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

<

>

Eileen’s Update

No on Measure V Campaign Gratitude

The No on Measure V campaign would like to express our sincere gratitude to the many Davis voters who voted to reject the Village Farms proposal for the many reasons we explained in our articles, literature, and online at our NoOnMeasureV.org website.

It is unfortunate that this project divided the community, but ultimately, the majority of voters understood that the project was unacceptable due to its many impacts, including toxics, flooding potential, massive traffic, enormous infrastructure costs, habitat destruction along Channel A, as well as endangerment of the vernal pools and the endangered species of Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp, and especially due to the unaffordable market-rate housing and the seriously inadequate affordable housing plan. The housing proposed would have been unaffordable to parents of young kids and would not have yielded hundreds of kids, and the and the long timeline of at least 15+ years did not coincide with the School District timeline, so it would not have helped the schools.

This issue is now behind us, and hopefully we can come together as a community and work on solutions instead of school closures. This process needs to start now, and the School Board needs to move forward and approve the formation of a parent-based subcommittee, as recommended by California Best Practices, to work on solutions with the School District to avoid school closures without delay.

Also, we need a better process and better planning. Village Farms was rejected like its earlier iteration, Covell Village, because it had all the same problems. If the project were to come back again, it needs to be revised as a “Reduced Footprint” alternative, similar to the Covell Village “Environmentally Superior” Alternative. The updated version would build only below Channel A to distance the housing from the toxics and the bulk of the floodplain, with 900 – 1,000 housing units, and protect the vernal pools with a conservation easement and funding to manage and protect them.

Meanwhile, we have the Willowgrove project on the November ballot. It has broad support because it is a very well-planned project, and it does not have the many problems Village Farms has.

In closing, our appreciation to the many Davis residents who helped our campaign by donating, displaying a lawn sign, testifying at meetings, writing letters, posting comments, or even just reading our literature and voting “No.” Again, our sincere gratitude to all of you.

Best,

Eileen M. Samitz, campaign coordinator/treasurer and the No on Measure V campaign team

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

2 responses to “Eileen’s Update”

  1. Gail

    Thank you Eileen for your heroic effort in disseminating the information needed to make an informed decision. Without you, and your group, this measure would not have been defeated. Appreciate all that you do!

    Reply
  2. Ron O

    I appreciate Eileen’s efforts as well, but disagree with her regarding Willowgrove. A commenter on NextDoor noted that due its distance from campus/downtown (combined with easy access to I-80), it’s likely that some who would live at that site will access I-80 to Highway 113, rather than navigate through the city to reach UCD. Ironically, that commenter saw this as a “good thing”.

    It is NOT biking distance to UCD, for most people. And certainly not walking distance.

    It seems to me that a substantial number of people who would live at the site would commute to/from Sacramento, as well.

    It is the beginning of more sprawling proposals to come in that area, as well.

    It is by far an inferior site for a development, compared to Village Farms (which will likely be developed at some point in the future – regardless).

    Regarding the mix of housing, who cares? It’s the location that matters. The location matters more regarding “who” would live there (in regard to where they work), more than the type of housing itself.

    The entire premise regarding creating housing specifically for “local workers” (whatever that means) is inherently flawed, undefined, and unsupported. And yet, that’s the entire justification for Willowgrove and development in general in Davis.

    The developer is now proceeding with the adjacent Palomino Place. Why isn’t that (combined with all of the other developments under construction in Davis) “enough” for now, anyway?

    As for the state’s housing “mandates”, these unrealistic goals are failing across the entire state. Also, these goals are primarily focused on communities along the coast which aren’t expanding outward at all, while still having to address those fake “requirements” (on paper, at least).

    The entire YIMBY movement was born in the Bay Area, where almost NONE of those communities are expanding outward.

    Who, exactly, is determining that (in contrast) Davis “has to” expand outward in order to address fake requirements? The laws themselves certainly don’t say so.

    As far as the local school district is concerned, they exist to serve the needs of the community – not the other way around. They’re a supporting service, for a decreasing overall community need. (Decreasing need across the entire state, for that matter.)

    Reply

Leave a comment