dealers used to thrive.
What sales tax revenues have our auto dealers delivered over the past, say, 10 years? What are the city’s projections for the future?
Auto sales are up recently. But, can we really depend on our auto dealers to be as production, given industry changes such as Internet sales and buying programs like Costco’s that direct buyers to a single dealer miles away?
I can’t spell worth a lick, but my memory on the road thing wasn’t that bad after all. Ditto Matt on wastewater. Don’t know whether $47M NPV would have panned-out, but even if it was only half that or a third, that’s some serious pocket change.
-Michael Bisch
Speaking of sales tax revenue, the latest city figures show the Downtown restaurant sector generating over half of the total for Downtown. Wow!
-Michael Bisch
Too bad the City tapped the road fund to buy 391 instead of fixing the roads. More road money was spent than O money in that deal.
Medwoman you have said you wish Davis was smaller that makes you worse than anti-growth it makes you negative growth. You also said you aren’t into real estate although you have said in the past you own two houses one occupied by your children. In my mind that makes you a real estate investor.
It also reveals something sad about Davis unless their parents help out most of the kids who grew up here can’t afford to live here. I had lunch with a young friend the other day he was complaining that like himself many of his friends who grew up here that want to come back, start families and be near their parents and the place they grew up can’t afford to do so. i think Dan and Lucas, both of whom went to high school here understand this problem.
i was talking to a big no growth guy the other day who proudly talked about taking care of his grandchild. Sadly the kid commutes from Roseville each day to be with him. Beware of what you ask for Nimby’s unless you are rich your child will not be close by when they are grown.
Toad, I’m pretty sure the road fund is for new infrastructure only and cannot be used for maintenance.
-Michael Bisch
Whew. I’m hearing a lot of – without growth, this town will be too expensive and will go bankrupt. I simply don’t believe that new developments at the edge of town will solve any of this. All its going to do is turn this place into another Vacaville. Car dealerships to the rescue? Please, this is not why anyone comes to live in Davis. It’s to get away from that stuff.
If we want affordable housing for young people, how about some new swish 4 or 5 story apartment buildings in the vicinity downtown?
[quote]I’m not sure why you equate economic development with real estate development (although medwoman frequently does the same thing).[/quote]
I don’t. And I doubt that you can produce a post of mine in which I did equate the two. I may have mentioned them both in the same post. That doesn’t mean I am equating them.
[quote]Asking someone to choose an ‘optimal’ population in advance is simply a nonsense question. [/quote]
I completely disagree that this is nonsense. I believe that just as one should chose ( not just have haphazardly) any number of children whether or not one can afford them, one must also carefully plan for what population size can be sustained in a given area. I truly believe that a community, just like a family should be planned.
Mr. Toad
[quote]you wish Davis was smaller that makes you worse than anti-growth it makes you negative growth[/quote]
This would only be true if I were attempting to act upon my wishes, which I am not. I recognize the need for growth. I am not trying to shrink Davis. Are you going to tell me that you have no wishes in your life that you do not recognize as impossible ? Really ?
Matt
[quote]Are you comfortable adding those two “values” to your list?[/quote]
Absolutely. I thought that I had made that clear by posting that I believe in paying for our benefits.
And I have previously posted that I believe that our children should have the opportunity to settle here. However, on this latter point, I do not think that it would hurt them to live in less luxurious housing until they have saved up enough to purchase in Davis just as I am sure that most of us have had to do unless we were fortunate enough to have inherited the family home.
I suspect that the residents of Davis would be willing to tax themselves at a higher sales tax rate, as the residents of Woodland and many other communities have done, if it were for a specific and well-explained purpose such as road maintenance. Particularly if it were coupled with a prudent and carefully planned economic development strategy to replace the tax in the long run.
But the voters would have to be given the numbers honestly. They would need to believe that the council and the city manager have made substantive efforts to reduce expenses. They would need to see progress on reducing the long-term issue of labor and pension costs hanging over the city’s future. The purpose of the tax would need to be clearly defined in the context of a broader package of fiscal reform and long-term stability. It is my opinion that coupling it with an aggressive development posture would likely lead to the failure of both.
[quote]“A city where the children who grow up as residents of the city and go to the city’s schools can come home to a robust job market and work and raise their own children in the city they call their hometown.”[/quote]
That is, unfortunately, a very unrealistic expectation in much of California due to the increase in housing values over the last couple of decades — even accounting for the drastic drop in recent years. Most of those parents and grandparents gained a lot of equity and live in a place they probably couldn’t afford themselves now, much less their children. I couldn’t possibly buy a house where I grew up.
“Please, this is not why anyone comes to live in Davis. It’s to get away from that stuff.”
No its for the educational opportunities.
They move to Winters or Nevada City to get away from that stuff.
“That is, unfortunately, a very unrealistic expectation in much of California due to the increase in housing values over the last couple of decades — even accounting for the drastic drop in recent years. Most of those parents and grandparents gained a lot of equity and live in a place they probably couldn’t afford themselves now, much less their children. I couldn’t possibly buy a house where I grew up.”
I’ll call your personal anecdotes and raise you. My friend has a masters in Engineering from UCD and works in the field. His friends went through the Davis schools and are well educated as well having graduated from the best universities. Unlike much of California that are built out our constraints are self inflicted. We are no where near built out. We could build lots of houses and reduce the price differential. Sadly this is harder to do now because we have under built for far too long causing the Davis premium to expand dramatically. In reality we need to build enough to cap prices without crashing the market so that we reduce the incentives for speculation while protecting existing homeowners from another crash.
” Unlike much of California that are built out our constraints are self inflicted. We are no where near built out.”
I remember a conversation with Bill Emlen several years ago, Bill and I rarely saw eye to eye, but even he believed that Davis was close to build out.
“We could build lots of houses and reduce the price differential.”
I disagree with you. I think we could build lots of houses, it may temporarily reduce the price differential, but the only way to permanently reduce it would require continual gluts of houses on the market and ultimately lowering the standard of living in Davis.
medwoman, the population that a given area can sustain is variable, not absolute. It depends on many factors including policies such as housing, land use, econonmic development, fiscal, energy, environmental, social, etc. Furthermore, as much as we like to pretend otherwise, the Davis community does not exists in a bubble and is, therefore, effected by factors from outside the bubble. I have yet to see you make the case that the current population is sustainable, or a lesser population, or a greater population. I don’t even know the answer. I do know that the current circumstance is not sustainable economically, environmentally, or socially. Each of those sub-sets is inter-related and all of them require improvement.
-Michael Bisch
Michael, sorry but I just don’t get this assertion that “the current situation is not sustainable economically, environmentally or socially”. Please explain this. And please explain how building more subdivisions and strip malls is going to improve any of these indicators. Thanks.
Michael
[quote]I have yet to see you make the case that the current population is sustainable, or a lesser population, or a greater population. I don’t even know the answer. I do know that the current circumstance is not sustainable economically, environmentally, or socially. Each of those sub-sets is inter-related and all of them require improvement.
[/quote]
And, you will never see me “make the case” for anything with regard to either population growth or economic growth since I do not have the requisite information. What I have stated is my preference for as slow a population growth as is acceptable by law and I have asked for information about people’s views on economic growth. To say that I am attempting to “make a case” would be roughly the equivalent of you asking me how long it will take to do a hysterectomy and me responding that you are trying to prevent me from doing it.
My preference as a surgeon is to “first, do no harm”. In surgery, this would mean to attempt to do as little as possible to take care of the problem since all actions ( including no action ) carry with them unintended consequences.
The problem I am having is that asking questions in and of itself seems to unleash what I see as unwarranted hostility. If you don’t know the answer, that is fine. As you said in your last post. This I can fully accept. What is difficult for me to accept is that because an answer is not known, then the question itself must be nonsense.
MIchael
[quote]I do know that the current circumstance is not sustainable economically, environmentally, or socially. Each of those sub-sets is inter-related and all of them require improvement.
[/quote]
I also am curious about this statement. “The current circumstance” is never static and is dependent on all of the factors of your latest post and probably a lot more. You are right, Davis does not exist in a bubble. And, the overall economy has been improving in the last couple of years albeit more slowly than anyone would like. This in and of itself will affect “the current circumstance” in Davis. Perhaps enough to address some of the problems you are citing.
Just for a moment, I would like to address one aspect of one of your three specified areas, the social environment. Taking the schools in particular. On these pages frequent reference is made to the fact the Davis schools are currently “importing students” from surrounding communities. One can look at this “problem” if indeed it is one, in two very different ways. First one could say that the root cause is that families with school age children cannot afford to live in Davis and therefore we need to make more appropriate housing available for them. The other way of seeing this is that the root cause is that there was an over estimate of how many children to prepare for when the last schools were built. This would leave us with the situation in which we built beyond our actual need. If this latter situation were to apply, the answer in my mind would not be to simply build more ( either houses or schools) to grow our way out of trouble. Eventually as Mr. Toad noted,
[quote]In reality we need to build enough to cap prices without crashing the market so that we reduce the incentives for speculation while protecting existing homeowners from another crash.[/quote]
So the question that I am proposing, with regard to housing, is where is that point ? Mr. Toad has said in the past that he “is not worried about it” and that we can accommodate “many more” without specifying what he means by “many”. Again, I do not oppose the 1% population growth cap that is already in place, so if anyone’s argument is for remaining in that cap, we are in agreement. I am not sure that this is what I am hearing and so am seeking clarification and the views of others.
[quote]The other way of seeing this is that the root cause is that there was an over estimate of how many children to prepare for when the last schools were built.[/quote]
That is exactly what happened. The district underestimated student enrollment, then overestimated it based on the high growth rate Davis experienced in the 1980’s. They overbuilt elementary schools. We have at least one more than necessary. Interdistrict transfers have helped the district keep the facilities used at optimal staffing levels, and reduced the need for boundary changes and other dislocating management practices.
We experienced the problems when the schools were overcrowded, as our kids were displaced. Before that, the boundary changes that were implemented as schools were reconfigured caused a huge hue and cry among parents. When cities grow faster than their school districts can accommodate, it causes lots of disruption. Davis and Elk Grove, in particular, had lots of problems with that in the 1990’s.
Don, can you anticipate perfectly the demand of every item stocked in your retail establishment? Of course not. It is ridiculous to accuse others from over and underestimating the growth of student population. There are so many uncontrollable factors that it would be impossible to be perfect at this… especially with things like Measure R and Measure J.
When cities grow slower than their districts can anticipate, it causes a lot of disruption.
Lewsir said . . .
[i]”Michael, sorry but I just don’t get this assertion that “the current situation is not sustainable economically, environmentally or socially”. Please explain this. And [b]please explain how building more subdivisions and strip malls[/b] is going to improve any of these indicators. Thanks.”[/i]
Lewsir, there are very few (if any) people posting in the Vanguard who are advocating building more strip malls. Frankly may be the only exception. There are a few people advocating building more subdivisions, Mr. Toad being the most vocal, but even there the focus isn’t on subdivisions per se, but rather on al types of housing that will affect the supply/demand curve and drive down the cost of housing for people who want to move to Davis but can’t afford a home at current Davis prices.
Back in January 2008, then City Finance Director Paul Navasio made a presentation to the Housing Element Steering Committee supported by a 20-page document entitled “Fiscal Considerations in Review of Housing Development Opportunities.” In that presentation Paul told the HESC that the City’s municipal budget fiscal break even point for a single family residence was with a sales price of between $400 and $450 thousand dollars. That clearly indicates that housing regardless of whether it is in a subdivision or not is not going help the economic sustainability of the community. On the other hand, building more jobs in the community will do that IMHO.
I ran into the following old post about the Housing Element Steering Committee process earlier today that I think is very germane to this discussion.
Concerned Citizen said…
[i]I also noticed in the HESC list of decision making choices used to rate a site, there really wasn’t a clear alternative that talked about growth rate concerns, impact of cost in new services; promoting commercial development; etc. A lot of items of deep concern to many citizens were left out of the process. I wonder why?[/i]
CC, the decision making principles you are so concerned about were settled on as a result of the public input from the first Community Workshop. As the guide for that workshop said, “The focus of the first workshop was on the important “factors” that should
be used in selecting and evaluating potential sites for their suitability to
meet Davis’ near-and longer-term housing needs.
The workshop participants were asked to place red dots next to factors that they believed are most
important in evaluating potential sites for housing overall. The complete list of factors on which a participant could place a dot was taken directly from the Davis General Plan.
The minutes of that Workshop reflect the following:
TOP TEN FACTORS (based on red dot tally)
1. Overall proximity to community facilities.
2. Acres of prime agricultural soils converted to urban use.
3. Opportunity to provide for identified housing needs.
4. Water supply and distribution issues; Sanitary sewer collection issues.
5. Maintain or “leap over” an Urban Agricultural Transition Area (UATA)
designated in the City’s General Plan.
6. Opportunity to promote higher density housing in downtown and in
neighborhood centers.
7. Opportunity to contribute to the City’s open space system consisting of
connected “greenways.”
8. Bicycle mobility issues.
9. Mobility connections, connecting neighborhoods and bike paths.
10. Fire department services.
SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FACTORS
1. Impacts of new development traffic on existing neighborhoods.
2. Potential to encourage walkability, and access to walkable and bikeable
amenities.
3. Best locations for student and university employee housing.
4. Proximity to Amtrak transportation hub.
5. Potential of providing for housing types and styles not now available in Davis.
So, bottom-line, if there are factors that you believe are missing, they are missing as a direct product of the democratic process.
I am not in favor of strip malls. I am in favor of a power-lifestyle center. It would be supported without material impact to the downtown. It would generate tax revenue. It would attract shoppers from outside of the area.
I would support infill retail development if we had the land and property to do so. We don’t.
Someone posted that Davis restaurants are responsible for over 50% of the retail tax revenue. I would focus the downtown on entertainment and boutique shops, and add peripheral shopping options that currently don’t exist or do not fit well in a more pedestrian, less car, friendly retail environment.
Don Shor: [i]That is exactly what happened. The district underestimated student enrollment, then overestimated it based on the high growth rate Davis experienced in the 1980’s. They overbuilt elementary schools. We have at least one more than necessary. Interdistrict transfers have helped the district keep the facilities used at optimal staffing levels, and reduced the need for boundary changes and other dislocating management practices. [/i]
It didn’t help that the city passed two rather contradictory measures in 2000. Measure J passed in 2000 leading to a more restrictive phase in city development, while at the same time passing the Measure K school bond issue rather overwhelmingly to build new schools.
[quote]Don, can you anticipate perfectly the demand of every item stocked in your retail establishment? Of course not. It is ridiculous to accuse others from over and underestimating the growth of student population. There are so many uncontrollable factors that it would be impossible to be perfect at this… especially with things like Measure R and Measure J.
When cities grow slower than their districts can anticipate, it causes a lot of disruption.[/quote]
I wasn’t “accusing” anyone of anything. It was a [i]fact[/i], that was freely acknowledged by the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent at the time. I was very, very familiar with their methodology and all of the variables they were dealing with, because the placement of my children was being affected day by day at the start of each school year for about three years.
The mistake, also acknowledged by just about everyone, was making long-term growth projections regarding facilities needs based on previous growth. Everyone knew that the city had front-loaded the housing allocations around the time of the 1987 General Plan. There was a projected population, and the city adhered to that.
Slow growth and under-filled facilities are much easier to deal with than overcrowded schools. The interdistrict transfers give DJUSD a simple tool for keeping school balanced. When the schools are overcrowded, you just have to keep adding temporary buildings and packing more kids into each classroom. It should be apparent which leads to a better learning experience. Most important, in my opinion as someone who has dealt with the adverse consequences of poor school district planning, is reliable, predictable student population for the district to apportion. Steady growth can accommodate that, as can no-growth.
A General Plan that describes the housing allocation and the expected population of the city over a decade’s time is a very useful tool for that kind of planning. Another argument for updating at least some portions of the General Plan.
Power centers, from Wikipedia; [quote]A power center is an unenclosed shopping center with 250,000 square feet (23,000 m2) to 750,000 square feet (70,000 m2) of gross leasable area[1] that usually contains three or more big box retailers and various smaller retailers (usually located in strip plazas) with a common parking area shared among the retailers.[/quote]
Just another peripheral mall. DOA.
[quote]TOP TEN FACTORS (based on red dot tally)
1. Overall proximity to community facilities.
[b]2. Acres of prime agricultural soils converted to urban use[/b]. [/quote]
Good to see.
Just to repeat this portion from the General Plan about retail:
[quote]“It is the intent of this General Plan to prevent major concentrations of retail uses that would compete with the downtown and neighborhood centers. To implement this intent, prohibit new designations or rezonings for retail shopping centers outside of the downtown and neighborhood centers (a pattern commonly found in other suburban and urban edge cities) because such planning is considered inconsistent with desired goals related to community character, downtown primacy, alternate transportation (including pedestrian, bicycle and public transit) and the stability of existing and planned retail areas.”[/quote]
The point is to create and protect neighborhood shopping opportunities and prevent retail from drawing traffic away from downtown (“downtown primacy”). It has been quite apparent over the years that some blog participants disagree with this as a policy guideline. If so, and if they believe there is a different community consensus prevailing now, that would be discussed during an update of the General Plan. Personally, I think they are wrong about such a major change in the views of Davisites. But we can certainly test that during the course of public hearings about an update.
“The complete list of factors on which a participant could place a dot was taken directly from the Davis General Plan.”
It’s interesting that the General Plan list has no consideration for economic development or financial sustainability of city services other than fire protection.
I hadn’t heard about the Housing Element Steering Committee process that Matt describes, but the red-dot rankings are interesting. I wonder how representative the participants were and when the workshop was held.
With respect to medwoman’s “chicken or egg” question about schools, I agree that it’s complicated. But, why do we have so many fewer school-age children in the same number of houses and apartments. We already have closed schools as a result and at least one more would have to be closed if we hadn’t recruited more than 500 students from other districts.
While this strategy temporarily keeps us from going the agonies of closing yet another school, It’s obvious that the state payments which come with these outside students don’t come close to the costs of maintaining the infrastructure and paying staffing and other costs of educating them.
What are the projections for Davis student numbers for the next two decades? At some point, we’ll have to bite the bullet and close schools instead of subsidizing the education of folks from outside the district.
wdf1, do you know if the outside applicants have a choice of schools, or are they assigned specific locations in order to plug them into classrooms for balance?
For those who question the primacy and legal foundation of the General Plan as a guide to planning decisions, here is a link that you might find useful:
[url]http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/planning_guide/plan_index.html#anchor156525[/url]
Davis is a general law city: [quote] To illustrate its importance, all subdivisions, public works projects, and zoning decisions (except in charter cities other than Los Angeles) must be consistent with the general plan. If inconsistent, they must not be approved.[/quote]
[quote]I hadn’t heard about the Housing Element Steering Committee process that Matt describes, but the red-dot rankings are interesting. I wonder how representative the participants were and when the workshop was held. [/quote]
The HESC met over many months in 2007 – 8.
[quote]But, why do we have so many fewer school-age children in the same number of houses and apartments.[/quote]
Because college students don’t have many kids, and they are crowding out young families from the rental housing that is here.
[quote]While this strategy temporarily keeps us from going the agonies of closing yet another school, It’s obvious that the state payments which come with these outside students don’t come close to the costs of maintaining the infrastructure and paying staffing and other costs of educating them. [/quote]
Sure it does. Why do you think otherwise?
[quote]At some point, we’ll have to bite the bullet and close schools instead of subsidizing the education of folks from outside the district. [/quote]
It would be appropriate, but politically very difficult, for DJUSD to close one elementary school right now.
[quote]do you know if the outside applicants have a choice of schools, or are they assigned specific locations in order to plug them into classrooms for balance?[/quote]
Interdistrict transfer students apply to the district. They are assigned to a specific school by the administration based on space availability.
JustSaying: [i]wdf1, do you know if the outside applicants have a choice of schools, or are they assigned specific locations in order to plug them into classrooms for balance?[/i]
I don’t know for certain how much choice an outside applicant has. I do know that beyond a certain deadline, in preparation for the coming school year, that some schools/grades/classes are determined to be full, and that space at a specific campuses is not guaranteed, even if a family moves into that school’s neighborhood, say in the late summer. That family can apply to get into the neighborhood school for the following year, however, if they make their wishes known in time.
I don’t mean to be a whiner, but I wonder how those new folks feel when they cannot get their kids in the school next door because it’s already filled to capacity by outside transfer students?
the way it’s set up, that can’t actually happen.
“It’s obvious that the state payments which come with these outside students don’t come close to the costs of maintaining the infrastructure and paying staffing and other costs of educating them.”
“Sure it does. Why do you think otherwise?”
Simple, because our district has been spending reserves and parcel tax revenues.
so here’s why you’re wrong just saying. let’s say that the school district loses ten students this year. doesn’t sound like a lot, but because the school district is losing students spread out across the schools and grades, they have to maintain the same level of staffing. so what do they do? they bring in ten kids from outside the district, and now they don’t have to cut staffing and they have made up for the deficit. that’s the simplified version.
“the way it’s set up, that can’t actually happen.”
How’s that? There are 500+ outsiders already ensconced in our schools. How is it set up so that none of them would be in schools that are too full to accommodate the new kids who live a block away?
you’re not looking at the rules.
Parcel tax revenues are for specific programs and services. The district has maintained a reserve. It doesn’t cost more or less because some students are transferring their ADA funding from another district here. The presence of interdistrict students has enabled the district to keep an extra elementary school open.
The difference is that interdistrict families can’t be charged the parcel tax. But the parcel tax is paid by property owners; it isn’t related to the number of students in the school or in the district. Many people pay that tax who don’t have kids in the schools here, and many people who have kids in the schools here don’t pay it (at least not directly).
There are several hundred transfer students in DJUSD, at ADA funding of about $8,000 each.
“No student currently residing within a school’s attendance area shall be displaced by another student transferring from outside the attendance area”
[quote]How’s that? There are 500+ outsiders already ensconced in our schools. How is it set up so that none of them would be in schools that are too full to accommodate the new kids who live a block away?[/quote]
Why are you so concerned about interdistrict students? Seriously. You make it sound as though they’re detrimental to the district somehow.
Here’s how it worked with my kids. Each year, mid-summer, we applied to our district of residence to transfer out, and to DJUSD to transfer them in. Each year, they were admitted on a space-available basis. Knowing which school they had been in, and which grade they were entering, they were tentatively enrolled in that grade at that school. But each year the enrollment was not actually firm until after the first week of school.
When my daughter entered 5th grade at Valley Oak, the overcrowding hit in a big way. There was no room for her there when school began. Within a few days of the start of the school year, the enrollment settles out and actual numbers are in place. We did not actually have her assigned to a classroom for 3 – 4 days. Then space became available. Had it not been available at Valley Oak, she would have been assigned to another school. That was nerve-wracking, but we knew the risk when we embarked on the interdistrict process.
It got even worse at the junior high level, because there were only two schools and Holmes was way over capacity. In fact, our original foray into independent study was because there was no space available in the first week of 8th grade for her. By the time a space opened up, we had settled on independent study at DSIS, so we continued with that. DSIS also functions on a space-available basis, but is rather more flexible.
There is a hierarchy of how students are allowed in by inter district transfer. Children of employees of the district, children who are returning transfer students, and some other categories I can’t remember, get priority over new interdistrict applicants. And all are subject to being bumped by resident students at the start of the school year.
Just Saying: [i]I don’t mean to be a whiner, but I wonder how those new folks feel when they cannot get their kids in the school next door because it’s already filled to capacity by outside transfer students?[/i]
If a family moves to town in the middle of the school year, there is not a guarantee of a spot at the neighborhood school for that current school year. The district has to provide space at one of their less-impacted schools, however. That family is guaranteed a spot for the following school year, if they choose, and file papers by the appropriate deadline.
“you’re not looking at the rules.”
You’re correct, I’m not. Please tell me what rule keeps this situation from happening.
—
“Parcel tax revenues are for specific programs and services. The district has maintained a reserve. It doesn’t cost more or less because some students are transferring their ADA funding from another district here.”
I guess I’m not being clear. As you say, people from outside the district don’t pay through any mechanism (Davis parcel tax or otherwise) beyond state taxes.
My point is that it costs more than the $8,000 ADA money that the state provides to educate students in the Davis school district. The programs and services financed by parcel taxes and spending from past years’ reserves are distributed equally amongst insiders and outsiders. Therefore, whatever the difference between the per pupil cost and the per pupil ADA funding is a shortfall that only is picked up by Davis taxpayers.
My other point is that it costs money and administration to maintain an unneeded school. The importation of outside students with their $8,000 hides part of the problems and provides a temporary solution. Three things could justify keeping an unnecessary school: if we foresee a turnaround in Davis’ elementary age population, if we’re making a profit by the practice or if we’ve been asked to help another district with a temporary surplus situation.
“There is a hierarchy of how students are allowed in by inter district transfer. Children of employees of the district, children who are returning transfer students, and some other categories I can’t remember, get priority over new interdistrict applicants. And all are subject to being bumped by resident students at the start of the school year.”
“No student currently residing within a school’s attendance area shall be displaced by another student transferring from outside the attendance area”
These answer my question, thank you. That makes it very clear.
—
“Why are you so concerned about interdistrict students? Seriously. You make it sound as though they’re detrimental to the district somehow.”
I don’t suggest they’re detrimental in any way except as they might increase district costs without reimbursement, as they might negatively impact classroom pupil numbers and as the practice might delay decisions that need to be made about the future of the district. Otherwise, I know every student generally is a beneficial addition, adding diversity and parent involvement (maybe even improve landscaping).
“Michael, sorry but I just don’t get this assertion that “the current situation is not sustainable economically, environmentally or socially”. Please explain this. And please explain how building more subdivisions and strip malls is going to improve any of these indicators. Thanks.”
Lewsir, we have a significant annual budget deficit. We’ve probably been running it for at least 10 years, but it was masked by simply deferring basic infrastructure maintenance (roads, water, sewer, parks, trees, etc.). Now we are in catch-up mode. And that’s only to maintain what we already have. That’s not even covering our aspitations to improve as a community.
We are not environmentally sustainable either and must make significant improvement. Our use of water, land, energy, etc. is far too inefficient, which puts tremendous pressure on overconsumption of these finite resources. We must redouble our waste generation reduction efforts as well. We have lost ground in social sustainability. I cannot speak with authority on this subject, but those that can tell me we are not funding our public and private sector social programs sufficiently to meet community needs.
All of the forgoing requires money, both tax revenue for public sector programs and donations for private sector programs, which we are not generating enough of. Meanwhile, we have this tremendous economic engine right on the city boundary, which I and many others feel we can take greater advantage of.
I have no idea how more subdivisions and strip malls improve our community sustainability. That’s why I do not advocate for more of them.
-Michael Bisch
“I’m curious where you think would be a good place to construct a trailer park in Davis and why it would be better than putting an apartment on the same spot.”
Don, guess you missed my answer to your seeing some kind of prejudice with respect to the earlier growth story responses. In any case, I’m still curious where you’d like to see new trailer parks in Davis.
[quote]I don’t suggest they’re detrimental in any way except as they might increase district costs without reimbursement, as they might negatively impact classroom pupil numbers and as the practice might delay decisions that need to be made about the future of the district.uture of the district.[/quote]
This issue was clarified at the last school board meeting. DJUSD receives ADA funding for all those these kids from the state. (the school districts that these kids are coming from actually lose this money). The analogy of empty seats on a plane was used, no new classes would be added to admit these students, but if space is available in existing classrooms they will fill them with out of district students and receive the money that comes with them. I think they said these students provide the district with an additional 2 million dollars?
Sorry for reposting old info, just got a chance to read through previous posts…I’m not sure if $8,000 per student covers the cost, but I do know school district don’t like losing this money.
B. Nice: [i]This issue was clarified at the last school board meeting.[/i]
You can find discussion on it here ([url]http://archive.cityofdavis.org/media/board-2013-09-19.ram[/url]) at ~2:11:20.
B. Nice, thanks for the report from the board meeting. I’m a little skeptical of the empty seats on the plane analogy unless lots of requests are getting turned down and lots more time is being spent than one might expect managing this program and finding just the fight passengers to fill the specific empty seats.
Is the number of students in our classrooms remaining constant at or below some established optimum level? Or, are our teachers having to deal with classes that might be larger than is best for a good learning environment? It’s a whole lot easier to add desks to a “full” classroom for $8,000 than it is to add a seat to an airplane.
You raise an interesting issue regarding the view of districts that are losing the students we take from them. Their planes are flying with more empty seats they were and they lose another $8,000 for each passenger lost to Davis.
Seriously: why are you so concerned about interdistrict transfer students, policies, and all of this? I don’t get it. You continue to imply, by this line of questioning, that interdistrict transfer students are a detriment to DJUSD. Now you’re also suggesting that they are harming their home districts by leaving. I cannot fathom why this is such a concern to you.
[quote] I’m a little skeptical of the empty seats on the plane analogy unless lots of requests are getting turned down and lots more time is being spent than one might expect managing this program and finding just the fight passengers to fill the specific empty seats. [/quote]
Because a lot of classrooms are under enrolled, at least at the elementary level, I don’t think it’s an issue. I got the impression there is also room at Harper, I’m not sure about the high school.
[quote] Are our teachers having to deal with classes that might be larger than is best for a good learning environment? [/quote]
Yes, but that has more to do with the boards decision to increase maximum class size. Having these students come in from out of district may actually be keeping class sizes lower. Back to the plane analogy having these students come in, which the money that comes with them, makes it worth while to run two classes at 2/3 full rather then combing 2 half filled flight. (which may happen if don’t allow inter district transfers.) So we run two classes with fewer classes then one packed one.
[quote]You raise an interesting issue regarding the view of districts that are losing the students we take from them. Their planes are flying with more empty seats they were and they lose another $8,000 for each passenger lost to Davis.[/quote]
I think this an issue for surrounding school districts. I’m not totally clear on this point but I think Dixon has to release kids from their district if they want to go because all of their schools are in program improvement. But I don’t think this is the case for Woodland. My friend was trying to inter-district transfer from Woodland to Davis a couple of years ago and the first step was to get Woodland to agree to release the student which apparently they were no longer doing.
“Seriously: why are you so concerned about interdistrict transfer students, policies, and all of this? I don’t get it. You continue to imply, by this line of questioning, that interdistrict transfer students are a detriment to DJUSD. Now you’re also suggesting that they are harming their home districts by leaving. I cannot fathom why this is such a concern to you.”
I’ve explained very specifically the concerns I have at least three times. They include the fact that the state funds cannot cover the costs of these students and the fact that the number has become so large (more than 500) that their presence might be keeping us from weighing our future school requirements.
Someone else (medwoman) brought up the issue of schools and growth. I asked wdf1 a couple questions about the program. B. Nice brought up the concern of other districts who lose their state money when their students transfer to Davis.
The ties between school issues and housing issues seems so obvious to me that i’s surprised that you keep challenging the appropriateness of joining them.
I cannot fathom why my “line of questioning” is such a concern to you. You’re implying something, by again charging me with saying something “detrimental,” that there’s something unseemly about the topic.
Seriously: why are YOU so concerned about me being “concerned with interdistrict transfer students, policies, and all of this”?
several of your stated concerns have been shown to be invalid or at least based on faulty information and your concern about state money is invalid as well.
think of it as there are two pots of money for simplicity sake.
you get ada money from the state based on average daily attendance – i.e. the number of kids in the district going to school.
then you get x-amount per parcel in parcel tax.
so enrollment declines. that reduces your ada money but not your parcel tax money since that’s a constant.
so you augment your declining enrollment by taking x-amount of students from outside the district. that shores up the declining enrollment, but doesn’t touch the parcel tax.
so your point is irrelevant, the statement only makes up for declining enrollment.
DP, I understand and agree with everything you’ve outlined. There is only one point of disagreement:
“so you augment your declining enrollment by taking x-amount of students from outside the district. that shores up the declining enrollment, but doesn’t touch the parcel tax. “
What I’m trying to say is that the parcel tax (and reserves being used to keep things going, as well) benefit all students attending school in the Davis school district, whether they’re Davis residents or transfer. Davis residents are paying both the parcel tax and the reserves that are used when state funding doesn’t cover expenses. The transfer students do not contribute to either of these funding mechanisms. We are subsidizing their attendance in our district to the tune of the shortfalls covered by the two funds. We pay into the two funds; they do not. All three funding pots finance and benefit the education for every student attending our schools.
If there is some flaw in this reasoning or the facts, please let me know so I can reconsider and drop this since it offends Don so much.
Wow, guys ! I only brought up the schools as one example of how complicated these issues can be. You all have really demonstrated my point for me.
This is precisely why I think that it is incumbent upon us to consider carefully all of the foreseeable ramifications of change and not just pretend that we have some kind of mechanism whether ” the market” or
some form of “central planning” that is going to create an optimal balance for us. I believe that every choice will carry with it some features that, as individuals, we will like and some that we will not. It is important for each of us to be as transparent as possible about our concerns and willing to consider, not just dismiss out of hand the concerns of others, even if we do not share them.
just saying:
let us say there are 100 students in the district.
the district gets 10,000 per student from the state for a total of $1 million.
we have a $100 parcel tax and 10,000 houses/ parcels in the city, which is also $1 million.
so our budget is $2 million.
now let’s say that 10 students graduate and are not replaced, so now we have 90 students instead of 100. The district would get $900,000 from the state, but still get $1 million from the parcel tax.
to make up for the decline, the district takes 10 out of district transfers which increases the amount from the state back up to $1 million.
so why does it matter from a budgetary standpoint where they come from? the parcel tax is a constant, they are not being subsidized anymore than people without children are subsidizing people with children under a parcel tax scenario.
[quote]The transfer students do not contribute to either of these funding mechanisms. We are subsidizing their attendance in our district to the tune of the shortfalls covered by the two funds.[/quote]
In theory these kids aren’t costing us anymore money then we would already be spending. Instead they are bringing revenue into the district. DJUSD CFO Bruce Colby stated very clearly at the school board meeting that these inter-district transfer students are bringing in far more money then they cost.
DT said (its long, but I want to get the full context) [quote]Lewsir, we have a significant annual budget deficit. We’ve probably been running it for at least 10 years, but it was masked by simply deferring basic infrastructure maintenance (roads, water, sewer, parks, trees, etc.). Now we are in catch-up mode. And that’s only to maintain what we already have. That’s not even covering our aspitations to improve as a community.
We are not environmentally sustainable either and must make significant improvement. Our use of water, land, energy, etc. is far too inefficient, which puts tremendous pressure on overconsumption of these finite resources. We must redouble our waste generation reduction efforts as well. We have lost ground in social sustainability. I cannot speak with authority on this subject, but those that can tell me we are not funding our public and private sector social programs sufficiently to meet community needs.
All of the forgoing requires money, both tax revenue for public sector programs and donations for private sector programs, which we are not generating enough of. Meanwhile, we have this tremendous economic engine right on the city boundary, which I and many others feel we can take greater advantage of. [/quote]
All of this presupposes that adding developments will generate more revenue than it costs the city in spending, will somehow improve sustainability this way, and even will improve social sustainability. I would really need to understand this better, it is not the least bit intuitive. Is there a report that does an analysis of this that you can point me toward? Thanks.
“All of this presupposes that adding developments will generate more revenue than it costs the city in spending, will somehow improve sustainability this way, and even will improve social sustainability. I would really need to understand this better, it is not the least bit intuitive. Is there a report that does an analysis of this that you can point me toward? Thanks.”
Lewsir, I have stated repeatedly that I do not advocate for additional developments to balance the budget. Perhaps if I repeat myself 3 times it will sink in. I do not advocate for additional developments to balance the budget. I do not advocate for additional developments to balance the budget. I do not advocate for additional developments to balance the budget.
What I do advocate for is taking greater advantage of the economic opportunities generated on campus to solve help solve our budget crisis, i.e. economic development.
-Michael Bisch
I have stated what I do not advocate for. Perhaps I should state what I do advocate for. I advocate for creating an environment conducive to entreprenuerial activity. Embracing change, innovation, creativity and exploration in all aspects of the human condition. To do this we must provide the amenities that entrepreneurs desire and foster an ecosystem that leads to spontaneous innovation.
A business park on the periphery does not create such an environment according to the current literature. A business park on the periphery is more of a real estate play than anything else. It’s possible that a case can be made for a business park on the periphery, i.e. one where the benefits outweigh the costs, but it certainly hasn’t been made yet. But that’s not really a case for economic development. The best geographic place to make the case for economic development is in and around campus and downtown. That’s where the ingredients for an innovation ecosystem exist (e.g. amenities, cross discipline interaction, etc.). Indeed, that’s the case that the Chancellor has made.
-Michael Bisch
Lewsir said . . .
[i]”All of this presupposes that adding developments will generate more revenue than it costs the city in spending, will somehow improve sustainability this way, and even will improve social sustainability. I would really need to understand this better, it is not the least bit intuitive. Is there a report that does an analysis of this that you can point me toward? Thanks.”[/i]
Lew, as I have stated in prior posts (with links to former Finance Director Paul Navasio’s analysis report to the Housing Element Steering Committee) adding developments only generates more revenue than it costs for the City if the average sale price for a home exceeds $500,000 and/or the average sale price of a unit in a multi-family complex (apartment) exceeds $200,000. Those thresholds make “affordability” of housing very challenging in Davis. As a result, with the exception of the current processing of The Cannery’s application, virtually no one is talking about developments of housing.. Rather, the discussions are focused on the incremental revenue that adding jobs will generate for the City. To sum that up in four words, “Jobs, yes. Developments, no.”
Thanks guys. So, it sounds like we’re all agreed then – no new developments for Davis? It ought to be easy to stay below the 1% growth threshold in that case… 🙂
“The best geographic place to make the case for economic development is in and around campus and downtown.”
About time you came out FOR something. This makes things easy, Michael. What’s your opinion about whether the Nishi property should be annexed or just taken over by the university?
Lewsir said . . .
[i]”Thanks guys. So, it sounds like we’re all agreed then – no new developments for Davis? It ought to be easy to stay below the 1% growth threshold in that case… 🙂 “[/i]
You are welcome Lewsir. One clarification it is not a 1% growth threshold, but rather a 1% growth cap.
In addition, the cap includes a no forgiveness provision that isolates each year by itself. What that means is if the actual growth is 0.3% this year, the 0.7% of the cap that wasn’t “used” forever goes away. Said another way, there are no rollover minutes in the Davis growth plan.
Wow, first medwoman has me pegged as pro-sprawl and as a free-marketer and now JustSaying has me pegged as part of NOE (No On Everything). I must be doing something right if I’m being shoe-horned into opposite camps.
Annexation of course. Why would we pass up on the property tax and sales revenue?
-Michael Bisch