While it is early in the process, we now have our ten candidates for Davis City Council. In the coming days and weeks, we will have in-depth interviews and analysis of the field. We start perhaps with a bit of a broader view of Davis politics and where it is going.
One of the key questions is really what does the face of Davis politics look like. For so long, growth has dominated the landscape, but in the last election, the issue of the budget seems to have taken over. Is this permanent and does it mark the end of the old polarized Davis political system, or it is fleeting?
Former City Councilmember Lamar Heystek has taken a low profile since leaving the council, but the Vanguard caught up with him Thursday to get his thoughts on the council vacancy and where things are going.
Lamar Heystek told the Vanguard, “I think the council is looking for obviously someone they feel they can get along with and someone who can contribute to a sense of collegiality and civility.”
He added, “If I were on the council looking for another colleague I would want to find someone that I could have a reasoned discussion with in public meetings and in private meetings, one-on-one.”
However, he suggested unless they do behind-the-scenes meetings with these applicants it might be difficult to assess personalty traits such as collegiality.
They also need to look for someone who mirrors the views of those on the council.
“I think for the people on the council to ignore an ideological perspective one way or another, that goes against what I think we all consider human nature. Obviously we want people that we can get along with but also people that might assist us in achieving a policy outcome,” he said.
Mr. Heystek added he did not know much about the specific policy positions of many of the candidates.
“I can’t think of much more than that, that they are looking for, except a genuine desire to serve. Just from what I know, all of the applicants have a genuine desire to serve.
Jon Li has a somewhat different view there. He said, “I’m glad that there’s a variety of people that showed an interest.”
However, unlike Mr. Heystek, he believes that the council should look for someone with a different skill set than they already have.
Jon Li pointed out that when Norm Woodbury resigned, the progressive majority on the council did not get another progressive, but rather found a business person because that is who they did not have at that time on the council. “So I think they need to look at what their current needs are.”
“They need to do a very public process so that the public is comfortable that the best candidate won,” he said.
Jon Li added, “There is one really strong candidate and they need to decide if that’s who they are going to go with. But they need to respect the process and allow all of the candidates to make a strong opportunity to make their own case.”
Former Mayor, Ken Wagstaff expressed to the Vanguard concerns about the experience of the field, arguing that while they might look good as an employee working under the city manager, they lack political experience to help guide what is essentially a $100 million plus public corporation.
“The focus on fiscal issues is extremely important,” he said, “But with respect to credentials helping to lead that corporation, there are issues that are more than dollars and cents. There are issues that are quality of life, and uppermost within that constellation of issues is growth.”
He said that he has not taken the time to read everyone’s statements thoroughly, though he did scan through them.
“My first impression is that these candidates, if that’s what they are,” he said “these applicants are fairly light in the quality of life category.”
“It’s a weak field from the statement point of political seasoning,” he added, “There is a paucity of experience that you need to guide the ship.”
“One of the things that contributes to political seasoning and experience, like it or not, is a campaign,” Mr. Wagstaff added. “You get in touch with how people really feel and you begin to learn what issues are important to people. If you are going to be a true representative of the people you need to know these things.”
For former Councilmember Lamar Heystek the Davis City Council, in approaching this vacancy, has to focus on the budget – and not just the short-term budget, but the budget over the next five to twenty years.
Mr. Heystek said, “As much as this is a city that is preoccupied about growth or the lack thereof, the issue of the city’s finances is above and beyond any other issue. It is the number one issue. It will be the number one issue [now] and for the near term as far as I can see for the next five years.”
“That is not to say that the growth issue isn’t important, land use will always be an enduring issue in Davis,” Lamar Heystek continued, “but I don’t think we can talk about land use, whether to allow for growth or not allow for it, unless we know where we’re going to be in terms of the provision of city services to the existing population base, let alone the new population base, that would accompany additional growth.”
On the issue of growth, Jon Li made the point that the collapse of the national economy has really put a damper on the housing market. “Until the economy stabilizes and starts growing again, growth is not an issue in Davis politics. Just because there is not housing demand. Developers are not pounding on the door.”
“There is not pressure on the council precipitating the whole growth/anti-growth debate that has polarized Davis politics since ’72,” Mr. Li said. “I believe it’s going to be a long enough time – maybe five years – before growth becomes an issue again so that there are new sets of issues.”
On the other hand, Ken Wagstaff took the view that Measure J has acted almost as an “artificial interregnum” which has shifted the focus of the voters away from growth as the only issue they will face.
“I don’t believe that there’s been a sea change, in the sense that I don’t think that the public thinks that the only thing they have to think about in terms of city government is who’s going to balance the budget,” he said.
“I think because of the Measure J institutional apparatus that exists and faces any project on the periphery,” Ken Wagstaff added, “I think most people feel that they have a handle on it themselves and they participate as a voter and it may be that this is not a cutting edge issue at the moment – but wait until there’s a big project.”
He continued, “You will be surprised at how fast there will be a galvanizing of public energy and it’s at that moment that you want to know that the people on the council have the experience, seasoning, and knowledge to lead.”
Is this the end of the progressive political era in Davis? Jon Li argued that it was not something that suddenly occurred, and he argued that now growth is at best one issue among many that people can run on.
“I think that at this point the electorate is pretty gun-shy about every issue,” he said. “At this point I don’t think that anti-growth is an issue a candidate can run on and expect that to make them victorious.”
He added that, given the housing market and the fact that near-term housing demands will be met by West Village, growth really will not be a huge issue.
“I really think the world has passed Davis to the point where growth is no longer a preeminent issue,” he said, “Now, it should be something that every candidate addresses, but it’s part of their package.”
But Ken Wagstaff again takes a very different view.
He acknowledges that the organization of progressives is less now, “The network of folks, who consider themselves progressive, are currently focused on other issues.”
But that can change at the drop of a dime should the right issue arise. He pointed out the organization that emerged to defeat Covell Village back in 2005. They raised a mere $50,000 to beat back an operation that had spent over a million dollars.
Moreover, the progressives are organizing on other issues such as water, and he pointed to a newly-formed group that is gearing up to fight what he categorized as the Tsakopoulos “water grab.”
“That didn’t just happen willy-nilly,” he said, “That happened because there’s still a lively and energized connection among people. It’s just that it’s not focused on growth or any one project in Davis at the moment. That doesn’t mean that it’s dead.”
“All it would take is that the minute that this council or any other council starts looking at a project on the Covell site, you will see how fast the chambers can fill up again,” he added. “So I don’t think we’re dead, but I think in the minds of the voter who is not a political activity person, it may be that growth is not at the top of the list. But those are not the people who make change.”
The Vanguard will continue to cover the council appointment process and next week, we should have some interviews with the candidates.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]“but I don’t think we can talk about land use, whether to allow for growth or not allow for it, unless we know where we’re going to be in terms of the provision of city services to the existing population base let alone the new population base that would accompany additional growth.”[/quote]
Well said Mr. Heysteck.
“”””””” the Vanguard has brought in three observers of Davis Politics, Former Davis Mayor Ken Wagstaff, former Councilmember Lamar Heystek, and Jon Li, .
Or Larry , Curly , and Mo !!!!!
dmg on Lamar Heystek’s comments: “Mr. Heystek said, “As much as this is a city that is preoccupied about growth or the lack thereof, the issue of the city’s finances is above and beyond any other issue. It is the number one issue. It will be the number one issue [now] and for the near term as far as I can see for the next five years.”
“That is not to say that the growth issue isn’t important, land use will always be an enduring issue in Davis,” Lamar Heystek continued, “but I don’t think we can talk about land use, whether to allow for growth or not allow for it, unless we know where we’re going to be in terms of the provision of city services to the existing population base, let alone the new population base, that would accompany additional growth.””
AMEN!
[i]Jon Li pointed out that [b]when Norm Woodbury resigned[/b], the progressive majority on the council did not get another progressive, but rather found a business person because that is who they did not have at that time on the council. “So I think they need to look at what their current needs are.”[/i]
Norm Woodbury was on the City Council from 1960-64 and then again from 1966-72.
The de facto agreement which began in the 1920s was that there should always be a balance on the council between the businessmen of Davis and the university people. In short, there was the Calvin Covell faction and the Ben Madson faction. But that “agreement” broke down in the 1970s and has never resurfaced. It’s been a very long time since we had a traditional Davis business “faction” on the council.
It’s true that we now have a business owner, Stephen Souza, on the council. But I think it’s fair to say that Stephen is part of the mainstream Democratic Party faction–what the left calls the Developer Democrats–than he is a rep of the commercial core.
Back when Davis was much more of a simple, small town and everyone was either associated with UCD or associated with a downtown business or was a local professional (doctors, lawyers, etc.), the business folks on the council were some of our town’s most important company owners and private employers: from Gordon Anderson to Clay Quessenberry to Harry Whitcombe to Jack Hibbert and so on.
I think Stan Forbes was probably the last of downtown business owner to serve on the council, though Stan ultimately became a reliable ally of the left anti-Developer Democratic faction, the heirs to Bob Black and Dick Holdstock.
Ever since 1972, Davis politics have been dominated by questions of growth. And on one side we generally have had an anti-growth left and a more-less pro-growth “right” (with all but one or two on our “right” being liberal Democrats).
Rich… what about Mike Harrington? His law practice is/was ‘downtown’… and doesn’t Rochelle qualify as a “business” person?
[i]”One of the things that contributes to political seasoning and experience, like it or not, is a campaign,” Mr. Wagstaff added. “You get in touch with how people really feel and you begin to learn what issues are important to people. If you are going to be a true representative of the people you need to know these things.”[/i]
Ken Wagstaff is probably right here. (He certainly would know more about this than I would.) However, I would add that another way of getting political seasoning for the council beyond a campaign is serving on a commission for some years in Davis, especially (in my opinion) one of the more important commissions like Planning or Budget & Finance. Heck, those who serve on commissions like Park & Rec become very familiar with issues which are important to a lot of people in town.
As far as I know, the only candidate who is currently on a commission is Dan Wolk (Social Services). I think Robert Smith served on Civic Arts (though it may have been a different person of the same name?) I don’t believe any of the other 8 have ever served on a sitting commission for the City of Davis (though one, Harrison, applied and was rejected by the council).
[i]”Rich… what about Mike Harrington? His law practice is/was ‘downtown’… and doesn’t Rochelle qualify as a ‘business’ person?”[/i]
Mike Harrington is in a definite traditional class for Davis pols–non-university professionals. I’m sure he has employed people. But I consider that distinct from companies like one of our big lumber companies or a major downtown drugstore or bookstore or a theater owner. The latter category both employ more people and interact more with the general public. Or you could take a big time developer like Whitcombe who (prior to owning and managing apartment buildings in Davis) had a big impact on the town’s business by dint of the size of his operations.
As far as Rochelle, I am unsure what business with her you are talking about. Do you mean her husband’s company, The Davis Graduate? I didn’t think she ran that. If I am wrong there, my bad.
I am not sure that one can simplify the growth issue to pro-growth right and anti-growth left.
For a start, many recent proposals for growth were not fiscally responsible. Admittedly, the Republican party has abandoned its traditional fiscal conservatism in favor of god, guns and gays but although growth may favor the local business elites it is not favored by many people in Davis who are well off but not tied in directly with downtown business.
Also recent “anti-growth” measures have garnered 70-75% of te vote. Are 75% of Davis voters lefties??? I do not think so.
[i]”I am not sure that one can simplify the growth issue to pro-growth right and anti-growth left.”[/i]
Let me define my terms more explicitly: “left” here means using government to control the market; “right” means letting the market operate.
Davis is now largely populated by people who oppose a free market in new housing.
[i]”For a start, many recent proposals for growth were not fiscally responsible.”[/i]
That is largely independent of the market. For one, it is in large measure a result government rules requiring large percentages of low-income housing which generates insufficient tax revenues. It is secondarily the result of the government overpaying its employees. In no sense is that “fiscal irresponsibility” (as you call it) a consequence of the market.
“Growth” is the term that needs defining in this exchange. I find it disconcerting that “growth” is automatically equated with housing growth here. Anywhere else, “growth” is understood as economic growth. There are any number of ways of growing an economy beside building homes.
On another note, I absolutely cringe when I hear “political seasoning”. If ever there was a time for a technocrat, this is it. We need someone with a strong background in finance, economic policy, and capable of making a reasoned argument. Political calculations and machinations is the last thing we need at this time. The council needs to confront our challenges and get on with solving them.
And growing our local economy is one of the things that we need to do to solve our fiscal mess.
DTB: It sounds good, and I don’t have the numbers that handy, the short answer is that no, growing the local economy isn’t going to make a huge dent in the fiscal mess.
Why?
Let’s take Target for example. Target is expected to generate about $600,000 per year in tax revenue. That may be high, that may be low. That’s pure sales tax revenue. But the city is about to take on about $7 million in additional fiscal costs (and in my mind that’s a low number). Target is not going to make a dent in the city’s fiscal problem. Are we going to add ten Targets? No way. And each additional store is going to have diminishing marginal returns.
The other thing is look at the businesses the city is wanting to attract – high tech, university spinoffs. All of that is great and I want to encourage it. But where is the revenue coming from those for the city? They don’t generate sales tax most of them.
So while I think economic development is a good thing, realistically, it’s not going to fix the fiscal mess.
We Americans are an impatient lot seeking quick, simplistic solutions to complex problems that have developed over years and decades. The imbalances at the Federal, State, and local level have been decades in the making. It will take sustained, decisive, intelligent action over years to get back on a sustainable course. As I mentioned in my previous post, “growing our local economy is one of the things that we need to do”. I did not say it was the only thing, or even the first thing that we need to do. Action is needed on a multitude of fronts. Dithering only delays the corrective process simultaneously making it more expensive. That is why I find it so disheartening that the council has embarked on its current course to fill the council vacancy. Our community is not a reality TV show like American Idol. This is not a popularity contest. We should be in crises solving mode, not screwing around with applications, videos, and such like. We have already elected 4 council members and authorized them to appoint a Saylor replacement. Get on with it.
[i]”The other thing is look at the businesses the city is wanting to attract – high tech, university spinoffs. All of that is great and I want to encourage it. But where is the revenue coming from those for the city? They don’t generate sales tax most of them.”[/i]
Sue Greenwald could explain this to you better than I could, but generally, the reason you want the high-tech businesses (from the perspective of the City of Davis) is the high amount they would pay per square foot in business equipment taxes (which is an extension of property taxes).
Take, for example, two companies, each leasing a 25,000 sq. foot facility:
Business A is a warehouse facility which has some pallet racks, some loaders and some fork lifts, as well as ordinary office equipment like desktop computers and so on. Those don’t add up to too much, and therefore the business equipment tax they pay would not generate a lot in revenues.
Business B is a bio-tech research firm with $100 million worth of fixed equipment. AFAIK, B has to pay $1 million per year in property tax on all of their equipment. Granted, the taxes paid to the City are only 11% of that. 20% goes to the County (unless perhaps the Pass-through agreement says otherwise). The rest of the money goes to the RDA and the schools.
In total dollars Business B will generate less money for the City than a retailer like Target. However, a few considerations need to be made:
1. Generally speaking, a high-tech company demands less in City services (police and fire) than a large retailer;
2. On a per square foot basis, the high tech company (in this case at least) pays more in tax;
3. Some share of the sales tax paid by a Target are on goods that otherwise would have been sold by other Davis retailers, so it’s not all a net add. (By contrast, all of the money paid by Business B is a net add.)
[i]”So while I think economic development is a good thing, realistically, it’s not going to fix the fiscal mess.”[/i]
This is the most important point. Our largest problem in Davis is on the spending side. We can grow gross revenues at some decent rate (maybe 3-4% per year per capita) over the long term, with some periods have faster growth and others slower. But for a decade our spending has grown at more than twice that rate, when accounting for future unfunded retirement costs, including medical benefits and pensions.
My understanding is that the State has eliminated the equipment tax for high-tech business. Unfortunately, the State has given high-tech industry so many recent tax breaks that it is no longer clear that there is significant net revenue benefit. We will have to look closely at the current fiscal analyses of high-tech business, because past assumptions no longer apply.
[i]”My understanding is that the State has eliminated the equipment tax for high-tech business.”[/i]
In looking over CCR Title 18 here ([url]http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?action=Search&cfid=1&cnt=DOC&db=CA-ADC&elmap=Inline&eq=search&fmqv=c&fn=_top&method=TNC&n=11&origin=Search&query=CI(“CA+ADC+S+1525”)&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT33892352417291&rltdb=CLID_DB33579352417291&rlti=1&rp=/search/default.wl&rs=WEBL11.01&service=Search&sp=CCR-1000&srch=TRUE&ss=CNT&sskey=CLID_SSSA6595352417291&sv=Split&tempinfo=FIND&vr=2.0[/url]) and here ([url]http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cite=18CAADCS10&db=1000937&findtype=L&fn=_top&pbc=4BF3FCBE&rlt=CLID_FQRLT9436593817291&rp=/Search/default.wl&rs=WEBL11.01&service=Find&spa=CCR-1000&sr=TC&vr=2.0[/url]) there do not appear to be any exemptions for high tech equipment or any substantial changes to the business equipment tax in recent years. There may have been a proposal to change the law–but no changes are reflected in the California Code of Regulations.
You can read an explanation of the regulations and assessments in this Board of Equalization document ([url]http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/ah504.pdf[/url]), which appears to be current, but is dated back to October 2002. In looking at Title 18 of the CCR, it seems like everything in that book still applies.
Sue, I found the change I think you referenced, but it’s not comprehensive and has no effect with regard to “high tech.” You were likely thinking about SB 71 ([url]http://dist20.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={5EACFA15-EA6B-41D8-9711-C030F9FAD5EE}&DE={BF219C84-03FE-42A3-9291-32F3F15DA3C7}[/url]), which “exempts green manufacturers from paying sales and use taxes on manufacturing equipment to encourage investment in manufacturing, job creation and economic growth in California. SB 71 specifically targets alternative energy and advanced transportation technology investments that create new, permanent jobs in California and produce quantifiable reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases, reductions in air or water pollution, or increase energy efficiency.”
AFAIK, that is the only recent change to the business equipment tax.
[i]”… it’s not comprehensive and has no effect with regard to ‘high tech.'”[/i]
I should not have said it “has no effect” for high tech. Rather, industries like bio-tech, pharmaceuticals, food and crop technologies and so on–many of the likely high tech industries which might partner with UCD–are not subject to this exemption.
“My understanding is that the State has eliminated the equipment tax for high-tech business. Unfortunately, the State has given high-tech industry so many recent tax breaks that it is no longer clear that there is significant net revenue benefit. We will have to look closely at the current fiscal analyses of high-tech business, because past assumptions no longer apply.”
How about all the high paying jobs that high-tech brings in? What net revenue benefit comes from have high salaried citizens living and spending some of their salaries in Davis?
“How about all the high paying jobs that high-tech brings in? What net revenue benefit comes from have high salaried citizens living and spending some of their salaries in Davis? “
When you are not growing and not expanding economically, how much is that going to be?
Cutting local and State govt. expense will shrink the size of the local economy. It is imperative that we counter the trend by taking measured steps to spur private sector growth. Sudden, dramatic growth is not necessary. Incremental growth will do given the small size of our economy. We need to do it by creating jobs in industries that require minimal amounts of land. Some housing growth will be necessary, but this need can be met with urban, infill projects. We need to get away from the dated California model of creating jobs by destroying wild or agricultural habitat.
rusty49: “How about all the high paying jobs that high-tech brings in? What net revenue benefit comes from have high salaried citizens living and spending some of their salaries in Davis? ”
DTB: “Cutting local and State govt. expense will shrink the size of the local economy. It is imperative that we counter the trend by taking measured steps to spur private sector growth. Sudden, dramatic growth is not necessary. Incremental growth will do given the small size of our economy. We need to do it by creating jobs in industries that require minimal amounts of land. Some housing growth will be necessary, but this need can be met with urban, infill projects. We need to get away from the dated California model of creating jobs by destroying wild or agricultural habitat.”
It never ceases to amaze me how short-sighted the far left can be, when it comes to “business”. If Davis courted high tech businesses, and the city was successful at getting the businesses to establish here and the business was successful, it would create jobs, a need for mere derivative businesses like restaurants, etc., and would add to tax revenue one way or the other. More people w jobs can pay more taxes in the aggregate, which can improve everyone’s life in the city. A healthy economy is one where business thrives and keeps people employed, consuming, and paying taxes. Geeeeeeeeeze, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand this…