From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Tue Oct 12 07:23:01 2004 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:23:01 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] test Message-ID: test. From epolito at ci.davis.ca.us Tue Oct 12 10:12:58 2004 From: epolito at ci.davis.ca.us (Esther Polito) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:12:58 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] New Conservation District Publication Message-ID: I have just received a complimentary copy of the National Trust for Historic Preservation's new publication titled "Protecting Older Neighborhoods Through Conservation District Programs." The Davis district of approximately 29 districts nation-wide that were studied. In fact, two homes in Old North are featured on the cover -- the white stucco and brick Tudor house on the east side of E and 5th. Inside are two more Davis photos -- one showing a group of Old East residents at a design workshop, and the other of two Old East homes. Having just received the booklet, I haven't had time yet to read it thoroughly. It appears to have a well balanced discussion the differnet goals and objectives that have been developed in the various districts, as well as the pros and cons of conservation district models as a way to protect the character of older neighborhoods. I have another copy on order from the National Trust which should arrive soon and which I can make available to the Neighborhood Associations. We'll probably order a few more later this month. Esther Esther Polito Cultural Services Manager City of Davis phone: 530/757-5610 fax: 530/757-5660 epolito at ci.davis.ca.us From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Tue Oct 12 14:13:42 2004 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:13:42 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] Be Careful What You Write: City Staff Are Monitoring Message-ID: People on this Old North list serv should be aware that a city employee is monitoring our postings and has at least once forwarded one of them to other city employees and even the City Council. These employees have also made at least one effort officially to neutralize remarks between Old North residents that were not directed to City officials. Here are the specifics. You will recall that last Sunday I posted a small item calling attention to and briefly commenting on the Emlen-Wolcott report on growth and housing projections. (It is reproduced below as Item One.) As you can read below, the monitoring official forwarded this to high level City staff and one of them crafted a commentary that seems intended to neutralize my brief and tentative remarks. This implicit critique was then sent to all members of the City Council (Item Two, below). When I received Item Two, I asked its author several questions about the reasons for and the propriety of his behavior. This email is reproduced below as Item Three. Finally, the author responded to my questions by declaring his interest in the "free flow of information," among other amazing remarks (Item Four). This episodes tells us that members of this list should be careful about what they write here. We are the subjects of, in my view, a "City government surveillance operation." This operation takes our exchanges among our selves that are preliminary and not intended for city employees as matters that these employees can pass around among themselves, rebut, and bring to the attention of the City Council. Of course, those who WANT their views to go straight to the top of Davis government should post here frequently and at length! We might have an active listener who attends to even the smallest of our utterances and can decide to speed them on to people in power. John Lofland ___________ ITEM ONE >>> John Lofland 10/10/2004 12:57:36 PM >>> Old Northers, Item 08 in this week's Council packet is by planners Emlen and Wolcott and titled "Growth Phasing & Fair Share Allocations." It contains tables of projected housing construction approvals by year over the next decade or so. Of immediate relevance to us, the major housing predicted within the 1917 City I noticed was 20 units on B Street. We know, however, that quite a lot of housing construction is going on and planned in the Original City. The question is: Is it in our interest to lobby to include projections for us or not? And, of course, it is exceedingly odd, to me, for planners to project 20 new units on B when there is a considerable struggle on that point going on and such a number may or may not actually be anywhere near the outcome. But, then, the projections assume that Covell Village will be approved and built! The year by year numbers are given in considerable detail. Such a planning exercise as this is a version of the self-fulfilling prophecy: A thing happens importantly as a consequence of a belief that it will happen rather than because factors in the nature of the situation making it happen. John Lofland ITEM TWO Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:41:10 -0700 From: "Bob Wolcott" To: Cc: "Anne Brunette" , "Bill Emlen" , "Don Saylor" , "Esther Polito" , "Ruth Asmundson" , "Stephen Souza" , , , Subject: Re: [OldNorth] Emlen-Wolcott Growth Projections X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.41 Status: Hi John, Thanks for your interest. I hope the following information allays some of the concerns in your email. This report raises some "big picture" issues about where we are going in terms of approving residential infill units and possibly peripheral units in the future, particularly how many and when. These issues are related to whether any units that might be approved would count toward the next fair share requirement period (that is, building permits issued after Jan. 2006) and whether the City adheres to a general parameter of 250 units to meet internal needs, rather than an average of 470 + units per year since 1987. This report will initiate a discussion of these issues, with more work needed. The B Street Corridor line item showing the potential for 20 additional units could include some future redevelopment on the DJUSD site. With such a redevelopment of DJUSD, the 20 units would be low. Without such a redevelopment, the 20 units would probably be high, unless one also considers adding an assumption for other sites like the Civic Center fields site. The Fifth and J area line item showing 10 units is probably high. The number 6 probably would have been more appropriate. Figures 1 and 2 which show if we approve all of the infill and peripheral projects shown, we might see 700 units in some years, far exceeding the 250 parameter. Figure 2 shows how the City might adhere to the 250 parameter. In conclusion, these are preliminary estimates that hopefully will aid the consideration of the "big picture" issues on Tuesday night, without grossly overstating the potentials on infill sites based on compatibility, neighborhood conservation, etc. Thanks again for your interest. ITEM THREE _______________________________________________ >>> John Lofland 10/11/2004 12:27:36 PM >>> Hello Bob, I have been looking through my "out" email to see if I sent you the message on which you have elected to comment to me. Did I send it to you, but then I forgot? If I did not send it to you, how did you come to see it? Are you monitoring the Old North List serv? Since it was not directed to you, why do you feel it justified to write me on a message to which you are not a party? And, why would you feel it appropriate to send your response to so many city officials? Let me assure you that if I have something to say to any of those people I will say it directly myself. I do not want or need you to carry my messages, especially since what I wrote was NOT directed to any of them. Do I not have a right to bring up issues with fellow Old North residents and discuss them in advance of approaching officials? After all, my resident-peers might change my mind. And, you commented on my note only to me. Why did you not respond to the dozens of Old North people on the list serv? Are they not as worthy of knowing your views as the city staff? I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these matters. John Lofland ITEM FOUR Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:15:22 -0700 From: "Bob Wolcott" To: Cc: "Anne Brunette" , "Bill Emlen" , "Esther Polito" Subject: Re: Your note to me X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.41 Status: Hi John, I received a copy of your email from Anne Brunette. I thought since it referred to the staff report I would give you the background on the topic. Your comments raised some good issues that Bill Emlen and I thought the Council might be interested as they work through the policy issues before them. We viewed the notes as a "free flow" of information and thoughts. Hopefully it was useful. No problem if you want to send on to a group list you may have. Thanks... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: