By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – While the issue of housing has roared into the forefront in the past couple of weeks, the actual election for city council has been relatively quiet.
One reason for that is that for 80 percent of the community, they can’t vote in the election.
In their column in which the Davis Enterprise endorsed Donna Neville for the District 3 council seat to replace Councilmember Lucas Frerichs, who last year won election to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, the Enterprise took space to note the problems of the current district election system.
They write: “Not only is the majority of this city not participating in the election, but the people who are voting will have gone months without representation on the City Council.”
The general consensus in the community seemed to favor holding a special election in part due to the issue of representation. The Enterprise is not wrong about the concern over lack of representation by District 3 on the council.
The lack of a fifth councilmember has not come into play much this year but it did last week when, in order to hear the appeal by Bapu Vaitla, it required three votes on council—and with only three members eligible to vote, that meant it required a unanimous vote, which it could not attain.
Not noted by the Enterprise, however, is that another reason this election hasn’t attracted a huge amount of focus in the community is frankly—and with all due respect to both candidates—there really isn’t a huge difference on the issues.
For example, on the hugely contentious issue of housing, the two have very similar concerns.
In this week’s weekly question, Donna Neville on housing noted, “(W)e are now faced with the reality that we may not be able to meet our Regional Housing Need Allocation. Council is currently working to develop criteria that it will use to decide which peripheral projects to place on the ballot but decided not to place any such projects on the ballot until 2025 at the earliest. We need to ensure that any project that goes on the ballot meets the needs of the City and has the support of our residents through smart planning and an engaged process.”
Meanwhile, Francesca Wright wrote, “Our community has a shortage of both workforce and affordable housing. I support pressing for infill while we have rigorous community conversations about the conditions under which we’d support bringing projects forward for annexation.”
The Enterprise focused on two issues, housing and homelessness.
They write, “On the city’s persistent housing shortage, Neville aims to promote affordable infill housing by streamlining the city’s permitting process for infill and for accessory dwelling units; backing the Housing Trust Fund with a steady revenue stream; and collaborating with the school district on identifying surplus district property that can be used for housing within the city limits.”
But again that’s not much different than Wright’s views.
They also looked at homelessness and the need overall for “more staffing” as she also cites “understaffing as one reason the city is having trouble delivering the level of services Davis voters expect, especially in the case of infrastructure. As befits someone with experience in the state auditor’s office, she sees the need to bring in more revenue to the city as a critical component to shore up lagging services.”
The Enterprise endorsement focuses heavily on experience, citing Neville’s experience as chief legal advisor to the California state auditor as well as her work on the Davis Planning Commission and a former member and chair of the Davis Finance and Budget Commission.
But Francesca Wright also has tremendous experience professionally and in the community—both in fact have an impressive array of experience in the community—and here that experience differs.
The biggest difference in the two seems to be that Neville seems to be backed by a bit more moderate supporters in the community while Wright is backed by more progressive supporters.
To the extent that there are differences between the two candidates, this really has not been so much a clash of ideas as a contrast of two thoughtful approaches to governances that may somewhat differ in focus and experience.
The Enterprise tends to have a track record of supporting more establishment-backed candidates who tend to be more pro-growth.
An Enterprise endorsement over the years has been more an indicator of who the more establishment candidates are rather than a huge factor in who ultimately wins the race.
Whoever wins will be stepping into a very challenging environment and will face an array of immediate challenges.
“while Wright is backed by more progressive supporters.”
What or who do you mean by progressive in this context? The term progressive in Davis has traditionally meant opposition to growth but I’m not sure that is how you are using the term in this instance.
I don’t mean traditional Davis Progressives.
What do you mean then in this instance?
I was using the term progressive as I would use it nationally rather than to refer to Davis Progressives, but I will be more careful in the future.
A quick look at these lists should tell you where each candidate is coming from:
https://www.donna4davis.com/endorsements
https://wrightfordavis.org/endorsements/
And what’s really interesting is how stark those lists are considering there really is not that much distance on the opinions.
I wouldn’t say stark. I think this actually is a case where “Good people on both sides” would be appropriate.
I agree with Ron Glick’s assessment that this actually is a case of “Good people on both sides.”
That is very appropriate since both candidates are very good individuals, and the City would be very fortunate to have not on the Council. I personally have endorsed both of them.
The Council has a real opportunity to show leadership by deciding, shortly after all five seats are filled, to pass an Ordinance returning the City elections to at-large city-wide contests. District elections have been a total failure. Further, given the homogenous distribution of the various interest groups and “communities of interest” across the community, the chances of being elected by coming in second or third (or even first) in a city-wide election are significantly greater than the chances of coming in first in a district election.
Given the recent court results, the legal landscape is very different from what it was when Rexroad grandstanded/railroaded the City. Therefore the chances that the City would be sued after changing back to at large elections is very small. The plaintiff would be risking a lot of legal and court costs with a much, much, much lower chance of winning. And even if they were to win, the chances of their being awarded legal fee’s reimbursement are even lower.
If the Council shows leadership, Democracy will be the winner.
To me the biggest difference between the two is their direct experience with city government.
Neville is on the planning commission. She’s was on the budget and finance committee.
Wright experience looks primarily to be non-profit administration (for something about children and peace) and data analysis for government policy?
At a quick glance…to me it looks like:
Neville is more of a nuts and bolts (finance and legal) policy person who has also worked on some social and environmental issues (mental health, cequa, teachers..etc..)
Wright looks to me (based on experience) to be more of a social and environmental focused candidate which is reflective in her City of Davis 2021 Thong Hy Huynh Memorial Award in Civil Rights Advocacy (I do not know if I’ll vote for her but she’s the kind of person that I’m glad is in the community). I don’t know maybe there’s more there outside of environmental and social work that could be better described from : “20 years policy and data analysis experience, particularly for local governments including First 5 Commissions, cities, counties and school districts”
That’s for sure, and has been that way for as long as I’ve been familiar with it.
But you know that “up front” with the Enterprise, and it’s not strictly a political blog.
Though she was not in a position to explicitly “endorse” DISC, for example – Neville did seem to support it (and had an optimistic view of the fiscal impact – much like Dan Carson before her did).
There’s at least one guy on the Finance and Budget Commission who is knowledgeable, but does not share these same optimistic views of development proposals. But for the most part, those appointed (probably to “any” commission) share the same type of views as the council. Again, this isn’t about “knowledge”, as much as it is a viewpoint when looking at the same set of data.
It would be interesting to know “who” nominated Neville for commission positions. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was Carson.
I suspect that Neville will win, and will then force more divisive growth battles on Davis. Which will (as usual) show the divide between whom is elected to the council, vs. what the voters actually decide regarding what these council members push for. This is how these divisive battles originate in the first place, even though those who “push back” are the ones who then get “blamed”.
Look at the source, if you want to see how these battles actually begin.
The logic here is mindboggling. Almost every proposal for housing is met with stark resistance, particularly since there are virtually no vacant parcels in town. So the only way to avoid growth battles is not to grow at all which of course not practical or probably possible. And of course, would induce battles the other way.
Conflict avoidance is therefore not possible. And poor public policy to boot.
Actually, I don’t think it would “induce battles the other way”, as there’d be nothing to react against. And for the most part, proponents (other than development interests) don’t start “pushing” for a proposal until it actually materializes.
Personally, I’d like to see far fewer of these proposals entertained in the first place. It’s too bad that Measure J doesn’t limit them to (for example), one every 5 or 10 years – at most.
Instead, there’s 4 of them jockeying simultaneously, right now.
I’m glad that the council has chosen to give the city a break, for now. Hopefully, they’ll stick with that.
So yeah, a lot of the conflict can (and should) be avoided. Even without council members launching lawsuits in regard to citizen-created ballot arguments, on behalf of a developer.
But with Neville on the council, I suspect that there will be more of these avoidable conflicts (in comparison to her opponent). Not that her opponent is slow growth, but her focus seems somewhat different than Neville’s.
The above is an example of a comment which seems to show a difference between the candidates. I see Francesca Wright as more-aligned with someone like Bapu, while Neville is more aligned with Dan Carson’s type of thinking.
First, I agree with Matt that we need to go back to at large elections. The upcoming Santa Monica decision almost certainly will clear the decks for us.
I’ve known both Donna and Francesca for close to two decades and recently had long talks with both of them. They do not differ substantially on growth and housing policies. They have different styles that could lead to different outcomes and different expertise, but they are both excellent candidates–perhaps the two best qualified that we’ve had since I’ve moved to Davis a quarter century ago.
So I’m not sure why a voter from Woodland would weigh in on how Davis voters should choose among them. It’s pretty clear that Ron O doesn’t really know either of them from his speculation about what each one of them might do. I suggest completely discounting any of his opinions on this because they are not based in the facts.
Richard: The same suggestion would apply to Don Shor, Don Gibson, Matt Williams, etc.
In addition, the article itself notes that 80% of Davis residents can’t vote for either of these candidates. Not even sure if you can do so, nor do I care.
And yet, all of these people are impacted by whomever is elected.
Do you even understand how government works, and who it impacts? Because based upon your comments, it seems that you don’t. That alone should disqualify you from voting at all.
Also, you should understand hat your single vote won’t make one bit of difference regarding the outcome. You could literally not vote at all, and it won’t make any difference.
I’ve seen Donna Neville in action on the finance and budget commission, and was concerned about how she interpreted the DISC analysis. In addition, she has made comments on here which lead me to believe that she’ll be pushing for DISC III (the 100% housing proposal), and DISC IV (probably a mix of commercial/housing on the “original” half).
Not to mention “son of Covell Village”, Shriner’s, etc.
Ron Oertel said “I’ve seen Donna Neville in action on the finance and budget commission”
Ron, I have attended between 70 and 100 Finance and Budget Commission (FBC) meetings over the past 15 years and I have NEVER seen you attend even one of those meetings. In addition, I served on the FBC side by side with Donna, and your opinion/innuendo is wholly and completely inconsistent with the actual events and actions of the FBC during Donna’s tenure as a member of that Commission.
You present your opinions as if they are facts, but all they really are is fantasy and/or vitriol.
When two outstanding Davis citizens step into the breach you should celebrate them both because they are the best of the best!
Matt: I’ve attended those meetings, including at least one in which you were there (while still on the commission, before Dan Carson apparently ensured that you were removed). I don’t claim to have attended a large number, but enough to get a feel for what goes on there. (I’ve also looked at the reports/analyses, at times.)
But as I recall, the one (or two?) I saw with Donna Neville in action was online during the pandemic, when DISC II was being considered. I don’t recall if it was via Zoom, or recorded. (I think it was via Zoom. In which case, you’d have no idea if I was there, unless you remember all of the online attendees.)
My impression (albeit I don’t remember the specifics) is that she was less-interested in the skepticism regarding DISC, than someone like Ray (or yourself, for that matter). (I vaguely recall Ezra expressing some skepticism, as well.)
I don’t “celebrate” anyone whom I suspect is going to support another campaign which requires an enormous amount of time, energy, and effort to defeat. (Repeatedly, for that matter.)
This has nothing to do with personal integrity, as I’m sure that even Dan Carson felt that he was doing what was best (in regard to your termination, and the lawsuit against citizens regarding the ballot language for DISC). Not to mention some others who were (purposefully?) left off of commissions, despite being well-qualified.
“So the only way to avoid growth battles is not to grow at all which of course not practical or probably possible. ”
Yet that seems to be exactly where the City Council is at.
I suspect that the city council sees it as I see it. Get your finances in order before you agree to spend money on housing (providing services and infrastructure). I said that there should be projected positive job growth and revenue growth. I said that there needs to be an increase in commercial growth and development in both industrial and retail to better capture tax revenue. But I’m guessing that since the council is pushing a tax measure for the next election over housing that the financial problems are even more pressing and require even more immediate attention than I suspected…as raising taxes is the fastest and most direct way of increasing revenue for the city. Commercial growth is more of a long term solution.
I guess they can’t walk and chew gum.
Maybe you are correct but I have no idea what they are doing. My inclination is that Will Arnold told the truth when he said he wanted a break from all the fighting. Maybe they actually don’t have the staff but you would think that they could hire people.
Personally I find it astounding that they are unwilling to take up any Measure J vote for 2024. It seems like a dereliction of duty considering that availability of housing is a top priority of the voters.
Perhaps they figured out that if they do nothing then the city will lose control of housing development and so they are going to sit back and let it happen.
Maybe they are ideologically incapable of doing anything but infill.
But honestly I can’t figure it out and I’m terribly disappointed in the City Council at this moment.
Ron, affordability of housing is a top issue of voters (according to the City-conducted survey). When/where did the voters say that availability of housing is a top issue for them?
Again, it’s about available MONEY to pay for things.
You know what hiring more staff requires? MONEY.
In the long term, you know what approving more housing requires? MONEY
Driving the city in further into debt is a worse dereliction of duty.
What’s the quickest way to fix the lack of MONEY problem? Don’t spend more and raise taxes.
I believe the council supported DISC which was (we were told) even with the housing a revenue generator for the city.
Keith gets to the existential core of the City of Davis’ problems … Money. As a community we have promised ourselves a very broad and expensive menu of services, but failed to step forward with the level of funding needed to pay for those services.
In addition, due to political expediency, our elected leaders have chosen to ignore that reality for such a long time that the shortfall between the annual cost of the broad and expensive menu and the dollars The community is assessing itself has grown and grown and grown. Said another way when it became clear that Davis was in a hole, our leaders gave the order to “keep digging.”
The City’s own reports show the annual shortfall to be well in excess of $10 million per year. Dan Carson attempted to convince the citizens to believe his fantasy that by changing the assumptions in the shortfall model, the shortfall could be cut in half, but that was Pollyanna thinking … which was abruptly put to an end shortly after the November election when Public Works staff presented Council with the update on roads conditions. That update clearly showed the need for a minimum of $40 million more in roads repairs over the next 10 years.
To make matters worse, even if the City were to entitle an Innovation Park today, no meaningful recurring annual MONEY would be added to the City budget for five years, and during that five year period the community would be digging the hole deeper.
Adding more staff, as Ron suggests, would mean the digging would be accelerated, which would only make the shortfall worse.
Other than the bike paths (which are increasingly included in every new development community throughout the region), what “broad and expensive menu of services” is Davis providing (that other communities are not)?
How much of the city’s fiscal challenges (and every other city’s challenges) are due to unfunded liabilities for retirement benefits?
Even Ms. Neville noted that Davis is simply in the “middle of the pack” regarding these challenges. Since that’s the case, why is it that some (uniquely) claim that the sky is repeatedly falling, in Davis?
Regarding the road conditions, I haven’t noticed Davis roads being any worse-off than any other community, especially after the rain. And since “in town” traffic moves much more slowly than it does on county roads or freeways, I suspect that most people don’t even notice it. “Nature’s speed bumps”, as it were.
For that matter, communities across the state received an increase in funds from increased gas taxes, starting a couple of years or so ago. I guess this wasn’t enough?
Another reason I suspect that most people don’t notice (or care) is because vehicles these days are often built to handle bumps much better than older vehicles did (e.g, bigger wheels/tires, high suspension, etc.).
And as far as the bike paths are concerned, the same is true to some degree (e.g., mountain bikes can handle it). I also suspect that there’s fewer bicyclists using those paths to “commute” (at higher speed) in the first place, these days.
Maybe people just don’t give a damn, and their eyes gloss over even if someone says it will cost a $100 million per year to repave a one-block section of street. But again, how much are the unfunded retirement benefits creating the challenge in the first place?
In the meantime, get yourself an SUV and a mountain bike, if you haven’t already. Problem solved. (But seriously, all vehicles are able to handle bumps better, these days. Bottom line – who cares?) Personally, the only time I care is when I’m driving on a high speed county road or freeway, not a city road.
Yeah, yeah – it will cost $1 billion to repave the roads if they’re not maintained, blah, blah, blah. We’ve been hearing that since the invention of roads.
Meanwhile, continue to ignore those unfunded liabilities for retirement benefits.
Also – regarding roads: For the most part, the only time I notice a road getting “wrecked” is when some construction crew digs up a street for some construction or utility type of project, after which – the road is never the same.
In places like San Francisco, I’m not sure that there’s much “original” pavement left, on some streets. “Nuttin’ but patches” at that point.
On a more humorous note, even the governator was mistakenly involved with this:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arnold-schwarzenegger-fills-giant-l-pothole-saying-whole-neighborhood-rcna79279
But as (also) noted, recent storms have damaged roads throughout the state – not just in Davis.
To be fair, Measure J takes a good deal of what the city could do about revenue generation off of the table.
What were his assumptions?
The time to have started all this (business park planning and development) was 10-15 years ago. But now? The shortest ticket to revenue other than more taxes is RETAIL. Honestly, because of the fiscal situation the priorities should be retail, jobs and then housing.
It’s weird…out of nowhere (unprompted), a few days ago I had a conversation with the new guy that was hired a few months ago at the place that takes care of my dad. Really nice guy that enjoys his new job and likes Davis. He said that he and his extended family were looking to move from Vacaville to possibly Davis. Then he asked me (again, unprompted)..WHERE DO YOU SHOP IN DAVIS? IT SEEMS LIKE THERE’S JUST TARGET. He asked me about a Costco (to which I said there was one in Woodland), he asked me about Walmart (I said; Woodland, Dixon and West Sac), we talked about Home Depot (I said there was ACE but often times I have to go to Woodland). I do not know how a city with a student population does not have a Costco….but Woodland does???? We also talked about where we go to eat. I said that there are a few places we go to regularly in Davis but for the most part when we want to go out we go to Sac, Winters…even Vacaville (in the past few months I’ve gone to a Brazilian Steak house and a Teppanyaki place in Vacaville for example).
Because as far as CostCo is concerned, Davis and Woodland combined barely meet their threshold for a base population to support a store. When we were debating Target a number of years ago, I found that each large chain has a minimum population and, in some cases, minimum average income that they require before they’ll consider a site. Target wasn’t even considering Davis; they were lobbied by two sitting councilmembers to get them to come here. WalMart requires 80,000+ population, or so they said then, and prefers lower average income locations. Home Depot and Lowes each would consider a city of 50,000 or so, but need a much larger footprint than what Davis has to offer. So did Target, hence the vote on rezoning that site so they could locate their 165,000 square foot store here. Davis otherwise has a store size limitation of 45,000 square feet.
Basically the main sites for big-box chain retailers here are already occupied by car dealers, and the remaining freeway frontage is owned by UCD except further down Chiles on property that isn’t in the city limits.
Davis does have one. It’s in Woodland, as you noted. Straight up the CostCo Highway.
For a long time, Davis (and Woodland) did not even have that one. I used to go all the way to Rancho Cordova (from Davis) to shop at that one. It was like an “outing”.
And beyond CostCo, Davis’ Home Depot can be found, as you also noted.
Davis’ Lowe’s can be found in West Sacramento or Vacaville.
But Davis is too high class for a Walmart. (Seriously, it’s not a good fit even as a “neighbor” to Davis.)
Davis has Nugget – stole it from Woodland (the headquarters). And that’s a better fit for Davis, than it is for Woodland.
The new hotels and expansion of a business on 2nd Street) are also a good fit for Davis, as are the cannabis sales.
And the redevelopment of University Mall should also help.
Not sure of your point here.
The latest conversation on the fiscal front estimated at least about a $15 million ANNUAL shortfall – that includes the current revenue general. The redevelopment of the UMall is a drop in the bucket.
You mentioned in another comment the roads, the roads are incredibly bad shape with open cracks, potholes, and what not. Not only is that problematic, but any break in the surface allows water to seep under which further damages the road bed. The voters of Davis voted down a roads parcel tax in 2018, that decision is going to lead to much higher costs down the line.
How much of that shortfall is due to unfunded liabilities (for retired employees)?
Honestly, I don’t see how anyone can claim that more development will “solve” a problem created by development in the first place. Something about doing the same thing over-and-over again, but expecting a different result.
I pointed out that this is yet another example of a statewide issue, which will probably require a statewide fix. And in fact, statewide money did “appear” since then, as a result of an increase in the gas tax.
But I also pointed out that I don’t think people care if city streets are well-paved. I suspect that some residents (e.g., those whose garages back to an alley) actually prefer it that way.
Let me ask a hypothetical question: Do you suppose it costs more to preserve the ghost town of Bodie in a state of “arrested decay”, than it would to maintain those same buildings at a higher (e.g., livable) level?
In other words, I suspect that streets can remain in a state of “arrested decay” for a very long period of time, at a less-expensive price than maintaining them at a high quality level. (Actually, that’s true of most things.) Those alleys that I mentioned are also included in the “average”.
Now, when you’re driving on Road 102 (or any other county road or freeway) at a high rate of speed, potholes “matter”. They don’t matter so much on a 25 mph road, especially due to the larger wheels and improved suspension of modern vehicles. (I can no longer even get the smaller tires that my 30-year old vehicle requires, from major manufacturers.)
Reminds me that the only time I actually “wash” my vehicles is when I drive or park them in the rain.
“Honestly, I don’t see how anyone can claim that more development will “solve” a problem created by development in the first place.”
It depends on what the development is. Mori Seiki probably added around $1 million in property tax to the city coffers. Hotels have the potential to add TOT.
My main point however was that your comments were misplaced. The state is not going to fix the city’s fiscal situation. The pavement needs to be handled whether people care or not because it is not a static situation – you have to replace pavement every so often and the longer you wait, the more expensive it is.
I see that you’re continuing to avoid my question regarding unfunded liabilities for retired employees, in regard to how much that’s costing the city (and every other city).
Again, I’ve provided evidence that cities (including Davis DO receive funding from the state for roads). And again, the storms which have occurred are a statewide issue.
And again, I suspect that it costs a lot less to keep streets in a state of arrested decay for a lot longer than what some may “prefer”. (I’m referring to those who point to development as a fake solution to every “problem” they can muster-up – despite the fact that there would be no problem without development in the first place.)
For that matter, as the population ages – they drive less (and again, aren’t so concerned about the roads).
And again, I’ve pointed out that alleys are included in that average, and I suspect that residents don’t want those repaved. Or possibly even the regular roads in front of their own houses.
There are still “dirt/gravel” roads and driveways throughout California, and somehow people can live with those. No, I’m not suggesting that as a solution, just pointing it out as a fact.
I also pointed out that roads are often destroyed by construction work, no matter how well-paved they were before that. (And since that’s exactly what some are advocating on here, maybe they should wait until they rebuild the entire downtown, before repaving anything there. The problem being, of course, that they’re never finished tearing up the roads.) See link, below, regarding the disruption this causes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8b3963VRW4
Not to mention the peripheral roads, where some are advocating for heavy construction traffic to build their sprawling “dream”.
“I see that you’re continuing to avoid my question regarding unfunded liabilities for retired employee”
I don’t have the figure handy, you can look it up.
Davis has the poorest quality roads in Yolo County. What matters isn’t public perception, it’s analysis by engineers about the road condition. The longer you go without fixing them, the worse it gets and the more it costs. Roads with cracks and potholes are dangerous for bicyclists. In a city with 50,000 or so bicycles, maintaining the roads and the bike paths is a safety issue as well as being prudent fiscally.
Keith Echols said … “ The time to have started all this (business park planning and development) was 10-15 years ago. But now? The shortest ticket to revenue other than more taxes is RETAIL. Honestly, because of the fiscal situation the priorities should be retail, jobs and then housing.”
Keith is 100% correct in his first sentence, although I woul probably say 25-30 years ago rather than 10-15 years ago. It was at that time that three community decisions were made that put us on our current (economically-narrow) course.
(1) We decided that we did not want to bring “other people’s money” into Davis. That meant the local retail businesses had to rely on the discretionary spending power of ONLY the people who lived and/or worked in the community. When national retail businesses look at expansion sites for their retail outlets, they look at what (A) the size of the market is, and (B) what the demographic mix is within that market. Davis with no effort to bring non-local purchasing power into its marketplace is a very small market. Further, the demographics of that narrow Davis market are another obstacle. People over the age of 55 have gotten to the age where they have already purchased most of the discretionary “things” they are likely to acquire during their lifetime. Most of their retail purchases are for consumables … groceries, pharmacy items, plants from garden centers, etc. the other substantial demographic group, UCD students (A) don’t have the purchasing appetite for “things” that they have to lug around in the transient stage of their life, (B) don’t have a lot of discretionary income, and (C) are likely to make their purchase of things close to their home town. That makes them a very narrow market niche. So for retail to grow in Davis, the market viability assessment models of the retailing companies need to be understood and taken into consideration.
(2) It was about 25-30 years ago that the schism between UCD and the City became “a thing.” Because of that schism and the substantial mutual distrust that is central to it, there is no collaborative community-wide approach to economic development. If Davis is going to attract “other people’s money” into its local retail economy, the simple fact that other than UCD there is nothing substantial to draw people to Davis. There is the ephemeral draw of the Farmers Market, but retail market assessment models do not place much value on ephemeral components of demand. So, until UCD and the City come to the mutual decision that they need cooperate/collaborate, that 25-30 year legacy of distrust will kill almost all retail expansion opportunities
(3) The City of Davis (A) has no comprehensive economic development plan, (B) has no idea what the possible market segments and companies are in those segments that are logical to pursue, (C) has a 23 year old General Plan that is woefully out of date and out of touch, and (D) has no Vision for what it wants to be in 5, 10, 15, and/or 20 years.
All of those factors pretty much mean a realistic assessment of the retail expansion opportunities is that they are DOA.
My point is why did Costco choose Woodland over Davis in the first place? Huge loss of sale tax revenue for Davis. Davis still has the largest and most affluent population in Yolo County. Yet Woodland has all of the retail. Walmart? 80K population requirement? Dixon has 19K people. West Sac has 56K. Davis has about 68K.
The point of my initial post is to highlight the gross lack of foresight the Council and Community had in allowing for retail growth (which would fund the city). If all you can think of is existing sites in the city as possible and limited sites for retail growth….then the conversation is over before it began because obviously the city leaders and community needed to get behind retail site land expansion for the future economic health of the city.
Don: Public perception absolutely does matter, regarding support.
But the real problem here is that this “issue” seems to come up every time that someone points to development as a “solution”. Which makes me believe that even they don’t actually care about the streets.
And last time this issue came up, the statistics showed that Davis wasn’t much different than any other locale. And again, Davis might have more alleys that are dragging down the “average”.
There is an arterial street in Woodland (Gibson) which has been undergoing major reconstruction for about a year, now. It is highly disruptive.
Are you telling me that the city of Woodland paid for that reconstruction entirely on its own?
And again I ask – is it cheaper to maintain streets in a state of arrested decay, at a level that’s lower than what the development activists point to as an excuse for development (which didn’t fund it adequately in the first place)? In a manner similar to what they do with schools, etc.?
And again I ask, why do the development activists on here continue to avoid talking about unfunded liabilities, for retired employees?
If I actually believed in the motivation behind all of this “concern”, I might also share it. But as it is, every argument on here (and I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE) is some kind of excuse to support development. The same type of development which “isn’t paying the bills” in the first place.
I don’t believe for one moment that someone like David is actually concerned about the roads or city finances.
Ron Oertel said … “ I see that you’re continuing to avoid my question regarding unfunded liabilities for retired employees, in regard to how much that’s costing the city (and every other city”
Ron, you frequently use the above rhetorical weapon on a regular basis to change the subject of the discussion, and thereby not hold yourself accountable. The City of Davis’ unfunded liabilities for retired employees is available to you in exactly the same way it is available to David and everyone else … by submitting a Public Information request to the City. You are totally capable of such a submission. It isn’t David’s responsibility to do your work for you.
Your “war” against the Vanguard, with your often stated goal of putting the Vanguard out of business is unseemly and childish. Perhaps it is time for you to move on to greener pastures.
The subject is the city’s fiscal challenges, at this point. It started out as an article regarding the Enterprise’s endorsement of Neville.
My point is that those who point to development as a “solution” to challenges such as roads are purposefully avoiding talking about how the entire fiscal situation arose. And unfunded liabilities are a large part of that.
By the way, aren’t you an “expert” regarding all of this? If so, why aren’t YOU talking about it?
Where did I say that I wanted to (or could) put the Vanguard “out of business”?
I’d like to see it go out of business (as would quite a few others), but in the meantime I’ll continue to point out its shortcomings regarding its arguments. I take no “joy” in this, but I don’t like to see dishonesty.
It’s the same situation regarding the argument with schools.
I know what your point was. Of course, a lot of what CostCo sells is food, which is untaxed.
You know what Davis has? An adjacent UC which provides plenty of opportunity, which also has an overall positive impact on the community.
Turns out that people don’t like living next to a Walmart (or a warehouse distribution center, for example). Davis is really a bedroom community for the adjacent UC (and Sacramento, etc.).
David brought up Carmel, yesterday. How much commercial/retail development do you suppose they have? Other than some small shops, I suspect.
But perhaps the real problem is that every community is its own little “fiefdom”, in regard to taxes. Change that system, and you’ll change the result. But good luck with that.
I don’t know what Woodland’s fiscal situation is.
” Of course, a lot of what CostCo sells is food, which is untaxed.”
It would be helpful if you could actual dealt in data rather than supposition here. What is the property + sales tax impact on Woodland from the Costco?
As Matt might say, it’s not up to me to do your homework for you.
I simply pointed out that a lot of what they sell is untaxed.
It’s not likely that CostCo would choose to open another store so close to Woodland’s, at this point.
But perhaps more importantly, I strongly suspect that a lot of Davis residents PREFER that store to be located in Woodland (rather than Davis) – despite whatever revenue it generates.
You and others can continue beating your collective heads against the wall if you’d like, to “prove” how bad-off Davis is – but it’s not working out so well for you, is it?
And do you know why? It’s because it doesn’t impact residents very much. Unlike, say – a CostCo or DISC would.
I always found Costco to be an easier drive for people in northeast Davis driving straight down 102 than driving to downtown Davis. Plus it’s a pretty drive.
I think there’s a number of people *ahem* who ended-up in North, North Davis as a result of traveling along the CostCo Highway, and noticing the brand-new sprawl sprouting up in Woodland. (Which was in serious trouble, during the last housing crash.)
Turns out that very few people want to “buy low”. They’d rather wait for housing to become overpriced, and then complain about it (ineffectively).
Also the best place to get gas, in “Davis”. (Though a lot more crowded than it used to be.)
But the “original” Davis is “too green” for a gas station like that. 🙂
And it must be “super” frustrating that fewer-and-fewer residents use the school system.