Regarding Mass Shootings:
Gavvy Newsom: <i> "What the hell is wrong with us? Society becomes how we behave. We’ve allowed this to happen. It doesn’t have to be this way. It wasn’t always this way. Decades ago it wasn’t this way. We’ve allowed this to happen.” </i>
Us who? We who?
Rik Keller, Housing Consultant and Affordable Housing Advocate
Davis City Council comments 1/17/2023
Item 5: Inclusionary Multifamily Rental Housing Ordinance Review
I have comments on the product and process:
1) It is an overly simplistic, opaque study with bad assumptions.
The pro forma analysis has a lot of “black box” qualities: Doesn’t show the calculations used or major assumptions, so it is not possible to adequately vet, double-check, and critique the methodology, assumptions, and calculations.
The study doesn’t use a sophisticated pro forma analysis: it is very crude and basic and doesn't allow changes in parameters of things like number of stories, unit sizes, and parking construction types and configurations.
Because of this simplistic and opaque approach, it doesn’t offer flexibility in analysis or running different scenarios beyond the very limited canned ones shown.
One terrible assumption: it considers one major parameter as given—the underlying land price.
If even the 100% market units don’t reach the 12% IRR threshold in the pro forma, then that tells me that the land price assumption is too high because we have had recent development proposals for multifamily development
The fact is that land value varies by its scarcity and demand.
This is a massive flaw as the City’s own density, parking, and inclusionary requirements have large effects on this parameter and hence development feasibility.
If you increase affordable housing requirements, you reduce the bidding demand price for land
In reality, land costs are not fixed and are influenced by the IRR that projects can achieve. If you make more affordable units required, that should actually lower land costs because the rate of return is now lower.
Another issue: bringing up reducing/eliminating development/impact fees as the only feasible way to make projects work. If projects don’t cover their own impact costs, you are increasing City debt and subsiding developer profits. I’m shocked that this is the only solution put on the table by the consultants.
There is also a statement on page 39 that “No incentives are needed in a policy that requires 15% – 25% of small, workforce units.” However, there is no data or analysis provided for this assertion.
In actuality, small units don’t usually end up providing affordability. The most expensive components of units are the kitchens and HVAC systems. Small units have much higher per square foot costs.
The City of Davis has seen this inefficiency in the exorbitant proposed rents for the Olive Drive Mixed Use Project even after eliminating parking requirements.
2) Ironically, one good thing about the study is that it shows the City’s planning failure in targeting densities and incentives to get maximum production of affordable units.
It states “Downtown’s new form based code does a great job at removing barriers to development. Unfortunately, this limits our options to offer development incentives as part of the policy.” and the “Residential high density zone encourages development that is denser than what is typically seen in areas outside of Downtown Davis and already removes commonly known barriers to multifamily development.”
But a terrible assumption of the report is that the City can’t modify its density and parking requirements so that they can be used as incentives for increased affordable housing requirements.
If you allow too much default density and reduce parking requirements in a given zoning district up front, you have given away for nothing incentives that you could offer for affordable housing production.
3) There is a failure in City’s process with the Housing Element Update lead to this.
It has now been almost 5 years since the City scrapped its Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) for its interim ordinance that drastically weekend Inclusionary requirements.
After breaking deadlines multiple times, back in May 2021, staff stated that it would finally provide a “comprehensive update” to the AHO as part of the HEU. But the HE just ended up kicking the can down the road further.
The very limited nature of the report under review right now demonstrates the need to comprehensively address housing policy, not do it piecemeal like this.
We must think holistically:
The City lost an opportunity with the HEU, and needs to to re-group with actual affordable housing advocates leading policy rather than an advisory group stacked with development interests that pushed failed free-market trickle-down approaches.
A proper approach is to carefully craft incentives such as increased density and reduced parking requirements that offset affordability requirements. Simply having large allowable densities and allowing by-right development without strengthening affordability requirements is bypassing half of the equation. Density does not necessarily (and usually doesn’t) equal affordability. Providing half of the equation in terms of incentives without receiving the other half in terms of actual commitments to affordability is missing the point.
Conclusion: This study is a poor excuse for a comprehensive analysis of the City’s actual policy option for increasing affordable housing production. The analysis put its thumb firmly on the scale to try to justify a weakening of the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. They claim that the requirements eat into developer profit margins and make it so projects won’t “pencil out,” In contrast, actual economic analysis of the results of implementing inclusionary programs does not bear this out:
“The most highly regarded empirical evidence suggests that inclusionary housing programs can produce affordable housing and do not lead to significant declines in overall housing production or to increases in market-rate prices” (National Housing Conference’s (NHC) Center for Housing Policy: “Separating Fact from Fiction to Design Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs.” https://nhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Separating-Fact-from-Fiction-to-Design.pdf
“In fact, inclusionary policies may even promote more market-rate development in cities with very constrained housing markets…There is no credible evidence to suggest that inclusionary housing policies lead to lower rates of housing production. This is likely because developers are able to adapt to flexible inclusionary housing policies by bargaining over land prices and adjusting their profits in the short run.” landowners.https://inclusionaryhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Economics-of-Inclusionary-Housing-Policies-Effects-on-Housing-Production_a.pdf
The City should use evidence-based local policy solutions that further goals for inclusive, equitable, and affordable housing solutions.This process and product is not adequate.
The Davisite wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy (8th night of) Hanukkah, and a Happy Solstice!!
– your friendly admins, Colin & Roberta
By Greg McPherson, Luke Vitanza, and Don Shor
Tree Davis Stewardship Awards honor individuals and groups who have worked to enhance our urban forest. Just by helping to water young trees, pull weeds and spread mulch, organize school plantings, caring for older trees in neighborhoods and commercial parking lots, this year’s award recipients help to establish and sustain our city’s canopy and the landscapes beneath.
Award for individual(s): Ann Trump Daniel and Judy Hecomovich
During the hottest days of a sizzling summer, Judy and Ann were diligently watering and weeding recently planted trees and other plants in the Memorial Grove. Every other week they would tend to the needs of over five hundred groundcovers and shrubs, as well as a dozen trees in the Wolk and Generations’ Groves. Their efforts helped to keep these demonstrations of Climate-Ready Landscapes alive and well. We wish we had more folks like them to help keep Davis clean, green, and cool.
Location: Tree Davis Memorial Grove, 1549 Shasta Dr., Davis, CA
By Colin Walsh
Today is the last day, and the final votes are being cast today in what has proven to be a very nasty down and dirty slime fest. What follows are my reflections on the campaigns in the form of vintage children’s book covers.
More after the jump. Click to continue.
by Janet and Joe KrovozaWake up!
Al's Corner Presents
A Pancakes & Politics Production
November 2022 Election – The Seven Propositions
A Discussion Pop-Up Event
Saturday, October 29th (yeah in a few hours! Wake up!)
Delta of Venus (front patio)
(B Street between 1st & 2nd Streets)
9:15 a.m. (gather) – 9:30 a.m. (start) – 10:17 a.m. (punches thrown) – 11:00 a.m. (leave)
As with any P&P, please don't come with the idea of converting people to your point of view. The idea is to take 10-15 minutes per proposition, look up the arguments on both sides on our smart phones, discuss, and maybe take a straw poll.
With district elections, discussing council candidates seems futile and there's plenty been said in local media. Higher office candidates? Well, #yawn#. But at the end we can talk a few minutes about any candidates that anyone wants to bring up — if you insist 😕
Do at least buy a fancy coffee drink and maybe a full breakfast from Delta of Venus to support our wonderful local alternative coffee shop and pay the 'rent'. We'll sit outside because, Covid-19, even though I got Covid-19 outside and Biden declared the pandemic over so what does it matter?
If you wish to stand on the sidewalk with a "Al's Corner Sucks [insert large mammal] Balls" sign, please feel welcome. If we are near the sidewalk you can even join in the discussion. But please — No barricade hurling and no pepper spraying. And no blaming extremists on the 'other side'.
Pardon the late notice; I suck at getting in front of things. So I might be eating breakfast just me and my voter guide. But come ye zero or one or come ye 50, all welcome to join in the cerebral festivities.
C-Ya,
Al of Al's Corner
By Marc Thomas
The City Council is not aligned to resident and taxpayers interests as evidenced by:
1) Failing their fiduciary responsibility and care and duty as council members. The entire city council, including Dan Carson and Gloria Partida, by their actions, have allowed the city budget/deficit to deteriorate to the point of “needing” special interests/developers to generate additional tax revenue. The current city council has enabled a loss of control of the budget by the residents and taxpayers, and is the result of mismanagement of the city budget by the current city council.
2) Unanimously supporting DiSC 1 (as Measure B in 2020) and DiSC 2 (as Measure H in 2022). The entire city council, including Gloria and Dan, who are both up for reelection, continued to unanimously support developer growth despite being voted down (not just once, but twice) by the taxpayers and residents.
3) Supporting excessive wages and overtime for various city functions to the tune of Millions. The entire city council, including Dan and Gloria, by their actions have failed to address the overtime and wage growth where the top 10 firefighters each earn over $385K in pay and benefits in 2021, and the fire chief was paid over $500K in 2021.
4) Wasteful spending. Our entire city council, including Gloria and Dan, who are both up for re-election supported MACE mess, SkyTrack, Ladder truck project, fire station kitchen remodel, etc., adding up to millions of wasted taxpayer funds.
5) The CAAP proposal and sham survey. The entire city council, including Gloria and Dan, who are both up for reelection, supported CAAP in its original form and the sham survey which was un-navigable by the average person. How did it get so far? The city council is out of touch with residents to even approve the draft’s release to the public.
6) Failure to address root causes of homelessness. The entire city council, including Gloria Partida and Dan Carson, who are both up for reelection, have failed to adequately address the root causes of homelessness: lost jobs, addiction, mental issues, divorce/breakup, eviction, and family issues. For some reason, they believe that just taking the homeless off the street is the answer. It's not, note even close.
7) Unanimously supporting false marketing claims for Measure H. In addition to the project not being aligned to taxpayer and resident interests as proven by a 2:1 vote, the developer-funded (almost $1 million) campaign was misleading and 100% voted on by all existing Davis City council members.
8) Failing to publicly and unanimously condemn a council member (Dan Carson) for suing taxpayers and residents who objected to Measure H. Resident objections should be heard and listened to, not attacked by financial interests and developers. Council members should not be aligned to developer interests, Council members MUST be aligned to resident and taxpayer interests, with taxpayers and residents never sued for objecting to City councils members special interest.
9) Failing to recognize the type and nature of crime in Davis and take appropriate action and use taxpayer money efficiently and effectively. Dan Carson, comparing Davis to El Paso, Gilroy and Dayton, supported the need to purchase a $120,000 armored vehicle for Davis where Carson added, “We see headlines in Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton, Ohio. There’s very scary things going on out there.” We are not any of those cities, and our issues, our crime is far less severe and different. Davis' crime requires officers out policing the neighborhoods, more cameras installed and not an armored vehicle which will remain parked 99% of the time.
10) Continuing to support “politics as usual”, and failing to engage with the taxpayers on important issues. Had Dan or Gloria or any other city council member reached out to their constituents and or held neighborhood meetings to listen to the taxpayers and residents of their districts, CAAP never would have been proposed in the current form, and Measure H never would have been on the ballot with the City council's unanimous support!
by Janet and Joe Krovoza
By now pretty much everyone following city matters knows of the public follies of the Arroyo Park Sky Track.
That it was installed in Arroyo Park in May 2019, steps from neighbors’ homes, with no public demand, no notice and no Rec and Park Commission review; that the city was forced to restrict hours of use and lock and unlock it daily (using city firefighters at first) to prevent nighttime use, when the Sky Track’s abrasive banging and scraping were especially disruptive (but which led to repeat vandalism); that a noise report commissioned later that summer was doctored to show the city’s noise limits as “averages” not “maximums” but never retracted; that, out of the blue, on the eve of Memorial Day weekend 2021, staff asked city council to overhaul the city’s noise regulations so that the Sky Track would comply with the new standards (ignominiously removing the request from the agenda four days later due to community outcry); that the city ordered a subsequent noise study that showed the Sky Track had been breaking both night and day noise limits since its installation (this study, too, deliberately misrepresenting the municipal code); and that the city has, at the urging of its paid consultants – sound engineers, not lawyers – reinterpreted the noise ordinance (recall they failed in May 2021 to legitimately amend it) to justify the Sky Track remaining in Arroyo Park.
Dear Davis resident,
I hope you will support Kelsey Fortune for City Council. Her doctoral study in energy and transportation economics and her local volunteer experience give her a deep understanding of the issues facing our City. Kelsey’s service as Associate Executive Director of Purple Tree Café has put her in touch with the needs of people with disabilities.
Kelsey’s service as a board member of Cool Davis has allowed her to work on the environmental issues facing Davis in particular addressing climate change. Kelsey’s board membership in Bike Davis has given her first hand knowledge of what needs to be done to improve the bikeways in Davis for access and safety.
She exhibits the innovative and leadership qualities of the early Council leaders that made Davis what it is today. I have had the opportunity to drive around Davis with her and listen to what she says the City needs immediately. She understands city planning well and was quick to see through the exaggeration of the DISC promoters, being the one candidate opposing it while both of her political opponents strongly supported the sprawl development.
Kelsey believes the council has to be more aggressive to get single family housing for those that have been forced out of the market. She will support the opportunities in the Downtown Plan and on vacant infill lands within the General Plan. For our community’s sake vote for Kelsey Fortune District 1.
Michael Corbett
Former Davis mayor
Davisite 