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

Category: Land use

  • What Measure O (Open Space tax) Should Be

    Open space mapBy Robert Milbrodt

    While on the City Council, Sue Greenwald made a motion for the City to develop an open space and habitat protection plan with a funding mechanism to be submitted for voter approval. Her proposal died for lack of a second, even for the purpose of discussion. Sue asked a group of community activists to carry the torch.

    The Davis Visioning Group took up the task and built a comprehensive science based open space and habitat protection plan that was submitted to the City, Mitch Sears. That plan included a GIS model identifying and prioritizing land for acquisition, and a complete set of tools for maximizing the use of Measure O funds, with management and mapping tools to facilitate public scrutiny and accountability. The premise at the outset was for the community to contribute the funds necessary for property control or ownership and for the City to contribute maintenance and management.

    (more…)

  • UCD’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) for Campus Growth Falls Short

    Watertower-ucdavis

    Photo credit: Davis Wiki

    By Greg Rowe

     UC Davis recently released its draft 2018 Long Range Development Plan for guiding campus growth through 2030-31. Unfortunately, it lacks important detail and substance. Most important, the plan falls short of housing 50% of the anticipated 39,000 student enrollment called for in resolutions adopted by City Council, Yolo County Board of Supervisors, ASUCD Senate and the local Sierra Club.

    The LRDP says 18,318 students will ultimately live on campus, or 47% of 2030 enrollment. This is 1,182 short of the 19,500 that would represent 50% residing on campus. This is not insignificant; each 1% shortfall means another 390 students seeking off campus housing in Davis and other cities after freshman year.

    (more…)

  • The real costs of Nishi for taxpayers; misleading overstatements on ballot arguments in favor of Nishi

    Matt-Williams-PBEBy Matt Williams

    In the 2015-16 deliberations about the Nishi 2016 proposal, the City’s economic consultant EPS presented to the Finance and Budget Commission (FBC) its initial model of costs and revenues, which showed a $78,000 deficit fiscal impact for the City in the first year of full buildout, which later grew to $106,000 after correction of a math error in the model.  The FBC rightly noted that $106,000 annual deficit would come out of the pockets of Davis taxpayers.

    Figure1

    In the robust discussion that ensued, some of the FBC members argued that the discussion should include a “cash accounting” approach in addition to the “full life-cycle accounting” approach EPS was using in their model.  The explanation was that many of the expenses included in the EPS model had already been “pre-spent” by the City and would not have to be immediately re-spent. FBC member Dan Carson calculated an estimated amount of $734,000 per year (out of an estimated total expense budget of $1,532,000), which was a 48% reduction.

    (more…)

  • Money to sell Nishi 2.0 to voters, but no money for air quality testing for Nishi residents

    Pileofmoney-croppedBy Gilbert Coville and Roberta Millstein

    Davis residents have now received a second glossy multi-page mailer in support of the Nishi 2.0 project. Most likely, there will be more to come. How do proponents of Nishi spend their money? What are their priorities?

    In local elections in California, campaign finance reports are filed with the local municipality. Here in Davis, these forms are viewable on the eCampaign Public Access system accessed from the City of Davis website’s Financial Disclosures page.

    When trying to influence an election, corporations are required to report any related expenses as independent expenditures.

    (more…)

  • Lukewarm and half-hearted support for Nishi from the Davis City Council

    CityCounci-on-NishiExpensive and glossy mailers from the Nishi developer (paid for by "Davis Gateway Student Housing LLC & Affiliated Entities") have begun arriving at Davis addresses. The back of the mailer touts support from "local leaders we trust." These leaders are said to include the five current members of the Davis City Council.

    But how strong is the support of those Councilmembers? Let's review some excerpts from their comments from the meeting where the Council voted to put Nishi on the ballot on 2/6/2018. The video is located here. Numbers in parentheses refer to the approximate time that the Councilmembers' words appear in the video.

    Edit 4/30/2018 to add an edited version of the full video, containing just the clips where City Council members disparage Nishi 2.0.

    (more…)

  • Ezra & Larry for City Council: Preserving Measure R, the Citizen’s Right to Vote

    Beeman_family Guenthers-croppedBy Robert Milbrodt

    The single most important issue in this city council election is The Citizens Right to Vote, Measure J/R. This measure was approved by voters in June 2000 as Measure J; and renewed in June 2010 as Measure R with about 77% of the vote. Essentially it requires voter approval for projects that would convert our open space or agricultural land to urban use.

    A 10-year renewal of this measure will automatically appear on the ballot in June 2020. We deserve council members who will support its renewal, and who will incorporate its democratic and community-oriented values into the city’s decision making. We are better served by council members who share these core values. Either the candidates believe in community-based governance, or they don’t.

    Of the nine candidates for city council: one has consistently opposed the Citizen’s Right to Vote, four stated their early opposition to this measure and are now waffling, two are willing to entertain “amendments” without being specific, and two are steadfastly supportive of the measure in principle and in practice. These two supportive candidates are Ezra Beeman and Larry Guenther.

    They have made my decision easy, and I urge you to join me in voting for Ezra Beeman and Larry Guenther for City Council.

  • What does the proposed Nishi project have to do with traffic downtown?

    Nishi-OldDavisRdYesterday, Dan Cornford wrote about how the Nishi project would contribute to traffic and the deterioration of air quality downtown.  People who don't travel these roads frequently might have trouble seeing why that would be the case.  Well, as the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. 

    If the Nishi project goes through, an underpass would be built under the railroad from the Nishi property to Old Davis Road.  As the graphic shows, there is already significant traffic from Old Davis Rd to First Street and downtown, and onto Richards Blvd.  Cars from the Nishi development – with its 700 parking spaces – would contribute to that traffic as residents drive to and through downtown.

    This is just one of a number of concerns about Nishi.  As I said in an earlier post, the unhealthy air quality experienced by residents because of its location is my primary concern.  But the concerns about traffic and air quality downtown are serious ones and should not be overlooked. 

    (more…)

  • What Residents of Nishi Won’t Know (Yet It Will Still Hurt Them)

    Screen Shot 2018-04-07 at 9.07.20 PMIf you read the ballot Argument in Favor of Measure J 2018 (that is, the argument in favor of Nishi 2.0, not the Measure J from 2000 that gave Davis citizens the right to vote on projects like Nishi), you will see that it is mostly focused on the issue of student housing. The Rebuttal to the Argument Against Measure J is likewise almost entirely focused on student housing.

    Of course, you should also read the Argument Against Measure J (full disclosure: I am a signer) and the Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor of Measure J. In other words, if you read the arguments in favor of Nishi 2.0, you should also read the arguments against Nishi 2.0.

    But my point here is a different one. When I read the ballot arguments in favor of Nishi 2.0, I am taken back to the day that the City Council voted to put Nishi 2.0 on the ballot. I am reminded of the passion of the students who spoke that evening. That passion caused me to change my planned comments and to instead speak from the heart, not about the students who were there that night, who were well-informed about the project, but the students who were not there. Here are my comments in full. They are not as well-organized or as well-articulated as I would like, but they are sincere. And they still reflect the core of my objections to Nishi 2.0.

    (more…)

  • A few more specific questions to ask City Council candidates

    Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 5.40.46 PMBy Dan Cornford

    I totally agree with Roberta’s criticism about the candidates for city council refusing to be more specific and with specific reference as to how they stand on Measure J/R and if they want to amend it, how precisely would they amend it.

    However, I would like to broaden this discussion to make observations about the ways in which almost all candidates for city council have campaigned since I moved here in 2000. A trend that was apparent when I arrived here has become more and more pronounced.

    To put it bluntly and simply, almost all candidates are reluctant to, or more accurately often refuse, to discuss specifics especially when it comes to some of the most important and controversial issues. Their reasons for doing this are obvious. They think by appealing to as broad a constituency as possible, and not alienating any one constituency, they are maximizing their appeal and their chances of election. I could cite endless examples from the campaigns of several of our incumbent council members.

    (more…)

  • Amend Measure R? Will Candidates come clean on how they want it amended?

    Screen Shot 2018-04-04 at 3.03.03 PM
    At the recent CivEnergy City Council forum, audience members filled out cards asking other questions of the candidates — questions that there was simply not enough time to ask during the forum itself (with 9 candidates, it’s hard to ask a lot of questions!).  It’s a little grainy and part is cut off, but at the beginning of this post you can see a screen shot of my question:

    For those candidates who say that they think Measure J/R should be amended, specifically how do you think it should be amended?  Please give a detailed answer.

    So far, none of the candidates have answered my question (or, many of the other audience members’ questions).  Dan Carson, Linda Deos, Eric Gudz, and Gloria Partida (perhaps others) have said that they are thinking about proposing amendments to Measure R, should they be elected.  I’d like to invite them – and members of the Davis community – to have a discussion about what amendments they would like to see, if any, to Measure R.  Again, specificity is good!  Information on Measure R is here: https://localwiki.org/davis/June_2010_Election/Measure_R