While the city council has determined that they will wait until after the election to determine the future of Measure J, the council candidates have all come forward with positions on Measure J.
Sue Greenwald has simply said she wants to renew it.
Stephen Souza: “Renew it in the form that it’s in.”
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald: Renew and make it permanent.
Rob Roy: Renew it.
Don Saylor is more circumspect showing general support but: “I think you always have to keep in mind that maybe you didn’t get it right the first time. I don’t know if there should be a change to Measure J… I do know that Measure J is a part of our environment and should remain so because I think that’s what our residents want. The details of it, I don’t know yet.”
Sydney Vergis: “I’m supportive of Measure J.” She suggested that as currently written this document is not a transparent document, “it’s incredibly complex, it’s lengthy, we see central valley cities pass their own versions of measure J that are two pages.”
It is towards the latter views of Measure J that this piece is aimed. I grant Sydney Vergis that the measure is lengthy, I am not sure I am willing to grant that it is all that complex. In fact, I find it rather straight forward.
I will briefly run through the sections of this provision and perhaps those who seek to amend or shorten Measure J can better articulate what they would like to see changed.
The first portion sets forth the purpose of Measure J:
“The purpose of this Article is to establish a mechanism for direct citizen participation in land use decisions affecting City policies for compact urban form, agricultural land preservation and an adequate housing supply to meet internal City needs, by providing the people of the City of Davis the right to vote, without having to evoke referenda, on general plan land use map amendments that would convert any agricultural, open space, or urban reserve lands, as designated on the Land Use Map of the City of Davis General Plan, dated August 1, 1999, to an urban or urban reserve land use designation and on any development proposal on the Covell Center or Nishi properties.
The purpose of this Article is to ensure that the purposes and principles set forth in the City of Davis General Plan relating to voter approval, land use, affordable housing, open space, agricultural preservation and conservation are fully considered by establishing an expanded land use entitlement process for proposed conversion of properties to urban use that are designated or in agricultural or open space use. This action recognizes that continued conversion of agricultural lands to meet urban needs is neither inevitable nor necessary, and that any land use decision affecting such properties shall be subject to a public vote.”
The City Council and the voters then come forward with a series of findings that include the need to protect existing agricultural and open space lands, talking about the continued urban encroachment upon those lands, the unique character of Davis and the quality of life, the General Plan policies for compact urban form, the city’s work to promote the preservation of agricultural land through the general plan.
That section concludes:
“This Citizens’ Right to Vote on Future Use of Open Space and Agricultural Lands Ordinance implements the General Plan and is consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan and furthers and implements the policies of the General Plan. The City finds that this Ordinance will provide for a balance between the preservation of agricultural lands and open space and the housing needs of the City.”
The next section provides for voter approval and enumerates any instance of voter approval.
First, “Voter Approval of Changes to Land Use designations on the Land Use Map from Agricultural or Urban Reserve to Urban land use designations or from Agricultural to Urban Reserve land use designations.”
It specifies that “any application for an amendment or modification” of land use designation to urban land use requires the following steps: establishment of the baseline project feature, approval by the city council following compliance with CEQA, and then the added step is the approval by the voters and the approval by the voters cannot take place as specified until after approval by the city council.
It also designates voter approval for “development proposals on remaining large vacant properties”–specifically naming both Covell and Nishi. And it sets forth the same guidelines on those two specific properties as it does on the general change in land use designation.
The next section lays forth exemptions. For instance land used for public schools, parks, sewage treatment, medical facilities, and a few other exemptions. It is also notes that any shift away from those land uses requires a Measure J vote. So you can produce a city park without a Measure J vote but if you want to convert that into housing, it requires a measure J vote.
It then contains a page of definitions of specific terms.
It provides a provision that other than the renewal or repeal of this measure, the cost for elections “shall be borne by the applicants of the amendment of the General Plan land use map designation.” And they should be consolidated with others elections whenever feasible.
Then we have the duration which began on March 8, 2000 and:
“This Ordinance shall remain in effect until December 31, 2010, unless modified or repealed earlier by the voters of the City by majority vote. On a regularly scheduled election date prior to December 31, 2010, the City Council shall submit the provisions of this Ordinance to the voters of the City for renewal, amendment or repeal.”
That is where we are right now. Finally there is the standard severability clause that if one section is found unconstitutional, the rest of the measure is still operational.
COMMENTARY:
This is certainly a lengthy document. But I do not see it as extremely complex. In fact, as I read through this as a non-lawyer, I was struck by the simple fact of how straight forward the measure is.
The drafters of the measure were thorough–they created a mechanism to do exactly what they intended–put forth a mechanism by which changes to the land use designations could take place and they did it in a comprehensive way in which all terms were defined, the length of the term was explicitly laid out.
In short, we have four candidate who have pledged to essentially renew the measure as it is written. We have two candidates who have discussed the possibility of changing the ordinance.
When Sydney Vergis talks about transparency, she needs to define exactly what that means. What portions of this measure does she believe could be streamlined? What portions can be removed without changing the substance of the measure? How can this document possibly be written in two pages as she suggests? I simply do not see it, without taking away the specificity by which this measure operates, and the care it takes to lay out and define terms, determine process, and lay out procedure. It alys out definition and intent in such clarity that the intent of the drafters of this measure is clear. That takes up over a page of space, but I see no way to remove that portion from the document. There is a page of exemptions to the law.
There is one possible area where the law might be streamlined, it lays forth the procedure for Nishi and Covell specifically rather than with the previous section. Even that only adds an additional page.
That gets us to Don Saylor’s point. He specifies that “you always have to keep in mind that maybe you didn’t get it right the first time.” That’s of course always possible. But then he never specifies what we might not have gotten right. He offers up no specifics to suggest where it might have been in error. He simply suggests that we talk to commissions about it. Again this is a pretty straight-forward initiative–it requires a vote for land use changes and other than that lays out a procedure that they would have to follow without the voter approval requirement. So what is it that possibly could be changed in the application of this document? Short of specifics, Saylor’s point amounts to rhetoric in search of some moderate position that doesn’t really exist.
If neither Mr. Saylor or Ms. Vergis can specify applications of this that should be considered for amendment, we should perhaps assume that they are attempting to have it both ways–assuage the vast majority of voters who would vote to renew Measure J while assuaging the vast majority of their core constituency that would like nothing better than to weaken or water down the measure at the very least if they could not muster the political will and support to repeal it altogether.
In short, we must hold the candidates accountable to specify exactly what changes they would make.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Remember Measure O? The Council majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza refused to honor the clear intent of the voters that the self-imposed open space tax
that we are assessed yearly be used to purchase easements and open space land on Davis’ periphery. They claim that Measure O didn’t specifically state in the wording of Measure O that this was the voter’s intent. The problem for this same Council majority and their vassal,Vergis, is that it is TOO thourough in wording and intent.
Remember Measure O? The Council majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza refused to honor the clear intent of the voters that the self-imposed open space tax
that we are assessed yearly be used to purchase easements and open space land on Davis’ periphery. They claim that Measure O didn’t specifically state in the wording of Measure O that this was the voter’s intent. The problem for this same Council majority and their vassal,Vergis, is that it is TOO thourough in wording and intent.
Remember Measure O? The Council majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza refused to honor the clear intent of the voters that the self-imposed open space tax
that we are assessed yearly be used to purchase easements and open space land on Davis’ periphery. They claim that Measure O didn’t specifically state in the wording of Measure O that this was the voter’s intent. The problem for this same Council majority and their vassal,Vergis, is that it is TOO thourough in wording and intent.
Remember Measure O? The Council majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza refused to honor the clear intent of the voters that the self-imposed open space tax
that we are assessed yearly be used to purchase easements and open space land on Davis’ periphery. They claim that Measure O didn’t specifically state in the wording of Measure O that this was the voter’s intent. The problem for this same Council majority and their vassal,Vergis, is that it is TOO thourough in wording and intent.
correction: Read MEASURE J is TOO thorough in wording and intent!
correction: Read MEASURE J is TOO thorough in wording and intent!
correction: Read MEASURE J is TOO thorough in wording and intent!
correction: Read MEASURE J is TOO thorough in wording and intent!
It is entirely possible that all of the incumbents will win reelection and that we will have the same Council Majority determining the fate of Measure J in 2010. The voters deserve to know, BEFORE they cast their votes in June for the next Council majority, where ALL the current Council members stand on this issue (amended and/or original version with a choice voting model for more than one Measure J on the ballot). This should involve a Council resolution with full discussion ASAP from the dais. Campaign rhetoric and “sound-bite” answers at candidate forums without adequate back-and-forth open public discussion does not serve the voters adequately as they consider this, the most important vote that they will cast with regard to their ability to directly shape determine the future of their city.
It is entirely possible that all of the incumbents will win reelection and that we will have the same Council Majority determining the fate of Measure J in 2010. The voters deserve to know, BEFORE they cast their votes in June for the next Council majority, where ALL the current Council members stand on this issue (amended and/or original version with a choice voting model for more than one Measure J on the ballot). This should involve a Council resolution with full discussion ASAP from the dais. Campaign rhetoric and “sound-bite” answers at candidate forums without adequate back-and-forth open public discussion does not serve the voters adequately as they consider this, the most important vote that they will cast with regard to their ability to directly shape determine the future of their city.
It is entirely possible that all of the incumbents will win reelection and that we will have the same Council Majority determining the fate of Measure J in 2010. The voters deserve to know, BEFORE they cast their votes in June for the next Council majority, where ALL the current Council members stand on this issue (amended and/or original version with a choice voting model for more than one Measure J on the ballot). This should involve a Council resolution with full discussion ASAP from the dais. Campaign rhetoric and “sound-bite” answers at candidate forums without adequate back-and-forth open public discussion does not serve the voters adequately as they consider this, the most important vote that they will cast with regard to their ability to directly shape determine the future of their city.
It is entirely possible that all of the incumbents will win reelection and that we will have the same Council Majority determining the fate of Measure J in 2010. The voters deserve to know, BEFORE they cast their votes in June for the next Council majority, where ALL the current Council members stand on this issue (amended and/or original version with a choice voting model for more than one Measure J on the ballot). This should involve a Council resolution with full discussion ASAP from the dais. Campaign rhetoric and “sound-bite” answers at candidate forums without adequate back-and-forth open public discussion does not serve the voters adequately as they consider this, the most important vote that they will cast with regard to their ability to directly shape determine the future of their city.
Simply put, any candidate currently serving on the council who is not willing to publicly commit to supporting Measure J being placed on the ballot in its current form, without any companion measures, should not be re-elected.
Similarly, any new candidate unwilling to take the same position should not be considered for office.
Are there dozens of different ways to write the thing? Of course. Could a group of Davis denizens come up with different and more succinct language over a game of scrabble in the park? Certainly. So why make this the litmus test for being a Davis council member? Because it is one of the few things that most citizens in Davis support in its current form. Given the diversity here in the People’s Republic, thats saying a lot. Take Measure J as a given and work from there on other pressing issues.
Simply put, any candidate currently serving on the council who is not willing to publicly commit to supporting Measure J being placed on the ballot in its current form, without any companion measures, should not be re-elected.
Similarly, any new candidate unwilling to take the same position should not be considered for office.
Are there dozens of different ways to write the thing? Of course. Could a group of Davis denizens come up with different and more succinct language over a game of scrabble in the park? Certainly. So why make this the litmus test for being a Davis council member? Because it is one of the few things that most citizens in Davis support in its current form. Given the diversity here in the People’s Republic, thats saying a lot. Take Measure J as a given and work from there on other pressing issues.
Simply put, any candidate currently serving on the council who is not willing to publicly commit to supporting Measure J being placed on the ballot in its current form, without any companion measures, should not be re-elected.
Similarly, any new candidate unwilling to take the same position should not be considered for office.
Are there dozens of different ways to write the thing? Of course. Could a group of Davis denizens come up with different and more succinct language over a game of scrabble in the park? Certainly. So why make this the litmus test for being a Davis council member? Because it is one of the few things that most citizens in Davis support in its current form. Given the diversity here in the People’s Republic, thats saying a lot. Take Measure J as a given and work from there on other pressing issues.
Simply put, any candidate currently serving on the council who is not willing to publicly commit to supporting Measure J being placed on the ballot in its current form, without any companion measures, should not be re-elected.
Similarly, any new candidate unwilling to take the same position should not be considered for office.
Are there dozens of different ways to write the thing? Of course. Could a group of Davis denizens come up with different and more succinct language over a game of scrabble in the park? Certainly. So why make this the litmus test for being a Davis council member? Because it is one of the few things that most citizens in Davis support in its current form. Given the diversity here in the People’s Republic, thats saying a lot. Take Measure J as a given and work from there on other pressing issues.
David:
Excellent article and analysis of Measure J. We worked with our city attorney with input from an attorney from Shute Mahally (one of the top law firms in this area) to draft this ordinance. I just re-read it. It may be long, but it is very staight forward and very thorough. We wanted to cover all the bases, so there were no loop holes. (That is why it is so baffling now that the same city attorney is trying to twist the obvious intent of the drafters to open loop holes.)
Any candidate who finds this ordinance too complicated does not deserve to be on the council.
David:
Excellent article and analysis of Measure J. We worked with our city attorney with input from an attorney from Shute Mahally (one of the top law firms in this area) to draft this ordinance. I just re-read it. It may be long, but it is very staight forward and very thorough. We wanted to cover all the bases, so there were no loop holes. (That is why it is so baffling now that the same city attorney is trying to twist the obvious intent of the drafters to open loop holes.)
Any candidate who finds this ordinance too complicated does not deserve to be on the council.
David:
Excellent article and analysis of Measure J. We worked with our city attorney with input from an attorney from Shute Mahally (one of the top law firms in this area) to draft this ordinance. I just re-read it. It may be long, but it is very staight forward and very thorough. We wanted to cover all the bases, so there were no loop holes. (That is why it is so baffling now that the same city attorney is trying to twist the obvious intent of the drafters to open loop holes.)
Any candidate who finds this ordinance too complicated does not deserve to be on the council.
David:
Excellent article and analysis of Measure J. We worked with our city attorney with input from an attorney from Shute Mahally (one of the top law firms in this area) to draft this ordinance. I just re-read it. It may be long, but it is very staight forward and very thorough. We wanted to cover all the bases, so there were no loop holes. (That is why it is so baffling now that the same city attorney is trying to twist the obvious intent of the drafters to open loop holes.)
Any candidate who finds this ordinance too complicated does not deserve to be on the council.
Find me a candidate that wants it repealed! Then someone will be getting campaing dollars from me.
signed,
Davisite against Nimbyism
Find me a candidate that wants it repealed! Then someone will be getting campaing dollars from me.
signed,
Davisite against Nimbyism
Find me a candidate that wants it repealed! Then someone will be getting campaing dollars from me.
signed,
Davisite against Nimbyism
Find me a candidate that wants it repealed! Then someone will be getting campaing dollars from me.
signed,
Davisite against Nimbyism
I believe in plain speaking. To put it succinctly: A candidate’s position on Measure J reflects their respect or lack thereof in regard to the THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
a) Sue Greenwald – supports keeping Measure J;
b) Cecilia Greenwald – supports keeping Measure J, and wants to make it permanent;
c) Rob Roy – supports keeping Measure J;
d) Steve Souza – says he now supports keeping Measure J, but has in the past not been as supportive – I don’t trust his waffling;
e) Don Saylor – has had several years to determine if Measure J was “right” or not – this is nothing more than double speak for “I will stick my finger in the wind and do what is in my best interests politically” – which I translate to mean there is a very good chance he will favor amending or abolishing Measure J;
f) Sydney Vergis – favors amending Measure J.
As an attorney, I can tell you Measure J is perfectly fine just the way it is – clear and unambiguous.
Need I say more???
I believe in plain speaking. To put it succinctly: A candidate’s position on Measure J reflects their respect or lack thereof in regard to the THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
a) Sue Greenwald – supports keeping Measure J;
b) Cecilia Greenwald – supports keeping Measure J, and wants to make it permanent;
c) Rob Roy – supports keeping Measure J;
d) Steve Souza – says he now supports keeping Measure J, but has in the past not been as supportive – I don’t trust his waffling;
e) Don Saylor – has had several years to determine if Measure J was “right” or not – this is nothing more than double speak for “I will stick my finger in the wind and do what is in my best interests politically” – which I translate to mean there is a very good chance he will favor amending or abolishing Measure J;
f) Sydney Vergis – favors amending Measure J.
As an attorney, I can tell you Measure J is perfectly fine just the way it is – clear and unambiguous.
Need I say more???
I believe in plain speaking. To put it succinctly: A candidate’s position on Measure J reflects their respect or lack thereof in regard to the THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
a) Sue Greenwald – supports keeping Measure J;
b) Cecilia Greenwald – supports keeping Measure J, and wants to make it permanent;
c) Rob Roy – supports keeping Measure J;
d) Steve Souza – says he now supports keeping Measure J, but has in the past not been as supportive – I don’t trust his waffling;
e) Don Saylor – has had several years to determine if Measure J was “right” or not – this is nothing more than double speak for “I will stick my finger in the wind and do what is in my best interests politically” – which I translate to mean there is a very good chance he will favor amending or abolishing Measure J;
f) Sydney Vergis – favors amending Measure J.
As an attorney, I can tell you Measure J is perfectly fine just the way it is – clear and unambiguous.
Need I say more???
I believe in plain speaking. To put it succinctly: A candidate’s position on Measure J reflects their respect or lack thereof in regard to the THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
a) Sue Greenwald – supports keeping Measure J;
b) Cecilia Greenwald – supports keeping Measure J, and wants to make it permanent;
c) Rob Roy – supports keeping Measure J;
d) Steve Souza – says he now supports keeping Measure J, but has in the past not been as supportive – I don’t trust his waffling;
e) Don Saylor – has had several years to determine if Measure J was “right” or not – this is nothing more than double speak for “I will stick my finger in the wind and do what is in my best interests politically” – which I translate to mean there is a very good chance he will favor amending or abolishing Measure J;
f) Sydney Vergis – favors amending Measure J.
As an attorney, I can tell you Measure J is perfectly fine just the way it is – clear and unambiguous.
Need I say more???
Don Saylor is looking to corral the anti-Measure J vote, much like Sue Boyd did when she was the only sitting Council member to be against Measure J when it was put before the voters in 2000. However endlessly Don Saylor drones and obfuscates about his position on Measure J, rest assured the anti-Measure J vote get his message. After 4 years of Councilman Saylor, no one should be taken in by his distinctive rhetorical evasions and “warm” smiles.
Don Saylor is looking to corral the anti-Measure J vote, much like Sue Boyd did when she was the only sitting Council member to be against Measure J when it was put before the voters in 2000. However endlessly Don Saylor drones and obfuscates about his position on Measure J, rest assured the anti-Measure J vote get his message. After 4 years of Councilman Saylor, no one should be taken in by his distinctive rhetorical evasions and “warm” smiles.
Don Saylor is looking to corral the anti-Measure J vote, much like Sue Boyd did when she was the only sitting Council member to be against Measure J when it was put before the voters in 2000. However endlessly Don Saylor drones and obfuscates about his position on Measure J, rest assured the anti-Measure J vote get his message. After 4 years of Councilman Saylor, no one should be taken in by his distinctive rhetorical evasions and “warm” smiles.
Don Saylor is looking to corral the anti-Measure J vote, much like Sue Boyd did when she was the only sitting Council member to be against Measure J when it was put before the voters in 2000. However endlessly Don Saylor drones and obfuscates about his position on Measure J, rest assured the anti-Measure J vote get his message. After 4 years of Councilman Saylor, no one should be taken in by his distinctive rhetorical evasions and “warm” smiles.
“”warm” smiles” – reminds me of the term “crocodile tears”!
“”warm” smiles” – reminds me of the term “crocodile tears”!
“”warm” smiles” – reminds me of the term “crocodile tears”!
“”warm” smiles” – reminds me of the term “crocodile tears”!
i hope you keep on vergis and saylor to define what exactly they want to change about j. a lot of this campaign is still in the area of nice-sounding fluff (“green” issues and city finances are the other ones in dire need of specifics) , and lord knows the enterprise won’t drill down on any of it.
as a voter i’m not particularly wedded to j (or at least not to the degree most people here seem to be), but whenever there are substantive differences between candidates, we really need to get that out into the open so that informed decisions can be made. otherwise, it’s all mushy surface discussion of personality, slogans and endorsements.
i’ll see what i can do to follow up on some of this, maybe next week.
i hope you keep on vergis and saylor to define what exactly they want to change about j. a lot of this campaign is still in the area of nice-sounding fluff (“green” issues and city finances are the other ones in dire need of specifics) , and lord knows the enterprise won’t drill down on any of it.
as a voter i’m not particularly wedded to j (or at least not to the degree most people here seem to be), but whenever there are substantive differences between candidates, we really need to get that out into the open so that informed decisions can be made. otherwise, it’s all mushy surface discussion of personality, slogans and endorsements.
i’ll see what i can do to follow up on some of this, maybe next week.
i hope you keep on vergis and saylor to define what exactly they want to change about j. a lot of this campaign is still in the area of nice-sounding fluff (“green” issues and city finances are the other ones in dire need of specifics) , and lord knows the enterprise won’t drill down on any of it.
as a voter i’m not particularly wedded to j (or at least not to the degree most people here seem to be), but whenever there are substantive differences between candidates, we really need to get that out into the open so that informed decisions can be made. otherwise, it’s all mushy surface discussion of personality, slogans and endorsements.
i’ll see what i can do to follow up on some of this, maybe next week.
i hope you keep on vergis and saylor to define what exactly they want to change about j. a lot of this campaign is still in the area of nice-sounding fluff (“green” issues and city finances are the other ones in dire need of specifics) , and lord knows the enterprise won’t drill down on any of it.
as a voter i’m not particularly wedded to j (or at least not to the degree most people here seem to be), but whenever there are substantive differences between candidates, we really need to get that out into the open so that informed decisions can be made. otherwise, it’s all mushy surface discussion of personality, slogans and endorsements.
i’ll see what i can do to follow up on some of this, maybe next week.
@ Elaine Roberts Musser et al,
When exactly has Souza ever waffled over Measure J. Did he or did he not follow the spirit of Measure J during its one and only test?
His support of Measure X was his right as a citizen to choose whether or not to convert lands outside of the General Plan to development. He made his case, the voters disagreed, and he stood down.
Can you point me to a specific instance where he has said that Measure J is not effective?
Just because he was on the losing side of a Measure J generated civic dialog does NOT mean that he wants to subvert Measure J.
In fact, I applaud Souza for exercising his rights under Measure J and then remaining in full support of a mechanism that cost him a pretty political penny.
@ Elaine Roberts Musser et al,
When exactly has Souza ever waffled over Measure J. Did he or did he not follow the spirit of Measure J during its one and only test?
His support of Measure X was his right as a citizen to choose whether or not to convert lands outside of the General Plan to development. He made his case, the voters disagreed, and he stood down.
Can you point me to a specific instance where he has said that Measure J is not effective?
Just because he was on the losing side of a Measure J generated civic dialog does NOT mean that he wants to subvert Measure J.
In fact, I applaud Souza for exercising his rights under Measure J and then remaining in full support of a mechanism that cost him a pretty political penny.
@ Elaine Roberts Musser et al,
When exactly has Souza ever waffled over Measure J. Did he or did he not follow the spirit of Measure J during its one and only test?
His support of Measure X was his right as a citizen to choose whether or not to convert lands outside of the General Plan to development. He made his case, the voters disagreed, and he stood down.
Can you point me to a specific instance where he has said that Measure J is not effective?
Just because he was on the losing side of a Measure J generated civic dialog does NOT mean that he wants to subvert Measure J.
In fact, I applaud Souza for exercising his rights under Measure J and then remaining in full support of a mechanism that cost him a pretty political penny.
@ Elaine Roberts Musser et al,
When exactly has Souza ever waffled over Measure J. Did he or did he not follow the spirit of Measure J during its one and only test?
His support of Measure X was his right as a citizen to choose whether or not to convert lands outside of the General Plan to development. He made his case, the voters disagreed, and he stood down.
Can you point me to a specific instance where he has said that Measure J is not effective?
Just because he was on the losing side of a Measure J generated civic dialog does NOT mean that he wants to subvert Measure J.
In fact, I applaud Souza for exercising his rights under Measure J and then remaining in full support of a mechanism that cost him a pretty political penny.
Does measure J reflect the will of the people or does it reflect the will of those that are allowed to vote in Davis? I believe it is the later. When we talk about all this high falutin plebisite stuff its important to remember that there are thousands of people who live south of Russell who are disenfranchised. When West Village is built there will be thousands more who will not be allowed to participate. I don’t really care one way or the other about Measure J and whether it should be renewed. I just want to point out that we shouldn’t be talking about some high minded will of the people but rather the will of those who are allowed to vote and aren’t too alienated by the stacked deck known as the Davis city limit to participate.
Does measure J reflect the will of the people or does it reflect the will of those that are allowed to vote in Davis? I believe it is the later. When we talk about all this high falutin plebisite stuff its important to remember that there are thousands of people who live south of Russell who are disenfranchised. When West Village is built there will be thousands more who will not be allowed to participate. I don’t really care one way or the other about Measure J and whether it should be renewed. I just want to point out that we shouldn’t be talking about some high minded will of the people but rather the will of those who are allowed to vote and aren’t too alienated by the stacked deck known as the Davis city limit to participate.
Does measure J reflect the will of the people or does it reflect the will of those that are allowed to vote in Davis? I believe it is the later. When we talk about all this high falutin plebisite stuff its important to remember that there are thousands of people who live south of Russell who are disenfranchised. When West Village is built there will be thousands more who will not be allowed to participate. I don’t really care one way or the other about Measure J and whether it should be renewed. I just want to point out that we shouldn’t be talking about some high minded will of the people but rather the will of those who are allowed to vote and aren’t too alienated by the stacked deck known as the Davis city limit to participate.
Does measure J reflect the will of the people or does it reflect the will of those that are allowed to vote in Davis? I believe it is the later. When we talk about all this high falutin plebisite stuff its important to remember that there are thousands of people who live south of Russell who are disenfranchised. When West Village is built there will be thousands more who will not be allowed to participate. I don’t really care one way or the other about Measure J and whether it should be renewed. I just want to point out that we shouldn’t be talking about some high minded will of the people but rather the will of those who are allowed to vote and aren’t too alienated by the stacked deck known as the Davis city limit to participate.
To….
Just Because You Don’t Agree with the Outcome of a Process Doesn’t Mean You can’t Support that Process said…
Souza’s public record in office is full of “waffling”
item 1: he publicly stated that he would not be running for any elected office again if he was reelected to the Council.. I hear that he has RETHOUGHT this
item 2: he proclaimed from the dais that he(and his Coumcil-mates)were the “Deciders”(remind you of anybody??).. now he has assumed the mantle of a populist for his reelection campaign.
item 3: his participation with Saylor and Asmundson in trying to steamroll the CV process in just 9 months was an attempt to subvert
Measure J by denying the voters full participation and information.
The problem with Souza as Elaine Musser pointed out, is that his public record is so full of waffling ,as his positions “evolve”, that one cannot count on his campaign promises,especially concerning Measure J.
To….
Just Because You Don’t Agree with the Outcome of a Process Doesn’t Mean You can’t Support that Process said…
Souza’s public record in office is full of “waffling”
item 1: he publicly stated that he would not be running for any elected office again if he was reelected to the Council.. I hear that he has RETHOUGHT this
item 2: he proclaimed from the dais that he(and his Coumcil-mates)were the “Deciders”(remind you of anybody??).. now he has assumed the mantle of a populist for his reelection campaign.
item 3: his participation with Saylor and Asmundson in trying to steamroll the CV process in just 9 months was an attempt to subvert
Measure J by denying the voters full participation and information.
The problem with Souza as Elaine Musser pointed out, is that his public record is so full of waffling ,as his positions “evolve”, that one cannot count on his campaign promises,especially concerning Measure J.
To….
Just Because You Don’t Agree with the Outcome of a Process Doesn’t Mean You can’t Support that Process said…
Souza’s public record in office is full of “waffling”
item 1: he publicly stated that he would not be running for any elected office again if he was reelected to the Council.. I hear that he has RETHOUGHT this
item 2: he proclaimed from the dais that he(and his Coumcil-mates)were the “Deciders”(remind you of anybody??).. now he has assumed the mantle of a populist for his reelection campaign.
item 3: his participation with Saylor and Asmundson in trying to steamroll the CV process in just 9 months was an attempt to subvert
Measure J by denying the voters full participation and information.
The problem with Souza as Elaine Musser pointed out, is that his public record is so full of waffling ,as his positions “evolve”, that one cannot count on his campaign promises,especially concerning Measure J.
To….
Just Because You Don’t Agree with the Outcome of a Process Doesn’t Mean You can’t Support that Process said…
Souza’s public record in office is full of “waffling”
item 1: he publicly stated that he would not be running for any elected office again if he was reelected to the Council.. I hear that he has RETHOUGHT this
item 2: he proclaimed from the dais that he(and his Coumcil-mates)were the “Deciders”(remind you of anybody??).. now he has assumed the mantle of a populist for his reelection campaign.
item 3: his participation with Saylor and Asmundson in trying to steamroll the CV process in just 9 months was an attempt to subvert
Measure J by denying the voters full participation and information.
The problem with Souza as Elaine Musser pointed out, is that his public record is so full of waffling ,as his positions “evolve”, that one cannot count on his campaign promises,especially concerning Measure J.
“Does measure J reflect the will of the people or does it reflect the will of those that are allowed to vote in Davis?”
Then push to annex West Village when it comes on line…and other areas on the perimeter – and become part of the POLITICAL PROCESS IN DAVIS
“Does measure J reflect the will of the people or does it reflect the will of those that are allowed to vote in Davis?”
Then push to annex West Village when it comes on line…and other areas on the perimeter – and become part of the POLITICAL PROCESS IN DAVIS
“Does measure J reflect the will of the people or does it reflect the will of those that are allowed to vote in Davis?”
Then push to annex West Village when it comes on line…and other areas on the perimeter – and become part of the POLITICAL PROCESS IN DAVIS
“Does measure J reflect the will of the people or does it reflect the will of those that are allowed to vote in Davis?”
Then push to annex West Village when it comes on line…and other areas on the perimeter – and become part of the POLITICAL PROCESS IN DAVIS
It is the Council majority of Saylor, Souza and Asmundson that hold annexation of West Village hostage to falsely keep Davis’ future growth numbers down. Elect a new Council majority of Sue, Cecilia and Lamar and West Village will be correctly considered in Davis’future growth numbers as it is annexed by the city.
It is the Council majority of Saylor, Souza and Asmundson that hold annexation of West Village hostage to falsely keep Davis’ future growth numbers down. Elect a new Council majority of Sue, Cecilia and Lamar and West Village will be correctly considered in Davis’future growth numbers as it is annexed by the city.
It is the Council majority of Saylor, Souza and Asmundson that hold annexation of West Village hostage to falsely keep Davis’ future growth numbers down. Elect a new Council majority of Sue, Cecilia and Lamar and West Village will be correctly considered in Davis’future growth numbers as it is annexed by the city.
It is the Council majority of Saylor, Souza and Asmundson that hold annexation of West Village hostage to falsely keep Davis’ future growth numbers down. Elect a new Council majority of Sue, Cecilia and Lamar and West Village will be correctly considered in Davis’future growth numbers as it is annexed by the city.
Vergis has publicly expressed her opposition to peripheral sprawl growth policies being placed in the hands of the voters(growth policy by the ballot box, I think she said). Coupled with her uninformed statement about the need to amend Measure J because it is too complex and I think that we can accurately deduce her future position on Measure J if she is elected to our next city Council.
Vergis has publicly expressed her opposition to peripheral sprawl growth policies being placed in the hands of the voters(growth policy by the ballot box, I think she said). Coupled with her uninformed statement about the need to amend Measure J because it is too complex and I think that we can accurately deduce her future position on Measure J if she is elected to our next city Council.
Vergis has publicly expressed her opposition to peripheral sprawl growth policies being placed in the hands of the voters(growth policy by the ballot box, I think she said). Coupled with her uninformed statement about the need to amend Measure J because it is too complex and I think that we can accurately deduce her future position on Measure J if she is elected to our next city Council.
Vergis has publicly expressed her opposition to peripheral sprawl growth policies being placed in the hands of the voters(growth policy by the ballot box, I think she said). Coupled with her uninformed statement about the need to amend Measure J because it is too complex and I think that we can accurately deduce her future position on Measure J if she is elected to our next city Council.
@ better safe than sorry
item 1: you “hear” that he “rethought” … SERIOUSLY? surely you’re joking with me
item 2: Stephen has always been a populist… did you read the article in the Enterprise? The man camped out at Mrak Hall for weeks for apartheid divestment, he walked thousands of miles in peace & anti-nuc marches
item 3: how can Measure J be subverted by a 9 months timeline when Measure J does not have any timelines in its guidelines? I was at many of those public hearings before our appointed Commissions… seemed to me that there was plenty of time…
“The problem with Souza as Elaine Musser pointed out, is that” he doesn’t agree with everything you believe.
The problem with you is that you can’t recognize a good, thoughtful public servant.
@ better safe than sorry
item 1: you “hear” that he “rethought” … SERIOUSLY? surely you’re joking with me
item 2: Stephen has always been a populist… did you read the article in the Enterprise? The man camped out at Mrak Hall for weeks for apartheid divestment, he walked thousands of miles in peace & anti-nuc marches
item 3: how can Measure J be subverted by a 9 months timeline when Measure J does not have any timelines in its guidelines? I was at many of those public hearings before our appointed Commissions… seemed to me that there was plenty of time…
“The problem with Souza as Elaine Musser pointed out, is that” he doesn’t agree with everything you believe.
The problem with you is that you can’t recognize a good, thoughtful public servant.
@ better safe than sorry
item 1: you “hear” that he “rethought” … SERIOUSLY? surely you’re joking with me
item 2: Stephen has always been a populist… did you read the article in the Enterprise? The man camped out at Mrak Hall for weeks for apartheid divestment, he walked thousands of miles in peace & anti-nuc marches
item 3: how can Measure J be subverted by a 9 months timeline when Measure J does not have any timelines in its guidelines? I was at many of those public hearings before our appointed Commissions… seemed to me that there was plenty of time…
“The problem with Souza as Elaine Musser pointed out, is that” he doesn’t agree with everything you believe.
The problem with you is that you can’t recognize a good, thoughtful public servant.
@ better safe than sorry
item 1: you “hear” that he “rethought” … SERIOUSLY? surely you’re joking with me
item 2: Stephen has always been a populist… did you read the article in the Enterprise? The man camped out at Mrak Hall for weeks for apartheid divestment, he walked thousands of miles in peace & anti-nuc marches
item 3: how can Measure J be subverted by a 9 months timeline when Measure J does not have any timelines in its guidelines? I was at many of those public hearings before our appointed Commissions… seemed to me that there was plenty of time…
“The problem with Souza as Elaine Musser pointed out, is that” he doesn’t agree with everything you believe.
The problem with you is that you can’t recognize a good, thoughtful public servant.
better safe than sorry said…
Souza’s public record in office is full of “waffling”
item 1: he publicly stated that he would not be running for any elected office again if he was reelected to the Council.. I hear that he has RETHOUGHT this
item 2: he proclaimed from the dais that he(and his Coumcil-mates)were the “Deciders”(remind you of anybody??).. now he has assumed the mantle of a populist for his reelection campaign.
item 3: his participation with Saylor and Asmundson in trying to steamroll the CV process in just 9 months was an attempt to subvert
Measure J by denying the voters full participation and information.
The problem with Souza as Elaine Musser pointed out, is that his public record is so full of waffling, as his positions “evolve”, that one cannot count on his campaign promises,especially concerning Measure J.
better safe than sorry, you may be right, but lets take your analysis to the next step.
1) At last night’s Forum both Don Saylor and Sydney Vergis reaffirmed their positions regarding Measure J. Both said they wanted to look at changing the language. Their positions are clear.
2) Although Rob Roy did come out in favor of renewing measure J as is, lets be realistic abour Rob’s chances of winning a Council seat …
3) That leaves three “viable” candidates who have both verbally stated and submitted in writing that they support Measure J renewal “as is.”
If Measure J is the single issue that will determine your vote, then logic dictates that a vote for those three is a vote against the two who want to change Measure J. The chance of Souza “waffling” is very remote if he is sitting on the dias with Lamar, Sue, and Cecilia. He won’t have anything to gain.
better safe than sorry said…
Souza’s public record in office is full of “waffling”
item 1: he publicly stated that he would not be running for any elected office again if he was reelected to the Council.. I hear that he has RETHOUGHT this
item 2: he proclaimed from the dais that he(and his Coumcil-mates)were the “Deciders”(remind you of anybody??).. now he has assumed the mantle of a populist for his reelection campaign.
item 3: his participation with Saylor and Asmundson in trying to steamroll the CV process in just 9 months was an attempt to subvert
Measure J by denying the voters full participation and information.
The problem with Souza as Elaine Musser pointed out, is that his public record is so full of waffling, as his positions “evolve”, that one cannot count on his campaign promises,especially concerning Measure J.
better safe than sorry, you may be right, but lets take your analysis to the next step.
1) At last night’s Forum both Don Saylor and Sydney Vergis reaffirmed their positions regarding Measure J. Both said they wanted to look at changing the language. Their positions are clear.
2) Although Rob Roy did come out in favor of renewing measure J as is, lets be realistic abour Rob’s chances of winning a Council seat …
3) That leaves three “viable” candidates who have both verbally stated and submitted in writing that they support Measure J renewal “as is.”
If Measure J is the single issue that will determine your vote, then logic dictates that a vote for those three is a vote against the two who want to change Measure J. The chance of Souza “waffling” is very remote if he is sitting on the dias with Lamar, Sue, and Cecilia. He won’t have anything to gain.
better safe than sorry said…
Souza’s public record in office is full of “waffling”
item 1: he publicly stated that he would not be running for any elected office again if he was reelected to the Council.. I hear that he has RETHOUGHT this
item 2: he proclaimed from the dais that he(and his Coumcil-mates)were the “Deciders”(remind you of anybody??).. now he has assumed the mantle of a populist for his reelection campaign.
item 3: his participation with Saylor and Asmundson in trying to steamroll the CV process in just 9 months was an attempt to subvert
Measure J by denying the voters full participation and information.
The problem with Souza as Elaine Musser pointed out, is that his public record is so full of waffling, as his positions “evolve”, that one cannot count on his campaign promises,especially concerning Measure J.
better safe than sorry, you may be right, but lets take your analysis to the next step.
1) At last night’s Forum both Don Saylor and Sydney Vergis reaffirmed their positions regarding Measure J. Both said they wanted to look at changing the language. Their positions are clear.
2) Although Rob Roy did come out in favor of renewing measure J as is, lets be realistic abour Rob’s chances of winning a Council seat …
3) That leaves three “viable” candidates who have both verbally stated and submitted in writing that they support Measure J renewal “as is.”
If Measure J is the single issue that will determine your vote, then logic dictates that a vote for those three is a vote against the two who want to change Measure J. The chance of Souza “waffling” is very remote if he is sitting on the dias with Lamar, Sue, and Cecilia. He won’t have anything to gain.
better safe than sorry said…
Souza’s public record in office is full of “waffling”
item 1: he publicly stated that he would not be running for any elected office again if he was reelected to the Council.. I hear that he has RETHOUGHT this
item 2: he proclaimed from the dais that he(and his Coumcil-mates)were the “Deciders”(remind you of anybody??).. now he has assumed the mantle of a populist for his reelection campaign.
item 3: his participation with Saylor and Asmundson in trying to steamroll the CV process in just 9 months was an attempt to subvert
Measure J by denying the voters full participation and information.
The problem with Souza as Elaine Musser pointed out, is that his public record is so full of waffling, as his positions “evolve”, that one cannot count on his campaign promises,especially concerning Measure J.
better safe than sorry, you may be right, but lets take your analysis to the next step.
1) At last night’s Forum both Don Saylor and Sydney Vergis reaffirmed their positions regarding Measure J. Both said they wanted to look at changing the language. Their positions are clear.
2) Although Rob Roy did come out in favor of renewing measure J as is, lets be realistic abour Rob’s chances of winning a Council seat …
3) That leaves three “viable” candidates who have both verbally stated and submitted in writing that they support Measure J renewal “as is.”
If Measure J is the single issue that will determine your vote, then logic dictates that a vote for those three is a vote against the two who want to change Measure J. The chance of Souza “waffling” is very remote if he is sitting on the dias with Lamar, Sue, and Cecilia. He won’t have anything to gain.
“item 2: Stephen has always been a populist… did you read the article in the Enterprise? The man camped out at Mrak Hall for weeks for apartheid divestment, he walked thousands of miles in peace & anti-nuc marches”
And now he fights for the developers and cuts deals with the uc administration and about anyone else that help him get ahead. He’s a sellout.
“item 2: Stephen has always been a populist… did you read the article in the Enterprise? The man camped out at Mrak Hall for weeks for apartheid divestment, he walked thousands of miles in peace & anti-nuc marches”
And now he fights for the developers and cuts deals with the uc administration and about anyone else that help him get ahead. He’s a sellout.
“item 2: Stephen has always been a populist… did you read the article in the Enterprise? The man camped out at Mrak Hall for weeks for apartheid divestment, he walked thousands of miles in peace & anti-nuc marches”
And now he fights for the developers and cuts deals with the uc administration and about anyone else that help him get ahead. He’s a sellout.
“item 2: Stephen has always been a populist… did you read the article in the Enterprise? The man camped out at Mrak Hall for weeks for apartheid divestment, he walked thousands of miles in peace & anti-nuc marches”
And now he fights for the developers and cuts deals with the uc administration and about anyone else that help him get ahead. He’s a sellout.
Matt said:
The chance of Souza “waffling” is very remote if he is sitting on the dias with Lamar, Sue, and Cecilia. He won’t have anything to gain.
Matt: I will go for a council majority of Sue, Cecilia and Lamar. I will cast two votes for Sue and Cecilia. Your attempt to get a potential 4-1 Council in favor of the original Measure J renewal is overkill(3-2 is quite enough) and risks ending up with the same Asmundson,Saylor and Souza council majority. Souza’s history of “evolving” positions, his refusal to discuss Measure J from the dais, rather than campaign “promises”, until AFTER the June 3 election,and his clear public record in office favoring and receiving financial backing from developer-interests makes him too risky a bet as the swing vote in the next Council majority. I will go for a known and committed council majority and let Saylor and Souza fight it out themselves without my vote. If you are right about Souza’s commitment and he pulls off a win without the votes of those who see the protection of Measure J as the singular issue in this election , then we still have a majority to offer the original Measure J without amendments( did Souza actually preclude amendments?)for renewal in 2010. This is clearly the best strategy for the protection of our Measure J.
I am assuming Mayor Sue Greenwald’s reelection as her public record in office has been solidly consistent as an uncompromising advocate for the interests of the Davis voter.
Matt said:
The chance of Souza “waffling” is very remote if he is sitting on the dias with Lamar, Sue, and Cecilia. He won’t have anything to gain.
Matt: I will go for a council majority of Sue, Cecilia and Lamar. I will cast two votes for Sue and Cecilia. Your attempt to get a potential 4-1 Council in favor of the original Measure J renewal is overkill(3-2 is quite enough) and risks ending up with the same Asmundson,Saylor and Souza council majority. Souza’s history of “evolving” positions, his refusal to discuss Measure J from the dais, rather than campaign “promises”, until AFTER the June 3 election,and his clear public record in office favoring and receiving financial backing from developer-interests makes him too risky a bet as the swing vote in the next Council majority. I will go for a known and committed council majority and let Saylor and Souza fight it out themselves without my vote. If you are right about Souza’s commitment and he pulls off a win without the votes of those who see the protection of Measure J as the singular issue in this election , then we still have a majority to offer the original Measure J without amendments( did Souza actually preclude amendments?)for renewal in 2010. This is clearly the best strategy for the protection of our Measure J.
I am assuming Mayor Sue Greenwald’s reelection as her public record in office has been solidly consistent as an uncompromising advocate for the interests of the Davis voter.
Matt said:
The chance of Souza “waffling” is very remote if he is sitting on the dias with Lamar, Sue, and Cecilia. He won’t have anything to gain.
Matt: I will go for a council majority of Sue, Cecilia and Lamar. I will cast two votes for Sue and Cecilia. Your attempt to get a potential 4-1 Council in favor of the original Measure J renewal is overkill(3-2 is quite enough) and risks ending up with the same Asmundson,Saylor and Souza council majority. Souza’s history of “evolving” positions, his refusal to discuss Measure J from the dais, rather than campaign “promises”, until AFTER the June 3 election,and his clear public record in office favoring and receiving financial backing from developer-interests makes him too risky a bet as the swing vote in the next Council majority. I will go for a known and committed council majority and let Saylor and Souza fight it out themselves without my vote. If you are right about Souza’s commitment and he pulls off a win without the votes of those who see the protection of Measure J as the singular issue in this election , then we still have a majority to offer the original Measure J without amendments( did Souza actually preclude amendments?)for renewal in 2010. This is clearly the best strategy for the protection of our Measure J.
I am assuming Mayor Sue Greenwald’s reelection as her public record in office has been solidly consistent as an uncompromising advocate for the interests of the Davis voter.
Matt said:
The chance of Souza “waffling” is very remote if he is sitting on the dias with Lamar, Sue, and Cecilia. He won’t have anything to gain.
Matt: I will go for a council majority of Sue, Cecilia and Lamar. I will cast two votes for Sue and Cecilia. Your attempt to get a potential 4-1 Council in favor of the original Measure J renewal is overkill(3-2 is quite enough) and risks ending up with the same Asmundson,Saylor and Souza council majority. Souza’s history of “evolving” positions, his refusal to discuss Measure J from the dais, rather than campaign “promises”, until AFTER the June 3 election,and his clear public record in office favoring and receiving financial backing from developer-interests makes him too risky a bet as the swing vote in the next Council majority. I will go for a known and committed council majority and let Saylor and Souza fight it out themselves without my vote. If you are right about Souza’s commitment and he pulls off a win without the votes of those who see the protection of Measure J as the singular issue in this election , then we still have a majority to offer the original Measure J without amendments( did Souza actually preclude amendments?)for renewal in 2010. This is clearly the best strategy for the protection of our Measure J.
I am assuming Mayor Sue Greenwald’s reelection as her public record in office has been solidly consistent as an uncompromising advocate for the interests of the Davis voter.
“2) Although Rob Roy did come out in favor of renewing measure J as is, lets be realistic abour Rob’s chances of winning a Council seat …”
Don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. After listening to the candidates, Rob sounded a heck of a lot better than Souza or Vergis. He has always been supportive of Measure J; he is not in the pocket of developers; most of his answers were not unreasonable; he seemed fairly knowledgeable on the issues. Remember, Lamar was a neophyte once, and to a certain extent still is.
On the other hand, Souza sounded as if someone else had written his answers for him. His responses were couched in a lot of unnecessary verbiage that made his positions seem very murky, if you could even tell what those positions were. Verbiage he is not known for using, and that sounded quite phony. His “strong support of Measure J” is of recent vintage, bc he knows it would be political suicide to say anything else. Yet he was absolutely unwilling to talk about Measure J before the elections. Now why would that be?
Don Saylor came off sounding like he didn’t have a thought of his own – he kept agreeing with everyone else’s ideas.
Vergis came off as stilted, developer oriented, and clueless.
I wouldn’t count out Rob just yet…
“2) Although Rob Roy did come out in favor of renewing measure J as is, lets be realistic abour Rob’s chances of winning a Council seat …”
Don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. After listening to the candidates, Rob sounded a heck of a lot better than Souza or Vergis. He has always been supportive of Measure J; he is not in the pocket of developers; most of his answers were not unreasonable; he seemed fairly knowledgeable on the issues. Remember, Lamar was a neophyte once, and to a certain extent still is.
On the other hand, Souza sounded as if someone else had written his answers for him. His responses were couched in a lot of unnecessary verbiage that made his positions seem very murky, if you could even tell what those positions were. Verbiage he is not known for using, and that sounded quite phony. His “strong support of Measure J” is of recent vintage, bc he knows it would be political suicide to say anything else. Yet he was absolutely unwilling to talk about Measure J before the elections. Now why would that be?
Don Saylor came off sounding like he didn’t have a thought of his own – he kept agreeing with everyone else’s ideas.
Vergis came off as stilted, developer oriented, and clueless.
I wouldn’t count out Rob just yet…
“2) Although Rob Roy did come out in favor of renewing measure J as is, lets be realistic abour Rob’s chances of winning a Council seat …”
Don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. After listening to the candidates, Rob sounded a heck of a lot better than Souza or Vergis. He has always been supportive of Measure J; he is not in the pocket of developers; most of his answers were not unreasonable; he seemed fairly knowledgeable on the issues. Remember, Lamar was a neophyte once, and to a certain extent still is.
On the other hand, Souza sounded as if someone else had written his answers for him. His responses were couched in a lot of unnecessary verbiage that made his positions seem very murky, if you could even tell what those positions were. Verbiage he is not known for using, and that sounded quite phony. His “strong support of Measure J” is of recent vintage, bc he knows it would be political suicide to say anything else. Yet he was absolutely unwilling to talk about Measure J before the elections. Now why would that be?
Don Saylor came off sounding like he didn’t have a thought of his own – he kept agreeing with everyone else’s ideas.
Vergis came off as stilted, developer oriented, and clueless.
I wouldn’t count out Rob just yet…
“2) Although Rob Roy did come out in favor of renewing measure J as is, lets be realistic abour Rob’s chances of winning a Council seat …”
Don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. After listening to the candidates, Rob sounded a heck of a lot better than Souza or Vergis. He has always been supportive of Measure J; he is not in the pocket of developers; most of his answers were not unreasonable; he seemed fairly knowledgeable on the issues. Remember, Lamar was a neophyte once, and to a certain extent still is.
On the other hand, Souza sounded as if someone else had written his answers for him. His responses were couched in a lot of unnecessary verbiage that made his positions seem very murky, if you could even tell what those positions were. Verbiage he is not known for using, and that sounded quite phony. His “strong support of Measure J” is of recent vintage, bc he knows it would be political suicide to say anything else. Yet he was absolutely unwilling to talk about Measure J before the elections. Now why would that be?
Don Saylor came off sounding like he didn’t have a thought of his own – he kept agreeing with everyone else’s ideas.
Vergis came off as stilted, developer oriented, and clueless.
I wouldn’t count out Rob just yet…
better safe than sorry said…
Matt: I will go for a council majority of Sue, Cecilia and Lamar. I will cast two votes for Sue and Cecilia. Your attempt to get a potential 4-1 Council in favor of the original Measure J renewal is overkill (3-2 is quite enough) and risks ending up with the same Asmundson,Saylor and Souza council majority.
So what you are saying is that Saylor can’t be beaten.
You are also saying that Sue can’t be beaten.
I don’t happen to agree with either of those statements. The first, because Saylor’s unequivocal unwillingness to support the renewal of Measure
J isolates him from a huge portion of the Davis electorate. The second, because IMHO Sue (whom I support) is not running a sharp campaign thus far. She can reverse that trend, but to date she has been too often a day late and a dollar short. She needs to step it up.
What are you doing to make sure that your two candidates get the most possible votes?
better safe than sorry said…
Matt: I will go for a council majority of Sue, Cecilia and Lamar. I will cast two votes for Sue and Cecilia. Your attempt to get a potential 4-1 Council in favor of the original Measure J renewal is overkill (3-2 is quite enough) and risks ending up with the same Asmundson,Saylor and Souza council majority.
So what you are saying is that Saylor can’t be beaten.
You are also saying that Sue can’t be beaten.
I don’t happen to agree with either of those statements. The first, because Saylor’s unequivocal unwillingness to support the renewal of Measure
J isolates him from a huge portion of the Davis electorate. The second, because IMHO Sue (whom I support) is not running a sharp campaign thus far. She can reverse that trend, but to date she has been too often a day late and a dollar short. She needs to step it up.
What are you doing to make sure that your two candidates get the most possible votes?
better safe than sorry said…
Matt: I will go for a council majority of Sue, Cecilia and Lamar. I will cast two votes for Sue and Cecilia. Your attempt to get a potential 4-1 Council in favor of the original Measure J renewal is overkill (3-2 is quite enough) and risks ending up with the same Asmundson,Saylor and Souza council majority.
So what you are saying is that Saylor can’t be beaten.
You are also saying that Sue can’t be beaten.
I don’t happen to agree with either of those statements. The first, because Saylor’s unequivocal unwillingness to support the renewal of Measure
J isolates him from a huge portion of the Davis electorate. The second, because IMHO Sue (whom I support) is not running a sharp campaign thus far. She can reverse that trend, but to date she has been too often a day late and a dollar short. She needs to step it up.
What are you doing to make sure that your two candidates get the most possible votes?
better safe than sorry said…
Matt: I will go for a council majority of Sue, Cecilia and Lamar. I will cast two votes for Sue and Cecilia. Your attempt to get a potential 4-1 Council in favor of the original Measure J renewal is overkill (3-2 is quite enough) and risks ending up with the same Asmundson,Saylor and Souza council majority.
So what you are saying is that Saylor can’t be beaten.
You are also saying that Sue can’t be beaten.
I don’t happen to agree with either of those statements. The first, because Saylor’s unequivocal unwillingness to support the renewal of Measure
J isolates him from a huge portion of the Davis electorate. The second, because IMHO Sue (whom I support) is not running a sharp campaign thus far. She can reverse that trend, but to date she has been too often a day late and a dollar short. She needs to step it up.
What are you doing to make sure that your two candidates get the most possible votes?
Against Waffling said…
Don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. After listening to the candidates, Rob sounded a heck of a lot better than Souza or Vergis. He has always been supportive of Measure J; he is not in the pocket of developers; most of his answers were not unreasonable; he seemed fairly knowledgeable on the issues. Remember, Lamar was a neophyte once, and to a certain extent still is.
On the other hand, Souza sounded as if someone else had written his answers for him. His responses were couched in a lot of unnecessary verbiage that made his positions seem very murky, if you could even tell what those positions were. Verbiage he is not known for using, and that sounded quite phony. His “strong support of Measure J” is of recent vintage, bc he knows it would be political suicide to say anything else. Yet he was absolutely unwilling to talk about Measure J before the elections. Now why would that be?
I wouldn’t count out Rob just yet…
AW, your optimism about Rob’s chances is admirable. Rob and I have talked about what he is up against, and he deserves a huge amount of credit for the effort he is making. he also knows that being “fairly knowledgeable on the issues” isn’t enough and he is continuing to strive for a whole lot more than fairly knowledgeable.
Your statement about Souza is flat out wrong. Go to the streaming video of the Council meeting where he said what you are saying he said. The proof of your error is right there in the stream. he said that he was unwilling to talk about Measure J before the elections from the City Council dias. He further stated that the correct place for such political statements was at the candidate forums.
Facts are facts, and opinions are opinions. I realize it is your opinion that Souza doesn’t deserve your vote. It is probably a fact that you won’t be voting for Souza. I respect your right to feel and act any way you want. That is the beauty of democracy.
Against Waffling said…
Don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. After listening to the candidates, Rob sounded a heck of a lot better than Souza or Vergis. He has always been supportive of Measure J; he is not in the pocket of developers; most of his answers were not unreasonable; he seemed fairly knowledgeable on the issues. Remember, Lamar was a neophyte once, and to a certain extent still is.
On the other hand, Souza sounded as if someone else had written his answers for him. His responses were couched in a lot of unnecessary verbiage that made his positions seem very murky, if you could even tell what those positions were. Verbiage he is not known for using, and that sounded quite phony. His “strong support of Measure J” is of recent vintage, bc he knows it would be political suicide to say anything else. Yet he was absolutely unwilling to talk about Measure J before the elections. Now why would that be?
I wouldn’t count out Rob just yet…
AW, your optimism about Rob’s chances is admirable. Rob and I have talked about what he is up against, and he deserves a huge amount of credit for the effort he is making. he also knows that being “fairly knowledgeable on the issues” isn’t enough and he is continuing to strive for a whole lot more than fairly knowledgeable.
Your statement about Souza is flat out wrong. Go to the streaming video of the Council meeting where he said what you are saying he said. The proof of your error is right there in the stream. he said that he was unwilling to talk about Measure J before the elections from the City Council dias. He further stated that the correct place for such political statements was at the candidate forums.
Facts are facts, and opinions are opinions. I realize it is your opinion that Souza doesn’t deserve your vote. It is probably a fact that you won’t be voting for Souza. I respect your right to feel and act any way you want. That is the beauty of democracy.
Against Waffling said…
Don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. After listening to the candidates, Rob sounded a heck of a lot better than Souza or Vergis. He has always been supportive of Measure J; he is not in the pocket of developers; most of his answers were not unreasonable; he seemed fairly knowledgeable on the issues. Remember, Lamar was a neophyte once, and to a certain extent still is.
On the other hand, Souza sounded as if someone else had written his answers for him. His responses were couched in a lot of unnecessary verbiage that made his positions seem very murky, if you could even tell what those positions were. Verbiage he is not known for using, and that sounded quite phony. His “strong support of Measure J” is of recent vintage, bc he knows it would be political suicide to say anything else. Yet he was absolutely unwilling to talk about Measure J before the elections. Now why would that be?
I wouldn’t count out Rob just yet…
AW, your optimism about Rob’s chances is admirable. Rob and I have talked about what he is up against, and he deserves a huge amount of credit for the effort he is making. he also knows that being “fairly knowledgeable on the issues” isn’t enough and he is continuing to strive for a whole lot more than fairly knowledgeable.
Your statement about Souza is flat out wrong. Go to the streaming video of the Council meeting where he said what you are saying he said. The proof of your error is right there in the stream. he said that he was unwilling to talk about Measure J before the elections from the City Council dias. He further stated that the correct place for such political statements was at the candidate forums.
Facts are facts, and opinions are opinions. I realize it is your opinion that Souza doesn’t deserve your vote. It is probably a fact that you won’t be voting for Souza. I respect your right to feel and act any way you want. That is the beauty of democracy.
Against Waffling said…
Don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. After listening to the candidates, Rob sounded a heck of a lot better than Souza or Vergis. He has always been supportive of Measure J; he is not in the pocket of developers; most of his answers were not unreasonable; he seemed fairly knowledgeable on the issues. Remember, Lamar was a neophyte once, and to a certain extent still is.
On the other hand, Souza sounded as if someone else had written his answers for him. His responses were couched in a lot of unnecessary verbiage that made his positions seem very murky, if you could even tell what those positions were. Verbiage he is not known for using, and that sounded quite phony. His “strong support of Measure J” is of recent vintage, bc he knows it would be political suicide to say anything else. Yet he was absolutely unwilling to talk about Measure J before the elections. Now why would that be?
I wouldn’t count out Rob just yet…
AW, your optimism about Rob’s chances is admirable. Rob and I have talked about what he is up against, and he deserves a huge amount of credit for the effort he is making. he also knows that being “fairly knowledgeable on the issues” isn’t enough and he is continuing to strive for a whole lot more than fairly knowledgeable.
Your statement about Souza is flat out wrong. Go to the streaming video of the Council meeting where he said what you are saying he said. The proof of your error is right there in the stream. he said that he was unwilling to talk about Measure J before the elections from the City Council dias. He further stated that the correct place for such political statements was at the candidate forums.
Facts are facts, and opinions are opinions. I realize it is your opinion that Souza doesn’t deserve your vote. It is probably a fact that you won’t be voting for Souza. I respect your right to feel and act any way you want. That is the beauty of democracy.
“What are you doing to make sure that your two candidates get the most possible votes?”
I give the maximum campaign contribution and I walk precincts.
Anyone who is concerned about the future of our Measure J needs to do the same.. this is a lot easier having gather signatures and run another Measure J initiative campaign.
Matt: Your critical analytical skills, which I usually find excellent, seem to experience a “blind spot” on this subject. No one said that Saylor is “unbeatable”, but one must take the best possible strategy to protect Measure J, looking at all potential possibilites. I AM assuming Mayor Greenwald’s reelection. Mayor Greenwald has been consistent in delivering on her campaign promises to the voters who cast their votes for her the last time when she garnered the most votes and was elected Mayor Pro Tem; this is clearly not the case for Saylor and Souza who are desperately attempting to reinvent themselves and rewrite/obscure their public record. If Sue loses, then the fate of Measure J is extremely doubtful; all past personal/ political “hurts” of pro-Measure J voters need to be set aside for this election as we rally around Sue and Cecilia. Matt…please reread my voting plan and explanation. Where do you find it flawed as the best chance of protecting Measure J?
As for Against Waffling’s comment about Souza not being willing to talk about Measure J before the election. There is a big difference between making a campaign statement in a forum and TALKING about Measure J in a public give and take discussion from Council dais.. this is what Souza has adamently refused to do until AFTER the June election is over.
“What are you doing to make sure that your two candidates get the most possible votes?”
I give the maximum campaign contribution and I walk precincts.
Anyone who is concerned about the future of our Measure J needs to do the same.. this is a lot easier having gather signatures and run another Measure J initiative campaign.
Matt: Your critical analytical skills, which I usually find excellent, seem to experience a “blind spot” on this subject. No one said that Saylor is “unbeatable”, but one must take the best possible strategy to protect Measure J, looking at all potential possibilites. I AM assuming Mayor Greenwald’s reelection. Mayor Greenwald has been consistent in delivering on her campaign promises to the voters who cast their votes for her the last time when she garnered the most votes and was elected Mayor Pro Tem; this is clearly not the case for Saylor and Souza who are desperately attempting to reinvent themselves and rewrite/obscure their public record. If Sue loses, then the fate of Measure J is extremely doubtful; all past personal/ political “hurts” of pro-Measure J voters need to be set aside for this election as we rally around Sue and Cecilia. Matt…please reread my voting plan and explanation. Where do you find it flawed as the best chance of protecting Measure J?
As for Against Waffling’s comment about Souza not being willing to talk about Measure J before the election. There is a big difference between making a campaign statement in a forum and TALKING about Measure J in a public give and take discussion from Council dais.. this is what Souza has adamently refused to do until AFTER the June election is over.
“What are you doing to make sure that your two candidates get the most possible votes?”
I give the maximum campaign contribution and I walk precincts.
Anyone who is concerned about the future of our Measure J needs to do the same.. this is a lot easier having gather signatures and run another Measure J initiative campaign.
Matt: Your critical analytical skills, which I usually find excellent, seem to experience a “blind spot” on this subject. No one said that Saylor is “unbeatable”, but one must take the best possible strategy to protect Measure J, looking at all potential possibilites. I AM assuming Mayor Greenwald’s reelection. Mayor Greenwald has been consistent in delivering on her campaign promises to the voters who cast their votes for her the last time when she garnered the most votes and was elected Mayor Pro Tem; this is clearly not the case for Saylor and Souza who are desperately attempting to reinvent themselves and rewrite/obscure their public record. If Sue loses, then the fate of Measure J is extremely doubtful; all past personal/ political “hurts” of pro-Measure J voters need to be set aside for this election as we rally around Sue and Cecilia. Matt…please reread my voting plan and explanation. Where do you find it flawed as the best chance of protecting Measure J?
As for Against Waffling’s comment about Souza not being willing to talk about Measure J before the election. There is a big difference between making a campaign statement in a forum and TALKING about Measure J in a public give and take discussion from Council dais.. this is what Souza has adamently refused to do until AFTER the June election is over.
“What are you doing to make sure that your two candidates get the most possible votes?”
I give the maximum campaign contribution and I walk precincts.
Anyone who is concerned about the future of our Measure J needs to do the same.. this is a lot easier having gather signatures and run another Measure J initiative campaign.
Matt: Your critical analytical skills, which I usually find excellent, seem to experience a “blind spot” on this subject. No one said that Saylor is “unbeatable”, but one must take the best possible strategy to protect Measure J, looking at all potential possibilites. I AM assuming Mayor Greenwald’s reelection. Mayor Greenwald has been consistent in delivering on her campaign promises to the voters who cast their votes for her the last time when she garnered the most votes and was elected Mayor Pro Tem; this is clearly not the case for Saylor and Souza who are desperately attempting to reinvent themselves and rewrite/obscure their public record. If Sue loses, then the fate of Measure J is extremely doubtful; all past personal/ political “hurts” of pro-Measure J voters need to be set aside for this election as we rally around Sue and Cecilia. Matt…please reread my voting plan and explanation. Where do you find it flawed as the best chance of protecting Measure J?
As for Against Waffling’s comment about Souza not being willing to talk about Measure J before the election. There is a big difference between making a campaign statement in a forum and TALKING about Measure J in a public give and take discussion from Council dais.. this is what Souza has adamently refused to do until AFTER the June election is over.
better safe than sorry said…
I give the maximum campaign contribution and I walk precincts.
Anyone who is concerned about the future of our Measure J needs to do the same.. this is a lot easier than having to gather signatures and run another Measure J initiative campaign.
Good. The key to this election is going to be voter turnout. Actively walking precincts is going to overcome the natural apathy that the absence of any state or national races will create.
Matt: Your critical analytical skills, which I usually find excellent, seem to experience a “blind spot” on this subject. No one said that Saylor is “unbeatable”, but one must take the best possible strategy to protect Measure J, looking at all potential possibilites.
I completely agree. You appear to be afraid of some of those possibilities. Which ones concern you?
I AM assuming Mayor Greenwald’s reelection. Mayor Greenwald has been consistent in delivering on her campaign promises to the voters who cast their votes for her the last time when she garnered the most votes and was elected Mayor Pro Tem.
If elections and voters were logical I would agree with you, but history says otherwise … not specifically in Davis, but in elections everywhere. The personal loyalties to Sue are only as good as the actual voters who come to the polls on Election Day.
This is clearly not the case for Saylor and Souza who are desperately attempting to reinvent themselves and rewrite/obscure their public record.
Do you really think Saylor is trying to rewrite his record? I don’t see any evidence of that.
Matt…please reread my voting plan and explanation. Where do you find it flawed as the best chance of protecting Measure J?
The flaw is that you are placing all your eggs in the Sue will win basket. Thus far she hasn’t been running an inspired campaign. She appears to believe like you do that past loyalties will carry her. Look at the weekly listing of the candidates’ activities. Compare her, “Go to my website” listing to all the others’. She is in danger of being outworked, and as a result outvoted.
As for Against Waffling’s comment about Souza not being willing to talk about Measure J before the election. There is a big difference between making a campaign statement in a forum and TALKING about Measure J in a public give and take discussion from Council dais.. this is what Souza has adamently refused to do until AFTER the June election is over.
How are words in a Council meeting
any different that words in three Candidates Forums? Not only that, but all six candidates submitted their positions on last night’s Forum questions in writing. On tape … On paper … what more do you want?
better safe than sorry said…
I give the maximum campaign contribution and I walk precincts.
Anyone who is concerned about the future of our Measure J needs to do the same.. this is a lot easier than having to gather signatures and run another Measure J initiative campaign.
Good. The key to this election is going to be voter turnout. Actively walking precincts is going to overcome the natural apathy that the absence of any state or national races will create.
Matt: Your critical analytical skills, which I usually find excellent, seem to experience a “blind spot” on this subject. No one said that Saylor is “unbeatable”, but one must take the best possible strategy to protect Measure J, looking at all potential possibilites.
I completely agree. You appear to be afraid of some of those possibilities. Which ones concern you?
I AM assuming Mayor Greenwald’s reelection. Mayor Greenwald has been consistent in delivering on her campaign promises to the voters who cast their votes for her the last time when she garnered the most votes and was elected Mayor Pro Tem.
If elections and voters were logical I would agree with you, but history says otherwise … not specifically in Davis, but in elections everywhere. The personal loyalties to Sue are only as good as the actual voters who come to the polls on Election Day.
This is clearly not the case for Saylor and Souza who are desperately attempting to reinvent themselves and rewrite/obscure their public record.
Do you really think Saylor is trying to rewrite his record? I don’t see any evidence of that.
Matt…please reread my voting plan and explanation. Where do you find it flawed as the best chance of protecting Measure J?
The flaw is that you are placing all your eggs in the Sue will win basket. Thus far she hasn’t been running an inspired campaign. She appears to believe like you do that past loyalties will carry her. Look at the weekly listing of the candidates’ activities. Compare her, “Go to my website” listing to all the others’. She is in danger of being outworked, and as a result outvoted.
As for Against Waffling’s comment about Souza not being willing to talk about Measure J before the election. There is a big difference between making a campaign statement in a forum and TALKING about Measure J in a public give and take discussion from Council dais.. this is what Souza has adamently refused to do until AFTER the June election is over.
How are words in a Council meeting
any different that words in three Candidates Forums? Not only that, but all six candidates submitted their positions on last night’s Forum questions in writing. On tape … On paper … what more do you want?
better safe than sorry said…
I give the maximum campaign contribution and I walk precincts.
Anyone who is concerned about the future of our Measure J needs to do the same.. this is a lot easier than having to gather signatures and run another Measure J initiative campaign.
Good. The key to this election is going to be voter turnout. Actively walking precincts is going to overcome the natural apathy that the absence of any state or national races will create.
Matt: Your critical analytical skills, which I usually find excellent, seem to experience a “blind spot” on this subject. No one said that Saylor is “unbeatable”, but one must take the best possible strategy to protect Measure J, looking at all potential possibilites.
I completely agree. You appear to be afraid of some of those possibilities. Which ones concern you?
I AM assuming Mayor Greenwald’s reelection. Mayor Greenwald has been consistent in delivering on her campaign promises to the voters who cast their votes for her the last time when she garnered the most votes and was elected Mayor Pro Tem.
If elections and voters were logical I would agree with you, but history says otherwise … not specifically in Davis, but in elections everywhere. The personal loyalties to Sue are only as good as the actual voters who come to the polls on Election Day.
This is clearly not the case for Saylor and Souza who are desperately attempting to reinvent themselves and rewrite/obscure their public record.
Do you really think Saylor is trying to rewrite his record? I don’t see any evidence of that.
Matt…please reread my voting plan and explanation. Where do you find it flawed as the best chance of protecting Measure J?
The flaw is that you are placing all your eggs in the Sue will win basket. Thus far she hasn’t been running an inspired campaign. She appears to believe like you do that past loyalties will carry her. Look at the weekly listing of the candidates’ activities. Compare her, “Go to my website” listing to all the others’. She is in danger of being outworked, and as a result outvoted.
As for Against Waffling’s comment about Souza not being willing to talk about Measure J before the election. There is a big difference between making a campaign statement in a forum and TALKING about Measure J in a public give and take discussion from Council dais.. this is what Souza has adamently refused to do until AFTER the June election is over.
How are words in a Council meeting
any different that words in three Candidates Forums? Not only that, but all six candidates submitted their positions on last night’s Forum questions in writing. On tape … On paper … what more do you want?
better safe than sorry said…
I give the maximum campaign contribution and I walk precincts.
Anyone who is concerned about the future of our Measure J needs to do the same.. this is a lot easier than having to gather signatures and run another Measure J initiative campaign.
Good. The key to this election is going to be voter turnout. Actively walking precincts is going to overcome the natural apathy that the absence of any state or national races will create.
Matt: Your critical analytical skills, which I usually find excellent, seem to experience a “blind spot” on this subject. No one said that Saylor is “unbeatable”, but one must take the best possible strategy to protect Measure J, looking at all potential possibilites.
I completely agree. You appear to be afraid of some of those possibilities. Which ones concern you?
I AM assuming Mayor Greenwald’s reelection. Mayor Greenwald has been consistent in delivering on her campaign promises to the voters who cast their votes for her the last time when she garnered the most votes and was elected Mayor Pro Tem.
If elections and voters were logical I would agree with you, but history says otherwise … not specifically in Davis, but in elections everywhere. The personal loyalties to Sue are only as good as the actual voters who come to the polls on Election Day.
This is clearly not the case for Saylor and Souza who are desperately attempting to reinvent themselves and rewrite/obscure their public record.
Do you really think Saylor is trying to rewrite his record? I don’t see any evidence of that.
Matt…please reread my voting plan and explanation. Where do you find it flawed as the best chance of protecting Measure J?
The flaw is that you are placing all your eggs in the Sue will win basket. Thus far she hasn’t been running an inspired campaign. She appears to believe like you do that past loyalties will carry her. Look at the weekly listing of the candidates’ activities. Compare her, “Go to my website” listing to all the others’. She is in danger of being outworked, and as a result outvoted.
As for Against Waffling’s comment about Souza not being willing to talk about Measure J before the election. There is a big difference between making a campaign statement in a forum and TALKING about Measure J in a public give and take discussion from Council dais.. this is what Souza has adamently refused to do until AFTER the June election is over.
How are words in a Council meeting
any different that words in three Candidates Forums? Not only that, but all six candidates submitted their positions on last night’s Forum questions in writing. On tape … On paper … what more do you want?
Oh I forgot, also on the People’s Vanguard of Davis …
While the city council has determined that they will wait until after the election to determine the future of Measure J, the council candidates have all come forward with positions on Measure J.
Sue Greenwald has simply said she wants to renew it.
Stephen Souza: “Renew it in the form that it’s in.”
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald: Renew and make it permanent.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
posted by Doug Paul Davis at 6:14 AM on Apr 30, 2008
Oh I forgot, also on the People’s Vanguard of Davis …
While the city council has determined that they will wait until after the election to determine the future of Measure J, the council candidates have all come forward with positions on Measure J.
Sue Greenwald has simply said she wants to renew it.
Stephen Souza: “Renew it in the form that it’s in.”
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald: Renew and make it permanent.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
posted by Doug Paul Davis at 6:14 AM on Apr 30, 2008
Oh I forgot, also on the People’s Vanguard of Davis …
While the city council has determined that they will wait until after the election to determine the future of Measure J, the council candidates have all come forward with positions on Measure J.
Sue Greenwald has simply said she wants to renew it.
Stephen Souza: “Renew it in the form that it’s in.”
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald: Renew and make it permanent.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
posted by Doug Paul Davis at 6:14 AM on Apr 30, 2008
Oh I forgot, also on the People’s Vanguard of Davis …
While the city council has determined that they will wait until after the election to determine the future of Measure J, the council candidates have all come forward with positions on Measure J.
Sue Greenwald has simply said she wants to renew it.
Stephen Souza: “Renew it in the form that it’s in.”
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald: Renew and make it permanent.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
posted by Doug Paul Davis at 6:14 AM on Apr 30, 2008
“Do you really think Saylor is trying to rewrite his record? I don’t see any evidence of that.”
did you hear him claim credit last evening in his shopping list of “achievements” that he and his Council majority honored the Measure J ordinance and put CV to a Measure X vote?
“The flaw is that you are placing all your eggs in the Sue will win basket.”
From a Measure J protection position, not so.
If we agree that there are 4 viable candidates and Sue loses, then the three winners are Souza,Cecilia and Saylor. You will still have your Measure J protection with a Steve, Cecilia, Lamar majority(if you do trust Souza’s campaign pledge).
“Do you really think Saylor is trying to rewrite his record? I don’t see any evidence of that.”
did you hear him claim credit last evening in his shopping list of “achievements” that he and his Council majority honored the Measure J ordinance and put CV to a Measure X vote?
“The flaw is that you are placing all your eggs in the Sue will win basket.”
From a Measure J protection position, not so.
If we agree that there are 4 viable candidates and Sue loses, then the three winners are Souza,Cecilia and Saylor. You will still have your Measure J protection with a Steve, Cecilia, Lamar majority(if you do trust Souza’s campaign pledge).
“Do you really think Saylor is trying to rewrite his record? I don’t see any evidence of that.”
did you hear him claim credit last evening in his shopping list of “achievements” that he and his Council majority honored the Measure J ordinance and put CV to a Measure X vote?
“The flaw is that you are placing all your eggs in the Sue will win basket.”
From a Measure J protection position, not so.
If we agree that there are 4 viable candidates and Sue loses, then the three winners are Souza,Cecilia and Saylor. You will still have your Measure J protection with a Steve, Cecilia, Lamar majority(if you do trust Souza’s campaign pledge).
“Do you really think Saylor is trying to rewrite his record? I don’t see any evidence of that.”
did you hear him claim credit last evening in his shopping list of “achievements” that he and his Council majority honored the Measure J ordinance and put CV to a Measure X vote?
“The flaw is that you are placing all your eggs in the Sue will win basket.”
From a Measure J protection position, not so.
If we agree that there are 4 viable candidates and Sue loses, then the three winners are Souza,Cecilia and Saylor. You will still have your Measure J protection with a Steve, Cecilia, Lamar majority(if you do trust Souza’s campaign pledge).
better safe than sorry said…
From a Measure J protection position, not so. If we agree that there are 4 viable candidates and Sue loses, then the three winners are Souza, Cecilia and Saylor. You will still have your Measure J protection with a Steve, Cecilia, Lamar majority (if you do trust Souza’s campaign pledge).
You have gotten to the heart of the matter. For the pro-Measure J voter the most important key to this election is to push Saylor out of the top 3 vote getters. Given the Measure J alignment that has recently become clear, some of Souza’s supporters should be able to swing toward Cecilia and Sue rather than toward Don and Sydney. Measure J needs those pro-Souza votes.
better safe than sorry said…
From a Measure J protection position, not so. If we agree that there are 4 viable candidates and Sue loses, then the three winners are Souza, Cecilia and Saylor. You will still have your Measure J protection with a Steve, Cecilia, Lamar majority (if you do trust Souza’s campaign pledge).
You have gotten to the heart of the matter. For the pro-Measure J voter the most important key to this election is to push Saylor out of the top 3 vote getters. Given the Measure J alignment that has recently become clear, some of Souza’s supporters should be able to swing toward Cecilia and Sue rather than toward Don and Sydney. Measure J needs those pro-Souza votes.
better safe than sorry said…
From a Measure J protection position, not so. If we agree that there are 4 viable candidates and Sue loses, then the three winners are Souza, Cecilia and Saylor. You will still have your Measure J protection with a Steve, Cecilia, Lamar majority (if you do trust Souza’s campaign pledge).
You have gotten to the heart of the matter. For the pro-Measure J voter the most important key to this election is to push Saylor out of the top 3 vote getters. Given the Measure J alignment that has recently become clear, some of Souza’s supporters should be able to swing toward Cecilia and Sue rather than toward Don and Sydney. Measure J needs those pro-Souza votes.
better safe than sorry said…
From a Measure J protection position, not so. If we agree that there are 4 viable candidates and Sue loses, then the three winners are Souza, Cecilia and Saylor. You will still have your Measure J protection with a Steve, Cecilia, Lamar majority (if you do trust Souza’s campaign pledge).
You have gotten to the heart of the matter. For the pro-Measure J voter the most important key to this election is to push Saylor out of the top 3 vote getters. Given the Measure J alignment that has recently become clear, some of Souza’s supporters should be able to swing toward Cecilia and Sue rather than toward Don and Sydney. Measure J needs those pro-Souza votes.
“For the pro-Measure J voter the most important key to this election is to push Saylor out of the top 3 vote getters”
Again, I disagree.One doesn’t have to look any further than the fact that there will be three winners. If Saylor manages a win, then the other two will be permutations of (1) Sue and Steve, (2)Sue and Cecilia or (3) Steve and Cecilia with Lamar and Ruth making up a potentialnext Council majority. (2)is to my mind the most solid commitment to putting Measure J in its original form before the voters without any accompanying amended versions in an attempt to “game” the system to favor anti-populist ideology. It sounds like you believe that (1) and (3) are equally committed duos( has the Enterprise “misread” Souza in their endorsement?). I believe that Souza’s public record in office challenges your assumption.
“For the pro-Measure J voter the most important key to this election is to push Saylor out of the top 3 vote getters”
Again, I disagree.One doesn’t have to look any further than the fact that there will be three winners. If Saylor manages a win, then the other two will be permutations of (1) Sue and Steve, (2)Sue and Cecilia or (3) Steve and Cecilia with Lamar and Ruth making up a potentialnext Council majority. (2)is to my mind the most solid commitment to putting Measure J in its original form before the voters without any accompanying amended versions in an attempt to “game” the system to favor anti-populist ideology. It sounds like you believe that (1) and (3) are equally committed duos( has the Enterprise “misread” Souza in their endorsement?). I believe that Souza’s public record in office challenges your assumption.
“For the pro-Measure J voter the most important key to this election is to push Saylor out of the top 3 vote getters”
Again, I disagree.One doesn’t have to look any further than the fact that there will be three winners. If Saylor manages a win, then the other two will be permutations of (1) Sue and Steve, (2)Sue and Cecilia or (3) Steve and Cecilia with Lamar and Ruth making up a potentialnext Council majority. (2)is to my mind the most solid commitment to putting Measure J in its original form before the voters without any accompanying amended versions in an attempt to “game” the system to favor anti-populist ideology. It sounds like you believe that (1) and (3) are equally committed duos( has the Enterprise “misread” Souza in their endorsement?). I believe that Souza’s public record in office challenges your assumption.
“For the pro-Measure J voter the most important key to this election is to push Saylor out of the top 3 vote getters”
Again, I disagree.One doesn’t have to look any further than the fact that there will be three winners. If Saylor manages a win, then the other two will be permutations of (1) Sue and Steve, (2)Sue and Cecilia or (3) Steve and Cecilia with Lamar and Ruth making up a potentialnext Council majority. (2)is to my mind the most solid commitment to putting Measure J in its original form before the voters without any accompanying amended versions in an attempt to “game” the system to favor anti-populist ideology. It sounds like you believe that (1) and (3) are equally committed duos( has the Enterprise “misread” Souza in their endorsement?). I believe that Souza’s public record in office challenges your assumption.
Your worst-case scenerio, Saylor does win and the next Council majority is either solidly pro-Measure J or a council majority with Steve Souza as the swing vote. Are you suggesting that if pro-Measure J voters come out in his support for reelection, that will significantly influence his political stance on Measure J in 2010?
Your worst-case scenerio, Saylor does win and the next Council majority is either solidly pro-Measure J or a council majority with Steve Souza as the swing vote. Are you suggesting that if pro-Measure J voters come out in his support for reelection, that will significantly influence his political stance on Measure J in 2010?
Your worst-case scenerio, Saylor does win and the next Council majority is either solidly pro-Measure J or a council majority with Steve Souza as the swing vote. Are you suggesting that if pro-Measure J voters come out in his support for reelection, that will significantly influence his political stance on Measure J in 2010?
Your worst-case scenerio, Saylor does win and the next Council majority is either solidly pro-Measure J or a council majority with Steve Souza as the swing vote. Are you suggesting that if pro-Measure J voters come out in his support for reelection, that will significantly influence his political stance on Measure J in 2010?
Matt… as I sit here , it suddenly came to me why we appear to be miscommunicating. While you are arguing that Souza has COMMITTED to protecting Measure J as it is, your strategy argument belies that belief in his commitment.
Matt… as I sit here , it suddenly came to me why we appear to be miscommunicating. While you are arguing that Souza has COMMITTED to protecting Measure J as it is, your strategy argument belies that belief in his commitment.
Matt… as I sit here , it suddenly came to me why we appear to be miscommunicating. While you are arguing that Souza has COMMITTED to protecting Measure J as it is, your strategy argument belies that belief in his commitment.
Matt… as I sit here , it suddenly came to me why we appear to be miscommunicating. While you are arguing that Souza has COMMITTED to protecting Measure J as it is, your strategy argument belies that belief in his commitment.
better safe than sorry said…
Again, I disagree. One doesn’t have to look any further than the fact that there will be three winners. If Saylor manages a win, then the other two will be permutations of (1) Sue and Steve, (2)Sue and Cecilia or (3) Steve and Cecilia with Lamar and Ruth making up a potential next Council majority. (2)is to my mind the most solid commitment to putting Measure J in its original form before the voters without any accompanying amended versions in an attempt to “game” the system to favor anti-populist ideology. It sounds like you believe that (1) and (3) are equally committed duos(has the Enterprise “misread” Souza in their endorsement?). I believe that Souza’s public record in office challenges your assumption.
We will have to agree to disagree.
With that said, I’ll explain my logic. If Saylor is defeated, that leaves Cecilia, Sue, Rob and Sydney as the remaining possibilities to fill the three seats.
Scenario 1) All combinations of Cecilia and Sue = guaranteed 4 or 3 votes for Measure J
Scenario 2) All other combinations = guaranteed 3 votes for Measure J if the candidates stick to their campaign statements
Defeating Saylor puts Measure J in a no-lose situation. Not defeating Saylor creates scenarios (like the Enterprise’s rumored endorsement where there are 3 Council members committed to changing the wording of Measure J). In addition having Saylor and Asmundson on the Council means more pressure on any swing vote.
Logic dictates that you work for the no-lose situation if you are a Measure J supporter.
better safe than sorry said…
Again, I disagree. One doesn’t have to look any further than the fact that there will be three winners. If Saylor manages a win, then the other two will be permutations of (1) Sue and Steve, (2)Sue and Cecilia or (3) Steve and Cecilia with Lamar and Ruth making up a potential next Council majority. (2)is to my mind the most solid commitment to putting Measure J in its original form before the voters without any accompanying amended versions in an attempt to “game” the system to favor anti-populist ideology. It sounds like you believe that (1) and (3) are equally committed duos(has the Enterprise “misread” Souza in their endorsement?). I believe that Souza’s public record in office challenges your assumption.
We will have to agree to disagree.
With that said, I’ll explain my logic. If Saylor is defeated, that leaves Cecilia, Sue, Rob and Sydney as the remaining possibilities to fill the three seats.
Scenario 1) All combinations of Cecilia and Sue = guaranteed 4 or 3 votes for Measure J
Scenario 2) All other combinations = guaranteed 3 votes for Measure J if the candidates stick to their campaign statements
Defeating Saylor puts Measure J in a no-lose situation. Not defeating Saylor creates scenarios (like the Enterprise’s rumored endorsement where there are 3 Council members committed to changing the wording of Measure J). In addition having Saylor and Asmundson on the Council means more pressure on any swing vote.
Logic dictates that you work for the no-lose situation if you are a Measure J supporter.
better safe than sorry said…
Again, I disagree. One doesn’t have to look any further than the fact that there will be three winners. If Saylor manages a win, then the other two will be permutations of (1) Sue and Steve, (2)Sue and Cecilia or (3) Steve and Cecilia with Lamar and Ruth making up a potential next Council majority. (2)is to my mind the most solid commitment to putting Measure J in its original form before the voters without any accompanying amended versions in an attempt to “game” the system to favor anti-populist ideology. It sounds like you believe that (1) and (3) are equally committed duos(has the Enterprise “misread” Souza in their endorsement?). I believe that Souza’s public record in office challenges your assumption.
We will have to agree to disagree.
With that said, I’ll explain my logic. If Saylor is defeated, that leaves Cecilia, Sue, Rob and Sydney as the remaining possibilities to fill the three seats.
Scenario 1) All combinations of Cecilia and Sue = guaranteed 4 or 3 votes for Measure J
Scenario 2) All other combinations = guaranteed 3 votes for Measure J if the candidates stick to their campaign statements
Defeating Saylor puts Measure J in a no-lose situation. Not defeating Saylor creates scenarios (like the Enterprise’s rumored endorsement where there are 3 Council members committed to changing the wording of Measure J). In addition having Saylor and Asmundson on the Council means more pressure on any swing vote.
Logic dictates that you work for the no-lose situation if you are a Measure J supporter.
better safe than sorry said…
Again, I disagree. One doesn’t have to look any further than the fact that there will be three winners. If Saylor manages a win, then the other two will be permutations of (1) Sue and Steve, (2)Sue and Cecilia or (3) Steve and Cecilia with Lamar and Ruth making up a potential next Council majority. (2)is to my mind the most solid commitment to putting Measure J in its original form before the voters without any accompanying amended versions in an attempt to “game” the system to favor anti-populist ideology. It sounds like you believe that (1) and (3) are equally committed duos(has the Enterprise “misread” Souza in their endorsement?). I believe that Souza’s public record in office challenges your assumption.
We will have to agree to disagree.
With that said, I’ll explain my logic. If Saylor is defeated, that leaves Cecilia, Sue, Rob and Sydney as the remaining possibilities to fill the three seats.
Scenario 1) All combinations of Cecilia and Sue = guaranteed 4 or 3 votes for Measure J
Scenario 2) All other combinations = guaranteed 3 votes for Measure J if the candidates stick to their campaign statements
Defeating Saylor puts Measure J in a no-lose situation. Not defeating Saylor creates scenarios (like the Enterprise’s rumored endorsement where there are 3 Council members committed to changing the wording of Measure J). In addition having Saylor and Asmundson on the Council means more pressure on any swing vote.
Logic dictates that you work for the no-lose situation if you are a Measure J supporter.
Yes Matt… we will have to disagree here. Voting for Souza added to his previous developer interest contituency may give him the Mayor Pro Tem spot over Sue, whom I feel is now very well positioned to win the most votes in this election. If voting for Souza causes him to displace either Sue or Cecilia from the future dais, then we have to rely on Souza’s campaign promises to support the original measure J ordinance for renewal and NOT “game” the ballot with alternative versions of Measure J. At this point, it is pure conjecture to speculate on whether Saylor’s overwhelming campaign resources and his skillful obfuscations and pandering to different special interest voting groups will carry the day for him. It is safest to assume the worst-case scenerio here unless you are CONVINCED of Souza’s future plans for the Measure J renewal balloting. I remain unconvinced and will make Souza win on his own developer-interest constituency without any help from me. As I said before, if you ARE CONVINCED of Souza’s intentions with regard to Measure J, then there IS NO Measure J risk in NOT voting for him. If Sue or Cecilia lose, then he will win and we still have a future Council majority with Lamar,3-2, that will protect Measure J in 2010.
Yes Matt… we will have to disagree here. Voting for Souza added to his previous developer interest contituency may give him the Mayor Pro Tem spot over Sue, whom I feel is now very well positioned to win the most votes in this election. If voting for Souza causes him to displace either Sue or Cecilia from the future dais, then we have to rely on Souza’s campaign promises to support the original measure J ordinance for renewal and NOT “game” the ballot with alternative versions of Measure J. At this point, it is pure conjecture to speculate on whether Saylor’s overwhelming campaign resources and his skillful obfuscations and pandering to different special interest voting groups will carry the day for him. It is safest to assume the worst-case scenerio here unless you are CONVINCED of Souza’s future plans for the Measure J renewal balloting. I remain unconvinced and will make Souza win on his own developer-interest constituency without any help from me. As I said before, if you ARE CONVINCED of Souza’s intentions with regard to Measure J, then there IS NO Measure J risk in NOT voting for him. If Sue or Cecilia lose, then he will win and we still have a future Council majority with Lamar,3-2, that will protect Measure J in 2010.
Yes Matt… we will have to disagree here. Voting for Souza added to his previous developer interest contituency may give him the Mayor Pro Tem spot over Sue, whom I feel is now very well positioned to win the most votes in this election. If voting for Souza causes him to displace either Sue or Cecilia from the future dais, then we have to rely on Souza’s campaign promises to support the original measure J ordinance for renewal and NOT “game” the ballot with alternative versions of Measure J. At this point, it is pure conjecture to speculate on whether Saylor’s overwhelming campaign resources and his skillful obfuscations and pandering to different special interest voting groups will carry the day for him. It is safest to assume the worst-case scenerio here unless you are CONVINCED of Souza’s future plans for the Measure J renewal balloting. I remain unconvinced and will make Souza win on his own developer-interest constituency without any help from me. As I said before, if you ARE CONVINCED of Souza’s intentions with regard to Measure J, then there IS NO Measure J risk in NOT voting for him. If Sue or Cecilia lose, then he will win and we still have a future Council majority with Lamar,3-2, that will protect Measure J in 2010.
Yes Matt… we will have to disagree here. Voting for Souza added to his previous developer interest contituency may give him the Mayor Pro Tem spot over Sue, whom I feel is now very well positioned to win the most votes in this election. If voting for Souza causes him to displace either Sue or Cecilia from the future dais, then we have to rely on Souza’s campaign promises to support the original measure J ordinance for renewal and NOT “game” the ballot with alternative versions of Measure J. At this point, it is pure conjecture to speculate on whether Saylor’s overwhelming campaign resources and his skillful obfuscations and pandering to different special interest voting groups will carry the day for him. It is safest to assume the worst-case scenerio here unless you are CONVINCED of Souza’s future plans for the Measure J renewal balloting. I remain unconvinced and will make Souza win on his own developer-interest constituency without any help from me. As I said before, if you ARE CONVINCED of Souza’s intentions with regard to Measure J, then there IS NO Measure J risk in NOT voting for him. If Sue or Cecilia lose, then he will win and we still have a future Council majority with Lamar,3-2, that will protect Measure J in 2010.