As we discussed last week, the key question is now whether or not the council should maintain the 1% growth guideline (previously viewed by the council as a mandate for growth) and if so, where the city should grow in order to achieve that 1% growth guideline.
The item on the agenda this evening is strictly informational. The council has already vote once recently to maintain the 1% growth guideline under the guise at that time that they wished to wait until at least the Housing Element Steering Committee gave their update in December before revisiting the issue of the the 1% growth guideline. Of course, it is now interesting that the meeting in December has arrived and this item has been placed on the agenda as an informational item, which means no action can be taken with regards to the issue of the growth guideline.
There will be future discussion on this is during the Housing Element Steering Committee’s January 24 meeting.
Councilmember Souza argued during the previous discussion that we are a community that grows by initiative now.
“So it doesn’t matter if you have a one percent, a half percent, ten percent, whatever the percent may be. The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town. That’s the policy we have, and unless we’re going to amend that policy, that’s the true policy that determines when, where and how we’ll grow.”
Contrary to the viewpoint of Mr. Souza however, this is not a small issue. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) has set a substantially lower growth mandate for Davis than the current 1% guideline adopted by the council majority during a very different economy.
To put this into perspective, under the RHNA guidelines we would need to grow by only 498 units between now and 2013, of which a good percentage of them would be either in the process of being built or in the works. However, a 1% guideline is substantially higher–on the order of 300 units per year.
300 units per year may not sound like a large amount. But put this into perspective.
The Mayor, Sue Greenwald commented on this issue last week here on the Vanguard:
“One percent sounds small, but it isn’t. The policy aims at 325 units a year (the policy is actually 1% plus the affordable requirement), which would be the equivalent number of units contained in one subdivision the size of Wildhorse every three years.
And it doesn’t even count the University’s massive West Village project, which is to be almost the size of the City of Winters.
Even according to SACOG, the city has already met SACOG’s desired targets for our growth through 2013. “
So while 1% sounds small, we are talking about one Wildhorse size development every three years. That always seemed a bit too large for the taste of most Davisites, however, it is particularly so when the RHNA guideline directs growth at a much much lower rate and at a time when the economy and housing market are on the downturn.
Unfortunately, the council can only listen to status report this evening, they cannot act. It is exceedingly important that Davis citizens show up in large numbers for the January 24, 2008 meeting and show the Housing Element Steering Committee that the residents of Davis are opposed to 1% mandated growth.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Thank you for the warning. I think a lot of us would like to be there for the January meeting to encourage the council to think of the 1% as a maximum, and not a goal.
Thank you for the warning. I think a lot of us would like to be there for the January meeting to encourage the council to think of the 1% as a maximum, and not a goal.
Thank you for the warning. I think a lot of us would like to be there for the January meeting to encourage the council to think of the 1% as a maximum, and not a goal.
Thank you for the warning. I think a lot of us would like to be there for the January meeting to encourage the council to think of the 1% as a maximum, and not a goal.
Anyone who has the time and interest to review the Council meeting archives during the Covell Village(Measure X) campaign will find that the Council Majority of
Asmundson,Saylor and Souza were claiming that the 1% growth rate that THEY created was NOT a guideline but a REQUIREMENT that would somehow bring penalties if not met. Being elected public officials representing Davisites in 2007, they are spared the requirement to perform seppuku(harikari) but their reelection should be out of the question.
Anyone who has the time and interest to review the Council meeting archives during the Covell Village(Measure X) campaign will find that the Council Majority of
Asmundson,Saylor and Souza were claiming that the 1% growth rate that THEY created was NOT a guideline but a REQUIREMENT that would somehow bring penalties if not met. Being elected public officials representing Davisites in 2007, they are spared the requirement to perform seppuku(harikari) but their reelection should be out of the question.
Anyone who has the time and interest to review the Council meeting archives during the Covell Village(Measure X) campaign will find that the Council Majority of
Asmundson,Saylor and Souza were claiming that the 1% growth rate that THEY created was NOT a guideline but a REQUIREMENT that would somehow bring penalties if not met. Being elected public officials representing Davisites in 2007, they are spared the requirement to perform seppuku(harikari) but their reelection should be out of the question.
Anyone who has the time and interest to review the Council meeting archives during the Covell Village(Measure X) campaign will find that the Council Majority of
Asmundson,Saylor and Souza were claiming that the 1% growth rate that THEY created was NOT a guideline but a REQUIREMENT that would somehow bring penalties if not met. Being elected public officials representing Davisites in 2007, they are spared the requirement to perform seppuku(harikari) but their reelection should be out of the question.
STEPHEN SOUZA: “The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town.”
DAVE GREENWALD: “Contrary to the viewpoint of Mr. Souza however, this is not a small issue.”
Contrary? Contrary how?
David,
You explain how large the 1% growth target is, but you never contradict or deny Stephen’s point: that our growth rate will be determined by Measure J votes and not by any artificial targets the council has set.
So when you say “this is not a small issue,” you don’t ever say why it is not.
If you think the target set by the council will actually be enacted, regardless of Measure J votes, then explain that.
And if you really believe that is the case, then explain where all of these thousands of houses which don’t need a Measure J vote are going to be constructed?
STEPHEN SOUZA: “The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town.”
DAVE GREENWALD: “Contrary to the viewpoint of Mr. Souza however, this is not a small issue.”
Contrary? Contrary how?
David,
You explain how large the 1% growth target is, but you never contradict or deny Stephen’s point: that our growth rate will be determined by Measure J votes and not by any artificial targets the council has set.
So when you say “this is not a small issue,” you don’t ever say why it is not.
If you think the target set by the council will actually be enacted, regardless of Measure J votes, then explain that.
And if you really believe that is the case, then explain where all of these thousands of houses which don’t need a Measure J vote are going to be constructed?
STEPHEN SOUZA: “The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town.”
DAVE GREENWALD: “Contrary to the viewpoint of Mr. Souza however, this is not a small issue.”
Contrary? Contrary how?
David,
You explain how large the 1% growth target is, but you never contradict or deny Stephen’s point: that our growth rate will be determined by Measure J votes and not by any artificial targets the council has set.
So when you say “this is not a small issue,” you don’t ever say why it is not.
If you think the target set by the council will actually be enacted, regardless of Measure J votes, then explain that.
And if you really believe that is the case, then explain where all of these thousands of houses which don’t need a Measure J vote are going to be constructed?
STEPHEN SOUZA: “The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town.”
DAVE GREENWALD: “Contrary to the viewpoint of Mr. Souza however, this is not a small issue.”
Contrary? Contrary how?
David,
You explain how large the 1% growth target is, but you never contradict or deny Stephen’s point: that our growth rate will be determined by Measure J votes and not by any artificial targets the council has set.
So when you say “this is not a small issue,” you don’t ever say why it is not.
If you think the target set by the council will actually be enacted, regardless of Measure J votes, then explain that.
And if you really believe that is the case, then explain where all of these thousands of houses which don’t need a Measure J vote are going to be constructed?
You can defeat a Measure J vote on an issue like Covell, you are not going to defeat it on smaller developments that will not generate the type of interest and grass roots organization that Measure X did. It’s that simple.
You can defeat a Measure J vote on an issue like Covell, you are not going to defeat it on smaller developments that will not generate the type of interest and grass roots organization that Measure X did. It’s that simple.
You can defeat a Measure J vote on an issue like Covell, you are not going to defeat it on smaller developments that will not generate the type of interest and grass roots organization that Measure X did. It’s that simple.
You can defeat a Measure J vote on an issue like Covell, you are not going to defeat it on smaller developments that will not generate the type of interest and grass roots organization that Measure X did. It’s that simple.
The “meeting” on January 24th is actually a pulic workshop, much like the one previously held at the Teen Center several months ago.
Attendees from the public will actively be participating in planned activities examining their respective priorities with regards to future growth.
So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!
Thursday, January 24, 2008 – Community Workshop #2 (Holmes Jr High Multi Purpose Room)
The “meeting” on January 24th is actually a pulic workshop, much like the one previously held at the Teen Center several months ago.
Attendees from the public will actively be participating in planned activities examining their respective priorities with regards to future growth.
So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!
Thursday, January 24, 2008 – Community Workshop #2 (Holmes Jr High Multi Purpose Room)
The “meeting” on January 24th is actually a pulic workshop, much like the one previously held at the Teen Center several months ago.
Attendees from the public will actively be participating in planned activities examining their respective priorities with regards to future growth.
So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!
Thursday, January 24, 2008 – Community Workshop #2 (Holmes Jr High Multi Purpose Room)
The “meeting” on January 24th is actually a pulic workshop, much like the one previously held at the Teen Center several months ago.
Attendees from the public will actively be participating in planned activities examining their respective priorities with regards to future growth.
So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!
Thursday, January 24, 2008 – Community Workshop #2 (Holmes Jr High Multi Purpose Room)
“So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!”
I guess I don’t get this.
First, why wouldn’t a member of the Housing Element want to identify themselves by name?
Second, why would you tell people to quit complaining? People have legitimate concerns about this issue.
A better approach would have been for this individual to have posted under their name, explain for us the process, and invite us to participate.
As it stands now this has little credibility in my mind.
“So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!”
I guess I don’t get this.
First, why wouldn’t a member of the Housing Element want to identify themselves by name?
Second, why would you tell people to quit complaining? People have legitimate concerns about this issue.
A better approach would have been for this individual to have posted under their name, explain for us the process, and invite us to participate.
As it stands now this has little credibility in my mind.
“So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!”
I guess I don’t get this.
First, why wouldn’t a member of the Housing Element want to identify themselves by name?
Second, why would you tell people to quit complaining? People have legitimate concerns about this issue.
A better approach would have been for this individual to have posted under their name, explain for us the process, and invite us to participate.
As it stands now this has little credibility in my mind.
“So, quit complaining, and show up for the public workshop!”
I guess I don’t get this.
First, why wouldn’t a member of the Housing Element want to identify themselves by name?
Second, why would you tell people to quit complaining? People have legitimate concerns about this issue.
A better approach would have been for this individual to have posted under their name, explain for us the process, and invite us to participate.
As it stands now this has little credibility in my mind.
If a measure J vote is needed, why not abolish the Council Majority’s self-imposed 1% growth requirement that has been recently recycled as a “guideline” to reassure skeptical Davisites that Souza’s conversion to populism is genuine.
If a measure J vote is needed, why not abolish the Council Majority’s self-imposed 1% growth requirement that has been recently recycled as a “guideline” to reassure skeptical Davisites that Souza’s conversion to populism is genuine.