Measure P is Defeated 3:1

A Post of Pure Measure P Political Punditry

Although most people expected Measure P to fail, few guessed that the margin would be so great: 75% voted No; 25% voted Yes.  Why did most people expect Measure P to fail?  Talking to friends, neighbors and acquaintances before the election, few people had anything good to say about the proposed project to build 200 homes on a horse ranch east of the Wildhorse neighborhood.   The complaints were varied, but can be grouped into four main categories: process, timing, affordability, and developer credentials.

Let’s be very clear here.  There is no silver bullet reason why Measure P failed.  This vote does not mean that a majority of Davis voters are no-growth.  Reality is much more complicated than that.

Process

In a previous post on this site, Stephen Souza laid out the history of planning for Parlin Wildhorse Ranch (PWR).  Although they had been in the city development and review process since 2006, it was not until ~June 1, 2009 that anybody saw the very different final land use map.  In a city that prides itself on extensive and lengthy public discussions on all matters of importance, the PWR developers did little to ensure that the entire community, not just the adjacent neighborhood association, gave input and guidance on this plan.

So, in just two months time and with very little fanfare on July 28, 2009, this project was certified (at 1:30am) by the City Council and placed (at the developer’s request) on a special November ballot.  That evening, I spoke in public comment and pleaded for the Council not to rush this PWR to a November ballot, allow more community input and direct relevant commissions (Open Space & Habitat, Natural Resources, Finance & Budget) to comment and advise.  Although we retained neutrality on DavisVoice.com and I never publicly stated an opinion or endorsement, I knew on July 29th that I would vote no on Measure P: I can not trust the product of a process that I do not trust.

Timing

As Joe Krovoza so ably pointed out in his Op-Ed in last Sunday’s Davis Enterprise, a development project is one-third timing.  The timing could not have been worse for PWR.  Although Davis has not been hit as hard as the rest of the nation, home values have dropped significantly and houses are sitting on the market for much longer than normal.  Also, in the past year, several infill sites around town (Verona, Chiles Ranch, Grande site) have been entitled by the City and UC Davis finally broke ground on the West Campus housing project.  Arguments can be made on how many of the homes in the pipeline will actually get built or whether they will serve the needs of Davis, but to most Davisites the perception is that the housing pipeline is full while supply is high and demand is relatively low.

The single ballot election did PWR no favors either.  Many folks mistakenly thought that the City was footing the bill, while everyone else who knew that the developer was footing the $250,000 election questioned if this project deserved a quarter million dollar question.

Affordability

In these economically uncertain times, when a majority of our citizenry is affected by UC Davis, State of California, Yolo County and City of Davis furloughs and a soft job market in general, PWR did not convince the voters that this project was in their best financial interest.  A $450,00 townhome does not sound “affordable” to the average voter.  Also, with the removal of the middle income housing requirements, this project seemed to pale in comparison to Covell Village (Measure X) in terms of affordable options.

After the project was approved to go on the ballot, it did get a review by the Finance & Budget Commission which exposed some deep flaws in the fiscal model by the city.  The City claimed that the project offered fiscal neutrality, until the 15th year after it was built.  After year 15, the project would cost more in services than the city was collecting in taxes, like most housing developments.  This is due mainly to Prop 13, a complex cost sharing arrangement with the County (this particular site gives a much lower percentage to the city than most), and the spiraling costs of city employee health care and pension benefits.

So, even with the developer giving a ~$1,500 one-time per home fee plus $300 per home in yearly additional taxes, those with an economic bent began to believe that the city was getting a bad deal on this development.  I wonder if rather than spending ~$600,000 on a special election with a glossy campaign and instead dedicating an additional $3,000 per house to a long-term services fund, PWR could have side-stepped this issue.  At any rate, there is a teachable moment here: we understand very little about this complex issue and the many trade-off’s involved to ensure our city’s long term financial health.

Developer credentials

Parlin Development Company and sister company White Rock Investments are located in Rancho Cordova, CA.

“White Rock Investments is the company that selects and acquires our properties and Parlin Development is our service organization that manages the entitlement of our properties and provides financial services to the LLC’s that are formed to acquire and entitle the properties.  Our main focus is creating value and wealth for our investors.“*

*from a Google cached version of www.parlindevelopment.com, this site has been redirected to the Yes on P campaign site for the last few weeks.

And although the Parlin group trumpeted it’s planned green and sustainable features quite loudly as ground-breaking and worthy of worldwide attention, there is no evidence that the developer has any experience whatsoever with building green projects.  A quick scan of their website showed only some commercial developments and several other “flipped” properties.  The people of Davis are far too educated to simply trust that a project will be environmentally friendly, they want proof, and they never got it.

The fact that the Parlin group’s property west of the hospital was a part of the kerfuffle a year or two ago with the County regarding development on the city’s borders was also a red flag to many.

Another action that may have affected the PWR’s credibility was the fact that they negotiated an exclusion from the much-loved Small Builders Ordinance that was attached to both Mace Ranch and Wildhorse.  Not so long ago, small local builders joined together in a modern guild to ensure that non-local developers gave a fair chance to local craftsmen.  This regulation ensured a modicum of design diversity, the continuation of a long tradition of locally built homes and a check on tract housing.

Other Reasons

Voters may have focused on one of many other reasons to vote against Measure P: questionable Sierra Club endorsement, costly and glossy campaign with too many mailers and phone calls, a perception of green-washing, lack of transportation planning, increased demand on an already low supply of water and public safety resources, no-growth belief, a lack of public debate.

Closing

The truncated public debate and strange bedfellow created by Measure P prove something that I’ve suspected since I moved to Davis: we are a town of wary, smart, slow-growthers, not two warring camps of isolationists vs. tract home advocates.

The lesson today?  If we’re going to make complex land use decisions at the ballot box, then we need to embrace a lengthy public input and vetting process through established and respected arenas.