Vote to Heal a Divided Davis
October 12, 2024
Preface to thinking about Measure Q Tax and council election
By Alan Hirsch
I write this having attended more City Council and Commission meetings than all current council members, and all but a few community members.
For years now, I have seen city government fail to harness our community’s education and social capital wealth since the failure of the 2014 R&D Business Park initiative. The community has not leveraged its charmed geography—a unique rural area highly accessible via I-80 & rail service between the Bay Area & State Capitol. And proximity to UC Davis, a major research university that brings billions in grant dollars to our community. We are ideally located to incubate a wealth of startups and attract businesses. This should be giving us a robust tax base and providing a rich offering of city services.
Instead, we are failing. So, we now need to raise our sale taxes and we seem to have been forced to site new affordable housing next to the freeway, land that should have been used for new startups and businesses to build our city’s tax base. I note council decided not to site housing on Russell at a redone Trader Joes Mall across from the University this year. And Community resistance to student housing on Russell Fields 6 year back, close to our downtown, forced students to live in dorms in West Village 1 mile from our downtown shopping area- where they don’t feed out sales tax base.
It used to be noted at council meetings that Davis’s greatest asset is its involved and educated residents. No longer. Instead, city staff and council, though their actions, indicate they don’t believe this anymore. It used to be residents could express their insight and expertise by being involved in an independent city commission. Full commissions used to bring up new ideas, and even vote to disagree with the council, even over ballot measures. No more. People volunteering for commissions are told by staff that their role is to serve the current council’s policy, even though this contradicts the not-yet-updated official Commission Handbook that recalls the old way: “Commissions are independent.”
The gridlock preceded this, but the City has over the last two years reduced by over 25% the number of community members who participate through commissions...and now the city is proposing to restrict items commissioners can even talk about: any one member of council can slow or block a discussion item on a commission agenda. Staff has over the years sometimes subtly, but often through policy changes, used the Brown Open Meeting Act to make commission meetings more formal with less free flowing discussions, especially constricting public engagement. Even the right of the public to hand out unreviewed material to commissioners has been challenged. Current new policy is that only developers can show PowerPoints to council and commissions at a public hearing.
The fact is I-80 was quietly advanced for years without any input from City’s Transportation Commission- or citizen that are world-class expert at UC Davis’ Institute of Transportation Studies is troubling. The same goes for failure to engage world-class Arboriculture expert at the University or volunteers at Tree Davis in the city’s urban forestry program.
As I write this, I acknowledge that the city is hard to govern (see Councilman Will Arnold’s piece) because there are many involved and with often contradictory voices who advocate different visions- many have shifted first to skepticism and then cynicism after years of being ignored. But city hall response has not been to rethink the process to rebuild trust and find common ground and harmonize the diversity, but instead to push through plans – most of which meet failure if they are forced to be tested at the ballot box. Measure Q is the latest skirmish.
I am not accusing council or staff of corruption or ill-intention: I just note a shift in culture where city staff seems to view themselves as a service delivery organization so concerned residents are reduced to “customers.” This metaphor transforms community involvement to a friction that slows staff from “getting things done.” Public involvement is often ignored until someone raises legal issues of transparency and public participation. As a defensive mechanism, City’s process of community involvement seems to be reduce to legal minimum to minimize the public criticism. This is a death spiral of mistrust and nihilism toward any city initiative by some of most involved and concerned citizens.
One might think less public engagement is a reasonable trade off, but one can look at the opportunity cost of not allowing engagement of community expertise, especially university faculty – or the consequences of alienation of the most informed and civically engaged members of community. This might be linked to repeated failures to build consensus to pass J/R votes to increase our tax base and build housing.
The tree policy is a classic example. After Tree Davis Identified that the tree ordinance was failing, over the last ten years, the Tree Commission has three times drafted a revision of the Tree Ordinance, and three times the city staff failed to advance this draft for consideration to City Council. The council has finally responded – in last year-- by disbanding the Tree Commission. Many other activists have similar stories of City Staff not supporting, or delaying for years community driven innovations and initiatives (e.g. The Housing Trust Fund) while council stood by.
A new General Plan won’t fix this alienation: the plan to hire an outside consultant won’t address a dysfunctional planning process that grows out of this culture. “Culture eats strategy for breakfast” Peter Drucker famously said.
We need to heal and rebuild trust via a new culture of collaboration, one where city staff believes its job is to go beyond the bare minimum community engagement required by law.
MY BIAS for the council election therefore is selecting among candidates someone who will change the “go along/get along with staff” default of council. One who is not afraid of conflict, dissent or admitting mistakes.
I love Davis, and have, and will continue to endorse most tax measures and land annexation (growth) measures as this seem to be the best the process can do, so Yes on Q seem to be best we can do these days). But the decline of Davis is clear for all to see.
I hope the election for district 2 to replace Will Arnold on council will select someone who goes beyond the go-along/get along attitude that fails to look inward but just blames community members for the problem. I believe Dillon Horton is the that person who both knows the city process and has that temperament. But anyone, even a current council person can be step up with courage and be a catalyst to ask for a change in city hall culture.
We need to get beyond the blame-game.
I note council decided not to site housing on Russell at a redone Trader Joes Mall across from the University this year.
I don't believe that's accurate. The council approved the inclusion of housing on the site - the developer did not want to build it.
The city is fortunate to have a developer who was willing to replace the previous retail mall. Have you been observing what's happening elsewhere (e.g., malls across the country, San Francisco's Union Square)? Even Macy's is closing its flagship store in Union Square.
Regarding I-80, I don't know why anyone thinks that Caltrans will listen to one town (Davis) along the corridor. Nor do I understand why some advocate for development along freeway corridors, while simultaneously advocating against freeway expansion which is intended to accommodate that (and other) development along the same corridor. (This position is inherently self-contradictory, and makes no sense.)
Regarding the so-called "innovation centers", each and every one of them has morphed into a fiscally-draining housing project. Even the one that "escaped" to Woodland (which still hasn't materialized) added 1,600 housing units during its "move" from Davis. (Since it's about 7 miles from it's originally-planned site - where Bretton Woods is now being built), I figure that it added about 230 housing units for each mile that it "moved".
I believe the site in Woodland was (also) originally zoned for commercial-only usage, but that it was changed to accommodate the 1,600 housing units. Sound familiar?
As a side note, I went to Bretton Woods' "grand opening", and found that the rather small houses were priced at around $900K. So much for "affordable by size".
Folks, I have an idea - stop trying to make Davis into something that it isn't (and never has been).
Posted by: Ron O | October 12, 2024 at 04:34 PM
When the council wastes money over and over again, they do not deserve more sales tax so they can waste that too. Look at G St. now. Look at Rainbow City, look at staff pay and promises, look at zipline The list goes on. NO on measure Q.
Posted by: Donna Lemongello | October 12, 2024 at 04:53 PM
This is such a mish-mash of things I agree with and things I disagree with from all over the map I don't even know how to comment -- except to say: how in hell did you criticize the F out of the Council and conclude the solution is to give the body that is the cause of so many of issues more money ? Do you honestly believe giving money to the leaders of the problems will solve the problems? They aren't going to magically start spending and thinking like you want them to because you give them more money to fund the spending and thinking they want. And I say that as a fellow Alan who fundamentally disagrees with the author Alan on a lot, and agrees with fellow Alan on a lot -- the way to vote on doubling the local sales tax being one we don't agree on.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 12, 2024 at 05:05 PM
No corruption or ill intention? Everything you write of is especially about corruption and ill intention
And let's not forget the aggregate community, inclusive of the university and the county, which of course makes everything a total mess as far as transparent and level democratic structures: County residents - fully part of the City in many ways - don’t elect Councilmembers, and neither do campus residents, no one elects the UC Regents, etc (but at least my landlord hasn't put up posters endorsing the Chancellor for reelection...)
The alternative to new student housing next to Downtown was not only West Village, sprawling as it does over the horizon, half filled with parking lots.... Though the university is building on top of at least one parking lot, the city seems unwilling to do that and of course Orchard Park Is half as dense as it could have been.
I-80 Is essentially the largest religion or at least religious object in town. You're correct in stating that we shouldn't have new housing next to it, but what about the existing housing? What about its proximity to Promenade and much of campus? I-80 is also the largest piece of art in the City, a giant audio sculpture of noise. I’m having an opening in front of Shrem this week, where it's awfully present. Look for the conceptual title and artists’ name posted on the wall. Why do we have a bike as a symbol when it's I-80 that’s way more popular?
And you think sprawl is the solution? Based on current mobility share in parts of Davis around the same distance, nearly everyone from projects snarkily-named afterdisplaced eponymous flora and fauna - or fake-Villaging itself - is going to want to drive everywhere. Where are they going to park Downtown? There's no serious public transportation solution in the works. Cycling is on the decline here, and will continue to get worse. Speaking of gods, VMT is - or is not, depending on how one looks at things - the golden goose of transportation system criteria. 102 is going to turn into the road of death: Perhaps we can get two EV fires burning at the same time!
A perfect example of Staff corruption - or rather a kind corruption composed of lack of interest that results in hiring of unqualified people - can be found in the Staff Report for this Tuesday's council meeting: The Downtown Sidewalk Dining Plan. A rendering suggests moving bicycle transportation out of the street as an option. And doesn't address anything beyond the sidewalks all - yes, that’s not part of the name, but that’s intentional. I think it's on page 10: beyond the four proposed zones of the sidewalk space, there are two lines of parked cars and I think a traffic lane for cars in both directions. There's a bizarre suggestion that the fourth zone called the activation zone could be used not only for bike lanes, but also for parklets, perhaps interchangeably along the way. It doesn't make any sense. Actual progressive communities consider the whole street, not just one section of one whole street, like G St.
It doesn't seem to resemble the renderings or visualizations in the Downtown Plan. I'm starting to think that the Downtown Plan was, intentionally for some, a step towards the awful, rotting tomato on the side of the road coup d'etat which we're currently immersed in. I think that the huge consultancy involved was mostly right-on but that the huge community-based group that helped workshop the Plan gave it a bit of veneer of permanent inclusivity that the Plan doesn't deserve, certainly now.
Who wants this Davis? A Davis with a small but sizable number of people living Downtown, 85% in new places paying market rates, fortunately some of whom won't have cars…. But with everyone else in the region and most in the city driving to its Downtown?. Depending on the material used in building facades, it could be even louder than now.
Some still talk about “small town feel” as if that’s typically represented - for millenia - by short buildings and automobile access. It’s a four hour round trip by foot between El Macero to Sutter Davis. This also relates to “heal” and “divided”. Was it ever in a state of good health? Did anything change with the recent murders and suicides? Divided implies two parties, but it’s way more than that, though generally those in power and those with less. Healing has never, even been the goal of those in power.
Posted by: Tuvia ben Olam DBA Todd Edelman | October 12, 2024 at 06:31 PM
102 is going to turn into the road of death: Perhaps we can get two EV fires burning at the same time!
Already there, apparently partly due to Waze (e.g., folks turning left/northward, from Road 29). Significant backups up to I-5, especially on Friday afternoons. Not a good time to try to get to CostCo.
Also lots of drivers from Davis itself. It's really going to be something, if the voters approve Covell Village Act II.
I-80 is also the largest piece of art in the City, a giant audio sculpture of noise.
Not sure if this qualifies me as an aficionado of art, but I find it particularly-satisfying to cross over one of Davis' I-80 overpasses (take your pick) while gazing at the backed-up traffic below me. Although I'm almost always driving when crossing those overpasses, I nevertheless feel amused and "superior" when witnessing that belching spectacle. (Of course, most of them are probably playing-around with their phones while stuck in traffic, anyway.) In any case, I then ask myself why they aren't choosing to travel between 2-5 a.m. instead, with the hope that they haven't closed off lanes to fix the freeway during that period before traffic starts up again. Using blinding lights to turn night into day, which were apparently commandeered from a UFO.
Posted by: Ron O | October 12, 2024 at 08:43 PM
Ron O. is correct. The Council approved a mixed-use zoning category for University Mall. That gave Brixmor, the mall owner, the option of developing housing at the site, but it was not a requirement. Brixmor (the owner) could either build a new mall with housing, or without housing. By assigning the mixed-use designation, the City had no legal means by which to compel Brixmor to construct housing on the site.
The Brixmor project manager to who took over the project from the original company team emphasized that housing was not the company's expertise, and that only a few of the hundreds of shopping centers it owns throughout the country have housing (and those few already had housing when the company acquired them). Brixmor spent the better part of two years trying to find a development partner that could build and manage a housing component at the mall, and came up empty-handed.
And keep in mind that the original project concept that emerged in 2018 consisted solely of luxury, rent-by-the bed student housing. It was not conventional multi-family housing that would have met the needs of working families.
It was not Brixmor's original intent to include housing, but when the company first informed the City in 2016 about its intent to redevelop the mall, an unnamed City official encouraged them to include high-rise student housing, even though at that time many citizens were working hard to get UCD to build more on-campus student housing. (The identity of that City official has never been revealed, but based on my inquiries, I suspect it is someone has since departed City employment.)
The Planning Commission unanimously rejected the original mall redevelopment project with student housing because by that time the City had already approved off-campus student housing projects comprising over 1,000 units and almost 4,000 beds. The Commission felt the City had done enough to address UCD's housing needs, and it was high time for UCD to step up.
Unfortunately, the Council on a 3-2 vote approved the mixed-use concept. In my opinion, if Council had instead ratified the Planning Commission's recommendation, it would have perhaps given the City the leverage to go back to the negotiation table with Brixmor and at least gotten a small number of housing units.
I'm a planning commissioner, but the opinions expressed herein are strictly my own.
Posted by: Greg Rowe | October 12, 2024 at 08:48 PM
Thank you, Greg, for setting the record straight on that so clearly and thoroughly. I can’t tell you how many times I have had conversations with people who have said “the neighbors killed the housing,” and of course, that fits better with the narrative that some people like to tell about anyone who gets involved in Davis politics — they are all big bad nimbys. But that just isn’t what happened in the situation, as you describe. There were some complaints about the size of one proposal, but in the end, it was the developer who pulled housing from the project entirely for the reasons you give, not because of neighbors’ complaints.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 12, 2024 at 09:15 PM
TE say, "Did anything change with the recent murders and suicides?"
You forgot to include the multiple encampment fires and arson fires.
You pretty much nailed the scene, T.E. But of course W.A. will call it "conspiracy theories" and "shaming the staff". Sometimes these labels are deserved.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 12, 2024 at 09:44 PM
About Post-University Mall, I was on the BTSSC at the time and advocated for a shared district on the shared border of Davis and UCD in order to have some more say - in some fashion - in development here*. Functionally-speaking, this is part of campus, and living here would make a lot of sense for the campus community - probably more than out-to-the-horizon West Village and equally to what became Orchard Park. No one went for it.
Construction wise - specifically in regards to building heights - it seemed clear to me that the problem with the designs were that the highest parts were on the north side of the property, rather than the south, up against Russell. Perhaps I only commented on this -- no one went for it.
* Part I: Based on the "town gown memorandum" the City and UCD have collaborated on the Re-imagine Russell project, a process which had all sorts of issues, from sort of symbolic advisory bodies, non-transparent Zoom breakaway sessions, and consultants who spoke unprofessionally fast. Fortunately the awful mid-level staff person who managed this is gone now, replaced by someone... um, less qualified.
Part II: Around the same time as the Reimagine Russell thing was happening - and as an example of even less transparency and smart decision making - UCD, the City and developer of what became Promenade worked together in some fashion for years after the Nishi 2.0 annexation vote in 2018, which was fundamentally flawed as there was no agreement with UP for an under-crossing. (And the DA said "grade separated" but the election imagery said "undercrossing"). UP rejected it in early 2019, and the three bodies appealed unsuccessfully right away, and didn't make this known to the final version of the project was very quietly put on the CoD website in May 2023, and now there's a plan for everyone travelling walking, rolling and cycling to head to campus through the existing 12 ft wide tunnel under the train tracks along the Creek Parkway, and part of the mitigation for I-80 widening is a widening or improvements of the Parkway - the MUP along the Dwtn side of the Arboretum and/or the existing Arboretum Dr all the way to Old Davis Road -- the claim is that this will reduce VMT, in part because of extra capacity on the mentioned areas despite the pinch point with the tunnel, and I've explained that - just like adding subway services to a station where the escalators to the street don't get sped up - throughput will not improve and may actually make things more dangerous or congested -- just like the reverse thrombosis of the - especially EB interchange of 80 and 113. In other words, the plan is to add useless or worse capacity here on the MUP to make up for widening which is being influenced in part by over-capacity on the freeway! It's really the ultimate transportation clusterfuck in Davis, and senior engineers and planners from the City and UCD are not responding. And that's why I am voting No on Q!
Posted by: Tuvia ben Olam DBA Todd Edelman | October 12, 2024 at 10:41 PM
TE, please re-write the above with short, concise, easy-to-digest sentences. I'd have to re-write what you wrote just to understand it.
"Fortunately the awful mid-level staff person who managed this is gone now, "
Name?
And after all those words above, I agree with the conclusion. Vote NO on Measure Q
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 13, 2024 at 10:31 AM
I started this campaign cycle on the fence and not caring a whole lot either way. But the "no" campaign has really made its case. It really doesn't matter how much Davis needs the money. The current Council has shown in so many ways that it cannot be trusted to spend the money wisely. It will throw money at additional salaries for people who are already well-paid (especially heavy campaign contributors like firefighters -- and the "yes" campaign has already suggested that money will go for that) and ill-thought out and ill-consulted projects like G Street.
If you had a friend who was majorly in debt but who had a gambling problem, would you give them money? Much as it might be hard to turn that friend down, you do them no good by giving them money. By the same logic, we will do Davis no good by giving the Council more money to spend poorly, leaving us with the same crappy roads and bike paths that we had before.
Some people say that the Council's gutting of the citizen commissions isn't relevant, but it's highly relevant. It shows that this Council isn't interested in citizen input and not only will do what it thinks is best without listening, it will actively act to squelch citizen input. Included in that input is necessary information about the City's finances that citizens have historically overseen, but which is now lacking, as the "no" campaign has documented.
So, I will be voting "no" on Measure Q.
I am still trying to make up my mind on who to vote for in District 2.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 13, 2024 at 11:20 AM
RM say: "The current Council has shown in so many ways that it cannot be trusted to spend the money wisely."
The past few, or several, Councils as well. We didn't get where we are from one iteration of Council. Not to let the present Council off the hook, but rather to equally blame past Councils inerations as well. Yes, I said blame.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 13, 2024 at 11:27 AM
ACM, I don't disagree. Just focusing on the issue at hand.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 13, 2024 at 11:32 AM
Another follow-up to comments by Ron O, regarding Bretton Woods. Some reasons for the high prices:
(1) The developer originally assumed that stormwater and drainage infrastructure costs would be $4 million. But, that was based on City requirements. When the County issued its requirements, the total cost rose to $18 million. This info was conveyed to me by the developer's attorney, whom I have known for a number of years and have always found his info to be reliable.
(2) No Mello-Roos Facility Assessment District. It is my understanding that the developer made the decision to not use Mello-Roos to pay for infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, etc.). This is perhaps because Mello-Roos is confusing to many home buyers, and it is typically an annual fee that continues for 30 years. He instead incorporated those costs into the cost of each home.
(3) Construction costs have risen greatly since the developer initially started holding public meetings on this project in 2016 (if my memory is correct).
Posted by: Greg Rowe | October 13, 2024 at 12:12 PM
Thanks, Greg. The lack of Mello Roos is definitely an advantage, and it's generally better if those are rolled into the housing price.
Normally, the housing price would then determine the amount of property tax. However, that may not be the case very often in this particular development (due to the ability of senior citizens to transfer their existing property tax as a result of Proposition 19).
Pretty sure it does, however, have an HOA fee.
I'm not "complaining" about high prices. Just noting that prices aren't going to be lowered very much by building "smaller" houses. As you noted regarding stormwater and drainage costs, for example - in this relatively dense development.
(My own opinion goes further than that, since I don't think that housing prices should be a determining factor regarding the amount of development that any community pursues. There's always a limit regarding how high prices can go, since demand generally decreases when prices rise.)
I was surprised at the amount of interest in this development during their grand opening. Lots of senior citizens (also taking advantage of the free food they offered that day). I've concluded that this is not a bad place for a senior citizen development, due to its proximity to Sutter Davis. (Given that seniors are often "frequent flyers" regarding health care.)
Posted by: Ron O | October 13, 2024 at 12:57 PM
Thanks for the feedback. I learned something.
I note the comments give a display of the culture of Davis.
Posted by: Alan Hirsch | October 14, 2024 at 04:19 PM
Thanks for the feedback. I learned something."
You, my friend - are "unqualified" to be a current council member regarding that type of comment.
:-)
Posted by: Ron O | October 14, 2024 at 05:53 PM