Sunday Commentary: Measure A Really Doesn’t Matter to the Future of Davis

Nishi-Forum-11

I was just reading a letter from Matthew Palm where he argued that “No on A is a generational war.”  He makes the point, and I think it is one that people should heed if they own a home in Davis or have a job in Davis – you have a different view of the world than those just coming out of college, or even in college looking for housing and jobs in Davis.

Okay, his message is more accusatory and visceral than that, but that’s how I view it.  The push-back came in the comments: “It is so disappointing to see this angry and misinformed letter. Quite the contrary, those of us who have been opposed to the Nishi project have been doing this … for the millennials and and the opportunists are the ‘Yes on Nishi’ developers in this election, not the ‘No on Nishi’ side.”

Just as I think the original message was unhelpfully accusatory, the response is almost arrogant – hey millennial punk, we are doing this for you whether you know it or not.

In other columns, I have made light of comments, like those from Michael Harrington, who has called the project the worst he has ever seen, likened it to a student ghetto, and told people it would wreck the southern entrance of town.

The reality is that I believe we need more student housing than we currently have.  I believe that a 0.2 percent vacancy is a crisis, and I think we have to at least skeptically assess the university’s vague and unenforceable commitment to housing 90 percent of new students in the next decade – Nishi is not going to solve those problems.

I mean it when I say that Nishi ends up being a balancing act between the housing it provides and the downside risks of traffic, congestion and air quality.

I disagree with Mr. Harrington in the sense that Nishi isn’t going to wreck the southern entrance to town – it is already wrecked.  Try driving from my kids’ school at Montgomery to my office in downtown Davis.  I don’t even bother during the school year.  Whoever thought it was a good idea to funnel traffic off the highway into a merge on Richards was smoking crack.

We have known about this problem for decades, and yet we couldn’t even figure out how to re-route university traffic to the west.

The entrance is wrecked.  Will Nishi make it worse?  Maybe.  At least Nishi has a reasonable plan and they are putting money behind it to fix it.

If you believe Nishi is going to make traffic worse on that stretch, by all means, vote no.

Here is the Davis world as I see it and, at the end of the day, Nishi really is only a very small piece of the puzzle one way or the other.

First, Davis faces two huge challenges in the next decade. The first is that the university is growing faster than the city’s capacity to house the new students.  While the university has agreed to take on a huge amount of that growth in the form of student housing, it does not take on all of the growth.  In fact, it only addresses part of the problem because, while they will be housing 90 percent of the new students in theory, that still leaves faculty and staff to be housed.

All of that assumes they follow through on their commitments – and, given the delays on West Village and the lack of follow through on other aspects, we should treat that promise as sincere, but treat it skeptically.

While I have focused my analysis on student housing, hoping that by housing more students we free up single-family homes for families, we can point out the shortfall of single-family homes, the decreasing pool of people my age and the rising senior population with no transitional homes.

Not many people want to blow up our borders, but we need to figure out a way to provide some housing for the current need.

The second problem can be seen as the Vanguard’s raison d’etre for years.  We have spent more rapidly over the last 10 to 15 years than our revenue stream can keep up with and, as a result of the shortfall in revenue and the downturn in the economy, we have a huge deficit in the form of unmet needs.

We can rejoice that the economy has improved to the point where we can pump in one-time money to address a few infrastructure needs, but the number we have is scary – $655 million.  That comes to about $32 million a year for 20 years.

The reality is that one of my chief complaints about Nishi is that it really doesn’t resolve either crisis.  We have a huge shortfall in housing and, while 1500 beds may be helpful, a project like Poly Canyon Village on a smaller piece of land provides a much greater amount of housing.

At the same time, while the project touts 1500 jobs and $1.4 million in revenue – two numbers which opponents question – neither of those make a huge dent in our needs.

We have lost one big peripheral innovation park project for sure in Davis Innovation Center. Mace Ranch Innovation Center (MRIC), on the other hand, is not dead yet, but it is paused.  Those would have provided the space to meet our economic development needs.

Here’s my point – we have huge needs.  We can argue about how far Nishi goes toward addressing them.  We can argue about whether the weaknesses of the project suggest we should vote no.

But whether Nishi passes or fails at the polls on Tuesday – and right now I think it’s a coin flip – we need to figure out how to fix these problems.

Because, at the end of the day, our great community is not going to be so great if we can no longer pave our roads, maintain our parks, bike paths and green belts, or house our young college students.

We have become so polarized and even paralyzed over a 45-acre, 650-unit project that I am skeptical that we can come together to address our needs.  But Matthew Palm had one thing right in his piece – I think the next ten years are going to bring huge change.

The old guard in this town have done some amazing things, but unless we make some small and incremental changes, we will lose this community as we know it.  Come June 8, we have to figure out a way to come together, regardless of the outcome of Measure A and figure out a path forward for our community.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

41 Comments

  1. hpierce

    David… I believe that the UCD “committment” is 90% of ‘the new students’… which could well be interpreted as 90% of the proposed growth in numbers of total students… so if they are housing 20% now, and grow 10%, their max commitment is ~ 29% of the entire student body.

  2. Mark West

    “The old guard in this town have done some amazing things, but unless we make some small and incremental changes, we will lose this community as we know it.”

    The ‘old guard’ as you put it, are responsible for the deteriorating infrastructure, $600+ million in unfunded obligations and the o.2% vacancy rate.  They created the mess in order to feather their own nests and are now fighting to make someone else pay for it. The vote on Nishi will determine whether we follow the old guard’s path right into Federal Bankruptcy Court, or grow up and start addressing the needs of the City and its residents today. We are past the point of ‘incremental changes’ and are in need of a major course correction because the iceberg is directly in our path and there are not enough lifeboats.

    1. Frankly

      Well said.

      This is a fight for the future direction of the city.  There are no do-overs.  There is no snail’s pace incremental alternative change is Measure A is defeated.  We are either heading toward a vision of stasis… a never-changing retirement village that keeps trying to raise taxes in a hopeless attempt to prevent continued decline… or a vision of dynamism where we move toward a vibrant and diverse demographic population with better housing choices, better roads, better bike and pedestrian access, more good jobs, less commute time for residents, more customers for local business and increased tax revenue to help pay our bills and repair our aging infrastructure.

  3. Misanthrop

    “Whoever thought it was a good idea to funnel traffic off the highway into a merge on Richards was smoking crack.”

    Actually it was the people who blocked fixing the tunnel. The merge was part of the plan that included fixing the tunnel but the same “crack smoking” head space, as you call it, that now wants to block Nishi defeated finishing the project resulting in the bottleneck on Richards.

      1. A Reality Check

        He is not proposing “fixing” it but pointing out why its such a funky set up with the west bound off ramps placing traffic right on top of the intersection in “anticipation of” tunnel widening- which did not happen. I was unaware of this,  but we do have the ability to fix the on and off ramps (similar to Mace configuration) to eliminate the merge/weave free-for-all.

  4. Misanthrop

    If A fails its over. As long as we have ballot box planning you won’t ever see another proposal even tried. Nobody is going to risk all the up front capital again. The only way forward for Davis if A fails is to get rid of measure R or its successor. Even if A passes I doubt that anyone else is going to try to run the Davis gauntlet. We will have some fights over infill but anything that requires annexation will be off the table. UC will build more parking and a third campus in Sacramento. U.C, Woodland, West Sac and Dixon will pick up the slack in housing just as Woodland has already done. The result will be that Davis will be environmentally friendly in name only with the traffic made worse not by building on our periphery but by not building on the periphery and instead transferring the housing of the U.C. community creating even farther commutes.

  5. ryankelly

    When you refer to the old guard having done amazing things, you can’t be referring to any of the people on the No campaign.  Things like Village Homes, the North Davis green belt system, etc would likely have been opposed by these people as unneeded sprawl.  Harrington rode into office at the same time Measure J was approved.  He opposed the development of the shopping center where Whole Foods is.    They have effectively isolated West Village from the City by blocking all connection to the town, forcing all future homeowners onto Hwy 113 or driving through campus to get to schools and shops.

        1. Mark West

          All of those things were created by developers and made available to the community through development. What exactly has the No Crowd ever created for the City – other than a whole lot of noise and a large pile of unfunded obligations?

          1. David Greenwald

            What gave you the impression that old guard was synonymous with “no crowd”?

  6. Matt Williams

    David Greenwald said . . . “Okay, his message is more accusatory and visceral than that”

    Both Matthew Palm’s letter and Eileen Samitz’ and Susan Ranier’s comment/responses are very clear illustrations of how dialogue in Davis so often happens.  An original position is presented from one extreme and then the other extreme fires back.  Where is the exploration of “win-win”?  Everything is argued in “win-lose” terms . . . and anyone who has studied negotiations from an academic perspective knows that “Win-Lose” almost always disintegrates into “Lose-Lose” over time.

    Over the past four months (since February 16th) as I have spoken to Davis voters, one interesting pattern has emerged.  When I have been asked how I will be voting on Measure A, my answer has prompted the response “Well then No, No, No, I’m DEFINITELY not voting for you.  I can’t vote for anyone who isn’t No on Nishi!”  Given that, of the four Council candidates, I am the closest one to No, that means they are not going to vote in the Council election at all . . . voluntarily divorcing themselves from 100% of the people their community is going to choose to represent them through an election process.

    When I think about that, what is their alternative?  Civil disobedience?  Law suits?  I’m really at a loss.  I’m also very appreciative of Bernie Sanders, who is trying to engage the citizenry in a productive way to achieve a “win-win” outcome.  You may not agree with his positions, but you have to admire his approach.  Maybe there is a lesson there for our polarized Davis political scene.

  7. nameless

    If Measure A fails (I actually think it has a good chance of passing), then I believe MRIC will NOT come back and economic development in Davis will be at a virtual standstill.  As a result, my guess is Measure R will be revisited at some time in the future as unworkable.  Meanwhile the City Council will ask for whopping big parcel taxes to cover repairs to city infrastructure.  If citizens do not approve the new parcel taxes, expect further deterioration of already declining infrastructure.  Altogether not a good scenario.

  8. Widjet

    Extremes indeed, Palm’s letter demonstrated the intemperance of youth.  The replies a paternalistic, tone-deaf adult that will never connect with the youth.  Can one honestly think the way to relate to a short, angry outburst from a young person is to give them a multi-page lecture, and not just once, but twice, explaining how you are doing this for their own good and they are just too young to understand that? The “old guard” had best be careful.  There is a movement afoot in the Bay area called BARF driven by the “angry youth” who are rebelling against the housing shortage.  There was a story about them recently:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/business/economy/san-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.html?_r=0

    Their mantra is just build it.  Luxury housing … build it.  High density apartments … build it.  Affordable housing … build it.  They show-up at any and all meetings at all levels of government dealing with housing proposals to fight with the NIMBYs.   Keep-up the paternalistic attitude “old guard” and you’ll be seeing BARF all over the streets of Davis soon enough.

    1. Odin

      500 people isn’t what many would consider a movement.  Anyway, clever acronyms aside, BARF was already taken by a group I rode with for years:  http://bayarearidersforum.com/forums/

      1. Widjet

        As someone in Davis has proved, it only take one person to file a lawsuit.  According to the that article lawsuits can be filed for NOT building, as easily as they can be filed FOR building.  I posted it as a cautionary item and did not mean to put you on the defensive.  The danger is over.  You may return your head into the sand now.

  9. Rich RifkinWDE 73

    Greenwald: “… at the end of the day, Nishi really is only a very small piece of the puzzle one way or the other.”

    This more-less is the same sentiment I wrote in a column on May 11: “If it passes or fails when it comes up for a vote on June 7, it won’t affect most of us. It will neither hurt Davis nor solve any great civic issues regarding housing, commerce, traffic or the public purse.”

    http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/nishi-its-neither-a-panacea-nor-a-plague/

    Greenwald: “If you believe Nishi is going to make traffic worse on that stretch, by all means, vote no.”

    I suspect that is advice many voters will follow. However, I don’t think it’s logical. I assume Nishi will (slightly) make traffic on Richards worse. Yet I voted yes, because the positives outweigh the negatives.

    The fundamental Richards Boulevard question is why there is a problem in that area. The answer is not Nishi.

    That stretch has an imbalance of supply and demand. Too little capacity; too many cars wanting to pass through certain times of the day. Nishi will simply add a small amount to the demand.

    The choke can be solved for no money in an instant. Markets work. Just charge the right amount — say $5 per car coming from Olive Drive during the morning commute and the same fee per car going toward Olive Drive during the afternoon commute — and the congestion would disappear immediately. Most drivers going to or leaving UC Davis would opt for the “free” Old Davis Road-UC Davis exit. Others would walk or commute by bus or by bicycle.

    http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/how-to-solve-the-traffic-jam-on-richards-boulevard-3/

  10. Fred

    Matt Palm is huge Katehi shill read his other letter to the enterprise. http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/how-i-went-from-fire-katehi-to-supporting-her/

    The guy has some seriously bad judgement.

  11. Tia Will

    To David’s list I would add :

    – our parks including the major community gathering spot that is central park which houses the Farmer’s Market, Wednesday’s  picnic at the park and multiple large community events such as the recent Rotary barbecue ( instead of a shopping mall which was the proposed alternative).

    – the park at Northstar with the adjacent bird sanctuary

    – Rainbow City park which was available for my children and will again be available with implementation of the new plan

    – the Commons, which I see as a positive addition although there was much controversy at the time

    I do not believe in either white washing our problems nor making wild claims that there will never be any further business development in Davis if any particular project is not approved. It amazes me that businessmen who seemingly are very astute and aware that where there are developers there will be development, and where there are entrepreneurs there will be business ventures are playing on what at least one of them claims to abhor, namely decision making based on emotion.  So if we do not get Nishi, or MRIC will the sky fall ?  Of course not.  So why play on people’s fears ? A new group of entrepreneurs and developers will emerge who see opportunity and new proposals will arise. While it is true that this is unlikely to happen in the time frame that some would like, it will occur, just as it always has.

    1. ryankelly

      Tia, Central Park and the Farmer’s Market existed way before the development of the south end of the current park.  Community events happened annually at that location every year.  Central Davis Elementary was on the adjacent block and then it was a gravel parking lot for a long while.  The same professor of Landscape Architecture helped in the visualization of an expanded park and also  the idea of the North Davis greenbelt and bike lanes.  Things that developers and the City planners have included in every development since.  New ideas are continually being introduced -parklettes and expanded sidewalks for dining, urban farming and edible landscaping, and more.  Innovative design is not part of the platform of the no growth crowd.  It seems that they want no change.  They call themselves progressive, but they are really conservatives.

      1. Tia Will

        Hi Ryan

        Thanks for the information about the previous configuration of central park. However, the point remains that we would not have had the space for the Farmer’s Market and other events had the mall promoters succeeded.

        I also was not trying to give any credit for the greenbelts and the like undeservedly. I just interpreted these amenities to be the contribution of those that came before us, not the “progressives” as this specific group.
        Sorry for the confusion my post seems to have generated.

         

        1. ryankelly

          Tia, the Farmers Market was already there on 4th Street between B and C street (yes, 4th went all the way to A street back then.)  That section of the street was just closed off for the market.  The City 4th of July celebration and other events including music,  like a Picnic Day Beer Garden and Rotary events were held there until the fireworks moved from Toomey Field to Community Park and the celebration became fractured.

           

        2. ryankelly

          Tia, note that many of the people who brought about the expansion of Central Park now support Nishi. These people who are recognized as visionary see the value of mixed use close to downtown and campus, plus an urban forest expanding the arboretum.

  12. Mark West

    “While it is true that this is unlikely to happen in the time frame that some would like, it will occur, just as it always has.”

    A good round of golf always helps my outlook, now let’s take a look at that compound fracture in room 3.  Sorry Doctor, the patient bled out while you were on the back nine. Well then, take the body down to the morgue. Treatment around here doesn’t always happen in the time frame that some would like, but rest assured, it will occur, just as it always has…

  13. Matthew

    David,

    Yes I shot that off in anger and wish I hadn’t, had instead sat down and thought it through to make it a tad more contextualized to davis.  But I stand by my point.

    But really it’s not my point.  Far more articulate writers have been explaining this argument for a while.  Kim Mai Cutler has written extensively on the topic. Gabe Metcalf has a good bit on it: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/07/whats-the-matter-with-san-francisco/399506/.

     

  14. Eileen Samitz

    David,

    First I want t say David, I am particularly offended by your completely inaccurate and condescending comments in this article. Your attempt to place a misleading “spin” on my response to Matthew’s letter to the Enterprise and the Vanguard is outrageous.

    Just as I think the original message was unhelpfully accusatory, the response is almost arrogant – hey millennial punk, we are doing this for you whether you know it or not.

    Really David? This is NOT a all what I was saying and what I did do is respond to Matthew in the Enterprise when I saw his angry letter with a response to explain how he is mistaken on why I and others, including UCD’s own Dr. Cahill who is a revered scientist who, for many years, has studied air quality impacts on our health. HE was the guy that our country called in when the 9-11 tragedy happened to access the impacts on New York’s first responders when the World Trade Center came down. Check out Dr.Cahill’s credentials: http://physics.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/thomas-cahill and understand that that he is considered a hero in the public health area due to his incredible work in the area of air quality impacts on our health, but particularly for his work on the 9-11 World Trade Center event.

    Matthew at least acknowledges now, that his letter was sent off in anger, but he needs to understand letter has caused harm to those he named. I understand his concerns and his misdirected anger and I will re-post in my next posting how I responded to him in yesterday on line in the Enterprise.

    But what is really bad form David, is that your article here trying to sensationalize it  is simply irresponsible as a “objective reporter”. My intention was NEVER to be addressing Matthew in the way you have spun it, and it is a real insult. My intentions, quite the contrary, was to explain to Matthew why those of us in this citizens based “No on Nishi” campaign opposed the Nishi Gateway project. Also, to explain that I have been working for over eight months with our citizens group to influence UCD to build more on-campus housing. The results is that we have gotten at least a positive response from UCD now in recent weeks, stating that they will be building more on-campus housing. I would be happy to talk to Matthew about this because this seems to be a common cause.

  15. Eileen Samitz

    It is so disappointing to see this angry and misinformed letter. Quite the contrary, those of us who have been opposed to the Nishi project have been doing this in for the millennials. The real opportunists are the “Yes on Nishi” developers in this election, not the “No on Nishi” side.

    No one has more to gain monetarily from this election than the Nishi “Yes on Measure A” developers. In contrast, the “No on Nishi” side have nothing to gain monetarily, and a main concern for health, welfare and safety of students and non-students relative to the Nishi projects impacts on them. This is not a “generational war”, it is a war against big developer money who really have ignored these concerns raised regarding potential residents of Nishi being exposed to the hazardous particulate matter which would impact them long term.

    Dr. Cahill Ph.D. (http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/Text/Cahill.html) is a UCD atmpospheric scientist, and an expert and hero in the public health area, who started DELTA in 1977 to study the effects of air quality on health particularly after his well-respected reports regarding the impacts of the 9-11 event on first responders in 2001. He has been awarded a multitude of awards including the 2002 American Lung Association Outstanding Scientist Volunteer. Dr. Cahill, who is trying so hard to protect the health of everyone, particularly students has made it VERY clear that NO housing should be located at Nishi due to the health hazard impacts on students or non-students. Yet his outreach to protect the health of anyone potentially residing at Nishi Gateway, has been rebuffed by the developers.
    Furthermore, since the Nishi developers have been given a special privilege of providing no affordable housing, therefore this housing will be unaffordable to students and non-students. So Nishi does NOT help the “millennials” or anyone else needing housing.

    I have been advocating for more UCD on-campus student housing for years, and organized a citizens’ advocacy group working on this over last 8 months. The good news is that all of our efforts resulted with UCD finally acknowledging that they will build more on campus housing. The solution for more housing for students, non-students, millennials, non-millennials, singles, families and anyone needing housing in Davis, is to continue all of our communications and organized efforts to let UC and UCD know that they need to fulfil their promises from the 1989 MOU to build the needed on-campus student housing. This solution works for the UCD students as well as our community since it would provide the needed student housing o the campus, while freeing up rental housing in Davis. So contrary to the accusation in this letter, I have been working very hard to fight for more student housing on the campus. This is sustainable planning which would reduce our carbon footprint more than anything else.

    So the bottom line is the real opportunists here are the Nishi developers. This includes one Nishi partner who is also a Tandem Properties partner, who already owns 14 apartment complexes (over 1,900 units) in Davis, and clearly wishes to expand their rental property empire. This would be at the expense of the poor air quality impacts on the health of potential residents at Nishi, if the project were (unfortunately) approved on the ballot this Tuesday.

    I can assure everyone of one thing, contrary to Mathews concerns, we who are opposed to the Nishi project are trying to prevent another climate-change mess at the Nishi property. This project is woefully deficient in sustainability and would bring on 10,000 metric tons of unmitigated greenhouse gases annually. Otherwise, we would not be putting so much citizen-based effort against all of the “Yes on Measure A” developer money by developers who clearly prioritize their profits over for the health, welfare, and safety of students and non-students who would potentially live at Nishi if it were approved Tuesday.

    I urge everyone to vote” NO” on Nishi – Measure A this Tuesday for the sake of millennials and non-millennials who might wind up otherwise, living in the unhealthy air quality conditions at the Nishi site with all the serious health impacts.

    1. A Reality Check

      Many of the No on A crowd have advocated for more housing on the site and that the University should own and build it.  Your friends (Ron) and Cal-Ag have both advocated for this as well as Alan Pryor and Jim Leonard.  Your arguments about protecting students fall flat on their face and you completely contradict yourselves.  Millenials support the project as well as Council and all our elected representatives.  Your climate change arguments are just as weak because your plan (No on Everything)  creates more commuters, traffic, pollution, and GHG. Its actually a bit entertaining to hear you tell Mathew whats best for him.

      Whats even more amusing is your citation begging the University to live up to a 1989 agreement- 26 years ago. I think your perspective is similar- 26 years old, outdated, and backwards. No plan for our future.

      1. Ron

        A Reality Check:  “Your friends (Ron) and Cal-Ag have both advocated for this as well as Alan Pryor and Jim Leonard.  Your arguments about protecting students fall flat on their face and you completely contradict yourselves.”

        It’s good to know that you apparently “don’t” support more housing at the University. With a view like that, it seems quite strange to accuse anyone else of disregarding the interests of students.

        1. A Reality Check

          Eileen states  “No on Nishi”  main concern for health, welfare and safety of students”  but Alan, Jim, and other “No” have advocated for MORE student housing on Nishi.  I believe you have as well…let the University acquire Nishi and build housing…but I thought you were concerned about their health. Makes No sense.

        2. Ron

          A Reality Check:

          I’m not with the campaign, so I’m only speaking for myself.

          I’m not an expert regarding air quality at Nishi, but I have learned that some are questioning the safety of living at the site (due to its proximity to a raised freeway and railroad).  Regardless, the impact on traffic remains, including the effect of providing approximately 1,700 parking spaces at the site, and opening up another motor vehicle access point to the University (that hasn’t been planned for, or approved).  We also don’t know if the University will then construct other developments on campus which are facilitated by having another motor vehicle access point, thereby increasing traffic even more.  All having access to the same, already-impacted intersections.

          I can tell you that Eileen (in particular) cares about students, and is planning to continue her efforts to encourage the University to do even more.  (I suspect that Eileen had a major impact, regarding the University’s recent decision to provide housing for 90% of the expected increase in enrollment.)  I urge you and others to join Eileen, in that ongoing effort.

    2. South of Davis

      Eileen wrote:

      > those of us who have been opposed to the Nishi project have

      > been doing this in for the millennials.

      What percentage of Nishi supporters are millennials renting apartments or saving to buy a home vs. boomer homeowners and apartments owners (who can’t wait for the ability to raise rents even more or sell their homes and condos for even higher prices without competition from Nishi before they escape the heat and retire to Carmel)?

      > No one has more to gain monetarily from this election than

      > the Nishi “Yes on Measure A” developers.

      If Davis has 14,736 single family homes (I read something a while back that the city has 14,736 single family water meters) and if the homes go up in value by $100K due to lack of supply the Davis homeowners will have an increase in their combined net worth of just under $1.5 BILLION.  The “Yes on Measure A” developers” will not have a combined gain even close to this much (if apartments are not built at Nishi the value of apartments will continue to increase as will the rents).

      P.S. Zillow says the average home value in Woodland is $332K and the average home value in Davis is $594K (nice of the Yes on A people to “help” the millennials by driving rents and home prices in Davis even higher)…

       

       

       

  16. Tia Will

    He makes the point, and I think it is one that people should heed if they own a home in Davis or have a job in Davis – you have a different view of the world than those just coming out of college, or even in college looking for housing and jobs in Davis.”

    I think that it is a little presumptuous to tell others what their point of view is. This attitude “we know that you don’t think like us” overlooks a number of factors.

    The first factor is that those of us who are now seniors were once the age of today’s millennials. Many of us have had the experience of having to double up in housing or commute. Many of us had to work jobs while going to school. Many of us did come out of school with debt, or took on government obligations ( military or service corps) in order to finance our education. So it is not as though we have not had to face these challenges.

    Second, and perhaps more importantly, many of us have millennial children. We are well aware of the challenges that are facing this group of young people. So from both our own personal experience and the experience of our own children many of us can relate to the experiences of today’s millennials.

    Therefore any difference in perspective is likely to represent at least in part, the fact that we not only understand the current millennial experience and in many cases care deeply about their well being, but we also have had the experience of an entire adulthood with challenges at every age level which for many of us is 40 more years of life experience than they have accrued.

    I would pose the following questions to any thoughtful young millennial. Do you believe that you understand the world better now than you did 10 years ago ? Do you believe that this may in part be due to the experiences that you accrued over the years ?

    This is not and should not be construed as a generational fight, but rather an exchange of differences of perspective based on different life experiences. Asserting that it is generational involves unnecessary ageist grouping and labeling and far worse, does nothing to  move the conversation forward towards collaborative solutions.

     

  17. Misanthrop

    A Reality Check raises an interesting point. One of the $1000 dollar loaners/donors to No on A told me they should build 5000 houses there instead of 500 so this truly does call into question the health issues as a reason to oppose the project.

    But, no matter, as they say “All’s fair in love and war” and, I guess, in Davis elections too.

  18. nameless

    Eileen Samitz: “In contrast, the “No on Nishi” side have nothing to gain monetarily…

    Those on the No on Measure A side that own homes or rental properties stand to gain value in those assets if no more housing is built.  See: http://ballenvegas.com/will-new-construction-in-my-neighborhood-reduce-my-house-price/

    From the article: “All things being equal, a glut of new construction property in your neighborhood will increase supply and depress property prices.”

     

  19. nameless

    A Reality Check: “Eileen states  “No on Nishi”  main concern for health, welfare and safety of students”  but Alan, Jim, and other “No” have advocated for MORE student housing on Nishi.  I believe you have as well…let the University acquire Nishi and build housing…but I thought you were concerned about their health. Makes No sense.

    Spot on!  These internally inconsistent positions go to the credibility of lack thereof of the “no” side.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for