2nd Op Ed by Philip King, Nora Oldwin, Mark Siegler

On November 3, we hope Davis citizens will vote against the Wildhorse Ranch subdivision. The project is not smart growth and does not provide affordable, for-purchase housing for Davis residents. Furthermore, it proceeded only as the result of a deeply flawed public process, and the project will set a bad fiscal precedent because the developer contributes so little to offset future deficits.

With university, state, and other workers taking pay cuts, and the highest unemployment rates in 70 years, California’s economy may stagnate for years, worsening Davis’ already gloomy fiscal outlook and its housing market. There are already 2,000 approved units in Davis and UCD’s West Village, which are still unbuilt. We have no current need to approve more housing.

Not Smart Growth

The City’s fifteen member Housing Element Steering Committee ranked the Wildhorse Ranch site 27th of 36, concluding that it “would promote car travel and would not be conducive to bicycle mobility . . . [since it is] far from downtown and UC Davis.” Building on the periphery of town is sprawl, not smart growth, and the developer’s much-touted 90 percent GHG reduction neglects the far largest source of GHG in California – transportation.

Davis has already met its state-issued growth target through 2013, including providing 26% more low and very low income affordable housing than required by the state. Davis has also exceeded the 2010 population target of 64,000 from our 2001 General Plan.

Not Fiscally Smart

In Davis, different parcels of land yield different property tax shares for the City, ranging from 9.3% to 27.5% (the rest goes to other government agencies). Wildhorse Ranch is among the lowest with the City retaining only 11.8%. During the first fifteen years, the project barely breaks even, but does so only as a result of the future residents of the project paying higher taxes, and one-time fees that will be exhausted after fifteen years. In essence, future residents of Wildhorse Ranch would be penalized for our fiscally poor land use decisions.

After fifteen years, the project will run significant and increasing deficits, even within the context of the City’s optimistic fiscal model. For example, this model assumes that the sales tax override and parks tax are renewed, housing appreciation of more than 70% over fifteen years, housing turnover three times faster than has ever occurred before, and no future pension rate increases.

At a minimum, Davis residents who are truly interested in sustainability should insist on fiscal neutrality over the project’s lifetime, not only for an arbitrary limit of fifteen years. Developers reap handsome profits from projects. Why should Davis residents be stuck holding the bill, as they will with this project?

Other recently approved housing projects have better fiscal bottom lines because the parcels on which they are located allow the City to retain more property tax. Despite this, the developers of these other projects still contribute more to the City, on a per-unit basis, than would Wildhorse Ranch. This development would set a bad fiscal precedent: Why would any future developer be willing to contribute more to offset its future operations and maintenance deficits if Wildhorse Ranch gets away with paying so little?

Lack of Affordable Housing

According to City staff, the least-expensive for-sale units are 78 attached townhouses, averaging $451,000 by the time the first units are built. We don’t consider this to be affordable “so that people who work in Davis can live in Davis” as Yes on P claims. According to Ginnie Mae (a federal loan agency), a family must make $125,000 per year to buy a $451,000 townhouse (assuming other debt of $700 per month and $82,000 in cash). In 2008, only 11.4% of Davis households made at least this much. The Housing Element Steering Committee noted that Davis has “very few for-sale housing options . . . for households earning less than $100,000 annually,” and Wildhorse Ranch does little or nothing to address this problem. Surely this is not “really affordable.”

A Deeply Flawed Process

Wildhorse Ranch was rushed to the ballot – at the insistence of the developer – without sufficient analysis. The Planning Commission approved it without a quorum. When the City’s Finance and Budget Commission requested two weeks to examine the just-completed fiscal analysis, its motion was ignored, as were Housing Element Steering Committee recommendations.

The Yes on P ballot statement incorrectly claims that Wildhorse Ranch yields a “$4 million net fiscal benefit.” This statement is simply untrue. In fact, City staff has confirmed that the project barely breaks even for the first fifteen years. After that, it runs significant and ever-increasing deficits.

Green building projects are most beneficial to cities when they are developed within a framework of well-reasoned, sensibly planned, carefully thought out, and fiscally responsible development. True long-term sustainability must be based on deliberate consideration of location, transportation issues, and proximity to downtown retail and campus jobs.

We hope Davis residents will take the time to understand the important underlying issues surrounding a vote on Measure P, and believe in their ability to see past the marketing materials of a developer-driven campaign. Join us in sending a strong message that future development in Davis should be citizen-driven. Please vote No on Measure P and encourage your friends and neighbors to do the same.