Author: davisite2

By Matt Williams

As follow-up to the May 6th CivEnergy forum on Measure J, I published my personal reasons why I oppose Measure J as an article for the Davisite and as a comment to the Vanguard.  Prompted by my list, Mayor Davis took the time to respond to all eleven (11) of my comments one-by-one.  I thank Robb for doing so, and particularly thank him for the structured format he used to reply. This is the third in a series of articles on Nishi's financials in which I respond to Robb Davis's replies to me.  The first article is here and the second article is here.

Matt: Nishi 2018 has no dollars for deferred maintenance of capital infrastructure.
Robb: See previous point. We don’t need it because the developer is responsible.
Matt: That is the same short-sighted, politically-driven thinking that created the current dilapidated state of our roads and the $8 million annual shortfall in the City Budget.
Robb: That is an editorial comment to which I will not respond.

The interchange above is at the heart of the City’s current unsustainable fiscal situation. Past Councils for well over a decade have ignored the advice of Staff regarding the maintenance of the City’s capital infrastructure. The year-by-year individual circumstances have differed, but the behavior pattern was the same. Over and over again, the Council chose to avoid a public dialogue about the fact that our City’s appetite for spending exceeded its annual income.

(more…)

By Matt Williams

As follow-up to the May 6th CivEnergy forum on Measure J, I published my personal reasons why I oppose Measure J as an article for the Davisite and as a comment to the Vanguard.  Prompted by my list, Mayor Davis took the time to respond to all eleven (11) of my comments one-by-one.  I thank Robb for doing so, and particularly thank him for the structured format he used to reply. This is the second in a series of articles on Nishi's financials in which I respond to Robb Davis's replies to me.  The first article is here.

Matt: Nishi's cash contribution to City has shrunk 90% from $1.4 million down to $143,000.

Robb: Non-sequiter. Two very different projects, one with revenue from commercial activity, unsecured property tax, sales tax. I am not sure the point of this statement. It is less. It is a housing-only project.

Robb is correct that the revenues mix is different, with no unsecured property tax in this project The final EPS financial assessment of Nishi 2016 projected the unsecured property tax revenue at full-buildout at $9,000, which was one-half of one percent of the annual revenues … a rather minuscule difference.

The annual Sales Tax projection at full-buildout for Nishi 2016 was $286,000 as opposed to $198,000 for Nishi 2018, a difference of $88,000.

(more…)

By Matt Williams

As follow-up to the May 6th CivEnergy forum on Measure J, I published my personal reasons why I oppose Measure J as an article for the Davisite and as a comment to the Vanguard.  Prompted by my list, Mayor Davis took the time to respond to all eleven (11) of my comments one-by-one.  I thank Robb for doing so, and particularly thank him for the structured format he used to reply.

After taking time off for a movie and dinner date with a group of Davis friends and the Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I have put together this point-by-point response to the first of Robb's comments. This is the first of a series of articles in which I will respond to all of Robb's points. I believe that covering them one-by-one will produce a more focused and fruitful dialogue.

Matt:   Nishi 2.0 Will Cost Davis Taxpayers between $350,000 and $750,000 per year

Robb:  FBC findings on Nishi, January 8, 2018 (the only action they took in relation to Nishi)

We also generally concur with the estimate that annual ongoing revenues and costs for the city from the project would be modestly net positive over time.

We note, however, that the estimate does not reflect additional revenues that could result if Davis voters approve an increase in parcel taxes. Also, the estimate does not include revenues from Proposition C cannabis taxes or possible community enhancement funds that could result from the negotiation of a development agreement. Also, the EIR adopted for the original, larger, version of the Nishi project suggests that police and fire costs for serving the new residents could be nominal. (A new environmental review is now being conducted for the revised project.) Thus, in some respects, the net fiscal benefit of the project could be greater than estimated.

Robb made that same point in the May 6^th Civenergy Forum, which is that the Council prefers to cover its eyes and ears and proactively ignore everything other than the formal written words they received from the Finance and Budget Commission.  What they are doing is using the specifics of one facet of a multi-faceted process to hear no evil and see no evil.

(more…)

This came in as a comment on an earlier post, but we thought it deserved its own post.

Davis Gateway Student Housing LLC & Afiliated Entities, the organization for the developers of the Nishi project, has now spent $250,324.06 on the Yes on Measure J campaign!

The most recent expenditures are approximately $31,000 for "Field Expenses", $2,000 for "Voter Contact", and $15,000 for another mailer. And approximately $5,000 for a print ad. That's going to be some ad. Perhaps a full-page in the Sunday paper.

Yes, folks. That's one quarter of a million dollars.

By Matt Williams

Individuals have different reasons for opposing the Nishi project.  My personal reasons are as follows:

• Nishi 2.0 will cost Davis taxpayers between $350,000 and $750,000 per year.
• Nishi’s cash contribution to City has shrunk 90%  from $1.4 million down to $143,000.
• $650,000 per year of Community Services District revenues in Nishi 2016 have “vanished” in Nishi 2018.
• Nishi 2018 has no dollars for deferred maintenance of capital infrastructure.
• That is the same short-sighted, politically-driven thinking that created the current dilapidated state of our roads and the $8 million annual shortfall in the City Budget.

Guess who picks up the fiscal difference … Davis taxpayers

(more…)

By Dan Cornford

In response to John Troidl's article of yesterday in the Davisite the DV published an article or "commentator" today entitled "Commentary: Nonsensical Argument that Nishi Project Will Make Downtown Traffic Worse."

Below I will paste in my response to David Gs arguments and his failure to address any of John's. But I urge others to post their comments on the DV today as soon as possible as the traffic issue, IMHO resonates like no other when it comes to Nishi.

It will be interesting to see if the DV allows my short post not because I briefly argue against DG's position, but because in his article DG studiously avoids making any mention of the fact that this article appeared on the Davisite (Now what could possibly be the reason for that? A prize for the right answer.), but instead says he found it on his Facebook feed.

Here is is my attempted short post on the DV:

Most unsurprisingly, David makes no effort whatsoever to summarize let alone do justice to John Troidl's article and argument. This is unlike with some of his previous adversaries who he summarizes at length. Perhaps he fears the weight and substance of John's argument. It is worth pointing out also that with Nishi 1.0, when access by Olive Drive to Nishi was permitted, David parroted exactly the same argument (and the very flawed EIR traffic study supporting such an assertion) yet now he, and most Nishi 2.0 advocates, argue that the presumed lack of access (No-one knows how long this agreement with UCD will hold up!) totally negate the real traffic problems created by Nishi. And he thus further shreds his credibility. If you want to read John's article in full and read comments on it go to:

http://www.davisite.org/2018/05/the-nishi-project-will-make-downtown-traffic-worse.html

Edit added 5/23/18 at 11:50 AM: Having originally included the link to the Davisite with my comment, they have now deleted the link that link or "edited" it which proves my point and shows that they see the Davisite as a threat.