Guest Commentary: Housing Affects Us All

By Don Gibson and Aaron Latta

The housing crisis has hit a critical point. Everyone constantly quotes a 0.2-percent vacancy rate, but what does this actually mean?

It means that in 2017, 8,122 apartment units were surveyed as part for the annual UC Davis BAE Vacancy Survey. Of those 8,122 apartment units, only 13 were available. 13. It means we saw rent increase more than 7 percent last year. It means housing has become the No. 1 issue affecting quality of life for our community members.

It means every day that passes by, more members of our community struggle to find housing. They are faced with difficult choices: dropping out of school, finding somewhere else to start a family, or resorting to extreme housing options like sleeping in their cars. The current lack of housing is the driving factor behind these rent hikes and increasing that supply will help students and families alike.

Student Housing at Nishi was approved by the City Council with a rare affordable-housing program that students can qualify for. Extremely low-income students will be able to qualify for housing as low as around $400 a month. This is a precedent setting program that can act as a litmus test for all housing projects going forward.

If this project fails, future developers will see this program as a fruitless endeavor. Student-housing projects like Tercero, with triple occupancy units costing $950 a month, will remain the norm. Nishi can systematically change the way our city views affordable housing.

Apart from the affordable-housing elements, only one-third of all residents would have a car. By putting students at this location, we are eliminating student commuters. The 2,200 tenants at this site are 2,200 less potential commuters coming from Woodland and Sacramento. Nishi reduces the need for students to use cars, taking thousands of cars out of our congested downtown. The Nishi project also exceeds the Beyond Platinum Bicycle Action Plan and gets students out of cars and onto bikes, increasing bike mode share.

Additionally, Nishi will do its part in taking pressure off of our neighborhoods and relieve the current minidorm epidemic. Bay Area investors are buying the cheapest housing stock in town and converting them into cash cows.  Cramming 10-plus students in two- and three-bedroom homes has become an easy way for these out-of-town investors to make ridiculous profits while affecting the quality of life of both the occupants as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. Nishi puts students right next to campus and eases pressure on limited housing stock.

Kevin R is a second-year student at UC Davis and has been forced to commute due to the lack of housing available in town: “Last week I have spent $75 on gas. I am exactly the kind of student you want living at Nishi and stop commuting half an hour every single day just to get to school.” Kevin has also noticed a large population of students even less fortunate than himself: “Every day I park next to 1-3 people sleeping in their car. Just down by the railroad tracks, there is a small community of homeless students who sleep next to the tracks at night and go to school during the day.”

Another unfortunate story is Dominic A. As a former transfer student, he struggled financially so he was forced to get a retail job working nights. Soon after, he realized one job was not enough and had to get a second job. He was renting a room for $525 a month which is reasonable. However, when given the opportunity to renew his lease, the rent was increasing by $200 for his room alone.

And that was the price for renewal. New tenants would have had an even more expensive rate. Unable to pay the new rate and unable to find a new apartment within his affordability range, he was forced into homelessness. Luckily, he was able to find friends who let him couch-surf until he found a new home, but now lives in a single-family home with seven other people. He sleeps in the living room. People like Dominic are exactly why we need the extremely low income affordable housing at Student Housing at Nishi. It is designed for students with parents who cannot help them pay their tuition or their rent.

Voting against Student Housing at Nishi can only contribute to the current problem with homeless students; it can only add more commuters coming into town; create more minidorms and contribute to the profits of out-of-town landlords; take housing away from other members of our community.

Without this project, the housing crisis can only be exacerbated. We can no longer remain neutral on housing anymore as the status quo is the No. 1 issue affecting the quality of life of our community members in this town. Please take a stand and vote Yes on Measure J this June.

— Don Gibson is the Chair of the ASUCD/GSA Joint Housing Task Force and Aaron Latta is the Chair of the Davis Housing Brigade


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

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

50 Comments

  1. David Greenwald

    “Unable to pay the new rate and unable to find a new apartment within his affordability range, he was forced into homelessness.”

    Would like to see data on student homeless rates

  2. Matt Williams

    This article misses the mark in one very crucial way … squandered opportunity to truly address the housing shortage.  Specifically,

    The 2016 version of Nishi included 9.8 acres of residential and 650 dwelling units for a housing density of 66.3 units per acre.  The 2018 version of Nishi includes 26.8 acres of residential  and 700 dwelling units for a housing density of 26.1 units per acre.
    The 2016 version of Nishi included 9.8 acres of residential and 1,950 resident for a housing density of 199.0 residents per acre.  The 2018 version of Nishi includes 26.8 acres of residential  and 2,200 residents for a housing density of 82.1 residents per acre.

    If 2018 Nishi delivered the same amount of housing per acre as 2016 Nishi, then instead of 2,200 students having a roof over their heads 5,332 students would have a roof over their heads.  Aaron and  Don need to explain why they want 3,132 of their fellow students to remain homeless.

    “3,132 minds are a terrible thing to waste

    1. David Greenwald

      Is that really the job of Aaron and Don?

      I would argue that if Nishi doesn’t pass, then the density will be zero.

      Can a more dense project pass a Measure R vote?  I don’t know.  But what I do know is that 2200 residents at Nishi, combined with another 2000 to 3000 at other projects combined with the 8500 supplied by the university, gets us close to housing needs.

      If that’s the case, then arguing that 3132 point is moot.  And the goal of Nishi should be to maximize the opportunity to pass it.

    2. Mark West

      “squandered opportunity”

      A perfect example of why Measure R is such a poor planning tool. The original project was a much better solution for both those looking for appropriate housing and for a City looking for new revenues from commercial development. With Measure R, however, we are now looking at the pale imitation of a good project, but one that fits within the approved EIR and which the developers believe will still give them a reasonable return on their investment. If this version fails to pass, then my expectation is that we will not see another proposal at this site for a very long time, much like the situation at Covell Village. Of course, that is exactly the outcome that Measure R proponents desire…no new developments so they can protect their own property values and subject their tenants to ever increasing rents.

      By the way, if you are a renter and you support Measure R, you should stop complaining about the cost of your rent.

      1. Don Shor

        The original project was a much better solution for both those looking for appropriate housing and for a City looking for new revenues from commercial development.

        But the simplest way to address the concerns about traffic impact on Richards was to close off that access, which unfortunately precludes any significant retail or commercial component for the project. I understand your point about Measure R here, but a look at the way the precincts voted suggests that traffic was the deciding factor and I would expect an elected council to be responsive to those concerns.
        If traffic was your concern, the 2018 project would certainly look much better.
        http://www.yoloelections.org/election-returns/archives/20160607/240

        1. David Greenwald

          I see what Alan is saying.  He believed that the last project would reduce traffic through Richards, this one just bypasses Richards but doesn’t change the existing traffic.

          ALTHOUGH, I would argue that building Nishi, L40, and Sterling will put more students on bikes and in buses rather than coming across the causeway in their cars and so that MIGHT (along with 8500 beds on UCD) reduce traffic through Richards.

        2. Alan Miller

          > Alan… am confused… what version of Nishi would have REDUCED traffic through Richards?

          One of the stated benefits of having a through road from Olive/Richards through Nishi to campus was so that traffic could take this route rather than going through the tunnel, up First, and right towards campus, thus reducing the rush hour traffic jams on First and through Tunnel.

        3. Howard P

          Now, David, you have me confused… development of vacant parcels will decrease/reduce existing traffic?  Then we should fully develop all vacant parcels, and further reduce traffic from all the corridors!  Counter-intuitive, but I guess I should bow to that insight…

          Remember, 2016 Nishi had no guarantee of MV access to anywhere other than W Chiles/Richards…

        4. David Greenwald

          Howard: Remember the transportation chart I keep posting – people who live within a mile, do not drive to campus.  A key variable – you are not adding people by building this housing, you are allowing more students to live close to campus rather than commute.  Can you reduce traffic simply by filling vacant parcels?  I doubt it.  At some point you are actually putting people in the area that would not be there.  But in the case of student housing and a 0.2 vacancy, yes, I think you reduce traffic by adding housing close to campus.

        5. Howard P

          There is a serious set of flaws, Alan… Nishi 2016 had no real assurances for MV access to UCD… LT movements @ Richards/Olive take a lot of time out of a signalized intersection capacity… so, you may be correct as to total trips via the OH/tunnel (if, and that was a big/huge “if”, there was full MV access to UCD)… but transit time from So Davis to Downtown (and transit time coming out of Downtown, whether to So Davis or I-80) would not improve, and would likely degrade.

        6. David Greenwald

          “Nishi 2016 had no real assurances for MV access to UCD…”

          Which is a point I don’t understand.  The university access was in the baseline features.  That being the case, without university access there could literally be no project.

        7. Howard P

          Another reason to vote “no” then (2016)… no guarantee that the project was viable…

          If the project (2016) had moved forwar, and if a TM been approved, and if UCD did not grant the access, under the Government Code (at developer pointing out that they tried,  in good faith, but no dice), the City would have had only two options… relieve the developer of that requirement, or proceed with eminent domain procedures with UPRR and UC.  Fact.

          Yes, the City could (and should) recover 100% of the ED costs… had the project been approved in 2016, we’d still be in that process, with no trial date in sight… Likely fact.

          With the current proposal, where the project ONLY is viable if they get approvals from UPRR and UC, it is simpler.  The 2016 version could have led, by operation of law, trumping the Measure R vote, to the 2016 project be allowed to proceed with the only MV access to W Olive/Richards… reasonable conclusion.

          Check my posits with any competent, experienced, land use attorney.

          There is a difference in the 2018 Nishi proposal… no likely way (there is a slim one) that they can proceed without UPRR and UC approvals (note I did not say UCD… I said UC). They have no “back-door”, here.

           

        8. Howard P

          David, you appear to ignore the other point I made (convenient?)… LT movements @ Richards/Olive affecting the intersection capcity and resultant corridor issues… cherry picking?  The cherries are far from ripe.

          In any case, Nishi 2016 is history… no re-do’s… now we are looking at Nishi 2018… the nay-sayers (too much and too little) have convinced me… I’ll be voting “yes”, and will encourage all I know to do the same… I’ve seen 3 versions for Nishi over the last 20 years (yes, there have been three… the first, not subject to Measure R/J… they even got their TM approved (they failed to act in a timely manner on that approval)) [those who claim this is Nishi 2.0 are definitely ‘newbies’]… the other two pale in comparison, overall… all things considered… it is not “perfect”, but who/what is?

        9. Alan Miller

          Well trodden path HP.  You never liked Richards/Olive access and came up with every reason it wouldn’t work.  I liked it.  Doesn’t matter, it’s dead Jim.

      2. Matt Williams

        Well said Mark.  The original project was indeed a much better solution for both those looking for appropriate housing and for a City looking for new revenues from commercial development.

        The failing of 2018 Nishi is exactly the same as the failing of 2016 Nishi … specifically that the party that benefits the most from the building of housing at Nishi is quietly standing on the sidelines having made no concrete fiscal contributions to the project.

        Having housing for over 5,000 of its students is of massive value to UCD.  UCD could make Aaron’s wailing and gnashing of teeth about elevator costs disappear in the snap of their fingers if they made a contribution to the Nishi project equal to the value they are receiving from the project (if it passes).

        1. Aaron Latta

          My wailing or gnashing of teeth? Seriously Matt?

          It wasn’t the university that stopped building all housing 15 years ago. The university has done its fair share. The city, including you, has not. Lincoln40 and sterling is a good start, but Nishi is needed to fulfill the rest of the city’s duty to serve its community.

          We as students drive your commerce, pay taxes, staff your businesses, and are the driving factor in positive change in Davis. If the university and its 30,000 students left, your community would be devastated. Just because you show up to city council more often does not mean you get a free ride off of us.

        2. Alan Miller

          >Just because you show up to city council more often

          I love how showing up at City Council meetings often in the City of Davis is now looked upon similar to having untreatable gonorrhea.

        3. Howard P

          Aaron… over the last 15 years… look at theUCD numbers for ‘building’, and de-commissioning/razing their housing… don’t have those handy… it’s more than a “push”, but far less than one might expect from “building” alone… the key is NET new rooms/beds.  Just saying…  UCD has ‘spun’ some of their numbers, by focusing on new construction, and ignoring ‘removals’.

        4. David Greenwald

          “I love how showing up at City Council meetings often in the City of Davis is now looked upon similar to having untreatable gonorrhea.”

          What I found interesting both with Nishi and L40 – the people who don’t normally come speak were taking one or two minutes.  The people who speak on every single item, had to have their three minutes.  When there are 30 or more people speaking, you’re talking 60 to 90 minutes of public comment.  It gets a bit much, but those speaking all the time, can’t ake a hint to limit their comments.

        5. Mark West

          Matt W. “wailing and gnashing of teeth about elevator costs…”

          The elevator costs are relatively trivial, it is the 8′ wide interior hallway running the length of the building that is required on each floor (along with the elevator) that is the issue.

          I don’t have the plans in front of me so I don’t know the dimensions of the proposed buildings. For the sake of demonstration, let us assume we are talking about buildings that are 50′ wide and 100′ long, or roughly 5000 sf of living space per floor. That means an 8′ wide interior hallway would either remove 800 sf of living space per floor (16% reduction) or add 800 sf to the size of the building (now 58’x100′, 5800 sf for a 16% addition). Either way, the expected revenues per square foot of building will be reduced as you cannot rent out a hallway, so you either need to find other cost savings (the affordable housing program?) or increase the expected rents to compensate. If you don’t think that market rates will support your new target, you won’t be able to build the project.

          The cost of the elevator is a one-time expense. The loss of revenues per square foot is in perpetuity.

      3. Alan Miller

        Agree with MW on all points in this comment.

        I struggle with voting YES on Nishi 2.0 because I was very much in favor of Nishi 1.0 and this version is inferior . . . except that it panders to reduce the things that Davis voters, or at least the loud ones, complained about.  I believe this is a great piece of land to be developed, so I will probably vote yes, but I’d rather vote on Nishi 1.0 again and commit mass voter fraud this time so that it passes.

    3. Aaron Latta

      “If 2018 Nishi delivered the same amount of housing per acre as 2016 Nishi, then instead of 2,200 students having a roof over their heads 5,332 students would have a roof over their heads.  Aaron and  Don need to explain why they want 3,132 of their fellow students to remain homeless.”

      Matt: I have told you time and time again that increasing to that level of density will require additional costs such as installing elevators in each of the buildings. These additional costs will be to the tune of thousands per unit. Your solution will push the rents at Nishi beyond market rate and make the affordable program impossible. Lack of affordability killed Nishi in 2016, your suggestion would do the same in 2018. So then the real question is why do are you okay with leaving 2,200 students homeless to fulfill your fantasy?

      1. Matt Williams

        Aaron, 2016 Nishi had absolutely no problem absorbing elevator costs in their 4-story and 5-story residential buildings.  So I ask you, what is it about 2018 Nishi that makes the same absorption of elevator costs suddenly un-doable?

        As I said a week ago in illuminating the $36 million overstatement of the fiscal benefit to the City in the Yes on Measure J Ballot Statement … “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”  Nishi 2018 grossly overstates the net City revenue it delivers and at the same time delivers severely suboptimal housing.  Anyone who believes in honesty will cast an honest “No” vote on Measure J.

        1. Aaron Latta

          As to the fiscal benefit. Fiscal benefits of any development are very difficult to estimate. The Finance and Budget commission has stated that this project is net-positive and I trust the general consensus of 5 commissioners over two.

          And once again Matt, you are forgetting one of the crucial reasons why Nishi in 2016 failed to pass. Nishi in 2016 had no plan for affordability. Nishi 2018 does. If we force Nishi to provide that level of density the affordability plan will become impossible and we risk the project being able to pass at all. So I ask you again why are you so willing to put 2,200 residents at risk of homelessness for your fantasy?

           

           

        2. Howard P

          Aaron… your 8:46 post, where you said,

          one of (emphsis mine) the crucial reasons why Nishi in 2016 failed to pass. Nishi in 2016 had no plan for affordability.

          What killed my ‘yes’ vote, then, was primary access to Richards/Olive/First (I voted “no” because of that).  You are absolutely correct that there was more than one “crucial reasons” that lead to failure in 2016.  You cited one, I’ve cited another… then there is a “hidden” crucial reason… when folk are unsure, confused, they tend to vote “no”… a ‘safe place to be’… the latter will be key to the passage/failure of the current measure…
          Between those that are anti development (except on campus), those who may vote no because it is not “good enough”, and those unsure/confused, the measure has a tough row to hoe.

        3. Howard P

          Don… je d’accord… thank you for posting that (the precinct results map graphic)… proximity may not be everything, but it’s way ahead of anything in second place… a variation of the famous quote… (apologies to Vince Lombardi, Red Sanders)

      2. Matt Williams

        Aaron, you are one of the official signers of the Yes On Measure J Arguments/Rebuttals.  How do you explain the $36 million overstatement of net revenue to the City.  Specifically, explain why the Argument overstates the net one-time benefit by $11 million and the City’s additional  property taxes each year by more then $2.25 million each and every year ($25 million total over the life of the City’s New Development model for Nishi).

        1. Howard P

          Darn good question, Aaron… Matt and I are good friends, even though we often disagree (we need more of that locally and beyond!)…

          I see this as a good example of the phrase, “the Perfect is the enemy of the Good”…

        2. Matt Williams

          Aaron, you are willing to roll over and put your legs up in the air while the developer runs you over and leaves you as road kill … or alternatively provides you inducements to be their political messenger.  I’m not. For you this is 100% political.  For me it is 100% fiscal.  Providing housing for for more than 5,300 students is twice as valuable to the community (and to UCD) than providing housing for only 2,200 students.  If you don’t believe me, just ask Joe Minicozzi.

          The cost of elevators for the 2016 version of Nishi with its five high rise buildings was probably between $100,000 and $200,000 per elevator … approximately $500,000 to $1 million in total one-time costs.  That translates to between $25,000 and $50,000 in debt service each year.  Divide those two debt service amounts by the 1,950 residents planned for 2016 Nishi and 12 months, you get an elevator cost of between$1.07  and $2.14 per resident per month.  Adding a dollar or two to the monthly rent of a bed at Nishi does not make the rent unaffordable.

          Further the largest beneficiary of the Nishi Student Housing project (UCD) has not even stepped to the table with any fiscal contribution to the project.

          With that said, where have you answered the question I posed to you … “explain why the Ballot Argument overstates the net one-time benefit by $11 million and the City’s additional  property taxes each year by more then $2.25 million each and every year ($25 million total over the life of the City’s New Development model for Nishi).”  If you want to duck answering that question, just say so.  Obfuscation does not become you.

        3. Mark West

          “roll over and put your legs up in the air while the developer runs you over…”

          I find this comment to be offensive, and an example of a pervasive arrogance among the ‘anti-everything’ activists in town that it is appropriate to display animus against developers as a group, and against some individual local developers in particular. This attitude has caused significant harm to the City, and in my opinion, should be a source of embarrassment for all of us who live here.

          Developers make their living risking their own capital to build projects that are needed by the City and its residents. Everyone who lives in Davis is able to do so because developers and builders were willing to risk their own financial futures to produce the housing and other infrastructure that we all use and need. The fact that they often profited while doing so is a good thing because it encourages them to build again the next time we need their assistance.

        4. Matt Williams

          Mark, if you remember 2016 Nishi, my official position was (1) that I would vote “Yes” so how you label me “anti everything” is interesting to say the least, and (2) I stated clearly, unambiguously and often that the biggest flaw in the 2016 Nishi proposal was that the development was a partnership of three parties … the developer, the City, and UCD … and that the third party, UCD, had not come to the table contributing value to the partnership in exchange for the value they were receiving.

          Further, the public record of the 2017-18 Nishi deliberations provide clear video documentation of my strong, clear and unambiguous arguments delivered multiple times in public comment that the proposal of 700 dwelling units on 25.8 acres is less than one third of the density of the 2016 Nishi project which had 650 dwelling units on 9.8 (26.1 units per acre versus 66.3 units per acre), and that scheduling a Nishi vote in November would allow the three partners to modify the plan to achieve approximately 2,000 units that would house in excess of 5,300 students, and complete an updated EIR for such a project.

          Howard noted above that “the Perfect is the enemy of the Good.”  He may be right, but this current 2018 Nishi application is a crystal clear example of “the Expedient is the enemy of the Good.”  The Nishi developer told the City Council that doing another EIR was neither expedient nor affordable for them, and rather than asking the simple question of whether having the same density in 2018 Nishi as was in 2016 Nishi … 66.3 dwelling units per acre … was a desirable outcome for the third partner in the development, UCD, the City capitulated, and processed the application as-is.

          If you think fighting for an open, transparent, well-considered, balanced decision regarding the provision of more student housing is “anti-everything” then I can only shake my head in wonderment.  But reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably, and you and I will have to disagree on this matter.

  3. Todd Edelman

    Just for fun I’ll repeat: A commercial-residential Nishi is entirely possible with extremely close satellite-parking directly accessible by I-80 – as part of a holistic integration of the HOV/bus lane and Tight Diamond projects – connected to Nishi by solar-powered 24/7/365 autonomous shuttles operating on fixed routes (the parking structure would also equip a regional bus stop on I-80 and a more pedestrianized near future Downtown).

    The planned “urban forest” in Nishi 2.0 would essentially remain, with three to five story commercial (closed window) buildings instead of the 3.5 to 7 million dollar parking lot.

    Results:
    * More revenue from the property;
    * Peripheral parking for Downtown and higher-capacity Park & Ride for Davis Depot;
    * If managed carefully, very little additional traffic through the Richards tunnel.

  4. Jim Frame

    I find this comment to be offensive, and an example of a pervasive arrogance among the ‘anti-everything’ activists in town that it is appropriate to display animus against developers as a group

    And yet, you do exactly the same thing to another — and much larger — group:

    Of course, that is exactly the outcome that Measure R proponents desire…no new developments so they can protect their own property values

    Which came first:  your hipocracy, or your inability to see it in action?

    1. Howard P

      I find this comment to be offensive, and an example of a pervasive arrogance among the ‘anti-everything’ activists in town that it is appropriate to display animus against developers as a group

      And yet, you do exactly the same thing to another — and much larger — group:

      The “anti-everything” activists are a much larger group?  Did I parse this correctly?  If so, interesting.. on many levels… if I’m wrong in my parsing, please clarify…

    2. Mark West

      Finally…someone rises to the bait.

      Jim Frame: “And yet, you do exactly the same…”

      Did I?

      You start with a hypothesis, then you collect data to see if it is true or false. Measure J/R was intended to protect farmland and allow for measured growth of the City. In 17+ years, it has done neither. What it has done is inhibit the City’s ability to address its serious fiscal challenge, created an outrageously bad housing shortage (especially of rental housing for students, workers, and their families) and incidentally, artificially and greatly increased the value of all property inside the City limits. It has also brought the landlords in town a great deal of wealth. What a deal for those folks who owned property.

      Those of us who own our homes (including me)  have all benefitted from the increased property values due to Measure R. The fact is, though, that we didn’t do or create anything in return for that benefit, we just happened to own property. Those of our neighbors who do not own property and are dependent on renting appropriate housing (> 50% of our community), have paid the price of our artificial prosperity due to their dramatically increased rents and severe housing insecurity that are the obvious consequence of the current shortage. A shortage that has been brought about specifically because of Measure R.

      So let’s recap.

      Property owners in Davis who continue to support Measure R, take value from their neighbors (renters) putting it in their own pockets by virtue of Measure R, while creating absolutely nothing for the community in return.

      Developers, on the other hand, risk their own financial future to create new infrastructure including commercial and residential inventory for the benefit of the entire community, including housing for those dealing with housing insecurity.

      Jim, you call it hypocrisy because I criticized the first group while at the same time calling out those who criticize the second. I am being consistent, Jim, consistent in criticizing those who work to prevent us from addressing our fiscal and housing challenges, which, unfortunately, is a group that now apparently includes you.

      1. Jim Frame

        I call it hypocrisy because you chastised one group of people for painting all developers as evil, then turned around and painted all supporters of Measure R as evil.  Measure R isn’t about stopping all development, though you continue to characterize it as such; it’s about allowing the voters to control major land use decisions in the city, enacted after elected officials approved development projects that were seen by most voters as undesirable.  Its supporters include many, like me, who don’t oppose all development and whose only interest in the market value of my home is the effect it’ll have on my estate, since I plan to live out the rest of my life at my present address.

        I have no doubt that you, Mark, are a good-hearted and smart person who wants what’s best for the city and its residents.  But we disagree about the way to get there, and I object when you misrepresent the intent and desire of people like me.  And that’s why you won’t get my vote.

  5. Jim Frame

    if I’m wrong in my parsing, please clarify

    The supporters of Measure R who don’t oppose all development and aren’t interested only in protecting their property values.

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