“I will be submitting an item for next week’s agenda, called Mace-Covell Gateway, LLC, better known as the Shriner’s property for negotiation acquisition for organic farms, habitat, potential sports complex.”
An objection was raised to a councilmember bringing forth their own development projects as opposed to going through staff.
According to Souza, the reason he is bringing it forward rather than staff is that:
“I am going to ask the question next week whether we want to take it into closed session to discuss.”
According to City Manager Bill Emlen:
“Steve has had some discussions with staff and we’re certainly prepared to participate in that discussion and possibly take the lead once we get direction from council… We kind of see it as an item submitted by a councilmember that would likely evolve into something where we take the lead.”
A concern was raised that this would set a precedent of councilmembers bringing forward individual development projects.
Even Councilmember Ruth Asmundson seemed a bit apprehensive and suggested it be referred to the City Manager Emlen and City Attorney Harriet Steiner.
However Ms. Steiner responded,
“I think what we need from the council at the moment, or what Councilmember Souza wants is an open session short discussion on whether or not council is interested in pursuing the item. At that point council can give us direction as to what they want to do and then we [meaning staff] can take it from there.”
Councilmember Don Saylor was supportive as well of the idea of Councilmember Souza as opposed to staff bringing this forward. He cited the amount of time needed to prepare this item by staff.
However, Councilmember Souza suggested that all he was going to do was bring forward a memo at the next meeting on this item and then get direction from council as to whether to proceed. If that is the case, it does not seem that staff would have a lot of work to do to prepare a similar memo that Councilmember Souza suggested he would write.
Steiner was then asked if there were other mechanisms in place that would allow the city to look into this issue and examine it. Her answer was no.
“Probably the short answer is no, I mean a lot of times developers or property owners will approach the city and approach the city manager or staff person and sometimes they approach a councilmember generally speaking a councilmember would then refer it to staff or at least discuss it with staff. But if it is something that staff doesn’t have any direction from council to pursue on a policy level then generally speaking staff wouldn’t pursue it… I think the issue is having to have the issue brought forward by the property owner, however that is brought forward, we would want some kind of direction from council before the staff spent any significant amount of time discussing it.”
Some comments:
I am very uncomfortable with this process as it was laid forth on Tuesday night. I agree completely with the objections that it would set a new precendent for councilmembers to directly come forward with development proposals.
It is one thing for staff to examine a development proposal, determine whether it was something they could support pursuing, and then making and outlining their own recommendations for action. It is another for a councilmember to bring forth an item of this sort and become the water-carrier for a development proposal. Instead of staff fully examining the implications, you have a councilmember acting as advocate for developer interests. That seems inappropriate to me.
Staff comes forward with development proposals and other proposals all the time without first getting direction from council. They make evaluations based on the benefits to the city versus the costs of the project. On that basis, they make a recommendation to bring a proposal forward, study it, and finally implement it. This instead seems like a way for an individual councilmember to curry favors with a preferred land developer. That does not seem appropriate.
The staff suggested that this would be a quick and simple item that would simply relay council interest to the staff, who would then have the direction to pursue it more fully. However, suppose this does go forward as council decided on Tuesday. The next developer is going to say, hey wait, here is an easier avenue to getting our proposal on the agenda, and they too will try to get a councilmember on board to carry their water on their project.
It seems to me that there is a process already in place whereby these projects go forward. You do not see individual councilmembers taking up individual development proposals and trying to get them agendized. Why is that? I think this will be a very poor precedent that has now been set by council and staff. It seems simple on the surface, but it has many implications.
We shall see next week what this proposal entails. But this seems like a concerning development.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Souza is looking for a campaign issue and classic Karl Rove tactic.. namely,if you are in political trouble, CHANGE THE SUBJECT. He wants desparately to change the topic of conversation away from his public position that was allied with Supervisor Yamada’s and Thomson’s attack on Davis’ right to determine its own future.
We also should be vigilant that this is not the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent”, with regard to tag-on peripheral residential development.
Souza is looking for a campaign issue and classic Karl Rove tactic.. namely,if you are in political trouble, CHANGE THE SUBJECT. He wants desparately to change the topic of conversation away from his public position that was allied with Supervisor Yamada’s and Thomson’s attack on Davis’ right to determine its own future.
We also should be vigilant that this is not the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent”, with regard to tag-on peripheral residential development.
Souza is looking for a campaign issue and classic Karl Rove tactic.. namely,if you are in political trouble, CHANGE THE SUBJECT. He wants desparately to change the topic of conversation away from his public position that was allied with Supervisor Yamada’s and Thomson’s attack on Davis’ right to determine its own future.
We also should be vigilant that this is not the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent”, with regard to tag-on peripheral residential development.
Souza is looking for a campaign issue and classic Karl Rove tactic.. namely,if you are in political trouble, CHANGE THE SUBJECT. He wants desparately to change the topic of conversation away from his public position that was allied with Supervisor Yamada’s and Thomson’s attack on Davis’ right to determine its own future.
We also should be vigilant that this is not the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent”, with regard to tag-on peripheral residential development.
Although I see the logic Souza has used in choosing this approach, I also see a serious flaw in that logic. The Council created the Housing Element Steering Committee to look at all possible housing sites in the Davis planning area. The Shriners site has been on the identified list for several moths, and the members of the Committee and the City Planning Department Staff who work with them are going to be producing a site evaluation regardless of how Council may discuss Souza’s agenda item.
I hope the Council if they do discuss the Shriners property, simply refers it to the Housing Element Steering Committee where it belongs. If there were no Housing Element Steering Committee process in place, Souza’s agenda item would make more sense, but right now I find it unusual.
Although I see the logic Souza has used in choosing this approach, I also see a serious flaw in that logic. The Council created the Housing Element Steering Committee to look at all possible housing sites in the Davis planning area. The Shriners site has been on the identified list for several moths, and the members of the Committee and the City Planning Department Staff who work with them are going to be producing a site evaluation regardless of how Council may discuss Souza’s agenda item.
I hope the Council if they do discuss the Shriners property, simply refers it to the Housing Element Steering Committee where it belongs. If there were no Housing Element Steering Committee process in place, Souza’s agenda item would make more sense, but right now I find it unusual.
Although I see the logic Souza has used in choosing this approach, I also see a serious flaw in that logic. The Council created the Housing Element Steering Committee to look at all possible housing sites in the Davis planning area. The Shriners site has been on the identified list for several moths, and the members of the Committee and the City Planning Department Staff who work with them are going to be producing a site evaluation regardless of how Council may discuss Souza’s agenda item.
I hope the Council if they do discuss the Shriners property, simply refers it to the Housing Element Steering Committee where it belongs. If there were no Housing Element Steering Committee process in place, Souza’s agenda item would make more sense, but right now I find it unusual.
Although I see the logic Souza has used in choosing this approach, I also see a serious flaw in that logic. The Council created the Housing Element Steering Committee to look at all possible housing sites in the Davis planning area. The Shriners site has been on the identified list for several moths, and the members of the Committee and the City Planning Department Staff who work with them are going to be producing a site evaluation regardless of how Council may discuss Souza’s agenda item.
I hope the Council if they do discuss the Shriners property, simply refers it to the Housing Element Steering Committee where it belongs. If there were no Housing Element Steering Committee process in place, Souza’s agenda item would make more sense, but right now I find it unusual.
Anyone notice that Souza was invisible(was he even there?) at the Tuesday Supervisor’s meeting that has been the buzz of Davis for the last week?
Anyone notice that Souza was invisible(was he even there?) at the Tuesday Supervisor’s meeting that has been the buzz of Davis for the last week?
Anyone notice that Souza was invisible(was he even there?) at the Tuesday Supervisor’s meeting that has been the buzz of Davis for the last week?
Anyone notice that Souza was invisible(was he even there?) at the Tuesday Supervisor’s meeting that has been the buzz of Davis for the last week?
Matt…One reason that Souza and Saylor may want to now bypass the Steering Committee is the possibility( noted by some who have attended the meetings) that the Council Majority’s proxies perhaps cannot be relied upon to come up with the “correct” recommendations.
Matt…One reason that Souza and Saylor may want to now bypass the Steering Committee is the possibility( noted by some who have attended the meetings) that the Council Majority’s proxies perhaps cannot be relied upon to come up with the “correct” recommendations.
Matt…One reason that Souza and Saylor may want to now bypass the Steering Committee is the possibility( noted by some who have attended the meetings) that the Council Majority’s proxies perhaps cannot be relied upon to come up with the “correct” recommendations.
Matt…One reason that Souza and Saylor may want to now bypass the Steering Committee is the possibility( noted by some who have attended the meetings) that the Council Majority’s proxies perhaps cannot be relied upon to come up with the “correct” recommendations.
What proposal is he talking about? Sounds like building a farm, habitat, and sports complex, not housing. Where is the housing portion of this? Anyone know the details?
What proposal is he talking about? Sounds like building a farm, habitat, and sports complex, not housing. Where is the housing portion of this? Anyone know the details?
What proposal is he talking about? Sounds like building a farm, habitat, and sports complex, not housing. Where is the housing portion of this? Anyone know the details?
What proposal is he talking about? Sounds like building a farm, habitat, and sports complex, not housing. Where is the housing portion of this? Anyone know the details?
i am one of the 15 housing steering committee members, and in this case, davisite is partially right- in that the council has begun to inerfere with the housing committee process, and that the entire group would prefer to carry out the work given to us, without council interference.
where daivisite is wrong (and seemingly always biased)it is not only saylor and souza ….even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business.
i am one of the 15 housing steering committee members, and in this case, davisite is partially right- in that the council has begun to inerfere with the housing committee process, and that the entire group would prefer to carry out the work given to us, without council interference.
where daivisite is wrong (and seemingly always biased)it is not only saylor and souza ….even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business.
i am one of the 15 housing steering committee members, and in this case, davisite is partially right- in that the council has begun to inerfere with the housing committee process, and that the entire group would prefer to carry out the work given to us, without council interference.
where daivisite is wrong (and seemingly always biased)it is not only saylor and souza ….even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business.
i am one of the 15 housing steering committee members, and in this case, davisite is partially right- in that the council has begun to inerfere with the housing committee process, and that the entire group would prefer to carry out the work given to us, without council interference.
where daivisite is wrong (and seemingly always biased)it is not only saylor and souza ….even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business.
“even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business”
both of them?
“even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business”
both of them?
“even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business”
both of them?
“even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business”
both of them?
I sent an email to the council 7/10/07 with my concern about the the Covell Village property being put back on the table as well as the other special study properties and why the millions of tax dollars from Measure O, Open Space Fund (Davis Moat Tax), was not being used for what it was intended for or at all. Yes, if you own property in Davis you are paying a tax and will for 30 years with this money just sitting in an account. Part of his response was we should be just as concerned about the Shriners property being developed. I felt that this statement came a little out of left field considering the context, but I still interpreted this to mean developers, not himself. Interesting.
I sent an email to the council 7/10/07 with my concern about the the Covell Village property being put back on the table as well as the other special study properties and why the millions of tax dollars from Measure O, Open Space Fund (Davis Moat Tax), was not being used for what it was intended for or at all. Yes, if you own property in Davis you are paying a tax and will for 30 years with this money just sitting in an account. Part of his response was we should be just as concerned about the Shriners property being developed. I felt that this statement came a little out of left field considering the context, but I still interpreted this to mean developers, not himself. Interesting.
I sent an email to the council 7/10/07 with my concern about the the Covell Village property being put back on the table as well as the other special study properties and why the millions of tax dollars from Measure O, Open Space Fund (Davis Moat Tax), was not being used for what it was intended for or at all. Yes, if you own property in Davis you are paying a tax and will for 30 years with this money just sitting in an account. Part of his response was we should be just as concerned about the Shriners property being developed. I felt that this statement came a little out of left field considering the context, but I still interpreted this to mean developers, not himself. Interesting.
I sent an email to the council 7/10/07 with my concern about the the Covell Village property being put back on the table as well as the other special study properties and why the millions of tax dollars from Measure O, Open Space Fund (Davis Moat Tax), was not being used for what it was intended for or at all. Yes, if you own property in Davis you are paying a tax and will for 30 years with this money just sitting in an account. Part of his response was we should be just as concerned about the Shriners property being developed. I felt that this statement came a little out of left field considering the context, but I still interpreted this to mean developers, not himself. Interesting.
Housing steering committee member…
I did not talk about which Council members were “meddling”(I would not be surprised if Sue Greenwald was often at meetings, offering her “opinions”) but rather that Saylor and Souza may be concerned that their proxies could prove less reliable in advancing their agenda than they planned.
Housing steering committee member…
I did not talk about which Council members were “meddling”(I would not be surprised if Sue Greenwald was often at meetings, offering her “opinions”) but rather that Saylor and Souza may be concerned that their proxies could prove less reliable in advancing their agenda than they planned.
Housing steering committee member…
I did not talk about which Council members were “meddling”(I would not be surprised if Sue Greenwald was often at meetings, offering her “opinions”) but rather that Saylor and Souza may be concerned that their proxies could prove less reliable in advancing their agenda than they planned.
Housing steering committee member…
I did not talk about which Council members were “meddling”(I would not be surprised if Sue Greenwald was often at meetings, offering her “opinions”) but rather that Saylor and Souza may be concerned that their proxies could prove less reliable in advancing their agenda than they planned.
“Part of his response was we should be just as concerned about the Shriners property being developed..”
Now that the threats of our Davis Supervisors appear to have been temporarily defused, are we back again to the Gidaro developer “mushroom cloud”? This is getting….BOOORRRING.
“Part of his response was we should be just as concerned about the Shriners property being developed..”
Now that the threats of our Davis Supervisors appear to have been temporarily defused, are we back again to the Gidaro developer “mushroom cloud”? This is getting….BOOORRRING.
“Part of his response was we should be just as concerned about the Shriners property being developed..”
Now that the threats of our Davis Supervisors appear to have been temporarily defused, are we back again to the Gidaro developer “mushroom cloud”? This is getting….BOOORRRING.
“Part of his response was we should be just as concerned about the Shriners property being developed..”
Now that the threats of our Davis Supervisors appear to have been temporarily defused, are we back again to the Gidaro developer “mushroom cloud”? This is getting….BOOORRRING.
um, where’s the housing in this plan? is the argument one of procedure, or than soiusa could switch out the substance from organic farm to housing down the line?
um, where’s the housing in this plan? is the argument one of procedure, or than soiusa could switch out the substance from organic farm to housing down the line?
um, where’s the housing in this plan? is the argument one of procedure, or than soiusa could switch out the substance from organic farm to housing down the line?
um, where’s the housing in this plan? is the argument one of procedure, or than soiusa could switch out the substance from organic farm to housing down the line?
“It is one thing for staff to examine a development proposal, determine whether it was something they could support pursuing, and then making and outlining their own recommendations for action.”
I’m surprised by your reaction to this, Doug. Many times on Vanguard you have argued stridently that our system gives too much power to staff and too little to our elected representatives. Here is an instant of an elected official bypassing the strength of staff, and you take the side against the democratically elected member of city government.
That said, I think it is clear that this councilmember is carrying the water for one of his supporters and possibly not in the best interests of our city. The voters should hold this councilmember accountable for doing that.
“It is one thing for staff to examine a development proposal, determine whether it was something they could support pursuing, and then making and outlining their own recommendations for action.”
I’m surprised by your reaction to this, Doug. Many times on Vanguard you have argued stridently that our system gives too much power to staff and too little to our elected representatives. Here is an instant of an elected official bypassing the strength of staff, and you take the side against the democratically elected member of city government.
That said, I think it is clear that this councilmember is carrying the water for one of his supporters and possibly not in the best interests of our city. The voters should hold this councilmember accountable for doing that.
“It is one thing for staff to examine a development proposal, determine whether it was something they could support pursuing, and then making and outlining their own recommendations for action.”
I’m surprised by your reaction to this, Doug. Many times on Vanguard you have argued stridently that our system gives too much power to staff and too little to our elected representatives. Here is an instant of an elected official bypassing the strength of staff, and you take the side against the democratically elected member of city government.
That said, I think it is clear that this councilmember is carrying the water for one of his supporters and possibly not in the best interests of our city. The voters should hold this councilmember accountable for doing that.
“It is one thing for staff to examine a development proposal, determine whether it was something they could support pursuing, and then making and outlining their own recommendations for action.”
I’m surprised by your reaction to this, Doug. Many times on Vanguard you have argued stridently that our system gives too much power to staff and too little to our elected representatives. Here is an instant of an elected official bypassing the strength of staff, and you take the side against the democratically elected member of city government.
That said, I think it is clear that this councilmember is carrying the water for one of his supporters and possibly not in the best interests of our city. The voters should hold this councilmember accountable for doing that.
davisite….agreed.
“meddling” was my word, although you implied that only saylor and souza are wanting to bypass the housing committee…when as I stated, other council members have expressed similar interests.
we “proxies” are independent from those who chose us, and have had discussions in the past several meetings stating as much.
also, fyi, only one council member has actually attended a committee meeting, and that was steve souza.
davisite….agreed.
“meddling” was my word, although you implied that only saylor and souza are wanting to bypass the housing committee…when as I stated, other council members have expressed similar interests.
we “proxies” are independent from those who chose us, and have had discussions in the past several meetings stating as much.
also, fyi, only one council member has actually attended a committee meeting, and that was steve souza.
davisite….agreed.
“meddling” was my word, although you implied that only saylor and souza are wanting to bypass the housing committee…when as I stated, other council members have expressed similar interests.
we “proxies” are independent from those who chose us, and have had discussions in the past several meetings stating as much.
also, fyi, only one council member has actually attended a committee meeting, and that was steve souza.
davisite….agreed.
“meddling” was my word, although you implied that only saylor and souza are wanting to bypass the housing committee…when as I stated, other council members have expressed similar interests.
we “proxies” are independent from those who chose us, and have had discussions in the past several meetings stating as much.
also, fyi, only one council member has actually attended a committee meeting, and that was steve souza.
Burt said…
Housing steering committee member said…
7/26/07 9:32 AM
Even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business.
You meant to say meddling in community business didn’t you??. How rude of an elected city official to participate in community business.
Burt said…
Housing steering committee member said…
7/26/07 9:32 AM
Even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business.
You meant to say meddling in community business didn’t you??. How rude of an elected city official to participate in community business.
Burt said…
Housing steering committee member said…
7/26/07 9:32 AM
Even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business.
You meant to say meddling in community business didn’t you??. How rude of an elected city official to participate in community business.
Burt said…
Housing steering committee member said…
7/26/07 9:32 AM
Even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business.
You meant to say meddling in community business didn’t you??. How rude of an elected city official to participate in community business.
I’ve attended with my wife virtually all the Housing Element meetings. The ones I missed, she attended alone. As a result I believe I have a very clear and accurate perspective that (at least in the meetings)no Council member has had any (or even made an attempt to have any) say in the Committee’s deliberations. Souza was a very quiet observer in the one meeting he attended.
The deliberations by the Committee have been extremely impressive in both their openess and balance. If in fact there is no housing in what Souza wants discussed by the Council, then in fact it may not be in the Committee’s tasked responsibilities. Until I hear more I stand by my recommendation that the Committee be the first line of review.
With that said, I think it is too early to be lambasting Souza with statements like, “One reason that Souza and Saylor may want to now bypass the Steering Committee is the possibility (noted by some who have attended the meetings) that the Council Majority’s proxies perhaps cannot be relied upon to come up with the ‘correct’ recommendations.”
I’ve attended with my wife virtually all the Housing Element meetings. The ones I missed, she attended alone. As a result I believe I have a very clear and accurate perspective that (at least in the meetings)no Council member has had any (or even made an attempt to have any) say in the Committee’s deliberations. Souza was a very quiet observer in the one meeting he attended.
The deliberations by the Committee have been extremely impressive in both their openess and balance. If in fact there is no housing in what Souza wants discussed by the Council, then in fact it may not be in the Committee’s tasked responsibilities. Until I hear more I stand by my recommendation that the Committee be the first line of review.
With that said, I think it is too early to be lambasting Souza with statements like, “One reason that Souza and Saylor may want to now bypass the Steering Committee is the possibility (noted by some who have attended the meetings) that the Council Majority’s proxies perhaps cannot be relied upon to come up with the ‘correct’ recommendations.”
I’ve attended with my wife virtually all the Housing Element meetings. The ones I missed, she attended alone. As a result I believe I have a very clear and accurate perspective that (at least in the meetings)no Council member has had any (or even made an attempt to have any) say in the Committee’s deliberations. Souza was a very quiet observer in the one meeting he attended.
The deliberations by the Committee have been extremely impressive in both their openess and balance. If in fact there is no housing in what Souza wants discussed by the Council, then in fact it may not be in the Committee’s tasked responsibilities. Until I hear more I stand by my recommendation that the Committee be the first line of review.
With that said, I think it is too early to be lambasting Souza with statements like, “One reason that Souza and Saylor may want to now bypass the Steering Committee is the possibility (noted by some who have attended the meetings) that the Council Majority’s proxies perhaps cannot be relied upon to come up with the ‘correct’ recommendations.”
I’ve attended with my wife virtually all the Housing Element meetings. The ones I missed, she attended alone. As a result I believe I have a very clear and accurate perspective that (at least in the meetings)no Council member has had any (or even made an attempt to have any) say in the Committee’s deliberations. Souza was a very quiet observer in the one meeting he attended.
The deliberations by the Committee have been extremely impressive in both their openess and balance. If in fact there is no housing in what Souza wants discussed by the Council, then in fact it may not be in the Committee’s tasked responsibilities. Until I hear more I stand by my recommendation that the Committee be the first line of review.
With that said, I think it is too early to be lambasting Souza with statements like, “One reason that Souza and Saylor may want to now bypass the Steering Committee is the possibility (noted by some who have attended the meetings) that the Council Majority’s proxies perhaps cannot be relied upon to come up with the ‘correct’ recommendations.”
Councilmembers should be very careful and not bypass staff on a potential land use project or any business proposal to the city. Councilmembers should work to keep their neutrality to all potential projects. When approached by business interests all councilmembers should refer the interested parties to the appropriate city department for initial or preliminary discussions. The appearance of favoritism by councilmembers should be avoided. To avoid that no councilmember should be bring forward a land use proposal directly to the city council avoiding all the checks and balances placed to assure some degree of impartiality. Any person or business that wants to do business with the city should go through the normal city process long before it gets to the city council. Naturally, if the party does not feel it is getting a fair hearing from the staff or staff is coming to an adverse conclusion to the project they can appeal their application to the city planning commission or the city council for review.
The beginnings of Déjà vu?
During the 2005 Covell Village campaign Stephen Souza was a shameless promoter of that project practically acting like a real estate agent or a developer himself going all over town for months wearing Yes on X paraphernalia (buttons, hats and shirts) handing out Yes on X brochures, working at the Yes on X farmer’s market table and essentially helping run that campaign. Stephen was campaigning as if Covell Village was his development. During campaign, the council majority at the time (Asmundson, Puntillo, Saylor and Souza) campaigned furiously for the CV project, which in reality became their land development project.
Is Souza now the front man for another project??
Councilmembers should be very careful and not bypass staff on a potential land use project or any business proposal to the city. Councilmembers should work to keep their neutrality to all potential projects. When approached by business interests all councilmembers should refer the interested parties to the appropriate city department for initial or preliminary discussions. The appearance of favoritism by councilmembers should be avoided. To avoid that no councilmember should be bring forward a land use proposal directly to the city council avoiding all the checks and balances placed to assure some degree of impartiality. Any person or business that wants to do business with the city should go through the normal city process long before it gets to the city council. Naturally, if the party does not feel it is getting a fair hearing from the staff or staff is coming to an adverse conclusion to the project they can appeal their application to the city planning commission or the city council for review.
The beginnings of Déjà vu?
During the 2005 Covell Village campaign Stephen Souza was a shameless promoter of that project practically acting like a real estate agent or a developer himself going all over town for months wearing Yes on X paraphernalia (buttons, hats and shirts) handing out Yes on X brochures, working at the Yes on X farmer’s market table and essentially helping run that campaign. Stephen was campaigning as if Covell Village was his development. During campaign, the council majority at the time (Asmundson, Puntillo, Saylor and Souza) campaigned furiously for the CV project, which in reality became their land development project.
Is Souza now the front man for another project??
Councilmembers should be very careful and not bypass staff on a potential land use project or any business proposal to the city. Councilmembers should work to keep their neutrality to all potential projects. When approached by business interests all councilmembers should refer the interested parties to the appropriate city department for initial or preliminary discussions. The appearance of favoritism by councilmembers should be avoided. To avoid that no councilmember should be bring forward a land use proposal directly to the city council avoiding all the checks and balances placed to assure some degree of impartiality. Any person or business that wants to do business with the city should go through the normal city process long before it gets to the city council. Naturally, if the party does not feel it is getting a fair hearing from the staff or staff is coming to an adverse conclusion to the project they can appeal their application to the city planning commission or the city council for review.
The beginnings of Déjà vu?
During the 2005 Covell Village campaign Stephen Souza was a shameless promoter of that project practically acting like a real estate agent or a developer himself going all over town for months wearing Yes on X paraphernalia (buttons, hats and shirts) handing out Yes on X brochures, working at the Yes on X farmer’s market table and essentially helping run that campaign. Stephen was campaigning as if Covell Village was his development. During campaign, the council majority at the time (Asmundson, Puntillo, Saylor and Souza) campaigned furiously for the CV project, which in reality became their land development project.
Is Souza now the front man for another project??
Councilmembers should be very careful and not bypass staff on a potential land use project or any business proposal to the city. Councilmembers should work to keep their neutrality to all potential projects. When approached by business interests all councilmembers should refer the interested parties to the appropriate city department for initial or preliminary discussions. The appearance of favoritism by councilmembers should be avoided. To avoid that no councilmember should be bring forward a land use proposal directly to the city council avoiding all the checks and balances placed to assure some degree of impartiality. Any person or business that wants to do business with the city should go through the normal city process long before it gets to the city council. Naturally, if the party does not feel it is getting a fair hearing from the staff or staff is coming to an adverse conclusion to the project they can appeal their application to the city planning commission or the city council for review.
The beginnings of Déjà vu?
During the 2005 Covell Village campaign Stephen Souza was a shameless promoter of that project practically acting like a real estate agent or a developer himself going all over town for months wearing Yes on X paraphernalia (buttons, hats and shirts) handing out Yes on X brochures, working at the Yes on X farmer’s market table and essentially helping run that campaign. Stephen was campaigning as if Covell Village was his development. During campaign, the council majority at the time (Asmundson, Puntillo, Saylor and Souza) campaigned furiously for the CV project, which in reality became their land development project.
Is Souza now the front man for another project??
“Souza was a shameless promoter of that project practically acting like a real estate agent or a developer himself going all over town for months wearing Yes on X paraphernalia (buttons, hats and shirts) handing out Yes on X brochures, working at the Yes on X farmer’s market table and essentially helping run that campaign.”
If a different councilmember wore No on X buttons, hats and blouses and sat at the No on X table at the farmer’s market, was she ignoble for doing so?
Or is the problem just that the person you’re condemning was promoting a political position you did not agree with?
“Souza was a shameless promoter of that project practically acting like a real estate agent or a developer himself going all over town for months wearing Yes on X paraphernalia (buttons, hats and shirts) handing out Yes on X brochures, working at the Yes on X farmer’s market table and essentially helping run that campaign.”
If a different councilmember wore No on X buttons, hats and blouses and sat at the No on X table at the farmer’s market, was she ignoble for doing so?
Or is the problem just that the person you’re condemning was promoting a political position you did not agree with?
“Souza was a shameless promoter of that project practically acting like a real estate agent or a developer himself going all over town for months wearing Yes on X paraphernalia (buttons, hats and shirts) handing out Yes on X brochures, working at the Yes on X farmer’s market table and essentially helping run that campaign.”
If a different councilmember wore No on X buttons, hats and blouses and sat at the No on X table at the farmer’s market, was she ignoble for doing so?
Or is the problem just that the person you’re condemning was promoting a political position you did not agree with?
“Souza was a shameless promoter of that project practically acting like a real estate agent or a developer himself going all over town for months wearing Yes on X paraphernalia (buttons, hats and shirts) handing out Yes on X brochures, working at the Yes on X farmer’s market table and essentially helping run that campaign.”
If a different councilmember wore No on X buttons, hats and blouses and sat at the No on X table at the farmer’s market, was she ignoble for doing so?
Or is the problem just that the person you’re condemning was promoting a political position you did not agree with?
In my opinion, a councilmember should not be pimping or fronting for a development project. That is unseemly.
In my opinion, a councilmember should not be pimping or fronting for a development project. That is unseemly.
In my opinion, a councilmember should not be pimping or fronting for a development project. That is unseemly.
In my opinion, a councilmember should not be pimping or fronting for a development project. That is unseemly.
Matt… Everyone recognizes that this idea of Souza’s ,which I believe was supported by Saylor, is very unusual as both of them are well-acquainted with the way the city normally handles development proposals. I said what I thought MAY be the reason… calling it “lambasting” is a bit much…but a colorful turn of phrase that I can appreciate.
Matt… Everyone recognizes that this idea of Souza’s ,which I believe was supported by Saylor, is very unusual as both of them are well-acquainted with the way the city normally handles development proposals. I said what I thought MAY be the reason… calling it “lambasting” is a bit much…but a colorful turn of phrase that I can appreciate.
Matt… Everyone recognizes that this idea of Souza’s ,which I believe was supported by Saylor, is very unusual as both of them are well-acquainted with the way the city normally handles development proposals. I said what I thought MAY be the reason… calling it “lambasting” is a bit much…but a colorful turn of phrase that I can appreciate.
Matt… Everyone recognizes that this idea of Souza’s ,which I believe was supported by Saylor, is very unusual as both of them are well-acquainted with the way the city normally handles development proposals. I said what I thought MAY be the reason… calling it “lambasting” is a bit much…but a colorful turn of phrase that I can appreciate.
My suggestion for the next Measure J election. After the Council approves the project(a prerequisite to initiate a Measure J vote) ,they and the city are SILENT and out of the campaign;County Supervisors, Assemblypersons and other politicos should also keep themselves at arms-length from the campaign. The developer makes their case to the Davis voters,the citizen opposition does the same and the votes are counted.
My suggestion for the next Measure J election. After the Council approves the project(a prerequisite to initiate a Measure J vote) ,they and the city are SILENT and out of the campaign;County Supervisors, Assemblypersons and other politicos should also keep themselves at arms-length from the campaign. The developer makes their case to the Davis voters,the citizen opposition does the same and the votes are counted.
My suggestion for the next Measure J election. After the Council approves the project(a prerequisite to initiate a Measure J vote) ,they and the city are SILENT and out of the campaign;County Supervisors, Assemblypersons and other politicos should also keep themselves at arms-length from the campaign. The developer makes their case to the Davis voters,the citizen opposition does the same and the votes are counted.
My suggestion for the next Measure J election. After the Council approves the project(a prerequisite to initiate a Measure J vote) ,they and the city are SILENT and out of the campaign;County Supervisors, Assemblypersons and other politicos should also keep themselves at arms-length from the campaign. The developer makes their case to the Davis voters,the citizen opposition does the same and the votes are counted.
in reference to anonymous/burt posting at 12:18….
fine, yes, “community business”.
they had given us clear directions several months ago, and as of late they have been nosing around.
not, as matt pointed out, at the housing element meetings themselves, but out in the community, and during their own council meetings.
a good example is the council agenda item of a few weeks ago that would have taken the former hunts cannery site off the table as a potential housing site, when they had explicitly asked the committee to examine ALL of the potential housing sites whether infill, periphery, etc. for usefulness towards housing requirements…in this case, it was mayor greenwald who was a proponent of this item.
in reference to anonymous/burt posting at 12:18….
fine, yes, “community business”.
they had given us clear directions several months ago, and as of late they have been nosing around.
not, as matt pointed out, at the housing element meetings themselves, but out in the community, and during their own council meetings.
a good example is the council agenda item of a few weeks ago that would have taken the former hunts cannery site off the table as a potential housing site, when they had explicitly asked the committee to examine ALL of the potential housing sites whether infill, periphery, etc. for usefulness towards housing requirements…in this case, it was mayor greenwald who was a proponent of this item.
in reference to anonymous/burt posting at 12:18….
fine, yes, “community business”.
they had given us clear directions several months ago, and as of late they have been nosing around.
not, as matt pointed out, at the housing element meetings themselves, but out in the community, and during their own council meetings.
a good example is the council agenda item of a few weeks ago that would have taken the former hunts cannery site off the table as a potential housing site, when they had explicitly asked the committee to examine ALL of the potential housing sites whether infill, periphery, etc. for usefulness towards housing requirements…in this case, it was mayor greenwald who was a proponent of this item.
in reference to anonymous/burt posting at 12:18….
fine, yes, “community business”.
they had given us clear directions several months ago, and as of late they have been nosing around.
not, as matt pointed out, at the housing element meetings themselves, but out in the community, and during their own council meetings.
a good example is the council agenda item of a few weeks ago that would have taken the former hunts cannery site off the table as a potential housing site, when they had explicitly asked the committee to examine ALL of the potential housing sites whether infill, periphery, etc. for usefulness towards housing requirements…in this case, it was mayor greenwald who was a proponent of this item.
“In my opinion, a councilmember should not be pimping or fronting for a development project. That is unseemly.”
Is that an assault on Sue Greenwald for her pimping for the Mishka’s Cafe development project? Or is it against Julia Partansky for her having pimped the South Davis Safeway-Rite Aid development project?
“In my opinion, a councilmember should not be pimping or fronting for a development project. That is unseemly.”
Is that an assault on Sue Greenwald for her pimping for the Mishka’s Cafe development project? Or is it against Julia Partansky for her having pimped the South Davis Safeway-Rite Aid development project?
“In my opinion, a councilmember should not be pimping or fronting for a development project. That is unseemly.”
Is that an assault on Sue Greenwald for her pimping for the Mishka’s Cafe development project? Or is it against Julia Partansky for her having pimped the South Davis Safeway-Rite Aid development project?
“In my opinion, a councilmember should not be pimping or fronting for a development project. That is unseemly.”
Is that an assault on Sue Greenwald for her pimping for the Mishka’s Cafe development project? Or is it against Julia Partansky for her having pimped the South Davis Safeway-Rite Aid development project?
“Is that an assault on Sue Greenwald for her pimping for the Mishka’s Cafe development project?”
Maybe
“Is that an assault on Sue Greenwald for her pimping for the Mishka’s Cafe development project?”
Maybe
“Is that an assault on Sue Greenwald for her pimping for the Mishka’s Cafe development project?”
Maybe
“Is that an assault on Sue Greenwald for her pimping for the Mishka’s Cafe development project?”
Maybe
Burt said…
housing steering committee member said…
in reference to anonymous/burt posting at 12:18….
fine, yes, “community business”.
they had given us clear directions several months ago, and as of late they have been nosing around.
I want and expect my elected city council representatives to nose around all committees, after all I did vote for them.
Burt said…
housing steering committee member said…
in reference to anonymous/burt posting at 12:18….
fine, yes, “community business”.
they had given us clear directions several months ago, and as of late they have been nosing around.
I want and expect my elected city council representatives to nose around all committees, after all I did vote for them.
Burt said…
housing steering committee member said…
in reference to anonymous/burt posting at 12:18….
fine, yes, “community business”.
they had given us clear directions several months ago, and as of late they have been nosing around.
I want and expect my elected city council representatives to nose around all committees, after all I did vote for them.
Burt said…
housing steering committee member said…
in reference to anonymous/burt posting at 12:18….
fine, yes, “community business”.
they had given us clear directions several months ago, and as of late they have been nosing around.
I want and expect my elected city council representatives to nose around all committees, after all I did vote for them.
davisite said…
“Matt… Everyone recognizes that this idea of Souza’s ,which I believe was supported by Saylor, is very unusual as both of them are well-acquainted with the way the city normally handles development proposals. I said what I thought MAY be the reason… calling it “lambasting” is a bit much…but a colorful turn of phrase that I can appreciate.”
davisite, just think of it as an unabashed tie-in plug for this Saturday’s Lambtown USA Festival in Dixon.
davisite said…
“Matt… Everyone recognizes that this idea of Souza’s ,which I believe was supported by Saylor, is very unusual as both of them are well-acquainted with the way the city normally handles development proposals. I said what I thought MAY be the reason… calling it “lambasting” is a bit much…but a colorful turn of phrase that I can appreciate.”
davisite, just think of it as an unabashed tie-in plug for this Saturday’s Lambtown USA Festival in Dixon.
davisite said…
“Matt… Everyone recognizes that this idea of Souza’s ,which I believe was supported by Saylor, is very unusual as both of them are well-acquainted with the way the city normally handles development proposals. I said what I thought MAY be the reason… calling it “lambasting” is a bit much…but a colorful turn of phrase that I can appreciate.”
davisite, just think of it as an unabashed tie-in plug for this Saturday’s Lambtown USA Festival in Dixon.
davisite said…
“Matt… Everyone recognizes that this idea of Souza’s ,which I believe was supported by Saylor, is very unusual as both of them are well-acquainted with the way the city normally handles development proposals. I said what I thought MAY be the reason… calling it “lambasting” is a bit much…but a colorful turn of phrase that I can appreciate.”
davisite, just think of it as an unabashed tie-in plug for this Saturday’s Lambtown USA Festival in Dixon.
Davisite –
As a member of the Housing Steering Committee as well, I have encountered no meddling by ANY councilmember, progressive or not progressive. Steve Souza was present at the kick off meeting and no other councilmembers have attended since. From my perspective we are being left alone to do our work even though our individual opionions may clash with council members desires.
Davisite –
As a member of the Housing Steering Committee as well, I have encountered no meddling by ANY councilmember, progressive or not progressive. Steve Souza was present at the kick off meeting and no other councilmembers have attended since. From my perspective we are being left alone to do our work even though our individual opionions may clash with council members desires.
Davisite –
As a member of the Housing Steering Committee as well, I have encountered no meddling by ANY councilmember, progressive or not progressive. Steve Souza was present at the kick off meeting and no other councilmembers have attended since. From my perspective we are being left alone to do our work even though our individual opionions may clash with council members desires.
Davisite –
As a member of the Housing Steering Committee as well, I have encountered no meddling by ANY councilmember, progressive or not progressive. Steve Souza was present at the kick off meeting and no other councilmembers have attended since. From my perspective we are being left alone to do our work even though our individual opionions may clash with council members desires.
Pam..That’s good enough for me
Pam..That’s good enough for me
Pam..That’s good enough for me
Pam..That’s good enough for me
housing steering committee member writes: “… even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business.”
And then Pam Gunnell contradicts that by writing: “I have encountered no meddling by ANY councilmember, progressive or not progressive.”
Largely because Pam put her name to her words, I believe her and not the first poster. In fact, I suspect the first poster is not a member of the housing steering committee at all.
housing steering committee member writes: “… even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business.”
And then Pam Gunnell contradicts that by writing: “I have encountered no meddling by ANY councilmember, progressive or not progressive.”
Largely because Pam put her name to her words, I believe her and not the first poster. In fact, I suspect the first poster is not a member of the housing steering committee at all.
housing steering committee member writes: “… even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business.”
And then Pam Gunnell contradicts that by writing: “I have encountered no meddling by ANY councilmember, progressive or not progressive.”
Largely because Pam put her name to her words, I believe her and not the first poster. In fact, I suspect the first poster is not a member of the housing steering committee at all.
housing steering committee member writes: “… even the “progressive” members of the council have been meddling in our business.”
And then Pam Gunnell contradicts that by writing: “I have encountered no meddling by ANY councilmember, progressive or not progressive.”
Largely because Pam put her name to her words, I believe her and not the first poster. In fact, I suspect the first poster is not a member of the housing steering committee at all.
Davisite wrote:
“Souza is looking for a campaign issue and classic Karl Rove tactic.. namely,if you are in political trouble, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.”
Are we being “Dick-Cheneyed?”
Dick-Cheney. A verb indicating an action whereby someone looks out for their own interest regardless of the consequences, and then later if it becomes an issue either disappears or changes the subject (usually by banging the war drum so loud that nothing else can be heard)
Davisite wrote:
“Souza is looking for a campaign issue and classic Karl Rove tactic.. namely,if you are in political trouble, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.”
Are we being “Dick-Cheneyed?”
Dick-Cheney. A verb indicating an action whereby someone looks out for their own interest regardless of the consequences, and then later if it becomes an issue either disappears or changes the subject (usually by banging the war drum so loud that nothing else can be heard)
Davisite wrote:
“Souza is looking for a campaign issue and classic Karl Rove tactic.. namely,if you are in political trouble, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.”
Are we being “Dick-Cheneyed?”
Dick-Cheney. A verb indicating an action whereby someone looks out for their own interest regardless of the consequences, and then later if it becomes an issue either disappears or changes the subject (usually by banging the war drum so loud that nothing else can be heard)
Davisite wrote:
“Souza is looking for a campaign issue and classic Karl Rove tactic.. namely,if you are in political trouble, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.”
Are we being “Dick-Cheneyed?”
Dick-Cheney. A verb indicating an action whereby someone looks out for their own interest regardless of the consequences, and then later if it becomes an issue either disappears or changes the subject (usually by banging the war drum so loud that nothing else can be heard)
Davisite wrote:
“The developer makes their case to the Davis voters,the citizen opposition does the same and the votes are counted.”
This reveals Davisite’s view that ALL development is inherently bad and opposed by the citizenry. He fails to acknowledge that many “citizenry” supported CV as well as Wildhorse, the only two projects ever held to a Measure J style vote. Should the outspoken supporters of Wildhorse — Bill Ritter, Holly Bishop, Pam Gunnell, and Eileen Samitz, for example — have just sat on the sidelines and watched Rodney Robinson and Bill Duffel fight it out? Did Davisite chastize them as he now chastizes Souza? In fact, wasn’t CV a far more progressive development than Wildhorse?
Davisite has it backwards. It’s the developers who should stay out of it and let the citizenry duke it out to determine what is best for their city.
Davisite wrote:
“The developer makes their case to the Davis voters,the citizen opposition does the same and the votes are counted.”
This reveals Davisite’s view that ALL development is inherently bad and opposed by the citizenry. He fails to acknowledge that many “citizenry” supported CV as well as Wildhorse, the only two projects ever held to a Measure J style vote. Should the outspoken supporters of Wildhorse — Bill Ritter, Holly Bishop, Pam Gunnell, and Eileen Samitz, for example — have just sat on the sidelines and watched Rodney Robinson and Bill Duffel fight it out? Did Davisite chastize them as he now chastizes Souza? In fact, wasn’t CV a far more progressive development than Wildhorse?
Davisite has it backwards. It’s the developers who should stay out of it and let the citizenry duke it out to determine what is best for their city.
Davisite wrote:
“The developer makes their case to the Davis voters,the citizen opposition does the same and the votes are counted.”
This reveals Davisite’s view that ALL development is inherently bad and opposed by the citizenry. He fails to acknowledge that many “citizenry” supported CV as well as Wildhorse, the only two projects ever held to a Measure J style vote. Should the outspoken supporters of Wildhorse — Bill Ritter, Holly Bishop, Pam Gunnell, and Eileen Samitz, for example — have just sat on the sidelines and watched Rodney Robinson and Bill Duffel fight it out? Did Davisite chastize them as he now chastizes Souza? In fact, wasn’t CV a far more progressive development than Wildhorse?
Davisite has it backwards. It’s the developers who should stay out of it and let the citizenry duke it out to determine what is best for their city.
Davisite wrote:
“The developer makes their case to the Davis voters,the citizen opposition does the same and the votes are counted.”
This reveals Davisite’s view that ALL development is inherently bad and opposed by the citizenry. He fails to acknowledge that many “citizenry” supported CV as well as Wildhorse, the only two projects ever held to a Measure J style vote. Should the outspoken supporters of Wildhorse — Bill Ritter, Holly Bishop, Pam Gunnell, and Eileen Samitz, for example — have just sat on the sidelines and watched Rodney Robinson and Bill Duffel fight it out? Did Davisite chastize them as he now chastizes Souza? In fact, wasn’t CV a far more progressive development than Wildhorse?
Davisite has it backwards. It’s the developers who should stay out of it and let the citizenry duke it out to determine what is best for their city.
Davis Historian.. I’m afraid that your pseudonym is not quite appropriate. The Wildhorse vote was NOT a measure J vote(it was pre-measure J enactment) but rather a vote to initiate a referendum on the Wildhorse development agreement. You are correct, however, that I failed to include the citizen proponents of a Measure J campaign along with the developers.They would certainly be part of the pro faction. Finally, Measure J certainly is not designed to deliver only a NO vote.
Davis Historian.. I’m afraid that your pseudonym is not quite appropriate. The Wildhorse vote was NOT a measure J vote(it was pre-measure J enactment) but rather a vote to initiate a referendum on the Wildhorse development agreement. You are correct, however, that I failed to include the citizen proponents of a Measure J campaign along with the developers.They would certainly be part of the pro faction. Finally, Measure J certainly is not designed to deliver only a NO vote.
Davis Historian.. I’m afraid that your pseudonym is not quite appropriate. The Wildhorse vote was NOT a measure J vote(it was pre-measure J enactment) but rather a vote to initiate a referendum on the Wildhorse development agreement. You are correct, however, that I failed to include the citizen proponents of a Measure J campaign along with the developers.They would certainly be part of the pro faction. Finally, Measure J certainly is not designed to deliver only a NO vote.
Davis Historian.. I’m afraid that your pseudonym is not quite appropriate. The Wildhorse vote was NOT a measure J vote(it was pre-measure J enactment) but rather a vote to initiate a referendum on the Wildhorse development agreement. You are correct, however, that I failed to include the citizen proponents of a Measure J campaign along with the developers.They would certainly be part of the pro faction. Finally, Measure J certainly is not designed to deliver only a NO vote.
An interesting historical side -note on the Wildhorse referendum:
Then mayor Wolk publicly argued right before the election that voiding the Wildhorse development agreement would still leave the developers with all building rights but now they could build whatever they wanted.. The referendum lost and we learned shortly after that Mayor Wolk’s public pronoucements were actually open to serious question.
Interestingly, the Sacramento PR firm that ran the campaign against voiding the Wildhorse agreement is reported to be the same that ran Whitcombe’s Covell Village campaign. Mayor Wolk’s terror tactics bore an eerie resemblence to Helen Thomson’s infamous letter
to frighten the Davis voters into accepting CV.
An interesting historical side -note on the Wildhorse referendum:
Then mayor Wolk publicly argued right before the election that voiding the Wildhorse development agreement would still leave the developers with all building rights but now they could build whatever they wanted.. The referendum lost and we learned shortly after that Mayor Wolk’s public pronoucements were actually open to serious question.
Interestingly, the Sacramento PR firm that ran the campaign against voiding the Wildhorse agreement is reported to be the same that ran Whitcombe’s Covell Village campaign. Mayor Wolk’s terror tactics bore an eerie resemblence to Helen Thomson’s infamous letter
to frighten the Davis voters into accepting CV.
An interesting historical side -note on the Wildhorse referendum:
Then mayor Wolk publicly argued right before the election that voiding the Wildhorse development agreement would still leave the developers with all building rights but now they could build whatever they wanted.. The referendum lost and we learned shortly after that Mayor Wolk’s public pronoucements were actually open to serious question.
Interestingly, the Sacramento PR firm that ran the campaign against voiding the Wildhorse agreement is reported to be the same that ran Whitcombe’s Covell Village campaign. Mayor Wolk’s terror tactics bore an eerie resemblence to Helen Thomson’s infamous letter
to frighten the Davis voters into accepting CV.
An interesting historical side -note on the Wildhorse referendum:
Then mayor Wolk publicly argued right before the election that voiding the Wildhorse development agreement would still leave the developers with all building rights but now they could build whatever they wanted.. The referendum lost and we learned shortly after that Mayor Wolk’s public pronoucements were actually open to serious question.
Interestingly, the Sacramento PR firm that ran the campaign against voiding the Wildhorse agreement is reported to be the same that ran Whitcombe’s Covell Village campaign. Mayor Wolk’s terror tactics bore an eerie resemblence to Helen Thomson’s infamous letter
to frighten the Davis voters into accepting CV.
Davisite,
That is why I said a Measure J “style” vote, understanding that while Wildhorse was a referendum, it was essentially the same thing, a vote to confirm or deny a council approved development. I’ll keep my moniker. Now, how about dealing with the issue I raised? Ciitizens OK, but not their elected representatives? Huh? And what is a “politico” in your book? Dick Livingston? David Greenwald? Bill Ritter? Rich Rifkin? You? Aren’t they politicos?
Davisite,
That is why I said a Measure J “style” vote, understanding that while Wildhorse was a referendum, it was essentially the same thing, a vote to confirm or deny a council approved development. I’ll keep my moniker. Now, how about dealing with the issue I raised? Ciitizens OK, but not their elected representatives? Huh? And what is a “politico” in your book? Dick Livingston? David Greenwald? Bill Ritter? Rich Rifkin? You? Aren’t they politicos?
Davisite,
That is why I said a Measure J “style” vote, understanding that while Wildhorse was a referendum, it was essentially the same thing, a vote to confirm or deny a council approved development. I’ll keep my moniker. Now, how about dealing with the issue I raised? Ciitizens OK, but not their elected representatives? Huh? And what is a “politico” in your book? Dick Livingston? David Greenwald? Bill Ritter? Rich Rifkin? You? Aren’t they politicos?
Davisite,
That is why I said a Measure J “style” vote, understanding that while Wildhorse was a referendum, it was essentially the same thing, a vote to confirm or deny a council approved development. I’ll keep my moniker. Now, how about dealing with the issue I raised? Ciitizens OK, but not their elected representatives? Huh? And what is a “politico” in your book? Dick Livingston? David Greenwald? Bill Ritter? Rich Rifkin? You? Aren’t they politicos?
Davis historian..Measure J and the referendum to void the development agreement were the same only in that they were votes put to the electorate. The Wildhorse referendum was about correcting known flaws in the development agreement, not about permanently denying the Wildhorse development the opportunity to go forward. By politico, I mean all elected politicians.Local,politically engaged, committed Davis voters(and a special case for D. Livingston,I guess) of all stipes are not in that category.
Davis historian..Measure J and the referendum to void the development agreement were the same only in that they were votes put to the electorate. The Wildhorse referendum was about correcting known flaws in the development agreement, not about permanently denying the Wildhorse development the opportunity to go forward. By politico, I mean all elected politicians.Local,politically engaged, committed Davis voters(and a special case for D. Livingston,I guess) of all stipes are not in that category.
Davis historian..Measure J and the referendum to void the development agreement were the same only in that they were votes put to the electorate. The Wildhorse referendum was about correcting known flaws in the development agreement, not about permanently denying the Wildhorse development the opportunity to go forward. By politico, I mean all elected politicians.Local,politically engaged, committed Davis voters(and a special case for D. Livingston,I guess) of all stipes are not in that category.
Davis historian..Measure J and the referendum to void the development agreement were the same only in that they were votes put to the electorate. The Wildhorse referendum was about correcting known flaws in the development agreement, not about permanently denying the Wildhorse development the opportunity to go forward. By politico, I mean all elected politicians.Local,politically engaged, committed Davis voters(and a special case for D. Livingston,I guess) of all stipes are not in that category.
Davisite said:
“The Wildhorse referendum was about correcting known flaws in the development agreement, not about permanently denying the Wildhorse development the opportunity to go forward.”
I think Julie Partansky and Rodney Robinson would strongly disagree with you on this. They didn’t want to “correct” it. They were 100% against it, period.
As for politicos, you say no “elected” folks. How about planning commissioners and others? And what about Democratic Central Committee members, some of them are elected and some aren’t. I think you’re treading down a slippery slope that is based on your contempt of elected officials you happen to disagree with, not on any rational philosophy. School board people shouldn’t comment on impact on schools? Councilmembers who opposed the project should keep their mouths shut? Not a very democratic approach to democracy in my view. Frankly, it’s idotic. You might want to rethink your idea. (I don’t see anyone else endorsing it.)
Davisite said:
“The Wildhorse referendum was about correcting known flaws in the development agreement, not about permanently denying the Wildhorse development the opportunity to go forward.”
I think Julie Partansky and Rodney Robinson would strongly disagree with you on this. They didn’t want to “correct” it. They were 100% against it, period.
As for politicos, you say no “elected” folks. How about planning commissioners and others? And what about Democratic Central Committee members, some of them are elected and some aren’t. I think you’re treading down a slippery slope that is based on your contempt of elected officials you happen to disagree with, not on any rational philosophy. School board people shouldn’t comment on impact on schools? Councilmembers who opposed the project should keep their mouths shut? Not a very democratic approach to democracy in my view. Frankly, it’s idotic. You might want to rethink your idea. (I don’t see anyone else endorsing it.)
Davisite said:
“The Wildhorse referendum was about correcting known flaws in the development agreement, not about permanently denying the Wildhorse development the opportunity to go forward.”
I think Julie Partansky and Rodney Robinson would strongly disagree with you on this. They didn’t want to “correct” it. They were 100% against it, period.
As for politicos, you say no “elected” folks. How about planning commissioners and others? And what about Democratic Central Committee members, some of them are elected and some aren’t. I think you’re treading down a slippery slope that is based on your contempt of elected officials you happen to disagree with, not on any rational philosophy. School board people shouldn’t comment on impact on schools? Councilmembers who opposed the project should keep their mouths shut? Not a very democratic approach to democracy in my view. Frankly, it’s idotic. You might want to rethink your idea. (I don’t see anyone else endorsing it.)
Davisite said:
“The Wildhorse referendum was about correcting known flaws in the development agreement, not about permanently denying the Wildhorse development the opportunity to go forward.”
I think Julie Partansky and Rodney Robinson would strongly disagree with you on this. They didn’t want to “correct” it. They were 100% against it, period.
As for politicos, you say no “elected” folks. How about planning commissioners and others? And what about Democratic Central Committee members, some of them are elected and some aren’t. I think you’re treading down a slippery slope that is based on your contempt of elected officials you happen to disagree with, not on any rational philosophy. School board people shouldn’t comment on impact on schools? Councilmembers who opposed the project should keep their mouths shut? Not a very democratic approach to democracy in my view. Frankly, it’s idotic. You might want to rethink your idea. (I don’t see anyone else endorsing it.)
I am curious about this idea of securing this land and having the city control it. Howatt Ranch was forced on the city and is not really an ideal place for its proposed use. This land may be a much better location for the community.
Regardless of Souza’s perceived motivation, I think that it is worth looking at and discussing since there is no hint of a trojan horse with the idea. I am comfortable with Souza suggesting a possibility. Isn’t that what we want? City and Community driven planning ideas, rather than developer driven ideas? In the memo Souza clearly states where the idea originated, Souza reached out to Gidaro to see if there was a possibility and now he’s bringing it to the public and the council in a timely manner before any forward motion.
I don’t know, maybe I’m naive, but I just don’t smell a rat here just yet.
I am curious about this idea of securing this land and having the city control it. Howatt Ranch was forced on the city and is not really an ideal place for its proposed use. This land may be a much better location for the community.
Regardless of Souza’s perceived motivation, I think that it is worth looking at and discussing since there is no hint of a trojan horse with the idea. I am comfortable with Souza suggesting a possibility. Isn’t that what we want? City and Community driven planning ideas, rather than developer driven ideas? In the memo Souza clearly states where the idea originated, Souza reached out to Gidaro to see if there was a possibility and now he’s bringing it to the public and the council in a timely manner before any forward motion.
I don’t know, maybe I’m naive, but I just don’t smell a rat here just yet.
I am curious about this idea of securing this land and having the city control it. Howatt Ranch was forced on the city and is not really an ideal place for its proposed use. This land may be a much better location for the community.
Regardless of Souza’s perceived motivation, I think that it is worth looking at and discussing since there is no hint of a trojan horse with the idea. I am comfortable with Souza suggesting a possibility. Isn’t that what we want? City and Community driven planning ideas, rather than developer driven ideas? In the memo Souza clearly states where the idea originated, Souza reached out to Gidaro to see if there was a possibility and now he’s bringing it to the public and the council in a timely manner before any forward motion.
I don’t know, maybe I’m naive, but I just don’t smell a rat here just yet.
I am curious about this idea of securing this land and having the city control it. Howatt Ranch was forced on the city and is not really an ideal place for its proposed use. This land may be a much better location for the community.
Regardless of Souza’s perceived motivation, I think that it is worth looking at and discussing since there is no hint of a trojan horse with the idea. I am comfortable with Souza suggesting a possibility. Isn’t that what we want? City and Community driven planning ideas, rather than developer driven ideas? In the memo Souza clearly states where the idea originated, Souza reached out to Gidaro to see if there was a possibility and now he’s bringing it to the public and the council in a timely manner before any forward motion.
I don’t know, maybe I’m naive, but I just don’t smell a rat here just yet.
Davis Historian… good point. It IS a slippery slope. My initial position was taken not out of contempt for any particular polititican but rather that elected politician’s motivations, especially when related to deep pocket contributors to their campaign war chests, should be always suspect.. I guess we will just have to rely on blogs like the Vanguard to raise the issue and the voters will make up their own minds. I do still think that everyone on our Council should stay out of the Measure J campaigns. They have made their position clear from the dais when they debated the proposal and voted upon it. They really have nothing more to tell us.
Davis Historian… good point. It IS a slippery slope. My initial position was taken not out of contempt for any particular polititican but rather that elected politician’s motivations, especially when related to deep pocket contributors to their campaign war chests, should be always suspect.. I guess we will just have to rely on blogs like the Vanguard to raise the issue and the voters will make up their own minds. I do still think that everyone on our Council should stay out of the Measure J campaigns. They have made their position clear from the dais when they debated the proposal and voted upon it. They really have nothing more to tell us.
Davis Historian… good point. It IS a slippery slope. My initial position was taken not out of contempt for any particular polititican but rather that elected politician’s motivations, especially when related to deep pocket contributors to their campaign war chests, should be always suspect.. I guess we will just have to rely on blogs like the Vanguard to raise the issue and the voters will make up their own minds. I do still think that everyone on our Council should stay out of the Measure J campaigns. They have made their position clear from the dais when they debated the proposal and voted upon it. They really have nothing more to tell us.
Davis Historian… good point. It IS a slippery slope. My initial position was taken not out of contempt for any particular polititican but rather that elected politician’s motivations, especially when related to deep pocket contributors to their campaign war chests, should be always suspect.. I guess we will just have to rely on blogs like the Vanguard to raise the issue and the voters will make up their own minds. I do still think that everyone on our Council should stay out of the Measure J campaigns. They have made their position clear from the dais when they debated the proposal and voted upon it. They really have nothing more to tell us.
“I don’t know, maybe I’m naive, but I just don’t smell a rat here just yet.”
Sharla.. forewarned is forearmed.
Remember the earlier posting by someone who was in contact with Souza who offered, evidently out of the blue, that the caller should be more worried about the Shriner property being developed than the topic that he was calling about?
“I don’t know, maybe I’m naive, but I just don’t smell a rat here just yet.”
Sharla.. forewarned is forearmed.
Remember the earlier posting by someone who was in contact with Souza who offered, evidently out of the blue, that the caller should be more worried about the Shriner property being developed than the topic that he was calling about?
“I don’t know, maybe I’m naive, but I just don’t smell a rat here just yet.”
Sharla.. forewarned is forearmed.
Remember the earlier posting by someone who was in contact with Souza who offered, evidently out of the blue, that the caller should be more worried about the Shriner property being developed than the topic that he was calling about?
“I don’t know, maybe I’m naive, but I just don’t smell a rat here just yet.”
Sharla.. forewarned is forearmed.
Remember the earlier posting by someone who was in contact with Souza who offered, evidently out of the blue, that the caller should be more worried about the Shriner property being developed than the topic that he was calling about?
“I think Julie Partansky and Rodney Robinson would strongly disagree with you on this. They didn’t want to “correct” it. They were 100% against it, period.”
Davis Historian… Irrelevant. There was no Measure J and the Council majority’s approval of a Wildhorse development was not challengable. The Wildhorse developers had obtained development rights. The issue was voiding the development agreement as it stood and then a new one would be created.
“I think Julie Partansky and Rodney Robinson would strongly disagree with you on this. They didn’t want to “correct” it. They were 100% against it, period.”
Davis Historian… Irrelevant. There was no Measure J and the Council majority’s approval of a Wildhorse development was not challengable. The Wildhorse developers had obtained development rights. The issue was voiding the development agreement as it stood and then a new one would be created.
“I think Julie Partansky and Rodney Robinson would strongly disagree with you on this. They didn’t want to “correct” it. They were 100% against it, period.”
Davis Historian… Irrelevant. There was no Measure J and the Council majority’s approval of a Wildhorse development was not challengable. The Wildhorse developers had obtained development rights. The issue was voiding the development agreement as it stood and then a new one would be created.
“I think Julie Partansky and Rodney Robinson would strongly disagree with you on this. They didn’t want to “correct” it. They were 100% against it, period.”
Davis Historian… Irrelevant. There was no Measure J and the Council majority’s approval of a Wildhorse development was not challengable. The Wildhorse developers had obtained development rights. The issue was voiding the development agreement as it stood and then a new one would be created.
Another historical side-note:
The study areas proposed by Thomson and Yamada in Northwest and South Davis(plus the Covell Village site which is,in my opinion,the end-game of all of these threats)are an eerie repeat of the October Covell Village Holloween night campaign on the NW and S periphery of Davis, where CV proponents(Mike Corbett?)made the pitch that if CV wasn’t approved, massive development would spring up outside THEIR front door.
Another historical side-note:
The study areas proposed by Thomson and Yamada in Northwest and South Davis(plus the Covell Village site which is,in my opinion,the end-game of all of these threats)are an eerie repeat of the October Covell Village Holloween night campaign on the NW and S periphery of Davis, where CV proponents(Mike Corbett?)made the pitch that if CV wasn’t approved, massive development would spring up outside THEIR front door.
Another historical side-note:
The study areas proposed by Thomson and Yamada in Northwest and South Davis(plus the Covell Village site which is,in my opinion,the end-game of all of these threats)are an eerie repeat of the October Covell Village Holloween night campaign on the NW and S periphery of Davis, where CV proponents(Mike Corbett?)made the pitch that if CV wasn’t approved, massive development would spring up outside THEIR front door.
Another historical side-note:
The study areas proposed by Thomson and Yamada in Northwest and South Davis(plus the Covell Village site which is,in my opinion,the end-game of all of these threats)are an eerie repeat of the October Covell Village Holloween night campaign on the NW and S periphery of Davis, where CV proponents(Mike Corbett?)made the pitch that if CV wasn’t approved, massive development would spring up outside THEIR front door.
Does anyone really believe that Gidaro is going to propose that he build a sports complex plus give his property over to Davis for habitat conservation, period?
Does anyone really believe that Gidaro is going to propose that he build a sports complex plus give his property over to Davis for habitat conservation, period?
Does anyone really believe that Gidaro is going to propose that he build a sports complex plus give his property over to Davis for habitat conservation, period?
Does anyone really believe that Gidaro is going to propose that he build a sports complex plus give his property over to Davis for habitat conservation, period?
To Davis Historian:
It is true that I and Holly supported Wildhorse, but that was at the time when the city was using one development to finance the next and without the Wildhorse impact fees Mace Ranch would have been without parks and school funding (the “old city” paid nothing). Once we understood the game, we have consistently opposed developments in Davis and fought to undo the Ponzi scheme of city financing. So accuracy needs context and how about your name? Easy to criticize from behind a pen name.
To Davis Historian:
It is true that I and Holly supported Wildhorse, but that was at the time when the city was using one development to finance the next and without the Wildhorse impact fees Mace Ranch would have been without parks and school funding (the “old city” paid nothing). Once we understood the game, we have consistently opposed developments in Davis and fought to undo the Ponzi scheme of city financing. So accuracy needs context and how about your name? Easy to criticize from behind a pen name.
To Davis Historian:
It is true that I and Holly supported Wildhorse, but that was at the time when the city was using one development to finance the next and without the Wildhorse impact fees Mace Ranch would have been without parks and school funding (the “old city” paid nothing). Once we understood the game, we have consistently opposed developments in Davis and fought to undo the Ponzi scheme of city financing. So accuracy needs context and how about your name? Easy to criticize from behind a pen name.
To Davis Historian:
It is true that I and Holly supported Wildhorse, but that was at the time when the city was using one development to finance the next and without the Wildhorse impact fees Mace Ranch would have been without parks and school funding (the “old city” paid nothing). Once we understood the game, we have consistently opposed developments in Davis and fought to undo the Ponzi scheme of city financing. So accuracy needs context and how about your name? Easy to criticize from behind a pen name.