At that time, Mayor Greenwald supported a very basic motion:
“It shall be the position of the City of Davis that annexation of the University’s West Davis neighborhood is a goal that we strongly support in concept.”
As Don Saylor said at the time:
“We have no staff analysis in front of us, there are questions of the analysis that are not before us, there are questions of the assumptions that are not before us. This is incredible… And then there’s a request to change council policy.”
What Saylor and in fact the Davis Enterprise at the time failed to note was the reason that there is no staff analysis was that the council majority refused to allow this to be agendized as a normal agenda item and instead had to be brought before the council as an item submitted by a councilmember which allows for no staff work to be done on it.
After much debate, ranquor, and sheer tenacity, the issue was back on the agenda, this time with full staff report. Mayor Greenwald deserves much of the credit for keeping this issue alive and forcing the council majority to put it on the agenda. Without her tenacity on this issue, there is no doubt, that this issue would have gone away.
Staff of course, remained very skeptical on the cost impact on the city. The basic view of staff was summed up in this statement:
“Staff acknowledges that annexation of West Village poses a number of challenging issues related to governance and delivery of services that need to be further addressed and fully understood prior to final Council action on the annexation question. The fact that the City would not gain land use authority with annexation is already a significant factor that diminishes the value of annexation. If police and fire services were also retained and provided by UCD, it would be difficult for staff to justify bringing West Village under city jurisdiction given that we would not be directly in control of most urban services provided its future residents.”
As Paul Navazio, the city’s director of finance said on Tuesday,
“The current assessment of the fiscal analysis, on the operating revenues and the operating costs, is that overall the project does not generate sufficient revenue to cover costs, it generates more revenue under an annexation, then in a non-annexation, if the city with council direction sat down with the campus to explore revenue sharing or supplemental revenues, to help off-set the city costs, it’s our sense it would be potentially cost effective from a fiscal standpoint and it would cost the tenants and the residents less and make-up the costs of the campus providing services.”
The elements were aligned here once again that pointed to the same result as April: you had a council that previously expressed skepticism (and criticism of this issue) and a staff declaring the project does not generate enough revenue to cover the costs.
The key concern that Greenwald expressed is the infeasibility of having a huge development on the border of Davis, without connection to city governance. This notion was also affirmed by Councilmember Heystek.
Moreover, the staff report revealed that the cheapest alternative–the one that was most cost effective was for the city to annex West Village. That means that with a concerted effort on the part of the city and university, a deal can and should be arrived at that would benefit all sides and pave the way for annexation. The only reason that this was discovered was the vigilance of Mayor Greenwald, who would not allow the issue to die.
On the other hand, even as part of the city of Davis, the annexation would not grant the city any kind of land use authority, which gives UC Davis design control. There will be no access point to Russell Blvd., meaning that the neighborhood will be somewhat isolated from the rest of the city, even as part of the city.
What changed that made this annexation a possibility now, whereas just two months ago, it was dismissed almost out of hand?
One difference was the presence of ASUCD and numerous UC Davis students.
A key concern for students was having access to city government and municipal representation. In their resolution passed unanimously on May 24, 2007, ASUCD affirmed their support of the annexation of the West Village Development by the City of Davis. ASUCD Senator Andrew Peake read this resolution into the record. Several other UC Davis students also came forward in support.
While the students and also resident Ron Glick, made compelling cases for the enfranchisement of students, Saylor remained concerned about the costs to the current residents of the city and the current voters and taxpayers. Saylor’s stated principle that “any new project would pay for itself.” This is an interesting viewpoint in light of previous fiscal decisions by Saylor that have been less than fiscally sound.
Councilmember Heystek urged the discussion to continue. He countered Saylor’s argument by suggesting:
“If that were a standard adopted by council, then we would cease to have affordable housing, because it is clear that affordable housing projects do not pay for themselves. But I think it is ludicrous to say that all of our affordable housing costs need to be mitigated by an overall revenue stream. I don’t think that would ever be a philosophy that this council would adopt.”
Heystek went on to point out how many different projects would not get done if this philosophy were adopted. His core point that gets back to the issue of enfranchisement was this:
“The thing that we cannot quantify in this whole discussion is the value of civic engagement as the result of inclusion of students, faculty, staff in this new neighborhood. We cannot put a price on that. “
“But we’re not talking about what we really do embrace as a whole council. I think the whole council embraces the sentiments of ASUCD, embraces the sentiment of increased civic engagement, the sentiment that we cannot continue to divide our university community between voters and non-voters in the city. I do not think that is something that the council embraces.”
One of the key differences in this discussion was the presence of the students and the issue of enfranchisement. Talking to a councilmember after the meeting, it seemed clear that their presence changed the course and trajectory of the debate, and injected energy and passion that were absent in April. The council simply could not look the students in the face and deny annexation. That does not mean that this will go forward, but at least there was consensus about reopening negotiations between city, county, and university.
My own take on this follows from many of the comments expressed on Tuesday. First, I agree wholly with the students, with Sue Greenwald, and with Lamar Heystek on the need for enfranchisement. That I think was the most compelling argument.
I think Ron Glick who spoke at public comments summed it up very well when he discussed the mistake made 50 years ago that denied students on campus voting rights in city elections:
“To deny our students the right to vote is a great tragedy, and I would like to aspire to higher things than property taxes.”
Second, I think Sue Greenwald’s point is very important:
“We can’t have a massive development the size of Winters perched on our borders.”
I have seen cities with massive developments on their border that are not annexed by the city, and in general it is a huge problem for the city. It often leads to commercial development that ends up sucking money out of the city without giving money to the city. Looking at this from a strict fiscal analysis now assumes that all things will remain constant into the future. Saylor’s argument while compelling, I think was easily countered by Heystek, but moreover, is very short-sighted in terms of its fiscal view.
My biggest concern is really the lack of access point onto Russell. This is a problem because it isolates the community from the rest of the city. Frankly, this is a problem regardless of annexation. It is not a reason to not annex it, it is a reason to negotiate with neighbors and the university to fix that problem.
Overall, the difference between April and June, illustrates the need for transparency in government processes. Moreover, it illustrates a debate point that seems to recur at every council meeting and that is, we need to have our meetings end by 11 pm to ensure public involvement. I will comment more on this later, but I think one of the responsibilities of councilmembers should be that they should expect to meet every Tuesday night. And if they are to be out of town, the show must go on without them.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Withholding Council support/serious consideration for annexation would give more credence to keeping this development out of the current Housing Element Steering Committee’s considerations and raise the future development numbers needed to fulfill the SACOG “requirement”. It is classic Saylor.
Withholding Council support/serious consideration for annexation would give more credence to keeping this development out of the current Housing Element Steering Committee’s considerations and raise the future development numbers needed to fulfill the SACOG “requirement”. It is classic Saylor.
Withholding Council support/serious consideration for annexation would give more credence to keeping this development out of the current Housing Element Steering Committee’s considerations and raise the future development numbers needed to fulfill the SACOG “requirement”. It is classic Saylor.
Withholding Council support/serious consideration for annexation would give more credence to keeping this development out of the current Housing Element Steering Committee’s considerations and raise the future development numbers needed to fulfill the SACOG “requirement”. It is classic Saylor.
No representation without taxation is essentially the argument I felt Don Saylor was making. He sounded like a Republican going on about his need to protect the interests of the 65,000 residents of Davis and how housing projects should pay for themselves. I found his arguments both unconvincing and duplicitious. He denied that it was about anything but the money even though everyone else who has knowledge believes the opposition to annexation is about how much building will be allowed in Davis as stated in the comment above sacog.
As always its hard to get to where Saylor is coming from. I can see three possible reasons for his opposition:
1. It is about the money which can be resolved with the University since the cheapest alternative for the University is through annexation. A deal can be reached if people are willing to work in good faith.
2.Its about how much development goes on, more without annexation and less with it, so not annexing allows Saylor to push through more development.
3. It is about keeping the 3000 students who will live there from participating in Davis elections.
Reason number one is a red herring being used as a shibolith to kill the annexation as was made clear by the economic analysis of the city and the Universities willingness to negotiate.
Reason number 2 is logical with Souza being the only one to argue against his traditional development tendencies. Still I would have preferred a more honest discussion about how to allow annexation and resident voting without impacting the growth inside the current city limits.
The third reason is also a possibility but nobody will ever say they don’t think students should be disenfranchised. Davis has a long history of doing so by concentrating student housing on land that is not annexed into the city. To me this is a fundamental issue of representation and the underlying basis of our country. It is an unamerican argument. I have been outraged for years about this issue. There are currently 7000 students on campus who do not get to vote in city elections. Think about how many people are disenfranchised. If West Village is not annexed the number goes up to 11,000 or almost 15% of the population and a large demographic group denied political power.
Some people argue that students are only here for a short time and shouldn’t vote but that denies that there will always be students here and they are the ones who are best able to represent the interests of those who will come after them. Additionally,the law allows students to choose to vote in their home districts or in their school districts so allowing them to vote here through annexation gives them the right to vote about their passions and teaches them that their voting is important. In a society where so few people participate why are we so afraid of allowing our brightest and best young people the right to participate? Why are we deciding for them where they should vote instead of allowing them this fundamental choice?
Finally, I ran into Wesley Chesbro at the farmers market the other day. Wes was termed out of the State Senate last year. We talked about this issue and he expressed surprise. He said without the student vote he would not have one his first election when he won a seat on the Arcata City Council by eleven votes. Maybe this is what Don Saylor is worried about.
Ron Glick
No representation without taxation is essentially the argument I felt Don Saylor was making. He sounded like a Republican going on about his need to protect the interests of the 65,000 residents of Davis and how housing projects should pay for themselves. I found his arguments both unconvincing and duplicitious. He denied that it was about anything but the money even though everyone else who has knowledge believes the opposition to annexation is about how much building will be allowed in Davis as stated in the comment above sacog.
As always its hard to get to where Saylor is coming from. I can see three possible reasons for his opposition:
1. It is about the money which can be resolved with the University since the cheapest alternative for the University is through annexation. A deal can be reached if people are willing to work in good faith.
2.Its about how much development goes on, more without annexation and less with it, so not annexing allows Saylor to push through more development.
3. It is about keeping the 3000 students who will live there from participating in Davis elections.
Reason number one is a red herring being used as a shibolith to kill the annexation as was made clear by the economic analysis of the city and the Universities willingness to negotiate.
Reason number 2 is logical with Souza being the only one to argue against his traditional development tendencies. Still I would have preferred a more honest discussion about how to allow annexation and resident voting without impacting the growth inside the current city limits.
The third reason is also a possibility but nobody will ever say they don’t think students should be disenfranchised. Davis has a long history of doing so by concentrating student housing on land that is not annexed into the city. To me this is a fundamental issue of representation and the underlying basis of our country. It is an unamerican argument. I have been outraged for years about this issue. There are currently 7000 students on campus who do not get to vote in city elections. Think about how many people are disenfranchised. If West Village is not annexed the number goes up to 11,000 or almost 15% of the population and a large demographic group denied political power.
Some people argue that students are only here for a short time and shouldn’t vote but that denies that there will always be students here and they are the ones who are best able to represent the interests of those who will come after them. Additionally,the law allows students to choose to vote in their home districts or in their school districts so allowing them to vote here through annexation gives them the right to vote about their passions and teaches them that their voting is important. In a society where so few people participate why are we so afraid of allowing our brightest and best young people the right to participate? Why are we deciding for them where they should vote instead of allowing them this fundamental choice?
Finally, I ran into Wesley Chesbro at the farmers market the other day. Wes was termed out of the State Senate last year. We talked about this issue and he expressed surprise. He said without the student vote he would not have one his first election when he won a seat on the Arcata City Council by eleven votes. Maybe this is what Don Saylor is worried about.
Ron Glick
No representation without taxation is essentially the argument I felt Don Saylor was making. He sounded like a Republican going on about his need to protect the interests of the 65,000 residents of Davis and how housing projects should pay for themselves. I found his arguments both unconvincing and duplicitious. He denied that it was about anything but the money even though everyone else who has knowledge believes the opposition to annexation is about how much building will be allowed in Davis as stated in the comment above sacog.
As always its hard to get to where Saylor is coming from. I can see three possible reasons for his opposition:
1. It is about the money which can be resolved with the University since the cheapest alternative for the University is through annexation. A deal can be reached if people are willing to work in good faith.
2.Its about how much development goes on, more without annexation and less with it, so not annexing allows Saylor to push through more development.
3. It is about keeping the 3000 students who will live there from participating in Davis elections.
Reason number one is a red herring being used as a shibolith to kill the annexation as was made clear by the economic analysis of the city and the Universities willingness to negotiate.
Reason number 2 is logical with Souza being the only one to argue against his traditional development tendencies. Still I would have preferred a more honest discussion about how to allow annexation and resident voting without impacting the growth inside the current city limits.
The third reason is also a possibility but nobody will ever say they don’t think students should be disenfranchised. Davis has a long history of doing so by concentrating student housing on land that is not annexed into the city. To me this is a fundamental issue of representation and the underlying basis of our country. It is an unamerican argument. I have been outraged for years about this issue. There are currently 7000 students on campus who do not get to vote in city elections. Think about how many people are disenfranchised. If West Village is not annexed the number goes up to 11,000 or almost 15% of the population and a large demographic group denied political power.
Some people argue that students are only here for a short time and shouldn’t vote but that denies that there will always be students here and they are the ones who are best able to represent the interests of those who will come after them. Additionally,the law allows students to choose to vote in their home districts or in their school districts so allowing them to vote here through annexation gives them the right to vote about their passions and teaches them that their voting is important. In a society where so few people participate why are we so afraid of allowing our brightest and best young people the right to participate? Why are we deciding for them where they should vote instead of allowing them this fundamental choice?
Finally, I ran into Wesley Chesbro at the farmers market the other day. Wes was termed out of the State Senate last year. We talked about this issue and he expressed surprise. He said without the student vote he would not have one his first election when he won a seat on the Arcata City Council by eleven votes. Maybe this is what Don Saylor is worried about.
Ron Glick
No representation without taxation is essentially the argument I felt Don Saylor was making. He sounded like a Republican going on about his need to protect the interests of the 65,000 residents of Davis and how housing projects should pay for themselves. I found his arguments both unconvincing and duplicitious. He denied that it was about anything but the money even though everyone else who has knowledge believes the opposition to annexation is about how much building will be allowed in Davis as stated in the comment above sacog.
As always its hard to get to where Saylor is coming from. I can see three possible reasons for his opposition:
1. It is about the money which can be resolved with the University since the cheapest alternative for the University is through annexation. A deal can be reached if people are willing to work in good faith.
2.Its about how much development goes on, more without annexation and less with it, so not annexing allows Saylor to push through more development.
3. It is about keeping the 3000 students who will live there from participating in Davis elections.
Reason number one is a red herring being used as a shibolith to kill the annexation as was made clear by the economic analysis of the city and the Universities willingness to negotiate.
Reason number 2 is logical with Souza being the only one to argue against his traditional development tendencies. Still I would have preferred a more honest discussion about how to allow annexation and resident voting without impacting the growth inside the current city limits.
The third reason is also a possibility but nobody will ever say they don’t think students should be disenfranchised. Davis has a long history of doing so by concentrating student housing on land that is not annexed into the city. To me this is a fundamental issue of representation and the underlying basis of our country. It is an unamerican argument. I have been outraged for years about this issue. There are currently 7000 students on campus who do not get to vote in city elections. Think about how many people are disenfranchised. If West Village is not annexed the number goes up to 11,000 or almost 15% of the population and a large demographic group denied political power.
Some people argue that students are only here for a short time and shouldn’t vote but that denies that there will always be students here and they are the ones who are best able to represent the interests of those who will come after them. Additionally,the law allows students to choose to vote in their home districts or in their school districts so allowing them to vote here through annexation gives them the right to vote about their passions and teaches them that their voting is important. In a society where so few people participate why are we so afraid of allowing our brightest and best young people the right to participate? Why are we deciding for them where they should vote instead of allowing them this fundamental choice?
Finally, I ran into Wesley Chesbro at the farmers market the other day. Wes was termed out of the State Senate last year. We talked about this issue and he expressed surprise. He said without the student vote he would not have one his first election when he won a seat on the Arcata City Council by eleven votes. Maybe this is what Don Saylor is worried about.
Ron Glick
typo on one should be won
Ron
typo on one should be won
Ron
typo on one should be won
Ron
typo on one should be won
Ron
Could be Ron. Saylor worries about nobody but himself.
I’ve always said as have many others that in any other town Saylor would be a registered Republican.
Dorothy
Could be Ron. Saylor worries about nobody but himself.
I’ve always said as have many others that in any other town Saylor would be a registered Republican.
Dorothy
Could be Ron. Saylor worries about nobody but himself.
I’ve always said as have many others that in any other town Saylor would be a registered Republican.
Dorothy
Could be Ron. Saylor worries about nobody but himself.
I’ve always said as have many others that in any other town Saylor would be a registered Republican.
Dorothy
Not Republican or Democrat,Dorothy, just crass political opportunism;-)rawn like a fly to the ….pile of perceived political power.
Not Republican or Democrat,Dorothy, just crass political opportunism;-)rawn like a fly to the ….pile of perceived political power.
Not Republican or Democrat,Dorothy, just crass political opportunism;-)rawn like a fly to the ….pile of perceived political power.
Not Republican or Democrat,Dorothy, just crass political opportunism;-)rawn like a fly to the ….pile of perceived political power.
i am glad that heystek and greenwald kept pushing on this issue. too many students are disenfranchised from voting on city matters as it is, it struck me as a reasonable sort of thing to try to work out. if there was a way to work out some partial annexation with the rest of on-campus housing to get students and grad students the right to participate in city politics, i think it would reduce this growing division between the city and the university community.
as it stands now, students live in a sort of democratic grey area if they register where they live; they cannot vote on city issues, but they also have no democratic say on the authority that governs where they do live, since the UC administration is not elected by students living under their control and thus is utterly unresponsive (e.g. the food service worker issue).
it should not be hard to work out a compromise that brings this new neighborhood into the city for voting matters, while balancing tax recipts and services provided to make sure that neither city not university gets the short end of the stick.
and while i suspect that no matter what, that the majority of student and faculty traffic will go over hutchison ave. and the bike overpass, i agree that blocking off the russell access was a bad idea, and ought to be revisited, west davis neighborhood complaints aside. it should never have been taken off the table IMO.
i am glad that heystek and greenwald kept pushing on this issue. too many students are disenfranchised from voting on city matters as it is, it struck me as a reasonable sort of thing to try to work out. if there was a way to work out some partial annexation with the rest of on-campus housing to get students and grad students the right to participate in city politics, i think it would reduce this growing division between the city and the university community.
as it stands now, students live in a sort of democratic grey area if they register where they live; they cannot vote on city issues, but they also have no democratic say on the authority that governs where they do live, since the UC administration is not elected by students living under their control and thus is utterly unresponsive (e.g. the food service worker issue).
it should not be hard to work out a compromise that brings this new neighborhood into the city for voting matters, while balancing tax recipts and services provided to make sure that neither city not university gets the short end of the stick.
and while i suspect that no matter what, that the majority of student and faculty traffic will go over hutchison ave. and the bike overpass, i agree that blocking off the russell access was a bad idea, and ought to be revisited, west davis neighborhood complaints aside. it should never have been taken off the table IMO.
i am glad that heystek and greenwald kept pushing on this issue. too many students are disenfranchised from voting on city matters as it is, it struck me as a reasonable sort of thing to try to work out. if there was a way to work out some partial annexation with the rest of on-campus housing to get students and grad students the right to participate in city politics, i think it would reduce this growing division between the city and the university community.
as it stands now, students live in a sort of democratic grey area if they register where they live; they cannot vote on city issues, but they also have no democratic say on the authority that governs where they do live, since the UC administration is not elected by students living under their control and thus is utterly unresponsive (e.g. the food service worker issue).
it should not be hard to work out a compromise that brings this new neighborhood into the city for voting matters, while balancing tax recipts and services provided to make sure that neither city not university gets the short end of the stick.
and while i suspect that no matter what, that the majority of student and faculty traffic will go over hutchison ave. and the bike overpass, i agree that blocking off the russell access was a bad idea, and ought to be revisited, west davis neighborhood complaints aside. it should never have been taken off the table IMO.
i am glad that heystek and greenwald kept pushing on this issue. too many students are disenfranchised from voting on city matters as it is, it struck me as a reasonable sort of thing to try to work out. if there was a way to work out some partial annexation with the rest of on-campus housing to get students and grad students the right to participate in city politics, i think it would reduce this growing division between the city and the university community.
as it stands now, students live in a sort of democratic grey area if they register where they live; they cannot vote on city issues, but they also have no democratic say on the authority that governs where they do live, since the UC administration is not elected by students living under their control and thus is utterly unresponsive (e.g. the food service worker issue).
it should not be hard to work out a compromise that brings this new neighborhood into the city for voting matters, while balancing tax recipts and services provided to make sure that neither city not university gets the short end of the stick.
and while i suspect that no matter what, that the majority of student and faculty traffic will go over hutchison ave. and the bike overpass, i agree that blocking off the russell access was a bad idea, and ought to be revisited, west davis neighborhood complaints aside. it should never have been taken off the table IMO.
and as for the argument that ron glick is paraphrasing (i’m aware you aren’t endorsing it) that since students are new in town, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote, since they aren’t really a part of the community, i suspect that that same criteria would also disenfranchise a whole bunch of the newer commuter population that has moved into town during the recent real estate boom. most of wildhorse and mace ranch would be “on probation.”
and as for the argument that ron glick is paraphrasing (i’m aware you aren’t endorsing it) that since students are new in town, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote, since they aren’t really a part of the community, i suspect that that same criteria would also disenfranchise a whole bunch of the newer commuter population that has moved into town during the recent real estate boom. most of wildhorse and mace ranch would be “on probation.”
and as for the argument that ron glick is paraphrasing (i’m aware you aren’t endorsing it) that since students are new in town, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote, since they aren’t really a part of the community, i suspect that that same criteria would also disenfranchise a whole bunch of the newer commuter population that has moved into town during the recent real estate boom. most of wildhorse and mace ranch would be “on probation.”
and as for the argument that ron glick is paraphrasing (i’m aware you aren’t endorsing it) that since students are new in town, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote, since they aren’t really a part of the community, i suspect that that same criteria would also disenfranchise a whole bunch of the newer commuter population that has moved into town during the recent real estate boom. most of wildhorse and mace ranch would be “on probation.”
Perhaps the biggest irony of the annexation question is that the city of Davis, pushed by the NIMBY West Davis neighborhood association, compelled the university to design West Village in such a way that it is not integrated at all into our community. Even though West Village will be located right across Russell Boulevard from Village Homes, a person who is unable to walk or bicycle and lives in VH would have to drive 1.5-2.0 miles to get to a residence in West Village.
This idea of not allowing traffic from West Village to flow onto Russell Boulevard was a horrible mistake. Even the residential halls on campus are not so blocked off from the city. El Macero and Willowbank, which are unincorporated parts of greater Davis, are far more integrated into our street structure than West Village ever will be. It’s a shame that this group in West Davis was allowed to control the process so much that we permitted them to cut off part of our town, whether it is incorporated or not.
To understand how cut off it will be, consider a person who lives on Evenstar Lane in Village Homes and wants to drive over to a friend’s house in West Village. They live maybe 100 yards apart. However, to drive there, the VH resident would have to drive onto Arlington, then onto Russell, go a half mile east on Russell to Highway 113, take the highway up to the Hutchinson Drive exit, drive west on Hutchinson to Campbell Road and then wind his way through West Village from Campbell Road over to his friend’s house near Russell.
All of that would be a hassle. But consider the people who will live in West Village. They will have to make these nonsensical roundabout trips every day, if they want to visit any stores or people in the rest of Davis.
Perhaps the biggest irony of the annexation question is that the city of Davis, pushed by the NIMBY West Davis neighborhood association, compelled the university to design West Village in such a way that it is not integrated at all into our community. Even though West Village will be located right across Russell Boulevard from Village Homes, a person who is unable to walk or bicycle and lives in VH would have to drive 1.5-2.0 miles to get to a residence in West Village.
This idea of not allowing traffic from West Village to flow onto Russell Boulevard was a horrible mistake. Even the residential halls on campus are not so blocked off from the city. El Macero and Willowbank, which are unincorporated parts of greater Davis, are far more integrated into our street structure than West Village ever will be. It’s a shame that this group in West Davis was allowed to control the process so much that we permitted them to cut off part of our town, whether it is incorporated or not.
To understand how cut off it will be, consider a person who lives on Evenstar Lane in Village Homes and wants to drive over to a friend’s house in West Village. They live maybe 100 yards apart. However, to drive there, the VH resident would have to drive onto Arlington, then onto Russell, go a half mile east on Russell to Highway 113, take the highway up to the Hutchinson Drive exit, drive west on Hutchinson to Campbell Road and then wind his way through West Village from Campbell Road over to his friend’s house near Russell.
All of that would be a hassle. But consider the people who will live in West Village. They will have to make these nonsensical roundabout trips every day, if they want to visit any stores or people in the rest of Davis.
Perhaps the biggest irony of the annexation question is that the city of Davis, pushed by the NIMBY West Davis neighborhood association, compelled the university to design West Village in such a way that it is not integrated at all into our community. Even though West Village will be located right across Russell Boulevard from Village Homes, a person who is unable to walk or bicycle and lives in VH would have to drive 1.5-2.0 miles to get to a residence in West Village.
This idea of not allowing traffic from West Village to flow onto Russell Boulevard was a horrible mistake. Even the residential halls on campus are not so blocked off from the city. El Macero and Willowbank, which are unincorporated parts of greater Davis, are far more integrated into our street structure than West Village ever will be. It’s a shame that this group in West Davis was allowed to control the process so much that we permitted them to cut off part of our town, whether it is incorporated or not.
To understand how cut off it will be, consider a person who lives on Evenstar Lane in Village Homes and wants to drive over to a friend’s house in West Village. They live maybe 100 yards apart. However, to drive there, the VH resident would have to drive onto Arlington, then onto Russell, go a half mile east on Russell to Highway 113, take the highway up to the Hutchinson Drive exit, drive west on Hutchinson to Campbell Road and then wind his way through West Village from Campbell Road over to his friend’s house near Russell.
All of that would be a hassle. But consider the people who will live in West Village. They will have to make these nonsensical roundabout trips every day, if they want to visit any stores or people in the rest of Davis.
Perhaps the biggest irony of the annexation question is that the city of Davis, pushed by the NIMBY West Davis neighborhood association, compelled the university to design West Village in such a way that it is not integrated at all into our community. Even though West Village will be located right across Russell Boulevard from Village Homes, a person who is unable to walk or bicycle and lives in VH would have to drive 1.5-2.0 miles to get to a residence in West Village.
This idea of not allowing traffic from West Village to flow onto Russell Boulevard was a horrible mistake. Even the residential halls on campus are not so blocked off from the city. El Macero and Willowbank, which are unincorporated parts of greater Davis, are far more integrated into our street structure than West Village ever will be. It’s a shame that this group in West Davis was allowed to control the process so much that we permitted them to cut off part of our town, whether it is incorporated or not.
To understand how cut off it will be, consider a person who lives on Evenstar Lane in Village Homes and wants to drive over to a friend’s house in West Village. They live maybe 100 yards apart. However, to drive there, the VH resident would have to drive onto Arlington, then onto Russell, go a half mile east on Russell to Highway 113, take the highway up to the Hutchinson Drive exit, drive west on Hutchinson to Campbell Road and then wind his way through West Village from Campbell Road over to his friend’s house near Russell.
All of that would be a hassle. But consider the people who will live in West Village. They will have to make these nonsensical roundabout trips every day, if they want to visit any stores or people in the rest of Davis.
Why would they “drive” to their friend’s house in WDV if they lived in Village Homes in the first place? A) I didn’t think anyone who lived in VH was allowed to own a car and 2) seems pathetic to drive 100 yards in the first place when you can bike or walk. That’s a lame reason as to why there should be Russell access. Fire truck and emergency access, now there’s a real reason.
Why would they “drive” to their friend’s house in WDV if they lived in Village Homes in the first place? A) I didn’t think anyone who lived in VH was allowed to own a car and 2) seems pathetic to drive 100 yards in the first place when you can bike or walk. That’s a lame reason as to why there should be Russell access. Fire truck and emergency access, now there’s a real reason.
Why would they “drive” to their friend’s house in WDV if they lived in Village Homes in the first place? A) I didn’t think anyone who lived in VH was allowed to own a car and 2) seems pathetic to drive 100 yards in the first place when you can bike or walk. That’s a lame reason as to why there should be Russell access. Fire truck and emergency access, now there’s a real reason.
Why would they “drive” to their friend’s house in WDV if they lived in Village Homes in the first place? A) I didn’t think anyone who lived in VH was allowed to own a car and 2) seems pathetic to drive 100 yards in the first place when you can bike or walk. That’s a lame reason as to why there should be Russell access. Fire truck and emergency access, now there’s a real reason.
Ooops I had a typo, but I’m sure you all knew who I was referring to when I said that “Ron thinks of nobody but himself.”
I meant Don, as in Saylor, thinks of nobody but himself. In any other town he would be a card carrying Republican.
Besides, what kind of person would work for an organization such as CYA? Very dysfunctional! They treated children horribly and still do to this day.
Ooops I had a typo, but I’m sure you all knew who I was referring to when I said that “Ron thinks of nobody but himself.”
I meant Don, as in Saylor, thinks of nobody but himself. In any other town he would be a card carrying Republican.
Besides, what kind of person would work for an organization such as CYA? Very dysfunctional! They treated children horribly and still do to this day.
Ooops I had a typo, but I’m sure you all knew who I was referring to when I said that “Ron thinks of nobody but himself.”
I meant Don, as in Saylor, thinks of nobody but himself. In any other town he would be a card carrying Republican.
Besides, what kind of person would work for an organization such as CYA? Very dysfunctional! They treated children horribly and still do to this day.
Ooops I had a typo, but I’m sure you all knew who I was referring to when I said that “Ron thinks of nobody but himself.”
I meant Don, as in Saylor, thinks of nobody but himself. In any other town he would be a card carrying Republican.
Besides, what kind of person would work for an organization such as CYA? Very dysfunctional! They treated children horribly and still do to this day.
“Why would they “drive” to their friend’s house in WDV if they lived in Village Homes…”
You missed this sentence in my post: “… a person who is unable to walk or bicycle and lives in VH would have to drive 1.5-2.0 miles to get to a residence in West Village.”
You could imagine someone who is injured or handicapped not being able to walk or bike this stretch. Further, it maybe the case that the person is transporting goods or equipment or some such thing.
Of course, as I noted, the inconvenience for the person in West Davis will pale in comparison with the inconvenience for the new residents of West Village. They will have to take this mishugge route every time they need to drive anywhere else in Davis.
“Why would they “drive” to their friend’s house in WDV if they lived in Village Homes…”
You missed this sentence in my post: “… a person who is unable to walk or bicycle and lives in VH would have to drive 1.5-2.0 miles to get to a residence in West Village.”
You could imagine someone who is injured or handicapped not being able to walk or bike this stretch. Further, it maybe the case that the person is transporting goods or equipment or some such thing.
Of course, as I noted, the inconvenience for the person in West Davis will pale in comparison with the inconvenience for the new residents of West Village. They will have to take this mishugge route every time they need to drive anywhere else in Davis.
“Why would they “drive” to their friend’s house in WDV if they lived in Village Homes…”
You missed this sentence in my post: “… a person who is unable to walk or bicycle and lives in VH would have to drive 1.5-2.0 miles to get to a residence in West Village.”
You could imagine someone who is injured or handicapped not being able to walk or bike this stretch. Further, it maybe the case that the person is transporting goods or equipment or some such thing.
Of course, as I noted, the inconvenience for the person in West Davis will pale in comparison with the inconvenience for the new residents of West Village. They will have to take this mishugge route every time they need to drive anywhere else in Davis.
“Why would they “drive” to their friend’s house in WDV if they lived in Village Homes…”
You missed this sentence in my post: “… a person who is unable to walk or bicycle and lives in VH would have to drive 1.5-2.0 miles to get to a residence in West Village.”
You could imagine someone who is injured or handicapped not being able to walk or bike this stretch. Further, it maybe the case that the person is transporting goods or equipment or some such thing.
Of course, as I noted, the inconvenience for the person in West Davis will pale in comparison with the inconvenience for the new residents of West Village. They will have to take this mishugge route every time they need to drive anywhere else in Davis.
Further, it may be the case that the person is transporting goods or equipment or some such thing.
Further, it may be the case that the person is transporting goods or equipment or some such thing.
Further, it may be the case that the person is transporting goods or equipment or some such thing.
Further, it may be the case that the person is transporting goods or equipment or some such thing.
likewise, if the west village shopping amenities go in as planned, and westlake is still without a grocery store, some of those same west davis people may be cursing the same circuitous route as they take russel to 113 to hutchison to get groceries.
and while i’m always a fan of biking whenever possible, i have recently discovered – to my dismay -that they don’t make bike helmets for kids under about a year of age (unless they’ve got huge heads), which means that people with little kids must drive or walk places that they would normally bike to. so add that example to rich’s litany (and the emergency access) as well.
likewise, if the west village shopping amenities go in as planned, and westlake is still without a grocery store, some of those same west davis people may be cursing the same circuitous route as they take russel to 113 to hutchison to get groceries.
and while i’m always a fan of biking whenever possible, i have recently discovered – to my dismay -that they don’t make bike helmets for kids under about a year of age (unless they’ve got huge heads), which means that people with little kids must drive or walk places that they would normally bike to. so add that example to rich’s litany (and the emergency access) as well.
likewise, if the west village shopping amenities go in as planned, and westlake is still without a grocery store, some of those same west davis people may be cursing the same circuitous route as they take russel to 113 to hutchison to get groceries.
and while i’m always a fan of biking whenever possible, i have recently discovered – to my dismay -that they don’t make bike helmets for kids under about a year of age (unless they’ve got huge heads), which means that people with little kids must drive or walk places that they would normally bike to. so add that example to rich’s litany (and the emergency access) as well.
likewise, if the west village shopping amenities go in as planned, and westlake is still without a grocery store, some of those same west davis people may be cursing the same circuitous route as they take russel to 113 to hutchison to get groceries.
and while i’m always a fan of biking whenever possible, i have recently discovered – to my dismay -that they don’t make bike helmets for kids under about a year of age (unless they’ve got huge heads), which means that people with little kids must drive or walk places that they would normally bike to. so add that example to rich’s litany (and the emergency access) as well.
“They will have to take this mishugge route every time they need to drive anywhere else in Davis.”
I thought it was spelled meshugge.
I’d put a wager that within two years of completion, West Village will have an opening onto Russell. If I recall, the University made the concession to open onto LaRue in response to the concerns about traffic and safety on Russell, which cannot be widened (Want to see a big fight? Threaten the black walnuts on old route 40!).
Those safety and traffic issues are quite valid. But convenience will probably win out.
“They will have to take this mishugge route every time they need to drive anywhere else in Davis.”
I thought it was spelled meshugge.
I’d put a wager that within two years of completion, West Village will have an opening onto Russell. If I recall, the University made the concession to open onto LaRue in response to the concerns about traffic and safety on Russell, which cannot be widened (Want to see a big fight? Threaten the black walnuts on old route 40!).
Those safety and traffic issues are quite valid. But convenience will probably win out.
“They will have to take this mishugge route every time they need to drive anywhere else in Davis.”
I thought it was spelled meshugge.
I’d put a wager that within two years of completion, West Village will have an opening onto Russell. If I recall, the University made the concession to open onto LaRue in response to the concerns about traffic and safety on Russell, which cannot be widened (Want to see a big fight? Threaten the black walnuts on old route 40!).
Those safety and traffic issues are quite valid. But convenience will probably win out.
“They will have to take this mishugge route every time they need to drive anywhere else in Davis.”
I thought it was spelled meshugge.
I’d put a wager that within two years of completion, West Village will have an opening onto Russell. If I recall, the University made the concession to open onto LaRue in response to the concerns about traffic and safety on Russell, which cannot be widened (Want to see a big fight? Threaten the black walnuts on old route 40!).
Those safety and traffic issues are quite valid. But convenience will probably win out.
“I thought it was spelled meshugge.”
I think you’re right. I stand corrected, gladly so.
“I thought it was spelled meshugge.”
I think you’re right. I stand corrected, gladly so.
“I thought it was spelled meshugge.”
I think you’re right. I stand corrected, gladly so.
“I thought it was spelled meshugge.”
I think you’re right. I stand corrected, gladly so.
Don’t you mean meshuggana?
Don’t you mean meshuggana?
Don’t you mean meshuggana?
Don’t you mean meshuggana?
meshugga = crazy, meshuggena = one who is crazy. Various spellings: meshugge, meshuggener, etc. At least, that is how I learned it, probably from novels by Herman Wouk or Isaac Bashevis Singer.
meshugga = crazy, meshuggena = one who is crazy. Various spellings: meshugge, meshuggener, etc. At least, that is how I learned it, probably from novels by Herman Wouk or Isaac Bashevis Singer.
meshugga = crazy, meshuggena = one who is crazy. Various spellings: meshugge, meshuggener, etc. At least, that is how I learned it, probably from novels by Herman Wouk or Isaac Bashevis Singer.
meshugga = crazy, meshuggena = one who is crazy. Various spellings: meshugge, meshuggener, etc. At least, that is how I learned it, probably from novels by Herman Wouk or Isaac Bashevis Singer.
I do happen to think that having 3 – 4,000 people entering onto Russell Blvd. would make an already dangerous traffic situation much worse. There are ways it could be reconfigured where the split to 113 occurs, but I understand the concerns of the nearby residents. It is not a minor issue.
I do happen to think that having 3 – 4,000 people entering onto Russell Blvd. would make an already dangerous traffic situation much worse. There are ways it could be reconfigured where the split to 113 occurs, but I understand the concerns of the nearby residents. It is not a minor issue.
I do happen to think that having 3 – 4,000 people entering onto Russell Blvd. would make an already dangerous traffic situation much worse. There are ways it could be reconfigured where the split to 113 occurs, but I understand the concerns of the nearby residents. It is not a minor issue.
I do happen to think that having 3 – 4,000 people entering onto Russell Blvd. would make an already dangerous traffic situation much worse. There are ways it could be reconfigured where the split to 113 occurs, but I understand the concerns of the nearby residents. It is not a minor issue.
“I do happen to think that having 3 – 4,000 people entering onto Russell Blvd. would make an already dangerous traffic situation much worse.”
When I read your statement above, Don, I was dubious of the population projection you ascribed to West Village. I thought it was about half that. So I looked it up and found this, from the January 12, 2007 Davis Enterprise:
“West Village will include 1,600 housing units when completed by 2015. The neighborhood will accommodate 4,350 residents …”
So, if anything, your estimate is on the low side; and the reality is far bigger than I had been thinking.
Nonetheless, while your point remains completely valid, I would expect that many of those residents will be juveniles, without cars and college students, also without cars. So it’s not as if there would be 4,000 cars in WV. But if there are 750-1,000, that is a lot on the margin for a two-lane road.
“I do happen to think that having 3 – 4,000 people entering onto Russell Blvd. would make an already dangerous traffic situation much worse.”
When I read your statement above, Don, I was dubious of the population projection you ascribed to West Village. I thought it was about half that. So I looked it up and found this, from the January 12, 2007 Davis Enterprise:
“West Village will include 1,600 housing units when completed by 2015. The neighborhood will accommodate 4,350 residents …”
So, if anything, your estimate is on the low side; and the reality is far bigger than I had been thinking.
Nonetheless, while your point remains completely valid, I would expect that many of those residents will be juveniles, without cars and college students, also without cars. So it’s not as if there would be 4,000 cars in WV. But if there are 750-1,000, that is a lot on the margin for a two-lane road.
“I do happen to think that having 3 – 4,000 people entering onto Russell Blvd. would make an already dangerous traffic situation much worse.”
When I read your statement above, Don, I was dubious of the population projection you ascribed to West Village. I thought it was about half that. So I looked it up and found this, from the January 12, 2007 Davis Enterprise:
“West Village will include 1,600 housing units when completed by 2015. The neighborhood will accommodate 4,350 residents …”
So, if anything, your estimate is on the low side; and the reality is far bigger than I had been thinking.
Nonetheless, while your point remains completely valid, I would expect that many of those residents will be juveniles, without cars and college students, also without cars. So it’s not as if there would be 4,000 cars in WV. But if there are 750-1,000, that is a lot on the margin for a two-lane road.
“I do happen to think that having 3 – 4,000 people entering onto Russell Blvd. would make an already dangerous traffic situation much worse.”
When I read your statement above, Don, I was dubious of the population projection you ascribed to West Village. I thought it was about half that. So I looked it up and found this, from the January 12, 2007 Davis Enterprise:
“West Village will include 1,600 housing units when completed by 2015. The neighborhood will accommodate 4,350 residents …”
So, if anything, your estimate is on the low side; and the reality is far bigger than I had been thinking.
Nonetheless, while your point remains completely valid, I would expect that many of those residents will be juveniles, without cars and college students, also without cars. So it’s not as if there would be 4,000 cars in WV. But if there are 750-1,000, that is a lot on the margin for a two-lane road.
four-lane road, unless i’m missing something. two lanes in each direction. but the student population will likely be predominantly using buses and bikes across the hutchison overpass, so that would cut down on a fair amount of the traffic. mostly i suspect that the traffic will hinge on whether the amenities serving the neighborhood can mostly be had in the neighborhood. the less of those that there are, the greater the traffic pressure will be.
four-lane road, unless i’m missing something. two lanes in each direction. but the student population will likely be predominantly using buses and bikes across the hutchison overpass, so that would cut down on a fair amount of the traffic. mostly i suspect that the traffic will hinge on whether the amenities serving the neighborhood can mostly be had in the neighborhood. the less of those that there are, the greater the traffic pressure will be.
four-lane road, unless i’m missing something. two lanes in each direction. but the student population will likely be predominantly using buses and bikes across the hutchison overpass, so that would cut down on a fair amount of the traffic. mostly i suspect that the traffic will hinge on whether the amenities serving the neighborhood can mostly be had in the neighborhood. the less of those that there are, the greater the traffic pressure will be.
four-lane road, unless i’m missing something. two lanes in each direction. but the student population will likely be predominantly using buses and bikes across the hutchison overpass, so that would cut down on a fair amount of the traffic. mostly i suspect that the traffic will hinge on whether the amenities serving the neighborhood can mostly be had in the neighborhood. the less of those that there are, the greater the traffic pressure will be.
It narrows to two lanes past the Arlington split. If 1000+ cars and 1000+ bicycles a day are going to be traversing LaRue, onto Russell, that is also going to be a traffic problem. One point of entrance and egress is simply not going to work in the long run.
It narrows to two lanes past the Arlington split. If 1000+ cars and 1000+ bicycles a day are going to be traversing LaRue, onto Russell, that is also going to be a traffic problem. One point of entrance and egress is simply not going to work in the long run.
It narrows to two lanes past the Arlington split. If 1000+ cars and 1000+ bicycles a day are going to be traversing LaRue, onto Russell, that is also going to be a traffic problem. One point of entrance and egress is simply not going to work in the long run.
It narrows to two lanes past the Arlington split. If 1000+ cars and 1000+ bicycles a day are going to be traversing LaRue, onto Russell, that is also going to be a traffic problem. One point of entrance and egress is simply not going to work in the long run.
Will annexing West Village also enfranchise UC Davis students who live in other student-housing complexes on campus, such as the various Parks communities and the undergraduate dormitories?
I live in Solano Park, once of the graduate student/student family complexes on campus. Not being able to vote in city elections has been very frustrating–especially since I strongly participate in my community: I volunteer at North Davis Elementary school, serve as a Girl Scout troop leader, and have recently began volunteering at the Davis Musical Theater Company. I have just as many ties to other elements of the local community here as I do to the University community.
Even though I will very likely be a “temporary” resident (by the time I finish my PhD, I will have spent almost seven years in Davis), I am very invested in Davis. I follow city and local issues; I support education here–both by donating what I can of my limited dollars as well as my limited time.
Many graduate students–with or without families–find themselves in this precise position: deeply invested in the Davis community, but disenfranchised.
I hope that annexing the future West Village will open the door for also annexing currently-established student communities–not only Solano, Orchard, and Russell Parks (graduate student communities), but those of undergraduates as well.
This discussion has been absent from all I’ve read in the Enterprise, and I have sent emails to several City Council members, but have had no responses.
Will annexing West Village also enfranchise UC Davis students who live in other student-housing complexes on campus, such as the various Parks communities and the undergraduate dormitories?
I live in Solano Park, once of the graduate student/student family complexes on campus. Not being able to vote in city elections has been very frustrating–especially since I strongly participate in my community: I volunteer at North Davis Elementary school, serve as a Girl Scout troop leader, and have recently began volunteering at the Davis Musical Theater Company. I have just as many ties to other elements of the local community here as I do to the University community.
Even though I will very likely be a “temporary” resident (by the time I finish my PhD, I will have spent almost seven years in Davis), I am very invested in Davis. I follow city and local issues; I support education here–both by donating what I can of my limited dollars as well as my limited time.
Many graduate students–with or without families–find themselves in this precise position: deeply invested in the Davis community, but disenfranchised.
I hope that annexing the future West Village will open the door for also annexing currently-established student communities–not only Solano, Orchard, and Russell Parks (graduate student communities), but those of undergraduates as well.
This discussion has been absent from all I’ve read in the Enterprise, and I have sent emails to several City Council members, but have had no responses.
Will annexing West Village also enfranchise UC Davis students who live in other student-housing complexes on campus, such as the various Parks communities and the undergraduate dormitories?
I live in Solano Park, once of the graduate student/student family complexes on campus. Not being able to vote in city elections has been very frustrating–especially since I strongly participate in my community: I volunteer at North Davis Elementary school, serve as a Girl Scout troop leader, and have recently began volunteering at the Davis Musical Theater Company. I have just as many ties to other elements of the local community here as I do to the University community.
Even though I will very likely be a “temporary” resident (by the time I finish my PhD, I will have spent almost seven years in Davis), I am very invested in Davis. I follow city and local issues; I support education here–both by donating what I can of my limited dollars as well as my limited time.
Many graduate students–with or without families–find themselves in this precise position: deeply invested in the Davis community, but disenfranchised.
I hope that annexing the future West Village will open the door for also annexing currently-established student communities–not only Solano, Orchard, and Russell Parks (graduate student communities), but those of undergraduates as well.
This discussion has been absent from all I’ve read in the Enterprise, and I have sent emails to several City Council members, but have had no responses.
Will annexing West Village also enfranchise UC Davis students who live in other student-housing complexes on campus, such as the various Parks communities and the undergraduate dormitories?
I live in Solano Park, once of the graduate student/student family complexes on campus. Not being able to vote in city elections has been very frustrating–especially since I strongly participate in my community: I volunteer at North Davis Elementary school, serve as a Girl Scout troop leader, and have recently began volunteering at the Davis Musical Theater Company. I have just as many ties to other elements of the local community here as I do to the University community.
Even though I will very likely be a “temporary” resident (by the time I finish my PhD, I will have spent almost seven years in Davis), I am very invested in Davis. I follow city and local issues; I support education here–both by donating what I can of my limited dollars as well as my limited time.
Many graduate students–with or without families–find themselves in this precise position: deeply invested in the Davis community, but disenfranchised.
I hope that annexing the future West Village will open the door for also annexing currently-established student communities–not only Solano, Orchard, and Russell Parks (graduate student communities), but those of undergraduates as well.
This discussion has been absent from all I’ve read in the Enterprise, and I have sent emails to several City Council members, but have had no responses.
“Will annexing West Village also enfranchise UC Davis students who live in other student-housing complexes on campus, such as the various Parks communities and the undergraduate dormitories?”
No.
“Will annexing West Village also enfranchise UC Davis students who live in other student-housing complexes on campus, such as the various Parks communities and the undergraduate dormitories?”
No.
“Will annexing West Village also enfranchise UC Davis students who live in other student-housing complexes on campus, such as the various Parks communities and the undergraduate dormitories?”
No.
“Will annexing West Village also enfranchise UC Davis students who live in other student-housing complexes on campus, such as the various Parks communities and the undergraduate dormitories?”
No.
“I do happen to think that having 3 – 4,000 people entering onto Russell Blvd. would make an already dangerous traffic situation much worse.”
The EIR for the UCDavis Long Range Development Plan projects that West Village will generate 24,500 vehicle trips per day. The current ADT on Russell west of Hwy 113 is something like 14,000.
Despite years of pleading by west Davis residents, UCD planners insisted on planning West Village with an east-west footprint, entirely north of Hutchison. It is not the only way they could have met their housing needs. There is plenty of room left on the central campus area – including the site that had been proposed for the ill-fated biolab project. Sufficient housing for any reasonable future student population could be built on the central campus area, where access to all the educational buildings by foot would be simple – not to mention an easy walk to downtown Davis.
Failing the preferable decision to house students on the central campus – a request, by the way, that was made by the 2003 City Council by unanamous vote – UCD planners could have designed West Village so that traffic from the neighborhood would naturally flow to Hutchison Drive and the nearly unused and unknown Garrod Road. (Garrod Road crosses over Hwy 113 south of Hutchison Road. Look for it next time you drive on Hwy 113.) All that would have been necessary would have been to adopt a north-south footprint, centered on Hutchison Road. The 2003 City Council requested that the university adopt a north-south orientation in order to reduce travel demand and to allow traffic to flow naturally to university roads.
Ignoring requests of west Davis residents, the City Council, and EIR commments developed by City staff and adopted by the City Council, UCD planners elected to forge ahead with a neighborhood design that will force West Village residents to travel south to Hutchison in order to access any other location in Davis. (Any location anywhere, for that matter.)
Although John Meyer eventually pledged that UCD “will not seek access to Russell Boulevard,” the neighbrhood design was virtually unchanged – leaving a neighborhood that is scrunched up against Russell Boulevard, but with vehicle access via Hutchison.
There are other aspects of the UCD design that create other “significant and unavoidable impacts” (as identified by UCD’s EIR)that could have been avoided by merely changing the neighborhood footprint to a north-south orientation and moving it southward. For instance, the scenic views from Russell Boulevard to the south (over Olive Tree Lane to Blue Ridge and the Coast Range beyond)will be obliterated for about 1/4 mile along Russell Boulevard (aka “the avenue of trees” or historic Route 40). Move the neighborhood even a few hundred yards south and adopt a north/south footprint, and that impact is GONE.
Another significant problem that has been little discussed is that the west end of the neighborood will be very close to the departure end and extended centerline of runway 34 at University airport. I have lived within one mile of two different small airports for a total of about 15 years, and am a pilot myself, so I feel qualified to offer the at least a semi-informed opinion that there WILL be noise issues. When residences sprout up that close to airports, the closure of the airport nearly always follows shortly thereafter. Again, a different neighborhood design (north/south orientation, close to Hwy 113 and centered on Huthison) would greatly reduce this conflict because it would preserve significant distance between residences and the noisiest phases of flight operations (low altitude at high power settings immediately after takeoff). UCD planners are aware of this – such comments were submitted before and after the Draft EIR was published.
I know of nobody who wishes to deny adequate housing to students or faculty. However, there are ways to accomplish this without building West Village at all. (How about low-rise condos on the current site of Toomey Field? Close to campus and downtown. But noooooo…) Even accepting the fact that UCD planners are bound and determined to build West Village, they could have greatly reduced traffic, visual, noise and other impacts. Instead, they elected to stick with a neighborhood design that is guaranteed to frustrate the residents, lead to conflict and the inevitable (and logical) demand for access to City roads via a Russell Boulevard connection.
There is a win/win solution available, but UCD planners will have to swallow their pride and redesign West Village in order to realize it.
“I do happen to think that having 3 – 4,000 people entering onto Russell Blvd. would make an already dangerous traffic situation much worse.”
The EIR for the UCDavis Long Range Development Plan projects that West Village will generate 24,500 vehicle trips per day. The current ADT on Russell west of Hwy 113 is something like 14,000.
Despite years of pleading by west Davis residents, UCD planners insisted on planning West Village with an east-west footprint, entirely north of Hutchison. It is not the only way they could have met their housing needs. There is plenty of room left on the central campus area – including the site that had been proposed for the ill-fated biolab project. Sufficient housing for any reasonable future student population could be built on the central campus area, where access to all the educational buildings by foot would be simple – not to mention an easy walk to downtown Davis.
Failing the preferable decision to house students on the central campus – a request, by the way, that was made by the 2003 City Council by unanamous vote – UCD planners could have designed West Village so that traffic from the neighborhood would naturally flow to Hutchison Drive and the nearly unused and unknown Garrod Road. (Garrod Road crosses over Hwy 113 south of Hutchison Road. Look for it next time you drive on Hwy 113.) All that would have been necessary would have been to adopt a north-south footprint, centered on Hutchison Road. The 2003 City Council requested that the university adopt a north-south orientation in order to reduce travel demand and to allow traffic to flow naturally to university roads.
Ignoring requests of west Davis residents, the City Council, and EIR commments developed by City staff and adopted by the City Council, UCD planners elected to forge ahead with a neighborhood design that will force West Village residents to travel south to Hutchison in order to access any other location in Davis. (Any location anywhere, for that matter.)
Although John Meyer eventually pledged that UCD “will not seek access to Russell Boulevard,” the neighbrhood design was virtually unchanged – leaving a neighborhood that is scrunched up against Russell Boulevard, but with vehicle access via Hutchison.
There are other aspects of the UCD design that create other “significant and unavoidable impacts” (as identified by UCD’s EIR)that could have been avoided by merely changing the neighborhood footprint to a north-south orientation and moving it southward. For instance, the scenic views from Russell Boulevard to the south (over Olive Tree Lane to Blue Ridge and the Coast Range beyond)will be obliterated for about 1/4 mile along Russell Boulevard (aka “the avenue of trees” or historic Route 40). Move the neighborhood even a few hundred yards south and adopt a north/south footprint, and that impact is GONE.
Another significant problem that has been little discussed is that the west end of the neighborood will be very close to the departure end and extended centerline of runway 34 at University airport. I have lived within one mile of two different small airports for a total of about 15 years, and am a pilot myself, so I feel qualified to offer the at least a semi-informed opinion that there WILL be noise issues. When residences sprout up that close to airports, the closure of the airport nearly always follows shortly thereafter. Again, a different neighborhood design (north/south orientation, close to Hwy 113 and centered on Huthison) would greatly reduce this conflict because it would preserve significant distance between residences and the noisiest phases of flight operations (low altitude at high power settings immediately after takeoff). UCD planners are aware of this – such comments were submitted before and after the Draft EIR was published.
I know of nobody who wishes to deny adequate housing to students or faculty. However, there are ways to accomplish this without building West Village at all. (How about low-rise condos on the current site of Toomey Field? Close to campus and downtown. But noooooo…) Even accepting the fact that UCD planners are bound and determined to build West Village, they could have greatly reduced traffic, visual, noise and other impacts. Instead, they elected to stick with a neighborhood design that is guaranteed to frustrate the residents, lead to conflict and the inevitable (and logical) demand for access to City roads via a Russell Boulevard connection.
There is a win/win solution available, but UCD planners will have to swallow their pride and redesign West Village in order to realize it.
“I do happen to think that having 3 – 4,000 people entering onto Russell Blvd. would make an already dangerous traffic situation much worse.”
The EIR for the UCDavis Long Range Development Plan projects that West Village will generate 24,500 vehicle trips per day. The current ADT on Russell west of Hwy 113 is something like 14,000.
Despite years of pleading by west Davis residents, UCD planners insisted on planning West Village with an east-west footprint, entirely north of Hutchison. It is not the only way they could have met their housing needs. There is plenty of room left on the central campus area – including the site that had been proposed for the ill-fated biolab project. Sufficient housing for any reasonable future student population could be built on the central campus area, where access to all the educational buildings by foot would be simple – not to mention an easy walk to downtown Davis.
Failing the preferable decision to house students on the central campus – a request, by the way, that was made by the 2003 City Council by unanamous vote – UCD planners could have designed West Village so that traffic from the neighborhood would naturally flow to Hutchison Drive and the nearly unused and unknown Garrod Road. (Garrod Road crosses over Hwy 113 south of Hutchison Road. Look for it next time you drive on Hwy 113.) All that would have been necessary would have been to adopt a north-south footprint, centered on Hutchison Road. The 2003 City Council requested that the university adopt a north-south orientation in order to reduce travel demand and to allow traffic to flow naturally to university roads.
Ignoring requests of west Davis residents, the City Council, and EIR commments developed by City staff and adopted by the City Council, UCD planners elected to forge ahead with a neighborhood design that will force West Village residents to travel south to Hutchison in order to access any other location in Davis. (Any location anywhere, for that matter.)
Although John Meyer eventually pledged that UCD “will not seek access to Russell Boulevard,” the neighbrhood design was virtually unchanged – leaving a neighborhood that is scrunched up against Russell Boulevard, but with vehicle access via Hutchison.
There are other aspects of the UCD design that create other “significant and unavoidable impacts” (as identified by UCD’s EIR)that could have been avoided by merely changing the neighborhood footprint to a north-south orientation and moving it southward. For instance, the scenic views from Russell Boulevard to the south (over Olive Tree Lane to Blue Ridge and the Coast Range beyond)will be obliterated for about 1/4 mile along Russell Boulevard (aka “the avenue of trees” or historic Route 40). Move the neighborhood even a few hundred yards south and adopt a north/south footprint, and that impact is GONE.
Another significant problem that has been little discussed is that the west end of the neighborood will be very close to the departure end and extended centerline of runway 34 at University airport. I have lived within one mile of two different small airports for a total of about 15 years, and am a pilot myself, so I feel qualified to offer the at least a semi-informed opinion that there WILL be noise issues. When residences sprout up that close to airports, the closure of the airport nearly always follows shortly thereafter. Again, a different neighborhood design (north/south orientation, close to Hwy 113 and centered on Huthison) would greatly reduce this conflict because it would preserve significant distance between residences and the noisiest phases of flight operations (low altitude at high power settings immediately after takeoff). UCD planners are aware of this – such comments were submitted before and after the Draft EIR was published.
I know of nobody who wishes to deny adequate housing to students or faculty. However, there are ways to accomplish this without building West Village at all. (How about low-rise condos on the current site of Toomey Field? Close to campus and downtown. But noooooo…) Even accepting the fact that UCD planners are bound and determined to build West Village, they could have greatly reduced traffic, visual, noise and other impacts. Instead, they elected to stick with a neighborhood design that is guaranteed to frustrate the residents, lead to conflict and the inevitable (and logical) demand for access to City roads via a Russell Boulevard connection.
There is a win/win solution available, but UCD planners will have to swallow their pride and redesign West Village in order to realize it.
“I do happen to think that having 3 – 4,000 people entering onto Russell Blvd. would make an already dangerous traffic situation much worse.”
The EIR for the UCDavis Long Range Development Plan projects that West Village will generate 24,500 vehicle trips per day. The current ADT on Russell west of Hwy 113 is something like 14,000.
Despite years of pleading by west Davis residents, UCD planners insisted on planning West Village with an east-west footprint, entirely north of Hutchison. It is not the only way they could have met their housing needs. There is plenty of room left on the central campus area – including the site that had been proposed for the ill-fated biolab project. Sufficient housing for any reasonable future student population could be built on the central campus area, where access to all the educational buildings by foot would be simple – not to mention an easy walk to downtown Davis.
Failing the preferable decision to house students on the central campus – a request, by the way, that was made by the 2003 City Council by unanamous vote – UCD planners could have designed West Village so that traffic from the neighborhood would naturally flow to Hutchison Drive and the nearly unused and unknown Garrod Road. (Garrod Road crosses over Hwy 113 south of Hutchison Road. Look for it next time you drive on Hwy 113.) All that would have been necessary would have been to adopt a north-south footprint, centered on Hutchison Road. The 2003 City Council requested that the university adopt a north-south orientation in order to reduce travel demand and to allow traffic to flow naturally to university roads.
Ignoring requests of west Davis residents, the City Council, and EIR commments developed by City staff and adopted by the City Council, UCD planners elected to forge ahead with a neighborhood design that will force West Village residents to travel south to Hutchison in order to access any other location in Davis. (Any location anywhere, for that matter.)
Although John Meyer eventually pledged that UCD “will not seek access to Russell Boulevard,” the neighbrhood design was virtually unchanged – leaving a neighborhood that is scrunched up against Russell Boulevard, but with vehicle access via Hutchison.
There are other aspects of the UCD design that create other “significant and unavoidable impacts” (as identified by UCD’s EIR)that could have been avoided by merely changing the neighborhood footprint to a north-south orientation and moving it southward. For instance, the scenic views from Russell Boulevard to the south (over Olive Tree Lane to Blue Ridge and the Coast Range beyond)will be obliterated for about 1/4 mile along Russell Boulevard (aka “the avenue of trees” or historic Route 40). Move the neighborhood even a few hundred yards south and adopt a north/south footprint, and that impact is GONE.
Another significant problem that has been little discussed is that the west end of the neighborood will be very close to the departure end and extended centerline of runway 34 at University airport. I have lived within one mile of two different small airports for a total of about 15 years, and am a pilot myself, so I feel qualified to offer the at least a semi-informed opinion that there WILL be noise issues. When residences sprout up that close to airports, the closure of the airport nearly always follows shortly thereafter. Again, a different neighborhood design (north/south orientation, close to Hwy 113 and centered on Huthison) would greatly reduce this conflict because it would preserve significant distance between residences and the noisiest phases of flight operations (low altitude at high power settings immediately after takeoff). UCD planners are aware of this – such comments were submitted before and after the Draft EIR was published.
I know of nobody who wishes to deny adequate housing to students or faculty. However, there are ways to accomplish this without building West Village at all. (How about low-rise condos on the current site of Toomey Field? Close to campus and downtown. But noooooo…) Even accepting the fact that UCD planners are bound and determined to build West Village, they could have greatly reduced traffic, visual, noise and other impacts. Instead, they elected to stick with a neighborhood design that is guaranteed to frustrate the residents, lead to conflict and the inevitable (and logical) demand for access to City roads via a Russell Boulevard connection.
There is a win/win solution available, but UCD planners will have to swallow their pride and redesign West Village in order to realize it.
The people who say they don’t want annexation of west village or other disenfrancised areas of UC Davis are just trying to keep students from voting. All the other arguments are just to cover that they are afraid that students will change the politics of Davis.
I spoke with Don Saylor yesterday at the farmers market and he inadvertantly conceeded this point by suggesting that students wouldn’t vote for taxes to provide services that don’t directly benefit students. I don’t think Don realized what he was saying because he is generally smarter than to actually tell you what is in his mind. Still it is now clear to me that a vote against annexation is a vote against democracy.
Ron Glick
The people who say they don’t want annexation of west village or other disenfrancised areas of UC Davis are just trying to keep students from voting. All the other arguments are just to cover that they are afraid that students will change the politics of Davis.
I spoke with Don Saylor yesterday at the farmers market and he inadvertantly conceeded this point by suggesting that students wouldn’t vote for taxes to provide services that don’t directly benefit students. I don’t think Don realized what he was saying because he is generally smarter than to actually tell you what is in his mind. Still it is now clear to me that a vote against annexation is a vote against democracy.
Ron Glick
The people who say they don’t want annexation of west village or other disenfrancised areas of UC Davis are just trying to keep students from voting. All the other arguments are just to cover that they are afraid that students will change the politics of Davis.
I spoke with Don Saylor yesterday at the farmers market and he inadvertantly conceeded this point by suggesting that students wouldn’t vote for taxes to provide services that don’t directly benefit students. I don’t think Don realized what he was saying because he is generally smarter than to actually tell you what is in his mind. Still it is now clear to me that a vote against annexation is a vote against democracy.
Ron Glick
The people who say they don’t want annexation of west village or other disenfrancised areas of UC Davis are just trying to keep students from voting. All the other arguments are just to cover that they are afraid that students will change the politics of Davis.
I spoke with Don Saylor yesterday at the farmers market and he inadvertantly conceeded this point by suggesting that students wouldn’t vote for taxes to provide services that don’t directly benefit students. I don’t think Don realized what he was saying because he is generally smarter than to actually tell you what is in his mind. Still it is now clear to me that a vote against annexation is a vote against democracy.
Ron Glick
“Instead, they elected to stick with a neighborhood design that is guaranteed to frustrate the residents, lead to conflict and the inevitable (and logical) demand for access to City roads via a Russell Boulevard connection.”
Thank you, anonymous, for your detailed description of this whole planning process. This is not some NIMBY issue, with petulant neighbors opposing a small housing project. Most people have no idea how large this is. This is a huge development that the university is moving forward with, in spite of reasonable concerns about the impact and design problems. I see no likelihood that they will change any part of the design.
I agree it should be annexed, just as a matter of basic fairness to the residents. I think Don Saylor’s cost issues have largely been answered. But a Russell Blvd. entry point will be a disaster.
Garrod Rd. makes a lot of sense, although I wonder if most people would have reason to be going south as they leave since nearly everything they would want access to is presently north. But from what you’re describing, we’re going to have a huge number of cars and bikes surging onto Hutchinson, heading to Russell, and then proceeding east or north. The Westlake shopping center will remain isolated and continue to decline. But the alternative of having most of those people merging in at Russell/Arlington/113 would be worse.
“Instead, they elected to stick with a neighborhood design that is guaranteed to frustrate the residents, lead to conflict and the inevitable (and logical) demand for access to City roads via a Russell Boulevard connection.”
Thank you, anonymous, for your detailed description of this whole planning process. This is not some NIMBY issue, with petulant neighbors opposing a small housing project. Most people have no idea how large this is. This is a huge development that the university is moving forward with, in spite of reasonable concerns about the impact and design problems. I see no likelihood that they will change any part of the design.
I agree it should be annexed, just as a matter of basic fairness to the residents. I think Don Saylor’s cost issues have largely been answered. But a Russell Blvd. entry point will be a disaster.
Garrod Rd. makes a lot of sense, although I wonder if most people would have reason to be going south as they leave since nearly everything they would want access to is presently north. But from what you’re describing, we’re going to have a huge number of cars and bikes surging onto Hutchinson, heading to Russell, and then proceeding east or north. The Westlake shopping center will remain isolated and continue to decline. But the alternative of having most of those people merging in at Russell/Arlington/113 would be worse.
“Instead, they elected to stick with a neighborhood design that is guaranteed to frustrate the residents, lead to conflict and the inevitable (and logical) demand for access to City roads via a Russell Boulevard connection.”
Thank you, anonymous, for your detailed description of this whole planning process. This is not some NIMBY issue, with petulant neighbors opposing a small housing project. Most people have no idea how large this is. This is a huge development that the university is moving forward with, in spite of reasonable concerns about the impact and design problems. I see no likelihood that they will change any part of the design.
I agree it should be annexed, just as a matter of basic fairness to the residents. I think Don Saylor’s cost issues have largely been answered. But a Russell Blvd. entry point will be a disaster.
Garrod Rd. makes a lot of sense, although I wonder if most people would have reason to be going south as they leave since nearly everything they would want access to is presently north. But from what you’re describing, we’re going to have a huge number of cars and bikes surging onto Hutchinson, heading to Russell, and then proceeding east or north. The Westlake shopping center will remain isolated and continue to decline. But the alternative of having most of those people merging in at Russell/Arlington/113 would be worse.
“Instead, they elected to stick with a neighborhood design that is guaranteed to frustrate the residents, lead to conflict and the inevitable (and logical) demand for access to City roads via a Russell Boulevard connection.”
Thank you, anonymous, for your detailed description of this whole planning process. This is not some NIMBY issue, with petulant neighbors opposing a small housing project. Most people have no idea how large this is. This is a huge development that the university is moving forward with, in spite of reasonable concerns about the impact and design problems. I see no likelihood that they will change any part of the design.
I agree it should be annexed, just as a matter of basic fairness to the residents. I think Don Saylor’s cost issues have largely been answered. But a Russell Blvd. entry point will be a disaster.
Garrod Rd. makes a lot of sense, although I wonder if most people would have reason to be going south as they leave since nearly everything they would want access to is presently north. But from what you’re describing, we’re going to have a huge number of cars and bikes surging onto Hutchinson, heading to Russell, and then proceeding east or north. The Westlake shopping center will remain isolated and continue to decline. But the alternative of having most of those people merging in at Russell/Arlington/113 would be worse.
Cecilia and I were driving around on Hutchinson earlier today and I showed her where the project was going to be. Don’s right when he talks about the size and how big an impact it will have. Davis residents unfortunately had no say over this development, which is more than twice the size of Covell Village.
Thinking outloud, I think a Lake-Russell access point might be worth considering. At least thinking about. I talked to Sue the other day about this, and she wasn’t completely opposed to the issue.
The advantages of it would be that by going onto Lake, you enter traffic at a point where this is not a huge amount of traffic. Second, you enter it at a point where they can go directly onto Russell but they can also go to Covell or even to Pedrick to gain access to I-80. What that would do is insure that not all of that traffic ends up on Russell heading eastbound. Also if you draw it right, people can go to 113 and also onto La Rue on the eastern side.
None of this is great, but it would prevent all of the traffic from exiting at the same point. Frankly even with only a La Rue exit, it would end up clogging Russell pretty badly. By splitting the flow, it would probably help.
Just some thoughts. But I am pretty much supportive of Don Shor’s most recent comment.
Cecilia and I were driving around on Hutchinson earlier today and I showed her where the project was going to be. Don’s right when he talks about the size and how big an impact it will have. Davis residents unfortunately had no say over this development, which is more than twice the size of Covell Village.
Thinking outloud, I think a Lake-Russell access point might be worth considering. At least thinking about. I talked to Sue the other day about this, and she wasn’t completely opposed to the issue.
The advantages of it would be that by going onto Lake, you enter traffic at a point where this is not a huge amount of traffic. Second, you enter it at a point where they can go directly onto Russell but they can also go to Covell or even to Pedrick to gain access to I-80. What that would do is insure that not all of that traffic ends up on Russell heading eastbound. Also if you draw it right, people can go to 113 and also onto La Rue on the eastern side.
None of this is great, but it would prevent all of the traffic from exiting at the same point. Frankly even with only a La Rue exit, it would end up clogging Russell pretty badly. By splitting the flow, it would probably help.
Just some thoughts. But I am pretty much supportive of Don Shor’s most recent comment.
Cecilia and I were driving around on Hutchinson earlier today and I showed her where the project was going to be. Don’s right when he talks about the size and how big an impact it will have. Davis residents unfortunately had no say over this development, which is more than twice the size of Covell Village.
Thinking outloud, I think a Lake-Russell access point might be worth considering. At least thinking about. I talked to Sue the other day about this, and she wasn’t completely opposed to the issue.
The advantages of it would be that by going onto Lake, you enter traffic at a point where this is not a huge amount of traffic. Second, you enter it at a point where they can go directly onto Russell but they can also go to Covell or even to Pedrick to gain access to I-80. What that would do is insure that not all of that traffic ends up on Russell heading eastbound. Also if you draw it right, people can go to 113 and also onto La Rue on the eastern side.
None of this is great, but it would prevent all of the traffic from exiting at the same point. Frankly even with only a La Rue exit, it would end up clogging Russell pretty badly. By splitting the flow, it would probably help.
Just some thoughts. But I am pretty much supportive of Don Shor’s most recent comment.
Cecilia and I were driving around on Hutchinson earlier today and I showed her where the project was going to be. Don’s right when he talks about the size and how big an impact it will have. Davis residents unfortunately had no say over this development, which is more than twice the size of Covell Village.
Thinking outloud, I think a Lake-Russell access point might be worth considering. At least thinking about. I talked to Sue the other day about this, and she wasn’t completely opposed to the issue.
The advantages of it would be that by going onto Lake, you enter traffic at a point where this is not a huge amount of traffic. Second, you enter it at a point where they can go directly onto Russell but they can also go to Covell or even to Pedrick to gain access to I-80. What that would do is insure that not all of that traffic ends up on Russell heading eastbound. Also if you draw it right, people can go to 113 and also onto La Rue on the eastern side.
None of this is great, but it would prevent all of the traffic from exiting at the same point. Frankly even with only a La Rue exit, it would end up clogging Russell pretty badly. By splitting the flow, it would probably help.
Just some thoughts. But I am pretty much supportive of Don Shor’s most recent comment.
“The people who say they don’t want annexation of west village or other disenfrancised areas of UC Davis are just trying to keep students from voting. All the other arguments are just to cover that they are afraid that students will change the politics of Davis.”
Ron, that is an arrogant and unfounded statement. People may have reasons for opposing annexation that have nothing to do with what you think their reasons are.
The City staff had some very good reasons to question the wisdom of annexation. The City would inherit a lot of responsibility and very little authority over West Village. The City would have zero jurisdiction over the design of West Village, but would inherit all the problems that are sure to arise from the design that the UCD planners so tenaciously cling to. Hard to believe that City staff’s underlying motivations were also as you have flatly stated, and that their staff report was merely a smokescreen to hide studentphobia.
You may be wrong even about Saylor’s motivations. Might it not be the faculty members living in West Village that Saylor fears in the voting pool?
It is also yet to be shown that the addition of several thousand students will have any effect on Davis politics. There are tens of thousands of UCD students already in Davis, and they don’t vote in a bloc. Just like the permanent residents, students express a diversity of opinions on political matters. And many have no opinion on local politics, given that their residence in Davis is temporary and they have their hands very full with their studies anyway.
“The people who say they don’t want annexation of west village or other disenfrancised areas of UC Davis are just trying to keep students from voting. All the other arguments are just to cover that they are afraid that students will change the politics of Davis.”
Ron, that is an arrogant and unfounded statement. People may have reasons for opposing annexation that have nothing to do with what you think their reasons are.
The City staff had some very good reasons to question the wisdom of annexation. The City would inherit a lot of responsibility and very little authority over West Village. The City would have zero jurisdiction over the design of West Village, but would inherit all the problems that are sure to arise from the design that the UCD planners so tenaciously cling to. Hard to believe that City staff’s underlying motivations were also as you have flatly stated, and that their staff report was merely a smokescreen to hide studentphobia.
You may be wrong even about Saylor’s motivations. Might it not be the faculty members living in West Village that Saylor fears in the voting pool?
It is also yet to be shown that the addition of several thousand students will have any effect on Davis politics. There are tens of thousands of UCD students already in Davis, and they don’t vote in a bloc. Just like the permanent residents, students express a diversity of opinions on political matters. And many have no opinion on local politics, given that their residence in Davis is temporary and they have their hands very full with their studies anyway.
“The people who say they don’t want annexation of west village or other disenfrancised areas of UC Davis are just trying to keep students from voting. All the other arguments are just to cover that they are afraid that students will change the politics of Davis.”
Ron, that is an arrogant and unfounded statement. People may have reasons for opposing annexation that have nothing to do with what you think their reasons are.
The City staff had some very good reasons to question the wisdom of annexation. The City would inherit a lot of responsibility and very little authority over West Village. The City would have zero jurisdiction over the design of West Village, but would inherit all the problems that are sure to arise from the design that the UCD planners so tenaciously cling to. Hard to believe that City staff’s underlying motivations were also as you have flatly stated, and that their staff report was merely a smokescreen to hide studentphobia.
You may be wrong even about Saylor’s motivations. Might it not be the faculty members living in West Village that Saylor fears in the voting pool?
It is also yet to be shown that the addition of several thousand students will have any effect on Davis politics. There are tens of thousands of UCD students already in Davis, and they don’t vote in a bloc. Just like the permanent residents, students express a diversity of opinions on political matters. And many have no opinion on local politics, given that their residence in Davis is temporary and they have their hands very full with their studies anyway.
“The people who say they don’t want annexation of west village or other disenfrancised areas of UC Davis are just trying to keep students from voting. All the other arguments are just to cover that they are afraid that students will change the politics of Davis.”
Ron, that is an arrogant and unfounded statement. People may have reasons for opposing annexation that have nothing to do with what you think their reasons are.
The City staff had some very good reasons to question the wisdom of annexation. The City would inherit a lot of responsibility and very little authority over West Village. The City would have zero jurisdiction over the design of West Village, but would inherit all the problems that are sure to arise from the design that the UCD planners so tenaciously cling to. Hard to believe that City staff’s underlying motivations were also as you have flatly stated, and that their staff report was merely a smokescreen to hide studentphobia.
You may be wrong even about Saylor’s motivations. Might it not be the faculty members living in West Village that Saylor fears in the voting pool?
It is also yet to be shown that the addition of several thousand students will have any effect on Davis politics. There are tens of thousands of UCD students already in Davis, and they don’t vote in a bloc. Just like the permanent residents, students express a diversity of opinions on political matters. And many have no opinion on local politics, given that their residence in Davis is temporary and they have their hands very full with their studies anyway.
Yes I was thinking about the fear of students voting and how silly it seems. After all Nixon put through the 18 year old vote and won by a landslide. Of course he had other problems with his own paranoia.
I listened to the staff report and the university letter and the City Manager who talked about how there is a basic principle in planning of inclusion. All the issues can be worked out if people are willing and it seems only certain members of the council seem opposed. In my conversation with Saylor on Saturday he was the one who brought up how the students would vote in a certain situation so it became clear to me that how they would vote is what his real fear is about. Its funny, I doubt that my interests and the student interests are the same being that I am 52. Still I am not afraid of empowering people to participate even if they may not agree with me. Its called democracy and it has a great tradition in this country unless you are in Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, a US Attorney in 2006, black in post- reconstruction Alabama or in Davis in 2007.
Ron Glick
Yes I was thinking about the fear of students voting and how silly it seems. After all Nixon put through the 18 year old vote and won by a landslide. Of course he had other problems with his own paranoia.
I listened to the staff report and the university letter and the City Manager who talked about how there is a basic principle in planning of inclusion. All the issues can be worked out if people are willing and it seems only certain members of the council seem opposed. In my conversation with Saylor on Saturday he was the one who brought up how the students would vote in a certain situation so it became clear to me that how they would vote is what his real fear is about. Its funny, I doubt that my interests and the student interests are the same being that I am 52. Still I am not afraid of empowering people to participate even if they may not agree with me. Its called democracy and it has a great tradition in this country unless you are in Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, a US Attorney in 2006, black in post- reconstruction Alabama or in Davis in 2007.
Ron Glick
Yes I was thinking about the fear of students voting and how silly it seems. After all Nixon put through the 18 year old vote and won by a landslide. Of course he had other problems with his own paranoia.
I listened to the staff report and the university letter and the City Manager who talked about how there is a basic principle in planning of inclusion. All the issues can be worked out if people are willing and it seems only certain members of the council seem opposed. In my conversation with Saylor on Saturday he was the one who brought up how the students would vote in a certain situation so it became clear to me that how they would vote is what his real fear is about. Its funny, I doubt that my interests and the student interests are the same being that I am 52. Still I am not afraid of empowering people to participate even if they may not agree with me. Its called democracy and it has a great tradition in this country unless you are in Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, a US Attorney in 2006, black in post- reconstruction Alabama or in Davis in 2007.
Ron Glick
Yes I was thinking about the fear of students voting and how silly it seems. After all Nixon put through the 18 year old vote and won by a landslide. Of course he had other problems with his own paranoia.
I listened to the staff report and the university letter and the City Manager who talked about how there is a basic principle in planning of inclusion. All the issues can be worked out if people are willing and it seems only certain members of the council seem opposed. In my conversation with Saylor on Saturday he was the one who brought up how the students would vote in a certain situation so it became clear to me that how they would vote is what his real fear is about. Its funny, I doubt that my interests and the student interests are the same being that I am 52. Still I am not afraid of empowering people to participate even if they may not agree with me. Its called democracy and it has a great tradition in this country unless you are in Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, a US Attorney in 2006, black in post- reconstruction Alabama or in Davis in 2007.
Ron Glick