Several members of the public then came up to speak on Measure J during the public comment portion of the meeting.
Those who spoke believe that this issue needs full discussion prior to the election.
Gene Borack said:
“I think it is unfortunate that [Stephen Souza] recommended that the discussion begin after the June election.”
Mark Spencer would follow up Dr. Borack’s point by stating:
“I would hope that the council would address this prior to the next city council election because I think it goes to a very important fundamental pillar in what has become Davis’ sense of inclusion of the voters in land use which is critical.”
They also disagreed with Harriet Steiner’s interpretation of the renewal clause on Measure J.
Stated Gene Borack:
“As I read it Counselor Steiner’s opinion is that the next council majority can amend Measure J and she offers no limitations. Most importantly she says that the next council majority is not required to offer the voters the original version of Measure J as an alternative choice on the same ballot. The fate of Measure J rests squarely in the hands of those who will be on the next council in less than eight weeks.”
Mark Spencer is often regarded as the architect of Measure J, he worked extensively in drafting the language of the ordinance.
“Having looked over the city attorney’s opinion on the renewal clause, I find it troubling. I was involved in the drafting of the language of measure J as a member of the planning commission and the open space commission, our intent was pretty clear about each of the provisions that we had hoped to be included in the final measure. And we relied on the city attorney at the time for the clarity of the legal language which would declare our intent and would make our provisions happen in legal language. That’s what makes the opinion of the city attorney so curious—in that it’s the same city attorney. And yet at the time, no one was appraised of the renewal clauses language that is detailed in this several page document that has been given to the city council in the council’s packet.”
He went on to say:
“I think that Harriet’s interpretation of the renewal clause is unnecessarily torturous. There are other ways and I think more readily accessible ways to interpret the renewal clause that I think is consistent with the obvious intent that the council had at the time when it approved the final language that was submitted to voters.”
Finally Mark Spencer argues:
“Harriet gives a very long and I think torturous interpretation as I read it which breeds cynicism on someone who was involved in and had conversations at the time with the same city attorney about the language we wanted to achieve the intent that we had.”
Nancy Price also spoke strongly in favor of renewing Measure J as a means by which to enfranchise the Davis voters to be able to control the city’s land use decisions. She also favored a more imminent discussion prior to the next election.
“I was not directly involved but I was behind the scenes very much involved in the discussion of Measure J. I think it’s very important as this measure really relates to the enactment of democracy and the inclusion of citizens in land use decisions, that the council take this up before the election. And I think it’s really important that those of you running for election address this issue prior to the election and make your positions very clear on this matter. I think the citizens need to have a very clear stand from those of you running.”
City Council candidate and wife of this blogger, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, spoke strongly in favor of retaining Measure J as currently written and making it permanent.
“The only way to ensure that this [voter control of land use policy] occurs is to put forward a measure that keeps Measure J as it is currently written so that it’s not weakened or watered down. Measure J must be made permanent in its current format so that we do not have to revisit this issue once again in the future.”
Following public comment, Mayor Sue Greenwald asked the council whether they wanted to put this on the agenda prior to the June election.
Councilmember Stephen Souza was adamantly against this suggestion. He was concerned that this would politicize the issue.
“I think it’s clear that for me, I don’t want to politicize it. I would rather leave the politics off the dais and leave it to the forums during the election campaign.”
That sounds good, but given that this measure eventually must go before the voters, I do not see how you can avoid politicizing the issue–it is by definition a political issue. The question is really whether or not Mr. Souza wants to go on record having a viewpoint that the voters can either choose to support or oppose.
The idea that somehow this is not going to be a politicized process at some point along the line is far-fetched at best. If it is to go before the voters in December of 2010, then it inevitably will become a potential issue for the June 2010 elections. When it goes on the ballot, it becomes a political issue then. So the question really is–when would this not be a political process? I do not see that that prospect can be avoided–so why not take it up and let the voters decide now prior to the 2008 election?
He went on to argue that this will be addressed in various candidate forums.
“For me that’s how I’m going to address [in candidates forums], I’m going to address it very clearly.”
No one doubts that point, but there is a large difference between what you say during a candidate’s debate and what you actually do when you have to make a decision that is before you. And frankly this should be a no-brainer in terms of the course of action that needs to be taken.
Finally, I found most troubling this statement:
“Any action that we take up here in regards to it can always be superseded by the action of the public through initiative.”
According to Harriet’s opinion, as I read it, the citizens can put a measure on the ballot–that in itself requires a tremendous amount of time and energy. It would also have to go up against the council’s own initiative. That puts the citizens at a great disadvantage. He seems to be using this clause as a means by which to diffuse the gravity of the council’s decision without regards to the amount of energy and resources it would take to mount such a citizen’s drive. It would be far simpler to have a council majority that passes the measure that the citizens want and having the council support that measure.
I agree fully with the comments of Dr. Gene Borack:
“The fate of Measure J rests squarely in the hands of those who will be on the next council in less than eight weeks.”
I do not see anyway that the council can avoid it. I understand in principle the point that Councilmember Souza is making with regards to the politicization of the process, the problem is that in this case, there is no avoiding that. Why not put yourself on record and have a full public debate on what is one of the most important issues facing the electorate?
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
David Greenwald said …
“Councilmember Stephen Souza was adamantly against this suggestion. He was concerned that this would politicize the issue.
“I think it’s clear that for me, I don’t want to politicize it. I would rather leave the politics off the dais and leave it to the forums during the election campaign.”
That sounds good, but given that this measure eventually must go before the voters, I do not see how you can avoid politicizing the issue–it is by definition a political issue. The question is really whether or not Mr. Souza wants to go on record having a viewpoint that the voters can either choose to support or oppose.
The idea that somehow this is not going to be a politicized process at some point along the line is far-fetched at best.”
David, I didn’t hear Souza’s words the same way you did. I heard him say that this issue absolutely needed to be politicized. His point was that the dias of the Council Chamber during Council meetings was not the right place to be doing that politicization. He clearly stated that the appropriate venue was at the Candidate Forums being hosted in the coming weeks, as well as in face-to-face conversations between the candidates and the voters.
One of the candidates spoke clearly and forcefully on the subject during last night’s Public Comments period. As a result, we clearly know where Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald stands on Measure J. Souza wnats and expects that kind of unambiguous communication to be repeated loud and often between no and Election Day, just not during Council meetings.
David Greenwald said …
“Councilmember Stephen Souza was adamantly against this suggestion. He was concerned that this would politicize the issue.
“I think it’s clear that for me, I don’t want to politicize it. I would rather leave the politics off the dais and leave it to the forums during the election campaign.”
That sounds good, but given that this measure eventually must go before the voters, I do not see how you can avoid politicizing the issue–it is by definition a political issue. The question is really whether or not Mr. Souza wants to go on record having a viewpoint that the voters can either choose to support or oppose.
The idea that somehow this is not going to be a politicized process at some point along the line is far-fetched at best.”
David, I didn’t hear Souza’s words the same way you did. I heard him say that this issue absolutely needed to be politicized. His point was that the dias of the Council Chamber during Council meetings was not the right place to be doing that politicization. He clearly stated that the appropriate venue was at the Candidate Forums being hosted in the coming weeks, as well as in face-to-face conversations between the candidates and the voters.
One of the candidates spoke clearly and forcefully on the subject during last night’s Public Comments period. As a result, we clearly know where Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald stands on Measure J. Souza wnats and expects that kind of unambiguous communication to be repeated loud and often between no and Election Day, just not during Council meetings.
David Greenwald said …
“Councilmember Stephen Souza was adamantly against this suggestion. He was concerned that this would politicize the issue.
“I think it’s clear that for me, I don’t want to politicize it. I would rather leave the politics off the dais and leave it to the forums during the election campaign.”
That sounds good, but given that this measure eventually must go before the voters, I do not see how you can avoid politicizing the issue–it is by definition a political issue. The question is really whether or not Mr. Souza wants to go on record having a viewpoint that the voters can either choose to support or oppose.
The idea that somehow this is not going to be a politicized process at some point along the line is far-fetched at best.”
David, I didn’t hear Souza’s words the same way you did. I heard him say that this issue absolutely needed to be politicized. His point was that the dias of the Council Chamber during Council meetings was not the right place to be doing that politicization. He clearly stated that the appropriate venue was at the Candidate Forums being hosted in the coming weeks, as well as in face-to-face conversations between the candidates and the voters.
One of the candidates spoke clearly and forcefully on the subject during last night’s Public Comments period. As a result, we clearly know where Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald stands on Measure J. Souza wnats and expects that kind of unambiguous communication to be repeated loud and often between no and Election Day, just not during Council meetings.
David Greenwald said …
“Councilmember Stephen Souza was adamantly against this suggestion. He was concerned that this would politicize the issue.
“I think it’s clear that for me, I don’t want to politicize it. I would rather leave the politics off the dais and leave it to the forums during the election campaign.”
That sounds good, but given that this measure eventually must go before the voters, I do not see how you can avoid politicizing the issue–it is by definition a political issue. The question is really whether or not Mr. Souza wants to go on record having a viewpoint that the voters can either choose to support or oppose.
The idea that somehow this is not going to be a politicized process at some point along the line is far-fetched at best.”
David, I didn’t hear Souza’s words the same way you did. I heard him say that this issue absolutely needed to be politicized. His point was that the dias of the Council Chamber during Council meetings was not the right place to be doing that politicization. He clearly stated that the appropriate venue was at the Candidate Forums being hosted in the coming weeks, as well as in face-to-face conversations between the candidates and the voters.
One of the candidates spoke clearly and forcefully on the subject during last night’s Public Comments period. As a result, we clearly know where Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald stands on Measure J. Souza wnats and expects that kind of unambiguous communication to be repeated loud and often between no and Election Day, just not during Council meetings.
Give me a break Matt, Souza doesn’t want a clear and an unambiguous communication on this issue, he wants to sit on the fence, obfuscate, and have it both ways.
Give me a break Matt, Souza doesn’t want a clear and an unambiguous communication on this issue, he wants to sit on the fence, obfuscate, and have it both ways.
Give me a break Matt, Souza doesn’t want a clear and an unambiguous communication on this issue, he wants to sit on the fence, obfuscate, and have it both ways.
Give me a break Matt, Souza doesn’t want a clear and an unambiguous communication on this issue, he wants to sit on the fence, obfuscate, and have it both ways.
As long as Souza and Saylor can keep this issue off of the Council agenda, The Enterprise will ignore it as long as possible or give it minimal coverage. This, along with the “canned” campaign political rhetoric that we can expect as answers in forum “debates” is what Souza and Saylor are counting on. They are both aware that any detailed and lengthy public exposure of their past public record and comments concerning their antipathy to the direct voter empowerment that underlies our Measure J would almost certainly doom their reelection to the next Council in whose fate Measure J will reside. Saylor has so far characteristically remained silent as he assesses which way the political winds are blowing before we are subjected to an obfuscated and tortured campaign position on Measure J. Souza will no doubt be trumpeting his born-again populist political persona which appeared following the people’s rejection of his(and Saylor’s) heavy-handed and deceptive support for a Yes vote on Measure X(Covell Village approval); a citizen referendum called for by the very same Measure J that would be placed in Souza’s and Saylor’s hands, if reelected to our Council.
As to Matt’s comments, the fate of Measure J is so important that it IS vital that the voters know where the current Council members(Heystek and Asmundson)who are not up for reelection stand on this issue before they cast their votes for new Council members in June(or earlier).A vigorous discussion at open Council meeting is the only way to guarantee that the voters will have the fullest understanding of the potential political landscape facing Measure J on the next Council.
As long as Souza and Saylor can keep this issue off of the Council agenda, The Enterprise will ignore it as long as possible or give it minimal coverage. This, along with the “canned” campaign political rhetoric that we can expect as answers in forum “debates” is what Souza and Saylor are counting on. They are both aware that any detailed and lengthy public exposure of their past public record and comments concerning their antipathy to the direct voter empowerment that underlies our Measure J would almost certainly doom their reelection to the next Council in whose fate Measure J will reside. Saylor has so far characteristically remained silent as he assesses which way the political winds are blowing before we are subjected to an obfuscated and tortured campaign position on Measure J. Souza will no doubt be trumpeting his born-again populist political persona which appeared following the people’s rejection of his(and Saylor’s) heavy-handed and deceptive support for a Yes vote on Measure X(Covell Village approval); a citizen referendum called for by the very same Measure J that would be placed in Souza’s and Saylor’s hands, if reelected to our Council.
As to Matt’s comments, the fate of Measure J is so important that it IS vital that the voters know where the current Council members(Heystek and Asmundson)who are not up for reelection stand on this issue before they cast their votes for new Council members in June(or earlier).A vigorous discussion at open Council meeting is the only way to guarantee that the voters will have the fullest understanding of the potential political landscape facing Measure J on the next Council.
As long as Souza and Saylor can keep this issue off of the Council agenda, The Enterprise will ignore it as long as possible or give it minimal coverage. This, along with the “canned” campaign political rhetoric that we can expect as answers in forum “debates” is what Souza and Saylor are counting on. They are both aware that any detailed and lengthy public exposure of their past public record and comments concerning their antipathy to the direct voter empowerment that underlies our Measure J would almost certainly doom their reelection to the next Council in whose fate Measure J will reside. Saylor has so far characteristically remained silent as he assesses which way the political winds are blowing before we are subjected to an obfuscated and tortured campaign position on Measure J. Souza will no doubt be trumpeting his born-again populist political persona which appeared following the people’s rejection of his(and Saylor’s) heavy-handed and deceptive support for a Yes vote on Measure X(Covell Village approval); a citizen referendum called for by the very same Measure J that would be placed in Souza’s and Saylor’s hands, if reelected to our Council.
As to Matt’s comments, the fate of Measure J is so important that it IS vital that the voters know where the current Council members(Heystek and Asmundson)who are not up for reelection stand on this issue before they cast their votes for new Council members in June(or earlier).A vigorous discussion at open Council meeting is the only way to guarantee that the voters will have the fullest understanding of the potential political landscape facing Measure J on the next Council.
As long as Souza and Saylor can keep this issue off of the Council agenda, The Enterprise will ignore it as long as possible or give it minimal coverage. This, along with the “canned” campaign political rhetoric that we can expect as answers in forum “debates” is what Souza and Saylor are counting on. They are both aware that any detailed and lengthy public exposure of their past public record and comments concerning their antipathy to the direct voter empowerment that underlies our Measure J would almost certainly doom their reelection to the next Council in whose fate Measure J will reside. Saylor has so far characteristically remained silent as he assesses which way the political winds are blowing before we are subjected to an obfuscated and tortured campaign position on Measure J. Souza will no doubt be trumpeting his born-again populist political persona which appeared following the people’s rejection of his(and Saylor’s) heavy-handed and deceptive support for a Yes vote on Measure X(Covell Village approval); a citizen referendum called for by the very same Measure J that would be placed in Souza’s and Saylor’s hands, if reelected to our Council.
As to Matt’s comments, the fate of Measure J is so important that it IS vital that the voters know where the current Council members(Heystek and Asmundson)who are not up for reelection stand on this issue before they cast their votes for new Council members in June(or earlier).A vigorous discussion at open Council meeting is the only way to guarantee that the voters will have the fullest understanding of the potential political landscape facing Measure J on the next Council.
Matt has some absurd notion that Souza is the lesser of the evils and that we need to cut a deal with him. It’s a flawed strategy that might ensure a continued developer council majority. Moreover, Souza has stabbed the progressive community in the back OVER AND OVER again. I’m tired of cutting deals with people–get our people elected and then we don’t have to cut any more deals. I want 3-2, I don’t care who the 2 is.
Matt has some absurd notion that Souza is the lesser of the evils and that we need to cut a deal with him. It’s a flawed strategy that might ensure a continued developer council majority. Moreover, Souza has stabbed the progressive community in the back OVER AND OVER again. I’m tired of cutting deals with people–get our people elected and then we don’t have to cut any more deals. I want 3-2, I don’t care who the 2 is.
Matt has some absurd notion that Souza is the lesser of the evils and that we need to cut a deal with him. It’s a flawed strategy that might ensure a continued developer council majority. Moreover, Souza has stabbed the progressive community in the back OVER AND OVER again. I’m tired of cutting deals with people–get our people elected and then we don’t have to cut any more deals. I want 3-2, I don’t care who the 2 is.
Matt has some absurd notion that Souza is the lesser of the evils and that we need to cut a deal with him. It’s a flawed strategy that might ensure a continued developer council majority. Moreover, Souza has stabbed the progressive community in the back OVER AND OVER again. I’m tired of cutting deals with people–get our people elected and then we don’t have to cut any more deals. I want 3-2, I don’t care who the 2 is.
It looks like some of “our” City Council is dodging the issue. Members Souza, Saylor and Asmundsen have a pro growth agenda based on voting records and public comments. We’ve made it clear we do NOT want fast track growth or badly thought out projects. Measure J makes it possible for citizens of Davis to directly participate in the development process and have full input in proposed developments.
It looks like some of “our” City Council is dodging the issue. Members Souza, Saylor and Asmundsen have a pro growth agenda based on voting records and public comments. We’ve made it clear we do NOT want fast track growth or badly thought out projects. Measure J makes it possible for citizens of Davis to directly participate in the development process and have full input in proposed developments.
It looks like some of “our” City Council is dodging the issue. Members Souza, Saylor and Asmundsen have a pro growth agenda based on voting records and public comments. We’ve made it clear we do NOT want fast track growth or badly thought out projects. Measure J makes it possible for citizens of Davis to directly participate in the development process and have full input in proposed developments.
It looks like some of “our” City Council is dodging the issue. Members Souza, Saylor and Asmundsen have a pro growth agenda based on voting records and public comments. We’ve made it clear we do NOT want fast track growth or badly thought out projects. Measure J makes it possible for citizens of Davis to directly participate in the development process and have full input in proposed developments.
Call me absurd if you wish; however, the less evil we get the better. Having the candidates make clear, unambiguous statements will help us all knw where the revil lies.
Regarding the need to know the two “continuing” Council members’ positions on Measure J … if you don’t know by now where Lamar and Ruth stand on this issue, then you haven’t been paying attention. Lamar has clearly stated that he is for renewing Measure J with its wording unchanged. Ruth has made no such clear statements, and is highly unlikely to do so. Therefore, we start with a 1-1 vote prior to the election. You can be satisfied with 2, I am willing to work harder than you are and go for 3.
Call me absurd if you wish; however, the less evil we get the better. Having the candidates make clear, unambiguous statements will help us all knw where the revil lies.
Regarding the need to know the two “continuing” Council members’ positions on Measure J … if you don’t know by now where Lamar and Ruth stand on this issue, then you haven’t been paying attention. Lamar has clearly stated that he is for renewing Measure J with its wording unchanged. Ruth has made no such clear statements, and is highly unlikely to do so. Therefore, we start with a 1-1 vote prior to the election. You can be satisfied with 2, I am willing to work harder than you are and go for 3.
Call me absurd if you wish; however, the less evil we get the better. Having the candidates make clear, unambiguous statements will help us all knw where the revil lies.
Regarding the need to know the two “continuing” Council members’ positions on Measure J … if you don’t know by now where Lamar and Ruth stand on this issue, then you haven’t been paying attention. Lamar has clearly stated that he is for renewing Measure J with its wording unchanged. Ruth has made no such clear statements, and is highly unlikely to do so. Therefore, we start with a 1-1 vote prior to the election. You can be satisfied with 2, I am willing to work harder than you are and go for 3.
Call me absurd if you wish; however, the less evil we get the better. Having the candidates make clear, unambiguous statements will help us all knw where the revil lies.
Regarding the need to know the two “continuing” Council members’ positions on Measure J … if you don’t know by now where Lamar and Ruth stand on this issue, then you haven’t been paying attention. Lamar has clearly stated that he is for renewing Measure J with its wording unchanged. Ruth has made no such clear statements, and is highly unlikely to do so. Therefore, we start with a 1-1 vote prior to the election. You can be satisfied with 2, I am willing to work harder than you are and go for 3.
Anonymous said…
Give me a break Matt, Souza doesn’t want a clear and an unambiguous communication on this issue, he wants to sit on the fence, obfuscate, and have it both ways.
If Souza proves you right, I will eat crow publicly. However, if he proves you wrong, I will very happily work for a 4-1 “Pro Measure J Renewal As It Is” majority.
We can’t change the past. We can only change the present and the future.
Anonymous said…
Give me a break Matt, Souza doesn’t want a clear and an unambiguous communication on this issue, he wants to sit on the fence, obfuscate, and have it both ways.
If Souza proves you right, I will eat crow publicly. However, if he proves you wrong, I will very happily work for a 4-1 “Pro Measure J Renewal As It Is” majority.
We can’t change the past. We can only change the present and the future.
Anonymous said…
Give me a break Matt, Souza doesn’t want a clear and an unambiguous communication on this issue, he wants to sit on the fence, obfuscate, and have it both ways.
If Souza proves you right, I will eat crow publicly. However, if he proves you wrong, I will very happily work for a 4-1 “Pro Measure J Renewal As It Is” majority.
We can’t change the past. We can only change the present and the future.
Anonymous said…
Give me a break Matt, Souza doesn’t want a clear and an unambiguous communication on this issue, he wants to sit on the fence, obfuscate, and have it both ways.
If Souza proves you right, I will eat crow publicly. However, if he proves you wrong, I will very happily work for a 4-1 “Pro Measure J Renewal As It Is” majority.
We can’t change the past. We can only change the present and the future.
Sitting Councilman Heystek has declared his position on our next Council concerning Measure J. TWO candidates whom we can COUNT ON to protect our Measure J and have a good chance of receiving a winning vote total is the most important issue in this upcoming election. Vote to GUARANTEE that our Measure J is not in danger of being watered-down or repealed!!
Sitting Councilman Heystek has declared his position on our next Council concerning Measure J. TWO candidates whom we can COUNT ON to protect our Measure J and have a good chance of receiving a winning vote total is the most important issue in this upcoming election. Vote to GUARANTEE that our Measure J is not in danger of being watered-down or repealed!!
Sitting Councilman Heystek has declared his position on our next Council concerning Measure J. TWO candidates whom we can COUNT ON to protect our Measure J and have a good chance of receiving a winning vote total is the most important issue in this upcoming election. Vote to GUARANTEE that our Measure J is not in danger of being watered-down or repealed!!
Sitting Councilman Heystek has declared his position on our next Council concerning Measure J. TWO candidates whom we can COUNT ON to protect our Measure J and have a good chance of receiving a winning vote total is the most important issue in this upcoming election. Vote to GUARANTEE that our Measure J is not in danger of being watered-down or repealed!!
“Ruth has made no such clear statements, and is highly unlikely to do so.”
Matt…we should not assume that your intense interest in following these issues is shared by most voters. It is important to bring Ruth’s past public record and negative statements regarding direct voter empowerment clearly and “loudly” before those voters who just don’t pay that much attention to Davis local politics.
As for “working harder for three”, this is politically naive. At the end of the day, all you control are your votes. If you add to the winning vote total of an unreliable candidate on this issue and cause a candidate whom we KNOW would have protected Measure J to lose, then you have put Measure J in serious jeprody.
“Ruth has made no such clear statements, and is highly unlikely to do so.”
Matt…we should not assume that your intense interest in following these issues is shared by most voters. It is important to bring Ruth’s past public record and negative statements regarding direct voter empowerment clearly and “loudly” before those voters who just don’t pay that much attention to Davis local politics.
As for “working harder for three”, this is politically naive. At the end of the day, all you control are your votes. If you add to the winning vote total of an unreliable candidate on this issue and cause a candidate whom we KNOW would have protected Measure J to lose, then you have put Measure J in serious jeprody.
“Ruth has made no such clear statements, and is highly unlikely to do so.”
Matt…we should not assume that your intense interest in following these issues is shared by most voters. It is important to bring Ruth’s past public record and negative statements regarding direct voter empowerment clearly and “loudly” before those voters who just don’t pay that much attention to Davis local politics.
As for “working harder for three”, this is politically naive. At the end of the day, all you control are your votes. If you add to the winning vote total of an unreliable candidate on this issue and cause a candidate whom we KNOW would have protected Measure J to lose, then you have put Measure J in serious jeprody.
“Ruth has made no such clear statements, and is highly unlikely to do so.”
Matt…we should not assume that your intense interest in following these issues is shared by most voters. It is important to bring Ruth’s past public record and negative statements regarding direct voter empowerment clearly and “loudly” before those voters who just don’t pay that much attention to Davis local politics.
As for “working harder for three”, this is politically naive. At the end of the day, all you control are your votes. If you add to the winning vote total of an unreliable candidate on this issue and cause a candidate whom we KNOW would have protected Measure J to lose, then you have put Measure J in serious jeprody.
vote strategically said…
As for “working harder for three”, this is politically naive. At the end of the day, all you control are your votes. If you add to the winning vote total of an unreliable candidate on this issue and cause a candidate whom we KNOW would have protected Measure J to lose, then you have put Measure J in serious jeopardy.”
Just which pro-Measure J candidate
do you expect to lose in the scenario you have outlined? You are viewing this election from a “glass half-empty” perspective. If you approach it with a “working hard not to lose” perspective then your chances of losing are greatly increased. I prefer to approach it from a “working hard to kick ass” perspective and in the process absolutely minimize the chances of losing.
If we keep our focus, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
vote strategically said…
As for “working harder for three”, this is politically naive. At the end of the day, all you control are your votes. If you add to the winning vote total of an unreliable candidate on this issue and cause a candidate whom we KNOW would have protected Measure J to lose, then you have put Measure J in serious jeopardy.”
Just which pro-Measure J candidate
do you expect to lose in the scenario you have outlined? You are viewing this election from a “glass half-empty” perspective. If you approach it with a “working hard not to lose” perspective then your chances of losing are greatly increased. I prefer to approach it from a “working hard to kick ass” perspective and in the process absolutely minimize the chances of losing.
If we keep our focus, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
vote strategically said…
As for “working harder for three”, this is politically naive. At the end of the day, all you control are your votes. If you add to the winning vote total of an unreliable candidate on this issue and cause a candidate whom we KNOW would have protected Measure J to lose, then you have put Measure J in serious jeopardy.”
Just which pro-Measure J candidate
do you expect to lose in the scenario you have outlined? You are viewing this election from a “glass half-empty” perspective. If you approach it with a “working hard not to lose” perspective then your chances of losing are greatly increased. I prefer to approach it from a “working hard to kick ass” perspective and in the process absolutely minimize the chances of losing.
If we keep our focus, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
vote strategically said…
As for “working harder for three”, this is politically naive. At the end of the day, all you control are your votes. If you add to the winning vote total of an unreliable candidate on this issue and cause a candidate whom we KNOW would have protected Measure J to lose, then you have put Measure J in serious jeopardy.”
Just which pro-Measure J candidate
do you expect to lose in the scenario you have outlined? You are viewing this election from a “glass half-empty” perspective. If you approach it with a “working hard not to lose” perspective then your chances of losing are greatly increased. I prefer to approach it from a “working hard to kick ass” perspective and in the process absolutely minimize the chances of losing.
If we keep our focus, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
As an attorney, I would like to point out that when there is some doubt as to what was meant by a statute or legal decision, it is perfectly permissable to return to the originators of that decision to determine what was meant. I would encourage the original drafters of Measure J to get together, dig up any public notes, minutes, etc., and bring them to a City Council meeting, and debunk any “tortured logic” that the originators consider may have occurred.
Secondly, it has become pretty clear that the City Council majority that voted for Covell Village were not happy with the results of the Measure J vote, which made them look out of step with what the public wanted – “smart growth”. I, for one, would prefer to see how a Councilmember will VOTE on an issue, rather than get my information from campaign promises that are often not adhered to after the election is over.
IMHO, the Council Majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza did not like the results of Measure J, and tend to favor developer interests. Thus it stands to reason if push comes to shove, they will do whatever it takes to gut Measure J by amending it or voting against it, from a purely common sense, logical point of view – REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY SAY IN A CAMPAIGN SPEECH.
I am not pro or con in regard to developers, nor am I a no growth, slow growth or fast growth person. I just want the city to be able to pay for whatever services it must provide. Had we built Covell Village, I don’t see how the city could have afforded to fund a fourth fire station, additional police, extra park maintenance, etc. that would have been required.
What we need is more tax revenue from appropriate business, whatever “appropriate” means to the city as a whole. I will say this again, and I know this may not sit well with some. But go look at Pioneer High School in Woodland, or Whitehead Elementary. Or take a gander at the brand new Woodland Community/Senior Center. Beautiful brick buildings, architecturally attractive (I realized this is a subjective opinion). Yet we in Davis are settling for “shacks” and “huts”. It was not surprising to me when the new Supt. of Schools noted how shabby Davis school facilities are.
Before you condemn what I have said, I encourage everyone to take a trip up to Woodland. The new shopping centers are just lovely, actually color coordinated to complement each other. You don’t see combinations of orange, purple and green. Buildings look far more substantial, and are often of brick as opposed to wood or wallboard. Really, take a look before you have the typical knee-jerk reaction that Davis is somehow better than every other town in the surrounding area.
Davis has a lot to offer, and certainly UCD is the star attraction. But Davis has settled for mediocre too often, and I think can be even better than it already is. Let’s not fire teachers and close schools to balance the budget. I would rather see us get a little more creative…
As an attorney, I would like to point out that when there is some doubt as to what was meant by a statute or legal decision, it is perfectly permissable to return to the originators of that decision to determine what was meant. I would encourage the original drafters of Measure J to get together, dig up any public notes, minutes, etc., and bring them to a City Council meeting, and debunk any “tortured logic” that the originators consider may have occurred.
Secondly, it has become pretty clear that the City Council majority that voted for Covell Village were not happy with the results of the Measure J vote, which made them look out of step with what the public wanted – “smart growth”. I, for one, would prefer to see how a Councilmember will VOTE on an issue, rather than get my information from campaign promises that are often not adhered to after the election is over.
IMHO, the Council Majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza did not like the results of Measure J, and tend to favor developer interests. Thus it stands to reason if push comes to shove, they will do whatever it takes to gut Measure J by amending it or voting against it, from a purely common sense, logical point of view – REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY SAY IN A CAMPAIGN SPEECH.
I am not pro or con in regard to developers, nor am I a no growth, slow growth or fast growth person. I just want the city to be able to pay for whatever services it must provide. Had we built Covell Village, I don’t see how the city could have afforded to fund a fourth fire station, additional police, extra park maintenance, etc. that would have been required.
What we need is more tax revenue from appropriate business, whatever “appropriate” means to the city as a whole. I will say this again, and I know this may not sit well with some. But go look at Pioneer High School in Woodland, or Whitehead Elementary. Or take a gander at the brand new Woodland Community/Senior Center. Beautiful brick buildings, architecturally attractive (I realized this is a subjective opinion). Yet we in Davis are settling for “shacks” and “huts”. It was not surprising to me when the new Supt. of Schools noted how shabby Davis school facilities are.
Before you condemn what I have said, I encourage everyone to take a trip up to Woodland. The new shopping centers are just lovely, actually color coordinated to complement each other. You don’t see combinations of orange, purple and green. Buildings look far more substantial, and are often of brick as opposed to wood or wallboard. Really, take a look before you have the typical knee-jerk reaction that Davis is somehow better than every other town in the surrounding area.
Davis has a lot to offer, and certainly UCD is the star attraction. But Davis has settled for mediocre too often, and I think can be even better than it already is. Let’s not fire teachers and close schools to balance the budget. I would rather see us get a little more creative…
As an attorney, I would like to point out that when there is some doubt as to what was meant by a statute or legal decision, it is perfectly permissable to return to the originators of that decision to determine what was meant. I would encourage the original drafters of Measure J to get together, dig up any public notes, minutes, etc., and bring them to a City Council meeting, and debunk any “tortured logic” that the originators consider may have occurred.
Secondly, it has become pretty clear that the City Council majority that voted for Covell Village were not happy with the results of the Measure J vote, which made them look out of step with what the public wanted – “smart growth”. I, for one, would prefer to see how a Councilmember will VOTE on an issue, rather than get my information from campaign promises that are often not adhered to after the election is over.
IMHO, the Council Majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza did not like the results of Measure J, and tend to favor developer interests. Thus it stands to reason if push comes to shove, they will do whatever it takes to gut Measure J by amending it or voting against it, from a purely common sense, logical point of view – REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY SAY IN A CAMPAIGN SPEECH.
I am not pro or con in regard to developers, nor am I a no growth, slow growth or fast growth person. I just want the city to be able to pay for whatever services it must provide. Had we built Covell Village, I don’t see how the city could have afforded to fund a fourth fire station, additional police, extra park maintenance, etc. that would have been required.
What we need is more tax revenue from appropriate business, whatever “appropriate” means to the city as a whole. I will say this again, and I know this may not sit well with some. But go look at Pioneer High School in Woodland, or Whitehead Elementary. Or take a gander at the brand new Woodland Community/Senior Center. Beautiful brick buildings, architecturally attractive (I realized this is a subjective opinion). Yet we in Davis are settling for “shacks” and “huts”. It was not surprising to me when the new Supt. of Schools noted how shabby Davis school facilities are.
Before you condemn what I have said, I encourage everyone to take a trip up to Woodland. The new shopping centers are just lovely, actually color coordinated to complement each other. You don’t see combinations of orange, purple and green. Buildings look far more substantial, and are often of brick as opposed to wood or wallboard. Really, take a look before you have the typical knee-jerk reaction that Davis is somehow better than every other town in the surrounding area.
Davis has a lot to offer, and certainly UCD is the star attraction. But Davis has settled for mediocre too often, and I think can be even better than it already is. Let’s not fire teachers and close schools to balance the budget. I would rather see us get a little more creative…
As an attorney, I would like to point out that when there is some doubt as to what was meant by a statute or legal decision, it is perfectly permissable to return to the originators of that decision to determine what was meant. I would encourage the original drafters of Measure J to get together, dig up any public notes, minutes, etc., and bring them to a City Council meeting, and debunk any “tortured logic” that the originators consider may have occurred.
Secondly, it has become pretty clear that the City Council majority that voted for Covell Village were not happy with the results of the Measure J vote, which made them look out of step with what the public wanted – “smart growth”. I, for one, would prefer to see how a Councilmember will VOTE on an issue, rather than get my information from campaign promises that are often not adhered to after the election is over.
IMHO, the Council Majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza did not like the results of Measure J, and tend to favor developer interests. Thus it stands to reason if push comes to shove, they will do whatever it takes to gut Measure J by amending it or voting against it, from a purely common sense, logical point of view – REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY SAY IN A CAMPAIGN SPEECH.
I am not pro or con in regard to developers, nor am I a no growth, slow growth or fast growth person. I just want the city to be able to pay for whatever services it must provide. Had we built Covell Village, I don’t see how the city could have afforded to fund a fourth fire station, additional police, extra park maintenance, etc. that would have been required.
What we need is more tax revenue from appropriate business, whatever “appropriate” means to the city as a whole. I will say this again, and I know this may not sit well with some. But go look at Pioneer High School in Woodland, or Whitehead Elementary. Or take a gander at the brand new Woodland Community/Senior Center. Beautiful brick buildings, architecturally attractive (I realized this is a subjective opinion). Yet we in Davis are settling for “shacks” and “huts”. It was not surprising to me when the new Supt. of Schools noted how shabby Davis school facilities are.
Before you condemn what I have said, I encourage everyone to take a trip up to Woodland. The new shopping centers are just lovely, actually color coordinated to complement each other. You don’t see combinations of orange, purple and green. Buildings look far more substantial, and are often of brick as opposed to wood or wallboard. Really, take a look before you have the typical knee-jerk reaction that Davis is somehow better than every other town in the surrounding area.
Davis has a lot to offer, and certainly UCD is the star attraction. But Davis has settled for mediocre too often, and I think can be even better than it already is. Let’s not fire teachers and close schools to balance the budget. I would rather see us get a little more creative…
If you approach it with a “working hard not to lose” perspective then your chances of losing are greatly increased.
Matt.. I have to disagree here and KNOW that your political astutueness is not being reflected in your agrument. Candidate Souza will receive the pro-developer vote as he did in the past. They could care less about his current populist political posturing which are just words, not votes that impact their interests. He hopes that his new-found populist rhetoric will attract votes like yours to add to his total and put him over the top. Saylor, on the other hand , has a reported $40,000 campaign war chest to work with(question:where did all this money come from?), has a large, disciplined and professional campaign and the backing of the Davis Establishment,monied interests and the Davis Enterprise. We can hope that the voters will see through all this but it is a hope and cannot be counted upon.I am assuming that you are arguing for a vote for Souza and this may very well result in an Asmundson, Saylor, Souza council majority which puts Measure J in extreme jeprody.
If you approach it with a “working hard not to lose” perspective then your chances of losing are greatly increased.
Matt.. I have to disagree here and KNOW that your political astutueness is not being reflected in your agrument. Candidate Souza will receive the pro-developer vote as he did in the past. They could care less about his current populist political posturing which are just words, not votes that impact their interests. He hopes that his new-found populist rhetoric will attract votes like yours to add to his total and put him over the top. Saylor, on the other hand , has a reported $40,000 campaign war chest to work with(question:where did all this money come from?), has a large, disciplined and professional campaign and the backing of the Davis Establishment,monied interests and the Davis Enterprise. We can hope that the voters will see through all this but it is a hope and cannot be counted upon.I am assuming that you are arguing for a vote for Souza and this may very well result in an Asmundson, Saylor, Souza council majority which puts Measure J in extreme jeprody.
If you approach it with a “working hard not to lose” perspective then your chances of losing are greatly increased.
Matt.. I have to disagree here and KNOW that your political astutueness is not being reflected in your agrument. Candidate Souza will receive the pro-developer vote as he did in the past. They could care less about his current populist political posturing which are just words, not votes that impact their interests. He hopes that his new-found populist rhetoric will attract votes like yours to add to his total and put him over the top. Saylor, on the other hand , has a reported $40,000 campaign war chest to work with(question:where did all this money come from?), has a large, disciplined and professional campaign and the backing of the Davis Establishment,monied interests and the Davis Enterprise. We can hope that the voters will see through all this but it is a hope and cannot be counted upon.I am assuming that you are arguing for a vote for Souza and this may very well result in an Asmundson, Saylor, Souza council majority which puts Measure J in extreme jeprody.
If you approach it with a “working hard not to lose” perspective then your chances of losing are greatly increased.
Matt.. I have to disagree here and KNOW that your political astutueness is not being reflected in your agrument. Candidate Souza will receive the pro-developer vote as he did in the past. They could care less about his current populist political posturing which are just words, not votes that impact their interests. He hopes that his new-found populist rhetoric will attract votes like yours to add to his total and put him over the top. Saylor, on the other hand , has a reported $40,000 campaign war chest to work with(question:where did all this money come from?), has a large, disciplined and professional campaign and the backing of the Davis Establishment,monied interests and the Davis Enterprise. We can hope that the voters will see through all this but it is a hope and cannot be counted upon.I am assuming that you are arguing for a vote for Souza and this may very well result in an Asmundson, Saylor, Souza council majority which puts Measure J in extreme jeprody.
Your words say you believe Saylor is unbeatable. If you truly believe that, then your logic is hard to argue with.
I don’t believe any of the candidates is unbeatable, and therefore want them to prove they deserve the votes they get.
Now, I have a question for you. If Souza states unequivocally and unconditionally that he supports permanent renewal of Measure J with its current wording, are you not going to vote for him?
Your words say you believe Saylor is unbeatable. If you truly believe that, then your logic is hard to argue with.
I don’t believe any of the candidates is unbeatable, and therefore want them to prove they deserve the votes they get.
Now, I have a question for you. If Souza states unequivocally and unconditionally that he supports permanent renewal of Measure J with its current wording, are you not going to vote for him?
Your words say you believe Saylor is unbeatable. If you truly believe that, then your logic is hard to argue with.
I don’t believe any of the candidates is unbeatable, and therefore want them to prove they deserve the votes they get.
Now, I have a question for you. If Souza states unequivocally and unconditionally that he supports permanent renewal of Measure J with its current wording, are you not going to vote for him?
Your words say you believe Saylor is unbeatable. If you truly believe that, then your logic is hard to argue with.
I don’t believe any of the candidates is unbeatable, and therefore want them to prove they deserve the votes they get.
Now, I have a question for you. If Souza states unequivocally and unconditionally that he supports permanent renewal of Measure J with its current wording, are you not going to vote for him?
“If Souza states unequivocally and unconditionally that he supports permanent renewal of Measure J with its current wording, are you not going to vote for him? “
I’d rather burn in hell.
* Supported Measure X
* Supported Disbanding HRC
* Supported Merging Senior Citizens Commission
* Supported watering down human rights ordinance
* Supported Target
* Supported 3rd and B Visioning Project
* Supports 1% growth guideline
That’s just off the top of my head.
“If Souza states unequivocally and unconditionally that he supports permanent renewal of Measure J with its current wording, are you not going to vote for him? “
I’d rather burn in hell.
* Supported Measure X
* Supported Disbanding HRC
* Supported Merging Senior Citizens Commission
* Supported watering down human rights ordinance
* Supported Target
* Supported 3rd and B Visioning Project
* Supports 1% growth guideline
That’s just off the top of my head.
“If Souza states unequivocally and unconditionally that he supports permanent renewal of Measure J with its current wording, are you not going to vote for him? “
I’d rather burn in hell.
* Supported Measure X
* Supported Disbanding HRC
* Supported Merging Senior Citizens Commission
* Supported watering down human rights ordinance
* Supported Target
* Supported 3rd and B Visioning Project
* Supports 1% growth guideline
That’s just off the top of my head.
“If Souza states unequivocally and unconditionally that he supports permanent renewal of Measure J with its current wording, are you not going to vote for him? “
I’d rather burn in hell.
* Supported Measure X
* Supported Disbanding HRC
* Supported Merging Senior Citizens Commission
* Supported watering down human rights ordinance
* Supported Target
* Supported 3rd and B Visioning Project
* Supports 1% growth guideline
That’s just off the top of my head.
Matt.. I hope that Saylor is not unbeatable because of the advantages that I have outlined plus the fact that he is infuriatingly skillful at political manipulation and obfuscation. My conclusion is that the risk of him pulling off a win is just too great to dismiss.
As for Souza unequivocally declaring that he supports putting Measure J before the voters exactly like it is with just the clearly obsolete wordings removed(sunsets in 2010, references to the Nishi property, etc.), I would then look seriously at voting for him. I would also need to have a commitment from him not to participate in “gaming” the Measure J ballot with alternative versions in the hope that the original Measure J renewal vote was eroded.
Matt.. I hope that Saylor is not unbeatable because of the advantages that I have outlined plus the fact that he is infuriatingly skillful at political manipulation and obfuscation. My conclusion is that the risk of him pulling off a win is just too great to dismiss.
As for Souza unequivocally declaring that he supports putting Measure J before the voters exactly like it is with just the clearly obsolete wordings removed(sunsets in 2010, references to the Nishi property, etc.), I would then look seriously at voting for him. I would also need to have a commitment from him not to participate in “gaming” the Measure J ballot with alternative versions in the hope that the original Measure J renewal vote was eroded.
Matt.. I hope that Saylor is not unbeatable because of the advantages that I have outlined plus the fact that he is infuriatingly skillful at political manipulation and obfuscation. My conclusion is that the risk of him pulling off a win is just too great to dismiss.
As for Souza unequivocally declaring that he supports putting Measure J before the voters exactly like it is with just the clearly obsolete wordings removed(sunsets in 2010, references to the Nishi property, etc.), I would then look seriously at voting for him. I would also need to have a commitment from him not to participate in “gaming” the Measure J ballot with alternative versions in the hope that the original Measure J renewal vote was eroded.
Matt.. I hope that Saylor is not unbeatable because of the advantages that I have outlined plus the fact that he is infuriatingly skillful at political manipulation and obfuscation. My conclusion is that the risk of him pulling off a win is just too great to dismiss.
As for Souza unequivocally declaring that he supports putting Measure J before the voters exactly like it is with just the clearly obsolete wordings removed(sunsets in 2010, references to the Nishi property, etc.), I would then look seriously at voting for him. I would also need to have a commitment from him not to participate in “gaming” the Measure J ballot with alternative versions in the hope that the original Measure J renewal vote was eroded.
thanks matt for making your points.
its too bad that people jumped on you so quickly….yet, that is what this blog has become….
“agree with the vocal minority or don’t speak at all”
thanks matt for making your points.
its too bad that people jumped on you so quickly….yet, that is what this blog has become….
“agree with the vocal minority or don’t speak at all”
thanks matt for making your points.
its too bad that people jumped on you so quickly….yet, that is what this blog has become….
“agree with the vocal minority or don’t speak at all”
thanks matt for making your points.
its too bad that people jumped on you so quickly….yet, that is what this blog has become….
“agree with the vocal minority or don’t speak at all”
After all we should just go along with what he says, even when we disagree…
After all we should just go along with what he says, even when we disagree…
After all we should just go along with what he says, even when we disagree…
After all we should just go along with what he says, even when we disagree…
A) anyone who knows me, knows I am thick skinned, B) I could easily be wrong, C) raising the level of awareness will result in better individual and collective decisions, and D) reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably.
Vincente, has laid out a clear set of reasons why he thinks Souza is a major problem. I respect that. What I would like Vincente to do is to answer the same question for Saylor, Vergis and Roy.
No matter how each of us votes individually, three candidates will be elected. Some of us would prefer that only two are elected and the third seat is held vacant for four years, but the system doesn’t work that way. For me I want the best possible candidate sitting in that third seat.
Now regarding Vincente’s list:
I’d rather burn in hell.
* Supported Measure X
* Supported Disbanding HRC
* Supported Merging Senior Citizens Commission
* Supported watering down human rights ordinance
* Supported Target
* Supported 3rd and B Visioning Project
* Supports 1% growth guideline
One of those seven jumps out at me as incorrect. Steve was the Council member who made the motion to bring the Resolution language back for clarification. He spoke loud and often that the intent was always a Cap, not a target. As a result of his motion and his voting with Lamar and Sue to pass the motion, we now have explicit language that pulled and pulls the rug out from under staff’s continual interpretation of the 1% as a target. The final HESC report to Council and the Planning Commission doesn’t even use the expression “1% Guideline,” only the expression “1% Cap.” That is definitely not “Supports 1% growth guideline”
I don’t expect that to change Vincente’s mind, but it is what it is.
A) anyone who knows me, knows I am thick skinned, B) I could easily be wrong, C) raising the level of awareness will result in better individual and collective decisions, and D) reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably.
Vincente, has laid out a clear set of reasons why he thinks Souza is a major problem. I respect that. What I would like Vincente to do is to answer the same question for Saylor, Vergis and Roy.
No matter how each of us votes individually, three candidates will be elected. Some of us would prefer that only two are elected and the third seat is held vacant for four years, but the system doesn’t work that way. For me I want the best possible candidate sitting in that third seat.
Now regarding Vincente’s list:
I’d rather burn in hell.
* Supported Measure X
* Supported Disbanding HRC
* Supported Merging Senior Citizens Commission
* Supported watering down human rights ordinance
* Supported Target
* Supported 3rd and B Visioning Project
* Supports 1% growth guideline
One of those seven jumps out at me as incorrect. Steve was the Council member who made the motion to bring the Resolution language back for clarification. He spoke loud and often that the intent was always a Cap, not a target. As a result of his motion and his voting with Lamar and Sue to pass the motion, we now have explicit language that pulled and pulls the rug out from under staff’s continual interpretation of the 1% as a target. The final HESC report to Council and the Planning Commission doesn’t even use the expression “1% Guideline,” only the expression “1% Cap.” That is definitely not “Supports 1% growth guideline”
I don’t expect that to change Vincente’s mind, but it is what it is.
A) anyone who knows me, knows I am thick skinned, B) I could easily be wrong, C) raising the level of awareness will result in better individual and collective decisions, and D) reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably.
Vincente, has laid out a clear set of reasons why he thinks Souza is a major problem. I respect that. What I would like Vincente to do is to answer the same question for Saylor, Vergis and Roy.
No matter how each of us votes individually, three candidates will be elected. Some of us would prefer that only two are elected and the third seat is held vacant for four years, but the system doesn’t work that way. For me I want the best possible candidate sitting in that third seat.
Now regarding Vincente’s list:
I’d rather burn in hell.
* Supported Measure X
* Supported Disbanding HRC
* Supported Merging Senior Citizens Commission
* Supported watering down human rights ordinance
* Supported Target
* Supported 3rd and B Visioning Project
* Supports 1% growth guideline
One of those seven jumps out at me as incorrect. Steve was the Council member who made the motion to bring the Resolution language back for clarification. He spoke loud and often that the intent was always a Cap, not a target. As a result of his motion and his voting with Lamar and Sue to pass the motion, we now have explicit language that pulled and pulls the rug out from under staff’s continual interpretation of the 1% as a target. The final HESC report to Council and the Planning Commission doesn’t even use the expression “1% Guideline,” only the expression “1% Cap.” That is definitely not “Supports 1% growth guideline”
I don’t expect that to change Vincente’s mind, but it is what it is.
A) anyone who knows me, knows I am thick skinned, B) I could easily be wrong, C) raising the level of awareness will result in better individual and collective decisions, and D) reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably.
Vincente, has laid out a clear set of reasons why he thinks Souza is a major problem. I respect that. What I would like Vincente to do is to answer the same question for Saylor, Vergis and Roy.
No matter how each of us votes individually, three candidates will be elected. Some of us would prefer that only two are elected and the third seat is held vacant for four years, but the system doesn’t work that way. For me I want the best possible candidate sitting in that third seat.
Now regarding Vincente’s list:
I’d rather burn in hell.
* Supported Measure X
* Supported Disbanding HRC
* Supported Merging Senior Citizens Commission
* Supported watering down human rights ordinance
* Supported Target
* Supported 3rd and B Visioning Project
* Supports 1% growth guideline
One of those seven jumps out at me as incorrect. Steve was the Council member who made the motion to bring the Resolution language back for clarification. He spoke loud and often that the intent was always a Cap, not a target. As a result of his motion and his voting with Lamar and Sue to pass the motion, we now have explicit language that pulled and pulls the rug out from under staff’s continual interpretation of the 1% as a target. The final HESC report to Council and the Planning Commission doesn’t even use the expression “1% Guideline,” only the expression “1% Cap.” That is definitely not “Supports 1% growth guideline”
I don’t expect that to change Vincente’s mind, but it is what it is.
Matt said:We can’t change the past. We can only change the present and the future.
“you can read the future in the past…..”a leopard doesn’t change its spots”…”those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”,..Ignoring the legion of these sayings that describe the human condition,in the quixotic hope that we are witnessing political enlightenment and redemption , can put one’s cause in jeopardy.(finally looked up the correct spelling)
Matt said:We can’t change the past. We can only change the present and the future.
“you can read the future in the past…..”a leopard doesn’t change its spots”…”those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”,..Ignoring the legion of these sayings that describe the human condition,in the quixotic hope that we are witnessing political enlightenment and redemption , can put one’s cause in jeopardy.(finally looked up the correct spelling)
Matt said:We can’t change the past. We can only change the present and the future.
“you can read the future in the past…..”a leopard doesn’t change its spots”…”those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”,..Ignoring the legion of these sayings that describe the human condition,in the quixotic hope that we are witnessing political enlightenment and redemption , can put one’s cause in jeopardy.(finally looked up the correct spelling)
Matt said:We can’t change the past. We can only change the present and the future.
“you can read the future in the past…..”a leopard doesn’t change its spots”…”those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”,..Ignoring the legion of these sayings that describe the human condition,in the quixotic hope that we are witnessing political enlightenment and redemption , can put one’s cause in jeopardy.(finally looked up the correct spelling)
“He spoke loud and often that the intent was always a Cap, not a target.”
Matt…That may be true but at the time I believe it was a strategic decision on his part. The political momentum was clearly against the 1%
growth statement and it was under real threat of being removed completely from the General Plan. As to the cap vs target issue, you are totally wrong with regard to Souza’s past public record. During the Covell Village campaign, he and Saylor clearly described it as a TARGET and even referred to it as mandatory with some kind of penalty(we would have to penalize ouselves for not reaching a target that the Council Majority created themselves?) if not reached.
“He spoke loud and often that the intent was always a Cap, not a target.”
Matt…That may be true but at the time I believe it was a strategic decision on his part. The political momentum was clearly against the 1%
growth statement and it was under real threat of being removed completely from the General Plan. As to the cap vs target issue, you are totally wrong with regard to Souza’s past public record. During the Covell Village campaign, he and Saylor clearly described it as a TARGET and even referred to it as mandatory with some kind of penalty(we would have to penalize ouselves for not reaching a target that the Council Majority created themselves?) if not reached.
“He spoke loud and often that the intent was always a Cap, not a target.”
Matt…That may be true but at the time I believe it was a strategic decision on his part. The political momentum was clearly against the 1%
growth statement and it was under real threat of being removed completely from the General Plan. As to the cap vs target issue, you are totally wrong with regard to Souza’s past public record. During the Covell Village campaign, he and Saylor clearly described it as a TARGET and even referred to it as mandatory with some kind of penalty(we would have to penalize ouselves for not reaching a target that the Council Majority created themselves?) if not reached.
“He spoke loud and often that the intent was always a Cap, not a target.”
Matt…That may be true but at the time I believe it was a strategic decision on his part. The political momentum was clearly against the 1%
growth statement and it was under real threat of being removed completely from the General Plan. As to the cap vs target issue, you are totally wrong with regard to Souza’s past public record. During the Covell Village campaign, he and Saylor clearly described it as a TARGET and even referred to it as mandatory with some kind of penalty(we would have to penalize ouselves for not reaching a target that the Council Majority created themselves?) if not reached.
thinking strategically said…
“you can read the future in the past…..”a leopard doesn’t change its spots”…”those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”,..Ignoring the legion of these sayings that describe the human condition,in the quixotic hope that we are witnessing political enlightenment and redemption , can put one’s cause in jeopardy.(finally looked up the correct spelling)
I don’t disagree with you when you analyze each candidate as a universe of one; however, we are not dealing with that kind of decision. We get three now matter what.
So, I ask you to apply the same criteria to all the candidates. I’m pretty sure that two will quickly distance themselves from the rest, but that still begs the question, “Who is the best #3?”
My historical lesson for the day is that if I don’t pay attention to all three choices I will get a suboptimal decision.
thinking strategically said…
“you can read the future in the past…..”a leopard doesn’t change its spots”…”those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”,..Ignoring the legion of these sayings that describe the human condition,in the quixotic hope that we are witnessing political enlightenment and redemption , can put one’s cause in jeopardy.(finally looked up the correct spelling)
I don’t disagree with you when you analyze each candidate as a universe of one; however, we are not dealing with that kind of decision. We get three now matter what.
So, I ask you to apply the same criteria to all the candidates. I’m pretty sure that two will quickly distance themselves from the rest, but that still begs the question, “Who is the best #3?”
My historical lesson for the day is that if I don’t pay attention to all three choices I will get a suboptimal decision.
thinking strategically said…
“you can read the future in the past…..”a leopard doesn’t change its spots”…”those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”,..Ignoring the legion of these sayings that describe the human condition,in the quixotic hope that we are witnessing political enlightenment and redemption , can put one’s cause in jeopardy.(finally looked up the correct spelling)
I don’t disagree with you when you analyze each candidate as a universe of one; however, we are not dealing with that kind of decision. We get three now matter what.
So, I ask you to apply the same criteria to all the candidates. I’m pretty sure that two will quickly distance themselves from the rest, but that still begs the question, “Who is the best #3?”
My historical lesson for the day is that if I don’t pay attention to all three choices I will get a suboptimal decision.
thinking strategically said…
“you can read the future in the past…..”a leopard doesn’t change its spots”…”those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”,..Ignoring the legion of these sayings that describe the human condition,in the quixotic hope that we are witnessing political enlightenment and redemption , can put one’s cause in jeopardy.(finally looked up the correct spelling)
I don’t disagree with you when you analyze each candidate as a universe of one; however, we are not dealing with that kind of decision. We get three now matter what.
So, I ask you to apply the same criteria to all the candidates. I’m pretty sure that two will quickly distance themselves from the rest, but that still begs the question, “Who is the best #3?”
My historical lesson for the day is that if I don’t pay attention to all three choices I will get a suboptimal decision.
The part you are missing is that while we get to vote for three, we only have two realistic chances (no offense to Rob Roy). The best chance to get our two is not to vote for their one. If we vote for Sue, Cecilia, and Rob, we can win a majority if we can defeat Souza or Saylor. If we vote for Sue, Cecilia, and Souza, that means we HAVE to defeat Saylor. That’s like shooting for an inside straight, you may get it, but it’s a low odds move. I’m not shooting for an inside straight. I’m voting for Sue, Cecilia, and Rob.
The part you are missing is that while we get to vote for three, we only have two realistic chances (no offense to Rob Roy). The best chance to get our two is not to vote for their one. If we vote for Sue, Cecilia, and Rob, we can win a majority if we can defeat Souza or Saylor. If we vote for Sue, Cecilia, and Souza, that means we HAVE to defeat Saylor. That’s like shooting for an inside straight, you may get it, but it’s a low odds move. I’m not shooting for an inside straight. I’m voting for Sue, Cecilia, and Rob.
The part you are missing is that while we get to vote for three, we only have two realistic chances (no offense to Rob Roy). The best chance to get our two is not to vote for their one. If we vote for Sue, Cecilia, and Rob, we can win a majority if we can defeat Souza or Saylor. If we vote for Sue, Cecilia, and Souza, that means we HAVE to defeat Saylor. That’s like shooting for an inside straight, you may get it, but it’s a low odds move. I’m not shooting for an inside straight. I’m voting for Sue, Cecilia, and Rob.
The part you are missing is that while we get to vote for three, we only have two realistic chances (no offense to Rob Roy). The best chance to get our two is not to vote for their one. If we vote for Sue, Cecilia, and Rob, we can win a majority if we can defeat Souza or Saylor. If we vote for Sue, Cecilia, and Souza, that means we HAVE to defeat Saylor. That’s like shooting for an inside straight, you may get it, but it’s a low odds move. I’m not shooting for an inside straight. I’m voting for Sue, Cecilia, and Rob.
“….yet, that is what this blog has become….
‘agree with the vocal minority or don’t speak at all'”
Like heck it has!
“….yet, that is what this blog has become….
‘agree with the vocal minority or don’t speak at all'”
Like heck it has!
“….yet, that is what this blog has become….
‘agree with the vocal minority or don’t speak at all'”
Like heck it has!
“….yet, that is what this blog has become….
‘agree with the vocal minority or don’t speak at all'”
Like heck it has!
Here’s the actual text of Steve and Don’s October 2005 Op-Ed piece. Please note the two portions I have underlined. Nowhere does it say TARGET, and nowhere does it refer to a penalty.
It is a very biased opinion. It is easy to disagree with many of its arguments, but lets be honest here. It was submitted to the Enterprise as an Opinion and published on the Op-Ed page as an opinion.
Which of course, gets me back to my core question, “Who is your #3?”
Measure X vote is about how, when and where we’ll grow
Davis Enterprise, The (CA) – October 23, 2005
Author: Stephen Souza and Don Saylor ; Special to The
Enterprise
We are at a fork in the road.
Measure X will decide how Davis will meet its 1 percent housing goals for the next decade, and which plan best meets those goals.
With the Measure X choice, we have Covell Village. Covell Village was part of the Davis General Plan from 1987 until 2001, when it was removed by a 3-2 council vote. It’s surrounded on three sides by existing Davis neighborhoods. It’s an innovative, walkable, solar neighborhood designed by local planners who live here and whose children live here.
On the other side, we have sprawl, like you see all over the Sacramento Valley. It’s ugly. It’s dreary. It relies totally on cars and is environmentally irresponsible. It’s a sea of stucco, punctuated by freeway sound walls. It’s not the kind of growth that we want to see in Davis.
Sacramento developers like Steve Gidaro are trying to force Davis to build this kind of neighborhood on our borders.
If you vote yes on X, you are supporting an innovative project that will help meet our housing goals for the next 10 years and benefit our community in countless ways. If you vote no on X, you are encouraging Sacramento developers like Gidaro to build sprawl in every direction around Davis.
Can’t we just use Measure J to vote down proposals like Gidaro’s?
Not necessarily. We are required by law to meet our regional housing requirements. That’s one reason we passed a 1 percent growth policy. If we don’t accept our fair share of growth, we can lose major transportation funding, and it invites developers like Gidaro to do an end run around the City Council — and the voters — to force development right on the edge of town.
Mace Ranch: the sequel
We’ve seen this movie before, and we know how it ends.
Two decades ago, the city initially rejected Mace Ranch. So the developers went to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors. They got three votes, from Woodland and West Sacramento, and forced the city’s hand. We had to accept
Mace Ranch to get our fair share of tax revenue.
Now we’re seeing the sequel. Gidaro just tried to sell the City Council his Mace Gateway proposal. We rejected it outright, 5-0. It’s an 800-acre project that is the very definition of “sprawl.” In terms of environmental design, it’s not even in the same league as Covell Village.
But Gidaro has made it clear that he plans to go to the county next and has already tried to get his project considered in the county’s General Plan. If he can win at
the county level, the City Council and Davis voters will be powerless to stop him. All he needs is three votes on the Board of Supervisors.
If he can’t get their votes, he’ll bankroll a recall election, which he has already threatened to do. And we’ll have a gun to our head.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Vote against sprawl
Voting for Measure X is a vote against sprawl.
By voting yes on Measure X we will support the kind of smart planning that makes Covell Village such a perfect fit for Davis. We will also be saying “no” to the kind of
developers who are circling our borders like sharks, waiting for their chance to build sprawl. It takes the gun out of Gidaro’s hands.
And we will be saying to the region, loud and clear, that through responsible planning and citizen action Davis can adequately meet our housing goals with a slow-growth neighborhood designed by Davis innovators.
The list of never-before-envisioned features in this project is too long for this article.
This project is in direct response to city housing policies and needs. The 10-year phasing provides long-term stability. No other project in Davis or California has been required to provide 45 percent of all housing at prices affordable to income levels of working people.
No other project required solar collectors, built and maintained the parks at the time the neighborhoods were built, established a transportation district or improved the existing traffic network to the extent this one does.
No other project has provided 2 acres of permanent agricultural land for every 1 acre removed from production or donated an 82-acre organic farm. No other project donated a fully constructed and equipped fire station needed to serve existing residents.
No other project donated $750,000 for Walnut Pool, $250,000 for an athletic field complex, $500,000 for a library branch in South Davis, a community recreation
building, an outdoor amphitheater, more than 150 acres of natural habitat pond area, permanent mitigation lands for Swainson’s hawks and space for county mental health facilities.
No other project fully mitigates all school impacts or provides $12.1 million for public safety operations.
No other project completely pays for itself and provides a net operating surplus to both the city and the county.
Covell Village does all this and more and does it all through an enforceable contract, the development agreement.
Vote to keep Davis Davis
We are at a fork in the road. This election is about how, when and where we grow. Measure X answers all these questions and ensures that Davis will remain Davis.
How should we grow? With smart planning. With targeted housing, open space, bike paths, public safety enhancements and the rest.
When should we grow? Slowly, under 1 percent each year.
Where should we grow? In a location that is surrounded by existing Davis neighborhoods.
We cannot allow our destiny to be controlled by others. The future of our community is too important to leave to the whims of outsiders. We must control our own destiny in a responsible manner. This project is in the best tradition of what Davis is.
It is important to us that we keep Davis Davis. That’s what Covell Village will do. We urge you to reject sprawl and vote yes on Measure X.”
Here’s the actual text of Steve and Don’s October 2005 Op-Ed piece. Please note the two portions I have underlined. Nowhere does it say TARGET, and nowhere does it refer to a penalty.
It is a very biased opinion. It is easy to disagree with many of its arguments, but lets be honest here. It was submitted to the Enterprise as an Opinion and published on the Op-Ed page as an opinion.
Which of course, gets me back to my core question, “Who is your #3?”
Measure X vote is about how, when and where we’ll grow
Davis Enterprise, The (CA) – October 23, 2005
Author: Stephen Souza and Don Saylor ; Special to The
Enterprise
We are at a fork in the road.
Measure X will decide how Davis will meet its 1 percent housing goals for the next decade, and which plan best meets those goals.
With the Measure X choice, we have Covell Village. Covell Village was part of the Davis General Plan from 1987 until 2001, when it was removed by a 3-2 council vote. It’s surrounded on three sides by existing Davis neighborhoods. It’s an innovative, walkable, solar neighborhood designed by local planners who live here and whose children live here.
On the other side, we have sprawl, like you see all over the Sacramento Valley. It’s ugly. It’s dreary. It relies totally on cars and is environmentally irresponsible. It’s a sea of stucco, punctuated by freeway sound walls. It’s not the kind of growth that we want to see in Davis.
Sacramento developers like Steve Gidaro are trying to force Davis to build this kind of neighborhood on our borders.
If you vote yes on X, you are supporting an innovative project that will help meet our housing goals for the next 10 years and benefit our community in countless ways. If you vote no on X, you are encouraging Sacramento developers like Gidaro to build sprawl in every direction around Davis.
Can’t we just use Measure J to vote down proposals like Gidaro’s?
Not necessarily. We are required by law to meet our regional housing requirements. That’s one reason we passed a 1 percent growth policy. If we don’t accept our fair share of growth, we can lose major transportation funding, and it invites developers like Gidaro to do an end run around the City Council — and the voters — to force development right on the edge of town.
Mace Ranch: the sequel
We’ve seen this movie before, and we know how it ends.
Two decades ago, the city initially rejected Mace Ranch. So the developers went to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors. They got three votes, from Woodland and West Sacramento, and forced the city’s hand. We had to accept
Mace Ranch to get our fair share of tax revenue.
Now we’re seeing the sequel. Gidaro just tried to sell the City Council his Mace Gateway proposal. We rejected it outright, 5-0. It’s an 800-acre project that is the very definition of “sprawl.” In terms of environmental design, it’s not even in the same league as Covell Village.
But Gidaro has made it clear that he plans to go to the county next and has already tried to get his project considered in the county’s General Plan. If he can win at
the county level, the City Council and Davis voters will be powerless to stop him. All he needs is three votes on the Board of Supervisors.
If he can’t get their votes, he’ll bankroll a recall election, which he has already threatened to do. And we’ll have a gun to our head.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Vote against sprawl
Voting for Measure X is a vote against sprawl.
By voting yes on Measure X we will support the kind of smart planning that makes Covell Village such a perfect fit for Davis. We will also be saying “no” to the kind of
developers who are circling our borders like sharks, waiting for their chance to build sprawl. It takes the gun out of Gidaro’s hands.
And we will be saying to the region, loud and clear, that through responsible planning and citizen action Davis can adequately meet our housing goals with a slow-growth neighborhood designed by Davis innovators.
The list of never-before-envisioned features in this project is too long for this article.
This project is in direct response to city housing policies and needs. The 10-year phasing provides long-term stability. No other project in Davis or California has been required to provide 45 percent of all housing at prices affordable to income levels of working people.
No other project required solar collectors, built and maintained the parks at the time the neighborhoods were built, established a transportation district or improved the existing traffic network to the extent this one does.
No other project has provided 2 acres of permanent agricultural land for every 1 acre removed from production or donated an 82-acre organic farm. No other project donated a fully constructed and equipped fire station needed to serve existing residents.
No other project donated $750,000 for Walnut Pool, $250,000 for an athletic field complex, $500,000 for a library branch in South Davis, a community recreation
building, an outdoor amphitheater, more than 150 acres of natural habitat pond area, permanent mitigation lands for Swainson’s hawks and space for county mental health facilities.
No other project fully mitigates all school impacts or provides $12.1 million for public safety operations.
No other project completely pays for itself and provides a net operating surplus to both the city and the county.
Covell Village does all this and more and does it all through an enforceable contract, the development agreement.
Vote to keep Davis Davis
We are at a fork in the road. This election is about how, when and where we grow. Measure X answers all these questions and ensures that Davis will remain Davis.
How should we grow? With smart planning. With targeted housing, open space, bike paths, public safety enhancements and the rest.
When should we grow? Slowly, under 1 percent each year.
Where should we grow? In a location that is surrounded by existing Davis neighborhoods.
We cannot allow our destiny to be controlled by others. The future of our community is too important to leave to the whims of outsiders. We must control our own destiny in a responsible manner. This project is in the best tradition of what Davis is.
It is important to us that we keep Davis Davis. That’s what Covell Village will do. We urge you to reject sprawl and vote yes on Measure X.”
Here’s the actual text of Steve and Don’s October 2005 Op-Ed piece. Please note the two portions I have underlined. Nowhere does it say TARGET, and nowhere does it refer to a penalty.
It is a very biased opinion. It is easy to disagree with many of its arguments, but lets be honest here. It was submitted to the Enterprise as an Opinion and published on the Op-Ed page as an opinion.
Which of course, gets me back to my core question, “Who is your #3?”
Measure X vote is about how, when and where we’ll grow
Davis Enterprise, The (CA) – October 23, 2005
Author: Stephen Souza and Don Saylor ; Special to The
Enterprise
We are at a fork in the road.
Measure X will decide how Davis will meet its 1 percent housing goals for the next decade, and which plan best meets those goals.
With the Measure X choice, we have Covell Village. Covell Village was part of the Davis General Plan from 1987 until 2001, when it was removed by a 3-2 council vote. It’s surrounded on three sides by existing Davis neighborhoods. It’s an innovative, walkable, solar neighborhood designed by local planners who live here and whose children live here.
On the other side, we have sprawl, like you see all over the Sacramento Valley. It’s ugly. It’s dreary. It relies totally on cars and is environmentally irresponsible. It’s a sea of stucco, punctuated by freeway sound walls. It’s not the kind of growth that we want to see in Davis.
Sacramento developers like Steve Gidaro are trying to force Davis to build this kind of neighborhood on our borders.
If you vote yes on X, you are supporting an innovative project that will help meet our housing goals for the next 10 years and benefit our community in countless ways. If you vote no on X, you are encouraging Sacramento developers like Gidaro to build sprawl in every direction around Davis.
Can’t we just use Measure J to vote down proposals like Gidaro’s?
Not necessarily. We are required by law to meet our regional housing requirements. That’s one reason we passed a 1 percent growth policy. If we don’t accept our fair share of growth, we can lose major transportation funding, and it invites developers like Gidaro to do an end run around the City Council — and the voters — to force development right on the edge of town.
Mace Ranch: the sequel
We’ve seen this movie before, and we know how it ends.
Two decades ago, the city initially rejected Mace Ranch. So the developers went to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors. They got three votes, from Woodland and West Sacramento, and forced the city’s hand. We had to accept
Mace Ranch to get our fair share of tax revenue.
Now we’re seeing the sequel. Gidaro just tried to sell the City Council his Mace Gateway proposal. We rejected it outright, 5-0. It’s an 800-acre project that is the very definition of “sprawl.” In terms of environmental design, it’s not even in the same league as Covell Village.
But Gidaro has made it clear that he plans to go to the county next and has already tried to get his project considered in the county’s General Plan. If he can win at
the county level, the City Council and Davis voters will be powerless to stop him. All he needs is three votes on the Board of Supervisors.
If he can’t get their votes, he’ll bankroll a recall election, which he has already threatened to do. And we’ll have a gun to our head.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Vote against sprawl
Voting for Measure X is a vote against sprawl.
By voting yes on Measure X we will support the kind of smart planning that makes Covell Village such a perfect fit for Davis. We will also be saying “no” to the kind of
developers who are circling our borders like sharks, waiting for their chance to build sprawl. It takes the gun out of Gidaro’s hands.
And we will be saying to the region, loud and clear, that through responsible planning and citizen action Davis can adequately meet our housing goals with a slow-growth neighborhood designed by Davis innovators.
The list of never-before-envisioned features in this project is too long for this article.
This project is in direct response to city housing policies and needs. The 10-year phasing provides long-term stability. No other project in Davis or California has been required to provide 45 percent of all housing at prices affordable to income levels of working people.
No other project required solar collectors, built and maintained the parks at the time the neighborhoods were built, established a transportation district or improved the existing traffic network to the extent this one does.
No other project has provided 2 acres of permanent agricultural land for every 1 acre removed from production or donated an 82-acre organic farm. No other project donated a fully constructed and equipped fire station needed to serve existing residents.
No other project donated $750,000 for Walnut Pool, $250,000 for an athletic field complex, $500,000 for a library branch in South Davis, a community recreation
building, an outdoor amphitheater, more than 150 acres of natural habitat pond area, permanent mitigation lands for Swainson’s hawks and space for county mental health facilities.
No other project fully mitigates all school impacts or provides $12.1 million for public safety operations.
No other project completely pays for itself and provides a net operating surplus to both the city and the county.
Covell Village does all this and more and does it all through an enforceable contract, the development agreement.
Vote to keep Davis Davis
We are at a fork in the road. This election is about how, when and where we grow. Measure X answers all these questions and ensures that Davis will remain Davis.
How should we grow? With smart planning. With targeted housing, open space, bike paths, public safety enhancements and the rest.
When should we grow? Slowly, under 1 percent each year.
Where should we grow? In a location that is surrounded by existing Davis neighborhoods.
We cannot allow our destiny to be controlled by others. The future of our community is too important to leave to the whims of outsiders. We must control our own destiny in a responsible manner. This project is in the best tradition of what Davis is.
It is important to us that we keep Davis Davis. That’s what Covell Village will do. We urge you to reject sprawl and vote yes on Measure X.”
Here’s the actual text of Steve and Don’s October 2005 Op-Ed piece. Please note the two portions I have underlined. Nowhere does it say TARGET, and nowhere does it refer to a penalty.
It is a very biased opinion. It is easy to disagree with many of its arguments, but lets be honest here. It was submitted to the Enterprise as an Opinion and published on the Op-Ed page as an opinion.
Which of course, gets me back to my core question, “Who is your #3?”
Measure X vote is about how, when and where we’ll grow
Davis Enterprise, The (CA) – October 23, 2005
Author: Stephen Souza and Don Saylor ; Special to The
Enterprise
We are at a fork in the road.
Measure X will decide how Davis will meet its 1 percent housing goals for the next decade, and which plan best meets those goals.
With the Measure X choice, we have Covell Village. Covell Village was part of the Davis General Plan from 1987 until 2001, when it was removed by a 3-2 council vote. It’s surrounded on three sides by existing Davis neighborhoods. It’s an innovative, walkable, solar neighborhood designed by local planners who live here and whose children live here.
On the other side, we have sprawl, like you see all over the Sacramento Valley. It’s ugly. It’s dreary. It relies totally on cars and is environmentally irresponsible. It’s a sea of stucco, punctuated by freeway sound walls. It’s not the kind of growth that we want to see in Davis.
Sacramento developers like Steve Gidaro are trying to force Davis to build this kind of neighborhood on our borders.
If you vote yes on X, you are supporting an innovative project that will help meet our housing goals for the next 10 years and benefit our community in countless ways. If you vote no on X, you are encouraging Sacramento developers like Gidaro to build sprawl in every direction around Davis.
Can’t we just use Measure J to vote down proposals like Gidaro’s?
Not necessarily. We are required by law to meet our regional housing requirements. That’s one reason we passed a 1 percent growth policy. If we don’t accept our fair share of growth, we can lose major transportation funding, and it invites developers like Gidaro to do an end run around the City Council — and the voters — to force development right on the edge of town.
Mace Ranch: the sequel
We’ve seen this movie before, and we know how it ends.
Two decades ago, the city initially rejected Mace Ranch. So the developers went to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors. They got three votes, from Woodland and West Sacramento, and forced the city’s hand. We had to accept
Mace Ranch to get our fair share of tax revenue.
Now we’re seeing the sequel. Gidaro just tried to sell the City Council his Mace Gateway proposal. We rejected it outright, 5-0. It’s an 800-acre project that is the very definition of “sprawl.” In terms of environmental design, it’s not even in the same league as Covell Village.
But Gidaro has made it clear that he plans to go to the county next and has already tried to get his project considered in the county’s General Plan. If he can win at
the county level, the City Council and Davis voters will be powerless to stop him. All he needs is three votes on the Board of Supervisors.
If he can’t get their votes, he’ll bankroll a recall election, which he has already threatened to do. And we’ll have a gun to our head.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Vote against sprawl
Voting for Measure X is a vote against sprawl.
By voting yes on Measure X we will support the kind of smart planning that makes Covell Village such a perfect fit for Davis. We will also be saying “no” to the kind of
developers who are circling our borders like sharks, waiting for their chance to build sprawl. It takes the gun out of Gidaro’s hands.
And we will be saying to the region, loud and clear, that through responsible planning and citizen action Davis can adequately meet our housing goals with a slow-growth neighborhood designed by Davis innovators.
The list of never-before-envisioned features in this project is too long for this article.
This project is in direct response to city housing policies and needs. The 10-year phasing provides long-term stability. No other project in Davis or California has been required to provide 45 percent of all housing at prices affordable to income levels of working people.
No other project required solar collectors, built and maintained the parks at the time the neighborhoods were built, established a transportation district or improved the existing traffic network to the extent this one does.
No other project has provided 2 acres of permanent agricultural land for every 1 acre removed from production or donated an 82-acre organic farm. No other project donated a fully constructed and equipped fire station needed to serve existing residents.
No other project donated $750,000 for Walnut Pool, $250,000 for an athletic field complex, $500,000 for a library branch in South Davis, a community recreation
building, an outdoor amphitheater, more than 150 acres of natural habitat pond area, permanent mitigation lands for Swainson’s hawks and space for county mental health facilities.
No other project fully mitigates all school impacts or provides $12.1 million for public safety operations.
No other project completely pays for itself and provides a net operating surplus to both the city and the county.
Covell Village does all this and more and does it all through an enforceable contract, the development agreement.
Vote to keep Davis Davis
We are at a fork in the road. This election is about how, when and where we grow. Measure X answers all these questions and ensures that Davis will remain Davis.
How should we grow? With smart planning. With targeted housing, open space, bike paths, public safety enhancements and the rest.
When should we grow? Slowly, under 1 percent each year.
Where should we grow? In a location that is surrounded by existing Davis neighborhoods.
We cannot allow our destiny to be controlled by others. The future of our community is too important to leave to the whims of outsiders. We must control our own destiny in a responsible manner. This project is in the best tradition of what Davis is.
It is important to us that we keep Davis Davis. That’s what Covell Village will do. We urge you to reject sprawl and vote yes on Measure X.”
“* Supported Measure X
* Supported Disbanding HRC
* Supported Merging Senior Citizens Commission
* Supported watering down human rights ordinance
* Supported Target
* Supported 3rd and B Visioning Project
* Supports 1% growth guideline”
That is an interesting list. Maybe it should be posed to the non-incumbents to see how they would have voted on each one.
“* Supported Measure X
* Supported Disbanding HRC
* Supported Merging Senior Citizens Commission
* Supported watering down human rights ordinance
* Supported Target
* Supported 3rd and B Visioning Project
* Supports 1% growth guideline”
That is an interesting list. Maybe it should be posed to the non-incumbents to see how they would have voted on each one.
“* Supported Measure X
* Supported Disbanding HRC
* Supported Merging Senior Citizens Commission
* Supported watering down human rights ordinance
* Supported Target
* Supported 3rd and B Visioning Project
* Supports 1% growth guideline”
That is an interesting list. Maybe it should be posed to the non-incumbents to see how they would have voted on each one.
“* Supported Measure X
* Supported Disbanding HRC
* Supported Merging Senior Citizens Commission
* Supported watering down human rights ordinance
* Supported Target
* Supported 3rd and B Visioning Project
* Supports 1% growth guideline”
That is an interesting list. Maybe it should be posed to the non-incumbents to see how they would have voted on each one.
“I don’t disagree with you when you analyze each candidate as a universe of one; however, we are not dealing with that kind of decision. We get three now matter what.
So, I ask you to apply the same criteria to all the candidates. I’m pretty sure that two will quickly distance themselves from the rest, but that still begs the question, “Who is the best #3?”
My historical lesson for the day is that if I don’t pay attention to all three choices I will get a suboptimal decision.”
Matt, I truly respect your opinions, and your reasoning. However, let me explain why I will not vote for Souza, no matter what. During the “merger” fight, Souza and Asmundson attempted to do away with the Senior Citizens Commission. Now people can differ in opinion as to whether this commission was important enough to keep, and I have no problem with other views on the matter.
However, Souza used some very underhanded tactics that nearly ruined my health and that of some seniors on the commission. Process was bypassed by putting the merger item on the consent calendar to avoid the possibility of public comment, not once but twice. Souza became quite beligerent at commission meetings, browbeating whoever disagreed with him, then accused them of browbeating him! Frankly, his behaviour was so nasty at times, it was downright appalling to watch IMHO, and reminded me of tactics used by someone in the Mafia – strongarmed bullying.
Every time I came up with a plausible argument against merging the commissions, he would move the target by claiming the process was “evolving”. He increased the number of people that would be on the commission, insisted a combined commission would be “more powerful”…whatever statement he thought would defuse the situation no matter how illogical or silly. You can read all about it on this blog in past articles, or listen to my infamous archived speech in front of the City Council.
Now when I plunked down a petition with 138 signatures from infuriated seniors at the dais during Public Comment at a City Council meeting, suddenly Souza completely changed his mind about the merger, as did Asmundson. They both knew the blunder they had made was enormous. At least Ruth Admundson had the grace to apologize. Saylor, on the other hand, chastised the “tone of the community”, as if somehow seniors were at fault for fighting back. Nevertheless, their rhetoric for the merger notwithstanding, both Saylor and Souza eventually voted to keep the senior commission intact. Why? I very much doubt it was from principled reasons, but more the fear that they had infuriated seniors with such a stupid idea as to eliminate a commission designed to assist the elderly while leaving in place commissions for inanimate objects like trees and bikes. It was an idea that just didn’t compute, let alone float.
Since that time, all three City Council members Asmundson, Souza and Saylor have made pains to make nice, which is all fine and good. However, my trust level in regards to the three of them is very low, for obvious reasons.
I do understand your dilemma about having to vote for three, and which three candidates should it be. Frankly I will make the uncomfortable observation that we are probably not getting the best candidates to run for office period. But how many of us are willing to throw our hat into the ring and put up with the childish bickering that goes on in the City Council meetings, the backstabbing, the gamemanship, the late nights until as late as two in the morning, city staffers who run amok with power and so on?
I would also note that Souza made sure the Measure J issue would not be discussed by the City Council prior to election time. Why? Because his record on the subject is not good; in his campaign speeches he can say whatever he wants; but doesn’t have to actually put his money where his mouth is by casting an actual vote. Campaign promises are very easy to make, but a lot more difficult to keep…
“I don’t disagree with you when you analyze each candidate as a universe of one; however, we are not dealing with that kind of decision. We get three now matter what.
So, I ask you to apply the same criteria to all the candidates. I’m pretty sure that two will quickly distance themselves from the rest, but that still begs the question, “Who is the best #3?”
My historical lesson for the day is that if I don’t pay attention to all three choices I will get a suboptimal decision.”
Matt, I truly respect your opinions, and your reasoning. However, let me explain why I will not vote for Souza, no matter what. During the “merger” fight, Souza and Asmundson attempted to do away with the Senior Citizens Commission. Now people can differ in opinion as to whether this commission was important enough to keep, and I have no problem with other views on the matter.
However, Souza used some very underhanded tactics that nearly ruined my health and that of some seniors on the commission. Process was bypassed by putting the merger item on the consent calendar to avoid the possibility of public comment, not once but twice. Souza became quite beligerent at commission meetings, browbeating whoever disagreed with him, then accused them of browbeating him! Frankly, his behaviour was so nasty at times, it was downright appalling to watch IMHO, and reminded me of tactics used by someone in the Mafia – strongarmed bullying.
Every time I came up with a plausible argument against merging the commissions, he would move the target by claiming the process was “evolving”. He increased the number of people that would be on the commission, insisted a combined commission would be “more powerful”…whatever statement he thought would defuse the situation no matter how illogical or silly. You can read all about it on this blog in past articles, or listen to my infamous archived speech in front of the City Council.
Now when I plunked down a petition with 138 signatures from infuriated seniors at the dais during Public Comment at a City Council meeting, suddenly Souza completely changed his mind about the merger, as did Asmundson. They both knew the blunder they had made was enormous. At least Ruth Admundson had the grace to apologize. Saylor, on the other hand, chastised the “tone of the community”, as if somehow seniors were at fault for fighting back. Nevertheless, their rhetoric for the merger notwithstanding, both Saylor and Souza eventually voted to keep the senior commission intact. Why? I very much doubt it was from principled reasons, but more the fear that they had infuriated seniors with such a stupid idea as to eliminate a commission designed to assist the elderly while leaving in place commissions for inanimate objects like trees and bikes. It was an idea that just didn’t compute, let alone float.
Since that time, all three City Council members Asmundson, Souza and Saylor have made pains to make nice, which is all fine and good. However, my trust level in regards to the three of them is very low, for obvious reasons.
I do understand your dilemma about having to vote for three, and which three candidates should it be. Frankly I will make the uncomfortable observation that we are probably not getting the best candidates to run for office period. But how many of us are willing to throw our hat into the ring and put up with the childish bickering that goes on in the City Council meetings, the backstabbing, the gamemanship, the late nights until as late as two in the morning, city staffers who run amok with power and so on?
I would also note that Souza made sure the Measure J issue would not be discussed by the City Council prior to election time. Why? Because his record on the subject is not good; in his campaign speeches he can say whatever he wants; but doesn’t have to actually put his money where his mouth is by casting an actual vote. Campaign promises are very easy to make, but a lot more difficult to keep…
“I don’t disagree with you when you analyze each candidate as a universe of one; however, we are not dealing with that kind of decision. We get three now matter what.
So, I ask you to apply the same criteria to all the candidates. I’m pretty sure that two will quickly distance themselves from the rest, but that still begs the question, “Who is the best #3?”
My historical lesson for the day is that if I don’t pay attention to all three choices I will get a suboptimal decision.”
Matt, I truly respect your opinions, and your reasoning. However, let me explain why I will not vote for Souza, no matter what. During the “merger” fight, Souza and Asmundson attempted to do away with the Senior Citizens Commission. Now people can differ in opinion as to whether this commission was important enough to keep, and I have no problem with other views on the matter.
However, Souza used some very underhanded tactics that nearly ruined my health and that of some seniors on the commission. Process was bypassed by putting the merger item on the consent calendar to avoid the possibility of public comment, not once but twice. Souza became quite beligerent at commission meetings, browbeating whoever disagreed with him, then accused them of browbeating him! Frankly, his behaviour was so nasty at times, it was downright appalling to watch IMHO, and reminded me of tactics used by someone in the Mafia – strongarmed bullying.
Every time I came up with a plausible argument against merging the commissions, he would move the target by claiming the process was “evolving”. He increased the number of people that would be on the commission, insisted a combined commission would be “more powerful”…whatever statement he thought would defuse the situation no matter how illogical or silly. You can read all about it on this blog in past articles, or listen to my infamous archived speech in front of the City Council.
Now when I plunked down a petition with 138 signatures from infuriated seniors at the dais during Public Comment at a City Council meeting, suddenly Souza completely changed his mind about the merger, as did Asmundson. They both knew the blunder they had made was enormous. At least Ruth Admundson had the grace to apologize. Saylor, on the other hand, chastised the “tone of the community”, as if somehow seniors were at fault for fighting back. Nevertheless, their rhetoric for the merger notwithstanding, both Saylor and Souza eventually voted to keep the senior commission intact. Why? I very much doubt it was from principled reasons, but more the fear that they had infuriated seniors with such a stupid idea as to eliminate a commission designed to assist the elderly while leaving in place commissions for inanimate objects like trees and bikes. It was an idea that just didn’t compute, let alone float.
Since that time, all three City Council members Asmundson, Souza and Saylor have made pains to make nice, which is all fine and good. However, my trust level in regards to the three of them is very low, for obvious reasons.
I do understand your dilemma about having to vote for three, and which three candidates should it be. Frankly I will make the uncomfortable observation that we are probably not getting the best candidates to run for office period. But how many of us are willing to throw our hat into the ring and put up with the childish bickering that goes on in the City Council meetings, the backstabbing, the gamemanship, the late nights until as late as two in the morning, city staffers who run amok with power and so on?
I would also note that Souza made sure the Measure J issue would not be discussed by the City Council prior to election time. Why? Because his record on the subject is not good; in his campaign speeches he can say whatever he wants; but doesn’t have to actually put his money where his mouth is by casting an actual vote. Campaign promises are very easy to make, but a lot more difficult to keep…
“I don’t disagree with you when you analyze each candidate as a universe of one; however, we are not dealing with that kind of decision. We get three now matter what.
So, I ask you to apply the same criteria to all the candidates. I’m pretty sure that two will quickly distance themselves from the rest, but that still begs the question, “Who is the best #3?”
My historical lesson for the day is that if I don’t pay attention to all three choices I will get a suboptimal decision.”
Matt, I truly respect your opinions, and your reasoning. However, let me explain why I will not vote for Souza, no matter what. During the “merger” fight, Souza and Asmundson attempted to do away with the Senior Citizens Commission. Now people can differ in opinion as to whether this commission was important enough to keep, and I have no problem with other views on the matter.
However, Souza used some very underhanded tactics that nearly ruined my health and that of some seniors on the commission. Process was bypassed by putting the merger item on the consent calendar to avoid the possibility of public comment, not once but twice. Souza became quite beligerent at commission meetings, browbeating whoever disagreed with him, then accused them of browbeating him! Frankly, his behaviour was so nasty at times, it was downright appalling to watch IMHO, and reminded me of tactics used by someone in the Mafia – strongarmed bullying.
Every time I came up with a plausible argument against merging the commissions, he would move the target by claiming the process was “evolving”. He increased the number of people that would be on the commission, insisted a combined commission would be “more powerful”…whatever statement he thought would defuse the situation no matter how illogical or silly. You can read all about it on this blog in past articles, or listen to my infamous archived speech in front of the City Council.
Now when I plunked down a petition with 138 signatures from infuriated seniors at the dais during Public Comment at a City Council meeting, suddenly Souza completely changed his mind about the merger, as did Asmundson. They both knew the blunder they had made was enormous. At least Ruth Admundson had the grace to apologize. Saylor, on the other hand, chastised the “tone of the community”, as if somehow seniors were at fault for fighting back. Nevertheless, their rhetoric for the merger notwithstanding, both Saylor and Souza eventually voted to keep the senior commission intact. Why? I very much doubt it was from principled reasons, but more the fear that they had infuriated seniors with such a stupid idea as to eliminate a commission designed to assist the elderly while leaving in place commissions for inanimate objects like trees and bikes. It was an idea that just didn’t compute, let alone float.
Since that time, all three City Council members Asmundson, Souza and Saylor have made pains to make nice, which is all fine and good. However, my trust level in regards to the three of them is very low, for obvious reasons.
I do understand your dilemma about having to vote for three, and which three candidates should it be. Frankly I will make the uncomfortable observation that we are probably not getting the best candidates to run for office period. But how many of us are willing to throw our hat into the ring and put up with the childish bickering that goes on in the City Council meetings, the backstabbing, the gamemanship, the late nights until as late as two in the morning, city staffers who run amok with power and so on?
I would also note that Souza made sure the Measure J issue would not be discussed by the City Council prior to election time. Why? Because his record on the subject is not good; in his campaign speeches he can say whatever he wants; but doesn’t have to actually put his money where his mouth is by casting an actual vote. Campaign promises are very easy to make, but a lot more difficult to keep…
Elaine Roberts Musser said…
I would also note that Souza made sure the Measure J issue would not be discussed by the City Council prior to election time. Why? Because his record on the subject is not good; in his campaign speeches he can say whatever he wants; but doesn’t have to actually put his money where his mouth is by casting an actual vote. Campaign promises are very easy to make, but a lot more difficult to keep…
Excellent, informative post Elaine. Your arguments resonate.
The point you made in the text I have bolded is worth commenting on. When the Sierra Club and the Davis Neighborhood Coalition got together to plan the Candidates Forum we will be hosting on April 30th from 7:00 to 9:30, we all agreed that we must get the candidates to submit written answers to our 10 questions prior to the Forum. They will each have 2 minutes to verbally answer the question, but our strong feeling was that it was essential to get them to make their position clear in writing. That way we could do a better job of holding them to their respective positions.
By the way, for all of you who think you might want to attend the Forum on the 30th, the Davis Firefighters are hosting their Annual Barbeque at the Odd Fellows Hall starting at 5:00. So plan to make an evening of it … “Dinner and a Dance.” The dance of politics that is. 8>)
Elaine Roberts Musser said…
I would also note that Souza made sure the Measure J issue would not be discussed by the City Council prior to election time. Why? Because his record on the subject is not good; in his campaign speeches he can say whatever he wants; but doesn’t have to actually put his money where his mouth is by casting an actual vote. Campaign promises are very easy to make, but a lot more difficult to keep…
Excellent, informative post Elaine. Your arguments resonate.
The point you made in the text I have bolded is worth commenting on. When the Sierra Club and the Davis Neighborhood Coalition got together to plan the Candidates Forum we will be hosting on April 30th from 7:00 to 9:30, we all agreed that we must get the candidates to submit written answers to our 10 questions prior to the Forum. They will each have 2 minutes to verbally answer the question, but our strong feeling was that it was essential to get them to make their position clear in writing. That way we could do a better job of holding them to their respective positions.
By the way, for all of you who think you might want to attend the Forum on the 30th, the Davis Firefighters are hosting their Annual Barbeque at the Odd Fellows Hall starting at 5:00. So plan to make an evening of it … “Dinner and a Dance.” The dance of politics that is. 8>)
Elaine Roberts Musser said…
I would also note that Souza made sure the Measure J issue would not be discussed by the City Council prior to election time. Why? Because his record on the subject is not good; in his campaign speeches he can say whatever he wants; but doesn’t have to actually put his money where his mouth is by casting an actual vote. Campaign promises are very easy to make, but a lot more difficult to keep…
Excellent, informative post Elaine. Your arguments resonate.
The point you made in the text I have bolded is worth commenting on. When the Sierra Club and the Davis Neighborhood Coalition got together to plan the Candidates Forum we will be hosting on April 30th from 7:00 to 9:30, we all agreed that we must get the candidates to submit written answers to our 10 questions prior to the Forum. They will each have 2 minutes to verbally answer the question, but our strong feeling was that it was essential to get them to make their position clear in writing. That way we could do a better job of holding them to their respective positions.
By the way, for all of you who think you might want to attend the Forum on the 30th, the Davis Firefighters are hosting their Annual Barbeque at the Odd Fellows Hall starting at 5:00. So plan to make an evening of it … “Dinner and a Dance.” The dance of politics that is. 8>)
Elaine Roberts Musser said…
I would also note that Souza made sure the Measure J issue would not be discussed by the City Council prior to election time. Why? Because his record on the subject is not good; in his campaign speeches he can say whatever he wants; but doesn’t have to actually put his money where his mouth is by casting an actual vote. Campaign promises are very easy to make, but a lot more difficult to keep…
Excellent, informative post Elaine. Your arguments resonate.
The point you made in the text I have bolded is worth commenting on. When the Sierra Club and the Davis Neighborhood Coalition got together to plan the Candidates Forum we will be hosting on April 30th from 7:00 to 9:30, we all agreed that we must get the candidates to submit written answers to our 10 questions prior to the Forum. They will each have 2 minutes to verbally answer the question, but our strong feeling was that it was essential to get them to make their position clear in writing. That way we could do a better job of holding them to their respective positions.
By the way, for all of you who think you might want to attend the Forum on the 30th, the Davis Firefighters are hosting their Annual Barbeque at the Odd Fellows Hall starting at 5:00. So plan to make an evening of it … “Dinner and a Dance.” The dance of politics that is. 8>)
Re, the comment:
“its too bad that people jumped on you so quickly….yet, that is what this blog has become….
agree with the vocal minority or don’t speak at all”
This has to have been written by someone who hasn’t read many of the blog’s entries or comments. Or someone who’s a vocal minority who doesn’t want to hear what other have to say/write.
Re, the comment:
“its too bad that people jumped on you so quickly….yet, that is what this blog has become….
agree with the vocal minority or don’t speak at all”
This has to have been written by someone who hasn’t read many of the blog’s entries or comments. Or someone who’s a vocal minority who doesn’t want to hear what other have to say/write.
Re, the comment:
“its too bad that people jumped on you so quickly….yet, that is what this blog has become….
agree with the vocal minority or don’t speak at all”
This has to have been written by someone who hasn’t read many of the blog’s entries or comments. Or someone who’s a vocal minority who doesn’t want to hear what other have to say/write.
Re, the comment:
“its too bad that people jumped on you so quickly….yet, that is what this blog has become….
agree with the vocal minority or don’t speak at all”
This has to have been written by someone who hasn’t read many of the blog’s entries or comments. Or someone who’s a vocal minority who doesn’t want to hear what other have to say/write.
Matt.. firstly, let me say that I never said that the statement about the 1% growth with a penalty attached was in the OP-ED piece. As I remember it, it occurred ocurred during the public discussions on the dais. Sue Greenwald publicly challenged their illogical argument and it was never publicly refuted by either of them. I’m sure that she remembers it and can confirm my recollection.
Secondly,I find your critical analytical skills are usually impressive.. here, I just don’t get it.. How can you completely ignore the argument that a hopeful crossover vote for Souza could very well give him the edge and defeat one of the “two who would quickly distance themselves from the rest”? Why use your votes to take this unacceptable and very real risk to Measure J? You never have addressed this question in these postings.
Matt.. firstly, let me say that I never said that the statement about the 1% growth with a penalty attached was in the OP-ED piece. As I remember it, it occurred ocurred during the public discussions on the dais. Sue Greenwald publicly challenged their illogical argument and it was never publicly refuted by either of them. I’m sure that she remembers it and can confirm my recollection.
Secondly,I find your critical analytical skills are usually impressive.. here, I just don’t get it.. How can you completely ignore the argument that a hopeful crossover vote for Souza could very well give him the edge and defeat one of the “two who would quickly distance themselves from the rest”? Why use your votes to take this unacceptable and very real risk to Measure J? You never have addressed this question in these postings.
Matt.. firstly, let me say that I never said that the statement about the 1% growth with a penalty attached was in the OP-ED piece. As I remember it, it occurred ocurred during the public discussions on the dais. Sue Greenwald publicly challenged their illogical argument and it was never publicly refuted by either of them. I’m sure that she remembers it and can confirm my recollection.
Secondly,I find your critical analytical skills are usually impressive.. here, I just don’t get it.. How can you completely ignore the argument that a hopeful crossover vote for Souza could very well give him the edge and defeat one of the “two who would quickly distance themselves from the rest”? Why use your votes to take this unacceptable and very real risk to Measure J? You never have addressed this question in these postings.
Matt.. firstly, let me say that I never said that the statement about the 1% growth with a penalty attached was in the OP-ED piece. As I remember it, it occurred ocurred during the public discussions on the dais. Sue Greenwald publicly challenged their illogical argument and it was never publicly refuted by either of them. I’m sure that she remembers it and can confirm my recollection.
Secondly,I find your critical analytical skills are usually impressive.. here, I just don’t get it.. How can you completely ignore the argument that a hopeful crossover vote for Souza could very well give him the edge and defeat one of the “two who would quickly distance themselves from the rest”? Why use your votes to take this unacceptable and very real risk to Measure J? You never have addressed this question in these postings.
“It is a very biased opinion. It is easy to disagree with many of its arguments, but lets be honest here. It was submitted to the Enterprise as an Opinion and published on the Op-Ed page as an opinion.”
Matt..you are again overlooking a critical point.. this was an OP-ED piece by two sitting Council members who, by their office, are deferred to when it comes to fact vs opinion. With this deference comes responsibility. Their “facts” were investigated by Claire St. John who went to the source in Sacramento. The head of the State department concerned clearly(she quoted him as I remember in her articles) said that what Saylor and Souza were stating as fact WAS NOT TRUE. There are only two explanations here.. a deliberate attempt to misinform the voters(a breach of the public trust in a most virulent form) or gross ignorance and incompetence concerning issues that were of immense concern to the people who put them in office. Take your pick.
“It is a very biased opinion. It is easy to disagree with many of its arguments, but lets be honest here. It was submitted to the Enterprise as an Opinion and published on the Op-Ed page as an opinion.”
Matt..you are again overlooking a critical point.. this was an OP-ED piece by two sitting Council members who, by their office, are deferred to when it comes to fact vs opinion. With this deference comes responsibility. Their “facts” were investigated by Claire St. John who went to the source in Sacramento. The head of the State department concerned clearly(she quoted him as I remember in her articles) said that what Saylor and Souza were stating as fact WAS NOT TRUE. There are only two explanations here.. a deliberate attempt to misinform the voters(a breach of the public trust in a most virulent form) or gross ignorance and incompetence concerning issues that were of immense concern to the people who put them in office. Take your pick.
“It is a very biased opinion. It is easy to disagree with many of its arguments, but lets be honest here. It was submitted to the Enterprise as an Opinion and published on the Op-Ed page as an opinion.”
Matt..you are again overlooking a critical point.. this was an OP-ED piece by two sitting Council members who, by their office, are deferred to when it comes to fact vs opinion. With this deference comes responsibility. Their “facts” were investigated by Claire St. John who went to the source in Sacramento. The head of the State department concerned clearly(she quoted him as I remember in her articles) said that what Saylor and Souza were stating as fact WAS NOT TRUE. There are only two explanations here.. a deliberate attempt to misinform the voters(a breach of the public trust in a most virulent form) or gross ignorance and incompetence concerning issues that were of immense concern to the people who put them in office. Take your pick.
“It is a very biased opinion. It is easy to disagree with many of its arguments, but lets be honest here. It was submitted to the Enterprise as an Opinion and published on the Op-Ed page as an opinion.”
Matt..you are again overlooking a critical point.. this was an OP-ED piece by two sitting Council members who, by their office, are deferred to when it comes to fact vs opinion. With this deference comes responsibility. Their “facts” were investigated by Claire St. John who went to the source in Sacramento. The head of the State department concerned clearly(she quoted him as I remember in her articles) said that what Saylor and Souza were stating as fact WAS NOT TRUE. There are only two explanations here.. a deliberate attempt to misinform the voters(a breach of the public trust in a most virulent form) or gross ignorance and incompetence concerning issues that were of immense concern to the people who put them in office. Take your pick.
….just glanced at the front page of the Enterprise today. Claire’s article is on the parking meter question. Did anyone see any reference to the Measure J council discussion last evening in today’s Enterprise? I doubt that we will see much if anything at all unless the Debbie Davis’ “arm is twisted”.
….just glanced at the front page of the Enterprise today. Claire’s article is on the parking meter question. Did anyone see any reference to the Measure J council discussion last evening in today’s Enterprise? I doubt that we will see much if anything at all unless the Debbie Davis’ “arm is twisted”.
….just glanced at the front page of the Enterprise today. Claire’s article is on the parking meter question. Did anyone see any reference to the Measure J council discussion last evening in today’s Enterprise? I doubt that we will see much if anything at all unless the Debbie Davis’ “arm is twisted”.
….just glanced at the front page of the Enterprise today. Claire’s article is on the parking meter question. Did anyone see any reference to the Measure J council discussion last evening in today’s Enterprise? I doubt that we will see much if anything at all unless the Debbie Davis’ “arm is twisted”.
As an outsider I have to chuckle at both the tone and the substance (is you can call it that)of most of these commments. I’ve never heard so much name-calling and sloganeering in all my life. Does this pass as entertainment in Davis?
As an outsider I have to chuckle at both the tone and the substance (is you can call it that)of most of these commments. I’ve never heard so much name-calling and sloganeering in all my life. Does this pass as entertainment in Davis?
As an outsider I have to chuckle at both the tone and the substance (is you can call it that)of most of these commments. I’ve never heard so much name-calling and sloganeering in all my life. Does this pass as entertainment in Davis?
As an outsider I have to chuckle at both the tone and the substance (is you can call it that)of most of these commments. I’ve never heard so much name-calling and sloganeering in all my life. Does this pass as entertainment in Davis?
Name calling? What are you talking about? We’re talking about the political positions of current council members running for reelection.
We have a right to ask them to let us know from the dais how they will vote on an issue.
Name calling? What are you talking about? We’re talking about the political positions of current council members running for reelection.
We have a right to ask them to let us know from the dais how they will vote on an issue.
Name calling? What are you talking about? We’re talking about the political positions of current council members running for reelection.
We have a right to ask them to let us know from the dais how they will vote on an issue.
Name calling? What are you talking about? We’re talking about the political positions of current council members running for reelection.
We have a right to ask them to let us know from the dais how they will vote on an issue.
“They will each have 2 minutes to verbally answer the question, but our strong feeling was that it was essential to get them to make their position clear in writing. That way we could do a better job of holding them to their respective positions.”
Matt, I applaud you for doing just that, getting candidates to put their answers in writing. But trust me, when the time comes, corruption knows no bounds as to excuses. The reason I say this is because Souza said all sorts of things, in writing, during the merger fight, but somehow his stance “evolved” depending on what argument I put forth. It did not faze him one iota to change his position in mid stream, despite his previous written statements to the contrary.
Interesting though now that I think of it, in mid stream I did just what you are doing – made both he and Ruth put things in writing. Frankly it did not make a bit of difference. If I were to analyze it in hindsight, the only thing that changed the direction things were going – the elimination of our commission – was the petition signed by many of Souza and Asmundson’s friends!!! Even their supporters could not figure out why they were making such a ridiculous move as to shut down the Senior Citizens Commission. And the city staff deserted the sinking ship as well!!!
After the merger mess, I have to admit I was pretty fed up with the City Council majority – and still am!!! Can’t you tell??? However, the Senior Citizens Commission has moved on, is fully staffed, and loaded for bear!!! By that I mean we have some wonderful projects in the works, e.g. transit mobility training, senior/student discount card, a repeat of the successful Transportation Safety Expo, Mondavi shuttle rides for seniors, Senior Day on UCD campus, Geriatric Generation Jammers that provide seniors intergenerational entertainment on weekends, etc. So I guess alls well that ends well!!!
By the way, Matt, where is your forum to be held on April 30th? I want to attend…and commend you for making this effort to inform voters.
PS Your discussions on housing in Davis have been just outstanding and extremely helpful. I feel much more knowledgeable on the subject after reading your posts and articles.
“They will each have 2 minutes to verbally answer the question, but our strong feeling was that it was essential to get them to make their position clear in writing. That way we could do a better job of holding them to their respective positions.”
Matt, I applaud you for doing just that, getting candidates to put their answers in writing. But trust me, when the time comes, corruption knows no bounds as to excuses. The reason I say this is because Souza said all sorts of things, in writing, during the merger fight, but somehow his stance “evolved” depending on what argument I put forth. It did not faze him one iota to change his position in mid stream, despite his previous written statements to the contrary.
Interesting though now that I think of it, in mid stream I did just what you are doing – made both he and Ruth put things in writing. Frankly it did not make a bit of difference. If I were to analyze it in hindsight, the only thing that changed the direction things were going – the elimination of our commission – was the petition signed by many of Souza and Asmundson’s friends!!! Even their supporters could not figure out why they were making such a ridiculous move as to shut down the Senior Citizens Commission. And the city staff deserted the sinking ship as well!!!
After the merger mess, I have to admit I was pretty fed up with the City Council majority – and still am!!! Can’t you tell??? However, the Senior Citizens Commission has moved on, is fully staffed, and loaded for bear!!! By that I mean we have some wonderful projects in the works, e.g. transit mobility training, senior/student discount card, a repeat of the successful Transportation Safety Expo, Mondavi shuttle rides for seniors, Senior Day on UCD campus, Geriatric Generation Jammers that provide seniors intergenerational entertainment on weekends, etc. So I guess alls well that ends well!!!
By the way, Matt, where is your forum to be held on April 30th? I want to attend…and commend you for making this effort to inform voters.
PS Your discussions on housing in Davis have been just outstanding and extremely helpful. I feel much more knowledgeable on the subject after reading your posts and articles.
“They will each have 2 minutes to verbally answer the question, but our strong feeling was that it was essential to get them to make their position clear in writing. That way we could do a better job of holding them to their respective positions.”
Matt, I applaud you for doing just that, getting candidates to put their answers in writing. But trust me, when the time comes, corruption knows no bounds as to excuses. The reason I say this is because Souza said all sorts of things, in writing, during the merger fight, but somehow his stance “evolved” depending on what argument I put forth. It did not faze him one iota to change his position in mid stream, despite his previous written statements to the contrary.
Interesting though now that I think of it, in mid stream I did just what you are doing – made both he and Ruth put things in writing. Frankly it did not make a bit of difference. If I were to analyze it in hindsight, the only thing that changed the direction things were going – the elimination of our commission – was the petition signed by many of Souza and Asmundson’s friends!!! Even their supporters could not figure out why they were making such a ridiculous move as to shut down the Senior Citizens Commission. And the city staff deserted the sinking ship as well!!!
After the merger mess, I have to admit I was pretty fed up with the City Council majority – and still am!!! Can’t you tell??? However, the Senior Citizens Commission has moved on, is fully staffed, and loaded for bear!!! By that I mean we have some wonderful projects in the works, e.g. transit mobility training, senior/student discount card, a repeat of the successful Transportation Safety Expo, Mondavi shuttle rides for seniors, Senior Day on UCD campus, Geriatric Generation Jammers that provide seniors intergenerational entertainment on weekends, etc. So I guess alls well that ends well!!!
By the way, Matt, where is your forum to be held on April 30th? I want to attend…and commend you for making this effort to inform voters.
PS Your discussions on housing in Davis have been just outstanding and extremely helpful. I feel much more knowledgeable on the subject after reading your posts and articles.
“They will each have 2 minutes to verbally answer the question, but our strong feeling was that it was essential to get them to make their position clear in writing. That way we could do a better job of holding them to their respective positions.”
Matt, I applaud you for doing just that, getting candidates to put their answers in writing. But trust me, when the time comes, corruption knows no bounds as to excuses. The reason I say this is because Souza said all sorts of things, in writing, during the merger fight, but somehow his stance “evolved” depending on what argument I put forth. It did not faze him one iota to change his position in mid stream, despite his previous written statements to the contrary.
Interesting though now that I think of it, in mid stream I did just what you are doing – made both he and Ruth put things in writing. Frankly it did not make a bit of difference. If I were to analyze it in hindsight, the only thing that changed the direction things were going – the elimination of our commission – was the petition signed by many of Souza and Asmundson’s friends!!! Even their supporters could not figure out why they were making such a ridiculous move as to shut down the Senior Citizens Commission. And the city staff deserted the sinking ship as well!!!
After the merger mess, I have to admit I was pretty fed up with the City Council majority – and still am!!! Can’t you tell??? However, the Senior Citizens Commission has moved on, is fully staffed, and loaded for bear!!! By that I mean we have some wonderful projects in the works, e.g. transit mobility training, senior/student discount card, a repeat of the successful Transportation Safety Expo, Mondavi shuttle rides for seniors, Senior Day on UCD campus, Geriatric Generation Jammers that provide seniors intergenerational entertainment on weekends, etc. So I guess alls well that ends well!!!
By the way, Matt, where is your forum to be held on April 30th? I want to attend…and commend you for making this effort to inform voters.
PS Your discussions on housing in Davis have been just outstanding and extremely helpful. I feel much more knowledgeable on the subject after reading your posts and articles.
After 34 postings, simply put: Measure J is just too important to put at risk.
After 34 postings, simply put: Measure J is just too important to put at risk.
After 34 postings, simply put: Measure J is just too important to put at risk.
After 34 postings, simply put: Measure J is just too important to put at risk.
Elaine Roberts Musser: one point of clarification for your information.
You spoke at public comments on Tuesday at the council meeting, wondering why a new member was put on the HRMC while an alternate for the Senior Citizens Commission was having to wait.* You should know that we are in a crisis now on the HRMC. We are down to 4 members out of 7 seats. We have no alternates. If one member is ill or otherwise occupied, we cannot have a meeting. That is why the council hurried with the approval of our newest member.
* I tend to agree with your main point: that once a person applies to a commission and hears nothing for months from the city, that is discouraging and wrong. That is just what happened to me, after I was asked to apply to the HRMC. I figured they did not want me, 3 months after I had heard nothing. My feeling is that any time a person has an application in the hopper, the city should periodically send him/her emails, to let the applicant know where things stand and what he/she should be doing.
Elaine Roberts Musser: one point of clarification for your information.
You spoke at public comments on Tuesday at the council meeting, wondering why a new member was put on the HRMC while an alternate for the Senior Citizens Commission was having to wait.* You should know that we are in a crisis now on the HRMC. We are down to 4 members out of 7 seats. We have no alternates. If one member is ill or otherwise occupied, we cannot have a meeting. That is why the council hurried with the approval of our newest member.
* I tend to agree with your main point: that once a person applies to a commission and hears nothing for months from the city, that is discouraging and wrong. That is just what happened to me, after I was asked to apply to the HRMC. I figured they did not want me, 3 months after I had heard nothing. My feeling is that any time a person has an application in the hopper, the city should periodically send him/her emails, to let the applicant know where things stand and what he/she should be doing.
Elaine Roberts Musser: one point of clarification for your information.
You spoke at public comments on Tuesday at the council meeting, wondering why a new member was put on the HRMC while an alternate for the Senior Citizens Commission was having to wait.* You should know that we are in a crisis now on the HRMC. We are down to 4 members out of 7 seats. We have no alternates. If one member is ill or otherwise occupied, we cannot have a meeting. That is why the council hurried with the approval of our newest member.
* I tend to agree with your main point: that once a person applies to a commission and hears nothing for months from the city, that is discouraging and wrong. That is just what happened to me, after I was asked to apply to the HRMC. I figured they did not want me, 3 months after I had heard nothing. My feeling is that any time a person has an application in the hopper, the city should periodically send him/her emails, to let the applicant know where things stand and what he/she should be doing.
Elaine Roberts Musser: one point of clarification for your information.
You spoke at public comments on Tuesday at the council meeting, wondering why a new member was put on the HRMC while an alternate for the Senior Citizens Commission was having to wait.* You should know that we are in a crisis now on the HRMC. We are down to 4 members out of 7 seats. We have no alternates. If one member is ill or otherwise occupied, we cannot have a meeting. That is why the council hurried with the approval of our newest member.
* I tend to agree with your main point: that once a person applies to a commission and hears nothing for months from the city, that is discouraging and wrong. That is just what happened to me, after I was asked to apply to the HRMC. I figured they did not want me, 3 months after I had heard nothing. My feeling is that any time a person has an application in the hopper, the city should periodically send him/her emails, to let the applicant know where things stand and what he/she should be doing.
Rich – yes the city clerk explained the problem to me at the HRMC. However, if the city staff was more on the ball, and 1) let applicants know their application was under consideration; 2) make appointments no less than twice a year, and preferably fill any vacancies immediately (within two months), you might not have had such an abysmal showing of interest in your commission.
Trust me, it has nothing to do with interest/lack of interest in your particular commission. We have had a very low turnout in the past for our commission, one commissioner had not heard in two years, another was on the commission for an entire year without confirmation. You yourself as an applicant had the reaction that the city council did not want you when you did not hear anything, as did our applicant. Is this the message we want to give applicants – that no one really cares enough about their application to act on it? Or that the city doesn’t want them on the commission? When I posed that question to the City Council the other evening, they turned to city staff and told them to fix the problem, YET AGAIN!
Our commission has pointed out this problem no less than twice before. And each time the city staff has been directed to fix the problem. Does it sound to you like city staff has fixed the problem? This state of affairs and callous indifference is unacceptable. Commissions are a very important part of the political process, and can have so much to offer our city by way of enrichment and citizens participation. To treat them so arrogantly is not conducive to recruitment.
Ironically, after I emailed city staff about their lapse, and was told recruitment would not take place until JULY, I received a flyer a few days later. The date had been moved up to April. BUT, I AM BEING ASKED TO ATTEND THIS RECRUITMENT OPEN HOUSE IN APRIL, TO ENCOURAGE APPLICATIONS. HOW CAN I DO SO IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, WHEN I KNOW THE CHANCES ARE APPLICATIONS WILL BE HELD UP FOR MONTHS, MAYBE EVEN YEARS?
WHO IS CONTROLLING THIS PROCESS!!! IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT SOUND LIKE IT IS THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT HAS DIRECTED THE PROBLEM BE FIXED AT LEAST THREE TIMES. CITY STAFF SEEMS TO BE THE ONES HOLDING THINGS UP, AND I HAVE TO WONDER WHY THAT IS??? WHY CAN’T THEY DO WHAT HAS BEEN DIRECTED; WHAT IS THEIR DUTY TO DO; WHAT THEY ARE BEING PAID TO DO??? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR DELAY??? I CAN SPECULATE, BUT WOULD MUCH RATHER NOT AND HAVE FOLKS APPOINTED IN A TIMELY MANNER, WHICH IS THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE…
Rich – yes the city clerk explained the problem to me at the HRMC. However, if the city staff was more on the ball, and 1) let applicants know their application was under consideration; 2) make appointments no less than twice a year, and preferably fill any vacancies immediately (within two months), you might not have had such an abysmal showing of interest in your commission.
Trust me, it has nothing to do with interest/lack of interest in your particular commission. We have had a very low turnout in the past for our commission, one commissioner had not heard in two years, another was on the commission for an entire year without confirmation. You yourself as an applicant had the reaction that the city council did not want you when you did not hear anything, as did our applicant. Is this the message we want to give applicants – that no one really cares enough about their application to act on it? Or that the city doesn’t want them on the commission? When I posed that question to the City Council the other evening, they turned to city staff and told them to fix the problem, YET AGAIN!
Our commission has pointed out this problem no less than twice before. And each time the city staff has been directed to fix the problem. Does it sound to you like city staff has fixed the problem? This state of affairs and callous indifference is unacceptable. Commissions are a very important part of the political process, and can have so much to offer our city by way of enrichment and citizens participation. To treat them so arrogantly is not conducive to recruitment.
Ironically, after I emailed city staff about their lapse, and was told recruitment would not take place until JULY, I received a flyer a few days later. The date had been moved up to April. BUT, I AM BEING ASKED TO ATTEND THIS RECRUITMENT OPEN HOUSE IN APRIL, TO ENCOURAGE APPLICATIONS. HOW CAN I DO SO IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, WHEN I KNOW THE CHANCES ARE APPLICATIONS WILL BE HELD UP FOR MONTHS, MAYBE EVEN YEARS?
WHO IS CONTROLLING THIS PROCESS!!! IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT SOUND LIKE IT IS THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT HAS DIRECTED THE PROBLEM BE FIXED AT LEAST THREE TIMES. CITY STAFF SEEMS TO BE THE ONES HOLDING THINGS UP, AND I HAVE TO WONDER WHY THAT IS??? WHY CAN’T THEY DO WHAT HAS BEEN DIRECTED; WHAT IS THEIR DUTY TO DO; WHAT THEY ARE BEING PAID TO DO??? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR DELAY??? I CAN SPECULATE, BUT WOULD MUCH RATHER NOT AND HAVE FOLKS APPOINTED IN A TIMELY MANNER, WHICH IS THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE…
Rich – yes the city clerk explained the problem to me at the HRMC. However, if the city staff was more on the ball, and 1) let applicants know their application was under consideration; 2) make appointments no less than twice a year, and preferably fill any vacancies immediately (within two months), you might not have had such an abysmal showing of interest in your commission.
Trust me, it has nothing to do with interest/lack of interest in your particular commission. We have had a very low turnout in the past for our commission, one commissioner had not heard in two years, another was on the commission for an entire year without confirmation. You yourself as an applicant had the reaction that the city council did not want you when you did not hear anything, as did our applicant. Is this the message we want to give applicants – that no one really cares enough about their application to act on it? Or that the city doesn’t want them on the commission? When I posed that question to the City Council the other evening, they turned to city staff and told them to fix the problem, YET AGAIN!
Our commission has pointed out this problem no less than twice before. And each time the city staff has been directed to fix the problem. Does it sound to you like city staff has fixed the problem? This state of affairs and callous indifference is unacceptable. Commissions are a very important part of the political process, and can have so much to offer our city by way of enrichment and citizens participation. To treat them so arrogantly is not conducive to recruitment.
Ironically, after I emailed city staff about their lapse, and was told recruitment would not take place until JULY, I received a flyer a few days later. The date had been moved up to April. BUT, I AM BEING ASKED TO ATTEND THIS RECRUITMENT OPEN HOUSE IN APRIL, TO ENCOURAGE APPLICATIONS. HOW CAN I DO SO IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, WHEN I KNOW THE CHANCES ARE APPLICATIONS WILL BE HELD UP FOR MONTHS, MAYBE EVEN YEARS?
WHO IS CONTROLLING THIS PROCESS!!! IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT SOUND LIKE IT IS THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT HAS DIRECTED THE PROBLEM BE FIXED AT LEAST THREE TIMES. CITY STAFF SEEMS TO BE THE ONES HOLDING THINGS UP, AND I HAVE TO WONDER WHY THAT IS??? WHY CAN’T THEY DO WHAT HAS BEEN DIRECTED; WHAT IS THEIR DUTY TO DO; WHAT THEY ARE BEING PAID TO DO??? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR DELAY??? I CAN SPECULATE, BUT WOULD MUCH RATHER NOT AND HAVE FOLKS APPOINTED IN A TIMELY MANNER, WHICH IS THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE…
Rich – yes the city clerk explained the problem to me at the HRMC. However, if the city staff was more on the ball, and 1) let applicants know their application was under consideration; 2) make appointments no less than twice a year, and preferably fill any vacancies immediately (within two months), you might not have had such an abysmal showing of interest in your commission.
Trust me, it has nothing to do with interest/lack of interest in your particular commission. We have had a very low turnout in the past for our commission, one commissioner had not heard in two years, another was on the commission for an entire year without confirmation. You yourself as an applicant had the reaction that the city council did not want you when you did not hear anything, as did our applicant. Is this the message we want to give applicants – that no one really cares enough about their application to act on it? Or that the city doesn’t want them on the commission? When I posed that question to the City Council the other evening, they turned to city staff and told them to fix the problem, YET AGAIN!
Our commission has pointed out this problem no less than twice before. And each time the city staff has been directed to fix the problem. Does it sound to you like city staff has fixed the problem? This state of affairs and callous indifference is unacceptable. Commissions are a very important part of the political process, and can have so much to offer our city by way of enrichment and citizens participation. To treat them so arrogantly is not conducive to recruitment.
Ironically, after I emailed city staff about their lapse, and was told recruitment would not take place until JULY, I received a flyer a few days later. The date had been moved up to April. BUT, I AM BEING ASKED TO ATTEND THIS RECRUITMENT OPEN HOUSE IN APRIL, TO ENCOURAGE APPLICATIONS. HOW CAN I DO SO IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, WHEN I KNOW THE CHANCES ARE APPLICATIONS WILL BE HELD UP FOR MONTHS, MAYBE EVEN YEARS?
WHO IS CONTROLLING THIS PROCESS!!! IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT SOUND LIKE IT IS THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT HAS DIRECTED THE PROBLEM BE FIXED AT LEAST THREE TIMES. CITY STAFF SEEMS TO BE THE ONES HOLDING THINGS UP, AND I HAVE TO WONDER WHY THAT IS??? WHY CAN’T THEY DO WHAT HAS BEEN DIRECTED; WHAT IS THEIR DUTY TO DO; WHAT THEY ARE BEING PAID TO DO??? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR DELAY??? I CAN SPECULATE, BUT WOULD MUCH RATHER NOT AND HAVE FOLKS APPOINTED IN A TIMELY MANNER, WHICH IS THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE…
So, Mr. Souza had decided that he doesn’t want the one issue on the table which might actually enlighten us on the candidates fidelity to a Meaure which most of us support, and the developers loathe. Huh! Very telling Steve, and quite duplicitous since it’s under the “cover” of “let’s not politicize” (a political process). May I suggest this doesn’t pass the “smell test”?
So, Mr. Souza had decided that he doesn’t want the one issue on the table which might actually enlighten us on the candidates fidelity to a Meaure which most of us support, and the developers loathe. Huh! Very telling Steve, and quite duplicitous since it’s under the “cover” of “let’s not politicize” (a political process). May I suggest this doesn’t pass the “smell test”?
So, Mr. Souza had decided that he doesn’t want the one issue on the table which might actually enlighten us on the candidates fidelity to a Meaure which most of us support, and the developers loathe. Huh! Very telling Steve, and quite duplicitous since it’s under the “cover” of “let’s not politicize” (a political process). May I suggest this doesn’t pass the “smell test”?
So, Mr. Souza had decided that he doesn’t want the one issue on the table which might actually enlighten us on the candidates fidelity to a Meaure which most of us support, and the developers loathe. Huh! Very telling Steve, and quite duplicitous since it’s under the “cover” of “let’s not politicize” (a political process). May I suggest this doesn’t pass the “smell test”?