Frankly, it still boggles my mind that the Nishi developers refused to allow air quality testing at their proposed development site. They had about all the benefits you can imagine, an ideal situation in that a famous UC Davis professor with the right equipment to do air quality monitoring offered to do the testing in a fair and systematic way (you can call it "scientific") in order to determine the unique patterns of air quality at a site that is below grade, adjacent to a very busy highway and wedged in by the railroad tracks. BUT THE DEVELOPERS SAID "NO!!!!".
WOW! A big "NO!!!!" to scientific testing.
Had they asked the Yolo County Epidemiologist like I did whether or not this kind of testing was advisable from a public health perspective, here is what they would have heard (communication from Dr. Dabritz:
As if 12 years of Reisig in the D.A.'s office isn't enough of a reason for a change in leadership. (hasn't anyone ever heard of the good idea of term limits?) But it's his latest campaign flyer that I received in the mail (4th one!) that compels me to write. Instead of promoting the supposed merits of the Reisig reign, it is mostly devoted to maligning the character of the man running against him: Dean Johansson! I'd say that kind of below-the-belt tactic maligns Reisig's character. It reminds me of the tactics of someone we all know who lives in the current White House.
Thus, if I had an overly simple rhyming campaign slogan, it might be, "Reisig is mean, so vote for Dean"! (maybe "overly aggressive" would be kinder but it doesn't rhyme). Fact: (not fake news, folks): Jeff Reisig, our Yolo County DA, brings more cases to jury trial per capita than any other DA in the state! That means that Reisig's office conducts more felony trials than counties that have a much higher population than ours. Yolo cannot be that much more crime ridden! This fact alone is a co$tly (for taxpayers) and valid reason for a change in D.A. leadership.
By Cara Bradley, Thomas Cahill, Gilbert Coville, Pam Gunnell, Marilee Hanson, Michael Harrington, David Kupfer, Robert Milbrodt, Roberta Millstein, Don Price, Nancy Price, Rodney Robinson, Johannes Troost, Dean Vogel, Colin Walsh, and Michael Yackey
Two years after Davis voters rejected the Nishi project at the polls, it’s back on the ballot as Measure J with the same pollution hazards from the adjacent I-80 freeway and railroad, but without the commercial component that was supposed to deliver significant revenue to the City.
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.
As we all know, it’s illegal to give money to an elected official in exchange for a favorable vote. However, monied interests get around this by contributing to elected officials’ pet projects if a vote goes their way.
This doesn’t happen in Davis. Or does it?
On Feb 6, our city council voted to advance the Nishi 2.0 student housing project to a Measure R vote. They were clearly not as excited about this project as they were with the previous Nishi proposal (just search on YouTube: “Davis council lukewarm”). However, they advanced the project to the ballot anyway; it is now Measure J. The Council continues to promote the project, with the mayor as the de facto spokesperson for Yes on Measure J.
The Council also is promoting two local tax measures, H and I, to help fund local park and road maintenance. Two Council members are officers of the committee promoting these measures, and Council members have been staffing its table at the Farmers Market.
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.
Davisite 