While in and of itself, the proposal has decent properties to it, there are a number of concerns that remain both in terms of intentions and process that are need of resolution.
There is some question about how these talks came about and what the nature of them were. During the meeting, Councilmember Stephen Souza, who brought this item forward as an item submitted by a councilmember suggested that he came to Steve Gidaro to discuss selling the land to the city of Davis.
However, that is not the impression one gets from reading the Davis Enterprise article from July 29, 2007.
“As much as I was upset with him, initially, in the meetings that I have had, there have been good faith promises, and good faith discussions about preserving this land… So yes, he is interested in doing something good.”
Councilmember Souza suggested that it was his idea to preserve the land, but if that’s the case, why was Souza saying, “Just Go away”? There seems to be something going on here that is not being told. Also, why is Mr. Souza so angry with Mr. Gidaro? If it were not for Gidaro and his tactics, Mr. Souza would not have been elected to the city council. So there seems to be a bit of a disconnect here.
Next, Councilmember Souza suggested at the council meeting that it would be inappropriate for him as a councilmember to negotiate on behalf of the city. Yet, he is quoted in the paper as saying:
“I’m a shrewd negotiator… The bottom line is, my hope and my desire and my actions have always been to get this land as cheap as we can get it so we can actually get it.”
If he was not involved in negotiations, why would he state that he’s “a shrewd negotiatior?”
During the meeting, Councilmember Lamar Heystek pressed Councilmember Souza on a recent vote regarding ag mitigation. Specifically, Mr. Souza was asked if his intentions were to create open space, why he created an exemption in the ag mitigation ordinance for properties less than 40 acres, which specifically exempted the nearby Wild Horse Ranch property from adjacent mitigation. While adjacent mitigation on 80 acres, would not have consumed the entire Shriner’s property, it would have set aside a swath for agricultural purposes at the expense of the developer, rather than at the expense of the city.
The question turned to why would the city council not have a developer as part of the condition of his development agreement, purchase the land for agricultural mitigation rather than force the city to do it as open space? Despite, repeated attempts by Councilmember Heystek, Mr. Souza never addressed this issue head-on and instead dodged the questions.
This led to a prolonged confrontation between the progressive minority of the council and the majority faction over the proper process. Councilmember Heystek and Mayor Sue Greenwald both insisted that if this is an item brought forward by a councilmember, the councilmember has the responsibility of getting grilled by his or her colleagues as though they were staff. If this is a problem, then perhaps the council ought to look at different approaches to items brought forward by council. Originally both the Mayor and Councilmember Heystek had wanted staff to do staff work on this.
Unfortunately, the attempts by Mayor Greenwald to sandbag this proposal ultimately muddied the water when she introduced the possibility that the Signature Properties, the next tract along Covell to the direct east of the Shriner’s could be available free of charge to the city. However, in exchange for that land, the city would need to allow development on the Mace Curve on the south side of Covell. This would require around a 97-unit residential development. While this development would cost the city less in terms of money, it would require more housing, something that the Shriner’s property proposal specifically avoids.
Councilmember Lamar Heystek suggested that the priority for the city should be the continuation of the process of turning the 700-acre Howatt Ranch into a sports-complex. There is a disadvantage that the ranch is the furthest away from the core of town of any of the three properties, however, the city currently owns that land and has been working for two years on developing it for the purpose of sports complexes. It is larger than the 100-acre suggestion on the Shriner’s property.
Given that the city already owns the property and would not have to either purchase the land or allow for additional housing developments, Councilmember Heystek offered that this was perhaps the preferred option for the city despite the remote location of the property itself.
In the end, I agree most with Councilmember Heystek’s position, although he ended up supporting the motion for the city staff to explore both the Shriner’s and Signature Properties as possible alternative locations. His suggestion was that he thought in the end, the council and staff would still find the Howatt Ranch the best option. I am not less sure of that, and would have voted against a motion that authorizes staff to look into the two properties, both of which have fatal flaws in my book.
I agree with Mayor Greenwald’s commitment to the urban limit line concept, however, in the end felt that she should not have brought the Signature Property into the discussion and that she too should have voted against the proposal.
At the end of the day, Councilmembers Souza and Saylor suggested that they had distrust for the intentions of Steve Gidaro. I find that an ironic statement in many ways. Not the least of which, that they may not have been elected without Gidaro and his dirty tricks, but also because at the end of the day, I must say I do not trust the intentions of either of these councilmembers. I would prefer that the council not help Mr. Gidaro unload the land that he has apparently determined he could not develop. And, I would prefer that the council, led by Souza and Saylor not make deals to exempt property of 40 acres or less from adjacent mitigation.
This deal, initiated at Souza and Saylor’s behest casts severe doubt on the intentions with the Shriner’s property because had they required adjacent mitigation for the Wild Horse Ranch property, it would have preserved a segment of the property that they are now looking to purchase. Except now it must be purchased at the expense of the city not the developer.
Finally, this entire discussion suggests that we ought to look more closely at Measure O and determine why the council has not been more vigilant about using Measure O to purchase and protect Open Space on the city periphery and agricultural land. Why is it that the will of the voters of Davis has been thwarted with regards to Measure O? Those are questions for another day, but they have to drive any discussion on open space and ag land preservation.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
DPD, you have raised some good questions that deserve further discusssion, but unless I am wrong (and I don’t know the specifics of the City’s Ag Mitigation ordinances) if the land had been purchased by the developer and put into mitigation then its ownership would not transfer from the develper to the City. That begs the question, “Do we want mitigated land in provate ownership or public ownership?”
The other issue is that Wildhorse could just as easily purchased mitigation land to the north of its project for mitigation, so there is no guarantee that the scenario you have laid out would have resulted in mitigation of a portion of the Gidaro property.
DPD, you have raised some good questions that deserve further discusssion, but unless I am wrong (and I don’t know the specifics of the City’s Ag Mitigation ordinances) if the land had been purchased by the developer and put into mitigation then its ownership would not transfer from the develper to the City. That begs the question, “Do we want mitigated land in provate ownership or public ownership?”
The other issue is that Wildhorse could just as easily purchased mitigation land to the north of its project for mitigation, so there is no guarantee that the scenario you have laid out would have resulted in mitigation of a portion of the Gidaro property.
DPD, you have raised some good questions that deserve further discusssion, but unless I am wrong (and I don’t know the specifics of the City’s Ag Mitigation ordinances) if the land had been purchased by the developer and put into mitigation then its ownership would not transfer from the develper to the City. That begs the question, “Do we want mitigated land in provate ownership or public ownership?”
The other issue is that Wildhorse could just as easily purchased mitigation land to the north of its project for mitigation, so there is no guarantee that the scenario you have laid out would have resulted in mitigation of a portion of the Gidaro property.
DPD, you have raised some good questions that deserve further discusssion, but unless I am wrong (and I don’t know the specifics of the City’s Ag Mitigation ordinances) if the land had been purchased by the developer and put into mitigation then its ownership would not transfer from the develper to the City. That begs the question, “Do we want mitigated land in provate ownership or public ownership?”
The other issue is that Wildhorse could just as easily purchased mitigation land to the north of its project for mitigation, so there is no guarantee that the scenario you have laid out would have resulted in mitigation of a portion of the Gidaro property.
I agree that city should be taken to task for open space preservation spending.
I don’t understand the issues you raise about Souza and Gidaro. As long as Shriners property fulfills the city’s needs, why would we care that it is Gidaro selling? And why do we care what Souza’s motivations are, if the property fills the city’s needs? And why in the world is it important to have Souza talk about why he is in favor of one mitigation and not another?
The majority of posters and this blogger appear to have way too much concern about developers making money or that there is a sinister motivation to anything that doesn’t fit their progressive ideal.
I agree that city should be taken to task for open space preservation spending.
I don’t understand the issues you raise about Souza and Gidaro. As long as Shriners property fulfills the city’s needs, why would we care that it is Gidaro selling? And why do we care what Souza’s motivations are, if the property fills the city’s needs? And why in the world is it important to have Souza talk about why he is in favor of one mitigation and not another?
The majority of posters and this blogger appear to have way too much concern about developers making money or that there is a sinister motivation to anything that doesn’t fit their progressive ideal.
I agree that city should be taken to task for open space preservation spending.
I don’t understand the issues you raise about Souza and Gidaro. As long as Shriners property fulfills the city’s needs, why would we care that it is Gidaro selling? And why do we care what Souza’s motivations are, if the property fills the city’s needs? And why in the world is it important to have Souza talk about why he is in favor of one mitigation and not another?
The majority of posters and this blogger appear to have way too much concern about developers making money or that there is a sinister motivation to anything that doesn’t fit their progressive ideal.
I agree that city should be taken to task for open space preservation spending.
I don’t understand the issues you raise about Souza and Gidaro. As long as Shriners property fulfills the city’s needs, why would we care that it is Gidaro selling? And why do we care what Souza’s motivations are, if the property fills the city’s needs? And why in the world is it important to have Souza talk about why he is in favor of one mitigation and not another?
The majority of posters and this blogger appear to have way too much concern about developers making money or that there is a sinister motivation to anything that doesn’t fit their progressive ideal.
The majority of posters and this blogger appear to have way too much concern about developers.
You mean developers are not evil? You mean progressives live in houses or apartments built by developers? You mean progressives shop in stores developed by developers? I can’t believe that. Only progressives are pure of motivation. Only progressives are angels.
The majority of posters and this blogger appear to have way too much concern about developers.
You mean developers are not evil? You mean progressives live in houses or apartments built by developers? You mean progressives shop in stores developed by developers? I can’t believe that. Only progressives are pure of motivation. Only progressives are angels.
The majority of posters and this blogger appear to have way too much concern about developers.
You mean developers are not evil? You mean progressives live in houses or apartments built by developers? You mean progressives shop in stores developed by developers? I can’t believe that. Only progressives are pure of motivation. Only progressives are angels.
The majority of posters and this blogger appear to have way too much concern about developers.
You mean developers are not evil? You mean progressives live in houses or apartments built by developers? You mean progressives shop in stores developed by developers? I can’t believe that. Only progressives are pure of motivation. Only progressives are angels.
Anonymous 7:56 sounds like Souza.
We care, because we care about our city and the future of our city.
As for Souza? He is a councilmember and as residents we have the right to know what a councilmember’s motivations are when it pertains to the city in which we live. This especially holds true when the deal is with a less than well thought of developer like Gidaro.
Souza and Saylor would not be in office if it were not for Gidaro’s tactics.
Anonymous 7:56 sounds like Souza.
We care, because we care about our city and the future of our city.
As for Souza? He is a councilmember and as residents we have the right to know what a councilmember’s motivations are when it pertains to the city in which we live. This especially holds true when the deal is with a less than well thought of developer like Gidaro.
Souza and Saylor would not be in office if it were not for Gidaro’s tactics.
Anonymous 7:56 sounds like Souza.
We care, because we care about our city and the future of our city.
As for Souza? He is a councilmember and as residents we have the right to know what a councilmember’s motivations are when it pertains to the city in which we live. This especially holds true when the deal is with a less than well thought of developer like Gidaro.
Souza and Saylor would not be in office if it were not for Gidaro’s tactics.
Anonymous 7:56 sounds like Souza.
We care, because we care about our city and the future of our city.
As for Souza? He is a councilmember and as residents we have the right to know what a councilmember’s motivations are when it pertains to the city in which we live. This especially holds true when the deal is with a less than well thought of developer like Gidaro.
Souza and Saylor would not be in office if it were not for Gidaro’s tactics.
This is classic “Souza”, bluster and public posturing to divert attention from his dismal public record as he prepares to run for reelection. Just to recap a few:Used-car saleman pitchman for Covell Village(rejected by voters), attacked Human Relations Commission activity(never read the original ordinance mandate), attempted to disolve the SeniorCommission(rejected), publicly allies with Mariko Yamada who declared that the Pass-Through ageement gives Davis TOO MUCH power over development on its periphery, public knowledge that he is running for reelection only because he could not run for Supervisor(Davis voters do not like to be considered
a disappointed second-choice option).
This is classic “Souza”, bluster and public posturing to divert attention from his dismal public record as he prepares to run for reelection. Just to recap a few:Used-car saleman pitchman for Covell Village(rejected by voters), attacked Human Relations Commission activity(never read the original ordinance mandate), attempted to disolve the SeniorCommission(rejected), publicly allies with Mariko Yamada who declared that the Pass-Through ageement gives Davis TOO MUCH power over development on its periphery, public knowledge that he is running for reelection only because he could not run for Supervisor(Davis voters do not like to be considered
a disappointed second-choice option).
This is classic “Souza”, bluster and public posturing to divert attention from his dismal public record as he prepares to run for reelection. Just to recap a few:Used-car saleman pitchman for Covell Village(rejected by voters), attacked Human Relations Commission activity(never read the original ordinance mandate), attempted to disolve the SeniorCommission(rejected), publicly allies with Mariko Yamada who declared that the Pass-Through ageement gives Davis TOO MUCH power over development on its periphery, public knowledge that he is running for reelection only because he could not run for Supervisor(Davis voters do not like to be considered
a disappointed second-choice option).
This is classic “Souza”, bluster and public posturing to divert attention from his dismal public record as he prepares to run for reelection. Just to recap a few:Used-car saleman pitchman for Covell Village(rejected by voters), attacked Human Relations Commission activity(never read the original ordinance mandate), attempted to disolve the SeniorCommission(rejected), publicly allies with Mariko Yamada who declared that the Pass-Through ageement gives Davis TOO MUCH power over development on its periphery, public knowledge that he is running for reelection only because he could not run for Supervisor(Davis voters do not like to be considered
a disappointed second-choice option).
If it were not for Gidaro and his tactics, Mr. Souza would not have been elected to the city council. So there seems to be a bit of a disconnect here.”
Doug, that statement is a slap in the face of Davis voters and it is without tangible evidence. The only reason Souza is on the council is because the voters of Davis voted for him. You’re just crying sour grapes because you did not want him to be elected over your buddy, morose Mike Harrington.
Unfortunately, the attempts by Mayor Greenwald to sandbag this proposal ultimately muddied the water when she introduced the possibility that the Signature Properties, the next tract along Covell to the direct east of the Shriner’s could be available free of charge to the city.
Why is it that you dedicate 1500 words to questioning the intentions and motivations of Souza but write almost nothing about the intentions and motivations of Greenwald? Shouldn’t there be a similar 1500 word essay attacking Mayor Greenwald for being a shill for her developer? She was elected with the backing of her developer friends. I suppose you would conclude that she never would have been elected but for their efforts on her behalf, and now she is rewarding them?
If it were not for Gidaro and his tactics, Mr. Souza would not have been elected to the city council. So there seems to be a bit of a disconnect here.”
Doug, that statement is a slap in the face of Davis voters and it is without tangible evidence. The only reason Souza is on the council is because the voters of Davis voted for him. You’re just crying sour grapes because you did not want him to be elected over your buddy, morose Mike Harrington.
Unfortunately, the attempts by Mayor Greenwald to sandbag this proposal ultimately muddied the water when she introduced the possibility that the Signature Properties, the next tract along Covell to the direct east of the Shriner’s could be available free of charge to the city.
Why is it that you dedicate 1500 words to questioning the intentions and motivations of Souza but write almost nothing about the intentions and motivations of Greenwald? Shouldn’t there be a similar 1500 word essay attacking Mayor Greenwald for being a shill for her developer? She was elected with the backing of her developer friends. I suppose you would conclude that she never would have been elected but for their efforts on her behalf, and now she is rewarding them?
If it were not for Gidaro and his tactics, Mr. Souza would not have been elected to the city council. So there seems to be a bit of a disconnect here.”
Doug, that statement is a slap in the face of Davis voters and it is without tangible evidence. The only reason Souza is on the council is because the voters of Davis voted for him. You’re just crying sour grapes because you did not want him to be elected over your buddy, morose Mike Harrington.
Unfortunately, the attempts by Mayor Greenwald to sandbag this proposal ultimately muddied the water when she introduced the possibility that the Signature Properties, the next tract along Covell to the direct east of the Shriner’s could be available free of charge to the city.
Why is it that you dedicate 1500 words to questioning the intentions and motivations of Souza but write almost nothing about the intentions and motivations of Greenwald? Shouldn’t there be a similar 1500 word essay attacking Mayor Greenwald for being a shill for her developer? She was elected with the backing of her developer friends. I suppose you would conclude that she never would have been elected but for their efforts on her behalf, and now she is rewarding them?
If it were not for Gidaro and his tactics, Mr. Souza would not have been elected to the city council. So there seems to be a bit of a disconnect here.”
Doug, that statement is a slap in the face of Davis voters and it is without tangible evidence. The only reason Souza is on the council is because the voters of Davis voted for him. You’re just crying sour grapes because you did not want him to be elected over your buddy, morose Mike Harrington.
Unfortunately, the attempts by Mayor Greenwald to sandbag this proposal ultimately muddied the water when she introduced the possibility that the Signature Properties, the next tract along Covell to the direct east of the Shriner’s could be available free of charge to the city.
Why is it that you dedicate 1500 words to questioning the intentions and motivations of Souza but write almost nothing about the intentions and motivations of Greenwald? Shouldn’t there be a similar 1500 word essay attacking Mayor Greenwald for being a shill for her developer? She was elected with the backing of her developer friends. I suppose you would conclude that she never would have been elected but for their efforts on her behalf, and now she is rewarding them?
“Given that the city already owns the property and would not have to either purchase the land or allow for additional housing developments, Councilmember Heystek offered that this was perhaps the preferred option for the city despite the remote location of the property itself.”
Heystek is out of his gourd if he thinks that. Not only is Heystek’s proposal growth inducing — you don’t think the space between his remote soccer fields and Mace Ranch will be developed? — but it is so far away from Davis that no kids will be able to bicycle there. It makes sense to build the sports complex right next to land that is already urbanized. The worst planning decision we could make is what Heystek is suggesting: leap frog development. What Heystek needs to learn is that we could swap the Howatt Ranch for other land in the city or at least adjacent to it.
“In the end, I agree most with Councilmember Heystek’s position.”
That is the worst alternative of the three from a progressive planning perspective.
“Given that the city already owns the property and would not have to either purchase the land or allow for additional housing developments, Councilmember Heystek offered that this was perhaps the preferred option for the city despite the remote location of the property itself.”
Heystek is out of his gourd if he thinks that. Not only is Heystek’s proposal growth inducing — you don’t think the space between his remote soccer fields and Mace Ranch will be developed? — but it is so far away from Davis that no kids will be able to bicycle there. It makes sense to build the sports complex right next to land that is already urbanized. The worst planning decision we could make is what Heystek is suggesting: leap frog development. What Heystek needs to learn is that we could swap the Howatt Ranch for other land in the city or at least adjacent to it.
“In the end, I agree most with Councilmember Heystek’s position.”
That is the worst alternative of the three from a progressive planning perspective.
“Given that the city already owns the property and would not have to either purchase the land or allow for additional housing developments, Councilmember Heystek offered that this was perhaps the preferred option for the city despite the remote location of the property itself.”
Heystek is out of his gourd if he thinks that. Not only is Heystek’s proposal growth inducing — you don’t think the space between his remote soccer fields and Mace Ranch will be developed? — but it is so far away from Davis that no kids will be able to bicycle there. It makes sense to build the sports complex right next to land that is already urbanized. The worst planning decision we could make is what Heystek is suggesting: leap frog development. What Heystek needs to learn is that we could swap the Howatt Ranch for other land in the city or at least adjacent to it.
“In the end, I agree most with Councilmember Heystek’s position.”
That is the worst alternative of the three from a progressive planning perspective.
“Given that the city already owns the property and would not have to either purchase the land or allow for additional housing developments, Councilmember Heystek offered that this was perhaps the preferred option for the city despite the remote location of the property itself.”
Heystek is out of his gourd if he thinks that. Not only is Heystek’s proposal growth inducing — you don’t think the space between his remote soccer fields and Mace Ranch will be developed? — but it is so far away from Davis that no kids will be able to bicycle there. It makes sense to build the sports complex right next to land that is already urbanized. The worst planning decision we could make is what Heystek is suggesting: leap frog development. What Heystek needs to learn is that we could swap the Howatt Ranch for other land in the city or at least adjacent to it.
“In the end, I agree most with Councilmember Heystek’s position.”
That is the worst alternative of the three from a progressive planning perspective.
“Do we want mitigated land in provate ownership or public ownership?”
Matt.. I thought that mitigated land was put into a PERMANENT agricultural category. If so, this protects it for Open Space without having the City pay for its upkeep and prevent it from being converted by the City to residential in the future. This proposal announced publicly by Souza with such fanfare to jump-start his reelection campaign should have been turned over to the City’s Open Space director.
“Do we want mitigated land in provate ownership or public ownership?”
Matt.. I thought that mitigated land was put into a PERMANENT agricultural category. If so, this protects it for Open Space without having the City pay for its upkeep and prevent it from being converted by the City to residential in the future. This proposal announced publicly by Souza with such fanfare to jump-start his reelection campaign should have been turned over to the City’s Open Space director.
“Do we want mitigated land in provate ownership or public ownership?”
Matt.. I thought that mitigated land was put into a PERMANENT agricultural category. If so, this protects it for Open Space without having the City pay for its upkeep and prevent it from being converted by the City to residential in the future. This proposal announced publicly by Souza with such fanfare to jump-start his reelection campaign should have been turned over to the City’s Open Space director.
“Do we want mitigated land in provate ownership or public ownership?”
Matt.. I thought that mitigated land was put into a PERMANENT agricultural category. If so, this protects it for Open Space without having the City pay for its upkeep and prevent it from being converted by the City to residential in the future. This proposal announced publicly by Souza with such fanfare to jump-start his reelection campaign should have been turned over to the City’s Open Space director.
Mary, I don’t know what Souza’s motivations are, but I can share with you one motivation that I might have if I were a City Council member. At the 7/26 Housing Element Steering Committee meeting the Committee discussed the Nugget Fields parcel owned by the School District (designated F3 in the Committee’s process) as a possible location for housing. The reason that site was discussed is that although the School District has not classified it as “surpluss” yet, it appears that they will be forced to do so in the near term future. If Nugget Fields goes away there will be a whole lot of soccer players (and others) who will be needing an alternative.
The various parcels that were discussed by the Council as a result of Souza’s agenda item all have merits and drawbacks. However, at the very least the Council has directed Staff to research those merits and drawbacks so that the City can have a well thought out proactive plan for the time when the School District does designate Nugget Fields as “surplus.”
Housing Element Steering Committee member Maynard Skinner has more details on the legal/regulatory issues the School District is facing regarding Nugget fields.
I’m sure there are other reasons that make sense, but that is one that jumps to my mind.
Mary, I don’t know what Souza’s motivations are, but I can share with you one motivation that I might have if I were a City Council member. At the 7/26 Housing Element Steering Committee meeting the Committee discussed the Nugget Fields parcel owned by the School District (designated F3 in the Committee’s process) as a possible location for housing. The reason that site was discussed is that although the School District has not classified it as “surpluss” yet, it appears that they will be forced to do so in the near term future. If Nugget Fields goes away there will be a whole lot of soccer players (and others) who will be needing an alternative.
The various parcels that were discussed by the Council as a result of Souza’s agenda item all have merits and drawbacks. However, at the very least the Council has directed Staff to research those merits and drawbacks so that the City can have a well thought out proactive plan for the time when the School District does designate Nugget Fields as “surplus.”
Housing Element Steering Committee member Maynard Skinner has more details on the legal/regulatory issues the School District is facing regarding Nugget fields.
I’m sure there are other reasons that make sense, but that is one that jumps to my mind.
Mary, I don’t know what Souza’s motivations are, but I can share with you one motivation that I might have if I were a City Council member. At the 7/26 Housing Element Steering Committee meeting the Committee discussed the Nugget Fields parcel owned by the School District (designated F3 in the Committee’s process) as a possible location for housing. The reason that site was discussed is that although the School District has not classified it as “surpluss” yet, it appears that they will be forced to do so in the near term future. If Nugget Fields goes away there will be a whole lot of soccer players (and others) who will be needing an alternative.
The various parcels that were discussed by the Council as a result of Souza’s agenda item all have merits and drawbacks. However, at the very least the Council has directed Staff to research those merits and drawbacks so that the City can have a well thought out proactive plan for the time when the School District does designate Nugget Fields as “surplus.”
Housing Element Steering Committee member Maynard Skinner has more details on the legal/regulatory issues the School District is facing regarding Nugget fields.
I’m sure there are other reasons that make sense, but that is one that jumps to my mind.
Mary, I don’t know what Souza’s motivations are, but I can share with you one motivation that I might have if I were a City Council member. At the 7/26 Housing Element Steering Committee meeting the Committee discussed the Nugget Fields parcel owned by the School District (designated F3 in the Committee’s process) as a possible location for housing. The reason that site was discussed is that although the School District has not classified it as “surpluss” yet, it appears that they will be forced to do so in the near term future. If Nugget Fields goes away there will be a whole lot of soccer players (and others) who will be needing an alternative.
The various parcels that were discussed by the Council as a result of Souza’s agenda item all have merits and drawbacks. However, at the very least the Council has directed Staff to research those merits and drawbacks so that the City can have a well thought out proactive plan for the time when the School District does designate Nugget Fields as “surplus.”
Housing Element Steering Committee member Maynard Skinner has more details on the legal/regulatory issues the School District is facing regarding Nugget fields.
I’m sure there are other reasons that make sense, but that is one that jumps to my mind.
Mayor Greenwald’s support of a 97 unit development on the Mace Curve belies the attacks directed at her that she will not support ANY future residential growth on our periphery.
Mayor Greenwald’s support of a 97 unit development on the Mace Curve belies the attacks directed at her that she will not support ANY future residential growth on our periphery.
Mayor Greenwald’s support of a 97 unit development on the Mace Curve belies the attacks directed at her that she will not support ANY future residential growth on our periphery.
Mayor Greenwald’s support of a 97 unit development on the Mace Curve belies the attacks directed at her that she will not support ANY future residential growth on our periphery.
Matt.. the Nuggets field issue was addressed before in this blog.. the information offered was that the loss of the Nugget fields has already been considered and the School District has committed to other options to replace the lost fields.
Matt.. the Nuggets field issue was addressed before in this blog.. the information offered was that the loss of the Nugget fields has already been considered and the School District has committed to other options to replace the lost fields.
Matt.. the Nuggets field issue was addressed before in this blog.. the information offered was that the loss of the Nugget fields has already been considered and the School District has committed to other options to replace the lost fields.
Matt.. the Nuggets field issue was addressed before in this blog.. the information offered was that the loss of the Nugget fields has already been considered and the School District has committed to other options to replace the lost fields.
I oppose developing the inside of the Mace Ranch curve. In the future, there may be a need for turning Harper Jr. High into a High School. This land may be needed to accomodate that. Boxing in the school would be a mistake.
Of all of the ideas, Sue Greenwald’s is the worst – the relocation of the teen center, leap frog over Gidaro’s land, box in the school with residential development in a really awkward area (no access in or out except for the Mace curve) which would be undesirable, if not downright dangerous for young families.
We already have Howatt Ranch. We could just move forward with that as we have been doing for awhile. Using the Gidaro property for a sports park is not just Souza’s. The youth sports community has had something like this on their wish list for awhile.
I oppose developing the inside of the Mace Ranch curve. In the future, there may be a need for turning Harper Jr. High into a High School. This land may be needed to accomodate that. Boxing in the school would be a mistake.
Of all of the ideas, Sue Greenwald’s is the worst – the relocation of the teen center, leap frog over Gidaro’s land, box in the school with residential development in a really awkward area (no access in or out except for the Mace curve) which would be undesirable, if not downright dangerous for young families.
We already have Howatt Ranch. We could just move forward with that as we have been doing for awhile. Using the Gidaro property for a sports park is not just Souza’s. The youth sports community has had something like this on their wish list for awhile.
I oppose developing the inside of the Mace Ranch curve. In the future, there may be a need for turning Harper Jr. High into a High School. This land may be needed to accomodate that. Boxing in the school would be a mistake.
Of all of the ideas, Sue Greenwald’s is the worst – the relocation of the teen center, leap frog over Gidaro’s land, box in the school with residential development in a really awkward area (no access in or out except for the Mace curve) which would be undesirable, if not downright dangerous for young families.
We already have Howatt Ranch. We could just move forward with that as we have been doing for awhile. Using the Gidaro property for a sports park is not just Souza’s. The youth sports community has had something like this on their wish list for awhile.
I oppose developing the inside of the Mace Ranch curve. In the future, there may be a need for turning Harper Jr. High into a High School. This land may be needed to accomodate that. Boxing in the school would be a mistake.
Of all of the ideas, Sue Greenwald’s is the worst – the relocation of the teen center, leap frog over Gidaro’s land, box in the school with residential development in a really awkward area (no access in or out except for the Mace curve) which would be undesirable, if not downright dangerous for young families.
We already have Howatt Ranch. We could just move forward with that as we have been doing for awhile. Using the Gidaro property for a sports park is not just Souza’s. The youth sports community has had something like this on their wish list for awhile.
davisite said…
Matt.. the Nuggets field issue was addressed before in this blog.. the information offered was that the loss of the Nugget fields has already been considered and the School District has committed to other options to replace the lost fields.
Tell me more. I’m uniformed regarding those other options.
davisite said…
Matt.. the Nuggets field issue was addressed before in this blog.. the information offered was that the loss of the Nugget fields has already been considered and the School District has committed to other options to replace the lost fields.
Tell me more. I’m uniformed regarding those other options.
davisite said…
Matt.. the Nuggets field issue was addressed before in this blog.. the information offered was that the loss of the Nugget fields has already been considered and the School District has committed to other options to replace the lost fields.
Tell me more. I’m uniformed regarding those other options.
davisite said…
Matt.. the Nuggets field issue was addressed before in this blog.. the information offered was that the loss of the Nugget fields has already been considered and the School District has committed to other options to replace the lost fields.
Tell me more. I’m uniformed regarding those other options.
Anonymous said…
We already have Howatt Ranch. We could just move forward with that as we have been doing for awhile. Using the Gidaro property for a sports park is not just Souza’s. The youth sports community has had something like this on their wish list for awhile.
Anonymous, help me understand something. How accessable for the typical youth soccer player is Howatt Ranch? Which Davis bicycle paths connect to it? How long a bicycle ride is it for the typical soccer player? Is it part of the Davis greenbelt system?
Anonymous said…
We already have Howatt Ranch. We could just move forward with that as we have been doing for awhile. Using the Gidaro property for a sports park is not just Souza’s. The youth sports community has had something like this on their wish list for awhile.
Anonymous, help me understand something. How accessable for the typical youth soccer player is Howatt Ranch? Which Davis bicycle paths connect to it? How long a bicycle ride is it for the typical soccer player? Is it part of the Davis greenbelt system?
Anonymous said…
We already have Howatt Ranch. We could just move forward with that as we have been doing for awhile. Using the Gidaro property for a sports park is not just Souza’s. The youth sports community has had something like this on their wish list for awhile.
Anonymous, help me understand something. How accessable for the typical youth soccer player is Howatt Ranch? Which Davis bicycle paths connect to it? How long a bicycle ride is it for the typical soccer player? Is it part of the Davis greenbelt system?
Anonymous said…
We already have Howatt Ranch. We could just move forward with that as we have been doing for awhile. Using the Gidaro property for a sports park is not just Souza’s. The youth sports community has had something like this on their wish list for awhile.
Anonymous, help me understand something. How accessable for the typical youth soccer player is Howatt Ranch? Which Davis bicycle paths connect to it? How long a bicycle ride is it for the typical soccer player? Is it part of the Davis greenbelt system?
Vicente:
Matt, I am by no means attacking your sincerity on this issue, because from what I have seen you are a fairly straight shooter. But I do believe that for the most part the issue of distance is a red herring.
In reality unless you are talking about a distance of less than a mile, kids are not going to be biking to the sports park on a consistent basis. So you are really looking at parents driving kids in car pools in their minivans. As such, I think financial considerations have to trump this issue.
Just my thought.
Vicente:
Matt, I am by no means attacking your sincerity on this issue, because from what I have seen you are a fairly straight shooter. But I do believe that for the most part the issue of distance is a red herring.
In reality unless you are talking about a distance of less than a mile, kids are not going to be biking to the sports park on a consistent basis. So you are really looking at parents driving kids in car pools in their minivans. As such, I think financial considerations have to trump this issue.
Just my thought.
Vicente:
Matt, I am by no means attacking your sincerity on this issue, because from what I have seen you are a fairly straight shooter. But I do believe that for the most part the issue of distance is a red herring.
In reality unless you are talking about a distance of less than a mile, kids are not going to be biking to the sports park on a consistent basis. So you are really looking at parents driving kids in car pools in their minivans. As such, I think financial considerations have to trump this issue.
Just my thought.
Vicente:
Matt, I am by no means attacking your sincerity on this issue, because from what I have seen you are a fairly straight shooter. But I do believe that for the most part the issue of distance is a red herring.
In reality unless you are talking about a distance of less than a mile, kids are not going to be biking to the sports park on a consistent basis. So you are really looking at parents driving kids in car pools in their minivans. As such, I think financial considerations have to trump this issue.
Just my thought.
The location of a sports complex will not have much impact on where soccer kids will do most of their on-field activities. Local neighborhood parks and schools are utilized most for practice and a lot of the games. The sports complex will be a great place for league play, tournaments, and when teams from out of town visit here.
Most kids I have observed don’t ride their bikes to practice or games due to all the gear they have to deal with or the distance they need to travel. Cleats, shin-guards, balls, water, snacks, and sports bags are not easily carried on a bike by younger players. I support a sports complex but don’t think the location is the most important issue to it being built. People are going to drive there no matter where it is located.
The location of a sports complex will not have much impact on where soccer kids will do most of their on-field activities. Local neighborhood parks and schools are utilized most for practice and a lot of the games. The sports complex will be a great place for league play, tournaments, and when teams from out of town visit here.
Most kids I have observed don’t ride their bikes to practice or games due to all the gear they have to deal with or the distance they need to travel. Cleats, shin-guards, balls, water, snacks, and sports bags are not easily carried on a bike by younger players. I support a sports complex but don’t think the location is the most important issue to it being built. People are going to drive there no matter where it is located.
The location of a sports complex will not have much impact on where soccer kids will do most of their on-field activities. Local neighborhood parks and schools are utilized most for practice and a lot of the games. The sports complex will be a great place for league play, tournaments, and when teams from out of town visit here.
Most kids I have observed don’t ride their bikes to practice or games due to all the gear they have to deal with or the distance they need to travel. Cleats, shin-guards, balls, water, snacks, and sports bags are not easily carried on a bike by younger players. I support a sports complex but don’t think the location is the most important issue to it being built. People are going to drive there no matter where it is located.
The location of a sports complex will not have much impact on where soccer kids will do most of their on-field activities. Local neighborhood parks and schools are utilized most for practice and a lot of the games. The sports complex will be a great place for league play, tournaments, and when teams from out of town visit here.
Most kids I have observed don’t ride their bikes to practice or games due to all the gear they have to deal with or the distance they need to travel. Cleats, shin-guards, balls, water, snacks, and sports bags are not easily carried on a bike by younger players. I support a sports complex but don’t think the location is the most important issue to it being built. People are going to drive there no matter where it is located.
Vincente –
Didn’t get to your comment before I posted. Looks like I more or less echoed what you already said at 10:27.
Vincente –
Didn’t get to your comment before I posted. Looks like I more or less echoed what you already said at 10:27.
Vincente –
Didn’t get to your comment before I posted. Looks like I more or less echoed what you already said at 10:27.
Vincente –
Didn’t get to your comment before I posted. Looks like I more or less echoed what you already said at 10:27.
Vincente and darnell, thanks for the input. That helps. I do still think driving out to the Yolo Causeway to play soccer doesn’t make a lot of sense. It doesn’t help the green footprint of Davis, and it penalizes the kids who don’t have their parents at their beck and call.
JMHO
Vincente and darnell, thanks for the input. That helps. I do still think driving out to the Yolo Causeway to play soccer doesn’t make a lot of sense. It doesn’t help the green footprint of Davis, and it penalizes the kids who don’t have their parents at their beck and call.
JMHO
Vincente and darnell, thanks for the input. That helps. I do still think driving out to the Yolo Causeway to play soccer doesn’t make a lot of sense. It doesn’t help the green footprint of Davis, and it penalizes the kids who don’t have their parents at their beck and call.
JMHO
Vincente and darnell, thanks for the input. That helps. I do still think driving out to the Yolo Causeway to play soccer doesn’t make a lot of sense. It doesn’t help the green footprint of Davis, and it penalizes the kids who don’t have their parents at their beck and call.
JMHO
Post on Signature:
i’m glad that the blogger brought up the Shriner/Gidaro topic. This item represented an astonishing breach of good government process, which I will get to in my next post.
Post on Signature
First, I would like to make a major correction to Doug Paul Davis’ analysis. The advantage of the Signature site is precisely that it requires only infill housing that everyone expects to be done anyway. Tow years ago, the developer proposed building housing under the Mace Curve on the 40 acre remainder parcel of the Junior High site, and to donate land for a sports park across Covell adjacent to the Gidaro property. Again, the housing was only infill under the Mace curve.
Second, it would be free, at least as of last week when I confirmed this with the owner of Signature properties.
While many of the leaders of organized sports liked the Howatt Ranch location, I began to realize that many parents didn’t. Two years ago, I brought the Signature proposal to staff, not straight to the Davis Enterprise and City Council. Staff was still interested in the Howatt site, and didn’t want to consider the Signature signature site.
I figured that staff and the sports leadership would eventually realize that the Signature site would prove more workable in the end, and decided to just wait until staff was ready, and the housing steering committee work was complete.
Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
“Tell me more. I’m uniformed regarding those other options…”
I do not remember the details.. I seem to remember that it was field space adjacent to the new JHS and that the Board had committed it to serve community youth sports needs if the Nugget’s Fields were not available any longer.. Some Vanguardian posted the details.. perhaps they will post again.
Post on Signature:
i’m glad that the blogger brought up the Shriner/Gidaro topic. This item represented an astonishing breach of good government process, which I will get to in my next post.
Post on Signature
First, I would like to make a major correction to Doug Paul Davis’ analysis. The advantage of the Signature site is precisely that it requires only infill housing that everyone expects to be done anyway. Tow years ago, the developer proposed building housing under the Mace Curve on the 40 acre remainder parcel of the Junior High site, and to donate land for a sports park across Covell adjacent to the Gidaro property. Again, the housing was only infill under the Mace curve.
Second, it would be free, at least as of last week when I confirmed this with the owner of Signature properties.
While many of the leaders of organized sports liked the Howatt Ranch location, I began to realize that many parents didn’t. Two years ago, I brought the Signature proposal to staff, not straight to the Davis Enterprise and City Council. Staff was still interested in the Howatt site, and didn’t want to consider the Signature signature site.
I figured that staff and the sports leadership would eventually realize that the Signature site would prove more workable in the end, and decided to just wait until staff was ready, and the housing steering committee work was complete.
Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
“Tell me more. I’m uniformed regarding those other options…”
I do not remember the details.. I seem to remember that it was field space adjacent to the new JHS and that the Board had committed it to serve community youth sports needs if the Nugget’s Fields were not available any longer.. Some Vanguardian posted the details.. perhaps they will post again.
Post on Signature:
i’m glad that the blogger brought up the Shriner/Gidaro topic. This item represented an astonishing breach of good government process, which I will get to in my next post.
Post on Signature
First, I would like to make a major correction to Doug Paul Davis’ analysis. The advantage of the Signature site is precisely that it requires only infill housing that everyone expects to be done anyway. Tow years ago, the developer proposed building housing under the Mace Curve on the 40 acre remainder parcel of the Junior High site, and to donate land for a sports park across Covell adjacent to the Gidaro property. Again, the housing was only infill under the Mace curve.
Second, it would be free, at least as of last week when I confirmed this with the owner of Signature properties.
While many of the leaders of organized sports liked the Howatt Ranch location, I began to realize that many parents didn’t. Two years ago, I brought the Signature proposal to staff, not straight to the Davis Enterprise and City Council. Staff was still interested in the Howatt site, and didn’t want to consider the Signature signature site.
I figured that staff and the sports leadership would eventually realize that the Signature site would prove more workable in the end, and decided to just wait until staff was ready, and the housing steering committee work was complete.
Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
“Tell me more. I’m uniformed regarding those other options…”
I do not remember the details.. I seem to remember that it was field space adjacent to the new JHS and that the Board had committed it to serve community youth sports needs if the Nugget’s Fields were not available any longer.. Some Vanguardian posted the details.. perhaps they will post again.
Post on Signature:
i’m glad that the blogger brought up the Shriner/Gidaro topic. This item represented an astonishing breach of good government process, which I will get to in my next post.
Post on Signature
First, I would like to make a major correction to Doug Paul Davis’ analysis. The advantage of the Signature site is precisely that it requires only infill housing that everyone expects to be done anyway. Tow years ago, the developer proposed building housing under the Mace Curve on the 40 acre remainder parcel of the Junior High site, and to donate land for a sports park across Covell adjacent to the Gidaro property. Again, the housing was only infill under the Mace curve.
Second, it would be free, at least as of last week when I confirmed this with the owner of Signature properties.
While many of the leaders of organized sports liked the Howatt Ranch location, I began to realize that many parents didn’t. Two years ago, I brought the Signature proposal to staff, not straight to the Davis Enterprise and City Council. Staff was still interested in the Howatt site, and didn’t want to consider the Signature signature site.
I figured that staff and the sports leadership would eventually realize that the Signature site would prove more workable in the end, and decided to just wait until staff was ready, and the housing steering committee work was complete.
Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
“Tell me more. I’m uniformed regarding those other options…”
I do not remember the details.. I seem to remember that it was field space adjacent to the new JHS and that the Board had committed it to serve community youth sports needs if the Nugget’s Fields were not available any longer.. Some Vanguardian posted the details.. perhaps they will post again.
The School District has made a committment that the Nugget Field use would be moved to Harper Jr. High when the time comes to develop Nugget Fields. The AYSO lease (or is it the Davis Sports Foundation lease) expires at the end of this year. The property will likely be sold for development at that time.
The School District has made a committment that the Nugget Field use would be moved to Harper Jr. High when the time comes to develop Nugget Fields. The AYSO lease (or is it the Davis Sports Foundation lease) expires at the end of this year. The property will likely be sold for development at that time.
The School District has made a committment that the Nugget Field use would be moved to Harper Jr. High when the time comes to develop Nugget Fields. The AYSO lease (or is it the Davis Sports Foundation lease) expires at the end of this year. The property will likely be sold for development at that time.
The School District has made a committment that the Nugget Field use would be moved to Harper Jr. High when the time comes to develop Nugget Fields. The AYSO lease (or is it the Davis Sports Foundation lease) expires at the end of this year. The property will likely be sold for development at that time.
LOL – Matt, I know that the South Davis, Mace Blvd area is “the country” to a lot of Davis folks, but the Yolo Causeway is another two to three miles up the road. It would also be difficult to play there in the winter when it’s flooded. For your reference the current DYSL fields are only about a mile or so from the causeway on East Chiles.
LOL – Matt, I know that the South Davis, Mace Blvd area is “the country” to a lot of Davis folks, but the Yolo Causeway is another two to three miles up the road. It would also be difficult to play there in the winter when it’s flooded. For your reference the current DYSL fields are only about a mile or so from the causeway on East Chiles.
LOL – Matt, I know that the South Davis, Mace Blvd area is “the country” to a lot of Davis folks, but the Yolo Causeway is another two to three miles up the road. It would also be difficult to play there in the winter when it’s flooded. For your reference the current DYSL fields are only about a mile or so from the causeway on East Chiles.
LOL – Matt, I know that the South Davis, Mace Blvd area is “the country” to a lot of Davis folks, but the Yolo Causeway is another two to three miles up the road. It would also be difficult to play there in the winter when it’s flooded. For your reference the current DYSL fields are only about a mile or so from the causeway on East Chiles.
Re: Sue’s post
I understand your proposal. Your explanation did not add any new informatio.
I still think that it is the worst of the three proposals. It doesn’t address the possibility of lighted athletic facilities, and additional academic buildings, etc. if we need to build another High School. If there is any other new development in Davis, this is likely to be a need as the current High School is impacted and the Davis voters will not pass a bond to build and entirely new High School. One of the Junior Highs will have to be converted and we will most likely have to go to a middle school/4-year High School model.
The property inside the Mace curve has no access in or out except for the Mace curve.
The Guidaro site is better if we are going to go that route.
Re: Sue’s post
I understand your proposal. Your explanation did not add any new informatio.
I still think that it is the worst of the three proposals. It doesn’t address the possibility of lighted athletic facilities, and additional academic buildings, etc. if we need to build another High School. If there is any other new development in Davis, this is likely to be a need as the current High School is impacted and the Davis voters will not pass a bond to build and entirely new High School. One of the Junior Highs will have to be converted and we will most likely have to go to a middle school/4-year High School model.
The property inside the Mace curve has no access in or out except for the Mace curve.
The Guidaro site is better if we are going to go that route.
Re: Sue’s post
I understand your proposal. Your explanation did not add any new informatio.
I still think that it is the worst of the three proposals. It doesn’t address the possibility of lighted athletic facilities, and additional academic buildings, etc. if we need to build another High School. If there is any other new development in Davis, this is likely to be a need as the current High School is impacted and the Davis voters will not pass a bond to build and entirely new High School. One of the Junior Highs will have to be converted and we will most likely have to go to a middle school/4-year High School model.
The property inside the Mace curve has no access in or out except for the Mace curve.
The Guidaro site is better if we are going to go that route.
Re: Sue’s post
I understand your proposal. Your explanation did not add any new informatio.
I still think that it is the worst of the three proposals. It doesn’t address the possibility of lighted athletic facilities, and additional academic buildings, etc. if we need to build another High School. If there is any other new development in Davis, this is likely to be a need as the current High School is impacted and the Davis voters will not pass a bond to build and entirely new High School. One of the Junior Highs will have to be converted and we will most likely have to go to a middle school/4-year High School model.
The property inside the Mace curve has no access in or out except for the Mace curve.
The Guidaro site is better if we are going to go that route.
sue greenwald said…
The advantage of the Signature site is precisely that it requires only infill housing that everyone expects to be done anyway.
Wasn’t this the very same argument they used for Covell Village? ROTFL!
sue greenwald said…
The advantage of the Signature site is precisely that it requires only infill housing that everyone expects to be done anyway.
Wasn’t this the very same argument they used for Covell Village? ROTFL!
sue greenwald said…
The advantage of the Signature site is precisely that it requires only infill housing that everyone expects to be done anyway.
Wasn’t this the very same argument they used for Covell Village? ROTFL!
sue greenwald said…
The advantage of the Signature site is precisely that it requires only infill housing that everyone expects to be done anyway.
Wasn’t this the very same argument they used for Covell Village? ROTFL!
darnell said…
LOL – Matt, I know that the South Davis, Mace Blvd area is “the country” to a lot of Davis folks, but the Yolo Causeway is another two to three miles up the road. It would also be difficult to play there in the winter when it’s flooded. For your reference the current DYSL fields are only about a mile or so from the causeway on East Chiles.
darnell, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Howatt Ranch property on the North side of I-80? It would also appear to be further out than the current DYSL fields. Regardless, the current DYSL fields location would also appear to fit my prior comment, do still think driving out to the Yolo Causeway to play soccer doesn’t make a lot of sense. It doesn’t help the green footprint of Davis, and it penalizes the kids who don’t have their parents at their beck and call.
If a site like the Shriners site or the Signature site were acted on then the current Nugget Fields activity could be consolidated with the current DYSL activity and as a result there would be less running around from one site to another, wasting gasoline and time, and increasing the carbon footprint of Davis.
Again, JMHO
darnell said…
LOL – Matt, I know that the South Davis, Mace Blvd area is “the country” to a lot of Davis folks, but the Yolo Causeway is another two to three miles up the road. It would also be difficult to play there in the winter when it’s flooded. For your reference the current DYSL fields are only about a mile or so from the causeway on East Chiles.
darnell, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Howatt Ranch property on the North side of I-80? It would also appear to be further out than the current DYSL fields. Regardless, the current DYSL fields location would also appear to fit my prior comment, do still think driving out to the Yolo Causeway to play soccer doesn’t make a lot of sense. It doesn’t help the green footprint of Davis, and it penalizes the kids who don’t have their parents at their beck and call.
If a site like the Shriners site or the Signature site were acted on then the current Nugget Fields activity could be consolidated with the current DYSL activity and as a result there would be less running around from one site to another, wasting gasoline and time, and increasing the carbon footprint of Davis.
Again, JMHO
darnell said…
LOL – Matt, I know that the South Davis, Mace Blvd area is “the country” to a lot of Davis folks, but the Yolo Causeway is another two to three miles up the road. It would also be difficult to play there in the winter when it’s flooded. For your reference the current DYSL fields are only about a mile or so from the causeway on East Chiles.
darnell, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Howatt Ranch property on the North side of I-80? It would also appear to be further out than the current DYSL fields. Regardless, the current DYSL fields location would also appear to fit my prior comment, do still think driving out to the Yolo Causeway to play soccer doesn’t make a lot of sense. It doesn’t help the green footprint of Davis, and it penalizes the kids who don’t have their parents at their beck and call.
If a site like the Shriners site or the Signature site were acted on then the current Nugget Fields activity could be consolidated with the current DYSL activity and as a result there would be less running around from one site to another, wasting gasoline and time, and increasing the carbon footprint of Davis.
Again, JMHO
darnell said…
LOL – Matt, I know that the South Davis, Mace Blvd area is “the country” to a lot of Davis folks, but the Yolo Causeway is another two to three miles up the road. It would also be difficult to play there in the winter when it’s flooded. For your reference the current DYSL fields are only about a mile or so from the causeway on East Chiles.
darnell, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Howatt Ranch property on the North side of I-80? It would also appear to be further out than the current DYSL fields. Regardless, the current DYSL fields location would also appear to fit my prior comment, do still think driving out to the Yolo Causeway to play soccer doesn’t make a lot of sense. It doesn’t help the green footprint of Davis, and it penalizes the kids who don’t have their parents at their beck and call.
If a site like the Shriners site or the Signature site were acted on then the current Nugget Fields activity could be consolidated with the current DYSL activity and as a result there would be less running around from one site to another, wasting gasoline and time, and increasing the carbon footprint of Davis.
Again, JMHO
Sue Greenwald said…
1. This item represented an astonishing breach of good government process, which I will get to in my next post.
2. First, I would like to make a major correction to Doug Paul Davis’ analysis. The advantage of the Signature site is precisely that it requires only infill housing that everyone expects to be done anyway.
3. Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
8/7/07 12:32 PM
1. “An astonishing breach of good government process” So you decided to do it as well with your proposal because someone else broke the taboo first?
2. Do yourself and your re-election chances a big favor. The people on this blog are not kids to be lectured or corrected. We can make up our own mind on what is and is not and advantage.
3. Which you were a willing participant in. You did not try to stop it. You inserted your own developers project, put on your white hat and said I am the good guy here folks.
Sue Greenwald said…
1. This item represented an astonishing breach of good government process, which I will get to in my next post.
2. First, I would like to make a major correction to Doug Paul Davis’ analysis. The advantage of the Signature site is precisely that it requires only infill housing that everyone expects to be done anyway.
3. Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
8/7/07 12:32 PM
1. “An astonishing breach of good government process” So you decided to do it as well with your proposal because someone else broke the taboo first?
2. Do yourself and your re-election chances a big favor. The people on this blog are not kids to be lectured or corrected. We can make up our own mind on what is and is not and advantage.
3. Which you were a willing participant in. You did not try to stop it. You inserted your own developers project, put on your white hat and said I am the good guy here folks.
Sue Greenwald said…
1. This item represented an astonishing breach of good government process, which I will get to in my next post.
2. First, I would like to make a major correction to Doug Paul Davis’ analysis. The advantage of the Signature site is precisely that it requires only infill housing that everyone expects to be done anyway.
3. Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
8/7/07 12:32 PM
1. “An astonishing breach of good government process” So you decided to do it as well with your proposal because someone else broke the taboo first?
2. Do yourself and your re-election chances a big favor. The people on this blog are not kids to be lectured or corrected. We can make up our own mind on what is and is not and advantage.
3. Which you were a willing participant in. You did not try to stop it. You inserted your own developers project, put on your white hat and said I am the good guy here folks.
Sue Greenwald said…
1. This item represented an astonishing breach of good government process, which I will get to in my next post.
2. First, I would like to make a major correction to Doug Paul Davis’ analysis. The advantage of the Signature site is precisely that it requires only infill housing that everyone expects to be done anyway.
3. Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
8/7/07 12:32 PM
1. “An astonishing breach of good government process” So you decided to do it as well with your proposal because someone else broke the taboo first?
2. Do yourself and your re-election chances a big favor. The people on this blog are not kids to be lectured or corrected. We can make up our own mind on what is and is not and advantage.
3. Which you were a willing participant in. You did not try to stop it. You inserted your own developers project, put on your white hat and said I am the good guy here folks.
Sue Greenwald said …
Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
I respectfully disagree. What procedural fiasco? The Council deliberated on Souza’s agenda item and voted that it had enough merit to invest precious Staff resources on investigating it further. If Council had decided otherwise, then no Staff resources would have been invested. As it is the Supply/Demand curve of Staff time is unbalanced. There is always more demand for Staff’s time than there is supply of their time available. IMHO, the Council has practiced good time management of the City’s paid resources.
Again, JMHO.
Sue Greenwald said …
Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
I respectfully disagree. What procedural fiasco? The Council deliberated on Souza’s agenda item and voted that it had enough merit to invest precious Staff resources on investigating it further. If Council had decided otherwise, then no Staff resources would have been invested. As it is the Supply/Demand curve of Staff time is unbalanced. There is always more demand for Staff’s time than there is supply of their time available. IMHO, the Council has practiced good time management of the City’s paid resources.
Again, JMHO.
Sue Greenwald said …
Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
I respectfully disagree. What procedural fiasco? The Council deliberated on Souza’s agenda item and voted that it had enough merit to invest precious Staff resources on investigating it further. If Council had decided otherwise, then no Staff resources would have been invested. As it is the Supply/Demand curve of Staff time is unbalanced. There is always more demand for Staff’s time than there is supply of their time available. IMHO, the Council has practiced good time management of the City’s paid resources.
Again, JMHO.
Sue Greenwald said …
Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
I respectfully disagree. What procedural fiasco? The Council deliberated on Souza’s agenda item and voted that it had enough merit to invest precious Staff resources on investigating it further. If Council had decided otherwise, then no Staff resources would have been invested. As it is the Supply/Demand curve of Staff time is unbalanced. There is always more demand for Staff’s time than there is supply of their time available. IMHO, the Council has practiced good time management of the City’s paid resources.
Again, JMHO.
Post on process:
This item represents the most astonishing breach of process that I have seen on my 7 ½ years on the council.
First, it is very unusual for a councilmember to bring an item straight to council. We usually do it when the item is not a major city-wide policy item and requires little analysis, or when we have been trying to get it agendized through normal channels for months or years with no success. Usually, for a major policy item, we ask the City Manager to agendize it, and, if that doesn’t work, ask council to ask staff to agendize it before we resort to submitting it ourselves.
This case was different. The first time we heard of this item was when Steve informed us that he was going to bring it forward as a councilmember item the following week. I suggested hat we direct staff bring it forward, but was not backed by the council majority.
The next week, Steve, acting as staff, brings forward the following item: : ” Should the City enter into negotiations with representatives of Mace Covell Gateway, LLC to acquire the property known as the Shriners”, followed by a closed session to begin negotiations.
This was astonishing. I had expected an item such as “direct staff to explore the possibility”, and come back with a staff report. But the item was to enter directly into negotiations.
So we were supposed to be making a decision to enter into negotiations to buy a massive property adjacent to the city which will be a major factor in determining where we grow and the future physical shape of the City, based on a “staff report” by councilmember Souza that essentially said that a guy named Patrick Leathers had talked with Steve Guidaro.
Given the Council majority’s policy to grow peripherally at a rate of one subdivision with the number of units of Wildhorse every five years, tying up one peripheral area of town will push development to another area.
If we are going to start spending our open space funds to create a permanent ag buffer, we need to analyze how and where we want it. We need massive public input and public process in a decision this magnitude.
The final action of the evening was to “direct staff to enter into preliminary negotiations for acquisitions for the Shriners property as open space and to look into alternative sites for a sports park decision.
This was not a final decision, but it is a decision, which completely by-passed all analysis, outreach and discussion. Staff is already working on the scoping for an EIR.
I gave up and voted for Don Saylor’s motion, but in retrospect, I shouldn’t have. I should have held firm for a motion to direct staff to study it further before starting negotiations and EIR work.
Post on process:
This item represents the most astonishing breach of process that I have seen on my 7 ½ years on the council.
First, it is very unusual for a councilmember to bring an item straight to council. We usually do it when the item is not a major city-wide policy item and requires little analysis, or when we have been trying to get it agendized through normal channels for months or years with no success. Usually, for a major policy item, we ask the City Manager to agendize it, and, if that doesn’t work, ask council to ask staff to agendize it before we resort to submitting it ourselves.
This case was different. The first time we heard of this item was when Steve informed us that he was going to bring it forward as a councilmember item the following week. I suggested hat we direct staff bring it forward, but was not backed by the council majority.
The next week, Steve, acting as staff, brings forward the following item: : ” Should the City enter into negotiations with representatives of Mace Covell Gateway, LLC to acquire the property known as the Shriners”, followed by a closed session to begin negotiations.
This was astonishing. I had expected an item such as “direct staff to explore the possibility”, and come back with a staff report. But the item was to enter directly into negotiations.
So we were supposed to be making a decision to enter into negotiations to buy a massive property adjacent to the city which will be a major factor in determining where we grow and the future physical shape of the City, based on a “staff report” by councilmember Souza that essentially said that a guy named Patrick Leathers had talked with Steve Guidaro.
Given the Council majority’s policy to grow peripherally at a rate of one subdivision with the number of units of Wildhorse every five years, tying up one peripheral area of town will push development to another area.
If we are going to start spending our open space funds to create a permanent ag buffer, we need to analyze how and where we want it. We need massive public input and public process in a decision this magnitude.
The final action of the evening was to “direct staff to enter into preliminary negotiations for acquisitions for the Shriners property as open space and to look into alternative sites for a sports park decision.
This was not a final decision, but it is a decision, which completely by-passed all analysis, outreach and discussion. Staff is already working on the scoping for an EIR.
I gave up and voted for Don Saylor’s motion, but in retrospect, I shouldn’t have. I should have held firm for a motion to direct staff to study it further before starting negotiations and EIR work.
Post on process:
This item represents the most astonishing breach of process that I have seen on my 7 ½ years on the council.
First, it is very unusual for a councilmember to bring an item straight to council. We usually do it when the item is not a major city-wide policy item and requires little analysis, or when we have been trying to get it agendized through normal channels for months or years with no success. Usually, for a major policy item, we ask the City Manager to agendize it, and, if that doesn’t work, ask council to ask staff to agendize it before we resort to submitting it ourselves.
This case was different. The first time we heard of this item was when Steve informed us that he was going to bring it forward as a councilmember item the following week. I suggested hat we direct staff bring it forward, but was not backed by the council majority.
The next week, Steve, acting as staff, brings forward the following item: : ” Should the City enter into negotiations with representatives of Mace Covell Gateway, LLC to acquire the property known as the Shriners”, followed by a closed session to begin negotiations.
This was astonishing. I had expected an item such as “direct staff to explore the possibility”, and come back with a staff report. But the item was to enter directly into negotiations.
So we were supposed to be making a decision to enter into negotiations to buy a massive property adjacent to the city which will be a major factor in determining where we grow and the future physical shape of the City, based on a “staff report” by councilmember Souza that essentially said that a guy named Patrick Leathers had talked with Steve Guidaro.
Given the Council majority’s policy to grow peripherally at a rate of one subdivision with the number of units of Wildhorse every five years, tying up one peripheral area of town will push development to another area.
If we are going to start spending our open space funds to create a permanent ag buffer, we need to analyze how and where we want it. We need massive public input and public process in a decision this magnitude.
The final action of the evening was to “direct staff to enter into preliminary negotiations for acquisitions for the Shriners property as open space and to look into alternative sites for a sports park decision.
This was not a final decision, but it is a decision, which completely by-passed all analysis, outreach and discussion. Staff is already working on the scoping for an EIR.
I gave up and voted for Don Saylor’s motion, but in retrospect, I shouldn’t have. I should have held firm for a motion to direct staff to study it further before starting negotiations and EIR work.
Post on process:
This item represents the most astonishing breach of process that I have seen on my 7 ½ years on the council.
First, it is very unusual for a councilmember to bring an item straight to council. We usually do it when the item is not a major city-wide policy item and requires little analysis, or when we have been trying to get it agendized through normal channels for months or years with no success. Usually, for a major policy item, we ask the City Manager to agendize it, and, if that doesn’t work, ask council to ask staff to agendize it before we resort to submitting it ourselves.
This case was different. The first time we heard of this item was when Steve informed us that he was going to bring it forward as a councilmember item the following week. I suggested hat we direct staff bring it forward, but was not backed by the council majority.
The next week, Steve, acting as staff, brings forward the following item: : ” Should the City enter into negotiations with representatives of Mace Covell Gateway, LLC to acquire the property known as the Shriners”, followed by a closed session to begin negotiations.
This was astonishing. I had expected an item such as “direct staff to explore the possibility”, and come back with a staff report. But the item was to enter directly into negotiations.
So we were supposed to be making a decision to enter into negotiations to buy a massive property adjacent to the city which will be a major factor in determining where we grow and the future physical shape of the City, based on a “staff report” by councilmember Souza that essentially said that a guy named Patrick Leathers had talked with Steve Guidaro.
Given the Council majority’s policy to grow peripherally at a rate of one subdivision with the number of units of Wildhorse every five years, tying up one peripheral area of town will push development to another area.
If we are going to start spending our open space funds to create a permanent ag buffer, we need to analyze how and where we want it. We need massive public input and public process in a decision this magnitude.
The final action of the evening was to “direct staff to enter into preliminary negotiations for acquisitions for the Shriners property as open space and to look into alternative sites for a sports park decision.
This was not a final decision, but it is a decision, which completely by-passed all analysis, outreach and discussion. Staff is already working on the scoping for an EIR.
I gave up and voted for Don Saylor’s motion, but in retrospect, I shouldn’t have. I should have held firm for a motion to direct staff to study it further before starting negotiations and EIR work.
Clearing up some confusions:
1. Under the Mace Curve, we are talking about three different areas. One is the junior high school. The other is the empty land owned by the school district adjacent to the junior high where that had been mentioned for sports fields until such time is the junior high needs to expand.
The third area is the remaining 40 acres which is still owned by Signature Properties, and has never been discussed for sports fields
2. Signature owns a another large parcel of land across Covell that is adjacent to the Shriners/Gidaro property. It is here that they offered to donate a sports park. The land area comparable to the Shriners, but one parcel further from existing housing. Signature said they would be willing to locate the site closer to Covell on the property, or somewhat further North, further from housing. They are flexible. In other words, the Signature park could be placed further from existing houses, if we so wish.
Clearing up some confusions:
1. Under the Mace Curve, we are talking about three different areas. One is the junior high school. The other is the empty land owned by the school district adjacent to the junior high where that had been mentioned for sports fields until such time is the junior high needs to expand.
The third area is the remaining 40 acres which is still owned by Signature Properties, and has never been discussed for sports fields
2. Signature owns a another large parcel of land across Covell that is adjacent to the Shriners/Gidaro property. It is here that they offered to donate a sports park. The land area comparable to the Shriners, but one parcel further from existing housing. Signature said they would be willing to locate the site closer to Covell on the property, or somewhat further North, further from housing. They are flexible. In other words, the Signature park could be placed further from existing houses, if we so wish.
Clearing up some confusions:
1. Under the Mace Curve, we are talking about three different areas. One is the junior high school. The other is the empty land owned by the school district adjacent to the junior high where that had been mentioned for sports fields until such time is the junior high needs to expand.
The third area is the remaining 40 acres which is still owned by Signature Properties, and has never been discussed for sports fields
2. Signature owns a another large parcel of land across Covell that is adjacent to the Shriners/Gidaro property. It is here that they offered to donate a sports park. The land area comparable to the Shriners, but one parcel further from existing housing. Signature said they would be willing to locate the site closer to Covell on the property, or somewhat further North, further from housing. They are flexible. In other words, the Signature park could be placed further from existing houses, if we so wish.
Clearing up some confusions:
1. Under the Mace Curve, we are talking about three different areas. One is the junior high school. The other is the empty land owned by the school district adjacent to the junior high where that had been mentioned for sports fields until such time is the junior high needs to expand.
The third area is the remaining 40 acres which is still owned by Signature Properties, and has never been discussed for sports fields
2. Signature owns a another large parcel of land across Covell that is adjacent to the Shriners/Gidaro property. It is here that they offered to donate a sports park. The land area comparable to the Shriners, but one parcel further from existing housing. Signature said they would be willing to locate the site closer to Covell on the property, or somewhat further North, further from housing. They are flexible. In other words, the Signature park could be placed further from existing houses, if we so wish.
sue greenwald said…
Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
Why did Sue throw gasoline into the fire by proposing a Measure J project, circumventing the General Plan update process? Because it was “her” gasoline and not “theirs,” that’s why.
sue greenwald said…
Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
Why did Sue throw gasoline into the fire by proposing a Measure J project, circumventing the General Plan update process? Because it was “her” gasoline and not “theirs,” that’s why.
sue greenwald said…
Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
Why did Sue throw gasoline into the fire by proposing a Measure J project, circumventing the General Plan update process? Because it was “her” gasoline and not “theirs,” that’s why.
sue greenwald said…
Now, in my opinion, we have a procedural fiasco on our hands.
Why did Sue throw gasoline into the fire by proposing a Measure J project, circumventing the General Plan update process? Because it was “her” gasoline and not “theirs,” that’s why.
Sue Greenwald said…
I suggested hat we direct staff bring it forward, but was not backed by the council majority.
So we were supposed to be making a decision to enter into negotiations to buy a massive property adjacent to the city which will be a major factor in determining where we grow and the future physical shape of the City, based on a “staff report” by councilmember Souza that essentially said that a guy named Patrick Leathers had talked with Steve Guidaro.
This was not a final decision, but it is a decision, which completely by-passed all analysis, outreach and discussion. Staff is already working on the scoping for an EIR.
I gave up and voted for Don Saylor’s motion, but in retrospect, I shouldn’t have. I should have held firm for a motion to direct staff to study it further before starting negotiations and EIR work.
8/7/07 1:29 PM
Disappointing.
You’re not in the majority. That is old news. Your inserted a motion for your developer. You completely bypassed discussing that motion and focused on what everyone else did. You gave up and instead of holding to your principles and voting no, you flip flopped and voted yes.
Very Disappointing
Sue Greenwald said…
I suggested hat we direct staff bring it forward, but was not backed by the council majority.
So we were supposed to be making a decision to enter into negotiations to buy a massive property adjacent to the city which will be a major factor in determining where we grow and the future physical shape of the City, based on a “staff report” by councilmember Souza that essentially said that a guy named Patrick Leathers had talked with Steve Guidaro.
This was not a final decision, but it is a decision, which completely by-passed all analysis, outreach and discussion. Staff is already working on the scoping for an EIR.
I gave up and voted for Don Saylor’s motion, but in retrospect, I shouldn’t have. I should have held firm for a motion to direct staff to study it further before starting negotiations and EIR work.
8/7/07 1:29 PM
Disappointing.
You’re not in the majority. That is old news. Your inserted a motion for your developer. You completely bypassed discussing that motion and focused on what everyone else did. You gave up and instead of holding to your principles and voting no, you flip flopped and voted yes.
Very Disappointing
Sue Greenwald said…
I suggested hat we direct staff bring it forward, but was not backed by the council majority.
So we were supposed to be making a decision to enter into negotiations to buy a massive property adjacent to the city which will be a major factor in determining where we grow and the future physical shape of the City, based on a “staff report” by councilmember Souza that essentially said that a guy named Patrick Leathers had talked with Steve Guidaro.
This was not a final decision, but it is a decision, which completely by-passed all analysis, outreach and discussion. Staff is already working on the scoping for an EIR.
I gave up and voted for Don Saylor’s motion, but in retrospect, I shouldn’t have. I should have held firm for a motion to direct staff to study it further before starting negotiations and EIR work.
8/7/07 1:29 PM
Disappointing.
You’re not in the majority. That is old news. Your inserted a motion for your developer. You completely bypassed discussing that motion and focused on what everyone else did. You gave up and instead of holding to your principles and voting no, you flip flopped and voted yes.
Very Disappointing
Sue Greenwald said…
I suggested hat we direct staff bring it forward, but was not backed by the council majority.
So we were supposed to be making a decision to enter into negotiations to buy a massive property adjacent to the city which will be a major factor in determining where we grow and the future physical shape of the City, based on a “staff report” by councilmember Souza that essentially said that a guy named Patrick Leathers had talked with Steve Guidaro.
This was not a final decision, but it is a decision, which completely by-passed all analysis, outreach and discussion. Staff is already working on the scoping for an EIR.
I gave up and voted for Don Saylor’s motion, but in retrospect, I shouldn’t have. I should have held firm for a motion to direct staff to study it further before starting negotiations and EIR work.
8/7/07 1:29 PM
Disappointing.
You’re not in the majority. That is old news. Your inserted a motion for your developer. You completely bypassed discussing that motion and focused on what everyone else did. You gave up and instead of holding to your principles and voting no, you flip flopped and voted yes.
Very Disappointing
Concerning the Signature, I followed procedure. I heard an interesting proposal two years ago, brought it to staff and a member of the sports park task force.
When they showed no interest, I decided to wait until the Howatt process, and then the housing steering committee, played out.
Obviously, when Steve agendized an item to directly proceed to purchase the Shriner/Gidaro property, with one rationale being to create a sports park, I had no choice but to make sure that good sports park options were on the table.
I should note that Don Saylor’s final motion was merely to study sports parks options (including the one I had presented), but to “enter into preliminary negotiations for acquisitions for the Shriners property as open space”.
Thus, a decision was made try to create a partial permanent ag buffer at a particuar location without any discussion of where the community wanted their permanent ag buffer to be, or whether the council was even committed to a permanent ag buffer at all, or was just protecting one particular neighborhood from development and directing fairly rapid growth toward other neighborhoods.
Concerning the Signature, I followed procedure. I heard an interesting proposal two years ago, brought it to staff and a member of the sports park task force.
When they showed no interest, I decided to wait until the Howatt process, and then the housing steering committee, played out.
Obviously, when Steve agendized an item to directly proceed to purchase the Shriner/Gidaro property, with one rationale being to create a sports park, I had no choice but to make sure that good sports park options were on the table.
I should note that Don Saylor’s final motion was merely to study sports parks options (including the one I had presented), but to “enter into preliminary negotiations for acquisitions for the Shriners property as open space”.
Thus, a decision was made try to create a partial permanent ag buffer at a particuar location without any discussion of where the community wanted their permanent ag buffer to be, or whether the council was even committed to a permanent ag buffer at all, or was just protecting one particular neighborhood from development and directing fairly rapid growth toward other neighborhoods.
Concerning the Signature, I followed procedure. I heard an interesting proposal two years ago, brought it to staff and a member of the sports park task force.
When they showed no interest, I decided to wait until the Howatt process, and then the housing steering committee, played out.
Obviously, when Steve agendized an item to directly proceed to purchase the Shriner/Gidaro property, with one rationale being to create a sports park, I had no choice but to make sure that good sports park options were on the table.
I should note that Don Saylor’s final motion was merely to study sports parks options (including the one I had presented), but to “enter into preliminary negotiations for acquisitions for the Shriners property as open space”.
Thus, a decision was made try to create a partial permanent ag buffer at a particuar location without any discussion of where the community wanted their permanent ag buffer to be, or whether the council was even committed to a permanent ag buffer at all, or was just protecting one particular neighborhood from development and directing fairly rapid growth toward other neighborhoods.
Concerning the Signature, I followed procedure. I heard an interesting proposal two years ago, brought it to staff and a member of the sports park task force.
When they showed no interest, I decided to wait until the Howatt process, and then the housing steering committee, played out.
Obviously, when Steve agendized an item to directly proceed to purchase the Shriner/Gidaro property, with one rationale being to create a sports park, I had no choice but to make sure that good sports park options were on the table.
I should note that Don Saylor’s final motion was merely to study sports parks options (including the one I had presented), but to “enter into preliminary negotiations for acquisitions for the Shriners property as open space”.
Thus, a decision was made try to create a partial permanent ag buffer at a particuar location without any discussion of where the community wanted their permanent ag buffer to be, or whether the council was even committed to a permanent ag buffer at all, or was just protecting one particular neighborhood from development and directing fairly rapid growth toward other neighborhoods.
Boy, it would be handy to have a map right about now….
Thanks for providing your perspective, Sue.
There seem to be a lot of factors here: multiple sites, distance, housing commitments, possible school uses (are we really ready to talk about building a new high school?).
I would think that the housing commission recommendations would be a factor in this decision, and that the school district’s concerns would be a factor — even where or whether there is to be an urban growth limit.
So regardless of what staff concludes, these require policy decisions at the council level, and effective communication between districts. IMO the answer to the question “should the council enter into negotiations to acquire….” was “No.”
I don’t know what “preliminary negotiations” are, but they seem premature, too. Has this been considered by the housing panel, by the sports task force? What is the point in having citizen commissions if they are going to be bypassed? This doesn’t bode well for how the general plan will be updated.
There’s no hurry. The land isn’t going anywhere, and the other stakeholders haven’t had a chance to give input.
Sue wrote “a decision was made try to create a partial permanent ag buffer at a particuar location without any discussion of where the community wanted their permanent ag buffer to be…”
I agree this seems to be a case of implementing policy without community input. Woodland and Vacaville have Urban Limit Lines.
Boy, it would be handy to have a map right about now….
Thanks for providing your perspective, Sue.
There seem to be a lot of factors here: multiple sites, distance, housing commitments, possible school uses (are we really ready to talk about building a new high school?).
I would think that the housing commission recommendations would be a factor in this decision, and that the school district’s concerns would be a factor — even where or whether there is to be an urban growth limit.
So regardless of what staff concludes, these require policy decisions at the council level, and effective communication between districts. IMO the answer to the question “should the council enter into negotiations to acquire….” was “No.”
I don’t know what “preliminary negotiations” are, but they seem premature, too. Has this been considered by the housing panel, by the sports task force? What is the point in having citizen commissions if they are going to be bypassed? This doesn’t bode well for how the general plan will be updated.
There’s no hurry. The land isn’t going anywhere, and the other stakeholders haven’t had a chance to give input.
Sue wrote “a decision was made try to create a partial permanent ag buffer at a particuar location without any discussion of where the community wanted their permanent ag buffer to be…”
I agree this seems to be a case of implementing policy without community input. Woodland and Vacaville have Urban Limit Lines.
Boy, it would be handy to have a map right about now….
Thanks for providing your perspective, Sue.
There seem to be a lot of factors here: multiple sites, distance, housing commitments, possible school uses (are we really ready to talk about building a new high school?).
I would think that the housing commission recommendations would be a factor in this decision, and that the school district’s concerns would be a factor — even where or whether there is to be an urban growth limit.
So regardless of what staff concludes, these require policy decisions at the council level, and effective communication between districts. IMO the answer to the question “should the council enter into negotiations to acquire….” was “No.”
I don’t know what “preliminary negotiations” are, but they seem premature, too. Has this been considered by the housing panel, by the sports task force? What is the point in having citizen commissions if they are going to be bypassed? This doesn’t bode well for how the general plan will be updated.
There’s no hurry. The land isn’t going anywhere, and the other stakeholders haven’t had a chance to give input.
Sue wrote “a decision was made try to create a partial permanent ag buffer at a particuar location without any discussion of where the community wanted their permanent ag buffer to be…”
I agree this seems to be a case of implementing policy without community input. Woodland and Vacaville have Urban Limit Lines.
Boy, it would be handy to have a map right about now….
Thanks for providing your perspective, Sue.
There seem to be a lot of factors here: multiple sites, distance, housing commitments, possible school uses (are we really ready to talk about building a new high school?).
I would think that the housing commission recommendations would be a factor in this decision, and that the school district’s concerns would be a factor — even where or whether there is to be an urban growth limit.
So regardless of what staff concludes, these require policy decisions at the council level, and effective communication between districts. IMO the answer to the question “should the council enter into negotiations to acquire….” was “No.”
I don’t know what “preliminary negotiations” are, but they seem premature, too. Has this been considered by the housing panel, by the sports task force? What is the point in having citizen commissions if they are going to be bypassed? This doesn’t bode well for how the general plan will be updated.
There’s no hurry. The land isn’t going anywhere, and the other stakeholders haven’t had a chance to give input.
Sue wrote “a decision was made try to create a partial permanent ag buffer at a particuar location without any discussion of where the community wanted their permanent ag buffer to be…”
I agree this seems to be a case of implementing policy without community input. Woodland and Vacaville have Urban Limit Lines.
This blog has become mean-spirited. Rather than individuals putting forth their ideas or constructively critiquing the ideas of others, including Mrs. Greenwaldss, all these angry people are making personal attacks on public figures and questioning their motives more than their ideas. What a shame this blog is now just filled with so much vile blather.
it really reflects poorly on this blog when a political figure, like the Mayor, comes onto this blog, and explains the reasons for her actions, and others are allowed to post anonymously, and snipe in the most snarky ways, in ways that they would never allow to be attributed to themselves by name
disagreement is one thing, a conscious effort to insult and degrade is another, and DPD really needs to consider whether this is how he wants his blog to be known
personally, if I was an elected official, I would come here and post something to the effect that, there is more to it, and if you want to talk to me about it, e-mail me or call me, but I don’t explain myself in a forum where people post anonymously, at least where they conduct themselves as they do here
–Richard Estes
P. S. I have an idea about the origination of these anonymous posts, but, absent proof, I’ll just have to keep that to myself
—
This blog has become mean-spirited. Rather than individuals putting forth their ideas or constructively critiquing the ideas of others, including Mrs. Greenwaldss, all these angry people are making personal attacks on public figures and questioning their motives more than their ideas. What a shame this blog is now just filled with so much vile blather.
it really reflects poorly on this blog when a political figure, like the Mayor, comes onto this blog, and explains the reasons for her actions, and others are allowed to post anonymously, and snipe in the most snarky ways, in ways that they would never allow to be attributed to themselves by name
disagreement is one thing, a conscious effort to insult and degrade is another, and DPD really needs to consider whether this is how he wants his blog to be known
personally, if I was an elected official, I would come here and post something to the effect that, there is more to it, and if you want to talk to me about it, e-mail me or call me, but I don’t explain myself in a forum where people post anonymously, at least where they conduct themselves as they do here
–Richard Estes
P. S. I have an idea about the origination of these anonymous posts, but, absent proof, I’ll just have to keep that to myself
—
This blog has become mean-spirited. Rather than individuals putting forth their ideas or constructively critiquing the ideas of others, including Mrs. Greenwaldss, all these angry people are making personal attacks on public figures and questioning their motives more than their ideas. What a shame this blog is now just filled with so much vile blather.
it really reflects poorly on this blog when a political figure, like the Mayor, comes onto this blog, and explains the reasons for her actions, and others are allowed to post anonymously, and snipe in the most snarky ways, in ways that they would never allow to be attributed to themselves by name
disagreement is one thing, a conscious effort to insult and degrade is another, and DPD really needs to consider whether this is how he wants his blog to be known
personally, if I was an elected official, I would come here and post something to the effect that, there is more to it, and if you want to talk to me about it, e-mail me or call me, but I don’t explain myself in a forum where people post anonymously, at least where they conduct themselves as they do here
–Richard Estes
P. S. I have an idea about the origination of these anonymous posts, but, absent proof, I’ll just have to keep that to myself
—
This blog has become mean-spirited. Rather than individuals putting forth their ideas or constructively critiquing the ideas of others, including Mrs. Greenwaldss, all these angry people are making personal attacks on public figures and questioning their motives more than their ideas. What a shame this blog is now just filled with so much vile blather.
it really reflects poorly on this blog when a political figure, like the Mayor, comes onto this blog, and explains the reasons for her actions, and others are allowed to post anonymously, and snipe in the most snarky ways, in ways that they would never allow to be attributed to themselves by name
disagreement is one thing, a conscious effort to insult and degrade is another, and DPD really needs to consider whether this is how he wants his blog to be known
personally, if I was an elected official, I would come here and post something to the effect that, there is more to it, and if you want to talk to me about it, e-mail me or call me, but I don’t explain myself in a forum where people post anonymously, at least where they conduct themselves as they do here
–Richard Estes
P. S. I have an idea about the origination of these anonymous posts, but, absent proof, I’ll just have to keep that to myself
—
Sue Greenwald said …
The final action of the evening was to “direct staff to enter into preliminary negotiations for acquisitions for the Shriners property as open space and to look into alternative sites for a sports park decision.
Sue, what you are describing is “a difference in name only.” Unless the City Staff are totally unprofessional (and I have zero expectation that they are) they will do analysis/due dilligence prior to entering into any negotiations. That is the business-like approach.
Sue Greenwald said …
The final action of the evening was to “direct staff to enter into preliminary negotiations for acquisitions for the Shriners property as open space and to look into alternative sites for a sports park decision.
Sue, what you are describing is “a difference in name only.” Unless the City Staff are totally unprofessional (and I have zero expectation that they are) they will do analysis/due dilligence prior to entering into any negotiations. That is the business-like approach.
Sue Greenwald said …
The final action of the evening was to “direct staff to enter into preliminary negotiations for acquisitions for the Shriners property as open space and to look into alternative sites for a sports park decision.
Sue, what you are describing is “a difference in name only.” Unless the City Staff are totally unprofessional (and I have zero expectation that they are) they will do analysis/due dilligence prior to entering into any negotiations. That is the business-like approach.
Sue Greenwald said …
The final action of the evening was to “direct staff to enter into preliminary negotiations for acquisitions for the Shriners property as open space and to look into alternative sites for a sports park decision.
Sue, what you are describing is “a difference in name only.” Unless the City Staff are totally unprofessional (and I have zero expectation that they are) they will do analysis/due dilligence prior to entering into any negotiations. That is the business-like approach.
I agree with the Mayor’s position about the concern about the process that Councilmember Souza went through. The reasoning for that concern is exactly what arose on Wednesday during discussion, which was that there were a lot of questions and concerns about how this policy arose–which is a valid concern.
Second, Councilmember Souza was not prepared, nor should he, to answer the type of questions that staff would normally answer.
Third, the concern raised by the Mayor with regards to the overall plan was also telling because it showed the problem with not going through the general plan and planning process.
Finally, I appreciate the candor with which the Mayor has acknowledged that she should have voted against the project, I think both the Mayor and Councilmember Heystek should have voted against this on principle.
I agree with the Mayor’s position about the concern about the process that Councilmember Souza went through. The reasoning for that concern is exactly what arose on Wednesday during discussion, which was that there were a lot of questions and concerns about how this policy arose–which is a valid concern.
Second, Councilmember Souza was not prepared, nor should he, to answer the type of questions that staff would normally answer.
Third, the concern raised by the Mayor with regards to the overall plan was also telling because it showed the problem with not going through the general plan and planning process.
Finally, I appreciate the candor with which the Mayor has acknowledged that she should have voted against the project, I think both the Mayor and Councilmember Heystek should have voted against this on principle.
I agree with the Mayor’s position about the concern about the process that Councilmember Souza went through. The reasoning for that concern is exactly what arose on Wednesday during discussion, which was that there were a lot of questions and concerns about how this policy arose–which is a valid concern.
Second, Councilmember Souza was not prepared, nor should he, to answer the type of questions that staff would normally answer.
Third, the concern raised by the Mayor with regards to the overall plan was also telling because it showed the problem with not going through the general plan and planning process.
Finally, I appreciate the candor with which the Mayor has acknowledged that she should have voted against the project, I think both the Mayor and Councilmember Heystek should have voted against this on principle.
I agree with the Mayor’s position about the concern about the process that Councilmember Souza went through. The reasoning for that concern is exactly what arose on Wednesday during discussion, which was that there were a lot of questions and concerns about how this policy arose–which is a valid concern.
Second, Councilmember Souza was not prepared, nor should he, to answer the type of questions that staff would normally answer.
Third, the concern raised by the Mayor with regards to the overall plan was also telling because it showed the problem with not going through the general plan and planning process.
Finally, I appreciate the candor with which the Mayor has acknowledged that she should have voted against the project, I think both the Mayor and Councilmember Heystek should have voted against this on principle.
Folks, on one other note, the decision to keep anonymous posting on here can be revisited at any point. I would recommend people try to police themselves in this matter.
Folks, on one other note, the decision to keep anonymous posting on here can be revisited at any point. I would recommend people try to police themselves in this matter.
Folks, on one other note, the decision to keep anonymous posting on here can be revisited at any point. I would recommend people try to police themselves in this matter.
Folks, on one other note, the decision to keep anonymous posting on here can be revisited at any point. I would recommend people try to police themselves in this matter.
Richard said…
it really reflects poorly on this blog when a political figure, like the Mayor, comes onto this blog, and explains the reasons for her actions, and others are allowed to post anonymously, and snipe in the most snarky ways, in ways that they would never allow to be attributed to themselves by name
Richard, I agree. I realize that there are extraordinary circumstances that make anonymous posting personally wise, but those should be the exceptions rather than the rule. Posting with a name indicates that the poster is willing to stand behind what they say.
Although, as an El Macero resident I can’t vote in Davis elections, I will say that despite my differences with Sue on this issue, I would gladly vote for her next June if I were so allowed. I don’t expect someone to be right all the time. We all make mistakes. Perhaps Steve Souza could have followed a differnt path in bringing this forward, perhaps Sue could have voted and/or motioned differently, but the reality is that the Council collectively decided that there was enough merit in the ideas discussed to direct Staff to devote time and effort to understanding the merits and drawbacks. I look forward to the results of those efforts.
Richard said…
it really reflects poorly on this blog when a political figure, like the Mayor, comes onto this blog, and explains the reasons for her actions, and others are allowed to post anonymously, and snipe in the most snarky ways, in ways that they would never allow to be attributed to themselves by name
Richard, I agree. I realize that there are extraordinary circumstances that make anonymous posting personally wise, but those should be the exceptions rather than the rule. Posting with a name indicates that the poster is willing to stand behind what they say.
Although, as an El Macero resident I can’t vote in Davis elections, I will say that despite my differences with Sue on this issue, I would gladly vote for her next June if I were so allowed. I don’t expect someone to be right all the time. We all make mistakes. Perhaps Steve Souza could have followed a differnt path in bringing this forward, perhaps Sue could have voted and/or motioned differently, but the reality is that the Council collectively decided that there was enough merit in the ideas discussed to direct Staff to devote time and effort to understanding the merits and drawbacks. I look forward to the results of those efforts.
Richard said…
it really reflects poorly on this blog when a political figure, like the Mayor, comes onto this blog, and explains the reasons for her actions, and others are allowed to post anonymously, and snipe in the most snarky ways, in ways that they would never allow to be attributed to themselves by name
Richard, I agree. I realize that there are extraordinary circumstances that make anonymous posting personally wise, but those should be the exceptions rather than the rule. Posting with a name indicates that the poster is willing to stand behind what they say.
Although, as an El Macero resident I can’t vote in Davis elections, I will say that despite my differences with Sue on this issue, I would gladly vote for her next June if I were so allowed. I don’t expect someone to be right all the time. We all make mistakes. Perhaps Steve Souza could have followed a differnt path in bringing this forward, perhaps Sue could have voted and/or motioned differently, but the reality is that the Council collectively decided that there was enough merit in the ideas discussed to direct Staff to devote time and effort to understanding the merits and drawbacks. I look forward to the results of those efforts.
Richard said…
it really reflects poorly on this blog when a political figure, like the Mayor, comes onto this blog, and explains the reasons for her actions, and others are allowed to post anonymously, and snipe in the most snarky ways, in ways that they would never allow to be attributed to themselves by name
Richard, I agree. I realize that there are extraordinary circumstances that make anonymous posting personally wise, but those should be the exceptions rather than the rule. Posting with a name indicates that the poster is willing to stand behind what they say.
Although, as an El Macero resident I can’t vote in Davis elections, I will say that despite my differences with Sue on this issue, I would gladly vote for her next June if I were so allowed. I don’t expect someone to be right all the time. We all make mistakes. Perhaps Steve Souza could have followed a differnt path in bringing this forward, perhaps Sue could have voted and/or motioned differently, but the reality is that the Council collectively decided that there was enough merit in the ideas discussed to direct Staff to devote time and effort to understanding the merits and drawbacks. I look forward to the results of those efforts.
I applaud the mayor for coming onto this blog, but I question her reasoning for doing so. The way Mariko was excoriated here should have been a clue; if the mayor had the opportunity to read those earlier comments before hand, she should have heeded the message. Having the mayor here makes for interesting reading, but you can’t have it both ways. There are other members of the council and public community that aren’t putting their words across here, at least not by name. She is using this medium to reach out to those she feels necessary to hear her words. Should decorum be expected, you betcha. Would these people say these things to her face, probably not, but that’s the nature of a lot of blogs. I do not condone this behavior however.
Richard, you are so right with your idea as to how the mayor could handle these sorts of things, and your PS is exactly what you stated. Please though, no proof, no say, they’re just words of provocation.
I applaud the mayor for coming onto this blog, but I question her reasoning for doing so. The way Mariko was excoriated here should have been a clue; if the mayor had the opportunity to read those earlier comments before hand, she should have heeded the message. Having the mayor here makes for interesting reading, but you can’t have it both ways. There are other members of the council and public community that aren’t putting their words across here, at least not by name. She is using this medium to reach out to those she feels necessary to hear her words. Should decorum be expected, you betcha. Would these people say these things to her face, probably not, but that’s the nature of a lot of blogs. I do not condone this behavior however.
Richard, you are so right with your idea as to how the mayor could handle these sorts of things, and your PS is exactly what you stated. Please though, no proof, no say, they’re just words of provocation.
I applaud the mayor for coming onto this blog, but I question her reasoning for doing so. The way Mariko was excoriated here should have been a clue; if the mayor had the opportunity to read those earlier comments before hand, she should have heeded the message. Having the mayor here makes for interesting reading, but you can’t have it both ways. There are other members of the council and public community that aren’t putting their words across here, at least not by name. She is using this medium to reach out to those she feels necessary to hear her words. Should decorum be expected, you betcha. Would these people say these things to her face, probably not, but that’s the nature of a lot of blogs. I do not condone this behavior however.
Richard, you are so right with your idea as to how the mayor could handle these sorts of things, and your PS is exactly what you stated. Please though, no proof, no say, they’re just words of provocation.
I applaud the mayor for coming onto this blog, but I question her reasoning for doing so. The way Mariko was excoriated here should have been a clue; if the mayor had the opportunity to read those earlier comments before hand, she should have heeded the message. Having the mayor here makes for interesting reading, but you can’t have it both ways. There are other members of the council and public community that aren’t putting their words across here, at least not by name. She is using this medium to reach out to those she feels necessary to hear her words. Should decorum be expected, you betcha. Would these people say these things to her face, probably not, but that’s the nature of a lot of blogs. I do not condone this behavior however.
Richard, you are so right with your idea as to how the mayor could handle these sorts of things, and your PS is exactly what you stated. Please though, no proof, no say, they’re just words of provocation.
Disappointed said
Richard said…
it really reflects poorly on this blog when a political figure, like the Mayor, comes onto this blog, and explains the reasons for her actions, and others are allowed to post anonymously, and snipe in the most snarky ways, in ways that they would never allow to be attributed to themselves by name
The fact of the matter is that on two posts now, the mayor has complained about the actions of Souza on this issue and in the same post not mentioned that she maid the same type of motion on different property. Mayor, did you announce prior to the council meeting that you might bring up the same issue on another property? At least Souza gave some kind of notice, however wrong it was to do.
Please answer my question without pretending it did not happen.
Dick Cheney does not think he has to answer questions either.
Disappointed said
Richard said…
it really reflects poorly on this blog when a political figure, like the Mayor, comes onto this blog, and explains the reasons for her actions, and others are allowed to post anonymously, and snipe in the most snarky ways, in ways that they would never allow to be attributed to themselves by name
The fact of the matter is that on two posts now, the mayor has complained about the actions of Souza on this issue and in the same post not mentioned that she maid the same type of motion on different property. Mayor, did you announce prior to the council meeting that you might bring up the same issue on another property? At least Souza gave some kind of notice, however wrong it was to do.
Please answer my question without pretending it did not happen.
Dick Cheney does not think he has to answer questions either.
Disappointed said
Richard said…
it really reflects poorly on this blog when a political figure, like the Mayor, comes onto this blog, and explains the reasons for her actions, and others are allowed to post anonymously, and snipe in the most snarky ways, in ways that they would never allow to be attributed to themselves by name
The fact of the matter is that on two posts now, the mayor has complained about the actions of Souza on this issue and in the same post not mentioned that she maid the same type of motion on different property. Mayor, did you announce prior to the council meeting that you might bring up the same issue on another property? At least Souza gave some kind of notice, however wrong it was to do.
Please answer my question without pretending it did not happen.
Dick Cheney does not think he has to answer questions either.
Disappointed said
Richard said…
it really reflects poorly on this blog when a political figure, like the Mayor, comes onto this blog, and explains the reasons for her actions, and others are allowed to post anonymously, and snipe in the most snarky ways, in ways that they would never allow to be attributed to themselves by name
The fact of the matter is that on two posts now, the mayor has complained about the actions of Souza on this issue and in the same post not mentioned that she maid the same type of motion on different property. Mayor, did you announce prior to the council meeting that you might bring up the same issue on another property? At least Souza gave some kind of notice, however wrong it was to do.
Please answer my question without pretending it did not happen.
Dick Cheney does not think he has to answer questions either.
The discussion should be about “intentions and process”.
If a Councilperson is approached with an idea (whether or not the idea comes from a developer, landowner or citizen) or comes up with an idea on their own about land use, what should the process be?
The discussion should be about “intentions and process”.
If a Councilperson is approached with an idea (whether or not the idea comes from a developer, landowner or citizen) or comes up with an idea on their own about land use, what should the process be?
The discussion should be about “intentions and process”.
If a Councilperson is approached with an idea (whether or not the idea comes from a developer, landowner or citizen) or comes up with an idea on their own about land use, what should the process be?
The discussion should be about “intentions and process”.
If a Councilperson is approached with an idea (whether or not the idea comes from a developer, landowner or citizen) or comes up with an idea on their own about land use, what should the process be?
Anonymous 2:36 PM – Get a life. Sorry to be so direct, but people’s homes, lives, and our community is at stake.
Public officials are going to be held to a higher standard.
This blog is the best thing that has ever happened to Davis.
I canceled my subscription to the Enterprise, because I see it as a PR piece for Saylor, Souza, Puntillo, Asmundson. They never do investigative reporting or cover tough issues. It’s always glossing over issues.
The editor, Debbie Davis, always protects the status quo. The Aggie does a better job.
Thank you Vanguard. Keep up the good work. The City of Davis needs you.
Anonymous 2:36 PM – Get a life. Sorry to be so direct, but people’s homes, lives, and our community is at stake.
Public officials are going to be held to a higher standard.
This blog is the best thing that has ever happened to Davis.
I canceled my subscription to the Enterprise, because I see it as a PR piece for Saylor, Souza, Puntillo, Asmundson. They never do investigative reporting or cover tough issues. It’s always glossing over issues.
The editor, Debbie Davis, always protects the status quo. The Aggie does a better job.
Thank you Vanguard. Keep up the good work. The City of Davis needs you.
Anonymous 2:36 PM – Get a life. Sorry to be so direct, but people’s homes, lives, and our community is at stake.
Public officials are going to be held to a higher standard.
This blog is the best thing that has ever happened to Davis.
I canceled my subscription to the Enterprise, because I see it as a PR piece for Saylor, Souza, Puntillo, Asmundson. They never do investigative reporting or cover tough issues. It’s always glossing over issues.
The editor, Debbie Davis, always protects the status quo. The Aggie does a better job.
Thank you Vanguard. Keep up the good work. The City of Davis needs you.
Anonymous 2:36 PM – Get a life. Sorry to be so direct, but people’s homes, lives, and our community is at stake.
Public officials are going to be held to a higher standard.
This blog is the best thing that has ever happened to Davis.
I canceled my subscription to the Enterprise, because I see it as a PR piece for Saylor, Souza, Puntillo, Asmundson. They never do investigative reporting or cover tough issues. It’s always glossing over issues.
The editor, Debbie Davis, always protects the status quo. The Aggie does a better job.
Thank you Vanguard. Keep up the good work. The City of Davis needs you.
Richard – It does not reflect poorly on this blog. The Mayor has “chosen” to post her name. If others choose to do so then they may post their names, if not then they won’t.
What happens in a small town like this is that you have some bully councilmembers who will actually HARASS small business owners for either supporting or not supporting an issue that they favor. You wouldn’t know unless it has happened to you.
Sue chooses to do this, and “anonymous” of all kinds choose to remain anonymous for various reasons.
Thank you Richard.
Signed – Anonymous poster by choice
Richard – It does not reflect poorly on this blog. The Mayor has “chosen” to post her name. If others choose to do so then they may post their names, if not then they won’t.
What happens in a small town like this is that you have some bully councilmembers who will actually HARASS small business owners for either supporting or not supporting an issue that they favor. You wouldn’t know unless it has happened to you.
Sue chooses to do this, and “anonymous” of all kinds choose to remain anonymous for various reasons.
Thank you Richard.
Signed – Anonymous poster by choice
Richard – It does not reflect poorly on this blog. The Mayor has “chosen” to post her name. If others choose to do so then they may post their names, if not then they won’t.
What happens in a small town like this is that you have some bully councilmembers who will actually HARASS small business owners for either supporting or not supporting an issue that they favor. You wouldn’t know unless it has happened to you.
Sue chooses to do this, and “anonymous” of all kinds choose to remain anonymous for various reasons.
Thank you Richard.
Signed – Anonymous poster by choice
Richard – It does not reflect poorly on this blog. The Mayor has “chosen” to post her name. If others choose to do so then they may post their names, if not then they won’t.
What happens in a small town like this is that you have some bully councilmembers who will actually HARASS small business owners for either supporting or not supporting an issue that they favor. You wouldn’t know unless it has happened to you.
Sue chooses to do this, and “anonymous” of all kinds choose to remain anonymous for various reasons.
Thank you Richard.
Signed – Anonymous poster by choice
“What is the point in having citizen commissions if they are going to be bypassed? This doesn’t bode well for how the general plan will be updated.”
Don.. If one follows Councilman Souza’s public record of office, it is clear that he has little respect or interest in citizen commission input. Councilman Steve Souza has as much as stated from the dais that he is The Decider..end of story. Davis Homie “don’t play dat” …we will send him into political oblivion in 2008.
“What is the point in having citizen commissions if they are going to be bypassed? This doesn’t bode well for how the general plan will be updated.”
Don.. If one follows Councilman Souza’s public record of office, it is clear that he has little respect or interest in citizen commission input. Councilman Steve Souza has as much as stated from the dais that he is The Decider..end of story. Davis Homie “don’t play dat” …we will send him into political oblivion in 2008.
“What is the point in having citizen commissions if they are going to be bypassed? This doesn’t bode well for how the general plan will be updated.”
Don.. If one follows Councilman Souza’s public record of office, it is clear that he has little respect or interest in citizen commission input. Councilman Steve Souza has as much as stated from the dais that he is The Decider..end of story. Davis Homie “don’t play dat” …we will send him into political oblivion in 2008.
“What is the point in having citizen commissions if they are going to be bypassed? This doesn’t bode well for how the general plan will be updated.”
Don.. If one follows Councilman Souza’s public record of office, it is clear that he has little respect or interest in citizen commission input. Councilman Steve Souza has as much as stated from the dais that he is The Decider..end of story. Davis Homie “don’t play dat” …we will send him into political oblivion in 2008.
The three people that have been the kindest to the mayor on this blog today, by their own admission, aren’t able to vote for her because they don’t live in Davis.
Nastiness doesn’t have to accompany disagreement. I was surprised when the mayor lashed out so violently at Harriet the city attorney at the meeting on August 1st. Seems like we could all use a little more patience and that “civility” that keeps being bandied about.
The three people that have been the kindest to the mayor on this blog today, by their own admission, aren’t able to vote for her because they don’t live in Davis.
Nastiness doesn’t have to accompany disagreement. I was surprised when the mayor lashed out so violently at Harriet the city attorney at the meeting on August 1st. Seems like we could all use a little more patience and that “civility” that keeps being bandied about.
The three people that have been the kindest to the mayor on this blog today, by their own admission, aren’t able to vote for her because they don’t live in Davis.
Nastiness doesn’t have to accompany disagreement. I was surprised when the mayor lashed out so violently at Harriet the city attorney at the meeting on August 1st. Seems like we could all use a little more patience and that “civility” that keeps being bandied about.
The three people that have been the kindest to the mayor on this blog today, by their own admission, aren’t able to vote for her because they don’t live in Davis.
Nastiness doesn’t have to accompany disagreement. I was surprised when the mayor lashed out so violently at Harriet the city attorney at the meeting on August 1st. Seems like we could all use a little more patience and that “civility” that keeps being bandied about.
Richard – It does not reflect poorly on this blog. The Mayor has “chosen” to post her name. If others choose to do so then they may post their names, if not then they won’t.
It really comes down to what kind of blog DPD wants to have. If he thinks that the kind of anonymous “discourse” that was presented here in response to the Mayor today is a good thing, then, there is no need to change it.
Let people hide behind their anonymity, so that they can make snide, catty, insulting remarks that they don’t have the courage to make under their true identities.
It is no secret that I disagree with Rich Rifkin on a lot of things, and have engaged in some pretty heated argument with him. But I did that publicly, under my own name, so that people know the source, and know that I am willing to take responsibility for my remarks.
My sense, based upon experience elsewhere on the Internet, is that, if this persists, some people will abandon this blog, and leave it to the “anonymous” ones, people who see it as a personally risk free way to pursue their personal and political agendas in the most nasty way.
–Richard Estes
Richard – It does not reflect poorly on this blog. The Mayor has “chosen” to post her name. If others choose to do so then they may post their names, if not then they won’t.
It really comes down to what kind of blog DPD wants to have. If he thinks that the kind of anonymous “discourse” that was presented here in response to the Mayor today is a good thing, then, there is no need to change it.
Let people hide behind their anonymity, so that they can make snide, catty, insulting remarks that they don’t have the courage to make under their true identities.
It is no secret that I disagree with Rich Rifkin on a lot of things, and have engaged in some pretty heated argument with him. But I did that publicly, under my own name, so that people know the source, and know that I am willing to take responsibility for my remarks.
My sense, based upon experience elsewhere on the Internet, is that, if this persists, some people will abandon this blog, and leave it to the “anonymous” ones, people who see it as a personally risk free way to pursue their personal and political agendas in the most nasty way.
–Richard Estes
Richard – It does not reflect poorly on this blog. The Mayor has “chosen” to post her name. If others choose to do so then they may post their names, if not then they won’t.
It really comes down to what kind of blog DPD wants to have. If he thinks that the kind of anonymous “discourse” that was presented here in response to the Mayor today is a good thing, then, there is no need to change it.
Let people hide behind their anonymity, so that they can make snide, catty, insulting remarks that they don’t have the courage to make under their true identities.
It is no secret that I disagree with Rich Rifkin on a lot of things, and have engaged in some pretty heated argument with him. But I did that publicly, under my own name, so that people know the source, and know that I am willing to take responsibility for my remarks.
My sense, based upon experience elsewhere on the Internet, is that, if this persists, some people will abandon this blog, and leave it to the “anonymous” ones, people who see it as a personally risk free way to pursue their personal and political agendas in the most nasty way.
–Richard Estes
Richard – It does not reflect poorly on this blog. The Mayor has “chosen” to post her name. If others choose to do so then they may post their names, if not then they won’t.
It really comes down to what kind of blog DPD wants to have. If he thinks that the kind of anonymous “discourse” that was presented here in response to the Mayor today is a good thing, then, there is no need to change it.
Let people hide behind their anonymity, so that they can make snide, catty, insulting remarks that they don’t have the courage to make under their true identities.
It is no secret that I disagree with Rich Rifkin on a lot of things, and have engaged in some pretty heated argument with him. But I did that publicly, under my own name, so that people know the source, and know that I am willing to take responsibility for my remarks.
My sense, based upon experience elsewhere on the Internet, is that, if this persists, some people will abandon this blog, and leave it to the “anonymous” ones, people who see it as a personally risk free way to pursue their personal and political agendas in the most nasty way.
–Richard Estes
Disappointed said
–Richard Estes
8/7/07 9:07 PM
Come on. What about this blog is not a political agenda. Your name does not sanctify your opinion as the one and only true opinion.
Disappointed said
–Richard Estes
8/7/07 9:07 PM
Come on. What about this blog is not a political agenda. Your name does not sanctify your opinion as the one and only true opinion.
Disappointed said
–Richard Estes
8/7/07 9:07 PM
Come on. What about this blog is not a political agenda. Your name does not sanctify your opinion as the one and only true opinion.
Disappointed said
–Richard Estes
8/7/07 9:07 PM
Come on. What about this blog is not a political agenda. Your name does not sanctify your opinion as the one and only true opinion.
Richard:
You pose a legitimate question. There are really two parts of this blog. One part is the articles that I write. The other part is the discussion townhall style. Sometimes and generally civil. Sometimes edgy. I’ve seen a lot of forums and blogs on the net and frankly it is pretty tame on here. I am a bit concerned that electeds will not want to post on here, but I hope we can deal with that.
Some people tell me they just read the articles, some tell me that they don’t care for the articles an like the comments.
At the end of the day, it is the people who read this and comment who will determine what kind of blog this is going to be.
We’ll see I guess.
Richard:
You pose a legitimate question. There are really two parts of this blog. One part is the articles that I write. The other part is the discussion townhall style. Sometimes and generally civil. Sometimes edgy. I’ve seen a lot of forums and blogs on the net and frankly it is pretty tame on here. I am a bit concerned that electeds will not want to post on here, but I hope we can deal with that.
Some people tell me they just read the articles, some tell me that they don’t care for the articles an like the comments.
At the end of the day, it is the people who read this and comment who will determine what kind of blog this is going to be.
We’ll see I guess.
Richard:
You pose a legitimate question. There are really two parts of this blog. One part is the articles that I write. The other part is the discussion townhall style. Sometimes and generally civil. Sometimes edgy. I’ve seen a lot of forums and blogs on the net and frankly it is pretty tame on here. I am a bit concerned that electeds will not want to post on here, but I hope we can deal with that.
Some people tell me they just read the articles, some tell me that they don’t care for the articles an like the comments.
At the end of the day, it is the people who read this and comment who will determine what kind of blog this is going to be.
We’ll see I guess.
Richard:
You pose a legitimate question. There are really two parts of this blog. One part is the articles that I write. The other part is the discussion townhall style. Sometimes and generally civil. Sometimes edgy. I’ve seen a lot of forums and blogs on the net and frankly it is pretty tame on here. I am a bit concerned that electeds will not want to post on here, but I hope we can deal with that.
Some people tell me they just read the articles, some tell me that they don’t care for the articles an like the comments.
At the end of the day, it is the people who read this and comment who will determine what kind of blog this is going to be.
We’ll see I guess.
“It is no secret that I disagree with Rich Rifkin on a lot of things, and have engaged in some pretty heated argument with him. But I did that publicly, under my own name, so that people know the source, and know that I am willing to take responsibility for my remarks.”
Shockingly, I agree with Richard Estes’s comments on this thread completely.
As I’ve said in the past, people who post anonymously and then attack other people are cowards.
If someone has something controversial to say and for some reason (I can’t fathom) is afraid to say it with his name attached to the comments, then at least the anonymous or pseudononymous person should be civil. But what I’ve seen here is that the most personal attacks — such as calling Sue Greenwald crazy — are launched exclusively by anonymous posters.
I can assure you that Sue is perfectly sane and quite smart. I don’t agree with her on everything, but I believe she always has the city’s best interests and the best interests of people who are not wealthy at heart. She also is someone who respects the work of city commissions. She and I had a 2-hour conversation on Sunday, almost entirely regarding historical resources. She is well informed on HRMC issues, as are the other city council members. (I’ve recently had long meetings with other members of the council on HRMC issues, and was impressed positively by all of them, in terms of their having given these issues much consideration.)
“It is no secret that I disagree with Rich Rifkin on a lot of things, and have engaged in some pretty heated argument with him. But I did that publicly, under my own name, so that people know the source, and know that I am willing to take responsibility for my remarks.”
Shockingly, I agree with Richard Estes’s comments on this thread completely.
As I’ve said in the past, people who post anonymously and then attack other people are cowards.
If someone has something controversial to say and for some reason (I can’t fathom) is afraid to say it with his name attached to the comments, then at least the anonymous or pseudononymous person should be civil. But what I’ve seen here is that the most personal attacks — such as calling Sue Greenwald crazy — are launched exclusively by anonymous posters.
I can assure you that Sue is perfectly sane and quite smart. I don’t agree with her on everything, but I believe she always has the city’s best interests and the best interests of people who are not wealthy at heart. She also is someone who respects the work of city commissions. She and I had a 2-hour conversation on Sunday, almost entirely regarding historical resources. She is well informed on HRMC issues, as are the other city council members. (I’ve recently had long meetings with other members of the council on HRMC issues, and was impressed positively by all of them, in terms of their having given these issues much consideration.)
“It is no secret that I disagree with Rich Rifkin on a lot of things, and have engaged in some pretty heated argument with him. But I did that publicly, under my own name, so that people know the source, and know that I am willing to take responsibility for my remarks.”
Shockingly, I agree with Richard Estes’s comments on this thread completely.
As I’ve said in the past, people who post anonymously and then attack other people are cowards.
If someone has something controversial to say and for some reason (I can’t fathom) is afraid to say it with his name attached to the comments, then at least the anonymous or pseudononymous person should be civil. But what I’ve seen here is that the most personal attacks — such as calling Sue Greenwald crazy — are launched exclusively by anonymous posters.
I can assure you that Sue is perfectly sane and quite smart. I don’t agree with her on everything, but I believe she always has the city’s best interests and the best interests of people who are not wealthy at heart. She also is someone who respects the work of city commissions. She and I had a 2-hour conversation on Sunday, almost entirely regarding historical resources. She is well informed on HRMC issues, as are the other city council members. (I’ve recently had long meetings with other members of the council on HRMC issues, and was impressed positively by all of them, in terms of their having given these issues much consideration.)
“It is no secret that I disagree with Rich Rifkin on a lot of things, and have engaged in some pretty heated argument with him. But I did that publicly, under my own name, so that people know the source, and know that I am willing to take responsibility for my remarks.”
Shockingly, I agree with Richard Estes’s comments on this thread completely.
As I’ve said in the past, people who post anonymously and then attack other people are cowards.
If someone has something controversial to say and for some reason (I can’t fathom) is afraid to say it with his name attached to the comments, then at least the anonymous or pseudononymous person should be civil. But what I’ve seen here is that the most personal attacks — such as calling Sue Greenwald crazy — are launched exclusively by anonymous posters.
I can assure you that Sue is perfectly sane and quite smart. I don’t agree with her on everything, but I believe she always has the city’s best interests and the best interests of people who are not wealthy at heart. She also is someone who respects the work of city commissions. She and I had a 2-hour conversation on Sunday, almost entirely regarding historical resources. She is well informed on HRMC issues, as are the other city council members. (I’ve recently had long meetings with other members of the council on HRMC issues, and was impressed positively by all of them, in terms of their having given these issues much consideration.)
This is very disturbing: I agree with both Richard Estes and Rich Rifkin, at the same time.
This is like planets aligning, or something.
This is very disturbing: I agree with both Richard Estes and Rich Rifkin, at the same time.
This is like planets aligning, or something.
This is very disturbing: I agree with both Richard Estes and Rich Rifkin, at the same time.
This is like planets aligning, or something.
This is very disturbing: I agree with both Richard Estes and Rich Rifkin, at the same time.
This is like planets aligning, or something.