Whitcombe and Tandem Properties was the chief developer involved in the proposal and construction for the failed Covell Village development project initiative. Voters in November of 2005 defeated the massive project by huge margins. And yet, here we are, having the developers of the Covell Village project on the General Plan Steering Committee.
What is clear is that while Councilmember Souza did not directly put John Whitcombe on this committee, he put a person with clear development interests instead. This is a person who likely stands to directly gain from new development and a more favorable general plan to development.
What is interesting is that Councilmember Souza who owns a pool cleaning company has in the past done business with Tandem Properties. At some council meetings, he has recused himself from weighing in on items directly effecting Tandem Properties. He did this during a Covell Village hearing process, but I believe later on, he got a ruling that suggested that his past dealings did not create a conflict of interest. Souza of course was a strong supporter of Measure X and Covell Village. Whether he had a direct business relationship with Whitcombe and Tandem, he has a strong political connection there.
The purpose of this is to suggest the interests of Brenda Little are squarely in the realm of the pro-development majority of council. Ms. Little will obviously continue to represent the interests of the largest and most powerful development and property management company in the city of Davis. It is clear where the priorities of this committee lie.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I think this is to be expected. Whitcome/Tandem also owns lots of apartments/student housing.
The Yolo county’s general plan is rejecting growth in the North central and northeast quadrant of Davis
I think this is to be expected. Whitcome/Tandem also owns lots of apartments/student housing.
The Yolo county’s general plan is rejecting growth in the North central and northeast quadrant of Davis
I think this is to be expected. Whitcome/Tandem also owns lots of apartments/student housing.
The Yolo county’s general plan is rejecting growth in the North central and northeast quadrant of Davis
I think this is to be expected. Whitcome/Tandem also owns lots of apartments/student housing.
The Yolo county’s general plan is rejecting growth in the North central and northeast quadrant of Davis
What is most remarkable is the obvious contempt for our level of intelligence. This alone should galvanize the Davis voters to send Saylor and Souza(either council or supervisor race) packing in 2008.
What is most remarkable is the obvious contempt for our level of intelligence. This alone should galvanize the Davis voters to send Saylor and Souza(either council or supervisor race) packing in 2008.
What is most remarkable is the obvious contempt for our level of intelligence. This alone should galvanize the Davis voters to send Saylor and Souza(either council or supervisor race) packing in 2008.
What is most remarkable is the obvious contempt for our level of intelligence. This alone should galvanize the Davis voters to send Saylor and Souza(either council or supervisor race) packing in 2008.
One thing that wasn’t clarified is that this is one element of the General Plan that is being updated. It’s not a complete General Plan update.
It’s fine that you’re profiling each member of the housing element subcommittee.
You generally want a balance of representatives on the subcommittee because ultimately it will be developers who have to accommodate Davis’ “fair share” of future regional growth. They should have some say in that.
I do, BTW, believe Davis should accommodate it’s fair share of regional growth. However, I also think we should set the standard regarding how to accomplish that.
One thing that wasn’t clarified is that this is one element of the General Plan that is being updated. It’s not a complete General Plan update.
It’s fine that you’re profiling each member of the housing element subcommittee.
You generally want a balance of representatives on the subcommittee because ultimately it will be developers who have to accommodate Davis’ “fair share” of future regional growth. They should have some say in that.
I do, BTW, believe Davis should accommodate it’s fair share of regional growth. However, I also think we should set the standard regarding how to accomplish that.
One thing that wasn’t clarified is that this is one element of the General Plan that is being updated. It’s not a complete General Plan update.
It’s fine that you’re profiling each member of the housing element subcommittee.
You generally want a balance of representatives on the subcommittee because ultimately it will be developers who have to accommodate Davis’ “fair share” of future regional growth. They should have some say in that.
I do, BTW, believe Davis should accommodate it’s fair share of regional growth. However, I also think we should set the standard regarding how to accomplish that.
One thing that wasn’t clarified is that this is one element of the General Plan that is being updated. It’s not a complete General Plan update.
It’s fine that you’re profiling each member of the housing element subcommittee.
You generally want a balance of representatives on the subcommittee because ultimately it will be developers who have to accommodate Davis’ “fair share” of future regional growth. They should have some say in that.
I do, BTW, believe Davis should accommodate it’s fair share of regional growth. However, I also think we should set the standard regarding how to accomplish that.
That’s a good point about balance, but I think there is a considerable lack of balance on this committee. There is no one representing the social services commission.
You have Luke Watkins who does the supply end of affordable housing, but no one who is a social worker or on that commission.
You have no one from the Senior Citizens commission on that committee and they have a sizable interest.
You have no one representing the UC Davis students on that committee and they have a sizable concern. Yes Tandem supplies apartments, but again, there is no one from the demand end of that spectrum.
Meanwhile you have nine of the twelve with substantial developmental interests. So if anything, the developers are over rather than under representing.
That’s a good point about balance, but I think there is a considerable lack of balance on this committee. There is no one representing the social services commission.
You have Luke Watkins who does the supply end of affordable housing, but no one who is a social worker or on that commission.
You have no one from the Senior Citizens commission on that committee and they have a sizable interest.
You have no one representing the UC Davis students on that committee and they have a sizable concern. Yes Tandem supplies apartments, but again, there is no one from the demand end of that spectrum.
Meanwhile you have nine of the twelve with substantial developmental interests. So if anything, the developers are over rather than under representing.
That’s a good point about balance, but I think there is a considerable lack of balance on this committee. There is no one representing the social services commission.
You have Luke Watkins who does the supply end of affordable housing, but no one who is a social worker or on that commission.
You have no one from the Senior Citizens commission on that committee and they have a sizable interest.
You have no one representing the UC Davis students on that committee and they have a sizable concern. Yes Tandem supplies apartments, but again, there is no one from the demand end of that spectrum.
Meanwhile you have nine of the twelve with substantial developmental interests. So if anything, the developers are over rather than under representing.
That’s a good point about balance, but I think there is a considerable lack of balance on this committee. There is no one representing the social services commission.
You have Luke Watkins who does the supply end of affordable housing, but no one who is a social worker or on that commission.
You have no one from the Senior Citizens commission on that committee and they have a sizable interest.
You have no one representing the UC Davis students on that committee and they have a sizable concern. Yes Tandem supplies apartments, but again, there is no one from the demand end of that spectrum.
Meanwhile you have nine of the twelve with substantial developmental interests. So if anything, the developers are over rather than under representing.
I will be more direct and perhaps heretical. The Fair Share concept is more a goal than a directive that has real penalties attached( other than cutting off affordable housing grants which even our own city staff has publicly stated in fantasy and has not been used to his knowledge). Many communitites have looked at their Fair Share allocations and have decided that, in their best interests , they will not reach those goals. This is a real option that the Steering Committee needs to consider. In that regard, developer interests have a clear conflict of interest.
I will be more direct and perhaps heretical. The Fair Share concept is more a goal than a directive that has real penalties attached( other than cutting off affordable housing grants which even our own city staff has publicly stated in fantasy and has not been used to his knowledge). Many communitites have looked at their Fair Share allocations and have decided that, in their best interests , they will not reach those goals. This is a real option that the Steering Committee needs to consider. In that regard, developer interests have a clear conflict of interest.
I will be more direct and perhaps heretical. The Fair Share concept is more a goal than a directive that has real penalties attached( other than cutting off affordable housing grants which even our own city staff has publicly stated in fantasy and has not been used to his knowledge). Many communitites have looked at their Fair Share allocations and have decided that, in their best interests , they will not reach those goals. This is a real option that the Steering Committee needs to consider. In that regard, developer interests have a clear conflict of interest.
I will be more direct and perhaps heretical. The Fair Share concept is more a goal than a directive that has real penalties attached( other than cutting off affordable housing grants which even our own city staff has publicly stated in fantasy and has not been used to his knowledge). Many communitites have looked at their Fair Share allocations and have decided that, in their best interests , they will not reach those goals. This is a real option that the Steering Committee needs to consider. In that regard, developer interests have a clear conflict of interest.
There was no way to discern from the City website, outside of their e-mail suffixes, the affiliation of many of the appointees.
Balance is key, and no group should be overrepresented.
There was no way to discern from the City website, outside of their e-mail suffixes, the affiliation of many of the appointees.
Balance is key, and no group should be overrepresented.
There was no way to discern from the City website, outside of their e-mail suffixes, the affiliation of many of the appointees.
Balance is key, and no group should be overrepresented.
There was no way to discern from the City website, outside of their e-mail suffixes, the affiliation of many of the appointees.
Balance is key, and no group should be overrepresented.
Well I have been doing backgrounds on almost all them. Which ones do you want to know about?
Well I have been doing backgrounds on almost all them. Which ones do you want to know about?
Well I have been doing backgrounds on almost all them. Which ones do you want to know about?
Well I have been doing backgrounds on almost all them. Which ones do you want to know about?
I consider it irresponsible planning not to accept our fair share of growth considering how many intelligent ways it can be accommodated. All you end up doing is redirecting that growth to other jurisdictions who are not planning sensitively.
This is where Davis typically reveals a contradiction or double-standard. Davis residents typically complain about growth and sprawl and then simultaneously rejects projects on the basis they are “too dense”.
Covell Village suffered from this in that it was “too dense” and due to traffic impacts. Covell Village could not in any real way mitigate against the traffic impacts because the General Plan restricts widening arterials beyond 4-lanes. A pretty good policy but then residents have to be willing to override those traffic congestion impacts. That is, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I consider it irresponsible planning not to accept our fair share of growth considering how many intelligent ways it can be accommodated. All you end up doing is redirecting that growth to other jurisdictions who are not planning sensitively.
This is where Davis typically reveals a contradiction or double-standard. Davis residents typically complain about growth and sprawl and then simultaneously rejects projects on the basis they are “too dense”.
Covell Village suffered from this in that it was “too dense” and due to traffic impacts. Covell Village could not in any real way mitigate against the traffic impacts because the General Plan restricts widening arterials beyond 4-lanes. A pretty good policy but then residents have to be willing to override those traffic congestion impacts. That is, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I consider it irresponsible planning not to accept our fair share of growth considering how many intelligent ways it can be accommodated. All you end up doing is redirecting that growth to other jurisdictions who are not planning sensitively.
This is where Davis typically reveals a contradiction or double-standard. Davis residents typically complain about growth and sprawl and then simultaneously rejects projects on the basis they are “too dense”.
Covell Village suffered from this in that it was “too dense” and due to traffic impacts. Covell Village could not in any real way mitigate against the traffic impacts because the General Plan restricts widening arterials beyond 4-lanes. A pretty good policy but then residents have to be willing to override those traffic congestion impacts. That is, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I consider it irresponsible planning not to accept our fair share of growth considering how many intelligent ways it can be accommodated. All you end up doing is redirecting that growth to other jurisdictions who are not planning sensitively.
This is where Davis typically reveals a contradiction or double-standard. Davis residents typically complain about growth and sprawl and then simultaneously rejects projects on the basis they are “too dense”.
Covell Village suffered from this in that it was “too dense” and due to traffic impacts. Covell Village could not in any real way mitigate against the traffic impacts because the General Plan restricts widening arterials beyond 4-lanes. A pretty good policy but then residents have to be willing to override those traffic congestion impacts. That is, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Another point:
Nearly all of Davis development qualifies as “sprawl” considering we are predominantly single-family homes built at anywhere from 4-10 units per acre. The one thing the City has done correctly is prevent leapfrog development. So the overall form is fairly compact, which makes bicycling feasible. But our current development is not particularly pedestrian-friendly.
I personally think we should be looking at downtown as an opportunity for housing development.
Another point:
Nearly all of Davis development qualifies as “sprawl” considering we are predominantly single-family homes built at anywhere from 4-10 units per acre. The one thing the City has done correctly is prevent leapfrog development. So the overall form is fairly compact, which makes bicycling feasible. But our current development is not particularly pedestrian-friendly.
I personally think we should be looking at downtown as an opportunity for housing development.
Another point:
Nearly all of Davis development qualifies as “sprawl” considering we are predominantly single-family homes built at anywhere from 4-10 units per acre. The one thing the City has done correctly is prevent leapfrog development. So the overall form is fairly compact, which makes bicycling feasible. But our current development is not particularly pedestrian-friendly.
I personally think we should be looking at downtown as an opportunity for housing development.
Another point:
Nearly all of Davis development qualifies as “sprawl” considering we are predominantly single-family homes built at anywhere from 4-10 units per acre. The one thing the City has done correctly is prevent leapfrog development. So the overall form is fairly compact, which makes bicycling feasible. But our current development is not particularly pedestrian-friendly.
I personally think we should be looking at downtown as an opportunity for housing development.
Each City councilmember selected three people to be on the Steering Committee. This required that each councilmember seek out and find people willing to take on the position. Some people chosen are obvious, but others are quite puzzling. It is to be expected that there will be developer interests represented, because we have developer-backed city councilmembers. Once you start describing who should be one the committee (a social services commission person, etc.)then it balloons out of control with multiple groups demanding to be represented regardless of knowledge of planning principles. People are so sharply divided that it will be seen if the committee can even produce anything of value.
The profiles that Doug is doing is valuable because there are names on the list that I have never heard before.
Each City councilmember selected three people to be on the Steering Committee. This required that each councilmember seek out and find people willing to take on the position. Some people chosen are obvious, but others are quite puzzling. It is to be expected that there will be developer interests represented, because we have developer-backed city councilmembers. Once you start describing who should be one the committee (a social services commission person, etc.)then it balloons out of control with multiple groups demanding to be represented regardless of knowledge of planning principles. People are so sharply divided that it will be seen if the committee can even produce anything of value.
The profiles that Doug is doing is valuable because there are names on the list that I have never heard before.
Each City councilmember selected three people to be on the Steering Committee. This required that each councilmember seek out and find people willing to take on the position. Some people chosen are obvious, but others are quite puzzling. It is to be expected that there will be developer interests represented, because we have developer-backed city councilmembers. Once you start describing who should be one the committee (a social services commission person, etc.)then it balloons out of control with multiple groups demanding to be represented regardless of knowledge of planning principles. People are so sharply divided that it will be seen if the committee can even produce anything of value.
The profiles that Doug is doing is valuable because there are names on the list that I have never heard before.
Each City councilmember selected three people to be on the Steering Committee. This required that each councilmember seek out and find people willing to take on the position. Some people chosen are obvious, but others are quite puzzling. It is to be expected that there will be developer interests represented, because we have developer-backed city councilmembers. Once you start describing who should be one the committee (a social services commission person, etc.)then it balloons out of control with multiple groups demanding to be represented regardless of knowledge of planning principles. People are so sharply divided that it will be seen if the committee can even produce anything of value.
The profiles that Doug is doing is valuable because there are names on the list that I have never heard before.
Whether one supports the idea of fulfilling the Fair Share of not is not my point which is that all real options need to be given a fair hearing. My point of reference is that the decisions should reflect the wishes of the citizens of Davis. The argument that developer
interests need to be represented on the committee flies in the face of the council’s clear policy.. i.e.,development scenerios are created by the council and city staff before developers get involved.
Whether one supports the idea of fulfilling the Fair Share of not is not my point which is that all real options need to be given a fair hearing. My point of reference is that the decisions should reflect the wishes of the citizens of Davis. The argument that developer
interests need to be represented on the committee flies in the face of the council’s clear policy.. i.e.,development scenerios are created by the council and city staff before developers get involved.
Whether one supports the idea of fulfilling the Fair Share of not is not my point which is that all real options need to be given a fair hearing. My point of reference is that the decisions should reflect the wishes of the citizens of Davis. The argument that developer
interests need to be represented on the committee flies in the face of the council’s clear policy.. i.e.,development scenerios are created by the council and city staff before developers get involved.
Whether one supports the idea of fulfilling the Fair Share of not is not my point which is that all real options need to be given a fair hearing. My point of reference is that the decisions should reflect the wishes of the citizens of Davis. The argument that developer
interests need to be represented on the committee flies in the face of the council’s clear policy.. i.e.,development scenerios are created by the council and city staff before developers get involved.
I fully understood your point. The problem is that you cannot plan for housing scenarios without the input people who are expect to implement them. That means you cannot create housing scenarios that have no basis in reality (and can never be implemented) by people with no experience or expertise in development to the exclusion of those who do.
That does not, however, imply that developers should be *over*represented.
I fully understood your point. The problem is that you cannot plan for housing scenarios without the input people who are expect to implement them. That means you cannot create housing scenarios that have no basis in reality (and can never be implemented) by people with no experience or expertise in development to the exclusion of those who do.
That does not, however, imply that developers should be *over*represented.
I fully understood your point. The problem is that you cannot plan for housing scenarios without the input people who are expect to implement them. That means you cannot create housing scenarios that have no basis in reality (and can never be implemented) by people with no experience or expertise in development to the exclusion of those who do.
That does not, however, imply that developers should be *over*represented.
I fully understood your point. The problem is that you cannot plan for housing scenarios without the input people who are expect to implement them. That means you cannot create housing scenarios that have no basis in reality (and can never be implemented) by people with no experience or expertise in development to the exclusion of those who do.
That does not, however, imply that developers should be *over*represented.
A preferable approach to selecting the subcommittee would have been through an application process with a recommendations coming from the Planning Commission and then a confirmation by the City Council, versus simply appointing the committee. The process could then be iterative until the checks and balances resulted in a consensus-based subcommittee.
A preferable approach to selecting the subcommittee would have been through an application process with a recommendations coming from the Planning Commission and then a confirmation by the City Council, versus simply appointing the committee. The process could then be iterative until the checks and balances resulted in a consensus-based subcommittee.
A preferable approach to selecting the subcommittee would have been through an application process with a recommendations coming from the Planning Commission and then a confirmation by the City Council, versus simply appointing the committee. The process could then be iterative until the checks and balances resulted in a consensus-based subcommittee.
A preferable approach to selecting the subcommittee would have been through an application process with a recommendations coming from the Planning Commission and then a confirmation by the City Council, versus simply appointing the committee. The process could then be iterative until the checks and balances resulted in a consensus-based subcommittee.
As to your point about having local developer interests involved, while local developers should receive first dibs(as we used to say), these developments are supposed to be open bids to all comers who can present the best project and best “compensation” to the city for the privilege of profiting from the project.
As to your point about having local developer interests involved, while local developers should receive first dibs(as we used to say), these developments are supposed to be open bids to all comers who can present the best project and best “compensation” to the city for the privilege of profiting from the project.
As to your point about having local developer interests involved, while local developers should receive first dibs(as we used to say), these developments are supposed to be open bids to all comers who can present the best project and best “compensation” to the city for the privilege of profiting from the project.
As to your point about having local developer interests involved, while local developers should receive first dibs(as we used to say), these developments are supposed to be open bids to all comers who can present the best project and best “compensation” to the city for the privilege of profiting from the project.
…and so.. the Citizen Steering Committee is the creation of the council majority that hoped to create the illusion of citizen input. The real purpose of the steering committee is to remove the discussion from the council agenda and out of the public’s view as much as possible. If the council members fulfilled their elected responsibilities and handled this on the dais, many questions and challenges to the council majority’s plans for the Housing Element would be publicly aired, covered in the Enterprise and roundly discussed in our community.
…and so.. the Citizen Steering Committee is the creation of the council majority that hoped to create the illusion of citizen input. The real purpose of the steering committee is to remove the discussion from the council agenda and out of the public’s view as much as possible. If the council members fulfilled their elected responsibilities and handled this on the dais, many questions and challenges to the council majority’s plans for the Housing Element would be publicly aired, covered in the Enterprise and roundly discussed in our community.
…and so.. the Citizen Steering Committee is the creation of the council majority that hoped to create the illusion of citizen input. The real purpose of the steering committee is to remove the discussion from the council agenda and out of the public’s view as much as possible. If the council members fulfilled their elected responsibilities and handled this on the dais, many questions and challenges to the council majority’s plans for the Housing Element would be publicly aired, covered in the Enterprise and roundly discussed in our community.
…and so.. the Citizen Steering Committee is the creation of the council majority that hoped to create the illusion of citizen input. The real purpose of the steering committee is to remove the discussion from the council agenda and out of the public’s view as much as possible. If the council members fulfilled their elected responsibilities and handled this on the dais, many questions and challenges to the council majority’s plans for the Housing Element would be publicly aired, covered in the Enterprise and roundly discussed in our community.
A reality check here is needed. The property owner decides who should develop on their land. It is not an “open bid” process. The City (and residents if subject to Measure J) then determines if it is a project worth taking through the process and/or approving.
I also don’t know that I consider profit a privilege but an inherent premise of development. It should, however, reflect a community-approved vision of the highest standards.
I’m not sure what you mean by “compensation” outside of land dedication for City needs. The City receives a set percentage of property taxes, development residents typically pay for the infrastructure, and with commercial, the sales tax percentage coming back to the City is also set. There isn’t much negotiation room on the last point that wouldn’t deter commercial development away.
If you’re stretching and using “compensation” in the context of intangibles such as urban design, quality architecture, etc., then I will agree with that point.
A reality check here is needed. The property owner decides who should develop on their land. It is not an “open bid” process. The City (and residents if subject to Measure J) then determines if it is a project worth taking through the process and/or approving.
I also don’t know that I consider profit a privilege but an inherent premise of development. It should, however, reflect a community-approved vision of the highest standards.
I’m not sure what you mean by “compensation” outside of land dedication for City needs. The City receives a set percentage of property taxes, development residents typically pay for the infrastructure, and with commercial, the sales tax percentage coming back to the City is also set. There isn’t much negotiation room on the last point that wouldn’t deter commercial development away.
If you’re stretching and using “compensation” in the context of intangibles such as urban design, quality architecture, etc., then I will agree with that point.
A reality check here is needed. The property owner decides who should develop on their land. It is not an “open bid” process. The City (and residents if subject to Measure J) then determines if it is a project worth taking through the process and/or approving.
I also don’t know that I consider profit a privilege but an inherent premise of development. It should, however, reflect a community-approved vision of the highest standards.
I’m not sure what you mean by “compensation” outside of land dedication for City needs. The City receives a set percentage of property taxes, development residents typically pay for the infrastructure, and with commercial, the sales tax percentage coming back to the City is also set. There isn’t much negotiation room on the last point that wouldn’t deter commercial development away.
If you’re stretching and using “compensation” in the context of intangibles such as urban design, quality architecture, etc., then I will agree with that point.
A reality check here is needed. The property owner decides who should develop on their land. It is not an “open bid” process. The City (and residents if subject to Measure J) then determines if it is a project worth taking through the process and/or approving.
I also don’t know that I consider profit a privilege but an inherent premise of development. It should, however, reflect a community-approved vision of the highest standards.
I’m not sure what you mean by “compensation” outside of land dedication for City needs. The City receives a set percentage of property taxes, development residents typically pay for the infrastructure, and with commercial, the sales tax percentage coming back to the City is also set. There isn’t much negotiation room on the last point that wouldn’t deter commercial development away.
If you’re stretching and using “compensation” in the context of intangibles such as urban design, quality architecture, etc., then I will agree with that point.
Refer to my previous point about an alternate selection process. That would have been the fairest, most transparent way to appoint the subcommittee.
Refer to my previous point about an alternate selection process. That would have been the fairest, most transparent way to appoint the subcommittee.
Refer to my previous point about an alternate selection process. That would have been the fairest, most transparent way to appoint the subcommittee.
Refer to my previous point about an alternate selection process. That would have been the fairest, most transparent way to appoint the subcommittee.
An article in the NY Times about 6-8 months ago talked about the growing national trend for cities to demand that developers offer them much more for their approval of development projects than has been the norm in the past.
An article in the NY Times about 6-8 months ago talked about the growing national trend for cities to demand that developers offer them much more for their approval of development projects than has been the norm in the past.
An article in the NY Times about 6-8 months ago talked about the growing national trend for cities to demand that developers offer them much more for their approval of development projects than has been the norm in the past.
An article in the NY Times about 6-8 months ago talked about the growing national trend for cities to demand that developers offer them much more for their approval of development projects than has been the norm in the past.
It depends on the location, the economy, etc. In a high-growth region with a lot of competition and land for growth (i.e. Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Elk Grove, Woodland, Sutter County) there isn’t as much leverage for developer freebies. They can play one municipality against each other, knowing that with Prop 13 in effect, cities are chasing after regional retail sales tax revenue. The property taxes from housing developments are not what cities are after. They are merely the rooftops that support the sales tax revenue.
It depends on the location, the economy, etc. In a high-growth region with a lot of competition and land for growth (i.e. Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Elk Grove, Woodland, Sutter County) there isn’t as much leverage for developer freebies. They can play one municipality against each other, knowing that with Prop 13 in effect, cities are chasing after regional retail sales tax revenue. The property taxes from housing developments are not what cities are after. They are merely the rooftops that support the sales tax revenue.
It depends on the location, the economy, etc. In a high-growth region with a lot of competition and land for growth (i.e. Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Elk Grove, Woodland, Sutter County) there isn’t as much leverage for developer freebies. They can play one municipality against each other, knowing that with Prop 13 in effect, cities are chasing after regional retail sales tax revenue. The property taxes from housing developments are not what cities are after. They are merely the rooftops that support the sales tax revenue.
It depends on the location, the economy, etc. In a high-growth region with a lot of competition and land for growth (i.e. Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Elk Grove, Woodland, Sutter County) there isn’t as much leverage for developer freebies. They can play one municipality against each other, knowing that with Prop 13 in effect, cities are chasing after regional retail sales tax revenue. The property taxes from housing developments are not what cities are after. They are merely the rooftops that support the sales tax revenue.
Davis doesn’t have to be grouped in the regions that you described(most inundated with sprawl). We are in the “catbird’s seat”.That’s what I was referring to as “open bids”. Multiple developers, not necessarily only those who are city councilmember patrons, are encouraged to offer their projects that meet the requirements of the citizens of Davis and we pick the best offer.
Davis doesn’t have to be grouped in the regions that you described(most inundated with sprawl). We are in the “catbird’s seat”.That’s what I was referring to as “open bids”. Multiple developers, not necessarily only those who are city councilmember patrons, are encouraged to offer their projects that meet the requirements of the citizens of Davis and we pick the best offer.
Davis doesn’t have to be grouped in the regions that you described(most inundated with sprawl). We are in the “catbird’s seat”.That’s what I was referring to as “open bids”. Multiple developers, not necessarily only those who are city councilmember patrons, are encouraged to offer their projects that meet the requirements of the citizens of Davis and we pick the best offer.
Davis doesn’t have to be grouped in the regions that you described(most inundated with sprawl). We are in the “catbird’s seat”.That’s what I was referring to as “open bids”. Multiple developers, not necessarily only those who are city councilmember patrons, are encouraged to offer their projects that meet the requirements of the citizens of Davis and we pick the best offer.
I just consider that a naive perspective of the development process. Property owners are under no obligation to “open bid” their developments.
Making matters worse, you can’t get Davis residents to agree on anything, especially a large development. It’s like herding cats. Though, the best way to plan for, for example, the Covell Village property is to create a specific plan for it that reflects the community’s vision, rather than reacting to development proposals, which always raises suspicion. Problem is specific plans are expensive to produce and the property would first have to be annexed into the City.
I just consider that a naive perspective of the development process. Property owners are under no obligation to “open bid” their developments.
Making matters worse, you can’t get Davis residents to agree on anything, especially a large development. It’s like herding cats. Though, the best way to plan for, for example, the Covell Village property is to create a specific plan for it that reflects the community’s vision, rather than reacting to development proposals, which always raises suspicion. Problem is specific plans are expensive to produce and the property would first have to be annexed into the City.
I just consider that a naive perspective of the development process. Property owners are under no obligation to “open bid” their developments.
Making matters worse, you can’t get Davis residents to agree on anything, especially a large development. It’s like herding cats. Though, the best way to plan for, for example, the Covell Village property is to create a specific plan for it that reflects the community’s vision, rather than reacting to development proposals, which always raises suspicion. Problem is specific plans are expensive to produce and the property would first have to be annexed into the City.
I just consider that a naive perspective of the development process. Property owners are under no obligation to “open bid” their developments.
Making matters worse, you can’t get Davis residents to agree on anything, especially a large development. It’s like herding cats. Though, the best way to plan for, for example, the Covell Village property is to create a specific plan for it that reflects the community’s vision, rather than reacting to development proposals, which always raises suspicion. Problem is specific plans are expensive to produce and the property would first have to be annexed into the City.
“Problem is specific plans are expensive to produce and the property would first have to be annexed into the City.”
This is an important point. I would guess that, when you include the cost of the EIR, the development of the land-use plans, the lawyer fees, and myriad other costs in working with the city of Davis, the Covell Village owners spent at least a couple million dollars, if not more. (That does not include the money they spent on the Measure X campaign.) That money is now a complete loss.
So for every dead-letter development proposal submitted to the city of Davis, you are talking about the loss of a significant amount of money. It doesn’t make good sense to encourage this kind of waste of money.
“Problem is specific plans are expensive to produce and the property would first have to be annexed into the City.”
This is an important point. I would guess that, when you include the cost of the EIR, the development of the land-use plans, the lawyer fees, and myriad other costs in working with the city of Davis, the Covell Village owners spent at least a couple million dollars, if not more. (That does not include the money they spent on the Measure X campaign.) That money is now a complete loss.
So for every dead-letter development proposal submitted to the city of Davis, you are talking about the loss of a significant amount of money. It doesn’t make good sense to encourage this kind of waste of money.
“Problem is specific plans are expensive to produce and the property would first have to be annexed into the City.”
This is an important point. I would guess that, when you include the cost of the EIR, the development of the land-use plans, the lawyer fees, and myriad other costs in working with the city of Davis, the Covell Village owners spent at least a couple million dollars, if not more. (That does not include the money they spent on the Measure X campaign.) That money is now a complete loss.
So for every dead-letter development proposal submitted to the city of Davis, you are talking about the loss of a significant amount of money. It doesn’t make good sense to encourage this kind of waste of money.
“Problem is specific plans are expensive to produce and the property would first have to be annexed into the City.”
This is an important point. I would guess that, when you include the cost of the EIR, the development of the land-use plans, the lawyer fees, and myriad other costs in working with the city of Davis, the Covell Village owners spent at least a couple million dollars, if not more. (That does not include the money they spent on the Measure X campaign.) That money is now a complete loss.
So for every dead-letter development proposal submitted to the city of Davis, you are talking about the loss of a significant amount of money. It doesn’t make good sense to encourage this kind of waste of money.
I don’t think that worrying about developers’ RISK of loss should be a major consideration for the city. Developers ,when challenged about the profits they make( $3 million spent for the property into a potential $300 million Covell Village project) ,claim that the RISKS they take make this reasonable..so be it.
I don’t think that worrying about developers’ RISK of loss should be a major consideration for the city. Developers ,when challenged about the profits they make( $3 million spent for the property into a potential $300 million Covell Village project) ,claim that the RISKS they take make this reasonable..so be it.
I don’t think that worrying about developers’ RISK of loss should be a major consideration for the city. Developers ,when challenged about the profits they make( $3 million spent for the property into a potential $300 million Covell Village project) ,claim that the RISKS they take make this reasonable..so be it.
I don’t think that worrying about developers’ RISK of loss should be a major consideration for the city. Developers ,when challenged about the profits they make( $3 million spent for the property into a potential $300 million Covell Village project) ,claim that the RISKS they take make this reasonable..so be it.