Covell Village: Vote NO

Traffic, Costs, Unaffordable Housing

The Residential Development We Can't Afford.

• Covell Village is not smart planning:
• Half the subdivision is in the 100-year flood plain
• Traffic jams
• Eliminates hundreds of acres of open
• space, farmland and wildlife habitat
• Big, expensive houses on small lots
• Violates our 2001 General Plan
• Exaggerated solar claims

For those of you who missed the League of Women Voters Forum where No on X defeated Mike Corbett in a live debate (now available to rent at 49'er video in Davis), No on X has done it again.
Watch Stan Forbes rebut the Yes on X campaign's developer claims:
Stan Forbes is a 3rd generation Yolo farmer, bookstore owner, and served 4 years on the city council and 10 years on the Davis school board. Three time president of the Davis Downtown Business association:
Produced by DCTV. (30 min.) Host Desmond Jolly interviews Stan Forbes. Real Player required.
http://www2.dcn.org/dcn/vip/nov05/dctv/dctv-twid-episode52.ram

Exaggerated developer claims

• Covell Village housing would be out of reach. City data reveal 89% of for sale units, including condominiums and townhouses, would be unaffordable to area median income families.
• Developers' "middle income" affordable housing costs up to $4,894 monthly.
• $60 million for schools is a TAX on the residents - NOT A GIFT from the developers. It only defrays school construction costs caused by this subdivision and does not pay for programs, personnel or operational costs.
• Even if millions are spent on so called "traffic circulation improvements," traffic flow substantially deteriorates. The EIR clearly states we will have "intolerable" traffic.
• $1 million plus annual fire station operations costs would come from Davis taxpayers. The development agreement doesn't guarantee a working fourth fire station.

Enormous financial risk

• New subdivisions typically trigger tens of millions in major infrastructure costs, yet no citywide infrastructure impact study has been done.
• Most "amenities" address only the development's impacts. Citizens would face higher taxes or reduced services.