When Measure X was on the ballot, the council majority made it a point to talk about state mandated growth. RHNA indeed sets the state guidelines for growth, however, traditionally any sanction has been a slap on the wrist. While those penalties now may be more serious, the actual RHNA required growth for Davis--defined as Davis' fairshare--is actually quite low.
In terms of state mandated growth for the next 10 years, we are talking on the order of a couple of small projects.
The real growth inducer is now the city's own and SELF-IMPOSED 1% growth requirement.
The City Council majority of Stephen Souza, Don Saylor, and Ruth Asmundson in September, upheld that goal.
Councilmember Souza argued that we are a community that grows by initiative now.
The tricky part though is that Mr. Souza is also incorrect. Growth is also determined by the planning process and the Housing Element update process. The locations and size will be largely determined by what spots on the map the Housing Element recommends for future growth. If the Housing Element recommends 1% worth of developments that will lead to more potential for growth than .5%.
The community rallied against Covell Village because of the magnitude of the project and likely foreseen disruption it would cause. Would there be future outcry against smaller and less burdensome projects? It seems unlikely.
The developers who propose these projects have a built-in advantage in that they have money and organization already in place in order to run Measure J elections. Grassroots movements are likely to be underfunded and disorganized. A large number of Measure J votes will leave them tired and depleted.
Thus having a rearguard defense is not enough. The key for proponents of slower growth is the gatekeeping power--the ability to determine which projects go forward and which do not.
During the Covell Village Arguments, the City Council Major argued that SACOG's Fair Share numbers required us to grow at a given rate. Now that these numbers have been reduced, suddenly they are not as important. Indeed in September they argued that these are merely goals and they know we will come in well under 1% growth rate.
This argument largely ignores the fact that we will grow by whatever amount of proposals are actually placed onto the Housing Element Update. It seems unlikely that projects that are selected will not ultimately go forward as Measure J votes in the development process and as I mentioned earlier, it seems even less likely that all but the most massive and disruptive would then be approved.
For too long the argument has been that we have to obtain a certain level of growth, the state mandates it. Now with the new RHNA numbers said to require much lower growth rates than we place upon ourselves and with a depressed housing market, the pressure to grow will be much reduced. The question is whether that means that the council will ease up on its goals for growth over the next ten years. That seems much less certain.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
In terms of state mandated growth for the next 10 years, we are talking on the order of a couple of small projects.
The real growth inducer is now the city's own and SELF-IMPOSED 1% growth requirement.
The City Council majority of Stephen Souza, Don Saylor, and Ruth Asmundson in September, upheld that goal.
Councilmember Souza argued that we are a community that grows by initiative now.
"So it doesn’t matter if you have a one percent, a half percent, ten percent, whatever the percent may be. The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town. That’s the policy we have, and unless we’re going to amend that policy, that’s the true policy that determines when, where and how we’ll grow."There is an element of truth to that. Any peripheral development is required by law to obtain a Measure J vote. Any infill is not, and though there are not many locations for which infill would occur, any major project the council likely to ask for a vote anyway.
The tricky part though is that Mr. Souza is also incorrect. Growth is also determined by the planning process and the Housing Element update process. The locations and size will be largely determined by what spots on the map the Housing Element recommends for future growth. If the Housing Element recommends 1% worth of developments that will lead to more potential for growth than .5%.
The community rallied against Covell Village because of the magnitude of the project and likely foreseen disruption it would cause. Would there be future outcry against smaller and less burdensome projects? It seems unlikely.
The developers who propose these projects have a built-in advantage in that they have money and organization already in place in order to run Measure J elections. Grassroots movements are likely to be underfunded and disorganized. A large number of Measure J votes will leave them tired and depleted.
Thus having a rearguard defense is not enough. The key for proponents of slower growth is the gatekeeping power--the ability to determine which projects go forward and which do not.
During the Covell Village Arguments, the City Council Major argued that SACOG's Fair Share numbers required us to grow at a given rate. Now that these numbers have been reduced, suddenly they are not as important. Indeed in September they argued that these are merely goals and they know we will come in well under 1% growth rate.
This argument largely ignores the fact that we will grow by whatever amount of proposals are actually placed onto the Housing Element Update. It seems unlikely that projects that are selected will not ultimately go forward as Measure J votes in the development process and as I mentioned earlier, it seems even less likely that all but the most massive and disruptive would then be approved.
For too long the argument has been that we have to obtain a certain level of growth, the state mandates it. Now with the new RHNA numbers said to require much lower growth rates than we place upon ourselves and with a depressed housing market, the pressure to grow will be much reduced. The question is whether that means that the council will ease up on its goals for growth over the next ten years. That seems much less certain.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
