[OldNorth] FYI: Sue Greenwald in the Aggie

[sheryl lynn gerety]

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: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/oldnorth/attachments/20070302/d805b749/attachment.bin>