10 Myths of Nishi 2.0

From The Flatlander Newspaper

What follows are some of the peculiar arguments being put forth to support Nishi 2.0.  Have any of these claims fooled you?  

1) UCD students are forced to rent in Woodland, Dixon and West Sacramento.

False.  Students are not “forced” to do anything.  They choose to live in other communities for all sorts of reasons:  a preference for a community other than Davis; lower cost, a desire to live with friends or family; proximity to employment, to name a few.  Building more housing in Davis does not change any of those factors, nor should it.

2) Building more Davis housing reduces the number of commuting students.

False.  For some of the reasons given above…  unless there is a program for new apartments to house only students who would otherwise commute.  There is no such program, and even if there was, do we want to mandate  where students live?

3) More Davis housing will reduce pressure by speculators to purchase and rent out homes. 

False.  People purchase and then rent out homes, and will continue to do so, as long as it provides what they think is a good return on investment. 

4) We must build, build, build to address a housing  “crisis.” 

False.  A hurricane, earthquake, wild fire, or tsunami destroying a community is a crisis.  High prices and high rents are a condition of the marketplace— reflecting high demand for what consumers regard as a desirable place to live.  If we choose to build more housing, it must be with the approval and in the form that residents believe is acceptable.  Panic or reacting with a “crisis” mentality  does more harm than good.

5) The Nishi proposal will generate revenue for the city.

False.  Independent financial analysis shows the project will be a net cost to the city.  So, city staff applied its own rosy assumptions to have it appear that the project would yield a net financial gain.  One such assumption was that the project would create only 75% of the costs of similar projects in town.  Is it fair for the rest of the community to have to pay the other 25%?  This is effectively a tax on the community.  Shouldn’t this new tax require 2/3 voter approval? 

6) The project provides much neededaffordable housing.

False.  The city made an exception to our affordable housing policy for this project, reducing the number of affordable units from 35% to 15%, from 245 affordable units down to 105. Other project can provide 35%, why can’t this one? The city authorized Nishi “affordable units” to be reserved exclusively for students.  Is that fair to all of the low income non-students?  Do you support segregation in public housing policies?

7) Approving the Nishi project will reduce rents, increase the vacancy rate, and lower housing prices.

False.  The Nishi project adds only 700 apartment units to the roughly 12,900 apartment units in town.  This represents less than 1% of the local apartment supply. This is not enough to lower rents or vacancy rates; and certainly not enough to curb the tremendous pent up demand for Davis rental housing.  If the goal is to increase rental housing or to put downward pressure on local rents, then the Nishi site would have to accommodate thousands of new units.  If that is the goal, why are so few units being built on this 44-acre site? 

8) The city must accommodate the university’s growth.

False.  We are a community not a company town!  We need to develop in a manner consistent with the desires of the people who live here.  Few people realize that UCD generates millions of dollars annually in taxes and fees.  All that money flows to the county, when it is the city that bears the cost of hosting the university.  A first and necessary step is for the city to collect this revenue. The next step is for the university to create more housing before it increases its student population.

9)“This project will generate a one-time benefit of over $11 million in revenue for the City of Davis.”

False.  Revenue is an ongoing income stream, not one-time funds.  These one-time fees are charged to offset the roughly equivalent costs that would be created by the project.   This phrase, taken from the supporting ballot argument and similar phrasing in the promotional material, tries to create the impression that the City will have this additional level of discretionary funds.  It won’t.

10) The air quality on the Nishi site is not an issue.

False.  Preliminary tests were conducted near the Nishi site and showed elevated levels of carcinogenic substances.  The air quality on the Nishi site has not been tested.  The moral and prudent thing to do is to test the site, learn the nature and extent of the pollutants, determine the uses suitable for the site, and require whatever mitigations are necessary and effective for those uses. 

The Nishi site has ideal proximity to the campus and the downtown.  Why does the city refuse to engage the community in determining the best use of the site?  Why does the city refuse environmental testing of the site?  Why does the city refuse to build safe housing at that site?