This is a page for discussion of the content of the original page. This page was created because there was a dispute or argument about the content of the page (Covell Village). Hashing out our differences here will allow for a more productive dialogue and won't clutter the original page.
Feel free to work things out on this page then merge them onto Covell Village when complete. This is sort of a 'planning page' because Covell Village is so important.
Please see Covell Village/Draft — an effort to rework the Covell Village page.
Things we should do for this page:
-
Make a new housing costs table. The current table might be incorrect. In any case, it's hard to verify.
-
The information should be as accurate as possible, including the general information approved by the by the City Council as well as what the current developer's figures are for house prices. There is merit in including figures on what Davis residents can afford. After all, much of the debate is surrounding affordability. The only question is how to calculate it. Someone should check the reports on house affordability and adjust them for when the homes will be available, up to inflation, etc. In fact, this page should probably have an entire "Prices" section because the issue is tricky to approach. It would take a bit of time, but it's definitely worth it!
-
Make a table of the house costs that residents can afford by population percentage and income.
-
The section on taxes should be fixed as it's out of date. AFAIK the city has approved the tax amounts for the project and we should include those. It was higher than initially expected, so the city is getting more than they had initially planned?
-
Refactor the pro/con sections: They are both written in completely different styles and should be toned down and trimmed. There should be much more information in the non-pro/non-con sections above the pro/con sections. For instance, we can say "Every home will have a 1KW solar panel" in the above section. For the pro, that's a good thing. For the con, it's not really sufficient and is of questionable quality. It's not even necessary for us to maintain such pro/con sections, as we might considerin including the pro/con viewpoint alongside the facts.
Affordable housing units
Here is a table-based version of the left image on the page:
| Number of Units | Types of Housing | Starting Price | Average Price |
| 144 | Town Houses | $198,000 | $267,000 |
| 150 | Senior Houses | $325,000 | $450,000 |
| 30 | Co-Housing Residences | n/a | $395,000 |
| 100 | Middle-Income Residences | $325,000 | $341,000 |
| 100 | Middle-Income Residences | $377,000 | $404,000 |
| 100 | Middle-Income Residences | $426,000 | $463,000 |
| 100 | Middle-Income Residences | $506,000 | $591,000 |
Source: Covell Village Partners. Note that this chart only includes affordable units. There are 724 affordable units in total.
First, we should define "affordable". Only then can we discuss if CV is or isn't affordable.
Questions about chart: Are the numbers based upon prices now or prices when the units are set to be available? All non-affordable units are free-market priced units, correct?
Why is there a difference between the city numbers and the chart above? If we are saying that the city facts are the most nuetral, shouldnt we go with these? And the city report clearly states that these numbers are in 2005 prices, not in actual prices when available. The city has these numbers in the report at ![[WWW]](http://wikispot.org/wiki/eggheadbeta/img/sycamore-www.png){kind=small}
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/covell/pdfs/CV_Chart_of_housing_types_and_costs.pdf
Affordable housing units according to City of Davis Report
| Number of Units | Types of Housing | Starting Price | Average Price |
| 144 | Town Houses | $198,000 | $283,000 |
| 150 | Senior Houses | N/A | Market Rate |
| 6 | ***Co-Housing Residences*** | n/a | $395,000 |
| 100 | Middle-Income Residences | N/A | $342,000 |
| 100 | Middle-Income Residences | N/A | $398,000 |
| 100 | Middle-Income Residences | N/A | $485,000 |
| 100 | Middle-Income Residences | N/A | $614,000 |
***Interesting to note that the report also states, "6 of 30 units in the designated co-housing project will be affordable to Low and Moderate Income households"- So in the table it is not 30, but 6. So between senior housing and co-housing there are 174 less units than claimed in other literature.
Could someone who has a connection to CV please explain these differences? Which is correct? Sandy, do you have any idea? BrianSolecki
Unfortunately, according to the city of Davis website, http://www.city.davis.ca.us/covell/pdfs/CV_Chart_of_housing_types_and_costs.pdf The target income for "Middle Income" is $88k-$119k per year for a family of 4. It is one of my pet peeves about this campaign, Covell Village will not provide 'affordable' housing, it will provide more expensive housing in an expensive housing market that happens to be slightly cheaper. If they were honest about that i would be more inclined to support it. Saying that CV will provide housing to young teachers and public service professionals is simply untrue. A starting teacher in Davis makes $35k a year... Far from the $88k target. I am sure that CV will rival Mace Ranch in property tax percentage, so the average of those 400 residences would be paying ~$900 a month in property tax! Not to mention that it appears that essentially none of those 'affordable' residences will be single-family, detached homes. BrianSolecki
Hello. My name is Sandy. I'm a 3rd generation Davisite and my father is one of the Covell Village Partners. I've been somewhat involved (or at least educated about) the planning of this project over the last 10 years, and would love to talk to anyone who has questions, 758-1470. I want to note that two-incomes can make up the total for a 4-person family (so you could have an entry-level teacher and a spouse who makes anything under $53K per year to qualify). I understand your point though - Covell Village isn't going to be the new home for Hurricane Katrina refugees or anything. Still, 48% of the housing units have some sort of price control, which is unlike anything I've ever heard of. Anyone with questions may email me at sandy@bigbluehearts.com or give me a call. Thank you very much. SandyWhitcombe
P.S. - The table above is correct. It is all laid out in detail in the development agreement, and can't be changed. I like your idea of creating more of a non-biased chart on percentage of residents that can afford each category, but obviously I shouldn't be the person to do that.
Just a thought on the origninal page, however it was developed, it really was doing a good job of being a fair evaluation of the project, and the pro and con arguements. Unfortunately, both the pro and con arguements use a fair bit of hyperbole, deception, and misleading information. So, the con arguement, which is based on the table of inaccurate pricing is correct, though its basis is not correct. And the por arguement, which is based on technical/beaurocratic afordability is correct, though the way those things are calculated is not realistic. - rocksanddirt
Maybe we should rework the page to include as much information as possible in the top area (the non-op. portions) and then make the pro/con sections more clear. As it stands there is important info. in each, it's just nested in hyperbole, etc.
This is a tough issue for the Wiki because people feel so strongly about it. Because I know a lot about the project, I'm finding that people are deleting things that are true, or adding things that aren't. I put a link to the City of Davis site on the CV page. Here it is again: http://www.city.davis.ca.us/covell/ I hope that people can feel comfortable that they can get unbiased information there. Thanks.
Although I am pro-Covell Village, I have really enjoyed getting relatively unbiased information about the perspectives of each side from main CV entry. I think that it has really started to change in the past few days now that people are using the wiki to manipulate rather than inform. It is actually sad, and I am sure that it will only get worse as we get closer to the election date.
Rehaul idea
It might be good to refactor the article to be in certain sections that include information alongside the pro and cons, maybe like the following:
-
Overview: Brief idea of what the project is. It will require Measure X vote. What is one-sentence 'pro' and one-sentence 'con' on the project.
-
History: Brief history of the project. The plans have been around for something like 15 years. Who is responsible for the project (Corbett and others). A little bit about development in Davis in the past.
-
Planning: The basic plan for the site according to what was approved by City Council (not according to the Covell Village handouts). Include total number of housing units (1,864). You can read this info in the pdf on the city site. It is planned to have a "new urban" design. This is a (pro) because it might emphasize walking, etc. However, some (con) believe that the design does not share the same principles as the Village Homes development he is famous for (b/c there larger units, more stores, etc). The basics of what it will include. Also, we should say that the project, as approved by voters, cannot include all of the details. It is instead an approval of a baseline project, and the other details are worked out with the City Council independently of a vote. Con's see this as a problem, because the voters do not have enough control over the specifics of the project, whereas Pro's see this as fine because the project is so vast and that the baseline approved project is sufficient to ensure it as a success.
-
Solar energy: 1kW per home. Pro take: Good, clean energy. Con take: It's not that great of an energy source (is there another objection? I was thinking it might be that it's over-emphasized/not worth it?)
-
Housing prices: Big issue. We should just come out and say "It's highly debated.." The pro claim the housing will be affordable, the con claim it won't be. First off, we clarify that the phrase "affordable housing" (if i am not mistaken) as used by the city, means that the houses are not sold at market prices and are instead set in their pricing. x number of units will be sold at market prices, and y will be sold at fixed-affordable prices. We include now as much information as we can that's been approved by the city in terms of affordable housing: types of units and their prices — but we need to be clear about whether the price is in money now or money then.
-
Environmental effects: The soil stuff as well as traffic stuff goes here.
-
Alternatives: The City of Davis has a set "growth requirement," and Covell Village would meet that growth requirement. But what are some housing alternatives? More infill, building 'up' areas of davis rather that building 'out', mace curve. Then objections to each of these plans. There's also the belief that davis does not need further widespread development.
-
What happens if Measure X doesn't pass? — I think we need more accurate information about this situation. The pro-covell side says that not building covell means that we risk davis being developed without the davis voter's consent. Can we find the source of the Helen Thompson quote? What is the anti-covell village reply to this argument?
Thoughts on a layout like this as opposed to a solidly pro-con layout?
10/22/05 - What the heck happened to the original page that has been up for months?!!! I get busy for a week and look what happens. The page has been altered so much that I don't even see my words at all anymore. I was very careful to try to keep it balanced. The pro-section seems to start at the top and go on and on so unless someone has the patience to page down several times, they don't even get to the con-arguments. I believe that this was done purposefully. It also gives you a warning at the top of the page that what you are about to read has incorrect information and seems to want to send you to the City of Davis page again and again. After that - why bother to read on at all? The original page had a concise pro section with links to the Covell Village website where the Covell Village partners could promote their project any way they wanted. The con-argument was treated the same way - a concise description and links to the opposition website. If you search for "Covell Village" - there are several pages on the wiki now - a faqs page, a discussion page, etc. All these pages could be included in the list of links. (As an aside, I wonder who did the edits and wonder if he was paid for his time. The changes are enormous and must have taken some time.) My suggestion: Restore the original page (can this be done?) Move the extensive pro-section over to a pro-Covell village page (I think that there is one already) and then link to it. Correct the tables, etc. if they need to be updated. P.S. I also grew up in Davis. - SharlaDaly
You probably know you can click the 'info' tab to see the history of the page and find out exactly what happened to your words. Hope this helps. —SteveDavison
Good point, Sharla. Perhaps we should think about your ideas. It might make more sense to stop trying to have a 'neutral page' and instead just have two pages, one pro, one con. Both having a disclaimer at that top that the material posted may be 'spun' and to look for other sources such as the Davis Covell page for more info. BrianSolecki
I don't think there's any shortage of one-sided pro/con arguments out there, even on the web. I think links to these sources, with a neutral with pro/con layout as propsed, would be best. Then the person reading the article can find out the basics and get the basic objections from each side. If we had two pro/con pages, or one page with two huge pro and con sections (as we do now) then the reader is essentially reading two campaign pampflets, both of which will inevitabily attempt to respond to each other.
I edited some of the original intro to the CV page. There were a bunch of statements that were untrue. In addition, although it seemed to be unbiased at first glance, it was clearly written by someone who was anti-Measure-X. I added facts from that I got from the newspaper and the City of Davis, and I deleted the statements that were untrue. Some untruths have made their way back in. For instance, someone keeps adding that the zoning of CV could be changed afterward, if it passes. Well, the zoning can't change without a vote by the people - the zoning is identified in the baseline and the landuses can not be changed. The "zoning standards" can potentially change with agreement by the city ("zoning standards" are details, such as the type of material to be used.) I felt like these kind of statements needed to be cleared up, at least in the overview section. There are still a lot of things that are either not true, or stretch the truth. I can't police all the lies, so I like the idea of having links to articles from respected newspapers or other media. Thanks, SamToomey
I went ahead and removed the "everything you read is going to include things that are false." from the top of the page. I left the link to this discussion. I moved the amenities list to the body of the pro-argument section as it shouldn't be part of the introduction about why we are being asked to vote at all. I still think that the pro-argument section is too long and should be severely edited and the information included on the Covell website or another wiki page, but I am not technically savvy enough to do this without risking losing it altogether. Plus I am klutsy at creating links. Maybe the comments at the bottom should be moved to its own page too so the CV folks don't feel that they need to respond to every posting by adding another paragraph to the body above.
Again my words were erased from the Covell introduction. I respect the person's attempt to keep it balanced. So I worked on the page - balancing each argument. The Covell folks should change their pro-arguments and the No on X guys should update their cons. That way we can see the arguments side by side. I wasn't able to complete it all so there is still a large section of pros and the cons are still lumped at the bottom. No changes to the comments included below.
I worked on it a little more. I found that someone had included "this is a lie" comments in the con sections, which I moved to the end or deleted. The idea is that pro-arguments stay in the pro-sections and the con-arguments stay in their section. Saying that "this is a lie" is tiresome as each pro v. con is opposed in almost every instance. Either side can accuse each other of "lying" and it doesn't help. If the pro-argument is not clear enough then state it more clearly (briefly please). It should look like a debate. One question for Sam Toomey - the baseline link in the introduction goes to a pdf which states that it is a draft and subject to revision. If the measure passes will this document become the final baseline and no longer a "draft?" - SharlaDaly
It'd probably be good to work out that summary "Con Arguments" section, since it's pretty pathetic now:
Opponents of the Covell Village development say that is the largest subdivision ever proposed for Davis. -not clearly "Con"
It would be a sprawling development of big, expensive homes on tiny lots. -not clearly "Con"
Six times larger, twice as dense, this is no Village Homes. -? Not clearly "Con"
Covell Village would have many adverse impacts on our community - Listening...?
and it is in direct conflict with Davis' 2001 Citizens' General Plan. - still listening...
With such significant impacts Covell Village would do little for middle-income Davis families, renters or students. - ...explain?
-(Un)affordable Housing -not clearly "Con"
-Level F Traffic -Bad for Schools -explaination would be nice
-Higher Crime - if the proposed development would be so upper-class in nature as the "Con"s claim, this is a really weak argument.
Disclaimer: I'm personally undecided about Covell Village, so it would be nice to see some fleshed-out, cogent arguments against it.
Regarding the derogatory comment at the end of the page. That sort of thing makes the potential of wiki fall short. While the poster may have a point about reasons for various stereotyped groups positions on the issue, it can be phrased in a way that is not 4th-grade name calling. — rocksanddirt
Well, my attempt to have short pros vs. cons on each issue has fallen apart with the con group posting a large letter that covers multiple issues. I need some help here. Should we create a Con page and move it over and then pull out the appropriate paragraphs to put on the short pro/con page? Or do I throw my hands up in frustration and just resign myself to letting the wiki do its thing. - SharlaDaly
I think we should throw out the pro section / con section layout all together and instead section the page into "issues" with equal-lengthed responses." Also, I don't think we have permission to reprint the opt-ed anyway (not that it would likely matter). I am going to create a Draft of the new layout that we can work on then move over.
I propose that the Pro-Covell Village FAQ page be deleted, as all the content is from offsite (not from us), and I think having it on the Wiki gives an unfair pro-covell bias to the Wiki since there is no corresponding Con-Covell page. The external page is already linked to anyway. BTW, if you think I wish it removed because it is against my stance, you would be mistaken. It's an issue of ethics to me; fairness is more important than winning. —SteveDavison
I agree about the faq page, though we could make a page for this faq but it would just continue fragmenting the information that everyone can already get elsewhere. —PhilipNeustrom
Hey, go ahead as long as there is a link to the information somewhere on the main page. I'm not doing much anymore because the page is such a mess now and people are still maneuvering around. It's beginning to be amusing to watch now to see little jabs inserted into the wrong places, large sections posted to drown out the other side. I think what really people want is an honest debate. Brace yourself for the slug-fest that is going to happen in these last few weeks. The personal attacks on community members are beginning (see the Aggie today (10/25/05) - Letters to the editor). Any word on the new Draft of the Covell Village page? - SharlaDaly
Sadly, it's now about winning, not about deciding what is best for the future of Davis. This seems to be one of mankind's great failings. Interestingly, these wiki pages are a microcosm of the Measure X struggle. I say struggle instead of debate, as there is almost none of the latter occurring. I don't know, but think if the Covell Village planers could do it over again, they wish they had involved the community much more from the beginning. Such large projects have significant community impact, and highly (some say over) educated communities such as Davis want things done their way. I don't know if it's possible to have a rational discussion at this point. One would likely get a few people from each side calling the other's liars. I've seen lots of information -from both sides- which doesn't seem reasonable to me. Maybe we're going at it wrong: instead of trying to have a calm discussion, we should get the most outspoken, put them in a pen of pig manure and let them wrestle. The victors would decided whether CV went ahead or not. Surely this would be as fair as what we're doing now. —SteveDavison
On the subject of this page, I think it's useful content should be merged into the Covell Village page and this page retired. Alternatively, move all the discussion from Covell Village onto this one and let this page be for debate -keeping just facts and non-controversial stuff on the Covell Village page. I think it makes more sense to have the pro/con next to each other than on separate pages. I like where one issue can be stated, then immediately followed by pro-con discussion. —SteveDavison
