Kevin Wolf, the chair of the HESC suggested that two email campaigns could have affected the results.
“Days before the workshop, an e-mail went out to senior citizens on a mailing list advising them to write that a site known as Covell Village should be ranked high on the list.
Another e-mail, sent by a housing committee member, also focused on Covell Village but encouraged people to nudge it down the list of possible sites for development.”
First of all, I do not agree that these two efforts were synonymous as Mr. Wolf treats them. The first was sent out by a representative for a developer, it specifically recommended that the Covell Village site be ranked more highly. However, included in there, were specific instructions on just how to do that. It included a step by step form to instruct people how to fill out the form, what items to select in order to maximize the Covell Village site.
The other email simply told people to come to the meeting and vote against Covell Village. If the representatives from Covell Village had done that, no one would have raised a big stink about it. It was only the method that drew the ire of people.
But there is more to what Mr. Wolf said.
“‘Our committee talked about the problem a workshop has in that it won’t provide us with a representative sample of what the Davis community thinks, but more the activist community,’ Wolf wrote in an e-mail to The Davis Enterprise. ‘From my perspective, the lobbying to bring people to the workshop dramatically lowers the usefulness of the results.’ “
I very strongly disagree with Mr. Wolf here and for one simple reason: who was he expecting to come to the workshop under any conditions?
There is simply no condition under which the activist community–those for slower growth and those representing the developer community would not be the vast majority of individuals who attended the workshop.
Those are the people who pay the most attention. Those are the 10% of the population engaged in the issue. There is no way that this format would have generated attendance commensurate with the rest of the population.
So if that is Mr. Wolf’s concern, then this format was never going to produce anything other than that kind of breakdown regardless of attempts by both sides to mobilize their specific group.
Tomorrow, I will talk more about the issue of density that came up at the City Council meetings, at the HESC meetings, and the paper.
Overall my thoughts on the HESC are of two minds. On the one hand, I am appreciative of the HESC for working very hard to achieve some measure of consensus, which is not easy with a diverse group. And also to take seriously the charge they were tasked with.
However at the end of the day, I really do not see the need for this kind of effort. I understand the desire to evaluate each area for potential growth and perhaps this document or report that they produce will have value beyond 2013. But as things stand right now, I’m not sure this effort was needed.
The RHNA guidelines mandate only about 500 additional units between now and 2013. That would be just a small number of projects and fankly if the council is going to approve Lewis, Simmons, and the Horse Ranch, they are essentially done.
That leads to another question as to why, as I have asked several times, they have the HESC process if they are moving on outside of that process.
Finally, the key issue is one that the council will decide and that is the 1% growth now guideline rather than mandate, apparently. The council meeting on Tuesday will see the debate over that issue.
The council’s decision on growth rate will determine just how many of these recommendations are actually acted upon.
Getting back to the original point of this piece, I understand the desire to get public input on this process, but it seems clear to me and anyone else that a workshop, is going to bring out the people who are already engaged regardless of the outreach to include others. And, the engaged are much more extreme and polarized in their views on growth than the public as a whole. As the result of that, I do not see a way that we can avoid the type of outcome that Kevin Wolf laments. The attendance is never going to be representative of anything other than the activist community. There is just no avoiding that.
So, if the HESC wanted to get broader public input, they might have considered a different approach.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Kevin is clearly unhappy with the results of the HESC workshop results as well as the ranking recommendations of the committee after its many months of deliberation. You can bet your last dollar that he would have lauded the process as a great participatory success if Covell Village had been successful. In fact, the HESC process appears to have been the closest that the Davis voter has come to real citizen input on their vision of the future of their city ,something that the anti-populist Council Majority and their main proxy on the HESC did not anticipate.
Kevin is clearly unhappy with the results of the HESC workshop results as well as the ranking recommendations of the committee after its many months of deliberation. You can bet your last dollar that he would have lauded the process as a great participatory success if Covell Village had been successful. In fact, the HESC process appears to have been the closest that the Davis voter has come to real citizen input on their vision of the future of their city ,something that the anti-populist Council Majority and their main proxy on the HESC did not anticipate.
Kevin is clearly unhappy with the results of the HESC workshop results as well as the ranking recommendations of the committee after its many months of deliberation. You can bet your last dollar that he would have lauded the process as a great participatory success if Covell Village had been successful. In fact, the HESC process appears to have been the closest that the Davis voter has come to real citizen input on their vision of the future of their city ,something that the anti-populist Council Majority and their main proxy on the HESC did not anticipate.
Kevin is clearly unhappy with the results of the HESC workshop results as well as the ranking recommendations of the committee after its many months of deliberation. You can bet your last dollar that he would have lauded the process as a great participatory success if Covell Village had been successful. In fact, the HESC process appears to have been the closest that the Davis voter has come to real citizen input on their vision of the future of their city ,something that the anti-populist Council Majority and their main proxy on the HESC did not anticipate.
dpd, getting public input was only one of the goals of the Workshop. Equally important was informing the residents of the Davis planning area about the work the HESC had done, and the concensus it had reached.
I’m preaching to the choir when I say that nvolving the public in (and about) important governmental decisions is extremely important. You started this blog for that very reason (amongst others).
However, the public is often very difficult. As I was leaving the HESC meeting Thursday Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and I talked briefly about the public comments at the most recent City Council discussion of Wildhorse Ranch. Those comments were that they haven’t been involved/informed, and felt blind-sided. Cecilia and I agreed that there have been many public meetings about Wildhorse, as many as seven. One has to wonder whose fault it was that the people who spoke were uninformed? Perhaps they should have taken the time to attend just one of the public meetings.
Truly informing the public is a no-win scenario, but to the credit of the HESC they didn’t let that fact impede their efforts to do their best … and their best was very, very good. One of my co-workers at UCDMC attended “cold turkey.” By her own admission, she “didn’t even know a process was going on.” When we ran into each other the next day, she was positively effusive … and engaged. I’m sure she provided the HESC with input, but more importantly she came away much more informed. IMHO, that alone makes the Workshop worthwhile.
dpd, getting public input was only one of the goals of the Workshop. Equally important was informing the residents of the Davis planning area about the work the HESC had done, and the concensus it had reached.
I’m preaching to the choir when I say that nvolving the public in (and about) important governmental decisions is extremely important. You started this blog for that very reason (amongst others).
However, the public is often very difficult. As I was leaving the HESC meeting Thursday Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and I talked briefly about the public comments at the most recent City Council discussion of Wildhorse Ranch. Those comments were that they haven’t been involved/informed, and felt blind-sided. Cecilia and I agreed that there have been many public meetings about Wildhorse, as many as seven. One has to wonder whose fault it was that the people who spoke were uninformed? Perhaps they should have taken the time to attend just one of the public meetings.
Truly informing the public is a no-win scenario, but to the credit of the HESC they didn’t let that fact impede their efforts to do their best … and their best was very, very good. One of my co-workers at UCDMC attended “cold turkey.” By her own admission, she “didn’t even know a process was going on.” When we ran into each other the next day, she was positively effusive … and engaged. I’m sure she provided the HESC with input, but more importantly she came away much more informed. IMHO, that alone makes the Workshop worthwhile.
dpd, getting public input was only one of the goals of the Workshop. Equally important was informing the residents of the Davis planning area about the work the HESC had done, and the concensus it had reached.
I’m preaching to the choir when I say that nvolving the public in (and about) important governmental decisions is extremely important. You started this blog for that very reason (amongst others).
However, the public is often very difficult. As I was leaving the HESC meeting Thursday Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and I talked briefly about the public comments at the most recent City Council discussion of Wildhorse Ranch. Those comments were that they haven’t been involved/informed, and felt blind-sided. Cecilia and I agreed that there have been many public meetings about Wildhorse, as many as seven. One has to wonder whose fault it was that the people who spoke were uninformed? Perhaps they should have taken the time to attend just one of the public meetings.
Truly informing the public is a no-win scenario, but to the credit of the HESC they didn’t let that fact impede their efforts to do their best … and their best was very, very good. One of my co-workers at UCDMC attended “cold turkey.” By her own admission, she “didn’t even know a process was going on.” When we ran into each other the next day, she was positively effusive … and engaged. I’m sure she provided the HESC with input, but more importantly she came away much more informed. IMHO, that alone makes the Workshop worthwhile.
dpd, getting public input was only one of the goals of the Workshop. Equally important was informing the residents of the Davis planning area about the work the HESC had done, and the concensus it had reached.
I’m preaching to the choir when I say that nvolving the public in (and about) important governmental decisions is extremely important. You started this blog for that very reason (amongst others).
However, the public is often very difficult. As I was leaving the HESC meeting Thursday Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and I talked briefly about the public comments at the most recent City Council discussion of Wildhorse Ranch. Those comments were that they haven’t been involved/informed, and felt blind-sided. Cecilia and I agreed that there have been many public meetings about Wildhorse, as many as seven. One has to wonder whose fault it was that the people who spoke were uninformed? Perhaps they should have taken the time to attend just one of the public meetings.
Truly informing the public is a no-win scenario, but to the credit of the HESC they didn’t let that fact impede their efforts to do their best … and their best was very, very good. One of my co-workers at UCDMC attended “cold turkey.” By her own admission, she “didn’t even know a process was going on.” When we ran into each other the next day, she was positively effusive … and engaged. I’m sure she provided the HESC with input, but more importantly she came away much more informed. IMHO, that alone makes the Workshop worthwhile.
Good reporting. I wonder if this blog, as an alternative news source, has led to the budget cuts at the Enterprise and them letting Ms. Sherwin go.
And now with Davice Voice, even more alternative media is available.
Good reporting. I wonder if this blog, as an alternative news source, has led to the budget cuts at the Enterprise and them letting Ms. Sherwin go.
And now with Davice Voice, even more alternative media is available.
Good reporting. I wonder if this blog, as an alternative news source, has led to the budget cuts at the Enterprise and them letting Ms. Sherwin go.
And now with Davice Voice, even more alternative media is available.
Good reporting. I wonder if this blog, as an alternative news source, has led to the budget cuts at the Enterprise and them letting Ms. Sherwin go.
And now with Davice Voice, even more alternative media is available.
I went to the HESC workshop, and found it surprisingly useful, even though I went in with a somewhat skeptical attitude. My problem with the process was the way in which members of HESC were hand-picked by City Council members, so there would be an overrepresentation of the City Council majority. And let’s face it, the Council majority seems to favor developers, particularly the Covell Village developers – despite citizens already having had their say with respect to that defunct project.
The HESC workshop gave lots of good information, gave me a chance to have my say, and was nicely polite rather contentious. I noticed HESC members would not be drawn into arguments for or against anything, but were there to answer general questions about sites – not whether they were for or against any specific building project.
I think what happened is the HESC members who were appointed by the Council majority came up with an answer they didn’t like. There is serious citizen opposition to Covell Village and changing the zoning of the Cannery property. Since the Measure J vote went against developing Covell Village, that should be no surprise.
One point that did get somewhat lost in the process, and needs to be fleshed out more is the issue of bringing business to Davis. This is the piece that I think the City Council, HESC, and developers are missing. I am not so sure citizens are concerned about the growth rate per se, as they are about affording the services that go along with it.
The reason so many in Davis want slow growth, is because they can see that to encourage more development results in a huge cost to the city – which translates into higher taxes to citizens, who are already becoming crushed under their tax burden.
Huge sewer/water rate increases are coming down the road, we now have increases in library and school taxes, landscaping and lighting, a push to institute a public safety tax (has that been passed yet or not?), etc. Yet we don’t see any push to bring new business into town, to create much needed tax revenue. Instead, sales tax revenue is leaking out of Davis, to Woodland in particular.
I think you will find the Cannery will be a controversial project – because it is zoned for business rather than residential. Many feel to change the entire place to residential keeps the anti-business feel of Davis alive and well. And frankly, the existing merchants have played a big part in that antagonism – because they don’t want competition. That is what the Target fight was all about.
The citizens, however, feel differently. Davis needs to bring appropriate business into our community. Then new residential housing may be more accepted – but not before we are able to be more financially stable and fiscally responsible as a city.
I went to the HESC workshop, and found it surprisingly useful, even though I went in with a somewhat skeptical attitude. My problem with the process was the way in which members of HESC were hand-picked by City Council members, so there would be an overrepresentation of the City Council majority. And let’s face it, the Council majority seems to favor developers, particularly the Covell Village developers – despite citizens already having had their say with respect to that defunct project.
The HESC workshop gave lots of good information, gave me a chance to have my say, and was nicely polite rather contentious. I noticed HESC members would not be drawn into arguments for or against anything, but were there to answer general questions about sites – not whether they were for or against any specific building project.
I think what happened is the HESC members who were appointed by the Council majority came up with an answer they didn’t like. There is serious citizen opposition to Covell Village and changing the zoning of the Cannery property. Since the Measure J vote went against developing Covell Village, that should be no surprise.
One point that did get somewhat lost in the process, and needs to be fleshed out more is the issue of bringing business to Davis. This is the piece that I think the City Council, HESC, and developers are missing. I am not so sure citizens are concerned about the growth rate per se, as they are about affording the services that go along with it.
The reason so many in Davis want slow growth, is because they can see that to encourage more development results in a huge cost to the city – which translates into higher taxes to citizens, who are already becoming crushed under their tax burden.
Huge sewer/water rate increases are coming down the road, we now have increases in library and school taxes, landscaping and lighting, a push to institute a public safety tax (has that been passed yet or not?), etc. Yet we don’t see any push to bring new business into town, to create much needed tax revenue. Instead, sales tax revenue is leaking out of Davis, to Woodland in particular.
I think you will find the Cannery will be a controversial project – because it is zoned for business rather than residential. Many feel to change the entire place to residential keeps the anti-business feel of Davis alive and well. And frankly, the existing merchants have played a big part in that antagonism – because they don’t want competition. That is what the Target fight was all about.
The citizens, however, feel differently. Davis needs to bring appropriate business into our community. Then new residential housing may be more accepted – but not before we are able to be more financially stable and fiscally responsible as a city.
I went to the HESC workshop, and found it surprisingly useful, even though I went in with a somewhat skeptical attitude. My problem with the process was the way in which members of HESC were hand-picked by City Council members, so there would be an overrepresentation of the City Council majority. And let’s face it, the Council majority seems to favor developers, particularly the Covell Village developers – despite citizens already having had their say with respect to that defunct project.
The HESC workshop gave lots of good information, gave me a chance to have my say, and was nicely polite rather contentious. I noticed HESC members would not be drawn into arguments for or against anything, but were there to answer general questions about sites – not whether they were for or against any specific building project.
I think what happened is the HESC members who were appointed by the Council majority came up with an answer they didn’t like. There is serious citizen opposition to Covell Village and changing the zoning of the Cannery property. Since the Measure J vote went against developing Covell Village, that should be no surprise.
One point that did get somewhat lost in the process, and needs to be fleshed out more is the issue of bringing business to Davis. This is the piece that I think the City Council, HESC, and developers are missing. I am not so sure citizens are concerned about the growth rate per se, as they are about affording the services that go along with it.
The reason so many in Davis want slow growth, is because they can see that to encourage more development results in a huge cost to the city – which translates into higher taxes to citizens, who are already becoming crushed under their tax burden.
Huge sewer/water rate increases are coming down the road, we now have increases in library and school taxes, landscaping and lighting, a push to institute a public safety tax (has that been passed yet or not?), etc. Yet we don’t see any push to bring new business into town, to create much needed tax revenue. Instead, sales tax revenue is leaking out of Davis, to Woodland in particular.
I think you will find the Cannery will be a controversial project – because it is zoned for business rather than residential. Many feel to change the entire place to residential keeps the anti-business feel of Davis alive and well. And frankly, the existing merchants have played a big part in that antagonism – because they don’t want competition. That is what the Target fight was all about.
The citizens, however, feel differently. Davis needs to bring appropriate business into our community. Then new residential housing may be more accepted – but not before we are able to be more financially stable and fiscally responsible as a city.
I went to the HESC workshop, and found it surprisingly useful, even though I went in with a somewhat skeptical attitude. My problem with the process was the way in which members of HESC were hand-picked by City Council members, so there would be an overrepresentation of the City Council majority. And let’s face it, the Council majority seems to favor developers, particularly the Covell Village developers – despite citizens already having had their say with respect to that defunct project.
The HESC workshop gave lots of good information, gave me a chance to have my say, and was nicely polite rather contentious. I noticed HESC members would not be drawn into arguments for or against anything, but were there to answer general questions about sites – not whether they were for or against any specific building project.
I think what happened is the HESC members who were appointed by the Council majority came up with an answer they didn’t like. There is serious citizen opposition to Covell Village and changing the zoning of the Cannery property. Since the Measure J vote went against developing Covell Village, that should be no surprise.
One point that did get somewhat lost in the process, and needs to be fleshed out more is the issue of bringing business to Davis. This is the piece that I think the City Council, HESC, and developers are missing. I am not so sure citizens are concerned about the growth rate per se, as they are about affording the services that go along with it.
The reason so many in Davis want slow growth, is because they can see that to encourage more development results in a huge cost to the city – which translates into higher taxes to citizens, who are already becoming crushed under their tax burden.
Huge sewer/water rate increases are coming down the road, we now have increases in library and school taxes, landscaping and lighting, a push to institute a public safety tax (has that been passed yet or not?), etc. Yet we don’t see any push to bring new business into town, to create much needed tax revenue. Instead, sales tax revenue is leaking out of Davis, to Woodland in particular.
I think you will find the Cannery will be a controversial project – because it is zoned for business rather than residential. Many feel to change the entire place to residential keeps the anti-business feel of Davis alive and well. And frankly, the existing merchants have played a big part in that antagonism – because they don’t want competition. That is what the Target fight was all about.
The citizens, however, feel differently. Davis needs to bring appropriate business into our community. Then new residential housing may be more accepted – but not before we are able to be more financially stable and fiscally responsible as a city.
“My problem with the process was the way in which members of HESC were hand-picked by City Council members, so there would be an overrepresentation of the City Council majority.”
How is 60% of the city council picking 60% of the HESC “overrepresentation”?
“My problem with the process was the way in which members of HESC were hand-picked by City Council members, so there would be an overrepresentation of the City Council majority.”
How is 60% of the city council picking 60% of the HESC “overrepresentation”?
“My problem with the process was the way in which members of HESC were hand-picked by City Council members, so there would be an overrepresentation of the City Council majority.”
How is 60% of the city council picking 60% of the HESC “overrepresentation”?
“My problem with the process was the way in which members of HESC were hand-picked by City Council members, so there would be an overrepresentation of the City Council majority.”
How is 60% of the city council picking 60% of the HESC “overrepresentation”?
“How is 60% of the city council picking 60% of the HESC “overrepresentation”?”
Asmundson, Saylor and Souza supported Covell Village. Admundson, Saylor and Souza selected 60% of the HESC committee members. However, Davis voters already weighed in on this issue, 60% voting against the Covell Village project. A view antithetical to the wishes of a majority of citizens is being overrepresented at HESC meetings. A project the citizens do not want is being brought up again despite the wishes of the majority of voters. Another attempt to make an end run around due process – the Measure J vote.
It is no surprise that certain HESC members are expressing concern about the results of public input. After all the numbers speak for themselves. If you look at the charts of responses from HESC Workshop #2, only about twenty favor moving Covell Village from medium to a high priority, whereas nearly 50 favor moving Covell Village from medium to a low priority (that is as I remember it – may have numbers slightly off).
And these numbers in regard to priority at the HESC workshop came about despite the fact that a pro-developer tried to instruct folks how to vote, using senior housing as a gambit to get around public opinion. Citizens of Davis are tired of their will being flouted by one method at subversion of process or another.
I also noticed in the HESC list of decision making choices used to rate a site, there really wasn’t a clear alternative that talked about growth rate concerns, impact of cost in new services; promoting commercial development; etc. A lot of items of deep concern to many citizens were left out of the process. I wonder why?
“How is 60% of the city council picking 60% of the HESC “overrepresentation”?”
Asmundson, Saylor and Souza supported Covell Village. Admundson, Saylor and Souza selected 60% of the HESC committee members. However, Davis voters already weighed in on this issue, 60% voting against the Covell Village project. A view antithetical to the wishes of a majority of citizens is being overrepresented at HESC meetings. A project the citizens do not want is being brought up again despite the wishes of the majority of voters. Another attempt to make an end run around due process – the Measure J vote.
It is no surprise that certain HESC members are expressing concern about the results of public input. After all the numbers speak for themselves. If you look at the charts of responses from HESC Workshop #2, only about twenty favor moving Covell Village from medium to a high priority, whereas nearly 50 favor moving Covell Village from medium to a low priority (that is as I remember it – may have numbers slightly off).
And these numbers in regard to priority at the HESC workshop came about despite the fact that a pro-developer tried to instruct folks how to vote, using senior housing as a gambit to get around public opinion. Citizens of Davis are tired of their will being flouted by one method at subversion of process or another.
I also noticed in the HESC list of decision making choices used to rate a site, there really wasn’t a clear alternative that talked about growth rate concerns, impact of cost in new services; promoting commercial development; etc. A lot of items of deep concern to many citizens were left out of the process. I wonder why?
“How is 60% of the city council picking 60% of the HESC “overrepresentation”?”
Asmundson, Saylor and Souza supported Covell Village. Admundson, Saylor and Souza selected 60% of the HESC committee members. However, Davis voters already weighed in on this issue, 60% voting against the Covell Village project. A view antithetical to the wishes of a majority of citizens is being overrepresented at HESC meetings. A project the citizens do not want is being brought up again despite the wishes of the majority of voters. Another attempt to make an end run around due process – the Measure J vote.
It is no surprise that certain HESC members are expressing concern about the results of public input. After all the numbers speak for themselves. If you look at the charts of responses from HESC Workshop #2, only about twenty favor moving Covell Village from medium to a high priority, whereas nearly 50 favor moving Covell Village from medium to a low priority (that is as I remember it – may have numbers slightly off).
And these numbers in regard to priority at the HESC workshop came about despite the fact that a pro-developer tried to instruct folks how to vote, using senior housing as a gambit to get around public opinion. Citizens of Davis are tired of their will being flouted by one method at subversion of process or another.
I also noticed in the HESC list of decision making choices used to rate a site, there really wasn’t a clear alternative that talked about growth rate concerns, impact of cost in new services; promoting commercial development; etc. A lot of items of deep concern to many citizens were left out of the process. I wonder why?
“How is 60% of the city council picking 60% of the HESC “overrepresentation”?”
Asmundson, Saylor and Souza supported Covell Village. Admundson, Saylor and Souza selected 60% of the HESC committee members. However, Davis voters already weighed in on this issue, 60% voting against the Covell Village project. A view antithetical to the wishes of a majority of citizens is being overrepresented at HESC meetings. A project the citizens do not want is being brought up again despite the wishes of the majority of voters. Another attempt to make an end run around due process – the Measure J vote.
It is no surprise that certain HESC members are expressing concern about the results of public input. After all the numbers speak for themselves. If you look at the charts of responses from HESC Workshop #2, only about twenty favor moving Covell Village from medium to a high priority, whereas nearly 50 favor moving Covell Village from medium to a low priority (that is as I remember it – may have numbers slightly off).
And these numbers in regard to priority at the HESC workshop came about despite the fact that a pro-developer tried to instruct folks how to vote, using senior housing as a gambit to get around public opinion. Citizens of Davis are tired of their will being flouted by one method at subversion of process or another.
I also noticed in the HESC list of decision making choices used to rate a site, there really wasn’t a clear alternative that talked about growth rate concerns, impact of cost in new services; promoting commercial development; etc. A lot of items of deep concern to many citizens were left out of the process. I wonder why?
“Davis needs to bring appropriate business into our community.”
What did you have in mind?
“Davis needs to bring appropriate business into our community.”
What did you have in mind?
“Davis needs to bring appropriate business into our community.”
What did you have in mind?
“Davis needs to bring appropriate business into our community.”
What did you have in mind?
Concerned Citizen said…
I also noticed in the HESC list of decision making choices used to rate a site, there really wasn’t a clear alternative that talked about growth rate concerns, impact of cost in new services; promoting commercial development; etc. A lot of items of deep concern to many citizens were left out of the process. I wonder why?
CC, the decision making principles you are so concerned about were settled on as a result of the public input from the first Community Workshop. As the guide for that workshop said, “The focus of the first workshop was on the important “factors” that should
be used in selecting and evaluating potential sites for their suitability to
meet Davis’ near-and longer-term housing needs.
The workshop participants were asked to place red dots next to factors that they believed are most
important in evaluating potential sites for housing overall. The complete list of factors on which a participant could place a dot was taken directly from the Davis General Plan.
The minutes of that Workshop reflect the following:
TOP TEN FACTORS (based on red dot tally)
1. Overall proximity to community facilities.
2. Acres of prime agricultural soils converted to urban use.
3. Opportunity to provide for identified housing needs.
4. Water supply and distribution issues; Sanitary sewer collection issues.
5. Maintain or “leap over” an Urban Agricultural Transition Area (UATA)
designated in the City’s General Plan.
6. Opportunity to promote higher density housing in downtown and in
neighborhood centers.
7. Opportunity to contribute to the City’s open space system consisting of
connected “greenways.”
8. Bicycle mobility issues.
9. Mobility connections, connecting neighborhoods and bike paths.
10. Fire department services.
SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FACTORS
1. Impacts of new development traffic on existing neighborhoods.
2. Potential to encourage walkability, and access to walkable and bikeable
amenities.
3. Best locations for student and university employee housing.
4. Proximity to Amtrak transportation hub.
5. Potential of providing for housing types and styles not now available in Davis.
So, bottom-line, if there are factors that you believe are missing, they are missing as a direct product of the democratic process.
Concerned Citizen said…
I also noticed in the HESC list of decision making choices used to rate a site, there really wasn’t a clear alternative that talked about growth rate concerns, impact of cost in new services; promoting commercial development; etc. A lot of items of deep concern to many citizens were left out of the process. I wonder why?
CC, the decision making principles you are so concerned about were settled on as a result of the public input from the first Community Workshop. As the guide for that workshop said, “The focus of the first workshop was on the important “factors” that should
be used in selecting and evaluating potential sites for their suitability to
meet Davis’ near-and longer-term housing needs.
The workshop participants were asked to place red dots next to factors that they believed are most
important in evaluating potential sites for housing overall. The complete list of factors on which a participant could place a dot was taken directly from the Davis General Plan.
The minutes of that Workshop reflect the following:
TOP TEN FACTORS (based on red dot tally)
1. Overall proximity to community facilities.
2. Acres of prime agricultural soils converted to urban use.
3. Opportunity to provide for identified housing needs.
4. Water supply and distribution issues; Sanitary sewer collection issues.
5. Maintain or “leap over” an Urban Agricultural Transition Area (UATA)
designated in the City’s General Plan.
6. Opportunity to promote higher density housing in downtown and in
neighborhood centers.
7. Opportunity to contribute to the City’s open space system consisting of
connected “greenways.”
8. Bicycle mobility issues.
9. Mobility connections, connecting neighborhoods and bike paths.
10. Fire department services.
SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FACTORS
1. Impacts of new development traffic on existing neighborhoods.
2. Potential to encourage walkability, and access to walkable and bikeable
amenities.
3. Best locations for student and university employee housing.
4. Proximity to Amtrak transportation hub.
5. Potential of providing for housing types and styles not now available in Davis.
So, bottom-line, if there are factors that you believe are missing, they are missing as a direct product of the democratic process.
Concerned Citizen said…
I also noticed in the HESC list of decision making choices used to rate a site, there really wasn’t a clear alternative that talked about growth rate concerns, impact of cost in new services; promoting commercial development; etc. A lot of items of deep concern to many citizens were left out of the process. I wonder why?
CC, the decision making principles you are so concerned about were settled on as a result of the public input from the first Community Workshop. As the guide for that workshop said, “The focus of the first workshop was on the important “factors” that should
be used in selecting and evaluating potential sites for their suitability to
meet Davis’ near-and longer-term housing needs.
The workshop participants were asked to place red dots next to factors that they believed are most
important in evaluating potential sites for housing overall. The complete list of factors on which a participant could place a dot was taken directly from the Davis General Plan.
The minutes of that Workshop reflect the following:
TOP TEN FACTORS (based on red dot tally)
1. Overall proximity to community facilities.
2. Acres of prime agricultural soils converted to urban use.
3. Opportunity to provide for identified housing needs.
4. Water supply and distribution issues; Sanitary sewer collection issues.
5. Maintain or “leap over” an Urban Agricultural Transition Area (UATA)
designated in the City’s General Plan.
6. Opportunity to promote higher density housing in downtown and in
neighborhood centers.
7. Opportunity to contribute to the City’s open space system consisting of
connected “greenways.”
8. Bicycle mobility issues.
9. Mobility connections, connecting neighborhoods and bike paths.
10. Fire department services.
SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FACTORS
1. Impacts of new development traffic on existing neighborhoods.
2. Potential to encourage walkability, and access to walkable and bikeable
amenities.
3. Best locations for student and university employee housing.
4. Proximity to Amtrak transportation hub.
5. Potential of providing for housing types and styles not now available in Davis.
So, bottom-line, if there are factors that you believe are missing, they are missing as a direct product of the democratic process.
Concerned Citizen said…
I also noticed in the HESC list of decision making choices used to rate a site, there really wasn’t a clear alternative that talked about growth rate concerns, impact of cost in new services; promoting commercial development; etc. A lot of items of deep concern to many citizens were left out of the process. I wonder why?
CC, the decision making principles you are so concerned about were settled on as a result of the public input from the first Community Workshop. As the guide for that workshop said, “The focus of the first workshop was on the important “factors” that should
be used in selecting and evaluating potential sites for their suitability to
meet Davis’ near-and longer-term housing needs.
The workshop participants were asked to place red dots next to factors that they believed are most
important in evaluating potential sites for housing overall. The complete list of factors on which a participant could place a dot was taken directly from the Davis General Plan.
The minutes of that Workshop reflect the following:
TOP TEN FACTORS (based on red dot tally)
1. Overall proximity to community facilities.
2. Acres of prime agricultural soils converted to urban use.
3. Opportunity to provide for identified housing needs.
4. Water supply and distribution issues; Sanitary sewer collection issues.
5. Maintain or “leap over” an Urban Agricultural Transition Area (UATA)
designated in the City’s General Plan.
6. Opportunity to promote higher density housing in downtown and in
neighborhood centers.
7. Opportunity to contribute to the City’s open space system consisting of
connected “greenways.”
8. Bicycle mobility issues.
9. Mobility connections, connecting neighborhoods and bike paths.
10. Fire department services.
SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FACTORS
1. Impacts of new development traffic on existing neighborhoods.
2. Potential to encourage walkability, and access to walkable and bikeable
amenities.
3. Best locations for student and university employee housing.
4. Proximity to Amtrak transportation hub.
5. Potential of providing for housing types and styles not now available in Davis.
So, bottom-line, if there are factors that you believe are missing, they are missing as a direct product of the democratic process.
Concerned Citizen said…
Asmundson, Saylor and Souza supported Covell Village. Admundson, Saylor and Souza selected 60% of the HESC committee members. However, Davis voters already weighed in on this issue, 60% voting against the Covell Village project. A view antithetical to the wishes of a majority of citizens is being overrepresented at HESC meetings. A project the citizens do not want is being brought up again despite the wishes of the majority of voters.
Here too, you are making a statement that isn’t accurate. The HESC has looked at all possible sites for housing. They have worked very hard to apply a consistent set of criteria to each and every one of those sites, and at the end of their process Covell Village only had the NW Quadrant sites ranked lower, plus the Seiber site adjacent to I-80 in South Davis. Your point would be legitimate if Covell had been ranked higher than it was, but it wasn’t.
My interpretation of the HESC member concensus on the Covell site is that based on the criteria used (see my post above) it has close to the lowest housing potential of any site in and around Davis. Please tell how that is bringing up Covell despite the wishes of the majority of voters?
Concerned Citizen said…
Asmundson, Saylor and Souza supported Covell Village. Admundson, Saylor and Souza selected 60% of the HESC committee members. However, Davis voters already weighed in on this issue, 60% voting against the Covell Village project. A view antithetical to the wishes of a majority of citizens is being overrepresented at HESC meetings. A project the citizens do not want is being brought up again despite the wishes of the majority of voters.
Here too, you are making a statement that isn’t accurate. The HESC has looked at all possible sites for housing. They have worked very hard to apply a consistent set of criteria to each and every one of those sites, and at the end of their process Covell Village only had the NW Quadrant sites ranked lower, plus the Seiber site adjacent to I-80 in South Davis. Your point would be legitimate if Covell had been ranked higher than it was, but it wasn’t.
My interpretation of the HESC member concensus on the Covell site is that based on the criteria used (see my post above) it has close to the lowest housing potential of any site in and around Davis. Please tell how that is bringing up Covell despite the wishes of the majority of voters?
Concerned Citizen said…
Asmundson, Saylor and Souza supported Covell Village. Admundson, Saylor and Souza selected 60% of the HESC committee members. However, Davis voters already weighed in on this issue, 60% voting against the Covell Village project. A view antithetical to the wishes of a majority of citizens is being overrepresented at HESC meetings. A project the citizens do not want is being brought up again despite the wishes of the majority of voters.
Here too, you are making a statement that isn’t accurate. The HESC has looked at all possible sites for housing. They have worked very hard to apply a consistent set of criteria to each and every one of those sites, and at the end of their process Covell Village only had the NW Quadrant sites ranked lower, plus the Seiber site adjacent to I-80 in South Davis. Your point would be legitimate if Covell had been ranked higher than it was, but it wasn’t.
My interpretation of the HESC member concensus on the Covell site is that based on the criteria used (see my post above) it has close to the lowest housing potential of any site in and around Davis. Please tell how that is bringing up Covell despite the wishes of the majority of voters?
Concerned Citizen said…
Asmundson, Saylor and Souza supported Covell Village. Admundson, Saylor and Souza selected 60% of the HESC committee members. However, Davis voters already weighed in on this issue, 60% voting against the Covell Village project. A view antithetical to the wishes of a majority of citizens is being overrepresented at HESC meetings. A project the citizens do not want is being brought up again despite the wishes of the majority of voters.
Here too, you are making a statement that isn’t accurate. The HESC has looked at all possible sites for housing. They have worked very hard to apply a consistent set of criteria to each and every one of those sites, and at the end of their process Covell Village only had the NW Quadrant sites ranked lower, plus the Seiber site adjacent to I-80 in South Davis. Your point would be legitimate if Covell had been ranked higher than it was, but it wasn’t.
My interpretation of the HESC member concensus on the Covell site is that based on the criteria used (see my post above) it has close to the lowest housing potential of any site in and around Davis. Please tell how that is bringing up Covell despite the wishes of the majority of voters?
“Asmundson, Saylor and Souza supported Covell Village. Admundson, Saylor and Souza selected 60% of the HESC committee members. However, Davis voters already weighed in on this issue, 60% voting against the Covell Village project. A view antithetical to the wishes of a majority of citizens is being overrepresented at HESC meetings.”
The problem with this argument is that the voters of Davis voted for that majority on the council. Also, after the Covell Village vote, Ruth Asmundson was the top vote getter in the next election. While it’s true that 60% opposed Measure X, that 60% had dozens of divergent reasons for voting the way they did. It’s not as if the majority in the X vote are all of one mind on all issues or even on all housing issues.
“Asmundson, Saylor and Souza supported Covell Village. Admundson, Saylor and Souza selected 60% of the HESC committee members. However, Davis voters already weighed in on this issue, 60% voting against the Covell Village project. A view antithetical to the wishes of a majority of citizens is being overrepresented at HESC meetings.”
The problem with this argument is that the voters of Davis voted for that majority on the council. Also, after the Covell Village vote, Ruth Asmundson was the top vote getter in the next election. While it’s true that 60% opposed Measure X, that 60% had dozens of divergent reasons for voting the way they did. It’s not as if the majority in the X vote are all of one mind on all issues or even on all housing issues.
“Asmundson, Saylor and Souza supported Covell Village. Admundson, Saylor and Souza selected 60% of the HESC committee members. However, Davis voters already weighed in on this issue, 60% voting against the Covell Village project. A view antithetical to the wishes of a majority of citizens is being overrepresented at HESC meetings.”
The problem with this argument is that the voters of Davis voted for that majority on the council. Also, after the Covell Village vote, Ruth Asmundson was the top vote getter in the next election. While it’s true that 60% opposed Measure X, that 60% had dozens of divergent reasons for voting the way they did. It’s not as if the majority in the X vote are all of one mind on all issues or even on all housing issues.
“Asmundson, Saylor and Souza supported Covell Village. Admundson, Saylor and Souza selected 60% of the HESC committee members. However, Davis voters already weighed in on this issue, 60% voting against the Covell Village project. A view antithetical to the wishes of a majority of citizens is being overrepresented at HESC meetings.”
The problem with this argument is that the voters of Davis voted for that majority on the council. Also, after the Covell Village vote, Ruth Asmundson was the top vote getter in the next election. While it’s true that 60% opposed Measure X, that 60% had dozens of divergent reasons for voting the way they did. It’s not as if the majority in the X vote are all of one mind on all issues or even on all housing issues.
Why not an economics approach? Development rights being the scarce commodity, start raising the price in terms of affordable housing components and developer mitigations and see how much the demand declines. It is a seller’s market in that sense.
Why not an economics approach? Development rights being the scarce commodity, start raising the price in terms of affordable housing components and developer mitigations and see how much the demand declines. It is a seller’s market in that sense.
Why not an economics approach? Development rights being the scarce commodity, start raising the price in terms of affordable housing components and developer mitigations and see how much the demand declines. It is a seller’s market in that sense.
Why not an economics approach? Development rights being the scarce commodity, start raising the price in terms of affordable housing components and developer mitigations and see how much the demand declines. It is a seller’s market in that sense.
Kevin probably doesn’t see the illogic of what he alleges. At a minimum, wouldn’t the efforts of the two activists simply cancel each other out?
I don’t trust anything that comes from Kevin Wolf or do I give his opinions much regard. He has been identified as a primary person involved spreading slanderous misinformation in the last city council election and the Measure X campaign in his effort to get Covell Village approval. Why on earth did a City Council member appoint him to this committee and how did he ever become Chair of it, I wonder?
Kevin probably doesn’t see the illogic of what he alleges. At a minimum, wouldn’t the efforts of the two activists simply cancel each other out?
I don’t trust anything that comes from Kevin Wolf or do I give his opinions much regard. He has been identified as a primary person involved spreading slanderous misinformation in the last city council election and the Measure X campaign in his effort to get Covell Village approval. Why on earth did a City Council member appoint him to this committee and how did he ever become Chair of it, I wonder?
Kevin probably doesn’t see the illogic of what he alleges. At a minimum, wouldn’t the efforts of the two activists simply cancel each other out?
I don’t trust anything that comes from Kevin Wolf or do I give his opinions much regard. He has been identified as a primary person involved spreading slanderous misinformation in the last city council election and the Measure X campaign in his effort to get Covell Village approval. Why on earth did a City Council member appoint him to this committee and how did he ever become Chair of it, I wonder?
Kevin probably doesn’t see the illogic of what he alleges. At a minimum, wouldn’t the efforts of the two activists simply cancel each other out?
I don’t trust anything that comes from Kevin Wolf or do I give his opinions much regard. He has been identified as a primary person involved spreading slanderous misinformation in the last city council election and the Measure X campaign in his effort to get Covell Village approval. Why on earth did a City Council member appoint him to this committee and how did he ever become Chair of it, I wonder?
MIKE: “start raising the price in terms of affordable housing components.”
Currently, 25% of the units must be for very low income; another 25% must be below market for modest income. That’s 50% “affordable.” How much higher do you think is reasonable?
MIKE: “start raising the price in terms of affordable housing components.”
Currently, 25% of the units must be for very low income; another 25% must be below market for modest income. That’s 50% “affordable.” How much higher do you think is reasonable?
MIKE: “start raising the price in terms of affordable housing components.”
Currently, 25% of the units must be for very low income; another 25% must be below market for modest income. That’s 50% “affordable.” How much higher do you think is reasonable?
MIKE: “start raising the price in terms of affordable housing components.”
Currently, 25% of the units must be for very low income; another 25% must be below market for modest income. That’s 50% “affordable.” How much higher do you think is reasonable?
Price controls don’t increase the number of units available to low-income renters and buyers. Every scientific study shows the same thing: interferring in the market in this way is detrimental to all low-income renters and buyers who miss out on the limited availability of sub-market housing.
If you care to read more about this topic, take a look at Wikipedia done by the New York Federal Reserve.
If you really want to help the poor, don’t force developers to build any submarket housing. Rather, give housing vouchers directly to folks who cannot afford market-rate housing. That actually works.
Price controls don’t increase the number of units available to low-income renters and buyers. Every scientific study shows the same thing: interferring in the market in this way is detrimental to all low-income renters and buyers who miss out on the limited availability of sub-market housing.
If you care to read more about this topic, take a look at Wikipedia done by the New York Federal Reserve.
If you really want to help the poor, don’t force developers to build any submarket housing. Rather, give housing vouchers directly to folks who cannot afford market-rate housing. That actually works.
Price controls don’t increase the number of units available to low-income renters and buyers. Every scientific study shows the same thing: interferring in the market in this way is detrimental to all low-income renters and buyers who miss out on the limited availability of sub-market housing.
If you care to read more about this topic, take a look at Wikipedia done by the New York Federal Reserve.
If you really want to help the poor, don’t force developers to build any submarket housing. Rather, give housing vouchers directly to folks who cannot afford market-rate housing. That actually works.
Price controls don’t increase the number of units available to low-income renters and buyers. Every scientific study shows the same thing: interferring in the market in this way is detrimental to all low-income renters and buyers who miss out on the limited availability of sub-market housing.
If you care to read more about this topic, take a look at Wikipedia done by the New York Federal Reserve.
If you really want to help the poor, don’t force developers to build any submarket housing. Rather, give housing vouchers directly to folks who cannot afford market-rate housing. That actually works.
I made a mistake in my last post. This is the corrected form:
If you care to read more about this topic, take a look at this study done by the New York Federal Reserve.
I made a mistake in my last post. This is the corrected form:
If you care to read more about this topic, take a look at this study done by the New York Federal Reserve.
I made a mistake in my last post. This is the corrected form:
If you care to read more about this topic, take a look at this study done by the New York Federal Reserve.
I made a mistake in my last post. This is the corrected form:
If you care to read more about this topic, take a look at this study done by the New York Federal Reserve.
In answer to Don Shor’s question, appropriate business to me would mean that which will generate sufficient tax revenue to make it worthwhile of an invitation to build. Up until now, downtown merchants have done a pretty good job of deterring new business from coming into town. It is almost always an uphill battle for any new business to come into Davis, if of sufficient size or competition to already-existing merchants.
In response to Matt Williams, who pointed out that the list of considerations was part of the democratic process, I get your point. Not sure I totally agree. Members of a hand-selected committee can shape how the public thinks of an issue. The impression I had from Workshop #2 was the HESC committee is only looking at ranking building sites, not taking in larger issues, such as the cost of services to the city. For instance, in urging more senior housing, was any thought given to the expensive services that need to go along with it? I very much doubt it.
In response to Rich Rifkin’s comment that the current council majority was voted in by a majority of voters, the real question is could the current council majority be elected now, after the electorate has watched them in action? IMHO, I have my doubts…serious doubts!
In answer to Don Shor’s question, appropriate business to me would mean that which will generate sufficient tax revenue to make it worthwhile of an invitation to build. Up until now, downtown merchants have done a pretty good job of deterring new business from coming into town. It is almost always an uphill battle for any new business to come into Davis, if of sufficient size or competition to already-existing merchants.
In response to Matt Williams, who pointed out that the list of considerations was part of the democratic process, I get your point. Not sure I totally agree. Members of a hand-selected committee can shape how the public thinks of an issue. The impression I had from Workshop #2 was the HESC committee is only looking at ranking building sites, not taking in larger issues, such as the cost of services to the city. For instance, in urging more senior housing, was any thought given to the expensive services that need to go along with it? I very much doubt it.
In response to Rich Rifkin’s comment that the current council majority was voted in by a majority of voters, the real question is could the current council majority be elected now, after the electorate has watched them in action? IMHO, I have my doubts…serious doubts!
In answer to Don Shor’s question, appropriate business to me would mean that which will generate sufficient tax revenue to make it worthwhile of an invitation to build. Up until now, downtown merchants have done a pretty good job of deterring new business from coming into town. It is almost always an uphill battle for any new business to come into Davis, if of sufficient size or competition to already-existing merchants.
In response to Matt Williams, who pointed out that the list of considerations was part of the democratic process, I get your point. Not sure I totally agree. Members of a hand-selected committee can shape how the public thinks of an issue. The impression I had from Workshop #2 was the HESC committee is only looking at ranking building sites, not taking in larger issues, such as the cost of services to the city. For instance, in urging more senior housing, was any thought given to the expensive services that need to go along with it? I very much doubt it.
In response to Rich Rifkin’s comment that the current council majority was voted in by a majority of voters, the real question is could the current council majority be elected now, after the electorate has watched them in action? IMHO, I have my doubts…serious doubts!
In answer to Don Shor’s question, appropriate business to me would mean that which will generate sufficient tax revenue to make it worthwhile of an invitation to build. Up until now, downtown merchants have done a pretty good job of deterring new business from coming into town. It is almost always an uphill battle for any new business to come into Davis, if of sufficient size or competition to already-existing merchants.
In response to Matt Williams, who pointed out that the list of considerations was part of the democratic process, I get your point. Not sure I totally agree. Members of a hand-selected committee can shape how the public thinks of an issue. The impression I had from Workshop #2 was the HESC committee is only looking at ranking building sites, not taking in larger issues, such as the cost of services to the city. For instance, in urging more senior housing, was any thought given to the expensive services that need to go along with it? I very much doubt it.
In response to Rich Rifkin’s comment that the current council majority was voted in by a majority of voters, the real question is could the current council majority be elected now, after the electorate has watched them in action? IMHO, I have my doubts…serious doubts!
Just have to add to the comment on whether or not the current council majority could be reelected. IMHO I very much doubt it, especially in light of Bob Dunnings Sunday column!
Just have to add to the comment on whether or not the current council majority could be reelected. IMHO I very much doubt it, especially in light of Bob Dunnings Sunday column!
Just have to add to the comment on whether or not the current council majority could be reelected. IMHO I very much doubt it, especially in light of Bob Dunnings Sunday column!
Just have to add to the comment on whether or not the current council majority could be reelected. IMHO I very much doubt it, especially in light of Bob Dunnings Sunday column!
Concerned Citizen said…
In response to Matt Williams, who pointed out that the list of considerations was part of the democratic process, I get your point. Not sure I totally agree. Members of a hand-selected committee can shape how the public thinks of an issue. The impression I had from Workshop #2 was the HESC committee is only looking at ranking building sites, not taking in larger issues, such as the cost of services to the city. For instance, in urging more senior housing, was any thought given to the expensive services that need to go along with it? I very much doubt it.
CC, the Workshop didn’t reflect the HESC’s active efforts to include the issues you mention, and many more, in their deliberations. Mark Siegler was particularly vociferous about the need for, and the constant delay in provision of, the kind of “infrastructure” needed by virtually all the sites. Mike Harrington, may God rest his soul, was right in there with Mark asking for that kind of info.
In the end, there were two presentations that theoretically provided the HESC members with such info. One was by Bay Area Economics on 1/10/08. Their report can be viewed at the HESC website. The second was by City of Davis Finance Director Paul Navasio on 2/7. His report can also be viewed at the HESC website.
Unfortunately, neither of these presentations or reports got down to the granularity you have called for.
BTW, in your opinion, what are the kinds of “expensive services that need to go along with” senior housing?
Concerned Citizen said…
In response to Matt Williams, who pointed out that the list of considerations was part of the democratic process, I get your point. Not sure I totally agree. Members of a hand-selected committee can shape how the public thinks of an issue. The impression I had from Workshop #2 was the HESC committee is only looking at ranking building sites, not taking in larger issues, such as the cost of services to the city. For instance, in urging more senior housing, was any thought given to the expensive services that need to go along with it? I very much doubt it.
CC, the Workshop didn’t reflect the HESC’s active efforts to include the issues you mention, and many more, in their deliberations. Mark Siegler was particularly vociferous about the need for, and the constant delay in provision of, the kind of “infrastructure” needed by virtually all the sites. Mike Harrington, may God rest his soul, was right in there with Mark asking for that kind of info.
In the end, there were two presentations that theoretically provided the HESC members with such info. One was by Bay Area Economics on 1/10/08. Their report can be viewed at the HESC website. The second was by City of Davis Finance Director Paul Navasio on 2/7. His report can also be viewed at the HESC website.
Unfortunately, neither of these presentations or reports got down to the granularity you have called for.
BTW, in your opinion, what are the kinds of “expensive services that need to go along with” senior housing?
Concerned Citizen said…
In response to Matt Williams, who pointed out that the list of considerations was part of the democratic process, I get your point. Not sure I totally agree. Members of a hand-selected committee can shape how the public thinks of an issue. The impression I had from Workshop #2 was the HESC committee is only looking at ranking building sites, not taking in larger issues, such as the cost of services to the city. For instance, in urging more senior housing, was any thought given to the expensive services that need to go along with it? I very much doubt it.
CC, the Workshop didn’t reflect the HESC’s active efforts to include the issues you mention, and many more, in their deliberations. Mark Siegler was particularly vociferous about the need for, and the constant delay in provision of, the kind of “infrastructure” needed by virtually all the sites. Mike Harrington, may God rest his soul, was right in there with Mark asking for that kind of info.
In the end, there were two presentations that theoretically provided the HESC members with such info. One was by Bay Area Economics on 1/10/08. Their report can be viewed at the HESC website. The second was by City of Davis Finance Director Paul Navasio on 2/7. His report can also be viewed at the HESC website.
Unfortunately, neither of these presentations or reports got down to the granularity you have called for.
BTW, in your opinion, what are the kinds of “expensive services that need to go along with” senior housing?
Concerned Citizen said…
In response to Matt Williams, who pointed out that the list of considerations was part of the democratic process, I get your point. Not sure I totally agree. Members of a hand-selected committee can shape how the public thinks of an issue. The impression I had from Workshop #2 was the HESC committee is only looking at ranking building sites, not taking in larger issues, such as the cost of services to the city. For instance, in urging more senior housing, was any thought given to the expensive services that need to go along with it? I very much doubt it.
CC, the Workshop didn’t reflect the HESC’s active efforts to include the issues you mention, and many more, in their deliberations. Mark Siegler was particularly vociferous about the need for, and the constant delay in provision of, the kind of “infrastructure” needed by virtually all the sites. Mike Harrington, may God rest his soul, was right in there with Mark asking for that kind of info.
In the end, there were two presentations that theoretically provided the HESC members with such info. One was by Bay Area Economics on 1/10/08. Their report can be viewed at the HESC website. The second was by City of Davis Finance Director Paul Navasio on 2/7. His report can also be viewed at the HESC website.
Unfortunately, neither of these presentations or reports got down to the granularity you have called for.
BTW, in your opinion, what are the kinds of “expensive services that need to go along with” senior housing?
“BTW, in your opinion, what are the kinds of “expensive services that need to go along with” senior housing?”
Matt Williams, thanks for the extra info and greater insight into the HESC process, or lack thereof in factoring in cost of services. For seniors, they often need more city services than the average citizen. More ambulance calls, need for paratransit services, to name a few. Many low income seniors will need assistance with tax bills, utility bills, increase in water and sewer rates. All of this costs the city money.
When discussions were underway with respect to Covell Village and the senior component, there were supposed to be all sorts of fancy services, although it was billed as being paid for by the residents themselves. But as you have seen with the Atria Covell Gardens rent increase, it can become problematic down the road if the city isn’t careful in how it controls its development. Fairly well-to-do seniors on fixed incomes signed up for Atria Covell Gardens, with nothing in the contract about capping rent/care increases. Now some at Atria Covell Gardens are finding the rent increases beyond their means, because incomes are not keeping up with real costs.
Developers are attaching themselves to the issue of a need for more senior housing, giving no thought to what type is needed, what sort would serve Davis residents as opposed to bringing in outsiders, etc. Senior housing is a very complicated issue, that needs to be carefully planned.
“BTW, in your opinion, what are the kinds of “expensive services that need to go along with” senior housing?”
Matt Williams, thanks for the extra info and greater insight into the HESC process, or lack thereof in factoring in cost of services. For seniors, they often need more city services than the average citizen. More ambulance calls, need for paratransit services, to name a few. Many low income seniors will need assistance with tax bills, utility bills, increase in water and sewer rates. All of this costs the city money.
When discussions were underway with respect to Covell Village and the senior component, there were supposed to be all sorts of fancy services, although it was billed as being paid for by the residents themselves. But as you have seen with the Atria Covell Gardens rent increase, it can become problematic down the road if the city isn’t careful in how it controls its development. Fairly well-to-do seniors on fixed incomes signed up for Atria Covell Gardens, with nothing in the contract about capping rent/care increases. Now some at Atria Covell Gardens are finding the rent increases beyond their means, because incomes are not keeping up with real costs.
Developers are attaching themselves to the issue of a need for more senior housing, giving no thought to what type is needed, what sort would serve Davis residents as opposed to bringing in outsiders, etc. Senior housing is a very complicated issue, that needs to be carefully planned.
“BTW, in your opinion, what are the kinds of “expensive services that need to go along with” senior housing?”
Matt Williams, thanks for the extra info and greater insight into the HESC process, or lack thereof in factoring in cost of services. For seniors, they often need more city services than the average citizen. More ambulance calls, need for paratransit services, to name a few. Many low income seniors will need assistance with tax bills, utility bills, increase in water and sewer rates. All of this costs the city money.
When discussions were underway with respect to Covell Village and the senior component, there were supposed to be all sorts of fancy services, although it was billed as being paid for by the residents themselves. But as you have seen with the Atria Covell Gardens rent increase, it can become problematic down the road if the city isn’t careful in how it controls its development. Fairly well-to-do seniors on fixed incomes signed up for Atria Covell Gardens, with nothing in the contract about capping rent/care increases. Now some at Atria Covell Gardens are finding the rent increases beyond their means, because incomes are not keeping up with real costs.
Developers are attaching themselves to the issue of a need for more senior housing, giving no thought to what type is needed, what sort would serve Davis residents as opposed to bringing in outsiders, etc. Senior housing is a very complicated issue, that needs to be carefully planned.
“BTW, in your opinion, what are the kinds of “expensive services that need to go along with” senior housing?”
Matt Williams, thanks for the extra info and greater insight into the HESC process, or lack thereof in factoring in cost of services. For seniors, they often need more city services than the average citizen. More ambulance calls, need for paratransit services, to name a few. Many low income seniors will need assistance with tax bills, utility bills, increase in water and sewer rates. All of this costs the city money.
When discussions were underway with respect to Covell Village and the senior component, there were supposed to be all sorts of fancy services, although it was billed as being paid for by the residents themselves. But as you have seen with the Atria Covell Gardens rent increase, it can become problematic down the road if the city isn’t careful in how it controls its development. Fairly well-to-do seniors on fixed incomes signed up for Atria Covell Gardens, with nothing in the contract about capping rent/care increases. Now some at Atria Covell Gardens are finding the rent increases beyond their means, because incomes are not keeping up with real costs.
Developers are attaching themselves to the issue of a need for more senior housing, giving no thought to what type is needed, what sort would serve Davis residents as opposed to bringing in outsiders, etc. Senior housing is a very complicated issue, that needs to be carefully planned.