It seems that Sydney Vergis has consistently promoted the property as a good place for infill development. The problem is that Nishi is not infill development. It is a Measure J project and specially in fact laid out in Measure J.
Don Saylor has suggested that it is one of two future Measure J projects possibly coming down the pike.
And at the last debate, Stephen Souza promoted it as a location that could serve the student population while at the same time helping to bolster the downtown due to its close proximity to both the campus and the downtown.
Not coincidentally the project’s chief sponsor is John Whitcombe from Tandem Properties, a strong supporter of that trio.
There is indeed much appeal for the 44-acre property that is located adjacent to both the UCD campus and the core area of town. As currently promoted, it could provide anywhere from between 400 apartment units to over 1000. And were it not for one very serious drawback, it would indeed be the prime area by which to develop.
In fact, the property appears not once but twice in the General Plan Housing Element report. In one iteration, it appears as the 17th rated property (Green light) and in the other as the 22nd rated property (Yellow light).
But the very reason Nishi has two iterations is the very reason why it is probably not a good site to develop at this point in time.
The reason that Nishi is a questionable location is that it has but one route into the core of the city via motor vehicle and that is along Olive Drive. Now the problem with Olive Drive is that it feeds into the heavily congested Richards Blvd. That is the most congested area of town and to put a location with a minimum of 1150 beds on that route is begging for trouble.
That is why the higher rated project does not even have access to Olive Drive. It would have vehicle access only through the university. So now you are putting a likely student development next the university which has no direct access to the city via motor vehicle.
The promoters of this project suggest this as a great way to enhance pedestrian and bike traffic from this site into the core of downtown. I do not knock the ideal of such a set up. But the fact that we would have to go through all of this just for a development leads me to question the usefulness of this development.
The HESC report suggests a number of things are needed in order for this arrangement and site to be explored. First, it would require UC Davis involvement which included granting access via car to campus. You would then have to analyze traffic, mitigation, and car management strategies for traffic toward campus. Remember we are talking over a thousand cars potentially being funneled through campus. We would have the relinquish the existing access easement to Olive Drive.
Do not get me wrong, none of these are deal breakers. Even the worst aspects of Nishi aside from the poor vehicular access to the core–noise from the railroad and the freeway and the fact that it is prime agricultural land–are not deal breakers.
However, the question remains whether student housing, and that is what we are talking about with Nishi primarily, student housing, would not be better utilized at a different location on campus.
We all have dreams about encouraging people to use alternative forms of transportation. This is not encouragement. This would be literally forcing people to do just that. If want to develop close to downtown, the PG&E site and an area just on campus would make far more sense than Nishi. Neither of those sites are encumbered by lack of traffic access and yet, because of their proximity to the downtown they would do the same thing.
Intentionally designing areas that are cut off via motor vehicle from other areas is asking for problems.
The real question is would these areas be promoted if they were not Whitcombe sponsored projects? Many people have questioned a decision not to accept money for developers, but the nice thing about not accepting money from the developers is that there is no question in anyone’s mind about the promotion of one property over another. Sue Greenwald can promote the PG&E site because not only is she not taking money from a developer, but there is no one actively promoting it.
People are concerned about student housing and housing overall. The question is really, where is it best to develop. I think we need to look within our current borders to achieve our housing needs. I also think that we need to work with the university as a means to meeting the needs of students. UC Davis has one of the lowest on campus housing percentages in the UC System. And yet at the same time, UC Davis has a lot more land available to meet those needs than the city.
Creating an area in the city, cut off from the city has inherent problems. That’s why this centrally located site only rated 17. Having it connected to the city, presents more problems. At this point, developing Nishi has too many drawbacks. There are simply other areas, more conveniently located, that would do the same thing as Nishi. And yet, because it is associated with John Whitcombe, Nishi will always be on someone’s radar.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I have another question. What impact will the UCD West Village project have on the need for more student housing? Would we really need student housing at Nishi if West Village is going to provide a sizeable amount already? If we will need more student housing despite that provided by West Village, just how much more will be necessary?
Developers are out to make money. They are a business, and that is what businesses do. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, developers do not necessarily look out for the best interests of the city – that is the duty of the City Council and its various Commissions. The City Council needs to be far more careful in not allowing growth to be developer driven, as it has in the past.
That is what got us one too many schools built. Developers promised the construction of schools within their proposed housing development, not knowing if there would be enough funding for operating expenses. It doesn’t look as if either the School Board or City Council took that issue into account. And voila – you have the closing of Valley Oak. Emerson is slated to be next on the chopping block.
I have another question. What impact will the UCD West Village project have on the need for more student housing? Would we really need student housing at Nishi if West Village is going to provide a sizeable amount already? If we will need more student housing despite that provided by West Village, just how much more will be necessary?
Developers are out to make money. They are a business, and that is what businesses do. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, developers do not necessarily look out for the best interests of the city – that is the duty of the City Council and its various Commissions. The City Council needs to be far more careful in not allowing growth to be developer driven, as it has in the past.
That is what got us one too many schools built. Developers promised the construction of schools within their proposed housing development, not knowing if there would be enough funding for operating expenses. It doesn’t look as if either the School Board or City Council took that issue into account. And voila – you have the closing of Valley Oak. Emerson is slated to be next on the chopping block.
I have another question. What impact will the UCD West Village project have on the need for more student housing? Would we really need student housing at Nishi if West Village is going to provide a sizeable amount already? If we will need more student housing despite that provided by West Village, just how much more will be necessary?
Developers are out to make money. They are a business, and that is what businesses do. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, developers do not necessarily look out for the best interests of the city – that is the duty of the City Council and its various Commissions. The City Council needs to be far more careful in not allowing growth to be developer driven, as it has in the past.
That is what got us one too many schools built. Developers promised the construction of schools within their proposed housing development, not knowing if there would be enough funding for operating expenses. It doesn’t look as if either the School Board or City Council took that issue into account. And voila – you have the closing of Valley Oak. Emerson is slated to be next on the chopping block.
I have another question. What impact will the UCD West Village project have on the need for more student housing? Would we really need student housing at Nishi if West Village is going to provide a sizeable amount already? If we will need more student housing despite that provided by West Village, just how much more will be necessary?
Developers are out to make money. They are a business, and that is what businesses do. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, developers do not necessarily look out for the best interests of the city – that is the duty of the City Council and its various Commissions. The City Council needs to be far more careful in not allowing growth to be developer driven, as it has in the past.
That is what got us one too many schools built. Developers promised the construction of schools within their proposed housing development, not knowing if there would be enough funding for operating expenses. It doesn’t look as if either the School Board or City Council took that issue into account. And voila – you have the closing of Valley Oak. Emerson is slated to be next on the chopping block.
“Nishi is not infill development”
Independent of the argument against development (which you make well), it’s an abuse of the language to say Nishi wouldn’t be infill. One would have to pretend UCD and I80 didn’t exist to consider this peripheral development.
“Nishi is not infill development”
Independent of the argument against development (which you make well), it’s an abuse of the language to say Nishi wouldn’t be infill. One would have to pretend UCD and I80 didn’t exist to consider this peripheral development.
“Nishi is not infill development”
Independent of the argument against development (which you make well), it’s an abuse of the language to say Nishi wouldn’t be infill. One would have to pretend UCD and I80 didn’t exist to consider this peripheral development.
“Nishi is not infill development”
Independent of the argument against development (which you make well), it’s an abuse of the language to say Nishi wouldn’t be infill. One would have to pretend UCD and I80 didn’t exist to consider this peripheral development.
By definition it is not infill if it outside of the city limits and requires a Measure J vote.
By definition it is not infill if it outside of the city limits and requires a Measure J vote.
By definition it is not infill if it outside of the city limits and requires a Measure J vote.
By definition it is not infill if it outside of the city limits and requires a Measure J vote.
More formalized definition of infill:
“Infill development is the economic use of vacant land, or restoration or rehabilitation of existing structures or infrastructure, in already urbanized areas where water, sewer, and other public services are in place, that maintains the continuity of the original community fabric.”
More formalized definition of infill:
“Infill development is the economic use of vacant land, or restoration or rehabilitation of existing structures or infrastructure, in already urbanized areas where water, sewer, and other public services are in place, that maintains the continuity of the original community fabric.”
More formalized definition of infill:
“Infill development is the economic use of vacant land, or restoration or rehabilitation of existing structures or infrastructure, in already urbanized areas where water, sewer, and other public services are in place, that maintains the continuity of the original community fabric.”
More formalized definition of infill:
“Infill development is the economic use of vacant land, or restoration or rehabilitation of existing structures or infrastructure, in already urbanized areas where water, sewer, and other public services are in place, that maintains the continuity of the original community fabric.”
I think it would be useful if DPD and the “Progressive” candidates come up with a list of infill projects they would actually support. That would provide a more realistic contribution to the debate about growth and housing needs than continually nitpicking and shooting down every project that comes up (Nishi, 3rd & B, etc). It is always possible to pick off a couple of points to use to criticize. Where is the positive analysis?
I think it would be useful if DPD and the “Progressive” candidates come up with a list of infill projects they would actually support. That would provide a more realistic contribution to the debate about growth and housing needs than continually nitpicking and shooting down every project that comes up (Nishi, 3rd & B, etc). It is always possible to pick off a couple of points to use to criticize. Where is the positive analysis?
I think it would be useful if DPD and the “Progressive” candidates come up with a list of infill projects they would actually support. That would provide a more realistic contribution to the debate about growth and housing needs than continually nitpicking and shooting down every project that comes up (Nishi, 3rd & B, etc). It is always possible to pick off a couple of points to use to criticize. Where is the positive analysis?
I think it would be useful if DPD and the “Progressive” candidates come up with a list of infill projects they would actually support. That would provide a more realistic contribution to the debate about growth and housing needs than continually nitpicking and shooting down every project that comes up (Nishi, 3rd & B, etc). It is always possible to pick off a couple of points to use to criticize. Where is the positive analysis?
I am really happy that you brought this up, DPD (David Greenwald). While the PG&E site is superior in every way, from access, safety, quiet, air quality and proximity to train station and proximity to core downtown, it has been continually dismissed and denigrated by Don Steve Saylor and Souza.
It is also true that it is not owned by one of their friends or patrons. I know this sounds harsh, but this issue is very important to me.
The PG&E site is far and away the most exciting infill site in Davis. It defines smart growth. The main reason that I decided to run a third term of what is for me a 60 hour a week unpaid job is to try to get this project underway.
This site has potential to be magnificent high density condo neighborhood, and has potential to go “up”, since 27 acres can be master planned without hurting existing historic neighborhoods. It already has a tree-lined boulevard effect connecting the few short blocks to downtown. This boulevard pedestrian and bike corridor could be enhanced, made attractive for wheel-chairs, and provide an immeasurably improved quality of life for those who can’t drive.
High density housing, with a focus on ownership housing, would also provide a major year-round customer base for downtown, which would provide a basis for a greater variety of retail, arts, entertainment and dining, which would benefit everyone, including students, who care about more entertainment and retail options in a great environment.
Despite the focus of housing “anyway but PG&E” by the council majority (unless of course the land is owned by Steve Guidaro or some other non-friend (again, I hate to be harsh, but the aforementioned predisposition is detrimentally affecting our land use decisions), if citizens really get behind this project, I believe it will happen.
I am really happy that you brought this up, DPD (David Greenwald). While the PG&E site is superior in every way, from access, safety, quiet, air quality and proximity to train station and proximity to core downtown, it has been continually dismissed and denigrated by Don Steve Saylor and Souza.
It is also true that it is not owned by one of their friends or patrons. I know this sounds harsh, but this issue is very important to me.
The PG&E site is far and away the most exciting infill site in Davis. It defines smart growth. The main reason that I decided to run a third term of what is for me a 60 hour a week unpaid job is to try to get this project underway.
This site has potential to be magnificent high density condo neighborhood, and has potential to go “up”, since 27 acres can be master planned without hurting existing historic neighborhoods. It already has a tree-lined boulevard effect connecting the few short blocks to downtown. This boulevard pedestrian and bike corridor could be enhanced, made attractive for wheel-chairs, and provide an immeasurably improved quality of life for those who can’t drive.
High density housing, with a focus on ownership housing, would also provide a major year-round customer base for downtown, which would provide a basis for a greater variety of retail, arts, entertainment and dining, which would benefit everyone, including students, who care about more entertainment and retail options in a great environment.
Despite the focus of housing “anyway but PG&E” by the council majority (unless of course the land is owned by Steve Guidaro or some other non-friend (again, I hate to be harsh, but the aforementioned predisposition is detrimentally affecting our land use decisions), if citizens really get behind this project, I believe it will happen.
I am really happy that you brought this up, DPD (David Greenwald). While the PG&E site is superior in every way, from access, safety, quiet, air quality and proximity to train station and proximity to core downtown, it has been continually dismissed and denigrated by Don Steve Saylor and Souza.
It is also true that it is not owned by one of their friends or patrons. I know this sounds harsh, but this issue is very important to me.
The PG&E site is far and away the most exciting infill site in Davis. It defines smart growth. The main reason that I decided to run a third term of what is for me a 60 hour a week unpaid job is to try to get this project underway.
This site has potential to be magnificent high density condo neighborhood, and has potential to go “up”, since 27 acres can be master planned without hurting existing historic neighborhoods. It already has a tree-lined boulevard effect connecting the few short blocks to downtown. This boulevard pedestrian and bike corridor could be enhanced, made attractive for wheel-chairs, and provide an immeasurably improved quality of life for those who can’t drive.
High density housing, with a focus on ownership housing, would also provide a major year-round customer base for downtown, which would provide a basis for a greater variety of retail, arts, entertainment and dining, which would benefit everyone, including students, who care about more entertainment and retail options in a great environment.
Despite the focus of housing “anyway but PG&E” by the council majority (unless of course the land is owned by Steve Guidaro or some other non-friend (again, I hate to be harsh, but the aforementioned predisposition is detrimentally affecting our land use decisions), if citizens really get behind this project, I believe it will happen.
I am really happy that you brought this up, DPD (David Greenwald). While the PG&E site is superior in every way, from access, safety, quiet, air quality and proximity to train station and proximity to core downtown, it has been continually dismissed and denigrated by Don Steve Saylor and Souza.
It is also true that it is not owned by one of their friends or patrons. I know this sounds harsh, but this issue is very important to me.
The PG&E site is far and away the most exciting infill site in Davis. It defines smart growth. The main reason that I decided to run a third term of what is for me a 60 hour a week unpaid job is to try to get this project underway.
This site has potential to be magnificent high density condo neighborhood, and has potential to go “up”, since 27 acres can be master planned without hurting existing historic neighborhoods. It already has a tree-lined boulevard effect connecting the few short blocks to downtown. This boulevard pedestrian and bike corridor could be enhanced, made attractive for wheel-chairs, and provide an immeasurably improved quality of life for those who can’t drive.
High density housing, with a focus on ownership housing, would also provide a major year-round customer base for downtown, which would provide a basis for a greater variety of retail, arts, entertainment and dining, which would benefit everyone, including students, who care about more entertainment and retail options in a great environment.
Despite the focus of housing “anyway but PG&E” by the council majority (unless of course the land is owned by Steve Guidaro or some other non-friend (again, I hate to be harsh, but the aforementioned predisposition is detrimentally affecting our land use decisions), if citizens really get behind this project, I believe it will happen.
The only things they are in favor of is anything they constrains growth to boost their property values. Let’s face it, that is all these people care about.
The only things they are in favor of is anything they constrains growth to boost their property values. Let’s face it, that is all these people care about.
The only things they are in favor of is anything they constrains growth to boost their property values. Let’s face it, that is all these people care about.
The only things they are in favor of is anything they constrains growth to boost their property values. Let’s face it, that is all these people care about.
I’m sure the goal of Lamar, Cecilia, and Rob Roy is to enhance their property values.
I’m sure the goal of Lamar, Cecilia, and Rob Roy is to enhance their property values.
I’m sure the goal of Lamar, Cecilia, and Rob Roy is to enhance their property values.
I’m sure the goal of Lamar, Cecilia, and Rob Roy is to enhance their property values.
“I think it would be useful if DPD and the “Progressive” candidates come up with a list of infill projects they would actually support.”
We had this debate already, and some of that is embedded in the findings of the HESC. Most of the top sites, the progressives on the steering committee supported the ones toward the top of the list.
HESC Report
Now we need to be clear that these are sites, not projects. The sites here seem to be good places to develop in the near future. The projects on those sites however could be good or bad.
“I think it would be useful if DPD and the “Progressive” candidates come up with a list of infill projects they would actually support.”
We had this debate already, and some of that is embedded in the findings of the HESC. Most of the top sites, the progressives on the steering committee supported the ones toward the top of the list.
HESC Report
Now we need to be clear that these are sites, not projects. The sites here seem to be good places to develop in the near future. The projects on those sites however could be good or bad.
“I think it would be useful if DPD and the “Progressive” candidates come up with a list of infill projects they would actually support.”
We had this debate already, and some of that is embedded in the findings of the HESC. Most of the top sites, the progressives on the steering committee supported the ones toward the top of the list.
HESC Report
Now we need to be clear that these are sites, not projects. The sites here seem to be good places to develop in the near future. The projects on those sites however could be good or bad.
“I think it would be useful if DPD and the “Progressive” candidates come up with a list of infill projects they would actually support.”
We had this debate already, and some of that is embedded in the findings of the HESC. Most of the top sites, the progressives on the steering committee supported the ones toward the top of the list.
HESC Report
Now we need to be clear that these are sites, not projects. The sites here seem to be good places to develop in the near future. The projects on those sites however could be good or bad.
Ok. Sue has been clear in what she supports. Where does Cecilia stand? Which infill projects/sites, would she support for development?
Ok. Sue has been clear in what she supports. Where does Cecilia stand? Which infill projects/sites, would she support for development?
Ok. Sue has been clear in what she supports. Where does Cecilia stand? Which infill projects/sites, would she support for development?
Ok. Sue has been clear in what she supports. Where does Cecilia stand? Which infill projects/sites, would she support for development?
Nishi would be a good location for student housing, but it needs to have better access. This in turn re-raises the debate over the Richards underpass.
Any development their would need to have a mandate that the developer include two more points of entry…which would be paid for by the developer.
However, I think PG&E is a better place to start. Its already developed and has better access to big streets and existing bus lines.
Nishi would be a good location for student housing, but it needs to have better access. This in turn re-raises the debate over the Richards underpass.
Any development their would need to have a mandate that the developer include two more points of entry…which would be paid for by the developer.
However, I think PG&E is a better place to start. Its already developed and has better access to big streets and existing bus lines.
Nishi would be a good location for student housing, but it needs to have better access. This in turn re-raises the debate over the Richards underpass.
Any development their would need to have a mandate that the developer include two more points of entry…which would be paid for by the developer.
However, I think PG&E is a better place to start. Its already developed and has better access to big streets and existing bus lines.
Nishi would be a good location for student housing, but it needs to have better access. This in turn re-raises the debate over the Richards underpass.
Any development their would need to have a mandate that the developer include two more points of entry…which would be paid for by the developer.
However, I think PG&E is a better place to start. Its already developed and has better access to big streets and existing bus lines.
I’m not sure what UC Davis’s current policy is on allowing freshmen to have cars, but I know many colleges and universities prohibit them from doing so. I think, for those living on or very near campus, this is a great idea.
And that ties into my thoughts on the Nishi property. It is in a terrible location for anyone who needs or relies on a car for transportation. Not only would someone have to go through the heavily congested Richards Blvd underpass, but West Olive Drive is not built to handle any more automotive traffic than it already has.
However, the Nishi Property*, if there is a need for more dormitories for underclassmen, is a great location for that usage. The access by bicycle under the railroad tracks is perfect to campus and to downtown. I would suggest allowing dorms and some greenspace to be built there, only on the condition that no residents be allowed to have cars. (Easily enough done if there are no parking spaces for the residents.) That lot is pretty large, and could accommodate easily 2,000 kids plus a lot of open park space.
The issues with noise (from the railroad and the freeway) present interesting, but solvable problems. I have long advocated we (in California) construct large, thick soundwalls made of rice straw (which is waste material). If we permit construction on the Nishi land, this would be a good test site for straw-bale sound walls, something I think ultimately should be done for all new soundwalls near freeways in California.
* I grew up with the Nishi kids. Mitch Nishi was in my class in school and I played baseball with his brother, Daryl. I don’t know if the family still owns that land, but my feelings in what should be done with the property are not influenced by any personal feelings I have toward the Nishis.
For those who don’t know, the Nishis are long-time local residents and farmers. I recall that their family members were forced into internment camps (with all the other Japanese-Americans in WWII) and they lost their property. As such, all they have had to be rebuilt after the War.
I’m not sure what UC Davis’s current policy is on allowing freshmen to have cars, but I know many colleges and universities prohibit them from doing so. I think, for those living on or very near campus, this is a great idea.
And that ties into my thoughts on the Nishi property. It is in a terrible location for anyone who needs or relies on a car for transportation. Not only would someone have to go through the heavily congested Richards Blvd underpass, but West Olive Drive is not built to handle any more automotive traffic than it already has.
However, the Nishi Property*, if there is a need for more dormitories for underclassmen, is a great location for that usage. The access by bicycle under the railroad tracks is perfect to campus and to downtown. I would suggest allowing dorms and some greenspace to be built there, only on the condition that no residents be allowed to have cars. (Easily enough done if there are no parking spaces for the residents.) That lot is pretty large, and could accommodate easily 2,000 kids plus a lot of open park space.
The issues with noise (from the railroad and the freeway) present interesting, but solvable problems. I have long advocated we (in California) construct large, thick soundwalls made of rice straw (which is waste material). If we permit construction on the Nishi land, this would be a good test site for straw-bale sound walls, something I think ultimately should be done for all new soundwalls near freeways in California.
* I grew up with the Nishi kids. Mitch Nishi was in my class in school and I played baseball with his brother, Daryl. I don’t know if the family still owns that land, but my feelings in what should be done with the property are not influenced by any personal feelings I have toward the Nishis.
For those who don’t know, the Nishis are long-time local residents and farmers. I recall that their family members were forced into internment camps (with all the other Japanese-Americans in WWII) and they lost their property. As such, all they have had to be rebuilt after the War.
I’m not sure what UC Davis’s current policy is on allowing freshmen to have cars, but I know many colleges and universities prohibit them from doing so. I think, for those living on or very near campus, this is a great idea.
And that ties into my thoughts on the Nishi property. It is in a terrible location for anyone who needs or relies on a car for transportation. Not only would someone have to go through the heavily congested Richards Blvd underpass, but West Olive Drive is not built to handle any more automotive traffic than it already has.
However, the Nishi Property*, if there is a need for more dormitories for underclassmen, is a great location for that usage. The access by bicycle under the railroad tracks is perfect to campus and to downtown. I would suggest allowing dorms and some greenspace to be built there, only on the condition that no residents be allowed to have cars. (Easily enough done if there are no parking spaces for the residents.) That lot is pretty large, and could accommodate easily 2,000 kids plus a lot of open park space.
The issues with noise (from the railroad and the freeway) present interesting, but solvable problems. I have long advocated we (in California) construct large, thick soundwalls made of rice straw (which is waste material). If we permit construction on the Nishi land, this would be a good test site for straw-bale sound walls, something I think ultimately should be done for all new soundwalls near freeways in California.
* I grew up with the Nishi kids. Mitch Nishi was in my class in school and I played baseball with his brother, Daryl. I don’t know if the family still owns that land, but my feelings in what should be done with the property are not influenced by any personal feelings I have toward the Nishis.
For those who don’t know, the Nishis are long-time local residents and farmers. I recall that their family members were forced into internment camps (with all the other Japanese-Americans in WWII) and they lost their property. As such, all they have had to be rebuilt after the War.
I’m not sure what UC Davis’s current policy is on allowing freshmen to have cars, but I know many colleges and universities prohibit them from doing so. I think, for those living on or very near campus, this is a great idea.
And that ties into my thoughts on the Nishi property. It is in a terrible location for anyone who needs or relies on a car for transportation. Not only would someone have to go through the heavily congested Richards Blvd underpass, but West Olive Drive is not built to handle any more automotive traffic than it already has.
However, the Nishi Property*, if there is a need for more dormitories for underclassmen, is a great location for that usage. The access by bicycle under the railroad tracks is perfect to campus and to downtown. I would suggest allowing dorms and some greenspace to be built there, only on the condition that no residents be allowed to have cars. (Easily enough done if there are no parking spaces for the residents.) That lot is pretty large, and could accommodate easily 2,000 kids plus a lot of open park space.
The issues with noise (from the railroad and the freeway) present interesting, but solvable problems. I have long advocated we (in California) construct large, thick soundwalls made of rice straw (which is waste material). If we permit construction on the Nishi land, this would be a good test site for straw-bale sound walls, something I think ultimately should be done for all new soundwalls near freeways in California.
* I grew up with the Nishi kids. Mitch Nishi was in my class in school and I played baseball with his brother, Daryl. I don’t know if the family still owns that land, but my feelings in what should be done with the property are not influenced by any personal feelings I have toward the Nishis.
For those who don’t know, the Nishis are long-time local residents and farmers. I recall that their family members were forced into internment camps (with all the other Japanese-Americans in WWII) and they lost their property. As such, all they have had to be rebuilt after the War.
The reason the Richards underpass debate has largely gone away is that people realized that Richards underpass acts as a siphon to traffic. It puts the congestion on Richards. Without the underpass the congestion would be the dumping of a four lane thoroughfare onto streets designed to be small-town two lane roads.
Watching what has happened on Russell, and the danger it presents, I’m not inclined to expand Richards.
I do think the person who had the idea of the parking structure on the other side of Olive, had a good idea, that would greatly help congestion under the underpass and into downtown.
The reason the Richards underpass debate has largely gone away is that people realized that Richards underpass acts as a siphon to traffic. It puts the congestion on Richards. Without the underpass the congestion would be the dumping of a four lane thoroughfare onto streets designed to be small-town two lane roads.
Watching what has happened on Russell, and the danger it presents, I’m not inclined to expand Richards.
I do think the person who had the idea of the parking structure on the other side of Olive, had a good idea, that would greatly help congestion under the underpass and into downtown.
The reason the Richards underpass debate has largely gone away is that people realized that Richards underpass acts as a siphon to traffic. It puts the congestion on Richards. Without the underpass the congestion would be the dumping of a four lane thoroughfare onto streets designed to be small-town two lane roads.
Watching what has happened on Russell, and the danger it presents, I’m not inclined to expand Richards.
I do think the person who had the idea of the parking structure on the other side of Olive, had a good idea, that would greatly help congestion under the underpass and into downtown.
The reason the Richards underpass debate has largely gone away is that people realized that Richards underpass acts as a siphon to traffic. It puts the congestion on Richards. Without the underpass the congestion would be the dumping of a four lane thoroughfare onto streets designed to be small-town two lane roads.
Watching what has happened on Russell, and the danger it presents, I’m not inclined to expand Richards.
I do think the person who had the idea of the parking structure on the other side of Olive, had a good idea, that would greatly help congestion under the underpass and into downtown.
Questioning said…
…. Would we really need student housing at Nishi if West Village is going to provide a sizeable amount already?
——
Yes. West Village will house about 60% of the increase in UCD student population over the next several years. The remaining students will increase the already tight rental market.
I think Nishi would be an excellent site for dorms and apartments, and that the access problem is solvable. I hope city staff can negotiate tough access requirements with the developer, and that the university will cooperate. I think PG&E is an even better site for development, but don’t see why this is being posed as an either/or situation.
I don’t really care who the developer is, but Whitcombe does a great job locally. I’m sure he can work with the site requirements and still make a profit.
Questioning said…
…. Would we really need student housing at Nishi if West Village is going to provide a sizeable amount already?
——
Yes. West Village will house about 60% of the increase in UCD student population over the next several years. The remaining students will increase the already tight rental market.
I think Nishi would be an excellent site for dorms and apartments, and that the access problem is solvable. I hope city staff can negotiate tough access requirements with the developer, and that the university will cooperate. I think PG&E is an even better site for development, but don’t see why this is being posed as an either/or situation.
I don’t really care who the developer is, but Whitcombe does a great job locally. I’m sure he can work with the site requirements and still make a profit.
Questioning said…
…. Would we really need student housing at Nishi if West Village is going to provide a sizeable amount already?
——
Yes. West Village will house about 60% of the increase in UCD student population over the next several years. The remaining students will increase the already tight rental market.
I think Nishi would be an excellent site for dorms and apartments, and that the access problem is solvable. I hope city staff can negotiate tough access requirements with the developer, and that the university will cooperate. I think PG&E is an even better site for development, but don’t see why this is being posed as an either/or situation.
I don’t really care who the developer is, but Whitcombe does a great job locally. I’m sure he can work with the site requirements and still make a profit.
Questioning said…
…. Would we really need student housing at Nishi if West Village is going to provide a sizeable amount already?
——
Yes. West Village will house about 60% of the increase in UCD student population over the next several years. The remaining students will increase the already tight rental market.
I think Nishi would be an excellent site for dorms and apartments, and that the access problem is solvable. I hope city staff can negotiate tough access requirements with the developer, and that the university will cooperate. I think PG&E is an even better site for development, but don’t see why this is being posed as an either/or situation.
I don’t really care who the developer is, but Whitcombe does a great job locally. I’m sure he can work with the site requirements and still make a profit.
I think a better site for additional student housing is on the core campus on the safe side of the railroad tracks. Sproul Hall is about 9 or 10 stories tall, so mid-rise, small footprint dorms would not be out of place. When I was a freshman at Berkeley, I lived in a 10 story dorm, which was quite nice. Alternatively, there is also room on campus for lower dorms.
I think it is simply too dangerous and noisy, and access is too limited, to build housing on the Nishi. I could see some non-labor intensive high tech there, as a conditional use if shifts were timed for off-peak hours.
1) Safety. I serve on the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers authority, and the executive director is very unhappy about housing near the tracks, let alone on side opposite destinations. The number of deaths on the railroad tracks is huge. I was told that Union Pacific would likely object as well. The executive director of the capitol corridor JPA said that the frontage along the tracks is far too long to be served safely by only one bike underpass.
2) Noise. To make this project pencil out, the developer said that it would have to be very dense. This pushes many units right up against the track. Freight trains are going to be running nights in the future, in a deal to make way for passenger trains. The noise and vibration would be major and continual.
3) Access. Since delivery trucks , maintenance workers, staff, and visitors would need automobile access, I don’t think you really ban cars from Richards. And students do drive, the campus is large, and many women students have to work late night hours in labs far from Nishi. I think it is unrealistic to assume that this high-density development could limit car access to Richards. Building another car access to the UCD-I-80 exit would be cost prohibitive.
I think a better site for additional student housing is on the core campus on the safe side of the railroad tracks. Sproul Hall is about 9 or 10 stories tall, so mid-rise, small footprint dorms would not be out of place. When I was a freshman at Berkeley, I lived in a 10 story dorm, which was quite nice. Alternatively, there is also room on campus for lower dorms.
I think it is simply too dangerous and noisy, and access is too limited, to build housing on the Nishi. I could see some non-labor intensive high tech there, as a conditional use if shifts were timed for off-peak hours.
1) Safety. I serve on the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers authority, and the executive director is very unhappy about housing near the tracks, let alone on side opposite destinations. The number of deaths on the railroad tracks is huge. I was told that Union Pacific would likely object as well. The executive director of the capitol corridor JPA said that the frontage along the tracks is far too long to be served safely by only one bike underpass.
2) Noise. To make this project pencil out, the developer said that it would have to be very dense. This pushes many units right up against the track. Freight trains are going to be running nights in the future, in a deal to make way for passenger trains. The noise and vibration would be major and continual.
3) Access. Since delivery trucks , maintenance workers, staff, and visitors would need automobile access, I don’t think you really ban cars from Richards. And students do drive, the campus is large, and many women students have to work late night hours in labs far from Nishi. I think it is unrealistic to assume that this high-density development could limit car access to Richards. Building another car access to the UCD-I-80 exit would be cost prohibitive.
I think a better site for additional student housing is on the core campus on the safe side of the railroad tracks. Sproul Hall is about 9 or 10 stories tall, so mid-rise, small footprint dorms would not be out of place. When I was a freshman at Berkeley, I lived in a 10 story dorm, which was quite nice. Alternatively, there is also room on campus for lower dorms.
I think it is simply too dangerous and noisy, and access is too limited, to build housing on the Nishi. I could see some non-labor intensive high tech there, as a conditional use if shifts were timed for off-peak hours.
1) Safety. I serve on the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers authority, and the executive director is very unhappy about housing near the tracks, let alone on side opposite destinations. The number of deaths on the railroad tracks is huge. I was told that Union Pacific would likely object as well. The executive director of the capitol corridor JPA said that the frontage along the tracks is far too long to be served safely by only one bike underpass.
2) Noise. To make this project pencil out, the developer said that it would have to be very dense. This pushes many units right up against the track. Freight trains are going to be running nights in the future, in a deal to make way for passenger trains. The noise and vibration would be major and continual.
3) Access. Since delivery trucks , maintenance workers, staff, and visitors would need automobile access, I don’t think you really ban cars from Richards. And students do drive, the campus is large, and many women students have to work late night hours in labs far from Nishi. I think it is unrealistic to assume that this high-density development could limit car access to Richards. Building another car access to the UCD-I-80 exit would be cost prohibitive.
I think a better site for additional student housing is on the core campus on the safe side of the railroad tracks. Sproul Hall is about 9 or 10 stories tall, so mid-rise, small footprint dorms would not be out of place. When I was a freshman at Berkeley, I lived in a 10 story dorm, which was quite nice. Alternatively, there is also room on campus for lower dorms.
I think it is simply too dangerous and noisy, and access is too limited, to build housing on the Nishi. I could see some non-labor intensive high tech there, as a conditional use if shifts were timed for off-peak hours.
1) Safety. I serve on the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers authority, and the executive director is very unhappy about housing near the tracks, let alone on side opposite destinations. The number of deaths on the railroad tracks is huge. I was told that Union Pacific would likely object as well. The executive director of the capitol corridor JPA said that the frontage along the tracks is far too long to be served safely by only one bike underpass.
2) Noise. To make this project pencil out, the developer said that it would have to be very dense. This pushes many units right up against the track. Freight trains are going to be running nights in the future, in a deal to make way for passenger trains. The noise and vibration would be major and continual.
3) Access. Since delivery trucks , maintenance workers, staff, and visitors would need automobile access, I don’t think you really ban cars from Richards. And students do drive, the campus is large, and many women students have to work late night hours in labs far from Nishi. I think it is unrealistic to assume that this high-density development could limit car access to Richards. Building another car access to the UCD-I-80 exit would be cost prohibitive.
The question is simple: Do we want a significant amount high density, mid-rise housing within walking distance of the downtown and UCD, or not? Do we want to advance walkable urbanity, which is by far the most ecologically sensitive form or development, or not?
Every source will tell you that these types of development are not easy. The costs are high, as are the risks to the developers. Most such projects can only proceed with huge subsidies. The L Street Lofts in Sacramento (240 small units) got at least $16 million in subsidies from the City of Sacramento.
PG&E vs. Nishi?
Mayor Greenwald says that PG&E is superior to Nishi in every way, “from access, safety, quiet, air quality and proximity to train station and proximity to core downtown…”
With all possible respect, all six of these points are incorrect, or at least stretching logic to its limit.
Location:
PG&E is not within walking distance of either the vast majority of the Core or UCD. Under the standards used by planners, only the first few buildings in the Core are within “walking distance” of PG&E (i.e. the hardware stores and the Signature theaters, and a few resturants.
Nishi, by contrast is within walking distance of virtually the entire Core Area, Central Park, the Train Station, Mondavi Center, and a large part of the UCD campus all the way to the Quad.
The first thing you come to when you leave Nishi and cross under the tracks on the existing pedestrian/bike under crossing is the Borders Mall, literally 60 seconds walk from the site. The next thing, 60 seconds later, are the theaters, art galleries, pubs, and restaurants, etc. of the Core Area.
The first thing you get to when you leave PG&E is a block of mostly student housing. The next thing is another block of mostly student housing. And the next thing is another block of mostly student housing. Its not until you cross the tracks, at the very edge of a “walkable” distance, that you get to the hardware store.
PG&E IS within walking distance of the Train Station, which is a definite plus… But so is Nishi. Go measure.
Air Quality: The Nishi site is large enough so that up to 1000 units could be placed more than 500 feet from the freeway. At that distance, any planner will tell you that air quality effects from the Freeway are virtually non-existent (this occurs at 300 feet, really). And lets not forget that PG&E is pretty close to the freeway, close enough that the Housing Committee recommended that no housing be built of the Southern half of the site. Further, indoor air quality issues are among the easiest and cheapest to mitigate with inexpensive and almost perfectly effective upgrades to air filtrations systems.
Safety: If the issue is the tracks, a fence would do wonders. At any rate, there are literally thousands of housing units (student and otherwise) along the tracks between East and Central Davis, and I don’t recall ever (in 40 years) hearing of a major incident in that area. I don’t see how this could reasonably be considered a “litmus test” issue.
Noise: The freeway would not be an issue noise-wise because it would be far away from the housing, and obviously buffered by normal planning tools. The train noise, which is an issue for BOTH PG&E (tracks right across the street) and Nishi (tracks along Northern edge), would be mitigated by buffering, possible soundwalls, and construction techniques. However, Nishi has the clear advantage here because the developers, with a low base cost for the land, could afford to build using structural steel and concrete, while there is absolutely no way that would “pencil” on PG&E. The improvement in indoor noise levels between wood vs. steel/concrete construction is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.
Access: PG&E has good access, assuming you think the people on the L Street and Pole Line corridors will go along quietly (big assumption). Nishi, on the other hand, currently has FOUR ACCESS POINTS. (1) An at-grade crossing over the tracks to Arboretum Drive. (2) A full 60 foot right of way to Olive Drive. (3) A two lane grade separated crossing under Highway 80 to South Davis wide enough to host two additional bike paths. And (4) A grade separated bike path along the arboretum to the Core Area under the tracks. (Shouldn’t we make use of the millions we’ve already spent on these projects?) As it is, access to Nishi is acceptable, though people at Richards would be waiting a few seconds longer at rush hour. Planners will tell you that increased traffic is an unavoidable cost of REAL high density infill. But Nishi may be the exception to this rule. If the Nishi developers could secure a fifth access to the Mondavi Center area of UCD (as the Housing Committee desired), it could proceed with zero effect on Richards, or even IMPROVE traffic with proper design by diverting traffic away from the Richards Underpass. The developers stated during the Housing Committee process that this was NOT COST PROHIBITIVE, BUT A FUNCTION OF OBTAINING NECESSARY EASEMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES LIKE UCD AND THE RAILROAD (which may very well be possible).
PG&E is not a superior site, from a planning perspective. It is not “Core Area Housing.” It will not be walkable housing, but garden variety auto-centered units, no better or worse than the proposed project on the Simmons Property. To conclude PG&E is superior to Nishi, you need to place inappropriate weight on the imaginary line of the City Limit.
If the “progressives” really want to throw their lot in against a high density project at Nishi, they may be picking the wrong fight, especially when other standard urban subdivisions are progressing apace. Nishi may be a project that can REALLY improve Davis by providing a serious number of more urban style Core Area housing units, which are conspicuously missing from our current housing stock.
Given that Nishi is the only option in this regard, I think its pretty irresponsible that several candidates, like Cecilia Escamilia-Greenwald, have dismissed it out of hand.
The question is simple: Do we want a significant amount high density, mid-rise housing within walking distance of the downtown and UCD, or not? Do we want to advance walkable urbanity, which is by far the most ecologically sensitive form or development, or not?
Every source will tell you that these types of development are not easy. The costs are high, as are the risks to the developers. Most such projects can only proceed with huge subsidies. The L Street Lofts in Sacramento (240 small units) got at least $16 million in subsidies from the City of Sacramento.
PG&E vs. Nishi?
Mayor Greenwald says that PG&E is superior to Nishi in every way, “from access, safety, quiet, air quality and proximity to train station and proximity to core downtown…”
With all possible respect, all six of these points are incorrect, or at least stretching logic to its limit.
Location:
PG&E is not within walking distance of either the vast majority of the Core or UCD. Under the standards used by planners, only the first few buildings in the Core are within “walking distance” of PG&E (i.e. the hardware stores and the Signature theaters, and a few resturants.
Nishi, by contrast is within walking distance of virtually the entire Core Area, Central Park, the Train Station, Mondavi Center, and a large part of the UCD campus all the way to the Quad.
The first thing you come to when you leave Nishi and cross under the tracks on the existing pedestrian/bike under crossing is the Borders Mall, literally 60 seconds walk from the site. The next thing, 60 seconds later, are the theaters, art galleries, pubs, and restaurants, etc. of the Core Area.
The first thing you get to when you leave PG&E is a block of mostly student housing. The next thing is another block of mostly student housing. And the next thing is another block of mostly student housing. Its not until you cross the tracks, at the very edge of a “walkable” distance, that you get to the hardware store.
PG&E IS within walking distance of the Train Station, which is a definite plus… But so is Nishi. Go measure.
Air Quality: The Nishi site is large enough so that up to 1000 units could be placed more than 500 feet from the freeway. At that distance, any planner will tell you that air quality effects from the Freeway are virtually non-existent (this occurs at 300 feet, really). And lets not forget that PG&E is pretty close to the freeway, close enough that the Housing Committee recommended that no housing be built of the Southern half of the site. Further, indoor air quality issues are among the easiest and cheapest to mitigate with inexpensive and almost perfectly effective upgrades to air filtrations systems.
Safety: If the issue is the tracks, a fence would do wonders. At any rate, there are literally thousands of housing units (student and otherwise) along the tracks between East and Central Davis, and I don’t recall ever (in 40 years) hearing of a major incident in that area. I don’t see how this could reasonably be considered a “litmus test” issue.
Noise: The freeway would not be an issue noise-wise because it would be far away from the housing, and obviously buffered by normal planning tools. The train noise, which is an issue for BOTH PG&E (tracks right across the street) and Nishi (tracks along Northern edge), would be mitigated by buffering, possible soundwalls, and construction techniques. However, Nishi has the clear advantage here because the developers, with a low base cost for the land, could afford to build using structural steel and concrete, while there is absolutely no way that would “pencil” on PG&E. The improvement in indoor noise levels between wood vs. steel/concrete construction is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.
Access: PG&E has good access, assuming you think the people on the L Street and Pole Line corridors will go along quietly (big assumption). Nishi, on the other hand, currently has FOUR ACCESS POINTS. (1) An at-grade crossing over the tracks to Arboretum Drive. (2) A full 60 foot right of way to Olive Drive. (3) A two lane grade separated crossing under Highway 80 to South Davis wide enough to host two additional bike paths. And (4) A grade separated bike path along the arboretum to the Core Area under the tracks. (Shouldn’t we make use of the millions we’ve already spent on these projects?) As it is, access to Nishi is acceptable, though people at Richards would be waiting a few seconds longer at rush hour. Planners will tell you that increased traffic is an unavoidable cost of REAL high density infill. But Nishi may be the exception to this rule. If the Nishi developers could secure a fifth access to the Mondavi Center area of UCD (as the Housing Committee desired), it could proceed with zero effect on Richards, or even IMPROVE traffic with proper design by diverting traffic away from the Richards Underpass. The developers stated during the Housing Committee process that this was NOT COST PROHIBITIVE, BUT A FUNCTION OF OBTAINING NECESSARY EASEMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES LIKE UCD AND THE RAILROAD (which may very well be possible).
PG&E is not a superior site, from a planning perspective. It is not “Core Area Housing.” It will not be walkable housing, but garden variety auto-centered units, no better or worse than the proposed project on the Simmons Property. To conclude PG&E is superior to Nishi, you need to place inappropriate weight on the imaginary line of the City Limit.
If the “progressives” really want to throw their lot in against a high density project at Nishi, they may be picking the wrong fight, especially when other standard urban subdivisions are progressing apace. Nishi may be a project that can REALLY improve Davis by providing a serious number of more urban style Core Area housing units, which are conspicuously missing from our current housing stock.
Given that Nishi is the only option in this regard, I think its pretty irresponsible that several candidates, like Cecilia Escamilia-Greenwald, have dismissed it out of hand.
The question is simple: Do we want a significant amount high density, mid-rise housing within walking distance of the downtown and UCD, or not? Do we want to advance walkable urbanity, which is by far the most ecologically sensitive form or development, or not?
Every source will tell you that these types of development are not easy. The costs are high, as are the risks to the developers. Most such projects can only proceed with huge subsidies. The L Street Lofts in Sacramento (240 small units) got at least $16 million in subsidies from the City of Sacramento.
PG&E vs. Nishi?
Mayor Greenwald says that PG&E is superior to Nishi in every way, “from access, safety, quiet, air quality and proximity to train station and proximity to core downtown…”
With all possible respect, all six of these points are incorrect, or at least stretching logic to its limit.
Location:
PG&E is not within walking distance of either the vast majority of the Core or UCD. Under the standards used by planners, only the first few buildings in the Core are within “walking distance” of PG&E (i.e. the hardware stores and the Signature theaters, and a few resturants.
Nishi, by contrast is within walking distance of virtually the entire Core Area, Central Park, the Train Station, Mondavi Center, and a large part of the UCD campus all the way to the Quad.
The first thing you come to when you leave Nishi and cross under the tracks on the existing pedestrian/bike under crossing is the Borders Mall, literally 60 seconds walk from the site. The next thing, 60 seconds later, are the theaters, art galleries, pubs, and restaurants, etc. of the Core Area.
The first thing you get to when you leave PG&E is a block of mostly student housing. The next thing is another block of mostly student housing. And the next thing is another block of mostly student housing. Its not until you cross the tracks, at the very edge of a “walkable” distance, that you get to the hardware store.
PG&E IS within walking distance of the Train Station, which is a definite plus… But so is Nishi. Go measure.
Air Quality: The Nishi site is large enough so that up to 1000 units could be placed more than 500 feet from the freeway. At that distance, any planner will tell you that air quality effects from the Freeway are virtually non-existent (this occurs at 300 feet, really). And lets not forget that PG&E is pretty close to the freeway, close enough that the Housing Committee recommended that no housing be built of the Southern half of the site. Further, indoor air quality issues are among the easiest and cheapest to mitigate with inexpensive and almost perfectly effective upgrades to air filtrations systems.
Safety: If the issue is the tracks, a fence would do wonders. At any rate, there are literally thousands of housing units (student and otherwise) along the tracks between East and Central Davis, and I don’t recall ever (in 40 years) hearing of a major incident in that area. I don’t see how this could reasonably be considered a “litmus test” issue.
Noise: The freeway would not be an issue noise-wise because it would be far away from the housing, and obviously buffered by normal planning tools. The train noise, which is an issue for BOTH PG&E (tracks right across the street) and Nishi (tracks along Northern edge), would be mitigated by buffering, possible soundwalls, and construction techniques. However, Nishi has the clear advantage here because the developers, with a low base cost for the land, could afford to build using structural steel and concrete, while there is absolutely no way that would “pencil” on PG&E. The improvement in indoor noise levels between wood vs. steel/concrete construction is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.
Access: PG&E has good access, assuming you think the people on the L Street and Pole Line corridors will go along quietly (big assumption). Nishi, on the other hand, currently has FOUR ACCESS POINTS. (1) An at-grade crossing over the tracks to Arboretum Drive. (2) A full 60 foot right of way to Olive Drive. (3) A two lane grade separated crossing under Highway 80 to South Davis wide enough to host two additional bike paths. And (4) A grade separated bike path along the arboretum to the Core Area under the tracks. (Shouldn’t we make use of the millions we’ve already spent on these projects?) As it is, access to Nishi is acceptable, though people at Richards would be waiting a few seconds longer at rush hour. Planners will tell you that increased traffic is an unavoidable cost of REAL high density infill. But Nishi may be the exception to this rule. If the Nishi developers could secure a fifth access to the Mondavi Center area of UCD (as the Housing Committee desired), it could proceed with zero effect on Richards, or even IMPROVE traffic with proper design by diverting traffic away from the Richards Underpass. The developers stated during the Housing Committee process that this was NOT COST PROHIBITIVE, BUT A FUNCTION OF OBTAINING NECESSARY EASEMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES LIKE UCD AND THE RAILROAD (which may very well be possible).
PG&E is not a superior site, from a planning perspective. It is not “Core Area Housing.” It will not be walkable housing, but garden variety auto-centered units, no better or worse than the proposed project on the Simmons Property. To conclude PG&E is superior to Nishi, you need to place inappropriate weight on the imaginary line of the City Limit.
If the “progressives” really want to throw their lot in against a high density project at Nishi, they may be picking the wrong fight, especially when other standard urban subdivisions are progressing apace. Nishi may be a project that can REALLY improve Davis by providing a serious number of more urban style Core Area housing units, which are conspicuously missing from our current housing stock.
Given that Nishi is the only option in this regard, I think its pretty irresponsible that several candidates, like Cecilia Escamilia-Greenwald, have dismissed it out of hand.
The question is simple: Do we want a significant amount high density, mid-rise housing within walking distance of the downtown and UCD, or not? Do we want to advance walkable urbanity, which is by far the most ecologically sensitive form or development, or not?
Every source will tell you that these types of development are not easy. The costs are high, as are the risks to the developers. Most such projects can only proceed with huge subsidies. The L Street Lofts in Sacramento (240 small units) got at least $16 million in subsidies from the City of Sacramento.
PG&E vs. Nishi?
Mayor Greenwald says that PG&E is superior to Nishi in every way, “from access, safety, quiet, air quality and proximity to train station and proximity to core downtown…”
With all possible respect, all six of these points are incorrect, or at least stretching logic to its limit.
Location:
PG&E is not within walking distance of either the vast majority of the Core or UCD. Under the standards used by planners, only the first few buildings in the Core are within “walking distance” of PG&E (i.e. the hardware stores and the Signature theaters, and a few resturants.
Nishi, by contrast is within walking distance of virtually the entire Core Area, Central Park, the Train Station, Mondavi Center, and a large part of the UCD campus all the way to the Quad.
The first thing you come to when you leave Nishi and cross under the tracks on the existing pedestrian/bike under crossing is the Borders Mall, literally 60 seconds walk from the site. The next thing, 60 seconds later, are the theaters, art galleries, pubs, and restaurants, etc. of the Core Area.
The first thing you get to when you leave PG&E is a block of mostly student housing. The next thing is another block of mostly student housing. And the next thing is another block of mostly student housing. Its not until you cross the tracks, at the very edge of a “walkable” distance, that you get to the hardware store.
PG&E IS within walking distance of the Train Station, which is a definite plus… But so is Nishi. Go measure.
Air Quality: The Nishi site is large enough so that up to 1000 units could be placed more than 500 feet from the freeway. At that distance, any planner will tell you that air quality effects from the Freeway are virtually non-existent (this occurs at 300 feet, really). And lets not forget that PG&E is pretty close to the freeway, close enough that the Housing Committee recommended that no housing be built of the Southern half of the site. Further, indoor air quality issues are among the easiest and cheapest to mitigate with inexpensive and almost perfectly effective upgrades to air filtrations systems.
Safety: If the issue is the tracks, a fence would do wonders. At any rate, there are literally thousands of housing units (student and otherwise) along the tracks between East and Central Davis, and I don’t recall ever (in 40 years) hearing of a major incident in that area. I don’t see how this could reasonably be considered a “litmus test” issue.
Noise: The freeway would not be an issue noise-wise because it would be far away from the housing, and obviously buffered by normal planning tools. The train noise, which is an issue for BOTH PG&E (tracks right across the street) and Nishi (tracks along Northern edge), would be mitigated by buffering, possible soundwalls, and construction techniques. However, Nishi has the clear advantage here because the developers, with a low base cost for the land, could afford to build using structural steel and concrete, while there is absolutely no way that would “pencil” on PG&E. The improvement in indoor noise levels between wood vs. steel/concrete construction is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.
Access: PG&E has good access, assuming you think the people on the L Street and Pole Line corridors will go along quietly (big assumption). Nishi, on the other hand, currently has FOUR ACCESS POINTS. (1) An at-grade crossing over the tracks to Arboretum Drive. (2) A full 60 foot right of way to Olive Drive. (3) A two lane grade separated crossing under Highway 80 to South Davis wide enough to host two additional bike paths. And (4) A grade separated bike path along the arboretum to the Core Area under the tracks. (Shouldn’t we make use of the millions we’ve already spent on these projects?) As it is, access to Nishi is acceptable, though people at Richards would be waiting a few seconds longer at rush hour. Planners will tell you that increased traffic is an unavoidable cost of REAL high density infill. But Nishi may be the exception to this rule. If the Nishi developers could secure a fifth access to the Mondavi Center area of UCD (as the Housing Committee desired), it could proceed with zero effect on Richards, or even IMPROVE traffic with proper design by diverting traffic away from the Richards Underpass. The developers stated during the Housing Committee process that this was NOT COST PROHIBITIVE, BUT A FUNCTION OF OBTAINING NECESSARY EASEMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES LIKE UCD AND THE RAILROAD (which may very well be possible).
PG&E is not a superior site, from a planning perspective. It is not “Core Area Housing.” It will not be walkable housing, but garden variety auto-centered units, no better or worse than the proposed project on the Simmons Property. To conclude PG&E is superior to Nishi, you need to place inappropriate weight on the imaginary line of the City Limit.
If the “progressives” really want to throw their lot in against a high density project at Nishi, they may be picking the wrong fight, especially when other standard urban subdivisions are progressing apace. Nishi may be a project that can REALLY improve Davis by providing a serious number of more urban style Core Area housing units, which are conspicuously missing from our current housing stock.
Given that Nishi is the only option in this regard, I think its pretty irresponsible that several candidates, like Cecilia Escamilia-Greenwald, have dismissed it out of hand.
I think if the developers can build another access and still make money, its a great site, and more power to them.
I think if the developers can build another access and still make money, its a great site, and more power to them.
I think if the developers can build another access and still make money, its a great site, and more power to them.
I think if the developers can build another access and still make money, its a great site, and more power to them.
I hate to be harsh but when Sue Greenwald talks about the other candidates friends and patrons I think it is important to remind people about how Sue has consistantly supported her friend Sinesa and his projects at and next to the Varsity with both votes and city subsidies.
As for Nishi its a terrrible sight, too close to the freeway and the train tracks.
As for the PGE property it also is too close to I80. With the tracks and the highway on the Southside you would need a sound wall that blocks the south side. Trouble is that is the side that you would want to use for solar power. Still I’m sure a good planner could work around these issues. Maybe Sydney Vergis could help.
Sue has been talking about PGE for eight years and nothing has happened. I don’t think its because the other members friends don’t own it. PGE surely knows how to exploit the likes of Saylor, Souza and Vergis. I think its because of Sue’s lack of political skills that she is unable to move this idea forward. A vote for Sue is a vote against the kind of political skills needed to get things done.
I hate to be harsh but when Sue Greenwald talks about the other candidates friends and patrons I think it is important to remind people about how Sue has consistantly supported her friend Sinesa and his projects at and next to the Varsity with both votes and city subsidies.
As for Nishi its a terrrible sight, too close to the freeway and the train tracks.
As for the PGE property it also is too close to I80. With the tracks and the highway on the Southside you would need a sound wall that blocks the south side. Trouble is that is the side that you would want to use for solar power. Still I’m sure a good planner could work around these issues. Maybe Sydney Vergis could help.
Sue has been talking about PGE for eight years and nothing has happened. I don’t think its because the other members friends don’t own it. PGE surely knows how to exploit the likes of Saylor, Souza and Vergis. I think its because of Sue’s lack of political skills that she is unable to move this idea forward. A vote for Sue is a vote against the kind of political skills needed to get things done.
I hate to be harsh but when Sue Greenwald talks about the other candidates friends and patrons I think it is important to remind people about how Sue has consistantly supported her friend Sinesa and his projects at and next to the Varsity with both votes and city subsidies.
As for Nishi its a terrrible sight, too close to the freeway and the train tracks.
As for the PGE property it also is too close to I80. With the tracks and the highway on the Southside you would need a sound wall that blocks the south side. Trouble is that is the side that you would want to use for solar power. Still I’m sure a good planner could work around these issues. Maybe Sydney Vergis could help.
Sue has been talking about PGE for eight years and nothing has happened. I don’t think its because the other members friends don’t own it. PGE surely knows how to exploit the likes of Saylor, Souza and Vergis. I think its because of Sue’s lack of political skills that she is unable to move this idea forward. A vote for Sue is a vote against the kind of political skills needed to get things done.
I hate to be harsh but when Sue Greenwald talks about the other candidates friends and patrons I think it is important to remind people about how Sue has consistantly supported her friend Sinesa and his projects at and next to the Varsity with both votes and city subsidies.
As for Nishi its a terrrible sight, too close to the freeway and the train tracks.
As for the PGE property it also is too close to I80. With the tracks and the highway on the Southside you would need a sound wall that blocks the south side. Trouble is that is the side that you would want to use for solar power. Still I’m sure a good planner could work around these issues. Maybe Sydney Vergis could help.
Sue has been talking about PGE for eight years and nothing has happened. I don’t think its because the other members friends don’t own it. PGE surely knows how to exploit the likes of Saylor, Souza and Vergis. I think its because of Sue’s lack of political skills that she is unable to move this idea forward. A vote for Sue is a vote against the kind of political skills needed to get things done.
Sue has not had a majority since Harrington and Wagstaff were on the council at the start of her career. Meanwhile, Souza and Saylor have had four years and very few approved housing despite being on the majority. That has to at some point fall on them.
Sue has not had a majority since Harrington and Wagstaff were on the council at the start of her career. Meanwhile, Souza and Saylor have had four years and very few approved housing despite being on the majority. That has to at some point fall on them.
Sue has not had a majority since Harrington and Wagstaff were on the council at the start of her career. Meanwhile, Souza and Saylor have had four years and very few approved housing despite being on the majority. That has to at some point fall on them.
Sue has not had a majority since Harrington and Wagstaff were on the council at the start of her career. Meanwhile, Souza and Saylor have had four years and very few approved housing despite being on the majority. That has to at some point fall on them.
“Sue has been talking about PGE for eight years and nothing has happened. I don’t think its because the other members friends don’t own it. PGE surely knows how to exploit the likes of Saylor, Souza and Vergis. I think its because of Sue’s lack of political skills that she is unable to move this idea forward.”
No. I think it’s because PG&E did not want to change the use of the site. I still have not heard PG&E declare they want this site redeveloped into a new use.
“Sue has been talking about PGE for eight years and nothing has happened. I don’t think its because the other members friends don’t own it. PGE surely knows how to exploit the likes of Saylor, Souza and Vergis. I think its because of Sue’s lack of political skills that she is unable to move this idea forward.”
No. I think it’s because PG&E did not want to change the use of the site. I still have not heard PG&E declare they want this site redeveloped into a new use.
“Sue has been talking about PGE for eight years and nothing has happened. I don’t think its because the other members friends don’t own it. PGE surely knows how to exploit the likes of Saylor, Souza and Vergis. I think its because of Sue’s lack of political skills that she is unable to move this idea forward.”
No. I think it’s because PG&E did not want to change the use of the site. I still have not heard PG&E declare they want this site redeveloped into a new use.
“Sue has been talking about PGE for eight years and nothing has happened. I don’t think its because the other members friends don’t own it. PGE surely knows how to exploit the likes of Saylor, Souza and Vergis. I think its because of Sue’s lack of political skills that she is unable to move this idea forward.”
No. I think it’s because PG&E did not want to change the use of the site. I still have not heard PG&E declare they want this site redeveloped into a new use.
Sue wants to blame the PGE property project not moving forward on her opponents greed and avarice as if she was Snow White. I guess she thinks nobody knows about her long relationship with the owner of the Varsity and Mishka’s who she helped get control of the water tower property for development. Do you think Sue would have let a historical landmark be changed if it wasn’t for the benefit of her friend? How many times did she vote against changing the old bank building at 2nd and G?
Sue was in the majority for 4 years and couldn’t get PGE done. She has been in the minority for 4 years and couldn’t get it done.
Minority or majority Sue couldn’t get it done. I think it speaks more about her lack of political skills than it does about anyone else.
Sue wants to blame the PGE property project not moving forward on her opponents greed and avarice as if she was Snow White. I guess she thinks nobody knows about her long relationship with the owner of the Varsity and Mishka’s who she helped get control of the water tower property for development. Do you think Sue would have let a historical landmark be changed if it wasn’t for the benefit of her friend? How many times did she vote against changing the old bank building at 2nd and G?
Sue was in the majority for 4 years and couldn’t get PGE done. She has been in the minority for 4 years and couldn’t get it done.
Minority or majority Sue couldn’t get it done. I think it speaks more about her lack of political skills than it does about anyone else.
Sue wants to blame the PGE property project not moving forward on her opponents greed and avarice as if she was Snow White. I guess she thinks nobody knows about her long relationship with the owner of the Varsity and Mishka’s who she helped get control of the water tower property for development. Do you think Sue would have let a historical landmark be changed if it wasn’t for the benefit of her friend? How many times did she vote against changing the old bank building at 2nd and G?
Sue was in the majority for 4 years and couldn’t get PGE done. She has been in the minority for 4 years and couldn’t get it done.
Minority or majority Sue couldn’t get it done. I think it speaks more about her lack of political skills than it does about anyone else.
Sue wants to blame the PGE property project not moving forward on her opponents greed and avarice as if she was Snow White. I guess she thinks nobody knows about her long relationship with the owner of the Varsity and Mishka’s who she helped get control of the water tower property for development. Do you think Sue would have let a historical landmark be changed if it wasn’t for the benefit of her friend? How many times did she vote against changing the old bank building at 2nd and G?
Sue was in the majority for 4 years and couldn’t get PGE done. She has been in the minority for 4 years and couldn’t get it done.
Minority or majority Sue couldn’t get it done. I think it speaks more about her lack of political skills than it does about anyone else.
“Sue was in the majority for 4 years and couldn’t get PGE done.”
This is not a true statement. She was in the majority 2001-2002 with Ken Wagstaff and Mike Harrington. In 2002, Wagstaff left the council and Asmundson and Puntillo were elected, along with Boyd they became the majority with Greenwald and Harrington in the minority.
So basically what you are saying is that she could not get it done her first two years on the council when she was in a 3-2 majority.
As any reasonable person has to recognize, even if this was on the table, things take awhile to develop.
“Sue was in the majority for 4 years and couldn’t get PGE done.”
This is not a true statement. She was in the majority 2001-2002 with Ken Wagstaff and Mike Harrington. In 2002, Wagstaff left the council and Asmundson and Puntillo were elected, along with Boyd they became the majority with Greenwald and Harrington in the minority.
So basically what you are saying is that she could not get it done her first two years on the council when she was in a 3-2 majority.
As any reasonable person has to recognize, even if this was on the table, things take awhile to develop.
“Sue was in the majority for 4 years and couldn’t get PGE done.”
This is not a true statement. She was in the majority 2001-2002 with Ken Wagstaff and Mike Harrington. In 2002, Wagstaff left the council and Asmundson and Puntillo were elected, along with Boyd they became the majority with Greenwald and Harrington in the minority.
So basically what you are saying is that she could not get it done her first two years on the council when she was in a 3-2 majority.
As any reasonable person has to recognize, even if this was on the table, things take awhile to develop.
“Sue was in the majority for 4 years and couldn’t get PGE done.”
This is not a true statement. She was in the majority 2001-2002 with Ken Wagstaff and Mike Harrington. In 2002, Wagstaff left the council and Asmundson and Puntillo were elected, along with Boyd they became the majority with Greenwald and Harrington in the minority.
So basically what you are saying is that she could not get it done her first two years on the council when she was in a 3-2 majority.
As any reasonable person has to recognize, even if this was on the table, things take awhile to develop.
I’m pretty busy, and only have time to answer a few comments about the PG&E site, and two of the most egregious comments concerning the off-topic Mishka’s café (you can tell by the tenor of the comments that the election is only two weeks away).
1) PG&E is in fact interested in working with the City to develop this site, and the project has broad public support.
2) The PG&E site is in fact within easy walking distance to downtown. I live downtown near campus, and I walk to G street regularly. I measured it on the map, and the PG&E site is almost exactly the same distance from 3rd and G street as my own house. In fact, the main reason I would like to see this project built is that I love living this close to downtown, and I want to enable many others to enjoy the same lifestyle.
3) The Mishka’s Café proposal involves no subsidy by the City.
4) Right or wrong, the council unanimously approved the request for proposal to which Mishka’s responded, based on staffs’ recommendation. The parks department felt, at the time, that maintenance on this property was too high.
I’m pretty busy, and only have time to answer a few comments about the PG&E site, and two of the most egregious comments concerning the off-topic Mishka’s café (you can tell by the tenor of the comments that the election is only two weeks away).
1) PG&E is in fact interested in working with the City to develop this site, and the project has broad public support.
2) The PG&E site is in fact within easy walking distance to downtown. I live downtown near campus, and I walk to G street regularly. I measured it on the map, and the PG&E site is almost exactly the same distance from 3rd and G street as my own house. In fact, the main reason I would like to see this project built is that I love living this close to downtown, and I want to enable many others to enjoy the same lifestyle.
3) The Mishka’s Café proposal involves no subsidy by the City.
4) Right or wrong, the council unanimously approved the request for proposal to which Mishka’s responded, based on staffs’ recommendation. The parks department felt, at the time, that maintenance on this property was too high.
I’m pretty busy, and only have time to answer a few comments about the PG&E site, and two of the most egregious comments concerning the off-topic Mishka’s café (you can tell by the tenor of the comments that the election is only two weeks away).
1) PG&E is in fact interested in working with the City to develop this site, and the project has broad public support.
2) The PG&E site is in fact within easy walking distance to downtown. I live downtown near campus, and I walk to G street regularly. I measured it on the map, and the PG&E site is almost exactly the same distance from 3rd and G street as my own house. In fact, the main reason I would like to see this project built is that I love living this close to downtown, and I want to enable many others to enjoy the same lifestyle.
3) The Mishka’s Café proposal involves no subsidy by the City.
4) Right or wrong, the council unanimously approved the request for proposal to which Mishka’s responded, based on staffs’ recommendation. The parks department felt, at the time, that maintenance on this property was too high.
I’m pretty busy, and only have time to answer a few comments about the PG&E site, and two of the most egregious comments concerning the off-topic Mishka’s café (you can tell by the tenor of the comments that the election is only two weeks away).
1) PG&E is in fact interested in working with the City to develop this site, and the project has broad public support.
2) The PG&E site is in fact within easy walking distance to downtown. I live downtown near campus, and I walk to G street regularly. I measured it on the map, and the PG&E site is almost exactly the same distance from 3rd and G street as my own house. In fact, the main reason I would like to see this project built is that I love living this close to downtown, and I want to enable many others to enjoy the same lifestyle.
3) The Mishka’s Café proposal involves no subsidy by the City.
4) Right or wrong, the council unanimously approved the request for proposal to which Mishka’s responded, based on staffs’ recommendation. The parks department felt, at the time, that maintenance on this property was too high.
With all due respect to the mayor I have been told directly by PG&E that they are NOT interested in working with the City on developing the corporation yard site. The erratic, politicized, and unreliable nature of city government in Davis makes it a poor choice for a partner. As a result, organizations like PG&E run the other way. So it sounds like we have a genuine difference of opinion.
With all due respect to the mayor I have been told directly by PG&E that they are NOT interested in working with the City on developing the corporation yard site. The erratic, politicized, and unreliable nature of city government in Davis makes it a poor choice for a partner. As a result, organizations like PG&E run the other way. So it sounds like we have a genuine difference of opinion.
With all due respect to the mayor I have been told directly by PG&E that they are NOT interested in working with the City on developing the corporation yard site. The erratic, politicized, and unreliable nature of city government in Davis makes it a poor choice for a partner. As a result, organizations like PG&E run the other way. So it sounds like we have a genuine difference of opinion.
With all due respect to the mayor I have been told directly by PG&E that they are NOT interested in working with the City on developing the corporation yard site. The erratic, politicized, and unreliable nature of city government in Davis makes it a poor choice for a partner. As a result, organizations like PG&E run the other way. So it sounds like we have a genuine difference of opinion.
With all due respect to anonymous, unfortunately statements like these from anonymous posters do not carry any weight with a discerning reader. Anonymous could be exactly right in what he or she says. However, as a reader, we have no way of knowing.
You must either provide us with your name, which would give your statement credibility. Or you must provide us with documentation supporting your claim. As it stands now, we have no way to evaluate the validity of your information. I don’t mean to be harsh, but that’s just the way it is.
With all due respect to anonymous, unfortunately statements like these from anonymous posters do not carry any weight with a discerning reader. Anonymous could be exactly right in what he or she says. However, as a reader, we have no way of knowing.
You must either provide us with your name, which would give your statement credibility. Or you must provide us with documentation supporting your claim. As it stands now, we have no way to evaluate the validity of your information. I don’t mean to be harsh, but that’s just the way it is.
With all due respect to anonymous, unfortunately statements like these from anonymous posters do not carry any weight with a discerning reader. Anonymous could be exactly right in what he or she says. However, as a reader, we have no way of knowing.
You must either provide us with your name, which would give your statement credibility. Or you must provide us with documentation supporting your claim. As it stands now, we have no way to evaluate the validity of your information. I don’t mean to be harsh, but that’s just the way it is.
With all due respect to anonymous, unfortunately statements like these from anonymous posters do not carry any weight with a discerning reader. Anonymous could be exactly right in what he or she says. However, as a reader, we have no way of knowing.
You must either provide us with your name, which would give your statement credibility. Or you must provide us with documentation supporting your claim. As it stands now, we have no way to evaluate the validity of your information. I don’t mean to be harsh, but that’s just the way it is.
What about subsdies to the Varsity? What about the massive subsidy of the use of the land under the water tower. How much was the land worth?
What about subsdies to the Varsity? What about the massive subsidy of the use of the land under the water tower. How much was the land worth?
What about subsdies to the Varsity? What about the massive subsidy of the use of the land under the water tower. How much was the land worth?
What about subsdies to the Varsity? What about the massive subsidy of the use of the land under the water tower. How much was the land worth?
No commitment from Cecilia on in-fill projects she will support?
No commitment from Cecilia on in-fill projects she will support?
No commitment from Cecilia on in-fill projects she will support?
No commitment from Cecilia on in-fill projects she will support?
6:13 AM
In logic your comment is known as an “appeal to authority.” In other words, you want to know who I am and then what I do, job title, etc. to evaluate the standing of my claim. The process you are engaged in is fallacious thinking.
You say you have no evidence to evaluate the validity of my statements and that I “must” provide my name and documentation. But of course I “must” do neither. Readers are free to decided if what I say sounds plausible or not. But if you look at the evidence, for example, the lack of any plans to convert a site that has been in the city for a great many years, then a discerning reader will ask “If the Mayor is right then why hasn’t PG&E moved forward to develop the site?” You may then ask other knowledgeable sources and ferret out for yourself the relative nature of these opposing claims. I have every confidence that I am right. I have no need to “prove” it to anyone. Nor do I have the need to condescend or be “harsh” with anyone.
Take care.
6:13 AM
In logic your comment is known as an “appeal to authority.” In other words, you want to know who I am and then what I do, job title, etc. to evaluate the standing of my claim. The process you are engaged in is fallacious thinking.
You say you have no evidence to evaluate the validity of my statements and that I “must” provide my name and documentation. But of course I “must” do neither. Readers are free to decided if what I say sounds plausible or not. But if you look at the evidence, for example, the lack of any plans to convert a site that has been in the city for a great many years, then a discerning reader will ask “If the Mayor is right then why hasn’t PG&E moved forward to develop the site?” You may then ask other knowledgeable sources and ferret out for yourself the relative nature of these opposing claims. I have every confidence that I am right. I have no need to “prove” it to anyone. Nor do I have the need to condescend or be “harsh” with anyone.
Take care.
6:13 AM
In logic your comment is known as an “appeal to authority.” In other words, you want to know who I am and then what I do, job title, etc. to evaluate the standing of my claim. The process you are engaged in is fallacious thinking.
You say you have no evidence to evaluate the validity of my statements and that I “must” provide my name and documentation. But of course I “must” do neither. Readers are free to decided if what I say sounds plausible or not. But if you look at the evidence, for example, the lack of any plans to convert a site that has been in the city for a great many years, then a discerning reader will ask “If the Mayor is right then why hasn’t PG&E moved forward to develop the site?” You may then ask other knowledgeable sources and ferret out for yourself the relative nature of these opposing claims. I have every confidence that I am right. I have no need to “prove” it to anyone. Nor do I have the need to condescend or be “harsh” with anyone.
Take care.
6:13 AM
In logic your comment is known as an “appeal to authority.” In other words, you want to know who I am and then what I do, job title, etc. to evaluate the standing of my claim. The process you are engaged in is fallacious thinking.
You say you have no evidence to evaluate the validity of my statements and that I “must” provide my name and documentation. But of course I “must” do neither. Readers are free to decided if what I say sounds plausible or not. But if you look at the evidence, for example, the lack of any plans to convert a site that has been in the city for a great many years, then a discerning reader will ask “If the Mayor is right then why hasn’t PG&E moved forward to develop the site?” You may then ask other knowledgeable sources and ferret out for yourself the relative nature of these opposing claims. I have every confidence that I am right. I have no need to “prove” it to anyone. Nor do I have the need to condescend or be “harsh” with anyone.
Take care.
“You say you have no evidence to evaluate the validity of my statements and that I “must” provide my name and documentation. But of course I “must” do neither. Readers are free to decided if what I say sounds plausible or not. But if you look at the evidence, for example, the lack of any plans to convert a site that has been in the city for a great many years, then a discerning reader will ask “If the Mayor is right then why hasn’t PG&E moved forward to develop the site?” You may then ask other knowledgeable sources and ferret out for yourself the relative nature of these opposing claims.”
I agree with the above statement. Now don’t get me wrong, I am very supportive of Sue Greenwald, but it takes more than just saying something is a possibility to make things happen. There have been other instances when Sue has claimed she has talked to experts on this or that, but yet no such experts are willing to come forward. If PG&E are truly interested in selling the site, then why have they not made it public??? Or is it Sue’s aim to bring public pressure to make them sell??? Or are we going to offer far more than the land is worth to make it happen because Sue wants it???
I am not ragging on Sue Greenwald or her idea, but like the previous commenter, I want something more tangible than “what a wonderful project this would be”! Where is the evidence that PG&E is willing to meaningfully negotiate the sale of that property?
“You say you have no evidence to evaluate the validity of my statements and that I “must” provide my name and documentation. But of course I “must” do neither. Readers are free to decided if what I say sounds plausible or not. But if you look at the evidence, for example, the lack of any plans to convert a site that has been in the city for a great many years, then a discerning reader will ask “If the Mayor is right then why hasn’t PG&E moved forward to develop the site?” You may then ask other knowledgeable sources and ferret out for yourself the relative nature of these opposing claims.”
I agree with the above statement. Now don’t get me wrong, I am very supportive of Sue Greenwald, but it takes more than just saying something is a possibility to make things happen. There have been other instances when Sue has claimed she has talked to experts on this or that, but yet no such experts are willing to come forward. If PG&E are truly interested in selling the site, then why have they not made it public??? Or is it Sue’s aim to bring public pressure to make them sell??? Or are we going to offer far more than the land is worth to make it happen because Sue wants it???
I am not ragging on Sue Greenwald or her idea, but like the previous commenter, I want something more tangible than “what a wonderful project this would be”! Where is the evidence that PG&E is willing to meaningfully negotiate the sale of that property?
“You say you have no evidence to evaluate the validity of my statements and that I “must” provide my name and documentation. But of course I “must” do neither. Readers are free to decided if what I say sounds plausible or not. But if you look at the evidence, for example, the lack of any plans to convert a site that has been in the city for a great many years, then a discerning reader will ask “If the Mayor is right then why hasn’t PG&E moved forward to develop the site?” You may then ask other knowledgeable sources and ferret out for yourself the relative nature of these opposing claims.”
I agree with the above statement. Now don’t get me wrong, I am very supportive of Sue Greenwald, but it takes more than just saying something is a possibility to make things happen. There have been other instances when Sue has claimed she has talked to experts on this or that, but yet no such experts are willing to come forward. If PG&E are truly interested in selling the site, then why have they not made it public??? Or is it Sue’s aim to bring public pressure to make them sell??? Or are we going to offer far more than the land is worth to make it happen because Sue wants it???
I am not ragging on Sue Greenwald or her idea, but like the previous commenter, I want something more tangible than “what a wonderful project this would be”! Where is the evidence that PG&E is willing to meaningfully negotiate the sale of that property?
“You say you have no evidence to evaluate the validity of my statements and that I “must” provide my name and documentation. But of course I “must” do neither. Readers are free to decided if what I say sounds plausible or not. But if you look at the evidence, for example, the lack of any plans to convert a site that has been in the city for a great many years, then a discerning reader will ask “If the Mayor is right then why hasn’t PG&E moved forward to develop the site?” You may then ask other knowledgeable sources and ferret out for yourself the relative nature of these opposing claims.”
I agree with the above statement. Now don’t get me wrong, I am very supportive of Sue Greenwald, but it takes more than just saying something is a possibility to make things happen. There have been other instances when Sue has claimed she has talked to experts on this or that, but yet no such experts are willing to come forward. If PG&E are truly interested in selling the site, then why have they not made it public??? Or is it Sue’s aim to bring public pressure to make them sell??? Or are we going to offer far more than the land is worth to make it happen because Sue wants it???
I am not ragging on Sue Greenwald or her idea, but like the previous commenter, I want something more tangible than “what a wonderful project this would be”! Where is the evidence that PG&E is willing to meaningfully negotiate the sale of that property?
The issue of credibility is simple. If I put may name to something, you can determine whether or not you think I am credible based on my past history and your view of me. If I do not put my name on something and I make a claim, there is very little basis to go on. Anyone can post on here. Anyone can say anything.
An appeal to authority is fallacious reasoning, however, that is if you make an argument that is verifiable and sourced. If you have no sources, no name, there is little credibility.
The issue of credibility is simple. If I put may name to something, you can determine whether or not you think I am credible based on my past history and your view of me. If I do not put my name on something and I make a claim, there is very little basis to go on. Anyone can post on here. Anyone can say anything.
An appeal to authority is fallacious reasoning, however, that is if you make an argument that is verifiable and sourced. If you have no sources, no name, there is little credibility.
The issue of credibility is simple. If I put may name to something, you can determine whether or not you think I am credible based on my past history and your view of me. If I do not put my name on something and I make a claim, there is very little basis to go on. Anyone can post on here. Anyone can say anything.
An appeal to authority is fallacious reasoning, however, that is if you make an argument that is verifiable and sourced. If you have no sources, no name, there is little credibility.
The issue of credibility is simple. If I put may name to something, you can determine whether or not you think I am credible based on my past history and your view of me. If I do not put my name on something and I make a claim, there is very little basis to go on. Anyone can post on here. Anyone can say anything.
An appeal to authority is fallacious reasoning, however, that is if you make an argument that is verifiable and sourced. If you have no sources, no name, there is little credibility.
“The issue of credibility is simple. If I put may name to something, you can determine whether or not you think I am credible based on my past history and your view of me. If I do not put my name on something and I make a claim, there is very little basis to go on. Anyone can post on here. Anyone can say anything.”
Well, Sue has put her name to the PG&E proposed project, but nothing substantive has come from her to indicate PG&E is willing to sell. Where is HER CREDIBILITY on this subject? I applaud her idea, but would prefer some evidence of the willingness of PG&E to sell.
Furthermore, it is important to raise questions, whether you are an anonymous poster or not. Some of us choose to remain anonymous because we are freer to speak our minds. Some of us hold positions that require a certain amount of circumspection in what we say in public – much like whistleblowers.
Furthermore, I hardly think it is fair to criticize someone for posting anonymously, just because they raise a question some commenter didn’t particularly feel comfortable with.
In addition, I find that by raising questions on this blog, I have gotten some very interesting insights, data, and differing views on issues which I find to be of tremendous assistance in forming my opinions. I suspect people would not be nearly as forthcoming with information and views at times if they could not speak from the heart without fear of reprisal.
Remaining anonymous has its value, even if some do not find much credibility in it. Sometimes raising questions is of more importance than anything…
“The issue of credibility is simple. If I put may name to something, you can determine whether or not you think I am credible based on my past history and your view of me. If I do not put my name on something and I make a claim, there is very little basis to go on. Anyone can post on here. Anyone can say anything.”
Well, Sue has put her name to the PG&E proposed project, but nothing substantive has come from her to indicate PG&E is willing to sell. Where is HER CREDIBILITY on this subject? I applaud her idea, but would prefer some evidence of the willingness of PG&E to sell.
Furthermore, it is important to raise questions, whether you are an anonymous poster or not. Some of us choose to remain anonymous because we are freer to speak our minds. Some of us hold positions that require a certain amount of circumspection in what we say in public – much like whistleblowers.
Furthermore, I hardly think it is fair to criticize someone for posting anonymously, just because they raise a question some commenter didn’t particularly feel comfortable with.
In addition, I find that by raising questions on this blog, I have gotten some very interesting insights, data, and differing views on issues which I find to be of tremendous assistance in forming my opinions. I suspect people would not be nearly as forthcoming with information and views at times if they could not speak from the heart without fear of reprisal.
Remaining anonymous has its value, even if some do not find much credibility in it. Sometimes raising questions is of more importance than anything…
“The issue of credibility is simple. If I put may name to something, you can determine whether or not you think I am credible based on my past history and your view of me. If I do not put my name on something and I make a claim, there is very little basis to go on. Anyone can post on here. Anyone can say anything.”
Well, Sue has put her name to the PG&E proposed project, but nothing substantive has come from her to indicate PG&E is willing to sell. Where is HER CREDIBILITY on this subject? I applaud her idea, but would prefer some evidence of the willingness of PG&E to sell.
Furthermore, it is important to raise questions, whether you are an anonymous poster or not. Some of us choose to remain anonymous because we are freer to speak our minds. Some of us hold positions that require a certain amount of circumspection in what we say in public – much like whistleblowers.
Furthermore, I hardly think it is fair to criticize someone for posting anonymously, just because they raise a question some commenter didn’t particularly feel comfortable with.
In addition, I find that by raising questions on this blog, I have gotten some very interesting insights, data, and differing views on issues which I find to be of tremendous assistance in forming my opinions. I suspect people would not be nearly as forthcoming with information and views at times if they could not speak from the heart without fear of reprisal.
Remaining anonymous has its value, even if some do not find much credibility in it. Sometimes raising questions is of more importance than anything…
“The issue of credibility is simple. If I put may name to something, you can determine whether or not you think I am credible based on my past history and your view of me. If I do not put my name on something and I make a claim, there is very little basis to go on. Anyone can post on here. Anyone can say anything.”
Well, Sue has put her name to the PG&E proposed project, but nothing substantive has come from her to indicate PG&E is willing to sell. Where is HER CREDIBILITY on this subject? I applaud her idea, but would prefer some evidence of the willingness of PG&E to sell.
Furthermore, it is important to raise questions, whether you are an anonymous poster or not. Some of us choose to remain anonymous because we are freer to speak our minds. Some of us hold positions that require a certain amount of circumspection in what we say in public – much like whistleblowers.
Furthermore, I hardly think it is fair to criticize someone for posting anonymously, just because they raise a question some commenter didn’t particularly feel comfortable with.
In addition, I find that by raising questions on this blog, I have gotten some very interesting insights, data, and differing views on issues which I find to be of tremendous assistance in forming my opinions. I suspect people would not be nearly as forthcoming with information and views at times if they could not speak from the heart without fear of reprisal.
Remaining anonymous has its value, even if some do not find much credibility in it. Sometimes raising questions is of more importance than anything…
How much affordable housing can you afford to build on a site where PGE will require $40-$50 million dollars to relocate their critical facility. This does not include demo of existing site of needed infrastructure. Costs will increase if there are environmental issues. I think this site is promoted by many because they know it has no chance in the next 10-20 years. If this site was closer to development the proponents would soon find many faults. Standard operating procedure for true no-growthers.
How much affordable housing can you afford to build on a site where PGE will require $40-$50 million dollars to relocate their critical facility. This does not include demo of existing site of needed infrastructure. Costs will increase if there are environmental issues. I think this site is promoted by many because they know it has no chance in the next 10-20 years. If this site was closer to development the proponents would soon find many faults. Standard operating procedure for true no-growthers.
How much affordable housing can you afford to build on a site where PGE will require $40-$50 million dollars to relocate their critical facility. This does not include demo of existing site of needed infrastructure. Costs will increase if there are environmental issues. I think this site is promoted by many because they know it has no chance in the next 10-20 years. If this site was closer to development the proponents would soon find many faults. Standard operating procedure for true no-growthers.
How much affordable housing can you afford to build on a site where PGE will require $40-$50 million dollars to relocate their critical facility. This does not include demo of existing site of needed infrastructure. Costs will increase if there are environmental issues. I think this site is promoted by many because they know it has no chance in the next 10-20 years. If this site was closer to development the proponents would soon find many faults. Standard operating procedure for true no-growthers.
I post anonymous sometimes but making a claim that “PG & E said this to me” in a debate about PG & E is a little bit weak. DPD was simply saying “I have no way of checking your statement on this important issue unless you provide more information”- that is all. Without some shred of fact- a name, the name of the posting person, something- this important debate falls flat. That is just the way it is, whether or not you believe Sue Greenwald or not.
I post anonymous sometimes but making a claim that “PG & E said this to me” in a debate about PG & E is a little bit weak. DPD was simply saying “I have no way of checking your statement on this important issue unless you provide more information”- that is all. Without some shred of fact- a name, the name of the posting person, something- this important debate falls flat. That is just the way it is, whether or not you believe Sue Greenwald or not.
I post anonymous sometimes but making a claim that “PG & E said this to me” in a debate about PG & E is a little bit weak. DPD was simply saying “I have no way of checking your statement on this important issue unless you provide more information”- that is all. Without some shred of fact- a name, the name of the posting person, something- this important debate falls flat. That is just the way it is, whether or not you believe Sue Greenwald or not.
I post anonymous sometimes but making a claim that “PG & E said this to me” in a debate about PG & E is a little bit weak. DPD was simply saying “I have no way of checking your statement on this important issue unless you provide more information”- that is all. Without some shred of fact- a name, the name of the posting person, something- this important debate falls flat. That is just the way it is, whether or not you believe Sue Greenwald or not.
I think its pretty obvious that DPD just wanted to get the anonymous guy to state his name in hopes of being able to set up an “ad hominem” attack on the speaker. I’m sure that he could find some conceivable conflict of interest for just about anyone who disagrees with him.
Though it is true that anonymous testimony as to a hearsay statement that PG&E does not want to develop is, in isolation, weak, the statement is certainly plausible and even expected given the overall circumstances, facts, and history of this issue.
Anyone who thinks PG&E is going to move a major operations center for a totally unprofitable project to help Davis (the town that voted overwhelmingly to throw them out last year), they’re smokin’ some good shit.
And Sue, PG&E is NOT A CANDIDATE FOR A WALKABLE DEVELOPMENT. According to numberous studies regarding walkability, walking distance is, at most, a seven minute brisk walk. Beyond this, people quickly return to a car-centered lifestyle. Put more specifically, the research shows that there must be multiple examples of urban-style entertainment, eating, jobs, and professional services (as opposed to the edge of an area with those services) WITHIN a 7 minute walk .
That’s just the science. Sorry if you don’t like it. I wish people walked more too.
From the edge of PG&E, seven minutes gets you to just beyond the tracks. From the middle of PG&E, you’re not even to the tracks (and thus within exactly ZERO examples of the above amenities).
Nishi, by contrast, is within 7 minutes of everything in spades.
And Black Bart, you say Nishi is too close to the freeway and the tracks. But if the noise and air quality issues are easily dealt with, what exactly is your point? Just an emotional thing? If that’s all you’ve got, maybe we’re into an area where (GOD FORBID!) the market should decide whether housing will work there.
I think its pretty obvious that DPD just wanted to get the anonymous guy to state his name in hopes of being able to set up an “ad hominem” attack on the speaker. I’m sure that he could find some conceivable conflict of interest for just about anyone who disagrees with him.
Though it is true that anonymous testimony as to a hearsay statement that PG&E does not want to develop is, in isolation, weak, the statement is certainly plausible and even expected given the overall circumstances, facts, and history of this issue.
Anyone who thinks PG&E is going to move a major operations center for a totally unprofitable project to help Davis (the town that voted overwhelmingly to throw them out last year), they’re smokin’ some good shit.
And Sue, PG&E is NOT A CANDIDATE FOR A WALKABLE DEVELOPMENT. According to numberous studies regarding walkability, walking distance is, at most, a seven minute brisk walk. Beyond this, people quickly return to a car-centered lifestyle. Put more specifically, the research shows that there must be multiple examples of urban-style entertainment, eating, jobs, and professional services (as opposed to the edge of an area with those services) WITHIN a 7 minute walk .
That’s just the science. Sorry if you don’t like it. I wish people walked more too.
From the edge of PG&E, seven minutes gets you to just beyond the tracks. From the middle of PG&E, you’re not even to the tracks (and thus within exactly ZERO examples of the above amenities).
Nishi, by contrast, is within 7 minutes of everything in spades.
And Black Bart, you say Nishi is too close to the freeway and the tracks. But if the noise and air quality issues are easily dealt with, what exactly is your point? Just an emotional thing? If that’s all you’ve got, maybe we’re into an area where (GOD FORBID!) the market should decide whether housing will work there.
I think its pretty obvious that DPD just wanted to get the anonymous guy to state his name in hopes of being able to set up an “ad hominem” attack on the speaker. I’m sure that he could find some conceivable conflict of interest for just about anyone who disagrees with him.
Though it is true that anonymous testimony as to a hearsay statement that PG&E does not want to develop is, in isolation, weak, the statement is certainly plausible and even expected given the overall circumstances, facts, and history of this issue.
Anyone who thinks PG&E is going to move a major operations center for a totally unprofitable project to help Davis (the town that voted overwhelmingly to throw them out last year), they’re smokin’ some good shit.
And Sue, PG&E is NOT A CANDIDATE FOR A WALKABLE DEVELOPMENT. According to numberous studies regarding walkability, walking distance is, at most, a seven minute brisk walk. Beyond this, people quickly return to a car-centered lifestyle. Put more specifically, the research shows that there must be multiple examples of urban-style entertainment, eating, jobs, and professional services (as opposed to the edge of an area with those services) WITHIN a 7 minute walk .
That’s just the science. Sorry if you don’t like it. I wish people walked more too.
From the edge of PG&E, seven minutes gets you to just beyond the tracks. From the middle of PG&E, you’re not even to the tracks (and thus within exactly ZERO examples of the above amenities).
Nishi, by contrast, is within 7 minutes of everything in spades.
And Black Bart, you say Nishi is too close to the freeway and the tracks. But if the noise and air quality issues are easily dealt with, what exactly is your point? Just an emotional thing? If that’s all you’ve got, maybe we’re into an area where (GOD FORBID!) the market should decide whether housing will work there.
I think its pretty obvious that DPD just wanted to get the anonymous guy to state his name in hopes of being able to set up an “ad hominem” attack on the speaker. I’m sure that he could find some conceivable conflict of interest for just about anyone who disagrees with him.
Though it is true that anonymous testimony as to a hearsay statement that PG&E does not want to develop is, in isolation, weak, the statement is certainly plausible and even expected given the overall circumstances, facts, and history of this issue.
Anyone who thinks PG&E is going to move a major operations center for a totally unprofitable project to help Davis (the town that voted overwhelmingly to throw them out last year), they’re smokin’ some good shit.
And Sue, PG&E is NOT A CANDIDATE FOR A WALKABLE DEVELOPMENT. According to numberous studies regarding walkability, walking distance is, at most, a seven minute brisk walk. Beyond this, people quickly return to a car-centered lifestyle. Put more specifically, the research shows that there must be multiple examples of urban-style entertainment, eating, jobs, and professional services (as opposed to the edge of an area with those services) WITHIN a 7 minute walk .
That’s just the science. Sorry if you don’t like it. I wish people walked more too.
From the edge of PG&E, seven minutes gets you to just beyond the tracks. From the middle of PG&E, you’re not even to the tracks (and thus within exactly ZERO examples of the above amenities).
Nishi, by contrast, is within 7 minutes of everything in spades.
And Black Bart, you say Nishi is too close to the freeway and the tracks. But if the noise and air quality issues are easily dealt with, what exactly is your point? Just an emotional thing? If that’s all you’ve got, maybe we’re into an area where (GOD FORBID!) the market should decide whether housing will work there.
Not just entertainment and core area, Nishi is also adjacent to the largest employer in Yolo County. Jobs and entertainment- how many people are going to walk to campus from PGE?
Not just entertainment and core area, Nishi is also adjacent to the largest employer in Yolo County. Jobs and entertainment- how many people are going to walk to campus from PGE?
Not just entertainment and core area, Nishi is also adjacent to the largest employer in Yolo County. Jobs and entertainment- how many people are going to walk to campus from PGE?
Not just entertainment and core area, Nishi is also adjacent to the largest employer in Yolo County. Jobs and entertainment- how many people are going to walk to campus from PGE?
“Though it is true that anonymous testimony as to a hearsay statement that PG&E does not want to develop is, in isolation, weak, the statement is certainly plausible and even expected given the overall circumstances, facts, and history of this issue.”
So, you’re saying that although the statement is weak, it is plausible and therefore expected. What does that even mean?
It is also plausible that PG and E wants to sell the property at a large profit for an infill development. It is plausible and maybe even expected.
“Though it is true that anonymous testimony as to a hearsay statement that PG&E does not want to develop is, in isolation, weak, the statement is certainly plausible and even expected given the overall circumstances, facts, and history of this issue.”
So, you’re saying that although the statement is weak, it is plausible and therefore expected. What does that even mean?
It is also plausible that PG and E wants to sell the property at a large profit for an infill development. It is plausible and maybe even expected.
“Though it is true that anonymous testimony as to a hearsay statement that PG&E does not want to develop is, in isolation, weak, the statement is certainly plausible and even expected given the overall circumstances, facts, and history of this issue.”
So, you’re saying that although the statement is weak, it is plausible and therefore expected. What does that even mean?
It is also plausible that PG and E wants to sell the property at a large profit for an infill development. It is plausible and maybe even expected.
“Though it is true that anonymous testimony as to a hearsay statement that PG&E does not want to develop is, in isolation, weak, the statement is certainly plausible and even expected given the overall circumstances, facts, and history of this issue.”
So, you’re saying that although the statement is weak, it is plausible and therefore expected. What does that even mean?
It is also plausible that PG and E wants to sell the property at a large profit for an infill development. It is plausible and maybe even expected.
Conservative Infiller wrote:
“So, you’re saying that although the statement is weak, it is plausible and therefore expected. What does that even mean?”
I didn’t say its plausible and “therefore” expected. I said it’s plausible, and “even expected” given the circumstances.
I suspect you can grasp the difference, but since your post indicates that you can’t, let me explain (you should skip this if your post was merely a bad-faith rhetorical foray, and you actually know the difference between the words “therefore” and “even”.).
“Therefore” implies an irresistible chain of causation. “Even expected” implies that if PG&E were not interested in developing the site, it is at least reasonably likely that some PG&E employee with some form of knowledge as to PG&E’s position would have conveyed this knowledge to some reader of this blog.
I really don’t understand why this is an issue anyway, and I’m done arguing it. If PG&E really wants to develop their property, they would make it known in no uncertain terms. Until such time, nobody is justified in forwarding it as a serious project, or an alternative to other, serious, housing options.
But PG&E project backers don’t really want it to develop anyway. It’s pure cynical politics. They just want the discussion to focus on a fantasy project so that they have a false “why this when we can have that” argument against other developments, so they won’t be forced to discuss the real issues involved.
If PG&E doesn’t work out, what’s next, walkable mid-rise condos on the moon?
Conservative Infiller wrote:
“So, you’re saying that although the statement is weak, it is plausible and therefore expected. What does that even mean?”
I didn’t say its plausible and “therefore” expected. I said it’s plausible, and “even expected” given the circumstances.
I suspect you can grasp the difference, but since your post indicates that you can’t, let me explain (you should skip this if your post was merely a bad-faith rhetorical foray, and you actually know the difference between the words “therefore” and “even”.).
“Therefore” implies an irresistible chain of causation. “Even expected” implies that if PG&E were not interested in developing the site, it is at least reasonably likely that some PG&E employee with some form of knowledge as to PG&E’s position would have conveyed this knowledge to some reader of this blog.
I really don’t understand why this is an issue anyway, and I’m done arguing it. If PG&E really wants to develop their property, they would make it known in no uncertain terms. Until such time, nobody is justified in forwarding it as a serious project, or an alternative to other, serious, housing options.
But PG&E project backers don’t really want it to develop anyway. It’s pure cynical politics. They just want the discussion to focus on a fantasy project so that they have a false “why this when we can have that” argument against other developments, so they won’t be forced to discuss the real issues involved.
If PG&E doesn’t work out, what’s next, walkable mid-rise condos on the moon?
Conservative Infiller wrote:
“So, you’re saying that although the statement is weak, it is plausible and therefore expected. What does that even mean?”
I didn’t say its plausible and “therefore” expected. I said it’s plausible, and “even expected” given the circumstances.
I suspect you can grasp the difference, but since your post indicates that you can’t, let me explain (you should skip this if your post was merely a bad-faith rhetorical foray, and you actually know the difference between the words “therefore” and “even”.).
“Therefore” implies an irresistible chain of causation. “Even expected” implies that if PG&E were not interested in developing the site, it is at least reasonably likely that some PG&E employee with some form of knowledge as to PG&E’s position would have conveyed this knowledge to some reader of this blog.
I really don’t understand why this is an issue anyway, and I’m done arguing it. If PG&E really wants to develop their property, they would make it known in no uncertain terms. Until such time, nobody is justified in forwarding it as a serious project, or an alternative to other, serious, housing options.
But PG&E project backers don’t really want it to develop anyway. It’s pure cynical politics. They just want the discussion to focus on a fantasy project so that they have a false “why this when we can have that” argument against other developments, so they won’t be forced to discuss the real issues involved.
If PG&E doesn’t work out, what’s next, walkable mid-rise condos on the moon?
Conservative Infiller wrote:
“So, you’re saying that although the statement is weak, it is plausible and therefore expected. What does that even mean?”
I didn’t say its plausible and “therefore” expected. I said it’s plausible, and “even expected” given the circumstances.
I suspect you can grasp the difference, but since your post indicates that you can’t, let me explain (you should skip this if your post was merely a bad-faith rhetorical foray, and you actually know the difference between the words “therefore” and “even”.).
“Therefore” implies an irresistible chain of causation. “Even expected” implies that if PG&E were not interested in developing the site, it is at least reasonably likely that some PG&E employee with some form of knowledge as to PG&E’s position would have conveyed this knowledge to some reader of this blog.
I really don’t understand why this is an issue anyway, and I’m done arguing it. If PG&E really wants to develop their property, they would make it known in no uncertain terms. Until such time, nobody is justified in forwarding it as a serious project, or an alternative to other, serious, housing options.
But PG&E project backers don’t really want it to develop anyway. It’s pure cynical politics. They just want the discussion to focus on a fantasy project so that they have a false “why this when we can have that” argument against other developments, so they won’t be forced to discuss the real issues involved.
If PG&E doesn’t work out, what’s next, walkable mid-rise condos on the moon?