From winterety at sbcglobal.net Fri Mar 2 11:12:23 2007 From: winterety at sbcglobal.net (sheryl lynn gerety) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:12:23 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] FYI: Sue Greenwald in the Aggie Message-ID: <40ccd655595f6aebc30c6ccbfdba195b@sbcglobal.net> Below is an article Sue Greenwald wrote for the Aggie. The Aggie previously had published an article supportive of a housing development proposed by some supervisors for Davis' borders. This article is to rebut that one. This is a very good piece. Pam [Nieburg], Davis Neighborhood Coalition Twenty years ago, Yolo County forced major development on the City of Davis. This event caused deep divisions and angst in the community. In response, a historic agreement between the County and the City was forged. This is why I was taken aback when our two county supervisors, Mariko Yamada and Helen Thompson, mentioned, during a recent meeting, that they were leaning towards allowing urban development on the Northwest border of Davis. I was taken aback because the County had voluntarily entered into a binding agreement to refrain from approving urban development on county land within a wide swath of land surrounding the city of Davis. They agreed to refrain from approving urban development on our borders in exchange for receiving a large sum of money from our redevelopment agency to help support county services. This agreement, known as the pass-through agreement, was painstakingly negotiated and legally binding. Why did Supervisors Yamada and Thomson say they wanted to approve county development on our border, potentially breaking the agreement? They gave two different explanations. Supervisor Thomson said that she wants the county to have a revenue source. But, in fact, even county staff has acknowledged that residential development will cost the county more to service than it will bring in property tax revenue. And it is generally understood that light industrial and office development are usually only break-even propositions for local government. Even if our county supervisors wanted to engage in the hostile act of degrading the environmentand harmingDavis business by building a freeway mall on I-80, they still would not net$2 million per year after providing services such as police and fire, and they would loose the $2 million a year that we currently give them under the pass-through agreement. The county makes more money through our joint pass-through agreement than they would through any reasonably foreseeable development in our area. Supervisor Yamada had a different explanation. She said that she wanted approve development on the northwest border of our city in order to provide senior housing. And I know, in fact, that a developer has proposed a massive retirement subdivision community adjacent to northwest Davis. When I reassured Supervisor Yamada that I, too, have been promoting senior housing but don't favor the peripheral retirement subdivision model, she countered that senior housing should be built "close to the hospital". Now, we all agree that West Davis is a nice place for everyone, including seniors, to live. But speaking as someone who is old enough to receive regular solicitations from the AARP; I can only say that hospitals are not high on my list of essential amenities that must be in walking distance of my home. Personally, I feel that we have an excellent senior housing facility in northwest Davis already, and that we need to provide other options for senior citizens. I am partial to the idea of building senior condominiums and townhouses close our downtown. One possible site would be a portion of the underused 25 acre PG&E site at Fifth and L Street, walking distance to downtown and AMTRAK. But whatever locations are ultimately chosen, it is important that the location of Davis senior housing, and of all Davis urban housing and urban development, be a decision that is made by the city council rather than by the county supervisors, in accordance with the pass-through agreement and in accordance, I suspect, with voter expectations. The City of Davis has always worked cooperatively with the county and always will. We worked cooperatively with the county when we negotiated the pass-through agreement, which brought more resources to both the City and the County than either would have received in its absence. The pass-through agreement has been a classic example of a mutually beneficial joint venture. Hopefully, the county supervisors will realize that both cities and counties are financially stressed right now, and that neither of us can grow our way out of our financial problems. We can't -- because growth just doesn't bring net revenue, due to the high cost of providing municipal services. We look forward to working jointly with the county on many planning issues. But I hope we will be working jointly in the context of the pass-through agreement and according to the spirit and principles of the current County General Plan, which leaves urban development decisions to the city. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/707 - Release Date: 3/1/2007 -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.413 / Virus Database: 268 - Release Date: 3/1/2007 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 5224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From winterety at sbcglobal.net Fri Mar 2 11:13:37 2007 From: winterety at sbcglobal.net (sheryl lynn gerety) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:13:37 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] Fwd: Superintendent Message-ID: <414d94f5b353722ef9906c4ade00b97e@sbcglobal.net> > > ? > Got this from a friend this morning. > ? > ? >> Subject: Superintendent >> >> I'm sorry for one more email. I happened to be watching Board of >> Education tonight. I thought you should all know that after closed >> session?David Murphy, Superintendent, announced his resignation >> effective in July. They are making plans for an interim situation to >> accommodate a full search. The interim discussion will begin >> Saturday.? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 898 bytes Desc: not available URL: