My View: Residents Need to Take into Account, Fewer Students Drive

Olive-Drive

Readers noted in comments to yesterday’s article that, while Lincoln40 is proposing to have 473 total bedrooms – some of which will be double occupancy to push the number of beds to 708 – they are only proposing to provide 239 parking stalls.

As one person wrote, “I’m a bit curious why they propose 485 beds, but only offer about half of that amount for parking.  Where do they expect the rest of the cars to go?  Park on Olive??”

Another responded, “Good question, and these developers are apparently going to wave their magic wand and reduce the car usage to half. This will result in the cars parking in other areas near this enormous project and imposing those parking impacts there.  I’ll bet that they will try to charge a parking fee to increase their profit margin even more while eliminating all affordable housing. It is astonishing that City Staff would even consider any of this.”

Later they added, “Lack of availability of parking on the streets will simply set up a situation of competition for parking spots on the street spilling out beyond to other areas. How does Lincoln40 plan to control the number of cars from its residents when they are providing only half of what is needed for that number of residents?”

The problem with this discussion is that it is not informed with actual data on student driving patterns.  Anecdotally, I have often noted that when we first started the court watch internship program in 2010, most of the students had their own cars.  Now more than half do not have a car in town at all.

While it is certainly true that these will not be 100 percent student housing, primarily it will be.

Given its location, Lincoln40 will be ideal for students to walk or bike down Olive, hit up with the bike path on the west side of the street and easily get onto campus without having to get into a car or go under the congested Richards underpass.

The parking allotment allows for about one in every three residents to park their vehicle on site.  That calculation seems to be right in line with current campus mode shares.

Fortunately, we do not have to rely on just anecdotal evidence here to back up the claim.  We have data from the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies.  Their most recent Travel Survey is a year old now, having been released in September 2015, but we suspect that the patterns captured have not changed significantly in a year.

On overall mode share, their survey found, “On an average weekday, about 85.4 percent of people physically travel to campus (approximately 36,205 people, including those living on campus). Among these, 46 percent bike to get there, 7 percent walk or skate, 24 percent drive alone, 5 percent carpool or get a ride, 17 percent ride the bus, and 1 percent ride the train.”

That shows just 30 percent of 36,000 who traveled to campus used a car, either driving alone or in a carpool.  That number is right in line with the parking space allotment.

UC-Modeshare

The survey also calculated the average vehicle ridership.  Again, the notable change has been that more and more students do not drive cars.

As they explain: “Average vehicle ridership (AVR) is a statistic calculated at each UC campus that represents the ratio of the number of people arriving on campus to the number of personal vehicles brought to campus. If everyone drove by themselves to campus, the campus AVR would be equal to one. Values greater than 1.0 indicate more carpooling or the use of alternative modes of transportation. The official 2014-15 AVR for non-student employees living off-campus is 1.61 person-arrivals per vehicle-arrival… The AVR for the entire campus community is 3.23 excluding on-campus residents and 3.77 including on-campus residents. This means that for every car coming to campus, there are an estimated 3.77 people coming to campus or telecommuting.”

UC-Modeshare-Trends

But the statistics are actually even more stacked when you compare the outside Davis with the within Davis contingent.

Those who live outside of Davis are most likely to drive at nearly a 1 to 1 ratio.  However, those who live within Davis are most likely to use other mode shares.  For every person who drives, there are 7.25 people coming to campus, for those within Davis.

As we know from last week’s article, the number of Zipcars in town have increased in just four years from four to 15, demonstrating the shifting usage of personal vehicles especially by students.

The bottom line here is that the close proximity of the university to Olive Drive, combined with the availability of buses and Zipcars to augment pedestrian and bike transportation, greatly reduces the need for students to have their own cars to park off campus.

That, combined with the increased costs of tuition and coupled with rising rents, makes car ownership a sizable monthly expense – a luxury that many students simply do not need and cannot afford.

It seems likely that the developers, experienced apartment builders and owners, would have calculations to determine the need for parking spaces – and should they underestimate the needed supply, they have alternative means to reduce the number of cars needed to park in stalls.

As others pointed out, it is not as though there are convenient alternative locations to park one’s car near the apartment complex anyway.

—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

206 Comments

  1. Delia .

    Anyone who lived in Davis circa 1970’s remembers many students walked, rode their bikes, used public trans. & car shared. And they did just fine. Since Target came to town, it’s possible to do all ones shopping locally. Cars are a luxury, not a necessity.

    1. Alan Miller

      Anyone who lived in Davis circa 1970’s remembers many students walked, rode their bikes, used public trans. & car shared.

      What’s your point.  That all happens today.  Are you saying no one used cars to get to campus in the 1970’s?  That’s not my remembrance.  I remember late 1970’s early 1980’s people driving downtown and college park, parking, running to their class, and running back for their car hoping to beat the meter maid.

       

      1. Odin

        Not sure if students are living closer to campus or what, but I remember the days when Anderson was clogged with riders every morning and afternoon.  Don’t see that much these days.  (pssst…Alan…they don’t call them meter maids anymore, now they’re PEOs, jeez your old).

    2. hpierce

      Cars are a luxury, not a necessity.

      In the 70’s HS students had no/few cars, and there was very little parking… the vast majority of elementary, JHS students walked/rode bikes…

      Today, a majority of parents drive their kids to elementary/JHS because there are so many cars that it is not “safe” for their kids to walk or bike… (???????????????) [Think Pogo]

      A lot of parking was added at DHS, families in Davis had more discretionary income, so there are a lot of 2-4 year old cars, student driven, using those spaces (see Pogo reference).

      If you build it, they will come… etc. [if you give your kid a car…]

       

  2. Grok

    This article might be right that students need fewer parking spaces, but the data in the article does not demonstrate it.

    [J]ust 30 percent of 36,000 who traveled to campus used a car either driving alone or in a carpool.  That number is right in line with the parking space allotment.

    The first sentence above is based on data from the campus about use of cars in travelling to campus. The second sentence suggests that not using a car to travel to campus equates to not needing  a parking space at the Lincoln 40 apartments. The data does not in anyway show how many students own cars or need parking by their residence. I would suggest that many students who own cars do not use them to travel to campus. My experience is traveling to campus is easier and cheaper by bike, so that’s what students do. Cars are more often used for shopping and trips to their home cities. Car trips to campus is not an indicator of car ownership.

    Again, I have no reason to dispute that fewer students own cars, however, the data used in this article does not demonstrate that.

    Finally, I want to point out that the existing parking lot immediately across the train tracks from this proposed Lincoln 40 is one of the the most heavily used lots in Davis (if not the most). It is general full by 6:30 am.

      1. Grok

        from the Linclon 40 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting

        The Davis Amtrak Station is also located across the UPRR train tracks from the project site and is approximately 0.5-mile from the project site using existing pedestrian pathways along Richards Boulevard to 1st / G Street. Project plans include an easement along the western boundary of the project August 29, 2016 5 LINCOLN40 NOP site that could accommodate a potential, future grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian railroad crossing facility shown in the specific plan. The potential, future grade-separated crossing is not part of the Lincoln40 Project.

    1. Alan Miller

      I have no reason to dispute that fewer students own cars, however, the data used in this article does not demonstrate that.

      There you go, using sound logic, making sense.

      What gives you the right?

  3. John D

    David,

    Interesting stats regarding daily trips to campus, but why not look directly at ratio of cars to rooms at West Village? That one rides to campus is interesting, but what percentage still bring their cars with them to Davis?

  4. Tia Will

    Delia

    Having arrived in Davis to start med school in ’79, I can vouch for that. For our first two years of classes, most of us biked. It was not until our clerkships which were scattered throughout the region that many of us felt the need for a car.

    There is another aspect to be considered here. For as long as I have participated on the Vanguard, the subject of traffic in the downtown area has been a hot button issue periodically. I have stated a number of times that I do not feel that the issue is too few parking spaces, nor lack of routes, nor the Richards underpass but rather an over reliance on cars. To the credit of the millennials, they seem to be trending towards a preference for alternatives to the single occupant automobile. As we proceed with infill projects, we will need to be doing all we can to promote these alternatives. Zip cars, increased ride sharing, addition of buses along existing routes, shuttles, and greater availability of on call transpiration such as Uber, Lyft and taxis all help. I would also hope that all those currently planning either hotels or apartment complexes would consider tangible incentives possibly even vouchers or small rate reductions to those who do not bring their own cars. While this would result in a small decrease in profits, it could present a large benefit to the immediately impacted neighbors and to the community as a whole. I know that simple steps such as these to add value to a project rather than just mitigate for anticipated harm, would be a big positive for me when I am considering the merits of a proposal.

    1. hpierce

      Wrong again Tia… I’m a “boomer”… didn’t have a car my entire college experience (5 years) in Davis… maybe 10 % of the students had a car (high side)… they were very popular, particularly on weekends…

      Giving credit to the “millenials”?  Because they may drive slightly less than the “Gen X”?  Who had far more availability to their own car than the “boomers”?  C’mon…

      1. Tia Will

        pierce

        Wrong again Tia”

        It seems that you are far more interested in being adversarial to me than you are in considering what I am actually saying. I appreciate a trend towards less reliance on the single occupant automobile no matter which generation is doing it. I cited millennials because it has been my personal experience with my own son and his peers and because the decrease for this group has been cited by numerous sources. I believe in giving credit where it is due….so congratulations to you for your contribution to decreased pollution.

    2. Delia .

      Hey Tia,

      What is that bus on the causeway w/ extremely tired looking twenty somethings in their scrubs? I used to see that often on my commute to Natomas & it always made me smile. Half of them were slumped against the windows of the bus, sound asleep. ♡

      1. Tia Will

        Delia,

        I don’t know what bus it is, but I do know that you made me smile. It brought back memories of when six of us used to carpool to the VA in Martinez for various rotations. We took turn driving with the rule that shot gun had to stay awake with the driver because of our long hours ( over 24 hour shifts) twice weekly, while those in the back that day could sleep.

         

      1. Tia Will

        Frankly

        I can see both pros and cons to the revised Trackside proposal. You have cited one of the points that I see as an advantage. There are many points still to be considered. That is why I have made no substantive comments on the proposal itself to this point.

        1. Frankly

          I would advise you to come out as a strong supporter given your significant platform of anti-car-ism.  Because the Trackside project is exactly the type of development that is required to realize your car-less utopia.

        2. Ron

          I see this brief exchange between Tia and Frankly as illustrative of a larger point.  (That is, overly-dense infill is not a panacea.  Especially if its directly in one’s own “backyard”.)  And, I’m not saying this as a criticism – it’s an understandable concern/reaction.

          Given a choice, I’d still greatly prefer density, vs. sprawl.  (A third choice – a relatively stable population, would be my preference. And ultimately, it’s really the only sustainable choice, in the long term.)

          Unless one lives their entire lives in Davis (e.g., near downtown), autos will remain a big part of people’s lives.  (And, that includes Uber, Lyft, whatever.  Such services do not necessarily reduce trips by auto.)

        3. hpierce

          So, Ron when did you arrive in Davis?  I’m a newbie, came in 1972…  perhaps we should have “stabilized” the population then…

          But I’m not the “I got in, so raise the drawbridge” type…

        4. Ron

          hpierce:  “But I’m not the “I got in, so raise the drawbridge” type…”

          Neither am I, really.  It has nothing to do with me, you, or anyone else in particular.  The “drawbridge” has shut for me, regarding my original home town.  And, I don’t advocate vast amounts of development there, either.

          Just hoping that the population stabilizes, at some point.  (If I were “in charge” of things at a national level, I’d at least try to eliminate additional tax breaks for more than two children.  Perhaps some other ideas, as well.)

           

        5. hpierce

          Ron… actually meant as a “fair question”… what do you consider “vast”?

          To me, 1.5-2.0 % per year is acceptable… locally and globally… and yes I understand about “compounding”…

          The two children per couple thing I understand, unless you want to rachet down the population… my parents had one child, my spouse’s had three… total of four, so that works… of the four, if each had two children, there would be eight grandchildren… in fact there are seven (and given our ages, barring a “biblical miracle” there will be no more) of my or my spouse’s generation adding children…

          As it stands, going back to my paternal grandparents’ generation, there were two children, one grandchild, three great-grand-children… instead of 16… so far, no great-great grandchildren, and don’t expect more than 3-4… instead of 32.

           

        6. Ron

          hpierce:  “Ron… actually meant as a “fair question”… what do you consider “vast”?

          That’s a tough, subjective question to answer.  Perhaps we already have “too much” development, on a global scale.  We’re already (apparently) altering the climate, and threatening the survival of many other species. And, many countries are only recently adopting modern lifestyles (and further impacting the planet).

          Given that some resources (including land) are ultimately finite, it seems that our population and development will ultimately have to be stable.  I don’t think anyone knows what that point is, but of course it also depends on “how” we live. (As I noted earlier this evening, even I don’t want to give up my car.)

          In the meantime, our existing infrastructure e.g., roads, water sources) and immediate impact on our environment (e.g., smog levels) will continue to be impacted, as population and development expands. In any case, I’m not sure what the “benefit” is of continuing along that path.

  5. hpierce

    Let me help you, Highbeam…

    … hit up with the bike path on the west side of the street

    probably should read “connect to the bike path on the westerly knuckle of West Olive Drive”.

     

  6. Ron

    Can someone explain how large numbers of bicyclists would travel through the Richards/Olive intersection (from the proposed Lincoln40 development), without significantly impacting that already-congested intersection?

    On a related note, I just finished participating in a discussion with Matt, regarding this issue.  Here’s a link to that discussion:

    http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/09/lincoln40-prepares-draft-eir-scoping-meeting/#comment-335223

    1. Chamber Fan

      Light turns green, they cross the street and head to west Olive drive and onto campus.  It’s not quite the crisis you make it out to be.  Worst case scenario they add a bike phase like they do at Sycamore and Russell.

      1. Ron

        Chamber Fan:

        Thanks for the response, but I really doubt that it’s that simple.  If you have large numbers of bicyclists moving through that intersection, it may require different (longer/more frequent) timings of the traffic signal to accommodate them.  (Also, someone mentioned yesterday that there was a button that can be pushed to cross that intersection, to influence the timing of the signal.)

        Seems ironic that you brought up the intersection at Sycamore and Russell (adjacent to Trader Joe’s), which is one of the worst intersections to try to negotiate.

        Additional traffic (of any type) reduces efficiency, and creates more pollution from idling cars.

        The bottom line is that if Lincoln40 is approved, there needs to be a (simultaneously-constructed) grade-separated crossing of some type. Short of that, it doesn’t make sense to even consider the proposal.

        1. Chamber Fan

          Ron: As I said, it might require a bike phase of the intersection like they have at Sycamore and Russell.  I don’t know that enough bikes will be added, think how much larger and denser the apartments are near that intersection than we are talking here.

        2. Ron

          Chamber Fan:

          A phased intersection (like the one they have at Russell/Sycamore) would be an absolute disaster.  (At that location, there’s a phase for bicyclists-only.)  Can you imagine what this would do at Russell/Olive?

          I assume (hope) that the impact will be addressed in the EIR.

          These types of concerns are a major reason that student-oriented housing belongs on campus.

        3. Chamber Fan

          I’m literally besides myself with the suggestion that we somehow lack the engineering prowess to put student oriented housing within easy walking and biking distance from campus.  This reads like a litany of excuse after excuse.  We’re talking about a relatively small apartment building compared to the huge ones at the corner of Sycamore and Russell.

        4. Ron

          It’s not a matter of “engineering prowess”.  It’s a matter of either investing in the infrastructure needed to avoid problems, or better yet – putting housing on campus (where such infrastructure is not needed).

          Regarding “excuses”, I agree.  But, not in the manner you’re suggesting.

          On a related note, if you (as “Chamber Fan”) have a direct connection to the Chamber of Commerce, perhaps you could encourage the investment needed for a Davis Arch (bicycle overpass)?  (Matt previously cited some information which showed that the Chamber was involved with such potential improvements.)

           

           

           

        5. Grok

          Ron raises a good point. adding large numbers of bicycles to the Olive Richards intersection will have an impact on traffic at Richards. It is unclear why Chamber F is getting hyperbolic about it. Raising these concerns now is how they can get addressed. Ron, please submit your questions and concerns to the City too.

        6. Alan Miller

          there needs to be a (simultaneously-constructed) grade-separated crossing of some type. Short of that, it doesn’t make sense.

          Yup.  But building Lexington Apts. without building the grade separated bike tunnel to downtown didn’t make sense either.  And the City Council back then did it.  They didn’t even make them pay in to a fund which, upon a threshold of development on Olive, would fund the grade crossing.  And the foistered it off on a future Council, today’s.  Will today’s council also put off the inevitable?  I suppose the could, and then Richards and Olive intersection will just SUCK EVEN MORE.
           

        7. Alan Miller

          you’re jumping the gun here.

          That’s really insultingly insulting.  If you don’t get WAY ahead of the developers and EIR on a project, you are sunk like an anchor on the bottom of the ocean before the shift has left port.  Or some metaphor kinda like that one except makes sense.

        8. Alan Miller

          I’m literally besides myself with the suggestion that we somehow lack the engineering prowess to put student oriented housing within easy walking and biking distance from campus.

          Gawd, C.Fan, you are insufferable today.  We have the engineering prowess.  What we lack is the funding.  And what many of us lack is confidence that the City Council will get the citizens of Davis a good deal on infrastructure improvements as part of ANY development deal — I speak not specifically on this one.  The problem with Olive is there are no cheap solutions.  Olive and Richards ALREADY SUCKS.  We cannot put off this problem intersection one development more, and we sure as hell can’t make it worse.

        9. Frankly

          Busy today and did not have time to read and interact on this important topic.  However I found this gem from Ron:

          That’s a tough, subjective question to answer.  Perhaps we already have “too much” development, on a global scale.  We’re already (apparently) altering the climate, and threatening the survival of many other species. And, many countries are only recently adopting modern lifestyles (and further impacting the planet).

          Given that some resources (including land) are ultimately finite, it seems that our population and development will ultimately have to be stable.  I don’t think anyone knows what that point is, but of course it also depends on “how” we live. (As I noted earlier this evening, even I don’t want to give up my car.)

          In the meantime, our existing infrastructure e.g., roads, water sources) and immediate impact on our environment (e.g., smog levels) will continue to be impacted, as population and development expands. In any case, I’m not sure what the “benefit” is of continuing along that path.

          Now we opening up and talking deeply about our biases.  Good work Ron!

          If there were more of this type of writing we might start having a better understanding of what is driving these seemingly insurmountable differences between those that oppose most of the recent development proposals and those that support them.

          Given almost four years invested in this topic on the VG, I have come to the conclusion that there is something psychological at play here.  Ron confirms it.  I am not trying to denigrate him here.  Trust and cooperation over differences requires honest and open conversation about the drivers for our biases and decisions processes.

          This takes me back to Virginia Postrel’s book: “The Future and Its Enemies”  I think that book was giving an unfortunate title because “enemies” draws a line of immediate conflict.  But the tag line is more explanatory of her thesis: “The growing conflict over creativity, enterprise and progress“.   I think the first two of those descriptors will foment some disagreement… because “creativity” and “progress” are subjective.  However, in Ms. Postrel’s context they are all connected to what I would call just “growth”… and thus all three at odds with many that I see opposing the development projects in Davis.

          Postrel further breaks her thesis down to two actors: those who opine for stasis and those more attracted to dynamism.

          In my 20+ years working for large corporations, I remember being somewhat exited about the next looming company reorganization.  It was my anticipation of a changed work environment and the work challenge opportunities that would likely develop.  As a manager, I would do the same with the departments and divisions I was responsible for… I learned that routine change kept employees on their toes, and over time people become accustom to it and then were more nimble and creative in their own roles and within teams.

          This wasn’t all my thinking.  Peter Drucker at the time was suggesting large corporations include a Chief Destruction Officer in their C-Suite ranks.  The idea was that bureaucracy naturally forms and work processes become less efficient over time.  And there is a tendency for humans to try and protect what they consider theirs.  This change-resistance would be fatal over time if too many established a beachhead, dug in their heels and refused to budge.  So the idea from Drucker was to just destruct these structures periodically and reform them.

          Of course Drucker was just being provocative.  But his points where valid and they dovetailed into many of the best organization leadership practices like Total Quality Management, Business Process Re-engineering, Six Sigma, Enterprise Resource Planning, etc.   The purpose of all of these things were similar… to help an organization grow and develop.  To get better.  To be more efficient.  To deliver more value to the customer.  To win at competition in marketplace.  And to become an opportunity farm for the employees that work for the organization.

          During my career I mentored and coached a lot of change-averse people.  It was a personality thing for most.  But most also learned how to adapt and adopt.  Some did not and ended up quitting.  And a lot of those employees ended up in public-sector jobs.

          And this gets me full-circle to what I believe to be the case in Davis.

          I think Davis, because it has a high percentage of residents that are public-sector employees or retired public-sector employees, is much more stasis and change resistant that most other communities.  Said another way, Davis has too few dynamists… people are made excited by change and not made so anxious that they can only oppose it.

          Frankly (because I am) I think we are out of balance.

          Stasis people play a good role ensuring the often shoot-from-the-hip dynamist does not go too far too fast.  Because they are stakeholders that can slow and block a change, those that are change-agents will work harder to design and plan a good change… to prevent that from a happening.

          And most of the time, in my experience, the change-averse don’t support the change at all even after it is decided.  But in the private-sector they know better than to keep criticizing the change.  And that is usually a good thing for them because usually they are happy with the final change… and they escape having a big L tattooed on their forehead for not having the vision capability to have recognized it.

          The problem in Davis is too many stasis, change-averse types and then we have Measure R.

          Unfortunately we are out of balance and destined to miss out on much beneficial change because those with too much change anxiety and lacking capability to accurately visualize a future state have too much power to block change.

          In other words, I would value Ron’s opinion in a balanced situation.  But cannot in this situation where people like Mike Harrington are calling the shots on Davis’s future. (sorry Mike).

    2. Alan Miller

      how large numbers of bicyclists would travel through the Richards/Olive intersection #snip# without significantly impacting that already-congested intersection?

      Can’t be done.  This HAS to mitigated.  The City nor the developer can sweep this under the rug or use a “vapor trail” as mitigation.

      To be blunt:  Richards/Olive intersection sucks!

      1. SODA

        This is a reply to Frankly one comment up.

        Thanks Frankly (because you are) for your thoughtful post, in describing your theory of change and dynamism. I consider myself generally more open to change as I get older however your words got me thinking about my perspective on Davis and growth where I find I am more into ‘no change’ or stasis category. Why and why is this the first time I have felt this way in the several places I have lived? I had no clue as to planning, design or city councils in other places, yet find myself drawn to all of that in Davis. I think in my case it is because I so enjoy the community and level of dialogue (dare say disagreement) here and don’t want that to change. How can we have both?

        1. Frankly

          SODA – I am 56 and certainly am feeling less and less accepting of certain types of change.  The damnsmart phone interface keeps changing and my eyesight keeps getting worse.  I like to say it worked fine last design so leave it alone!

          But I fight that feeling because I know it is not good for me and I don’t want to become one of those “old” people before my time.  Change creates opportunity and the more youthful deserve opportunity and need opportunity.

          I tell this story about getting a call from a guy in Missouri that somehow got my phone number on the internet after reading a product review that I wrote (I was one to purchase the latest and greatest AV equipment and review it).  After I answered a few questions about the video device, he started to tell me how he left California to move there to get a beautiful 100 acre ranch… but he “has not had a real conversation since he moved.”

          Of course he was exaggerating, but the point he was making and I agree with is that Davis is blessed with a lot of people to have a good conversation with.  I value that, and other that my place of business is located here, it is probably the single biggest reason I stay here.

          But I don’t see that impacted by growth except for the positive.

        2. hpierce

          It’s ok, Frankly… you’re still a “baby”… give it another 6-8 years…

          Kaiser does great things for cataracts… prep and recovery are much longer than the 15-20 minute procedure… in the words of the old song, “I can see clearly now…”

          “Let them who have eyes, see… let those who have ears, listen [not ‘hear’, but ‘listen’]”

          We all need to look, and do our best to “see”… hear, but ‘listen’… and THINK…

          We will have dissention always… that is normal, and, in my view, appropriate… but if we are to survive as a “people”, a species, we need to think, after weighing all the reasonable views [there are some views not worth weighing, except for an instant], then act. Pretty sure that’s how the human race got this far…

      1. Delia .

        Me, too. Gotta lover that senior discount, early bird specials, & not worrying about cars to get around.  Only wish is to stay in a community, and not be segregated into an old folks home “active retirement community”.

    1. SODA

      This is for Frankly….funny how you can’t reply to indented comments. Hey can we CHANGE that??  I am open to the dynamism of changing it!

      kidding aside, Frankly, I am 69 and as I said above seem more open to change as I get older. Maybe because I have more leisure time and have transitioned from a career into a new productive passion which keeps me learning and experimenting. Who knows. But I don’t understand your ending

      “But I don’t see that impacted by growth except for the positive.”

      Help me out!

       

      1. Frankly

        SODA – my apologies… I miss read.  Interesting that you feel you are more open to change at your age.  That is encouraging for me as I work to gain your level of life experience God willing.

        What I meant is that I don’t expect growth of Davis to negatively impact the community benefit of having a lot of good people to have a good conversation with.  I would expect it to improve.

        1. SODA

          Thanks Frankly!

          Here is a bias I have which might explain my POV. Small Davis generally means more folks live and work (and stay when retired) in Davis and have a solid sense of community which manifests in volunteering, dialogue, discussion, disagreements, nonprofits, activism etc. as we have grown and the home prices have escalated, fewer people work and live here, are commuting more, are more driven materialistic ally to afford housing. That to me may well (pessimistically, is) altering that level of commitment to community which I find so enjoyable…and that might color my feeling about growth. Make any sense?

        2. Frankly

          SODA – that makes perfect sense and I think you are correct.

          I see us having four socialization domains:

          1. Family and friends

          2. Work and/or volunteering

          3. Neighborhood

          5. Community

          I don’t think #1 and #2 are big variables in small and large city living.   You might have more work and volunteering options in a larger community, but we all have only so much time to give.

          I think what tends to happen as a city grows is that you grow the neighborhood layer.   So instead of seeing the same old faces in council chambers, you work within your home owners association or other neighborhood structures and see the same old faces there.  In some of the greatest larger cities, the neighborhoods are distinct and individual communities in their own right.

          But I get your point about the cost of housing and the need to have dual incomes to support it.

  7. Odin

    David, thanks for this article.  Very helpful information.

    Here are my views as someone who near daily bikes through the Richards/Olive interchange:

    •The best thing that could happen to Olive Drive is if the I-80 off-ramp is eliminated.  Often when traffic backs up on I-80, drivers use the Olive exit because they think Olive is a faster entrance to downtown than Richards.  This causes a backup of drivers waiting to make a right turn onto Richards. The longer the wait, the more likely they will race to make the light.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been nearly hit by the last minute folks who make a quick glance left to make sure they’ll make it, often not seeing me.

    • The majority of bicyclists go straight through Richards on Olive because it is easier to access the university and downtown.  People avoid using the tunnel because the crossing at 1st and Richards is relatively slow and full of pedestrians.

    • Since the realignment of lanes on west Olive (due to the backup at Dutch Bros.) there is no longer a bike lane.  Bicyclists are forced to share the car lane.  So far it hasn’t been a major problem, but with additional bicyclists from Lincoln 40, there could be backup and potential conflicts since bicyclists aren’t really sure where they are supposed to ride.

    • The bike overpass, proposed as part of the Nishi Richards/Olive fix, would have been a waste.  It’s much easier, safer, and attractive, to take the bike path under I-80 onto West Chiles.  Time wise, it’s barely a minute longer.

    • The Davis Arch has potential.  I agree with Matt’s assessment that bicyclists will prefer to use it if they see a red light as they approach Richards, but my main concern is that it would require a short climb, so weaker riders (or students with loaded backpacks) may avoid it.  At this time, it’s also hard to determine whether it would be a shorter time than waiting for the light.

    • An additional bike pathway over the tracks near Hickory Lane should be required as part of Lincoln 40.  It would mitigate many of the problems mentioned above and be a great selling point to the Olive Drive community.  Folks around here are nostalgic for the days before the railroad put up fences blocking access to downtown.  We all think of Richards/Olive as a nightmare and would do just about anything to avoid the intersection.  Also, with the new brewery at the east end of Olive, it would appeal to local patrons who prefer to ride their bikes home after a few beers than hop in their cars.

    1. Grok

      good points Odin.

      this one in particular seems like it needs to be fixed no matter what happens at Lincoln 40:

      • Since the realignment of lanes on west Olive (due to the backup at Dutch Bros.) there is no longer a bike lane.  Bicyclists are forced to share the car lane.  So far it hasn’t been a major problem, but with additional bicyclists from Lincoln 40, there could be backup and potential conflicts since bicyclists aren’t really sure where they are supposed to ride.

    2. Matt Williams

      Odin, that is a solid, thoughtful, balanced comment.  You are a welcome addition to the Vanguard community.  I look forward to your continued contributions.

      One thing that is noteworthy about your posts is how you don’t fall prey to being evangelical.  Robb Davis used the graphic below during his presentation during the Ghandi statue item last Tuesday

      Your comments rarely put forward Positions, but rather invite dialogue about Interests.  That avoids polarization and promotes collaboration and dialogue.

      Robb went on to flesh out the Positions – Interests – Needs triangle with Ghandi statue specifics as follows.  I believe it would be useful to do the same with all our issues/conflicts.

      1. Odin

        Thanks Matt, I’m hoping after attending the scope meeting to find time to have you over to Slatters for a beer to discuss neighborhood concerns.  Keeping your email on file until then.

        1. Matt Williams

          Avery looks like fun. I love Colorado spring water.  Where is it available locally?

          I’m quite partial to both Lagunitas’ Pale Ale and IPA.

          Philadelphia Eagles fans everywhere know that PBR is a go-to Sunday brew.

  8. Eileen Samitz

    Since this Lincoln40 proposal can not legally restrict its residents to be students only, the 239 parking slots are inadequate. This apartment complex legally needs to also accommodate our workforce and families, so how is 239 parking slots supposed to accommodate up to 708 people? This proposal has got way too many problems.

     

    1. quielo

      Eileen, you have found some reason to be opposed to something. Not a big surprise.

       

      “This apartment complex legally needs to also accommodate our workforce and families” This not correct. They need to accept applicants. They don’t need to redesign the project to fit you conception of what other people need. There are many apartments in SF, LA, and other places that do not provide free parking.

      1. Chamber Fan

        Quielo is spot on here as well.  If Eileen wants workforce housing and families, perhaps she should be supporting that elsewhere.  She’s part of the reason why we don’t have housing at Nishi and in other locations that can accommodate those populations.

      2. Delia .

        Agree with q.

        Families in Davis need to adapt to a greener lifestyle, not the other way around. Parking lots are slowly becoming an ugly thing of the past. Get your kids walking more.

      3. Ron

        I think that Eileen was trying to point out that you can’t necessarily force people to change their behavior by design.  There are often unpredictable and unintended consequences, when attempting to do so.  (And Eileen is correct – not everyone at Lincoln40 would be full-time students, with a “commute” limited to/from the University.)

        In any case, services such as Uber and Lyft don’t necessarily reduce trips by auto.  And, bicycle traffic from Lincoln40 will further with traffic at Richards/Olive, thereby creating additional auto gridlock, idling cars, etc.

        Of course, if you want to encourage the “greenest” possible development, that would be on campus (where there is essentially no commute for students/faculty).

        I’d encourage everyone to not be fooled by attempts to “greenwash” any particular development.  There are, no doubt, moneyed interests attempting to do just that.

        1. David Greenwald

          Ron: The reason I ran this article is I think there is a considerable question as to whether this is about changing people’s behavior or accommodating already changing behavior. If students really don’t have cars, then this isn’t about changing their behavior.

        2. quielo

          Ron, people have a choice. there may be local workers who get around just fine by bike and Unitrans. Everyone gets to make that decision. Nobody is being “forced” to be green and lack of parking at the core is a problem faced by many areas, it’s in no way unique to Davis. If people want to pay less and have free parking there is always West Sac.

    2. South of Davis

      Eileen wrote:

      > Since this Lincoln40 proposal can not legally restrict

      > its residents to be students only,

      True, and like “The U”, Tanglewood, Sharps and Flats and other big apartments near campus it will “only” be about 95% students.

      1. Eileen Samitz

        South of Davis
        September 11, 2016 at 11:30 am
        Eileen wrote:

        > Since this Lincoln40 proposal can not legally restrict

        > its residents to be students only,

        True, and like “The U”, Tanglewood, Sharps and Flats and other big apartments near campus it will “only” be about 95% students.

        South of Davis,

        However these complexes have plenty of parking and did not try to get sway with less than half the parks spots that were needed on a highly impacted street which may become a cul-de-sac.

        1. Matt Williams

          Eileen Samitz said . . . “However these complexes have plenty of parking and did not try to get away [sic] with less than half the parking [sic] spots that were needed on a highly impacted street which may become a cul-de-sac.”

          Eileen, why are the parking spots needed?  If our community takes aggressive steps to incent the residents to not have a car in Davis, and use public transportation, bicycling and/or their feet, will we have a whole bunch of parking spaces that are perpetually sitting empty and unused?

          Note, we should not prohibit cars through unilateral legislation, but rather use market-based pricing strategies to capitalize on the price elasticity of demand for parking.  Raise the price enough and the demand evaporates.

        2. Ron

          SouthofDavis:

          That’s interesting.  Perhaps a significant number of millennials do have cars, after all.  (Even if they don’t use them to get to campus.)

          I took a quick look at the review you posted, and noted that a lack of “guest parking” was mentioned, as well.  (Something I hadn’t thought of.)

          I seem to recall that Matt once acknowledged that it isn’t realistic to expect students to not have cars, but I don’t have the citation to show this.  (I’m sure he’ll correct me, if I’m wrong.)

        3. quielo

          “Matt once acknowledged that it isn’t realistic to expect students to not have cars” I’m sure there is  market for apartments with little or no parking. Those that want parking can go to existing units which tend to be farther away. Individuals can trade off whether to have a car or live closer. 

          I don;t see why people are getting their panties twisted about this.

           

        4. Ron

          quielo:  “Those that want parking can go to existing units which tend to be farther away.”

          According to some, there are no other available rental units available in Davis. (Not my words.)

          The bigger point might be that eliminating most parking may not have quite the desired effect (to eliminate/reduce driving) at an already congested location (Olive/Richards).

          1. Don Shor

            I’m not aware of anyone saying there are “no other rental units available in Davis.” I would say that a zero point two percent apartment vacancy rate, as reported in the 2015 ASUCD survey, means there are very few available. And being acquainted with people trying to rent in that market, I can confirm that selection and availability are very limited, and that the effect is rippling out to nearby communities. It is actually very stressful to try to find housing when your income is low and it is a very, very tight market. And yet, oddly, some folks who post here seem totally oblivious to that.

          2. David Greenwald

            Don: I urge a little caution here when you say there “are very few available.” Actually there are something on the order of 20 to 24 thousand apartment units in the city, the problem is not lack of availability but rather scarcity and competition. We know when all is settled almost all rental units are taken. My understanding from talking with my assistant is that as long they search at the appropriate time, most will get a place. They may pay too much as you note and some will choose to live outside of town in hopes of saving money (which is worse for traffic than living on Olive Drive).

          3. Don Shor

            My definition of “available” includes the concepts of scarcity and competition. As in: if an apartment is already occupied, it is not available.

        5. Ron

          Don:

          The only reason I brought it up is because quielo suggested that those with cars could simply choose to live at another apartment.

          If campus housing was not a realistic, long-term solution, I might concur with you more often.

          You brought up affordability again.  I’d suggest that we’re not likely to “build our way” to affordability.  However, we at least have an opportunity with Lincoln40 to advocate that low-income individuals be accommodated on-site, if the development is approved.  (Particularly those who would be displaced.)

          1. Don Shor

            I think that you, like nearly everyone else who refers to ‘affordable housing’, actually don’t know what it really means in practice. The income levels that are eligible are rather higher than you would expect.

        6. Ron

          Don:  I’ve seen how high “low-income” levels are previously, and I’ve been surprised by them as well.  (I don’t recall the details.)  Perhaps this means that the current residents of the Lincoln40 site (who would be displaced) will have significant competition to find a new place.

          Most of the recent proposals in the city are largely intended/planned for students.

        7. Matt Williams

          Ron said . . . “I seem to recall that Matt once acknowledged that it isn’t realistic to expect students to not have cars, but I don’t have the citation to show this.  (I’m sure he’ll correct me, if I’m wrong.)”

          Yes I will correct you.  I have never said, or even implied, that.  In fact I believe it is very, very realistic to expect students to not have cars.  The UCD dorms currently are full of students who do not have cars.

        8. quielo

          “UCD dorms currently are full of students who do not have cars.” I think it’s important to look at this as a process. It would be interesting to better understand they demographics of which students have cars. I am presuming that CA residents are most likely to have cars as they can drive to UCD and drive back home with them. People who fly some distance to UCD will  need to find a place to store their cars during the summer and therefore would have substantial reasons to go car-less.

          This may not be correct but it informs my view of the situation.  Under this scenario if we want to decrease automobile usage we need to accept that CA residents will initially use a car and then how do we incentive them to leave the car at home after the first year? For foreign/out of state students who are wealthy and want to show off we really don’t need worry about them. They need pay for their pleasure.

           

           

        9. Ron

          David:  ” . . . some will choose to live outside of town in hopes of saving money (which is worse for traffic than living on Olive Drive).”

          A “blanket statement” such as this is incorrect.  Many living out of town would not use Richards Boulevard (and the intersection with Olive) to access the campus.  (For example, those using Highway 113.)

        10. Matt Williams

          Ron, in thinking back on the original Sterling parking discussions, what you may be remembering is the dialogue about bringing the parking ratio down from 0.7 (545 spaces) to 0.1 (75 spaces) and why it wouldn’t have gone down to 0.0 (no spaces).  The 75 spaces would have allowed for approximately 20-30 spaces for Zip Cars and 45-55 spaces for visitors’ cars and no spaces for residents’ cars.  There are always going to be some visitors, and if the Zip Cars aren’t easily accessible, that will leave some residual incentive for residents to practice offsite cannibalization parking you said you personally would be inclined to do.

          BTW, I do acknowledge the point that you have made earlier that even without residents’ cars there will be a certain level of trips in and out by Uber cars and taxis and Zip Cars, etc.  Eliminating 100% of motorized vehicle trips is not achievable, but every automobile trip that is displaced by a bicycle trip or a pedestrian trip is a net reduction, and completion of a grade separated crossing of the UPRR will maximize the number of such displacements.

  9. Tia Will

    Eileen

    I understand your points, but see the issue differently. I think that for the past 50 years we have been way too accommodating of the idea that every adult must have their own car and that every car must have its own parking space. These attitudes have been detrimental to our environment and our health and I see it as time to get serious about providing incentives to not rely on single passenger car usage.What I hear most commonly when people talk about the use of their cars is not necessity, but convenience. There are many places both here and abroad where people live satisfying lives without the “convenience” of having a car available for each of them 24/7. I believe that it is high time that we started small steps towards making this transition ourselves.

    1. Odin

      One of my concerns is that there is no guarantee the occupants of Lincoln 40 will be students.  With easy access to I-80 (much like Nishi), Lincoln 40 could look appealing for folks to live in town, but commute to work in Sac, Vacaville, or Dixon.  I wish I could do a survey of folks living in the Livingston Apartments on Olive.  I see young and old leave that complex and it is hard to determine the ratio of students/employees who bike to campus vs vehicle commuters to elsewhere, but it would give a good idea of what will occur with Lincoln 40. All I know now is that every single available parking spot in that complex is taken.

      1. quielo

        “Lincoln 40 could look appealing for folks to live in town, but commute to work in Sac, Vacaville, or Dixon” Is there something wrong with that? They will know when they move in whether they can rent a space or not and they make their own decision. Tia is right that not every bed needs a parking space.

      2. Chamber Fan

        This keeps coming up on every apartment complex.  There are no guarantees that students will rent the rooms, but realistically you have a relatively small, high density project that rents by the bed and you’re not going to get a lot of families or older people living there.

        Everyone keeps ignoring the fact that developers and apartment builders crunch the numbers to figure out how much parking they can provide and they can always use extra-market devices if they under-estimate the number of spots needed.  You really think a student is going to want to pay for a car they don’t use to get to school?  They won’t.  Nor will they want to walk around half a mile to park their car in the train lot.  (We should be charging out of towners for use of that lot anyway but I digress).

        1. Odin

          If the enterprise is right about a 800/250 ratio of beds/parking spots, that’s a big risk whether there will be enough parking or not.  I imagine a few students won’t use their car regularly, but may want to leave it parked for the long term in case they have need for it.  The consequences will be felt by the rest of us on Olive as those extra cars will park on the street further congesting the area.  As I stated above, every single parking spot in the Lexington is full and some park on the street, but have no idea what the bed/parking ratio is in that complex.

        2. Chamber Fan

          The Vanguard quoted the scoping report at 708 beds.  Regardless there is NO risk.  The spaces will be available to those who rent them and there is no close by location to park them off site.

        3. quielo

          “Lexington is full and some park on the street” So why do they have street parking privileges but not the people in the new place. Perhaps we should close the Lexington?

        4. Matt Williams

          Odin said . . . “If the enterprise is right about a 800/250 ratio of beds/parking spots, that’s a big risk whether there will be enough parking or not.  I imagine a few students won’t use their car regularly, but may want to leave it parked for the long term in case they have need for it.  The consequences will be felt by the rest of us on Olive as those extra cars will park on the street further congesting the area.  As I stated above, every single parking spot in the Lexington is full and some park on the street, but have no idea what the bed/parking ratio is in that complex.”

          I agree with you Odin that a few students may want to leave their car parked for long term.  However, if the cost of that parking is $300-500 per month the “few” is almost surely going to become “very few.”

        5. quielo

          If it’s true that “Lexington is full and some park ” why is ok for people who live in Lexington to park on the street and not the people at Lincoln? Very much interested in this answer

        6. Odin

          Quielo, to answer your question, it’s because it’s not currently problematic for them to park there.  Certainly, to be fair, if Lincoln 40 folks can’t park there, then neither should the Lexington folk.  Selfishly, I’d prefer to see Olive either have designated/sticker paid parking (as Matt is proposing), or none at all, but then again that’s because I don’t have to worry where I park my own car.

    2. Matt Williams

      Tia Will said . . . “There are many places both here and abroad where people live satisfying lives without the “convenience” of having a car available for each of them 24/7. I believe that it is high time that we started small steps towards making this transition ourselves.”

      Odin said . . . “One of my concerns is that there is no guarantee the occupants of Lincoln 40 will be students”

      One of the clear, unambiguous ways to accomplish Tia’s goal and at the same time minimize the chances that Lincoln 40 will be attractive to non-students (other than Downtown workers, who will allso like the advantage of being able to walk/bike to work each day) is to have none of the apartments come with a parking space included, and have the monthly rental of a parking space be equal to the average rate in San Francisco . . . approximately $500 per month.  Let the economics of the market determine whether any non-students will want to live in a predominantly student apartment where parking their car is very, very expensive.  The convenience of being near I-80 will be much less valuable if it costs $500 per month, especially when there are apartments near the CA 113 exits that provide convenient access AND parking for free.

      In fact, if a Bay Area commuting car driver is coming back to Davis during rush hour, getting off Eastbound I-80 at Richards is going to take much more time than getting off I-80 at CA-113 and then exiting at either Covell or Russell.

      1. Ron

        Matt:

        Perhaps it’s a result of having a car for years, but I wouldn’t give up mine very easily.  (And, I’m pretty sure that I’d find a “free” spot somewhere relatively close by.)  Glad I don’t have to deal with that, however.

        1. Matt Williams

          Ron, I suspect (but don’t know) that you use your car to transact your daily life.  Even given that likely difference, hypothetically, is your car worth $500 additional/incremental dollars per month to you?

        2. Ron

          Matt:

          I guess you didn’t read the short comment I made, above.  (Perhaps if I post a pyramid/graph, that might help?)  🙂

          I’m pretty sure that I’d find a “free” spot to park my car (somewhere, relatively close by), if I lived at the proposed Lincoln40.  Perhaps I’m more “driven” (pun intended) to do so, compared to some others. Regardless, I suspect that it’s difficult to force people to change their behavior, by design. (And, it may lead to some unintended/unpredictable consequences.)

          Services such as Uber and Lyft don’t necessarily reduce trips via auto.  And, the bicycle traffic traveling to/from the proposed Lincoln40 would impact auto traffic (which already exists) at Richards/Olive.

          Given your statements, it seems like you’re a strong supporter of Lincoln40. (Of course, you probably won’t just come out and say so.)

           

           

        3. Matt Williams

          Ron, I understand your motivation.  Truly I do.  But look at the parking reality as it exists on Olive, even a driven person like you will be hard pressed to find a “free” space on Olive.

          Regarding Lincoln 40, it is too early to tell.  No EIR has been completed.  Their paid parking plan still needs specifics, and there appears to be no immediate plan for a grade separated crossing to facilitate bike/ped transportation to and from it.

          As they say, the devil is in the details, and the details on Lincoln 40 are at best incomplete.

          The “triangle” pertains once again.  My reading of your word “supporter” is that it is pretty much the same as “position” on the P-I-N hierarchy.  Lincoln 40 hasn’t risen above the “interests” stage at this point.  Way too much homework to do yet.

          http://www.davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08-30-CC-Item-08-Mayor-Davis-Conflict-Resolution-Presentation.jpg

        4. Ron

          Matt:  “But look at the parking reality as it exists on Olive, even a driven person like you will be hard pressed to find a “free” space on Olive.”

          I’d probably look beyond Olive (but perhaps I’m somewhat unique).  I’ve had a motor vehicle ever since I was allowed to drive as a teenager, in some much more challenging places (in terms of parking) than Davis.

          In any case, a “parked” car is not that harmful or impactful.  (A developer might like the idea to reduce the number of parking spots, to reduce costs and charge some potential residents for parking.) As I mentioned, services such as Uber and Lyft don’t necessarily reduce auto travel.  Reducing parking does not always equate to less driving.

          Regarding Lincoln40, it seems that the bigger impact (on traffic flow – especially at Richards/Olive) will come from bicycles, if a grade-separated crossing is not built simultaneously with the proposed apartment complex.

        1. Delia .

          Ron, the millenia often share trips to the store, laundry mat, etc. in the bay area. They often call their friends to see if they need anything at costco, winco, target, etc. & will pick it up while they’re out. They definitely reduce the occurence of single use trips.
          Uber- type services also help w/ the avoidance of d.u.i.’s because they’re often less expensive than a traditional cab.

        2. Ron

          Delia:

          I agree that it’s an important goal to reduce trips made by private auto.  (Despite my statements, I often combine tasks to accomplish more than one goal, per trip.  I believe that I also drive far less than most people do.)

          There may indeed be a somewhat different point of view these days, regarding owning a car.  (However, a “parked” car – as mine usually is – doesn’t create that many impacts, either.)  Driving is what creates impacts.  Uber and Lyft are not “driving-free” options.  The example you provided can be accomplished with private autos, as well.

          My point regarding Lincoln40 is that residents will still drive (one way or another), but perhaps not to campus.  (I wouldn’t drive to campus from that location, either.)  I don’t know the impact of eliminating most parking spaces, but it doesn’t necessarily reduce driving (or parking cars in surrounding areas, especially if a car is not needed on a daily basis).

          However, the main point is that student housing belongs on campus, where there is essentially no commute that would impact the city or students.  And, doing so would not require costly infrastructure improvements, such as a grade-separated bicycle crossing (which is absolutely needed if Lincoln40 is approved).

           

        3. Matt Williams

          Ron said . . . “(However, a “parked” car – as mine usually is – doesn’t create that many impacts, either.)  Driving is what creates impacts.”

          I agree that driving creates impacts, but so does each parking space. 

          The typical perpendicular parking space is 9 feet wide by 20 feet long, and when the 10 foot width of the driving lane behind it is added in, each space consumes 270 square feet of footprint.  The average American bedroom in new homes is between 120 and 150 square feet. Master bedrooms are typically much larger, averaging more than 200 square feet, without taking into account closet space or a bathroom.  So each parking space is the equivalent of 1.5 bedrooms housing 3.0 students who would use their feet or their bicycle or UNITRANS to get to their daily place of work . . . UCD.  So, use the Sterling proposal as a hypothetical, reducing the parking from the proposed 545 spaces (a 0.7 ratio of spaces to bedrooms) down to 75 spaces (a 0.1 ratio of spaces to bedrooms) means 470 x 3 additional students housed.  That is a major impact . . . in fact it could actually fund a lot of related community infrastructure.

        4. Ron

          Matt:  Point noted.  Parking spaces take up space (without necessarily reducing opportunities to drive via Uber, Lyft, or by parking off-site in an adjacent neighborhood, etc.).  It also allows developers to reduce costs, and possibly generate revenue from the residents who are willing to pay to park.

          Due to the other options I just mentioned, a lack of parking may not have as much impact on vehicular usage as you believe (e.g., commuting to work, dropping off kids at school, shopping, entertainment, travel to/from Davis, etc.)

          In any case, if your goal is to “cram in” as many apartments as possible in areas that may not be well-suited for it, then it’s probably a great idea.  If most potential residents are students who would use bicycles to reach campus, then students, drivers, and the city will have to deal with the results of heavy bicycle traffic integrating with vehicular and pedestrian traffic, all the way to the University.

          In the case of Lincoln40, an expensive, grade-separated bicycle crossing is pretty much required to avoid traffic nightmares at Olive/Richards, and to provide greater safety and convenience for students.

          In the case of Sterling, there are several busy intersections and driveways (starting with the primary post office driveway), all the way to the University.  Sterling is nowhere near the University.

          Of course, these challenges can be pretty much avoided, by placing most student housing on campus.

           

           

        5. Ron

          Also – entertaining the possibility of placing large-scale, student-oriented apartment complexes in the city (especially at this time) undermines the effort to house students on campus.  It’s actually harmful for everyone – students, residents, and the city.  I’m sorry that some cannot (or simply refuse) to see this.

          1. Don Shor

            It’s not that we don’t “see” it. We disagree with it.
            Forcing scarcity of apartments in town as leverage to compel the university to build housing is not a reasonable strategy. And while you’re waiting for a nearly-zero-percent apartment vacancy rate to somehow motivate UCD to build housing, a lot of renters get harmed. It’s your position that’s “harmful for everyone.”

        6. Chamber Fan

          Sorry Ron, I have a big problem with that sentiment.  The idea that putting 700 beds is going to undermine the university’s need for 7000 to 10000 beds is absurd and the idea that’s it’s dangerous is flat out ludicrous.  Your position is cause me to rethink my views on housing.

        7. Ron

          Don:  Who is “we”?  Are you now saying that you don’t support housing on campus?

          In general, forcing large-scale apartments into areas that aren’t well suited for it is harmful for the 67,000 residents that already call Davis “home”, and is not as good for anyone as placing the housing on campus (except for perhaps, some developers).  If the University campus wasn’t a viable option, I’d have a different opinion. Placing student housing on campus provides an easier, safer “commute” and places responsibility on the campus that is creating the need.

          And yes – accommodating large-scale apartment complexes (requiring zoning changes, etc.) at this critical time encourages the University to continue avoiding its responsibility.  Is that what you want?  We’ve already witnessed the challenges in getting the University to change course.

          Oh, well. Maybe the University will ultimately pursue master leases (or ownership) of anything that is built, regardless.

          ChamberFan:  “Your position is cause me to rethink my views on housing.”

          Well, I had assumed that you were pretty much supportive of most development to begin with. Most chamber of commerce types are.

           

          1. Don Shor

            Are you now saying that you don’t support housing on campus?

            Did I say that, Ron?

            And yes – accommodating large-scale apartment complexes (requiring zoning changes, etc.) at this critical time encourages the University to continue avoiding its responsibility.

            I think that is a preposterous statement.

        8. Chamber Fan

          Hey Ron, it’s not either or.  But you seem to have convinced yourself of that.  The city can add some apartments through private developers a lot quicker than the university.  How do you know what I support?  Why do you assume rather than ask?

        9. Ron

          Don:  “I think that is a preposterous statement.”

          And therein lies the problem.  You don’t see it, even though it’s right in front of you.  Have you noticed the challenges in encouraging the University to change course?  And, the fact that there are (apparently) some vested financial interests who are undermining that effort (on this very blog, no less).  (I’m not referring to you.)

          What do you think the University’s response will be, if large-scale apartment complexes are constructed in the city at this critical time (at locations that aren’t well-suited for it), when the LRDP is not even settled? (Without even considering the predatory master lease arrangements, etc.)

          ChamberFan:  “The city can add some apartments through private developers a lot quicker than the university.”

          Perhaps.  But, the problem is that they’ll do so in locations that are (permanently) worse for everyone (except for some developers), for reasons that have already been discussed.

          ChamberFan:  “How do you know what I support?  Why do you assume rather than ask?”

          Point noted. I will try to avoid doing so.

           

          1. Don Shor

            We need student housing on campus, and we need rental housing in town. We should not make approval of rental development in town conditional on the university promising to agree to add something to their plans that might come to fruition several years from now, assuming the administration doesn’t change priorities under new leadership and assuming the UCOP approves and assuming the funding for housing is there.
            Using your formulation, we would not start building any significant rental housing in town for years. Meanwhile, the problem for young adults (student and not) who wish to rent here will get even more acute.
            The city should move forward with infill projects where possible, mitigating the effects on neighbors to the greatest degree possible. The university will do what it wants at the pace it does things, which is glacial. The city has no control or leverage over what UC does. Even the UCD administration doesn’t completely control that.

        10. Chamber Fan

          Olive Drive is a decent location – billable and easily walkable.  The periphery is a bad location, I would oppose student housing on the periphery where they would either have to drive or take a bus.

        11. Ron

          ChamberFan:

          Thanks for clarifying.

          A primary problem with Lincoln40 is that it pretty much requires an expensive, grade-separated bicycle crossing (as was discussed elsewhere on this page).

        12. Ron

          Don:  “The city has no control or leverage over what UC does.”

          This (“leverage”, or “influence”) is where we really disagree.  We’ve already seen the University drastically change its plans to house more students, and (tentatively?) drop plans to develop Russell Fields.

          This didn’t happen “by accident”.  It was a result of current and ongoing efforts by residents and officials to encourage the University to change course. (Unfortunately, there also appears to be a concerted effort by some to undermine that goal, which makes it that much more challenging.) I know that you’re not part of that effort, but your statements probably provide some with encouragement to do so.

          I don’t know all of the locations where (additional) apartment complexes can already be constructed, under current zoning.  I’m probably much more reluctant than you, to discard much of our current zoning and plans without very careful consideration (and not simply just based on the latest vacancy rate).  There are consequences in making such changes.

          1. Don Shor

            It was a result of current and ongoing efforts by residents and officials to encourage the University to change course.

            And it does not require a moratorium on building construction.

        13. Chamber Fan

          I think the problem here Ron is that you’re mistaking talk for action. To you actually see the University build housing you should assume that they won’t, because guess what, they haven’t.

        14. Ron

          ChamberFan:

          Of course, talk (plans) come before action.  But, I understand that we’re already seeing (some) positive action at West Village, for example.  (Or, we’re about to.)

          The effort to encourage the University is ongoing.  But, in the end, it’s really their problem to solve.  In the meantime, implementing ill-advised, permanent “solutions” will cause more problems than it will solve.

          If some of those who are advocating for massive changes within the city would instead focus some of their efforts on influencing the University, perhaps their concerns would be resolved, by now.

          1. Don Shor

            Maybe you could stop using words like “massive.”
            A reminder of what the university has agreed to do. They have promised to commit to house 90% of the enrollment increase going forward. They have not actually committed to it yet, so far as I know, until the LRDP is changed and the UCOP has signed off on that. That means:
            1. 10% of the enrollment increase going forward will consist of students trying to find housing locally.
            2. increased staff and faculty will be trying to find housing locally.
            3. They are not promising or committing to doing anything about the backlog of thousands of beds that has built up from the insufficient student housing construction on campus, and the lack of rental housing construction in town over the last 15 years or so.
            So: they have promised to commit to not making the problem worse going forward. They have not committed to solving the previous problem. We are where we are: 0.2% apartment vacancy rate right now, and very low vacancy rates the prevailing condition over many years. They haven’t promised to help with that.
            So if apartment construction continues to be blocked in Davis, as you propose, the problem will get worse.
            Add to that the very slow time frame in which UC operates, and the fact that enrollment will continue to increase anyway, and the high likelihood that much or most of the enrollment increase will precede housing construction on campus, and it is almost a certainty that the housing shortage will get much worse in the short run, and somewhat worse in the long run.
            That is the outcome of your policy prescription. It makes things worse for everyone.

        15. Matt Williams

          Ron, I agree with what you are saying about West Village.  And in that agreement is the root of why I brought up the parallel between the Davis Arch and the LRDP. Both are (using your words from yesterday) only proposals at this point in time.

          In closing, when you say “If some of those who are advocating for massive changes within the city would instead focus some of their efforts on influencing the University, perhaps their concerns would be resolved, by now.” you are saying that the only way to approach the problem is to single thread our efforts, putting all our eggs in a single basket. Many people believe this is not an “either/or” reality, but rather it is “both/and.”

        16. Ron

          Matt:  “you are saying that the only way to approach the problem is to single thread our efforts, putting all our eggs in a single basket. Many people believe this is not an “either/or” reality, but rather it is “both/and.”

          Nope – not what I said.  I just don’t necessarily advocate making unwise, drastic changes in zoning/planning based on the latest vacancy rate, to accommodate an unsettled and somewhat reluctant “partner”.  There are consequences (including possible opportunity costs) in doing so.

          Regarding campus development, I understand that the recession had an impact (as it did on construction, everywhere).  In any case, I recently read that further development at West Village is imminent. (I recall that it will start with faculty housing.) I’m pretty sure that you read about this, as well.

          It’s not simply a matter of unwillingness, on the part of the University.  (As noted above, the recession also apparently had an impact.) Luckily, that seems to be in the past, at this point.  (Of course, that’s also the reason that developers and others are now pushing for large-scale development in, and adjacent to, the city.)  It’s unfortunate that some seem willing to sacrifice sound planning, to accommodate them.  (Not necessarily including you, but I think your efforts are sometimes focused on the wrong goal.)

    3. hpierce

      Will assume that you mean that you and your family have modelled that behavior, so you have significantly less than one car for each adult, and that of the cars you/your family have, some of the cars have no place to park of their own.

      Noble concept.  Should also apply to folk who have a one-person household.

      We have less than one car per adult family member, but we do have off-street places to park the ones we have… we’re just “slackers”.

    4. Eileen Samitz

      Tia,

      Although I know that your comment is well intended, please understand that cars are more a necessity for some than others for instance handicapped folks and seniors who do not have the same ability for mobility. Furthermore, just the everyday commuting of most families to drop kids off to school, since our school system does not have a school bus system (which is difficult to understand given the small size of our town) and getting groceries, helping family members, and simply getting to work, usually necessitate having a car. Now lower income folks who can not afford a car obviously find another way to do all of this, but there is no doubt that their life is quite a bit more stressful then they would prefer.

      So lets just say that since any housing built in the City cannot legally be reserved for students (nor should it be), that there is no way to guarantee that a large portion of the potential residents of this proposed Lincoln40 apartment complex would be students not needing cars. It is really just wishful thinking and no “incentives” can guarantee to make it happen.

      1. Tia Will

        Eileen

        please understand that cars are more a necessity for some than others for instance handicapped folks and seniors who do not have the same ability for mobility. “

        In almost all of my comments on this subject, I have stated that I recognize that there will need to be exception for those of limited mobility. I have also stipulated that I favor incentives for the use of alternative transportation rather than disincentives, or higher costs for car usage as I recognize that many people ( myself included ) are dependent on a car to get to work.

        What I am targeting is the discretionary use of our cars, such as transporting to children to school who could just as safely walk, or ride a bike if we only allowed them to, not planning our errands efficiently and then using our car to “just run to the store for…..whatever”, going out for the evening when we could just as easily use Uber, or Lyft,  bike or walk to our destination.

        And a word about the lives of the economically disadvantaged since I was one for all of my childhood and adolescence and my early adulthood. Yes, it is much more stressful to be poor than it is to be affluent. I do not see this as a reason for the affluent to not voluntarily adopt lifestyle changes that would promote greater individual, community, and environmental health and well being.

        I am sure it was not your intention to use the presence of the economically disadvantaged in this manner. However, I frequently hear,” but that will unfairly disadvantage the poor “as an excuse to keep things the same when who really benefits are those of us who already have a variety of good options available to us. Because I have lived in both worlds, that of economic need, and that of economic plenty, I try to fully consider both groups before I make a recommendation.

        1. Odin

          With that said Tia, I am hoping for your support behind my neighborhood (Olive Drive) regarding Lincoln 40.  Over 700 students are about to plopped down on a 5 acre lot, that is considered “underutilized”.   We are not fighting to halt the project.  Reality tells us we will lose that argument.  We are just hoping to limit it’s scope and impact.

          If Lincoln 40 was plopped down anywhere else in Davis, it would cause a major stink.  For example, the Nugget has the option to convert the Nugget Fields to housing.  If they decided they wanted to put Lincoln 40 there, adjacent to a wealthy neighborhood, the entire neighborhood would all be up in arms, soccer moms and dads would have fits, and the city council would probably do whatever necessary to deny the Nugget’s request.  Now I know many would argue “But it’s far from the university”, but Unitrans has a bus stop right there.

          Now here we are, a poor neighborhood, home to many low income workers, many soon to be displaced, and I anticipate the city will resist our fight for rezoning because they see us as the “disposable” side of town.

          Where will you be in our fight?  Will you stand up for a demographic that you used to be part of, or do you also see the solution to our vacancy rate problem is to force low income folk out of town to make way for high density development?

          What say you??

        2. Odin

          Oops, thought I heard that somewhere.  Anyway, I’m posing a hypothetical regarding how a wealthy neighborhood is defended from development vs a poorer one.

          So let’s say the school district sold the land to Highbridge…..   🙂

      2. Matt Williams

        Eileen, from your solid knowledge of handicapped Davis residents and senior Davis residents, how many of them would willingly move into The U with its current 95% plus occupancy by UCD students?  We have lots of very good real life examples here in Davis that can test your hypothesis.  Then if you add on $500 per month for each parking space that the handicapped resident and/or senior resident would have to pay to house their car, the proportion of handicapped and senior residents would plummet even further.

        Your argument in a hypothetical world is 100% correct.  We can not legally reserve housing for any interest group.  However, the vagaries of human nature and price elasticity of demand tell us that legal prohibitions are not the real driving force in determining where people choose to live.

         

  10. Tia Will

    Ron

    Services such as Uber and Lyft don’t necessarily reduce trips via auto.”

    This is true as written but does not acknowledge that these services, along with Zip cars reduce the number of actual vehicles and thus the number of parking spaces needed.

  11. Tia Will

    Ron

    A third choice – a relatively stable population, would be my preference. And ultimately, it’s really the only sustainable choice, in the long term.)”

    This is also my preference. I believe that if we do not seek population equilibrium at some point, our environment will settle the issue for us. I know that there are some who will dispute this since I do not believe that anyone alive today will see it, but I believe that the legacy that we leave to future generations is always dependent upon our current choices. And so far, I do not see our current lifestyle choices as sustainable.  Frankly’s “campsite” is becoming severely damaged and he is not showing any inclination to want to clean it up either locally, nationally or globally since he cannot see a way to do it in an economically productive manner.

    1. Don Shor

      “(A third choice – a relatively stable population, would be my preference. And ultimately, it’s really the only sustainable choice, in the long term.)”

      Until you can persuade the University of California to stop increasing enrollment at UCD, that is not an option. Do you want to cap the availability of college education?

      1. Ron

        Don:  “Until you can persuade the University of California to stop increasing enrollment at UCD, that is not an option.  Do you want to cap the availability of college education?”

        I believe that you’re responding to sort of a “global statement” I was making, and not specific to Davis or the University.

        No – I don’t advocate capping availability of a college education.  (On perhaps an unrelated subject, I don’t think it necessarily has the value it once had, either.)

        Student housing belongs primarily on campus.  It’s foolish to try to accommodate the University’s unsettled plans, especially without being a true partner.  Doing so will guarantee harmful and unnecessary impacts on traffic congestion (including bicycles), city finances, etc. And, it will continue to provide the University with an excuse to not fully respond.

        Let the University “dance” for awhile, instead of us.  Give them a chance to respond, and keep up the pressure in the meantime.  (But ultimately, it’s the University’s problem to solve.)  Even if the University doesn’t fully respond right away, the impact will still be less than cramming in large-scale apartment complexes where they don’t belong. (Such actions impact the 67,000 residents who already live here.)

        Perhaps the University will pursue master leases or ownership on any apartment complex that’s built in the city, regardless.

      1. hpierce

        A ) he doesn’t

        B) Catholics or even Christians (and most Protestants ignore, reject the Vatican ‘directives’) are not the ones procreating the most, world-wide… in the US, a majority consider themselves ‘Christian’ but the number of catholics are not a majority….

        C) the only major group who might listen to the historical teachings of the Catholic church are hispanic… is that truly your point?  No more hispanic/latino/Mexican population growth?

        Why did you interject that?

      2. hpierce

        BTW, “birth control”/contraception is one concept… abstinence is another … abortion is yet another… let’s not confuse terms… moral equivalency, whatever faith, or lack of faith, is not the same for those “birth control measures”… at least in my way of thinking… abortion, in a case where the pregnancy is “doomed” for the mother and/or child, is morally OK… the implant that Tia suggests, is in my opinion, morally OK… condoms, etc., is in my opinion, morally OK [and condoms help prevent STD’s, which can prevent desired pregnancies…], an abortion based on a “change of heart”, inconvenience, in my opinion is not moral/justifiable, but it is the law… even when they can do a “partial birth” of a viable fetus/’product of conception’/human being… I find the latter particularly repugnant… like pithing a frog… then expelling the “residue”… I make no apologies for those views, and please don’t piss me off by saying “I shouldn’t feel that way”…

        And, I’m a “cradle Catholic”, and still practicing my spirituality in the Catholic church

  12. Tia Will

    Don

    Do you want to cap the availability of college education?”

    No. My comment was long term and aspirational not a solution to today’s problem.

    But I do have a number of suggestions ( none of them novel) for dealing with the student housing situation. What I would recommend :

    1. More housing on campus

    2. More housing in town. I favored Nishi, am learning towards favoring the Lincoln40, which will be directly across the tracks and clearly visible ( and audible)  from my house. I  would have been much more supportive of a Trackside project geared for students than for “luxury apartments” since I see the former as a community need while the latter is a “nice to have” for the relatively few occupants and the investors.

    3. Reconsideration of the possibility of moving some of the non agriculturally dependent departments to neighboring communities thus spreading the wealth of the university throughout our region. It was not a disaster when the medical school moved to Sacramento and it would not be a disaster if some other departments were relocated to places where affordable housing is not so scarce. It would appear that this is one point on which the former Chancellor Katehi and I were in agreement with her plan to house the World Food Center in Sacramento.

  13. Edison

    Related to David’s points and the comments of Tia Will:  Recently Bill Ford (Chairman of Ford Motor Company) was interviewed in TV about the challenges and opportunities his company faces. He said one of the biggest challenges is the low interest millennials have in driving and even owning a car, relative to earlier generations.  In my case, I could not wait to get my first car, a 1968 Camaro SS 396 (which got about 8 mpg).  If the chairman of one of the “Big 3” cites this change in attitudes toward car ownership and driving as one of the biggest hurdles facing the future of his company, then one can easily infer that many potential student occupants of Lincoln 40 will in fact not own cars and not park at the development. An innovation like “zip cars” would have been unthinkable when I was “coming of age.”  I find it hard to relate to emotionally, but objectively can understand it.

    On a different note, I still think the developer should not be let off the hook by paying affordable housing in lieu fees. They should either build affordable units for working families or else be denied authorization to build anything. And here’s another thought:  if they want to build housing for over 700 students, why not work with UCD to build the same number of beds on campus?

    1. hpierce

      They should either build affordable units for working families or else be denied authorization to build anything.

      As stated, that would be a “taking” under the law.  They are already “entitled” to replace any buildings on the site, with similar buildings (regardless of ‘affordability’), and probably more (under existing zoning and/or the existing Gateway/Olive Drive Specific plan).

      The City, on behalf of the public, still has the power (if not the resources) to acquire the property, @ fair market value, and then the city could build a 100% affordable project.  If that is proposed, I’d like to see at least 50% of the units built, with no rent, to house the currently homeless, and provide 100% of their food, medical, dental needs.

      To be fair (and/or ‘charitable’), will assume you meant to say, “any further entitlements should be conditioned on…”

      1. Tia Will

        hpierce

        The City, on behalf of the public, still has the power (if not the resources) to acquire the property, @ fair market value, and then the city could build a 100% affordable project.  If that is proposed, I’d like to see at least 50% of the units built, with no rent, to house the currently homeless, and provide 100% of their food, medical, dental needs.”

        Wow ! If this was written seriously, we have yet another point of agreement. What you have described is essentially a “housing first” approach. I would be willing to pay much more in terms of taxes in order to contribute my “fair share” to ensure that the city makes acquisitions that meet the needs of those in our community who do not have the resources to improve their situation on their own.

        I would also be very inclined to support any developer who was willing to devote a substantial portion of their project to housing those in need as opposed to merely providing in lieu fees. Although the Lincoln40 project, in the person of Bill Ritter  has not done this ( I would have been an early outspoken proponent if they had) ,they have taken the desirable step of working actively with the people that they are displacing to help them find acceptable and affordable alternative housing. For me, this is clearly a step in the right direction.

         

        1. hpierce

          Damn straight it was meant seriously!  Am telling folk “put up or shut up!”

          This crap about what other folk should do to fulfill “my agenda” is galling, to say the least.

          I’d be willing (damn seriously!) to pay a parcel tax (though an income tax would be more fair, yet I’d pay more) to have the City acquire the site, find a competent developer to develop housing (the city does not have, nor should not have that capacity), and truly help the seriously poor/homeless.

          The reality is, that will not happen, and to expect to get a property owner to front the money, take risks, build a project to deal with a ‘current’ problem, all on their own nickle… that’s illegal and (arguably) insane.

          As I said, am tired of the crap that says that a developer/property owner should bear the costs of solving existing community/social problems… any problems they cause is a different matter… called “mitigation”.

          Mitigation does NOT include triggers like ending the current leases when they come up for renewal, razing the existing buildings, and doing what they are currently entitled to do.  That is their right, and no mitigation is legally (or, arguably, ‘morally’) appropriate.

        2. quielo

          Tia,

           

          “housing first” is a very popular buzzword among people with no working knowledge or experience with the long term homeless. Given the choice of living next to a BioLab or a project inhabited by untreated mentally ill and addicted, sign me up for the Biolab. 

           

          Untreated addiction and mental illness is not pretty and people of that description do not make good neighbors.

      2. Biddlin

        “If that is proposed, I’d like to see at least 50% of the units built, with no rent, to house the currently homeless, and provide 100% of their food, medical, dental needs.”

        http://media.rightmove.co.uk/dir/1k/444/30529247/444_MCK100752_IMG_00_0002_max_656x437.JPG

        Not long ago I was visiting a friend in Milton Keynes, a town of about 230,000, an hour and a half northwest of London by car or 45 minutes by train. He is a military veteran and retired exempt government employee. He and several other veterans live in a lovely green suburban mew, with very nice modern housing with first rate appointments. Their houses are subsidized by the crown and Buckinghamshire council, based upon their pension and other considerations for special needs, I believe. They are covered under national health care and also receive free transit passes for transit systems that are practical to use.. When I come for a visit they always ask me what have we done about caring for our homeless veterans. I am sick of telling them not a thing.

    2. Tia Will

      Hi Edison,

      I related to your comments about enthusiasm for your first car. I felt the same about my ’56 Chevy. It represented for me a sense of freedom. But it was not long before I began to see the costs, both personal and environmental, of my “freedom” and convenience. I began to realize my contribution to the negative impacts of automobiles.. It has been a long road for me to gradually free myself from my dependence on my car. I have gradually gotten to the point where I am rarely alone in my car unless commuting to and from work involving times and locations that preclude public transportation. My post retirement goal is to rid myself of the need for my car entirely.

       

    3. South of Davis

      Edision wrote:

      > I could not wait to get my first car, a 1968

      > Camaro SS 396 (which got about 8 mpg). 

      Cool first car (my best friend has had a 1968 Z/28 for years and the fuel efficient little small block gets close to 12 mpg)…

      >  if they want to build housing for over 700 students, why

      > not work with UCD to build the same number of beds on campus?

      They were able to buy some apartment land in Davis, I have never heard of UCD selling any land to a developer.

  14. Delia .

    Dear well meaning Frankly,

    Government is not change resistant. In my work history I experienced many innovative concepts that state gov’t tried, well before private industry fully embraced them.

    Whatever examples I tell you to illustrate my point, the negative bullies will pick apart like vultures. They will chide and ridicule and change the subject

    I can, quite honestly, name 25 innovative things my agencies did before the private sector did. And very successfully.

    In random order of importance, ergonomic workstations in the 80’s, saving millions in worker injuries. Wellness programs, grief counselors, recycling, walking meetings. Healthy snacks at meetings. No smoking in the workplace.

    Ride sharing. Flex hours to cut back on freeway traffic around Sac. Exercise room for exercise lunch breaks. In the early 80’s, quality circles.

    Lactation rooms. Paid family leave, including adoptive and foster parents. In some places, rights for lgbt partners before any law was passed. (Paid bereavement leave for lgbt partners, etc)

    There are too many examples to write here. Government is definitely  not averse to change.

    1. Frankly

      Hi Delia – Of course thee are exceptions.  But having worked extensively for both, if we are taking a comprehensive measure of creativity, innovation, change adaption and change adoption… the private sector is an order of magnitude better at it… in general.   I accept that there are exceptions and maybe you have worked for a government organization that is one of them.

      I did not mean to make it sound like Government is only staffed with stasis folk.  Having worked in and with many government employees at all levels, I have known and know a lot of very talented and hard-working people.  I entertained several job opportunities during my career to move to the public-sector and turned them down precisely because the feedback from my questions and my observations in vetting the opportunity told me that the creative dynamists in the organization were unhappy and would either soon be a butt-sitter waiting for their pension, or were ready to bolt at the first opportunity to move to the private-sector.  Some of this is just the nature of the government beast where bureaucracy is created not destroyed.

      But back to my point.  I think that Davis has a larger population of people either more stasis-wired, or more used to it working for government, or growing older they are less accepting of change.   It really looked weird to me and from people on the outside of Davis.  I have called Davis a ship of fools before.   But really it is just a high percentage of people hired to be anxious of and unwanted of change.  And they have Measure R.

  15. Delia .

    I am not saying my agencies invented those examples. They embraced them, on a large scale, often before the private sector did. Not the first, just the first on a large scale. Thus, we were not resistant to change and risk taking.

  16. Delia .

     

    Re: Government change reistance,

    Not true.

    A very long time ago, we initiated extended hours for computer help desks to assist agencies who served the working poor, in minimum wage jobs, who still needed assistance to make ends meet in their impoverished families. Also offered free lactation support for families, saving money in health costs.

  17. Tia Will

    Frankly

    Postrel further breaks her thesis down to two actors: those who opine for stasis and those more attracted to dynamism.”

    I see one basic premise of this thesis is that it is binary. It does not allow for differences in opinion about what constitutes “change” and does not allow for the wide range of personal perspectives along a continuum. It promotes a limited thought process that essentially holds that “I am for change. You disagree with me. So therefore, you must be for stasis.”

    You frequently lump me in with those who oppose change. I believe that I embrace change just as much if not more than you do. I just have a very different vision for the changes that I would like to see. A few examples of the changes I would promote that would represent a far greater change than anything that you seem to promote.

    1. On the national level : universal single party payer health care provision/ universal base income/ mandatory national time contribution upon completion of high school as a means of truly supporting our country, not merely chanting USA ( could be military, educational, medical, construction….)/ a department of peace to equal our “defense” department in power and influence.

    2. On the local level : an automobile free segment of downtown with alternative transportation or exception for those of limited mobility/ paid parking throughout downtown in areas where cars are still permitted/ all new projects ( whether apartment or hotel or business) required to provide some form of incentive for use of public transportation or bike or walking  ( I favor a rebate or discount over a penalizing cost per parking space since that clearly favors the more wealthy)/ a willingness to fund our amenities ourselves in the form of taxes or by time donation rather than by expecting someone else (  newcomers or our children) to pay our bills for us/ I would reverse the current trend of homogenizing our society with “national” brands in favor of local enterprises and small business over large corporations.

    3. In terms of process, I would like to enact a societal wide change starting at the local level in which we adopt a collaborative rather than a competitive business, policy making ,and judicial system.

    Ok, those are just a few examples….do you still maintain that I am the one who is change averse? Or can you see that we simply favor different changes ? There is dynamism on both sides with no promotion of stasis in sight.

     

    1. Frankly

      Of course you would reject a binary classification. That is your MO… to walk back and forth across the razor’s edge of opinion to claim objectivity.

      Certainly there are a number of gray areas.  But this topic is centered around growth… something you are generally against and have said so many times.

      But this no the point here.  You should not mix dynamism with progressive-ism.

      From Postrel:

      Today we have greater wealth, health, opportunity, and choice than at any time in history – the fruits of human ingenuity, curiosity, and perseverance. Yet a chorus of intellectuals and politicians loudly laments our condition. Technology, they say, enslaves us. Economic change makes us insecure. Popular culture coarsens and brutalizes us. Consumerism despoils the environment. The future, they say, is dangerously out of control, and unless we rein in these forces of change and guide them closely, we risk disaster.

      Read what Ron wrote relative to this.  He clearly is feeling anxious that there is too much happening and it is leading him to also worry that we are out of control and heading toward a catastrophic landing.  That is a stasis thing.

      The big reason that I am so critical of the political use of the theory of anthropogenic climate change is that it is clearly a tool favored by the stasis types.  It is sort of a global Measure R.

      Again I am not saying eliminate the stasis types.  Society benefits from the balance attempting some reasonable effort to satiate their nerves.

      But with what Ron wrote and with a moment of deeper reflection I recognized that this is the divide we are seeing in Davis with all these development proposals.  I have been mistaken at times talking about it as a conservative vs. liberal divide.   It is a stasis vs. dynamist divide.

      More from Postrel (I bolded a phrase for emphasis):

      Postrel argues that these conflicting views of progress, rather than the traditional left and right, increasingly define our political and cultural debate. On one side, she identifies a collection of strange bedfellows: Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader standing shoulder to shoulder against international trade; “right-wing” nativists and “left-wing” environmentalists opposing immigration; traditionalists and technocrats denouncing Wal-Mart, biotechnology, the Internet, and suburban “sprawl.” Some prefer a pre-industrial past, while others envision a bureaucratically engineered future, but all share a devotion to what she calls “stasis,” a controlled, uniform society that changes only with permission from some central authority.

      On the other side is an emerging coalition in support of what Postrel calls “dynamism”: an open-ended society where creativity and enterprise, operating under predictable rules, generate progress in unpredictable ways. Dynamists are united not by a single political agenda but by an appreciation for such complex evolutionary processes as scientific inquiry, market competition, artistic development, and technological invention. Entrepreneurs and artists, scientists and legal theorists, cultural analysts and computer programmers, dynamists are, says Postrel, “the party of life.”

      Maybe because you are a doctor, but I think probably also because of your personality, you are not at all comfortable with change that generates progress in unpredictable ways.  You are one to demand more and more data and information to get yourself to a comfortable decision point.  You want to understand the complete projected cost-benefit picture even when there isn’t any way to accurately project it (it would require many assumptions that could be proven right or wrong in the future).

      A dynamist is excited about the new opportunities that derive from change even without having a specific accounting for what those opportunities might be.  They embrace change even understanding that there might be negative impacts.  Because at least then there would be another problem to solve and another opportunity for someone to creatively do so.

      95% of what drives me batty about Davis’s no-growth position is related to my feeling that my responsibility in life should be more oriented to the young people than the old people.  Here we are in a city that host a world-class research university… the fifth largest in the state.   The job of that business is to launch young people toward greater opportunity.  And here in that city we residents are majority wired to block growth that would support greater opportunity.

      I think the question is: who’s town is this anyway?  Who owns this state?  Who owns this country?  Who owns the world?

      I cannot wait for the next generation to take over because this generation is really not doing a very good job.

      1. Ron

        Frankly:  “I cannot wait for the next generation to take over because this generation is really not doing a very good job.”

        In general, I think that future generations are more inclined to consider impacts on the environment than past generations.  (Such concerns have really just started to take off, within the past 30-40 years or so.)

        Technology has to work with the environment, not against it (as has occurred too often in the past).  For example, I understand that modern farming techniques (aka, “the green revolution” – which has supported the increase in population and development) are heavily dependent on fossil fuels for fertilizer, chemicals, machinery, refrigeration, transportation, etc..  Something indeed will have to “change”, with that over time.  I’m not familiar enough with GMOs, to comment on that.

        In any case, we’re starting to see a trend toward organic produce, again.  (The same types of foods that our grandparents used to eat, before the wonderful “change” brought to us by modern food production systems – which probably can’t continue indefinitely.)

        Just one example I can think of, off the top of my head.

         

        1. Frankly

          I think the kids are just reflecting the reality of seeing less opportunity after their baby boomer parents consumed so much and screwed up so many things.

          This is the Hamilton vs. Jefferson debate.  Small agrarian versus industrial.  And it dovetails nicely into the stasis vs. dynamist mindset.

          I certainly support healthier food choices, but there is no reason that this cannot be ubiquitous… regardless if small farming or large agribusiness.   In fact, it would be universities like UCD that would invent new methods to farm organically with higher yields, and to keep produce fresh longer so it can replace process foods as more accessible.  In the US we throw-away copious amounts of produce.  This is a problem that smart minds can solve as long as the stasis rule does not prevent the development of space that would support enterprise aimed at solutions.

          It seems that the stasis mind is also prone to a scarcity mindset rather than an abundance mindset.

          Trends change and people change.  They can do so very well in an environment of abundance including abundance of information and choice.  They don’t need bossy people forcing scarcity as a way to change behavior.   In fact, the tremendous increase of and access to information brought to us by the power of abundance, dynamism and creative enterprise is the primary reason when we do not need scarcity policy.  People are much more capable to become informed and decide what is good for them… and then with enough of them a new trend is born that markets will respond to… if allowed.

        2. Ron

          Frankly:  “They don’t need bossy people forcing scarcity as a way to change behavior.”

          I understand your point, but (historically) perhaps the “bossy people” are developers and their political allies telling us what’s good for us, and what problems we need to “solve” via more development.

          (Comment not directed at you.  Again, I think you generally present some thoughtful arguments, which I sometimes find amusing as well.)

        3. Ron

          hpierce:  Well, I can’t stop others from guessing.

          In your opinion, would the choice regarding children “cause” a certain point of view?  Or, might it be the “result” of a certain point of view?

          Also, does having children (or not) make one less concerned, or more concerned about the impact of development?

          In other words, do you have some type of preconceived notion?

          Actually, I have a similar question for you, regarding when a person might have moved to Davis, vs. those who were perhaps born here (and/or perhaps lived here for a very extended period).  Does that make much difference in terms of views (or validity of views), in your opinion?  (I only bring this up because you’ve described yourself as a “newbie”, in Davis since the 1970s, I recall.)

        4. hpierce

          Ron…my question/point was about tenagers and percieved “need” for car access… nothing more, nothing less… (we dealt with it with each child…)

          And I self reported on the “continental drift thing”, despite my allowing myself to push the tectonic plate a bit myself… mea culpa…

      2. Tia Will

        Frankly

         I have been mistaken at times talking about it as a conservative vs. liberal divide.   It is a stasis vs. dynamist divide.”

        I find it interesting that you are able to admit that you have at times been mistaken talking about this issue as a conservative vs liberal divide, and yet you are determined to see it as a binary divide, just substituting stasis vs dynamist wording this time around.

        I simply do not agree with what I see as this simplistic assessment. And you still have not addressed, in your haste to paint me as a promoter of stasis, the dynamic changes that I have proposed. Within my department, I have always been known as an advocate for change. I have been part of many major innovation projects and the lead on three. Again, based on my history and dedication to changes to improve the health and wellness of both my patients and our community and that of the county, I feel the need to challenge your assessment that I desire stasis just because I do not agree with the limited definition that you have adopted for dynamism.

         

        1. Frankly

          Tia – I think you are missing the definition of dynamist in this context.  And yes, I can agree that there are shades of gray.

          You are progressive, but not a dynamist in this context.

          You are much more stasis as made apparent from all the things you have written to date on the subject of growth.  When challenged asking if you like Davis today that has grown since many years ago, your answer was that you liked it better back then.  From that I would say that you stasis impulses are quite strong… stronger than many… since you are still lamenting change that has already occurred.

          Dynamism isn’t reflected in simply acceptance of some individual change transactions that you have been made comfortable about expected outcomes.  Dynamism is a bigger and higher-level interest in somewhat unknown progress that occurs when dynamic forces are allowed to move freely.

          You could load up a classroom with tools and art supplies and then establish a lesson plan for all the students to follow and then be tested at the end to make sure that all of them were sufficiently educated in their consistent use.  And then maybe you are comfortable adding a few new tools and supplies to as a nod to progress.

          Or you could load up the classroom with tools and supplies and just let in the students to have at it and see what comes out of it.

          Dynamism is more a vision and temperament thing.

          This is an overly simplistic analogy, but it covers the point I am trying to make about Davis’s problems with so much opposition to growth and development.

          A dynamist would be excited about the Nishi development and other developments for the opportunities provided the community… at a higher and less-granular level of consideration.   A dynamist would extract energy from the ideas of change.  Someone with a stasis mindset would feel energy being sucked from them (in anxiety) with the thought of change they have not bought into… and they would recharge by blocking and preventing change… or maybe fight to stay neutral in energy/anxiety by asking millions of questions to help them accept the change.

  18. Tia Will

    Frankly

    “to walk back and forth across the razor’s edge of opinion to claim objectivity.”

    You have just clearly demonstrated the point I was making to hpierce on another thread. You start out with an accurate observation about me ( walk back and forth across the razor’s edge of opinion) but then you go astray. My purpose in my approach is not to “claim objectivity”. It is to assess as completely as I am able, the complexities of any given situation. I rarely, if ever, see the issues as “black and white”. My brain automatically goes to the “but what about…?” mode of analyzing any complex situation. I also rarely know in advance if my position is the best take on an issue. That is why I frequently delay far longer than others in staking out a position. I am aware that I am not objective and that I need to be continuously assessing for whether my inherent biases are affecting my decision making.

    1. Frankly

      Analysis paralysis.  How much “but what about…” is actually useful to the decision process?

      My business partner is wired more like you.  I cause him anxiety when he stalls and I say “you know, a decision to stall for more information is still a decisions fraught with risks.”

      In business there is opportunity cost.  Timing has be be a factor.  And in life in general… if we are lucky we get 4 twenties and some change.  We have already failed to approve any innovation park after spending almost four years debating it.  How many human lives have been damaged by the lack of opportunity that would have otherwise been made available?  Of course you cannot prove a negative here, and it one reason that a stasis argument is difficult to combat.  Change will certainly bring a risk of new problems and so the stasis have their tangible evidence.  But if the stasis forces win and block change, then the dynamist can only point out the lost opportunity… something intangible… expect in aggregate over time as the loss of opportunity accumulates and the economy stagnates.

      This is the point.  If you are a stasis mindset person you will naturally need lots of reassuring before you can accept change.  If you are a dynamist you are more likely to be a change agent… and look forward to a recurring and bountiful opportunity harvest from change.

      Frankly (because I am), without me my partner would have failed the business by now due to lack of responsiveness to a changing marketplace.  He takes FOREVER to get comfortable with complex change decisions.  He will work the data and numbers for months and years if I did not put any pressure on him.  But he has helped pull me back from what would have been problematic decisions from time to time because I didn’t consider some risk.

      I am not trying to shame your stasis wiring.  It is you.  it is my partner.

      The point is that Davis is unbalanced with too many wired like you. We are out of balance and we are destroying too much opportunity.

  19. Tia Will

    Delia and hpierce

    Since I am not Catholic, and do not follow proclamations by the Pope with regard to contraception, I entered this portion of the discussion not knowing which one of your was correct. It would appear from a brief perusal of the internet that the current Pope’s position on the issue of contraception is unclear to even those who have followed his teachings extensively. I would suggest the following which is written by an individual highly versed in this subject as an example of the lack of clarity.

    “http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-and-contraception-a-troubling-scenario/

    My take from this opinion piece is that while the Pope is willing to make exceptions for contraception chosen under extraordinary circumstances, he still view contraceptive use as a matter of “personal attempt to prevent conception” as opposed to as an “act of self defense” as outside of the church’s teachings and thus inherently sinful.

    As I said this is my tentative conclusion after a brief internet survey. If I am in error and that can be demonstrated by anyone who can quote and clarify the Pope’s position for me, I would actually be grateful since, although I no longer prescribe in my limited Breast Cancer Screening function, I still want to remain up to date in what I see as a critical issue of our time.

    1. hpierce

      veering horribly off-topic… have reported/self-reported Delia, my, and your comments re: population control to be subject to moderation as to “off-topic”…

      [moderator] Yes, this is very off-topic. No more, please

      1. hpierce

        Ron…my question/point was about tenagers and percieved “need” for car access… nothing more, nothing less… (we dealt with it with each child…)

        And I self reported on the “continental drift thing”, despite my allowing myself to push the tectonic plate a bit myself… mea culpa…

  20. Tia Will

    Frankly

    In other words, I would value Ron’s opinion in a balanced situation.  But cannot in this situation where people like Mike Harrington are calling the shots on Davis’s future.”

    I have come back to a post further up the thread because I didn’t grasp the possible implication on first read through. Is it really your position that you should discount the valid points of one individual because you do not like the actions of an entirely different individual ?  I hope that I have misunderstood because I find this a very dismissive and potentially destructive attitude. Can you clarify ?

    This is the point.  If you are a stasis mindset person you will naturally need lots of reassuring before you can accept change.  If you are a dynamist you are more likely to be a change agent… and look forward to a recurring and bountiful opportunity harvest from change.”

    It may well be your point, but it completely ignores my point. You have not responded in any way to the ways in which my thinking is dynamic. I am calling for much more change  than you locally, nationally and globally, and yet you insist upon labelling me as stasis oriented.

    I am not trying to shame your stasis wiring.  It is you.  it is my partner.”

    There is no shame taken, not because I defend stasis thinking, because I do not. I see your defense of a “more is better” and “we can grow our way out of trouble” and “technology is universally good and will inevitably solve our problems for us” as much more stasis oriented than I am. This, in my opinion, largely reflects the willingness to accept uncritically rapid changes some of which have been at great cost to our well being.

    The point is that Davis is unbalanced with too many wired like you.”

    I would like to make a distinction between hard wired and hard headed. Some posters here of whom your are one, like to fall back on the expression “hard wired”. I do not actually believe that with the exception of our physiologic processes, that we are “hard wired” at all. I believe that human attitudes  , perspectives and preferred goals and actions are mutable. With more information on a subject, we are always capable of changing our minds. If we are not willing to change our minds as new information and perspectives are gained, then what we are is hard headed, not “hard wired”. And that I believe is counter productive. I much prefer an open minded approach that will consider incoming information on an ongoing basis. If that means some slow down, or delay while all aspects are being considered, I would take that route over a rush to action. Some opportunities may be missed with this approach. But some better alternatives may be developed if we are not so impatient and desirous of change just because it is new, and glossy and shiny. Some words of wisdom from my mother in this respect. “All that glitters is not gold”. It is true that I prefer to know the underlying composition of a project or policy change before I endorse it.

      1. Biddlin

        My gosh, are you so thick you’ve mistaken a job placement test for a personality assessment? I have nothing personally against Mrs. Briggs and her daughter Mrs. Myers. I’m sure they had good intentions by creating personality preference categories to help working women in World War II land jobs in which they might be comfortable. . The test should have been left alone after the war. The purpose of Myers-Briggs is to discover your preferences towards judging, feeling, intuition, etc. Its purpose is not to discover your personality type.  Every single question is ambiguous and left for the reader to interpret the meaning of each question:

        “You like to keep your options open and avoid, where possible, making permanent decisions”.

        “Your day-to-day life is shaped by the situation of the moment, which allows you to easily adjust to the unexpected.”

        “It is in your nature to assume responsibility.””“You take pleasure in putting things in order.”

        “You often have difficulty connecting with other people”.

        “Your feelings are very influential in your decision making”

        “When giving advice, it is better to consider a person’s feelings than point out what is logical.”

        “You are quick to react to a sudden event, e.g. the telephone ringing or an unexpected question.”

        ad infinitum, ad nauseum

        The only unambiguous question: “Your interests and abilities lean more towards the arts and/or humanities than hard science or business.”

        For a guy that whines so much about what you like to call “junk science,” seriously question your own judgement about the subject.

        1. Frankly

          Take a chill pill Biddlin.  The MBTI is still in use in business and still very useful to help with collaboration and communication.

          There is always someone in the group that does not want to take the test and worries that they will be stereotyped.  100% of that time those people are known in the organization for being difficult to work with.

        2. Odin

          “The MBTI is still in use in business and still very useful to help with collaboration and communication.”

          I call bs on that.  If anything those tests give the advantage to those who lie the best.  Of course, then again, selling is often a form of lying so may be a desired attribute for sales, but don’t pretend they are good at rooting out the good from the bad when they aren’t.

        3. Matt Williams

          Odin, that is a topic that will be a whole round of beers when we get together.

          With that said, I personally assembled Hospital Information Technology installation/implementation teams using MBTI to inform us (all the members of the team) about our individual and collective decision-making styles . . . and in the process identify where our team had both vulnerabilities and strengths.  MBTI provided us with a common vernacular to communicate in a non-judgmental way.

      2. hpierce

        Love those tests… took them 4 times that I recall (over a 20 year period… employer required it)… played it straight each time… 4 very different results… either the tests are junk, dependent on age/experience/time of day/day of week, or I have multiple personalities… perhaps a new book/movie… “The four faces of HPierce”…

        1. Biddlin

          Days apart, answering all honestly, I have been INTJ (Master mind) and ENTP (inventor) though I assure you I am neither. I think it was the pancakes that I had for breakfast on day two, put me in a more positive mood. HR might as well use a magic eight ball.

  21. Matt Williams

    Ron said . . . “Due to the other options I just mentioned, a lack of parking may not have as much impact on vehicular usage as you believe (e.g., commuting to work, dropping off kids at school, shopping, entertainment, travel to/from Davis, etc.)”

    First, I’m going to start this continuing dialogue in its own nest.  The nest (tail) of the ongoing dialogue was just too long.

    Second, do you agree Ron that the goal for the Lincoln 40 apartments (if built) is to be 100% UCD student tenants?

    Third, assuming that the answer to that question is “Yes” then that answer informs each of the activities you have described above, specifically:

    — “work” is more than likely to be very close to the axis defined by the points of Olive Drive and the UCD MU.  Student jobs are plentiful along that line, including all of the Downtown, and the predominantly restaurant/bar nature of those jobs is very conducive to the part time schedule that UCD students are looking for from their jobs.

    — UCD students living in Lincoln 40 are not likely to have school age children, if any children at all.

    — Shopping can, and will, happen along that same direct line axis defined by the points of Olive Drive and the UCD MU, which includes Trader Joes, Whole Foods and the Davis CoOp.  Students who are particularly price sensitive will probably take public transportation to Target.

    — Other than Downtown Davis and the UCD campus, where do UCD students go for their entertainment currently?

    — Given the close walking/bicycling distance between the Lincoln 40 site and Downtown and the UCD campus, what attractions in Davis are going to draw UCD students to places in Davis that are remote from that axis.

    — Travel out of town is clearly going to require a car, but does a car owned by a UCD student provide better out of town travel than a ZipCar?

    1. Ron

      Matt:

      Those are a lot of assumptions/questions.  But again, eliminating parking does not necessarily correspond to a direct decrease in driving, due to the other options available (parking in nearby areas, Uber, ZipCar, Lyft, etc.).  And, those residents are going to drive right through Olive/Richards.

      Perhaps more importantly, can you remind me again who’s going to pay for the grade-separated bicycle crossing that’s needed (to avoid impacting Russell/Olive, and to provide a safer, easier commute for students)?

      And, can you remind me why it’s better to change zoning to accommodate this development, thereby allowing the University to continue to avoid responsibility to house its own students in a more convenient, less impactful location (which doesn’t require an expensive grade-separated crossing, for example)?

      And, can you remind me why every housing development (including apartments) within the city ultimately creates a money-losing situation for the city? (And, the reason that there’s no method in place to prevent this?) And, the reason that apartment complexes (regardless of the number of units) pay the exact same amount as a single-family house, toward our school system?

      1. Matt Williams

        Ron, over and over and over again you fall back into the “no silver bullet” argument. You argue that unless a solution/analysis is perfect it should be discarded.  That manechean either/or approach guarantees that we will do nothing.  The University will never go forward with the LRDP because they don’t have “all the answers.”  That is the definition of paralysis by analysis.  Everyone’s efforts will be useless/pointless in your “no silver bullet” model.

        With your final paragraph you appear to be falling into a pattern that you pointed out yesterday . . . hostile responses, with passive-aggressive connotations. I’m not sure where this is coming from, as I don’t view you as an “enemy”.  FWIW, I do not believe you have any evidence of the validity of the assertion you make in your last paragraph.  It is an excellent sound bite, but it is hearsay.  Evidence was presented to the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) in 2008 that new Single Family Residences (SFRs) selling for less than $450,000 fit your assertion, but that new SFRs that sold for more than $450,000 did actually pay their way.  Nothing was presented to the HESC in 2008 about Multi-Family Residences (MFRs).  If you have documentation to the contrary, please post it here and it will help all Vanguard readers be more informed.  For the record, due to cost inflation since 2008, my personal guess is that the $450,000 has risen to approximately $600,000.

         

         

        1. Ron

          Matt:  “Ron, over and over and over again you fall back into the “no silver bullet” argument. You argue that unless a solution/analysis is perfect it should be discarded.”

          Nope (again).  I’m saying that I don’t think we should necessarily/constantly be advocating for drastic changes in current zoning based on the vacancy rate to accommodate an unsettled, reluctant “partner”.  Without repeating things here, there are consequences in doing so.

          Not sure why you stated that the University will “never go forward with the LRDP because they don’t have all the answers”.

          Regarding housing development as a LONG-term money-loser (especially for apartments), do you have any evidence which shows something different?  (Perhaps something that would explain why a city with 67,000 current residents is already facing financial challenges?  Perhaps a few thousand more would “fix things”?)  (Man, they’d really have to pay some type of special “Mello-Roos” to accomplish that!)

           

    2. Odin

      Matt, affordability really should be among the biggest issues with Lincoln 40.  Here is a link to one of Highbridges other projects in North Carolina:

      http://progress910.com

      Sure looks like they are catering mostly to the wealthy.  And I wouldn’t say the design looks that much different than the pics in the EIR preview.  Obviously they don’t like trees either, and there are over 140 of them on the lot.

      Here are some of their reviews:

      https://www.yelp.com/biz/progress-910-wilmington

      Coincidentally, read the first review.

      So folks wonder why some of us are suspicious of developers.  Now I’m a bit more about this one.

  22. Tia Will

    Frankly

    Like hpierce, I have taken the test several times ( don’t remember if it was 2 or 3) with variable results. I found it of mild interest for the insights it gave me into both how I do approach issues, but also how my actual approach tended to vary from what the questionnaire would have suggested. I have no problem with the concept of being “stereotyped” with this kind of test as the examiners always made clear that partially due to the ambiguity of the questions, partially due to our mental, emotional, and physical ( now how many cups of coffee did I have ? ) state at the time of taking the test, the results could vary. I would hate to think that someone in a business, or medical setting would be making serious considerations about my suitability for a position or project based on the results of this highly ambiguous test.

  23. Frankly

    MTBI as well as several other behavior and personality typing tests are still used in business.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/business/myers-briggs-personality-test-embraced-by-employers-not-all-psychologists/

    Business tends to use the tools that work even as those “professionals” that profess to know better denounce the tools… of course without any ego or conflict of interest at play (wink, wink).

    For me, in using this and other tools throughout my career, the benefit is more in the employee education of being aware of and sensitive to personality types.

    Forgive a bit of partisanship here.

    One of the things that irritates the crap out of me is the social justice focus on superficial differences like race and gender and then to denounce personality difference as having any meaning or usefulness within the topic of inclusion, fairness and diversity.  We would be much better off wearing and having awareness of our four letter MBTI sticker than any groupism awareness that powers the politics of the left.

  24. Tia Will

    Odin

    Where will you be in our fight?  Will you stand up for a demographic that you used to be part of, or do you also see the solution to our vacancy rate problem is to force low income folk out of town to make way for high density development?

    What say you??  “

    I do not know yet where I stand on this project. But what I can tell you is that in this case, as in every other case including Trackside which is in my neighborhood I will be making my decision based on the overall merits of the project. I will include in my assessment what I end up seeing as the pros and cons of the project itself with its potential benefits for the community overall as well as its adverse consequences for the neighbors. What I will not be doing is seeing it as an instance of demographic warfare with one group fighting the other because of their perceived economic or social status. I am neither for or against any specific groups based on their socioeconomic status. My preference as I have made clear many times is to favor those who are in need. But when there are conflicting needs, as opposed to benefits for those who are the most wealthy and/or best connected as I believe was the case with the initial Trackside development. What I see as the issue with the Lincoln40 is that we have an actual need for more student housing, and we have a need for maintenance of neighborhood integrity. At this point  in time, I do not know enough about the details of the project to form an opinion. I suspect that this hesitancy might be as frustrating to you as it is to Frankly, but it is how I process information and arrive at decisions.

    What I can tell you is how I intend to proceed. I was at the meeting previously arranged with the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association by Bill Ritter. I will be at the Draft EIR and Scoping meeting for the project on Thursday.

    As I gain more insight to the project, I will be commenting as the issue comes up here on the Vanguard, so as soon as I know my position, I will be happy to share it.

    1. Odin

      Tia, all I am trying to do is raise people’s awareness to the fact that it is harder to mobilize a poorer neighborhood against something that may force them to relocate elsewhere (me included), because the folk I am surrounded by are more the type to withdraw behind closed doors when input is sought than rally together.  There are literally hundreds of people who this project will impact, many unaware of the it’s scope (5 acres, over 140 trees, months of construction).  So, per capita wise, we should be heard, but how is that supposed to happen?  So I’m asking you to take that into consideration.  This isn’t just rooted in fixing the cities problems, it’s also rooted in social injustice and you need to help rally the troops.

      Whoever stated in another thread that a mistake the city made was zoning Olive residential instead industrial hit it on the head.  It was a mistake.  Poor people live here now (many low income workers for UCD).

      So, everyone needs to keep in mind, no matter what a lot of blowhards on here say about accepting every damn development that comes our way to solve UCD’s problem.   This project needs a very thorough vetting.  As, or even, more that has gone into: converting Russell Fields, the Hyatt, Sterling, Trackside, etc.  I’m trying to speak up for my neighbors.  I’ve got the resources to move (which is something I despise the thought of doing), but they don’t.  I said a lot of this stuff regarding Nishi here on the DV.  Ironic that some folks think air quality was the reason it failed.

  25. Tia Will

    Frankly

    Forgive a bit of partisanship here.

    One of the things that irritates the crap out of me is the social justice focus on superficial differences like race and gender and then to denounce personality difference as having any meaning or usefulness within the topic of inclusion, fairness and diversity.  We would be much better off wearing and having awareness of our four letter MBTI sticker than any groupism awareness that powers the politics of the left.

    First, why should today be different from any other day ?  One almost always had to “forgive a bit of partisanship” to get to the actual heart of your posts.

    However, my more serious and honest question is why you seem to find it necessary to do any kind of categorizing or labelling at all. Why not leave “groupism” behind entirely and judge individuals exclusively on their own words and actions ?  With this one simple step, we could as humans overcome almost all of the “tribalism” that you believe is inherent in human nature, and I believe is a taught trait which we are free to either accept or reject.

  26. Matt Williams

    Ron said . . . “Also – entertaining the possibility of placing large-scale, student-oriented apartment complexes in the city (especially at this time) undermines the effort to house students on campus.  It’s actually harmful for everyone – students, residents, and the city.  I’m sorry that some cannot (or simply refuse) to see this.”

    Here too, in the interests of easier posting I’m going to start a new nest.

    Ron, based on the available numbers the community of Davis (the City and the University combined) has a deficit of over 10,000 beds.  The 2013 Housing Element shows 13,524 Davis Workers in 2010, with only 4,232 of them living in Davis.  That is a discrepancy of 9,292.  The 2013 Housing Element also shows 19,846 UC Davis Faculty and Staff in 2010 with only 4,719 of them living in Davis. That adds 15,127 to the discrepancy, raising it to 24,419.  Then add in the UCD student housing shortfall we have discussed at length here. 36,104 total students less the 2,204 Sacramento campus students equals 33,900 less the 9,834 housed on campus leaves 24,066 housed off campus.  The estimates of the current UCD student population housed in Davis varies, but for the sake of discussion let’s say the approximate number is 16,066, which leaves a discrepancy of 8,000.  Add that to the 24,419 worker, faculty staff subtotal and you get an aggregate discrepancy of 32,419.

    If one out of 10 of the discrepancy wants to live in Davis the housing deficit is 3,242.  At 20% it is 6,484.  At 30% it is 9,726.  At 40% it is 12,968  At 50% it is 16,210.

    If you were estimating what percentage of the 32,419 what to live in Davis, what would your estimate be?

    Bottom-line #1, 750 beds at the Lincoln 40 site is less than 5% of 16,210.  Does a 5% impact really “undermine the effort”?

    Bottom-line #2, the numbers argue that we need both the University effort and a City effort.

    1. Ron

      Matt:

      Again, these numbers are meaningless when the LRDP is not even settled, and is open to further influence.  In short, you’re advocating to coordinate with an unfinished plan, with a not-yet-fully committed/settled “partner”.

      You’re also apparently including workers/students who already have housing in adjacent communities.  Do you really think that these residents would choose to live in Davis, given the difference in cost, etc.?  (And – lack of parking at proposed developments?)  And, that we should make plans based on some uncertain, theoretical percentage for those who might be interested?

      In addition to the questions I had above (e.g., who’s going to pay for the grade-separated bicycle crossing, etc. at Lincoln40), perhaps you could also fill us in regarding the reason that this developer is proposing to dislocate current low-income residents, without accommodating them on-site.  It must be “very easy” to find available affordable housing elsewhere in the city.

      Since you seem to be interested in percentages/numbers, how about devoting, say, 10% of the effort you expend on the Vanguard toward encouraging the University to assume responsibility for housing its students? The result might also free-up housing for others, in the city. Your expertise would no doubt be quite valuable, in that effort. 🙂

      1. Matt Williams

        Ron said . . . “You’re also apparently including workers/students who already have housing in adjacent communities.  Do you really think that these residents would choose to live in Davis, given the difference in cost, etc.?  (And – lack of parking at proposed developments?)  And, that we should make plans based on some uncertain, theoretical percentage for those who might be interested?”

        Ron, why do you think my percentages started at 10% and went up to only 50%.  At 50% the remaining 50% fit into your described group of “workers/students who already have housing in adjacent communities.”

        Your post above is another of your “not a silver bullet” arguments.

        1. Ron

          Matt:  Hmm.  Can you maybe explain it using a graph or pyramid?  🙂

          Let’s just say that our efforts are in sometimes different (occasionally opposite) directions.  I think we’re both aware of concerns, but have arrived at different conclusions.

          Sure would love to have you on the side that’s attempting to encourage the University to take responsibility for its own students.

          Oh, well.

        2. Matt Williams

          Ron said . . . “Sure would love to have you on the side that’s attempting to encourage the University to take responsibility for its own students.”

          What makes you think that I am not?

        3. Matt Williams

          I do directly carry the message when the opportunity presents itself.  Our community’s housing crisis definitely needs active UCD participation in order to improve.

  27. Tia Will

    Odin

    As someone who has taken a fair amount of flak for expressing my opinion on Trackside even though I am not one  of the immediate neighbors ( but interestingly enough no flak at all for supporting Nishi by these same folks although I live even further away,I really appreciate you choosing to speak up for them.

    So I’m asking you to take that into consideration.  This isn’t just rooted in fixing the cities problems, it’s also rooted in social injustice and you need to help rally the troops.”

    I will certainly take that into consideration. And I will be very happy to help you inform your neighbors and “rally the troops” as I strongly believe that the voices of all concerned should be heard. If you like, you can get my email address from David and let me know how you believe that I might be of help.

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