Commentary: County Declares War on Davis

The message delivered on Tuesday by the County Supervisors should be enough to alarm Davis residents who have long fought hard and long to control the rate of growth.

The message from Supervisor Mike McGowan goes even further. McGowan was quoted as saying:

“I don’t care where (Davis) puts their additional units, but from any standpoint they have to absorb their fair share. I’m not telling them where to grow.”

He added:

“One of the reasons we are embarking on the General Plan update is that we can’t maintain the old way of doing business; we aren’t generating the revenues we need.”

Not mentioned is the fact pointed out by Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald that housing is not a reliable source for revenue.

But there is more in this rhetoric. The notion of fair share. This notion is based on the presumption somehow that California can continue to grow. That it has the resources–namely the water–to be able to sustain high rates of growth. As it is, Davis is looking at expanding its water capacity and paying an addition 300 to 450 million dollars for a water project.

Supervisor Helen Thomson represents part of Davis.

The Davis Enterprise writes:

“But Thomson later suggested there was much to talk to Davis about in addition to new housing.

In exchange for the county’s policy of directing commercial and residential projects to the cities instead of building them on agricultural land, the cities pay the county a fee in what’s called a pass-through agreement.

In 2005-06, Davis paid nearly $2 million to the county in its pass-through agreement, Thomson said. But that agreement is nearly 15 years old and there are other issues to discuss. Thomson cited her own example of “poor planning” by the city of Davis — allowing homes to be built on seven 20-acre parcels at Binning Ranch north of Davis.”

Of course what the article fails to mention is in fact, that the City of Davis and Yolo County just recently renewed the pass-through agreement.

My thoughts are this: I am very disturbed by the audacity of Supervisor McGowan who does not reside in Davis making such bold assertions.

However, I am even more disturbed by the lack of leadership from the two Davis Supervisors in this regard.

Growth around Davis is an issue for the Davis City Council. The City of Davis will determine and should determine how and when and in what places it will grow.

I sympathize with the County about their dilemma. They provide services to the cities and have revenue shortfalls. I am not unwilling to look into changes in the pass-through agreement. But Davis residents have fought long and hard be able to retain control of their growth both through Measure J and the hard fought pass-through agreements. If the county expects that they are going to get their way on this, I think they have another thing coming.

It was very reassuring to see both Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Saylor vehemently on the same side on this. The entire council seems united on this issue. And the citizens of Davis control forty percent of the county supervisors.

I have no problems with discussions but the rhetoric of fair-share is a slap in the face to Davis residents. The notion of fair-share is inherently selfish. It is about the procurement of scare resources with discussion about the future carrying-capacity of the state of the California and moreover fails to look into the future at what the climate changes may have in store. I think the idea of growth is blatantly irresponsible and unfair. We need to address these questions and not simply look at growth as a cure-all for fiscal and revenue problems.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Land Use/Open Space

112 comments

  1. I lived in Davis throughout all of the 1990s. Didn’t Davis construct more new housing units than West Sacramento? than Woodland?

    Didn’t Davis have more population growth than either of these cities considered separately?

    That’s my recollection, I even seem to recall seeing it in the Enterprise, but I will defer to the knowledge of people with more experience with the issue.

    If I am correct, it causes one to wonder what all this talk of “fair share” is about.

    –Richard Estes

  2. I lived in Davis throughout all of the 1990s. Didn’t Davis construct more new housing units than West Sacramento? than Woodland?

    Didn’t Davis have more population growth than either of these cities considered separately?

    That’s my recollection, I even seem to recall seeing it in the Enterprise, but I will defer to the knowledge of people with more experience with the issue.

    If I am correct, it causes one to wonder what all this talk of “fair share” is about.

    –Richard Estes

  3. I lived in Davis throughout all of the 1990s. Didn’t Davis construct more new housing units than West Sacramento? than Woodland?

    Didn’t Davis have more population growth than either of these cities considered separately?

    That’s my recollection, I even seem to recall seeing it in the Enterprise, but I will defer to the knowledge of people with more experience with the issue.

    If I am correct, it causes one to wonder what all this talk of “fair share” is about.

    –Richard Estes

  4. I lived in Davis throughout all of the 1990s. Didn’t Davis construct more new housing units than West Sacramento? than Woodland?

    Didn’t Davis have more population growth than either of these cities considered separately?

    That’s my recollection, I even seem to recall seeing it in the Enterprise, but I will defer to the knowledge of people with more experience with the issue.

    If I am correct, it causes one to wonder what all this talk of “fair share” is about.

    –Richard Estes

  5. I think the headline to this story isn’t quite right. It isn’t the County that has “declared war,” it appears to be three Supervisors in particular – Yamada, Thomson and McGowan.

    Interestingly, the Yamada/Thomson/McGowan bloc hasn’t even articulated a consistent message regarding why they are so hot to begin interfering in Davis city planning. Thomson says it’s about money. McGowan says it’s about taking our “fair share” of growth. Yamada says it’s about “land use planning.”

    It is questionable whether residential develpment on the periphery of Davis would generate revenue for the County in excess of the cost of additional services and infrastructure required. What is not in doubt, however, is that such development generates huge profits for the developers, and that developers and their allies are often big contributors to political campaigns.

  6. I think the headline to this story isn’t quite right. It isn’t the County that has “declared war,” it appears to be three Supervisors in particular – Yamada, Thomson and McGowan.

    Interestingly, the Yamada/Thomson/McGowan bloc hasn’t even articulated a consistent message regarding why they are so hot to begin interfering in Davis city planning. Thomson says it’s about money. McGowan says it’s about taking our “fair share” of growth. Yamada says it’s about “land use planning.”

    It is questionable whether residential develpment on the periphery of Davis would generate revenue for the County in excess of the cost of additional services and infrastructure required. What is not in doubt, however, is that such development generates huge profits for the developers, and that developers and their allies are often big contributors to political campaigns.

  7. I think the headline to this story isn’t quite right. It isn’t the County that has “declared war,” it appears to be three Supervisors in particular – Yamada, Thomson and McGowan.

    Interestingly, the Yamada/Thomson/McGowan bloc hasn’t even articulated a consistent message regarding why they are so hot to begin interfering in Davis city planning. Thomson says it’s about money. McGowan says it’s about taking our “fair share” of growth. Yamada says it’s about “land use planning.”

    It is questionable whether residential develpment on the periphery of Davis would generate revenue for the County in excess of the cost of additional services and infrastructure required. What is not in doubt, however, is that such development generates huge profits for the developers, and that developers and their allies are often big contributors to political campaigns.

  8. I think the headline to this story isn’t quite right. It isn’t the County that has “declared war,” it appears to be three Supervisors in particular – Yamada, Thomson and McGowan.

    Interestingly, the Yamada/Thomson/McGowan bloc hasn’t even articulated a consistent message regarding why they are so hot to begin interfering in Davis city planning. Thomson says it’s about money. McGowan says it’s about taking our “fair share” of growth. Yamada says it’s about “land use planning.”

    It is questionable whether residential develpment on the periphery of Davis would generate revenue for the County in excess of the cost of additional services and infrastructure required. What is not in doubt, however, is that such development generates huge profits for the developers, and that developers and their allies are often big contributors to political campaigns.

  9. SACOG conducts regionwide growth projects periodically and then assigns a “fair share” growth amount. The growth projections are essentially a line chart that assumes trends from the past X number of years will continue into the future, cross referenced with ecnonomic growth projections.

    The fair share growth concept is essentially what keeps the Cities and Counties in the region in agreement (in theory) regarding where growth should be allocated.

    The issue is not so much about “fair share” or even growth, but rather HOW you grow. Most people interpret that as “continuing to grow the way we have historically”, which means on the periphery. This is a fundamentally flawed thought process and should be reexamined.

    To the extent that all Cities in the region have committed to SACOG to accommodate their fair share of expected growth, it is a sound concept. It is disingenuous for a City, or its residents, to join a regional planning agency with associated growth commitments and then refuse to make the accommodations necessary. It simply pushes growth somewhere else and in manners which are not beneficial to the region. May as well disassociate from the regional planning process, which is a bad idea.

    Fair share should not be used as political rhetoric. However, it is a real commitment to plan for the future. Some call it “growth”, which has negative connotations. More accurately, it is additional residents.

  10. SACOG conducts regionwide growth projects periodically and then assigns a “fair share” growth amount. The growth projections are essentially a line chart that assumes trends from the past X number of years will continue into the future, cross referenced with ecnonomic growth projections.

    The fair share growth concept is essentially what keeps the Cities and Counties in the region in agreement (in theory) regarding where growth should be allocated.

    The issue is not so much about “fair share” or even growth, but rather HOW you grow. Most people interpret that as “continuing to grow the way we have historically”, which means on the periphery. This is a fundamentally flawed thought process and should be reexamined.

    To the extent that all Cities in the region have committed to SACOG to accommodate their fair share of expected growth, it is a sound concept. It is disingenuous for a City, or its residents, to join a regional planning agency with associated growth commitments and then refuse to make the accommodations necessary. It simply pushes growth somewhere else and in manners which are not beneficial to the region. May as well disassociate from the regional planning process, which is a bad idea.

    Fair share should not be used as political rhetoric. However, it is a real commitment to plan for the future. Some call it “growth”, which has negative connotations. More accurately, it is additional residents.

  11. SACOG conducts regionwide growth projects periodically and then assigns a “fair share” growth amount. The growth projections are essentially a line chart that assumes trends from the past X number of years will continue into the future, cross referenced with ecnonomic growth projections.

    The fair share growth concept is essentially what keeps the Cities and Counties in the region in agreement (in theory) regarding where growth should be allocated.

    The issue is not so much about “fair share” or even growth, but rather HOW you grow. Most people interpret that as “continuing to grow the way we have historically”, which means on the periphery. This is a fundamentally flawed thought process and should be reexamined.

    To the extent that all Cities in the region have committed to SACOG to accommodate their fair share of expected growth, it is a sound concept. It is disingenuous for a City, or its residents, to join a regional planning agency with associated growth commitments and then refuse to make the accommodations necessary. It simply pushes growth somewhere else and in manners which are not beneficial to the region. May as well disassociate from the regional planning process, which is a bad idea.

    Fair share should not be used as political rhetoric. However, it is a real commitment to plan for the future. Some call it “growth”, which has negative connotations. More accurately, it is additional residents.

  12. SACOG conducts regionwide growth projects periodically and then assigns a “fair share” growth amount. The growth projections are essentially a line chart that assumes trends from the past X number of years will continue into the future, cross referenced with ecnonomic growth projections.

    The fair share growth concept is essentially what keeps the Cities and Counties in the region in agreement (in theory) regarding where growth should be allocated.

    The issue is not so much about “fair share” or even growth, but rather HOW you grow. Most people interpret that as “continuing to grow the way we have historically”, which means on the periphery. This is a fundamentally flawed thought process and should be reexamined.

    To the extent that all Cities in the region have committed to SACOG to accommodate their fair share of expected growth, it is a sound concept. It is disingenuous for a City, or its residents, to join a regional planning agency with associated growth commitments and then refuse to make the accommodations necessary. It simply pushes growth somewhere else and in manners which are not beneficial to the region. May as well disassociate from the regional planning process, which is a bad idea.

    Fair share should not be used as political rhetoric. However, it is a real commitment to plan for the future. Some call it “growth”, which has negative connotations. More accurately, it is additional residents.

  13. I think your idealism is getting the better of you. It’s really not about SACOG. They are merely providing the cities with the most accurate information possible.

    The idea of sustainability doesn’t translate well to land use decisions. You basically have two paths to take with respect to sustainability:

    1. No growth in the name of “sustainability”
    2. Smarter growth with the realization that more people in California is inevitable

    If the first option is chosen, are you prepared for all the secondary effects that would result? Such as an increasingly expensive housing market where only the ultra-affluent can afford to live? How about the spillover effects of declining school enrollment because young families cannot afford to move into the city? Declining property tax revenues because fewer properties turn over? Or completely forsaking the entire young professional (or non), artists, and other groups of people who will be priced out of the market? Should they be priced out of home ownership (in the variety of forms that can take)? Do we not want a mix of demographics and diversity which has helped create the City as we know it today? We should be striving for inclusion. No-growth policies (and mindset) inhibit that ideal.

    The second path better preserves the things that make Davis unique because it opens up the housing product types (townhomes, row houses, mixed-use, flats, live-work lofts, etc.), increases business activity and commerce, and does it on the smallest footprint possible.

    Our entire civilization is fundamentally unsustainable. It’s a big ship to turn around and takes time.

  14. I think your idealism is getting the better of you. It’s really not about SACOG. They are merely providing the cities with the most accurate information possible.

    The idea of sustainability doesn’t translate well to land use decisions. You basically have two paths to take with respect to sustainability:

    1. No growth in the name of “sustainability”
    2. Smarter growth with the realization that more people in California is inevitable

    If the first option is chosen, are you prepared for all the secondary effects that would result? Such as an increasingly expensive housing market where only the ultra-affluent can afford to live? How about the spillover effects of declining school enrollment because young families cannot afford to move into the city? Declining property tax revenues because fewer properties turn over? Or completely forsaking the entire young professional (or non), artists, and other groups of people who will be priced out of the market? Should they be priced out of home ownership (in the variety of forms that can take)? Do we not want a mix of demographics and diversity which has helped create the City as we know it today? We should be striving for inclusion. No-growth policies (and mindset) inhibit that ideal.

    The second path better preserves the things that make Davis unique because it opens up the housing product types (townhomes, row houses, mixed-use, flats, live-work lofts, etc.), increases business activity and commerce, and does it on the smallest footprint possible.

    Our entire civilization is fundamentally unsustainable. It’s a big ship to turn around and takes time.

  15. I think your idealism is getting the better of you. It’s really not about SACOG. They are merely providing the cities with the most accurate information possible.

    The idea of sustainability doesn’t translate well to land use decisions. You basically have two paths to take with respect to sustainability:

    1. No growth in the name of “sustainability”
    2. Smarter growth with the realization that more people in California is inevitable

    If the first option is chosen, are you prepared for all the secondary effects that would result? Such as an increasingly expensive housing market where only the ultra-affluent can afford to live? How about the spillover effects of declining school enrollment because young families cannot afford to move into the city? Declining property tax revenues because fewer properties turn over? Or completely forsaking the entire young professional (or non), artists, and other groups of people who will be priced out of the market? Should they be priced out of home ownership (in the variety of forms that can take)? Do we not want a mix of demographics and diversity which has helped create the City as we know it today? We should be striving for inclusion. No-growth policies (and mindset) inhibit that ideal.

    The second path better preserves the things that make Davis unique because it opens up the housing product types (townhomes, row houses, mixed-use, flats, live-work lofts, etc.), increases business activity and commerce, and does it on the smallest footprint possible.

    Our entire civilization is fundamentally unsustainable. It’s a big ship to turn around and takes time.