Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Letter: City Council moves toward an exclusionary Davis

What a sad Council night for Davis this past Tuesday.

Both projects put forward by the city Tuesday night are by design planning for an exclusionary Davis.

Both projects short us on affordable housing for the very low income and low income. They both set aside the lowest number of units ever affordable to VLI and LI units of any proposed annexation.

When David Taormino asked me to do the affordable housing for Bretton Woods I said I would if he doubled the land required for affordable housing.

David provided land for 150 VLI and LI apartments instead of the required 68 apartments.

Standing at the Bretton Woods Booth at the Farmers Market every Wednesday and Saturday proved my point. His willingness to do more VLI and LI units that he needed to was the critical element in winning community approval in a Measure J election.

I and Delta Senior Housing Communities (DSHC) are no longer doing the affordable housing at Bretton Woods but that one generous act had great impact and won community support.

With 378 acres to build why is Village Farms skimping on an extra four acres for housing VLI and LI people.

All that is needed is 1% (3.78 acres) more of the 378 acres.

Due to their skimping on both projects I am opposed to them both.

I don’t want the Davis that is being sold to us. It is a Davis with fewer doors for the poor.

That Davis will be richer and whiter and shun the poor working people.

Join me in demanding more from each project to build a more welcoming and inclusionary Davis.

David J. Thompson

Posted by

davisite2

on

in

, , ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

3 responses to “Letter: City Council moves toward an exclusionary Davis”

  1. Roberta L. Millstein

    Thank you for putting this so clearly, David. With just a little more effort, this land could be used a lot more efficiently and equitably. Yet (with the exception of Bapu Vaitla) the City Council was in such a hurry to do something that they just waved their hands at these imperfect projects and said, “ok, let’s go.” I think experience has shown that project changes tend not to be dramatic at this stage, especially once money has been invested in EIR analysis.

    Reply
  2. Tuvia

    Not merely “generous”, Dave Taormino is apparently some kind of hero of The Poor?
    If my parents qualified, I’d be quite reluctant for them to be housed at the extreme northwest corner of Davis….with exactly one place to walk to safely: the hospital.
    I would suggest that Taormino always planned to have a larger peripheral elder ghetto, and then just pretended that he moved on the subject.
    But Village Farms [sic]? Is more low-income housing a good thing no matter where it’s located? Mutual Housing projects in extreme southeast Woodland next to the rural road of death? In South Davis, a stone’s throw from I-80, or on 5th St, sandwiched between the post office and market rate student housing, the latter with a pool that the poor kids can’t use.
    What we should be doing is joining forces with other like-minded cities to force the state to change mechanisms so that we can fund low income housing in buildings of mixed incomes, and also require the low income people have the same opportunities for high quality public transport as wealthier people…. This excludes Village Fams as a solution.

    Reply
  3. David J Thompson

    Dear Tuvia,
    I too would fully support your proposition about buildings of mixed-income but the federal funding sources that make possible the subsidy for VLI families does not fund mixed income projects.
    However, Village Farms is an ideal location for affordable housing. The proximity to the shopping center across the road, nearby schools and the access to existing bus routes gain high scores in the funding competition.
    High density housing both affordable and market rate rental adjacent to Covell Blvd is where we should be going in both proposed projects. Those units increase the chance of more people using public transportation and getting people to leave their cars at home or not need a car.
    Projects proposed for the Davis future need to be very different, denser and inclusionary and less car-centric not more.
    Village Farms
    David Thompson
    The city has lost a chance to plan for the future we want and absolutely need.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Roberta L. Millstein Cancel reply