Last night John Whitcombe and the Yes on J campaign gave away free hot dogs at the Anderson Place Apartments in an attempt to convince voters to approve Nishi 2.0. The Anderson Place Apartments complex, located on the corner of Hanover Place and Covell, is one of the 14 apartment complexes around Davis owned by Whitcombe and Tandem properties. I was not in attendance myself, so the following report and photographs are based on information that was given to me by individuals who prefer to remain anonymous.
Holding rallies like this where freebies are given away is legal so long as there is no quid pro quo. An example of quid pro quo would be if someone says, “I will give you a hot dog if you vote for my development.” There is no evidence that there was quid pro quo at this event; however, it is eerily similar to some of Whitcombe’s past practices that resulted in a major Davis scandal.
One is that since the article was published, the amount contributed by the developer to sell Measure J to voters has gone from over $170,000 to over $250,000 (a quarter of a million dollars). This is eight times the cost of what one air quality test would have cost.
Second, according to the article "Whitcome says there were some issues found at the site, but 'nothing of any real consequence.'" That's not an accurate statement because the site has not actually been studied, just an adjacent site. And here is what they found at the adjacent site (from Barnes 2015, the study used in the EIR):
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.
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 6th 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.
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.
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.
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
The UCD LRDP and its associated Draft EIR were released recently after the UCD LRDP update process invited input since fall 2015. The problem is UCD LRDP and its associated Draft EIR are seriously inadequate, as was pointed out by the detailed City Staff letter review of the documents. The City Staff letter, approved by City Council recently, pointed out numerous problems with the UCD LRDP proposal.
The problems include an insufficient amount of student housing proposed (i.e. the City Council’s recommended “50/100” plan was not included) as well as the astonishing lack of many basic details including: 1) timelines of housing to materialize, 2) inadequate student housing densities, and 3) a failure to recognize and acknowledge the significant impacts environmentally and on the City’s infrastructure due to UCD’s shortfall of beds proposed. The proposed LRDP would continue shifting the majority of their student housing burden onto the City.
The majority of off campus and some of the on-campus housing targeting UC Davis students requires applicants for residence to sign a 12 month lease. When I first came to Davis and some students told me about this practice, I was astonished and asked them if they were sure this was true: Maybe they misunderstood the terms of the standard lease because after all these were young people without a lot of experiences with real estate and leasing.
They were correct, it turns out, and they told me about the "Summer Scramble" of trying to sublet their places (with/without landlord permission) to recoup at least some of the lost cash they spent for rent on apartments that they did not need for the Summer. Unbelievable!
Proponents of Nishi have made much of the promised mitigation features: the tree screen and the air filters. One has to ask, of course, why mitigation is even necessary, and the EIR for the project makes that clear: the location between I-80 and the train tracks brings with it poor air quality and "significant and unavoidable" health impacts. There is no controversy on that point, although some "merchants of doubt" have tried to turn it into one.
Questions have also been raised about whether the promised mitigation will do what it is supposed to do; for example, Dr. Thomas Cahill has pointed out that the tree screen will be much less effective because the freeway is elevated adjacent to Nishi, and the supposed 95% efficiency of the air filters has never actually been demonstrated in a real-life situation (with filters operating at a much lower efficiency in real-life situations).
But the situation is even worse than that. The promised mitigation measures might not even be implemented.
By Gilbert Coville
Davisite 