Each candidate was given a two minute opening question that they were given in advance. Then it was rapid fire, with two candidates getting one question that they had one minute to answer.
The format meant that the questions were the luck of the draw and it also in general precluded specificity. Often the candidates simply did not answer the question directly and instead gave vague and rough answers.
Questions about housing and growth dominated the format. In what follows are some of the highlights from the discussion.
The first question suggested that many on the council are purported to be no growth proponents, Don Saylor and Sue Greenwald were then asked about their position on growth. Both suggested that they were not no growth proponents. Don Saylor argued that the community and the quality of life matter. He then went on to talk about the closure of schools and the lack of apartment vacancy. He wants to provide housing for seniors and students.
For Sue Greenwald, housing should be limited to those projects that fill specific needs. We need to look at the type of housing that we are building and ask if it is really serving the people in Davis. She further argued that there was no relationship between the price of housing and the amount of housing that we have built.
Stephen Souza and Sydney Vergis were both asked if they support zero-based budgeting and to explain why or why not. Neither of them answered the question. Stephen Souza suggested that we cannot rely upon the auto industry as our tax base. He then suggested that we need to look at industry that is green in nature. Of course, his big economic initiative to date has been Target, an industry that is inherently non-green by its nature.
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Rob Roy were asked whether they supported the general plan provision on senior housing. Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald spoke of the need to prioritize the preservation of open space and agricultural land first and then to have community discussion about whether and what types of senior housing that we should provide. Rob Roy suggested he supported the general plan provision on senior housing.
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Sydney Vergis were asked about the middle income housing ordinance and the internally generated needs for housing. Sydney Vergis was concerned that there is a large range of different kinds of people living in the city and the price of housing makes it difficult to live here. Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald talked about working with the university to help develop housing for faculty and students as a possible remedy to some of the housing demands.
The debate then turned to state mandated fair-share housing and whether the city can meet those mandates without rezoning land or approving any new peripheral developments. Don Saylor argued that RHNA was only part of what we needed. He focused on the internal needs assessment and argued that we need to take a look at our own planning regardless of RHNA requirements.
Sue Greenwald on the other hand suggested that the numbers were not interesting to her. She was concerned that if Davis went beyond the SACOG allotment that this would lead to increased SACOG numbers in the future. She then shifted to talking about her desire to look at projects on an individual basis and the need to pursue interesting projects like her proposal at the PG&E site.
Stephen Souza and Rob Roy were asked what they learned about Measure X. Stephen Souza basically suggested that the community did not understand Measure X. He said this was the first exercise of Measure J and that a project as big as Covell Village takes longer to explain to the community, that it has to come with its impacts mitigated, and that the affordable housing component has to be explainable to the public. Finally we have to totally be engaged in a process that we are expected to vote on. This is basically the Ruth Asmundson answer rehashed, Souza simply does not understand the opposition to Measure X and argues that the public did not properly understand it rather than take from the lesson that the public is not supportive of huge new develops on the Davis periphery.
Don Saylor then declared victory on retail development and expansion with the addition of Target and Trader Joes. Now he is looking toward the university providing the area with green energy and high tech development.
Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald were asked about fresh ideas about fiscal stability without raising taxes.
Sue Greenwald argued that we are in a box right due to contract and expenditures on city desk workers. She said that she has taken the long view when it comes to planning, and has said no when it comes to expenditures.
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald then discussed retail retention. She pointed out past failed businesses in poor locations and at the same time argued that we have two major shopping centers that do not have anchors right now. She suggested that we have a commercial real estate agent work with the city to try to determine the retail deficits and try to recruit what is complimentary to the city instead of predatory to the city.
Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald were asked if our housing needs during the next six years can be met exclusively with infill development. Sue Greenwald questions what the housing needs really means and wants to find ways to insure that when we develop we are filling our internal housing needs rather than external ones. Stephen Souza on the other hand argued that we could not fill our internal housing needs with infill. He felt that we could meet the majority with infill but not all. Not everyone wants to live in a small condo or in the core. The strongest opponents of new infill are the neighbors. We can, he argued, provide for those who want to downsize however.
Rob Roy came out in favor of choice voting. Don Saylor on the other hand was nuanced. He said that he supported advisory measure on the ballot. He felt like the city hadn’t really explored the idea and ramifications very much. Then stated it was a “solution looking for a problem.” Most people don’t understand what it is and there will be problems the first time there is change of outcome due to choice voting. Places where been in place, the process is actually being challenged.
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Sydney Vergis were both asked about economic development and how they define it.
Escamilla-Greenwald examined the factors that impacted economic development and then picked one to explore–the problem of parking and the disadvantage that businesses face currently with reparking laws.
She then went on to discuss her idea for dealing with the parking problem. Her proposal would be to use city redevelopment money to construct a multilevel parking structure near the Design House with an Olive Street entrance. The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side, however, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along first street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.
This proposal would have the advantage of encouraging people to park outside of the core area and then walk to the core. It would greatly reduce traffic flow under the Richards Overpass. And finally, it would be a regional draw as people would have easy access to parking and shopping from the highway.
Sydney Vergis defined the concept of economic develop as the retention of new businesses. She then talked about a BEDC quantitative survey to determine what works and what doesn’t work; and then coming up with measurable objectives.
The funniest moment came when Stephen Souza admittedly got a bit carried away when asked what green meant to him. He went off on a litany of “green means” statements until Don Saylor practically fell out of his seat laughing. Don Saylor then talked about his church community creating a green sanctuary and each individual changing their life styles. For him it was removing his swimming pool and changing his washer to a low flow.
On Measure J, Sydney Vergis asked people if they had read it, complained it was complicated, and suggested that she would support renewing it with “non-substantive changes.” Sue Greenwald flatly said she was in favor of renewing it.
Don Saylor and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald were asked about sales tax leakage and broader shopping in Davis. Don Saylor again declared victory on retail with Target and Trader Joe’s–wants to build them out and call it good. Suggested the downtown needs more attention and wants to focus on parking.
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald talked again about making sure the shopping centers have key anchors and then proposed a Residence Inn at the Vacant lot near the train tracks on Richards as a possible lure for those individuals who do extended work at the university and need extended lodging.
Finally, Sue Greenwald and Sydney Vergis were asked about declining enrollment and what changes in our community if any would you support to reverse this trend.
Sydney Vergis argued that this is tied to housing availability and we need to dialogue for major housing needs in Davis.
Sue Greenwald suggested there is a disagreement over the decline in enrollment in Davis. That this is also a statewide phenomena. She argued there is not a problem with a declining enrollment but rather a question as to how we absorb and plan for it. She argued it was difficult to build schools in perfect increments and that new subdevelopments actually exacerbate the problem because of life cycle issues.
Overall it was an interesting forum. The format made for a quick, rapid fire, dialogue. However, specificity and substance sometimes was a bit lacking. The Vanguard will be closely following the council race and reporting far more in the coming weeks.
Disclaimer: Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald is the wife of Doug Paul Davis.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
So what did Rob Roy say he learned about Measure X?
So what did Rob Roy say he learned about Measure X?
So what did Rob Roy say he learned about Measure X?
So what did Rob Roy say he learned about Measure X?
I said I learned that the council should pay more attention to community input before embarking on such a massive project. Clearly the 60-40 split in opposition meant that the development was not what Davis as a whole wanted. I suggested that it might have passed if it were smaller or if the developers would have agreed to mitigate the project’s impacts on the city by fronting the money for a renewed wastewater treatment facility. Of course, as I stated yesterday, that carries a $140 million or so price tag so I can see why the Covell Partners did not include that expenditure in their plans. The developers, and the developers’ candidates, knew that there would be massive opposition, so they included a new fire station, and they learned how to green-wash (which would eventually lead to the next contentious election with the progressives of Davis having to fight a Target that claimed to be “green” but didn’t even have a solar panel or a wind turbine.). I was against Measure X because it wasn’t green enough. The design wasn’t revolutionary. It was just another huge subdivision (that happened to have some solar panels) sprawled out onto farmland. If the land-use design were more revolutionary, like Village Homes, (as a political strategist) I’ll say that maybe it would have passed. The difference between Stephen and I is that he voted for the project that went to the voters and he promoted it as well. It’s a good thing Stephen isn’t a superdelegate because if his vote was worth ten-thousand times everyone else, then, regardless of what the community wanted, he would have gotten a whole lot more Tandem properties swimming pools for his company to clean around the corner from his house. The Measure X vote proves that measure J works. It is important that the community maintains the direct democracy of choosing when, if, and how our city grows.
I said I learned that the council should pay more attention to community input before embarking on such a massive project. Clearly the 60-40 split in opposition meant that the development was not what Davis as a whole wanted. I suggested that it might have passed if it were smaller or if the developers would have agreed to mitigate the project’s impacts on the city by fronting the money for a renewed wastewater treatment facility. Of course, as I stated yesterday, that carries a $140 million or so price tag so I can see why the Covell Partners did not include that expenditure in their plans. The developers, and the developers’ candidates, knew that there would be massive opposition, so they included a new fire station, and they learned how to green-wash (which would eventually lead to the next contentious election with the progressives of Davis having to fight a Target that claimed to be “green” but didn’t even have a solar panel or a wind turbine.). I was against Measure X because it wasn’t green enough. The design wasn’t revolutionary. It was just another huge subdivision (that happened to have some solar panels) sprawled out onto farmland. If the land-use design were more revolutionary, like Village Homes, (as a political strategist) I’ll say that maybe it would have passed. The difference between Stephen and I is that he voted for the project that went to the voters and he promoted it as well. It’s a good thing Stephen isn’t a superdelegate because if his vote was worth ten-thousand times everyone else, then, regardless of what the community wanted, he would have gotten a whole lot more Tandem properties swimming pools for his company to clean around the corner from his house. The Measure X vote proves that measure J works. It is important that the community maintains the direct democracy of choosing when, if, and how our city grows.
I said I learned that the council should pay more attention to community input before embarking on such a massive project. Clearly the 60-40 split in opposition meant that the development was not what Davis as a whole wanted. I suggested that it might have passed if it were smaller or if the developers would have agreed to mitigate the project’s impacts on the city by fronting the money for a renewed wastewater treatment facility. Of course, as I stated yesterday, that carries a $140 million or so price tag so I can see why the Covell Partners did not include that expenditure in their plans. The developers, and the developers’ candidates, knew that there would be massive opposition, so they included a new fire station, and they learned how to green-wash (which would eventually lead to the next contentious election with the progressives of Davis having to fight a Target that claimed to be “green” but didn’t even have a solar panel or a wind turbine.). I was against Measure X because it wasn’t green enough. The design wasn’t revolutionary. It was just another huge subdivision (that happened to have some solar panels) sprawled out onto farmland. If the land-use design were more revolutionary, like Village Homes, (as a political strategist) I’ll say that maybe it would have passed. The difference between Stephen and I is that he voted for the project that went to the voters and he promoted it as well. It’s a good thing Stephen isn’t a superdelegate because if his vote was worth ten-thousand times everyone else, then, regardless of what the community wanted, he would have gotten a whole lot more Tandem properties swimming pools for his company to clean around the corner from his house. The Measure X vote proves that measure J works. It is important that the community maintains the direct democracy of choosing when, if, and how our city grows.
I said I learned that the council should pay more attention to community input before embarking on such a massive project. Clearly the 60-40 split in opposition meant that the development was not what Davis as a whole wanted. I suggested that it might have passed if it were smaller or if the developers would have agreed to mitigate the project’s impacts on the city by fronting the money for a renewed wastewater treatment facility. Of course, as I stated yesterday, that carries a $140 million or so price tag so I can see why the Covell Partners did not include that expenditure in their plans. The developers, and the developers’ candidates, knew that there would be massive opposition, so they included a new fire station, and they learned how to green-wash (which would eventually lead to the next contentious election with the progressives of Davis having to fight a Target that claimed to be “green” but didn’t even have a solar panel or a wind turbine.). I was against Measure X because it wasn’t green enough. The design wasn’t revolutionary. It was just another huge subdivision (that happened to have some solar panels) sprawled out onto farmland. If the land-use design were more revolutionary, like Village Homes, (as a political strategist) I’ll say that maybe it would have passed. The difference between Stephen and I is that he voted for the project that went to the voters and he promoted it as well. It’s a good thing Stephen isn’t a superdelegate because if his vote was worth ten-thousand times everyone else, then, regardless of what the community wanted, he would have gotten a whole lot more Tandem properties swimming pools for his company to clean around the corner from his house. The Measure X vote proves that measure J works. It is important that the community maintains the direct democracy of choosing when, if, and how our city grows.
Also, I believe David missed the question about City commissions. A hypothetical was proposed to Cecilia and I, asking basically: what if the city could no longer afford to staff the commissions and they and to be reduced to five. Cecilia took out her notepad and started to map out the commissions and talked about combining a few as well as listing off the important ones that could not be axed. I pointed out that the city commissions are comprised of volunteers so if it is an issue of city staffing then we need to change how we document the meetings –with new technology we could do it easily and cheaply. The city commissions are important in giving input to the council. There would be no need to axe them. And going from the dozen and a half we have to only five would be severe blow to the civic participation that the commissions allow. Even if it meant the commission members took their own minutes or had another volunteer do it. There would be no need to silence this segment of city governance.
Also, I believe David missed the question about City commissions. A hypothetical was proposed to Cecilia and I, asking basically: what if the city could no longer afford to staff the commissions and they and to be reduced to five. Cecilia took out her notepad and started to map out the commissions and talked about combining a few as well as listing off the important ones that could not be axed. I pointed out that the city commissions are comprised of volunteers so if it is an issue of city staffing then we need to change how we document the meetings –with new technology we could do it easily and cheaply. The city commissions are important in giving input to the council. There would be no need to axe them. And going from the dozen and a half we have to only five would be severe blow to the civic participation that the commissions allow. Even if it meant the commission members took their own minutes or had another volunteer do it. There would be no need to silence this segment of city governance.
Also, I believe David missed the question about City commissions. A hypothetical was proposed to Cecilia and I, asking basically: what if the city could no longer afford to staff the commissions and they and to be reduced to five. Cecilia took out her notepad and started to map out the commissions and talked about combining a few as well as listing off the important ones that could not be axed. I pointed out that the city commissions are comprised of volunteers so if it is an issue of city staffing then we need to change how we document the meetings –with new technology we could do it easily and cheaply. The city commissions are important in giving input to the council. There would be no need to axe them. And going from the dozen and a half we have to only five would be severe blow to the civic participation that the commissions allow. Even if it meant the commission members took their own minutes or had another volunteer do it. There would be no need to silence this segment of city governance.
Also, I believe David missed the question about City commissions. A hypothetical was proposed to Cecilia and I, asking basically: what if the city could no longer afford to staff the commissions and they and to be reduced to five. Cecilia took out her notepad and started to map out the commissions and talked about combining a few as well as listing off the important ones that could not be axed. I pointed out that the city commissions are comprised of volunteers so if it is an issue of city staffing then we need to change how we document the meetings –with new technology we could do it easily and cheaply. The city commissions are important in giving input to the council. There would be no need to axe them. And going from the dozen and a half we have to only five would be severe blow to the civic participation that the commissions allow. Even if it meant the commission members took their own minutes or had another volunteer do it. There would be no need to silence this segment of city governance.
David:
First, I hope that during this campaign, you will identify the fact that your name is David Greenwald and that you are the husband of Cecilia-Escamilla Greenwald, City Council Candidate, on EVERY post about council issues. I think that full disclosure on every article on the council or the campaign is a good idea for the next two months.
Secondly, during this forum, I very clearly singled out early full retirement benefits for our management and professional workers as one of our major fiscal problems. I voted for early retirement benefits for our bargaining group that covers mostly people for whom physical labor is a major component of their job.
I also mentioned total compensation packages for management and our highest paid workers, not “city workers”.
In fact, I think our pay structure is way off kilter, and some of our workers, including some of our professional workers, are underpaid.
David:
First, I hope that during this campaign, you will identify the fact that your name is David Greenwald and that you are the husband of Cecilia-Escamilla Greenwald, City Council Candidate, on EVERY post about council issues. I think that full disclosure on every article on the council or the campaign is a good idea for the next two months.
Secondly, during this forum, I very clearly singled out early full retirement benefits for our management and professional workers as one of our major fiscal problems. I voted for early retirement benefits for our bargaining group that covers mostly people for whom physical labor is a major component of their job.
I also mentioned total compensation packages for management and our highest paid workers, not “city workers”.
In fact, I think our pay structure is way off kilter, and some of our workers, including some of our professional workers, are underpaid.
David:
First, I hope that during this campaign, you will identify the fact that your name is David Greenwald and that you are the husband of Cecilia-Escamilla Greenwald, City Council Candidate, on EVERY post about council issues. I think that full disclosure on every article on the council or the campaign is a good idea for the next two months.
Secondly, during this forum, I very clearly singled out early full retirement benefits for our management and professional workers as one of our major fiscal problems. I voted for early retirement benefits for our bargaining group that covers mostly people for whom physical labor is a major component of their job.
I also mentioned total compensation packages for management and our highest paid workers, not “city workers”.
In fact, I think our pay structure is way off kilter, and some of our workers, including some of our professional workers, are underpaid.
David:
First, I hope that during this campaign, you will identify the fact that your name is David Greenwald and that you are the husband of Cecilia-Escamilla Greenwald, City Council Candidate, on EVERY post about council issues. I think that full disclosure on every article on the council or the campaign is a good idea for the next two months.
Secondly, during this forum, I very clearly singled out early full retirement benefits for our management and professional workers as one of our major fiscal problems. I voted for early retirement benefits for our bargaining group that covers mostly people for whom physical labor is a major component of their job.
I also mentioned total compensation packages for management and our highest paid workers, not “city workers”.
In fact, I think our pay structure is way off kilter, and some of our workers, including some of our professional workers, are underpaid.
Sue:
I clearly laid out my marriage to Cecilia at the bottom of the post.
I apologize if I left out some of the things you said, it was not intended to be a transcript and I was hustling to keep up with the responses.
Sue:
I clearly laid out my marriage to Cecilia at the bottom of the post.
I apologize if I left out some of the things you said, it was not intended to be a transcript and I was hustling to keep up with the responses.
Sue:
I clearly laid out my marriage to Cecilia at the bottom of the post.
I apologize if I left out some of the things you said, it was not intended to be a transcript and I was hustling to keep up with the responses.
Sue:
I clearly laid out my marriage to Cecilia at the bottom of the post.
I apologize if I left out some of the things you said, it was not intended to be a transcript and I was hustling to keep up with the responses.
David, if only because of the election, it may be time for dougpauldavis to hand over the reins of the Vanguard to David Greenwald.
Sue, I look forward to having two Council members with Greenwald as part of their name.
David, if only because of the election, it may be time for dougpauldavis to hand over the reins of the Vanguard to David Greenwald.
Sue, I look forward to having two Council members with Greenwald as part of their name.
David, if only because of the election, it may be time for dougpauldavis to hand over the reins of the Vanguard to David Greenwald.
Sue, I look forward to having two Council members with Greenwald as part of their name.
David, if only because of the election, it may be time for dougpauldavis to hand over the reins of the Vanguard to David Greenwald.
Sue, I look forward to having two Council members with Greenwald as part of their name.
nice hit piece on Souza.
nice hit piece on Souza.
nice hit piece on Souza.
nice hit piece on Souza.
How was this a hit piece on Souza? It criticized his view on Covell, okay I get it. The part on what green means was funny more than mean. How was this a hit piece?
How was this a hit piece on Souza? It criticized his view on Covell, okay I get it. The part on what green means was funny more than mean. How was this a hit piece?
How was this a hit piece on Souza? It criticized his view on Covell, okay I get it. The part on what green means was funny more than mean. How was this a hit piece?
How was this a hit piece on Souza? It criticized his view on Covell, okay I get it. The part on what green means was funny more than mean. How was this a hit piece?
Anonymous said…
nice hit piece on Souza.
It makes very little sense for dpd to run down Souza. The best two candidates for Progressives are clearly Sue and Cecilia. The best third candidate after them is equally clear. It is Souza.
Look at the four candidates after Sue and Cecilia. Roy has no realistic chance of winning. Saylor is pro-growth. Vergis is a baby-Saylor. Souza, may have his faults, but he is the one candidate out of the four who Progressives should be voting for as their third choice on Election Day.
We need to bust our individual and collective humps to be absolutely sure Sue and Cecilia are elected. After that the top priority is to be sure that saylor does not get re-elected.
Anonymous said…
nice hit piece on Souza.
It makes very little sense for dpd to run down Souza. The best two candidates for Progressives are clearly Sue and Cecilia. The best third candidate after them is equally clear. It is Souza.
Look at the four candidates after Sue and Cecilia. Roy has no realistic chance of winning. Saylor is pro-growth. Vergis is a baby-Saylor. Souza, may have his faults, but he is the one candidate out of the four who Progressives should be voting for as their third choice on Election Day.
We need to bust our individual and collective humps to be absolutely sure Sue and Cecilia are elected. After that the top priority is to be sure that saylor does not get re-elected.
Anonymous said…
nice hit piece on Souza.
It makes very little sense for dpd to run down Souza. The best two candidates for Progressives are clearly Sue and Cecilia. The best third candidate after them is equally clear. It is Souza.
Look at the four candidates after Sue and Cecilia. Roy has no realistic chance of winning. Saylor is pro-growth. Vergis is a baby-Saylor. Souza, may have his faults, but he is the one candidate out of the four who Progressives should be voting for as their third choice on Election Day.
We need to bust our individual and collective humps to be absolutely sure Sue and Cecilia are elected. After that the top priority is to be sure that saylor does not get re-elected.
Anonymous said…
nice hit piece on Souza.
It makes very little sense for dpd to run down Souza. The best two candidates for Progressives are clearly Sue and Cecilia. The best third candidate after them is equally clear. It is Souza.
Look at the four candidates after Sue and Cecilia. Roy has no realistic chance of winning. Saylor is pro-growth. Vergis is a baby-Saylor. Souza, may have his faults, but he is the one candidate out of the four who Progressives should be voting for as their third choice on Election Day.
We need to bust our individual and collective humps to be absolutely sure Sue and Cecilia are elected. After that the top priority is to be sure that saylor does not get re-elected.
Hit piece? If it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk, its probably a skunk. DPD – your credibility is shrinking by the minute… bad idea to personally cover this election.
“Stephen Souza suggested that we cannot rely upon the auto industry as our tax base. He then suggested that we need to look at industry that is green in nature. Of course, his big economic initiative to date has been Target, an industry that is inherently non-green by its nature.”
Target was Souza’s initiative? Not so much. And why can’t you give him the same latitude on wanting to attract green businesses as you give your wife on her dreams of more parking garages?
“This is basically the Ruth Asmundson answer rehashed, Souza simply does not understand the opposition to Measure X and argues that the public did not properly understand it rather than take from the lesson that the public is not supportive of huge new develops on the Davis periphery.”
We all know how much you hate the Mayor Pro Tem, so guilty by implication of association here. Stephen, like many people in this community, feel like the Covell Village project was worthy of our consideration and then slimed by a very small group of people whol will always, always say no to change. Do you really think that the average voter knew all about the detailed list of benefits to the community and all of the mitigation efforts from Measure X? Or was that drowned out by the war drum of “NO, NO, we won’t grow! [insert spurious motivation accusations]”
“…when Stephen Souza admittedly got a bit carried away when asked what green meant to him. He went off on a litany of “green means” statements until Don Saylor practically fell out of his seat laughing.”
After watching this portion of the video, I’m now convinced that your bias runs deep indeed. Why not mention that Souza delivered a punchline, “Green means… well, a lot to me,” followed by his famous grin that had the entire room laughing. He then followed it with a very sober statement about preserving the health of our planet for posterity. Why must you make it seem like Don, and others, were laughing at his expense?
LASTLY, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY,
Why not comment on one of the most surprising statements,
“The soul of our community is our business community.” – Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald pandering to the Chamber of Commerce.
Really? Really?? Pluralism, tolerance, civic activism, environmental progressivism, urban planning… those aren’t the “soul” of our community?
Hit piece? If it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk, its probably a skunk. DPD – your credibility is shrinking by the minute… bad idea to personally cover this election.
“Stephen Souza suggested that we cannot rely upon the auto industry as our tax base. He then suggested that we need to look at industry that is green in nature. Of course, his big economic initiative to date has been Target, an industry that is inherently non-green by its nature.”
Target was Souza’s initiative? Not so much. And why can’t you give him the same latitude on wanting to attract green businesses as you give your wife on her dreams of more parking garages?
“This is basically the Ruth Asmundson answer rehashed, Souza simply does not understand the opposition to Measure X and argues that the public did not properly understand it rather than take from the lesson that the public is not supportive of huge new develops on the Davis periphery.”
We all know how much you hate the Mayor Pro Tem, so guilty by implication of association here. Stephen, like many people in this community, feel like the Covell Village project was worthy of our consideration and then slimed by a very small group of people whol will always, always say no to change. Do you really think that the average voter knew all about the detailed list of benefits to the community and all of the mitigation efforts from Measure X? Or was that drowned out by the war drum of “NO, NO, we won’t grow! [insert spurious motivation accusations]”
“…when Stephen Souza admittedly got a bit carried away when asked what green meant to him. He went off on a litany of “green means” statements until Don Saylor practically fell out of his seat laughing.”
After watching this portion of the video, I’m now convinced that your bias runs deep indeed. Why not mention that Souza delivered a punchline, “Green means… well, a lot to me,” followed by his famous grin that had the entire room laughing. He then followed it with a very sober statement about preserving the health of our planet for posterity. Why must you make it seem like Don, and others, were laughing at his expense?
LASTLY, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY,
Why not comment on one of the most surprising statements,
“The soul of our community is our business community.” – Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald pandering to the Chamber of Commerce.
Really? Really?? Pluralism, tolerance, civic activism, environmental progressivism, urban planning… those aren’t the “soul” of our community?
Hit piece? If it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk, its probably a skunk. DPD – your credibility is shrinking by the minute… bad idea to personally cover this election.
“Stephen Souza suggested that we cannot rely upon the auto industry as our tax base. He then suggested that we need to look at industry that is green in nature. Of course, his big economic initiative to date has been Target, an industry that is inherently non-green by its nature.”
Target was Souza’s initiative? Not so much. And why can’t you give him the same latitude on wanting to attract green businesses as you give your wife on her dreams of more parking garages?
“This is basically the Ruth Asmundson answer rehashed, Souza simply does not understand the opposition to Measure X and argues that the public did not properly understand it rather than take from the lesson that the public is not supportive of huge new develops on the Davis periphery.”
We all know how much you hate the Mayor Pro Tem, so guilty by implication of association here. Stephen, like many people in this community, feel like the Covell Village project was worthy of our consideration and then slimed by a very small group of people whol will always, always say no to change. Do you really think that the average voter knew all about the detailed list of benefits to the community and all of the mitigation efforts from Measure X? Or was that drowned out by the war drum of “NO, NO, we won’t grow! [insert spurious motivation accusations]”
“…when Stephen Souza admittedly got a bit carried away when asked what green meant to him. He went off on a litany of “green means” statements until Don Saylor practically fell out of his seat laughing.”
After watching this portion of the video, I’m now convinced that your bias runs deep indeed. Why not mention that Souza delivered a punchline, “Green means… well, a lot to me,” followed by his famous grin that had the entire room laughing. He then followed it with a very sober statement about preserving the health of our planet for posterity. Why must you make it seem like Don, and others, were laughing at his expense?
LASTLY, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY,
Why not comment on one of the most surprising statements,
“The soul of our community is our business community.” – Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald pandering to the Chamber of Commerce.
Really? Really?? Pluralism, tolerance, civic activism, environmental progressivism, urban planning… those aren’t the “soul” of our community?
Hit piece? If it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk, its probably a skunk. DPD – your credibility is shrinking by the minute… bad idea to personally cover this election.
“Stephen Souza suggested that we cannot rely upon the auto industry as our tax base. He then suggested that we need to look at industry that is green in nature. Of course, his big economic initiative to date has been Target, an industry that is inherently non-green by its nature.”
Target was Souza’s initiative? Not so much. And why can’t you give him the same latitude on wanting to attract green businesses as you give your wife on her dreams of more parking garages?
“This is basically the Ruth Asmundson answer rehashed, Souza simply does not understand the opposition to Measure X and argues that the public did not properly understand it rather than take from the lesson that the public is not supportive of huge new develops on the Davis periphery.”
We all know how much you hate the Mayor Pro Tem, so guilty by implication of association here. Stephen, like many people in this community, feel like the Covell Village project was worthy of our consideration and then slimed by a very small group of people whol will always, always say no to change. Do you really think that the average voter knew all about the detailed list of benefits to the community and all of the mitigation efforts from Measure X? Or was that drowned out by the war drum of “NO, NO, we won’t grow! [insert spurious motivation accusations]”
“…when Stephen Souza admittedly got a bit carried away when asked what green meant to him. He went off on a litany of “green means” statements until Don Saylor practically fell out of his seat laughing.”
After watching this portion of the video, I’m now convinced that your bias runs deep indeed. Why not mention that Souza delivered a punchline, “Green means… well, a lot to me,” followed by his famous grin that had the entire room laughing. He then followed it with a very sober statement about preserving the health of our planet for posterity. Why must you make it seem like Don, and others, were laughing at his expense?
LASTLY, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY,
Why not comment on one of the most surprising statements,
“The soul of our community is our business community.” – Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald pandering to the Chamber of Commerce.
Really? Really?? Pluralism, tolerance, civic activism, environmental progressivism, urban planning… those aren’t the “soul” of our community?
anonymous 4:45PM
A vote for Souza could very well give him enough votes to knock off Sue or Cecilia. My plan is to vote a strict Greenwald ticket, Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald; I’ll leave the third council seat for the rest of the field to fight over as it will have little impact on a solid Greenwald-Greenwald-Heystek council majority,committed to keeping our Measure J strong and intact.
anonymous 4:45PM
A vote for Souza could very well give him enough votes to knock off Sue or Cecilia. My plan is to vote a strict Greenwald ticket, Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald; I’ll leave the third council seat for the rest of the field to fight over as it will have little impact on a solid Greenwald-Greenwald-Heystek council majority,committed to keeping our Measure J strong and intact.
anonymous 4:45PM
A vote for Souza could very well give him enough votes to knock off Sue or Cecilia. My plan is to vote a strict Greenwald ticket, Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald; I’ll leave the third council seat for the rest of the field to fight over as it will have little impact on a solid Greenwald-Greenwald-Heystek council majority,committed to keeping our Measure J strong and intact.
anonymous 4:45PM
A vote for Souza could very well give him enough votes to knock off Sue or Cecilia. My plan is to vote a strict Greenwald ticket, Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald; I’ll leave the third council seat for the rest of the field to fight over as it will have little impact on a solid Greenwald-Greenwald-Heystek council majority,committed to keeping our Measure J strong and intact.
Skeptical has actually inadvertently shown us indeed why DPD can in fact cover this election, it is because people like Skeptical can post on here their opinions. People can read both and then decide for themselves who to believe.
“feel like the Covell Village project was worthy of our consideration and then slimed by a very small group of people whol will always, always say no to change.”
This tells me about all I need to know about where you are coming from. Who exactly are you trying to convince with this argument–surely the middle voter as you describe will be rather insulted to learn that they just didn’t understand and you with your superior intellect did. Arrogance is not a good candidate trait–Souza’s view and yours is arrogant–you know better than us miscreants. Keep up that line and see how far it gets you.
Skeptical has actually inadvertently shown us indeed why DPD can in fact cover this election, it is because people like Skeptical can post on here their opinions. People can read both and then decide for themselves who to believe.
“feel like the Covell Village project was worthy of our consideration and then slimed by a very small group of people whol will always, always say no to change.”
This tells me about all I need to know about where you are coming from. Who exactly are you trying to convince with this argument–surely the middle voter as you describe will be rather insulted to learn that they just didn’t understand and you with your superior intellect did. Arrogance is not a good candidate trait–Souza’s view and yours is arrogant–you know better than us miscreants. Keep up that line and see how far it gets you.
Skeptical has actually inadvertently shown us indeed why DPD can in fact cover this election, it is because people like Skeptical can post on here their opinions. People can read both and then decide for themselves who to believe.
“feel like the Covell Village project was worthy of our consideration and then slimed by a very small group of people whol will always, always say no to change.”
This tells me about all I need to know about where you are coming from. Who exactly are you trying to convince with this argument–surely the middle voter as you describe will be rather insulted to learn that they just didn’t understand and you with your superior intellect did. Arrogance is not a good candidate trait–Souza’s view and yours is arrogant–you know better than us miscreants. Keep up that line and see how far it gets you.
Skeptical has actually inadvertently shown us indeed why DPD can in fact cover this election, it is because people like Skeptical can post on here their opinions. People can read both and then decide for themselves who to believe.
“feel like the Covell Village project was worthy of our consideration and then slimed by a very small group of people whol will always, always say no to change.”
This tells me about all I need to know about where you are coming from. Who exactly are you trying to convince with this argument–surely the middle voter as you describe will be rather insulted to learn that they just didn’t understand and you with your superior intellect did. Arrogance is not a good candidate trait–Souza’s view and yours is arrogant–you know better than us miscreants. Keep up that line and see how far it gets you.
nobody said anything about superior intellect, i’m just a bored single person who happens to enjoy dedicating large amounts of time to studying some local issues.
most everyone else aka “average voter” spends more time raising their children, going rock climbing or making music than going into the details of a development plan.
thus, my point, mudslinging is difficult to distinguish from fact. thanks for proving that by attributing more spurious motivations to my comments.
i’m not here to defend souza, i’m here [probably for the last time] to point out that most of you so-called progressives (and how very Roveian of you to selfishly co-opt a once meaningful term) are blind to your own faults
nobody said anything about superior intellect, i’m just a bored single person who happens to enjoy dedicating large amounts of time to studying some local issues.
most everyone else aka “average voter” spends more time raising their children, going rock climbing or making music than going into the details of a development plan.
thus, my point, mudslinging is difficult to distinguish from fact. thanks for proving that by attributing more spurious motivations to my comments.
i’m not here to defend souza, i’m here [probably for the last time] to point out that most of you so-called progressives (and how very Roveian of you to selfishly co-opt a once meaningful term) are blind to your own faults
nobody said anything about superior intellect, i’m just a bored single person who happens to enjoy dedicating large amounts of time to studying some local issues.
most everyone else aka “average voter” spends more time raising their children, going rock climbing or making music than going into the details of a development plan.
thus, my point, mudslinging is difficult to distinguish from fact. thanks for proving that by attributing more spurious motivations to my comments.
i’m not here to defend souza, i’m here [probably for the last time] to point out that most of you so-called progressives (and how very Roveian of you to selfishly co-opt a once meaningful term) are blind to your own faults
nobody said anything about superior intellect, i’m just a bored single person who happens to enjoy dedicating large amounts of time to studying some local issues.
most everyone else aka “average voter” spends more time raising their children, going rock climbing or making music than going into the details of a development plan.
thus, my point, mudslinging is difficult to distinguish from fact. thanks for proving that by attributing more spurious motivations to my comments.
i’m not here to defend souza, i’m here [probably for the last time] to point out that most of you so-called progressives (and how very Roveian of you to selfishly co-opt a once meaningful term) are blind to your own faults
To the post above:
I somewhat agree with you. The exception would be that if you wish to refer to yourself as a “Miscreant” only include yourself, not me. Assumptions that others agree with you is also “arrogant”.
To the post above:
I somewhat agree with you. The exception would be that if you wish to refer to yourself as a “Miscreant” only include yourself, not me. Assumptions that others agree with you is also “arrogant”.
To the post above:
I somewhat agree with you. The exception would be that if you wish to refer to yourself as a “Miscreant” only include yourself, not me. Assumptions that others agree with you is also “arrogant”.
To the post above:
I somewhat agree with you. The exception would be that if you wish to refer to yourself as a “Miscreant” only include yourself, not me. Assumptions that others agree with you is also “arrogant”.
oh, and nice taking a play from DPD’s playbook of ignoring all but the most convenient criticisms…
the omission of Cecilia’s pandering to the Chamber when she is supposedly the Labor candidate who protects the most vulnerable isn’t the least bit worrisome?
and i’m done, i’ve wasted far too much time as it is on this unworthy site.
oh, and nice taking a play from DPD’s playbook of ignoring all but the most convenient criticisms…
the omission of Cecilia’s pandering to the Chamber when she is supposedly the Labor candidate who protects the most vulnerable isn’t the least bit worrisome?
and i’m done, i’ve wasted far too much time as it is on this unworthy site.
oh, and nice taking a play from DPD’s playbook of ignoring all but the most convenient criticisms…
the omission of Cecilia’s pandering to the Chamber when she is supposedly the Labor candidate who protects the most vulnerable isn’t the least bit worrisome?
and i’m done, i’ve wasted far too much time as it is on this unworthy site.
oh, and nice taking a play from DPD’s playbook of ignoring all but the most convenient criticisms…
the omission of Cecilia’s pandering to the Chamber when she is supposedly the Labor candidate who protects the most vulnerable isn’t the least bit worrisome?
and i’m done, i’ve wasted far too much time as it is on this unworthy site.
“and i’m done, i’ve wasted far too much time as it is on this unworthy site. “
That’s what they all say…
“and i’m done, i’ve wasted far too much time as it is on this unworthy site. “
That’s what they all say…
“and i’m done, i’ve wasted far too much time as it is on this unworthy site. “
That’s what they all say…
“and i’m done, i’ve wasted far too much time as it is on this unworthy site. “
That’s what they all say…
If you knew Cecilia, you would likely have heard her many stories about his disappointing return to the town that she grew up in, Chico and the fact that the downtown and city that she knew is unrecognizable, due to the influx of big box retail on the periphery of the city–and the appalling appearance of empty strip malls.
She believes that a downtown core is vital to the heart of the community. That is undoubtedly what she was referring to in her statement.
You suggest that it was surprising that she would say this, however, obviously DPD was not surprised.
“Pluralism, tolerance, civic activism, environmental progressivism, urban planning… those aren’t the “soul” of our community?”
Isn’t the business community–i.e. the downtown core about environmental progressivism and urban planning? Isn’t that part and parcel to what those fights are about. It’s not about no business, it’s about good, green, local business. That’s the message that she was sending and that you missed.
What you are calling pandering, I call part of the core value of modern progressivism.
If you knew Cecilia, you would likely have heard her many stories about his disappointing return to the town that she grew up in, Chico and the fact that the downtown and city that she knew is unrecognizable, due to the influx of big box retail on the periphery of the city–and the appalling appearance of empty strip malls.
She believes that a downtown core is vital to the heart of the community. That is undoubtedly what she was referring to in her statement.
You suggest that it was surprising that she would say this, however, obviously DPD was not surprised.
“Pluralism, tolerance, civic activism, environmental progressivism, urban planning… those aren’t the “soul” of our community?”
Isn’t the business community–i.e. the downtown core about environmental progressivism and urban planning? Isn’t that part and parcel to what those fights are about. It’s not about no business, it’s about good, green, local business. That’s the message that she was sending and that you missed.
What you are calling pandering, I call part of the core value of modern progressivism.
If you knew Cecilia, you would likely have heard her many stories about his disappointing return to the town that she grew up in, Chico and the fact that the downtown and city that she knew is unrecognizable, due to the influx of big box retail on the periphery of the city–and the appalling appearance of empty strip malls.
She believes that a downtown core is vital to the heart of the community. That is undoubtedly what she was referring to in her statement.
You suggest that it was surprising that she would say this, however, obviously DPD was not surprised.
“Pluralism, tolerance, civic activism, environmental progressivism, urban planning… those aren’t the “soul” of our community?”
Isn’t the business community–i.e. the downtown core about environmental progressivism and urban planning? Isn’t that part and parcel to what those fights are about. It’s not about no business, it’s about good, green, local business. That’s the message that she was sending and that you missed.
What you are calling pandering, I call part of the core value of modern progressivism.
If you knew Cecilia, you would likely have heard her many stories about his disappointing return to the town that she grew up in, Chico and the fact that the downtown and city that she knew is unrecognizable, due to the influx of big box retail on the periphery of the city–and the appalling appearance of empty strip malls.
She believes that a downtown core is vital to the heart of the community. That is undoubtedly what she was referring to in her statement.
You suggest that it was surprising that she would say this, however, obviously DPD was not surprised.
“Pluralism, tolerance, civic activism, environmental progressivism, urban planning… those aren’t the “soul” of our community?”
Isn’t the business community–i.e. the downtown core about environmental progressivism and urban planning? Isn’t that part and parcel to what those fights are about. It’s not about no business, it’s about good, green, local business. That’s the message that she was sending and that you missed.
What you are calling pandering, I call part of the core value of modern progressivism.
Progressives….I knew Bob LaFollette and you guys are no Bob LaFollette….
Progressives….I knew Bob LaFollette and you guys are no Bob LaFollette….
Progressives….I knew Bob LaFollette and you guys are no Bob LaFollette….
Progressives….I knew Bob LaFollette and you guys are no Bob LaFollette….
davisite said…
A vote for Souza could very well give him enough votes to knock off Sue or Cecilia. My plan is to vote a strict Greenwald ticket, Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald; I’ll leave the third council seat for the rest of the field to fight over as it will have little impact on a solid Greenwald-Greenwald-Heystek council majority,committed to keeping our Measure J strong and intact.
davisite, your post begs two questions: 1) you appear to be accepting by default that Saylor will be re-elected, and 2) you appear to be saying that Saylor is preferable to Souza. Is that what you intended?
I see Saylor as 1) the more unappealing candidate, 2) an easier candidate to defeat than Souza, and 3) a much more dnagerous Council member than Souza. He and Asmundson have very clear alliances that are pro-growth. Souza is more middle of the road.
Souza is much more appealing to the moderate-centrist voters than Saylor. While Souza is less appealing to the pro-growthers than Saylor, he is not unappealing to them. Therefore Souza will get just as many pro-growth votes as Saylor does, as well as lots of moderate votes that Saylor won’t get.
Sue and Cecelia are clearly appealing to the Progressives, and need to win a reasonable proportion of the moderates to beat Saylor. That is if you assume that the number of hard-core Progressives and the number of hard-core Pro-Growthers are about equal. A quick look at the election results of the past four Council elections says that is so.
The bottom-line of your two-vote only approach is that it is a vote for Saylor. Bad idea.
davisite said…
A vote for Souza could very well give him enough votes to knock off Sue or Cecilia. My plan is to vote a strict Greenwald ticket, Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald; I’ll leave the third council seat for the rest of the field to fight over as it will have little impact on a solid Greenwald-Greenwald-Heystek council majority,committed to keeping our Measure J strong and intact.
davisite, your post begs two questions: 1) you appear to be accepting by default that Saylor will be re-elected, and 2) you appear to be saying that Saylor is preferable to Souza. Is that what you intended?
I see Saylor as 1) the more unappealing candidate, 2) an easier candidate to defeat than Souza, and 3) a much more dnagerous Council member than Souza. He and Asmundson have very clear alliances that are pro-growth. Souza is more middle of the road.
Souza is much more appealing to the moderate-centrist voters than Saylor. While Souza is less appealing to the pro-growthers than Saylor, he is not unappealing to them. Therefore Souza will get just as many pro-growth votes as Saylor does, as well as lots of moderate votes that Saylor won’t get.
Sue and Cecelia are clearly appealing to the Progressives, and need to win a reasonable proportion of the moderates to beat Saylor. That is if you assume that the number of hard-core Progressives and the number of hard-core Pro-Growthers are about equal. A quick look at the election results of the past four Council elections says that is so.
The bottom-line of your two-vote only approach is that it is a vote for Saylor. Bad idea.
davisite said…
A vote for Souza could very well give him enough votes to knock off Sue or Cecilia. My plan is to vote a strict Greenwald ticket, Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald; I’ll leave the third council seat for the rest of the field to fight over as it will have little impact on a solid Greenwald-Greenwald-Heystek council majority,committed to keeping our Measure J strong and intact.
davisite, your post begs two questions: 1) you appear to be accepting by default that Saylor will be re-elected, and 2) you appear to be saying that Saylor is preferable to Souza. Is that what you intended?
I see Saylor as 1) the more unappealing candidate, 2) an easier candidate to defeat than Souza, and 3) a much more dnagerous Council member than Souza. He and Asmundson have very clear alliances that are pro-growth. Souza is more middle of the road.
Souza is much more appealing to the moderate-centrist voters than Saylor. While Souza is less appealing to the pro-growthers than Saylor, he is not unappealing to them. Therefore Souza will get just as many pro-growth votes as Saylor does, as well as lots of moderate votes that Saylor won’t get.
Sue and Cecelia are clearly appealing to the Progressives, and need to win a reasonable proportion of the moderates to beat Saylor. That is if you assume that the number of hard-core Progressives and the number of hard-core Pro-Growthers are about equal. A quick look at the election results of the past four Council elections says that is so.
The bottom-line of your two-vote only approach is that it is a vote for Saylor. Bad idea.
davisite said…
A vote for Souza could very well give him enough votes to knock off Sue or Cecilia. My plan is to vote a strict Greenwald ticket, Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald; I’ll leave the third council seat for the rest of the field to fight over as it will have little impact on a solid Greenwald-Greenwald-Heystek council majority,committed to keeping our Measure J strong and intact.
davisite, your post begs two questions: 1) you appear to be accepting by default that Saylor will be re-elected, and 2) you appear to be saying that Saylor is preferable to Souza. Is that what you intended?
I see Saylor as 1) the more unappealing candidate, 2) an easier candidate to defeat than Souza, and 3) a much more dnagerous Council member than Souza. He and Asmundson have very clear alliances that are pro-growth. Souza is more middle of the road.
Souza is much more appealing to the moderate-centrist voters than Saylor. While Souza is less appealing to the pro-growthers than Saylor, he is not unappealing to them. Therefore Souza will get just as many pro-growth votes as Saylor does, as well as lots of moderate votes that Saylor won’t get.
Sue and Cecelia are clearly appealing to the Progressives, and need to win a reasonable proportion of the moderates to beat Saylor. That is if you assume that the number of hard-core Progressives and the number of hard-core Pro-Growthers are about equal. A quick look at the election results of the past four Council elections says that is so.
The bottom-line of your two-vote only approach is that it is a vote for Saylor. Bad idea.
davisite said…
A vote for Souza could very well give him enough votes to knock off Sue or Cecilia. My plan is to vote a strict Greenwald ticket, Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald; I’ll leave the third council seat for the rest of the field to fight over as it will have little impact on a solid Greenwald-Greenwald-Heystek council majority,committed to keeping our Measure J strong and intact.
davisite, your post begs two questions: 1) you appear to be accepting by default that Saylor will be re-elected, and 2) you appear to be saying that Saylor is preferable to Souza. Is that what you intended?
I see Saylor as 1) the more unappealing candidate, 2) an easier candidate to defeat than Souza, and 3) a much more dnagerous Council member than Souza. He and Asmundson have very clear alliances that are pro-growth. Souza is more middle of the road.
Souza is much more appealing to the moderate-centrist voters than Saylor. While Souza is less appealing to the pro-growthers than Saylor, he is not unappealing to them. Therefore Souza will get just as many pro-growth votes as Saylor does, as well as lots of moderate votes that Saylor won’t get.
Sue and Cecelia are clearly appealing to the Progressives, and need to win a reasonable proportion of the moderates to beat Saylor. That is if you assume that the number of hard-core Progressives and the number of hard-core Pro-Growthers are about equal. A quick look at the election results of the past four Council elections says that is so.
The bottom-line of your two-vote only approach is that it is a vote for Saylor. Bad idea.
davisite said…
A vote for Souza could very well give him enough votes to knock off Sue or Cecilia. My plan is to vote a strict Greenwald ticket, Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald; I’ll leave the third council seat for the rest of the field to fight over as it will have little impact on a solid Greenwald-Greenwald-Heystek council majority,committed to keeping our Measure J strong and intact.
davisite, your post begs two questions: 1) you appear to be accepting by default that Saylor will be re-elected, and 2) you appear to be saying that Saylor is preferable to Souza. Is that what you intended?
I see Saylor as 1) the more unappealing candidate, 2) an easier candidate to defeat than Souza, and 3) a much more dnagerous Council member than Souza. He and Asmundson have very clear alliances that are pro-growth. Souza is more middle of the road.
Souza is much more appealing to the moderate-centrist voters than Saylor. While Souza is less appealing to the pro-growthers than Saylor, he is not unappealing to them. Therefore Souza will get just as many pro-growth votes as Saylor does, as well as lots of moderate votes that Saylor won’t get.
Sue and Cecelia are clearly appealing to the Progressives, and need to win a reasonable proportion of the moderates to beat Saylor. That is if you assume that the number of hard-core Progressives and the number of hard-core Pro-Growthers are about equal. A quick look at the election results of the past four Council elections says that is so.
The bottom-line of your two-vote only approach is that it is a vote for Saylor. Bad idea.
davisite said…
A vote for Souza could very well give him enough votes to knock off Sue or Cecilia. My plan is to vote a strict Greenwald ticket, Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Greenwald; I’ll leave the third council seat for the rest of the field to fight over as it will have little impact on a solid Greenwald-Greenwald-Heystek council majority,committed to keeping our Measure J strong and intact.
davisite, your post begs two questions: 1) you appear to be accepting by default that Saylor will be re-elected, and 2) you appear to be saying that Saylor is preferable to Souza. Is that what you intended?
I see Saylor as 1) the more unappealing candidate, 2) an easier candidate to defeat than Souza, and 3) a much more dnagerous Council member than Souza. He and Asmundson have very clear alliances that are pro-growth. Souza is more middle of the road.
Souza is much more appealing to the moderate-centrist voters than Saylor. While Souza is less appealing to the pro-growthers than Saylor, he is not unappealing to them. Therefore Souza will get just as many pro-growth votes as Saylor does, as well as lots of moderate votes that Saylor won’t get.
Sue and Cecelia are clearly appealing to the Progressives, and need to win a reasonable proportion of the moderates to beat Saylor. That is if you assume that the number of hard-core Progressives and the number of hard-core Pro-Growthers are about equal. A quick look at the election results of the past four Council elections says that is so.
The bottom-line of your two-vote only approach is that it is a vote for Saylor. Bad idea.
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection(just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection(just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection(just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection(just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection(just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection(just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection(just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
Davisite said…
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection( just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
Davisite, I agree with everything you have said, but I see what you are saying as a passive assessment of the situation rather than a strategy to achieve the best outcome.
Bottom-line, which would you prefer a Council of:
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Souza – Asmundson
or
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Saylor – Asmundson
I consider the former as vastly superior to the latter. Saylor and Asmundson are almost always going to stand together on issues. Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will. I
That is worth fighting for.
Davisite said…
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection( just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
Davisite, I agree with everything you have said, but I see what you are saying as a passive assessment of the situation rather than a strategy to achieve the best outcome.
Bottom-line, which would you prefer a Council of:
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Souza – Asmundson
or
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Saylor – Asmundson
I consider the former as vastly superior to the latter. Saylor and Asmundson are almost always going to stand together on issues. Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will. I
That is worth fighting for.
Davisite said…
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection( just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
Davisite, I agree with everything you have said, but I see what you are saying as a passive assessment of the situation rather than a strategy to achieve the best outcome.
Bottom-line, which would you prefer a Council of:
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Souza – Asmundson
or
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Saylor – Asmundson
I consider the former as vastly superior to the latter. Saylor and Asmundson are almost always going to stand together on issues. Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will. I
That is worth fighting for.
Davisite said…
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection( just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
Davisite, I agree with everything you have said, but I see what you are saying as a passive assessment of the situation rather than a strategy to achieve the best outcome.
Bottom-line, which would you prefer a Council of:
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Souza – Asmundson
or
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Saylor – Asmundson
I consider the former as vastly superior to the latter. Saylor and Asmundson are almost always going to stand together on issues. Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will. I
That is worth fighting for.
Davisite said…
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection( just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
Davisite, I agree with everything you have said, but I see what you are saying as a passive assessment of the situation rather than a strategy to achieve the best outcome.
Bottom-line, which would you prefer a Council of:
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Souza – Asmundson
or
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Saylor – Asmundson
I consider the former as vastly superior to the latter. Saylor and Asmundson are almost always going to stand together on issues. Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will. I
That is worth fighting for.
Davisite said…
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection( just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
Davisite, I agree with everything you have said, but I see what you are saying as a passive assessment of the situation rather than a strategy to achieve the best outcome.
Bottom-line, which would you prefer a Council of:
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Souza – Asmundson
or
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Saylor – Asmundson
I consider the former as vastly superior to the latter. Saylor and Asmundson are almost always going to stand together on issues. Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will. I
That is worth fighting for.
Davisite said…
There is no question that both Saylor and Souza will garner a lower percentage of the vote for their reelection just as Ruth Asmundson did when she ran for reelection( just barely beating out Lamar for the Mayor pro tem spot).
Yes, they both have a constituency that will remain loyal but both have also disappointed a sizable number of voters who were duped by their campaign rhetoric…and Davisites do not like to be duped!!
Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4.
Davisite, I agree with everything you have said, but I see what you are saying as a passive assessment of the situation rather than a strategy to achieve the best outcome.
Bottom-line, which would you prefer a Council of:
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Souza – Asmundson
or
Lamar – Sue – Cecilia – Saylor – Asmundson
I consider the former as vastly superior to the latter. Saylor and Asmundson are almost always going to stand together on issues. Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will. I
That is worth fighting for.
anon 1:48
Souza paints himself as a moderate and may well draw votes like yours plus ALL that want to gut Measure J in 2010 and open the gates to peripheral development sprawl. This may give him a greater vote count than Cecilia or(less likely) Sue and eliminate the possibility of a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority which should be our absolute primary concern. The fate of our Measure J ordinance may very well depend on winning the Council majority in 8 weeks.
anon 1:48
Souza paints himself as a moderate and may well draw votes like yours plus ALL that want to gut Measure J in 2010 and open the gates to peripheral development sprawl. This may give him a greater vote count than Cecilia or(less likely) Sue and eliminate the possibility of a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority which should be our absolute primary concern. The fate of our Measure J ordinance may very well depend on winning the Council majority in 8 weeks.
anon 1:48
Souza paints himself as a moderate and may well draw votes like yours plus ALL that want to gut Measure J in 2010 and open the gates to peripheral development sprawl. This may give him a greater vote count than Cecilia or(less likely) Sue and eliminate the possibility of a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority which should be our absolute primary concern. The fate of our Measure J ordinance may very well depend on winning the Council majority in 8 weeks.
anon 1:48
Souza paints himself as a moderate and may well draw votes like yours plus ALL that want to gut Measure J in 2010 and open the gates to peripheral development sprawl. This may give him a greater vote count than Cecilia or(less likely) Sue and eliminate the possibility of a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority which should be our absolute primary concern. The fate of our Measure J ordinance may very well depend on winning the Council majority in 8 weeks.
anon 1:48
Souza paints himself as a moderate and may well draw votes like yours plus ALL that want to gut Measure J in 2010 and open the gates to peripheral development sprawl. This may give him a greater vote count than Cecilia or(less likely) Sue and eliminate the possibility of a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority which should be our absolute primary concern. The fate of our Measure J ordinance may very well depend on winning the Council majority in 8 weeks.
anon 1:48
Souza paints himself as a moderate and may well draw votes like yours plus ALL that want to gut Measure J in 2010 and open the gates to peripheral development sprawl. This may give him a greater vote count than Cecilia or(less likely) Sue and eliminate the possibility of a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority which should be our absolute primary concern. The fate of our Measure J ordinance may very well depend on winning the Council majority in 8 weeks.
anon 1:48
Souza paints himself as a moderate and may well draw votes like yours plus ALL that want to gut Measure J in 2010 and open the gates to peripheral development sprawl. This may give him a greater vote count than Cecilia or(less likely) Sue and eliminate the possibility of a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority which should be our absolute primary concern. The fate of our Measure J ordinance may very well depend on winning the Council majority in 8 weeks.
davisite, I don’t disagree. The #1 priority is to ensure that both Sue and Cecilia get elected. With that said, please answer this question, “Who do you think is more beatable, Saylor or Souza?”
davisite, I don’t disagree. The #1 priority is to ensure that both Sue and Cecilia get elected. With that said, please answer this question, “Who do you think is more beatable, Saylor or Souza?”
davisite, I don’t disagree. The #1 priority is to ensure that both Sue and Cecilia get elected. With that said, please answer this question, “Who do you think is more beatable, Saylor or Souza?”
davisite, I don’t disagree. The #1 priority is to ensure that both Sue and Cecilia get elected. With that said, please answer this question, “Who do you think is more beatable, Saylor or Souza?”
davisite, I don’t disagree. The #1 priority is to ensure that both Sue and Cecilia get elected. With that said, please answer this question, “Who do you think is more beatable, Saylor or Souza?”
davisite, I don’t disagree. The #1 priority is to ensure that both Sue and Cecilia get elected. With that said, please answer this question, “Who do you think is more beatable, Saylor or Souza?”
davisite, I don’t disagree. The #1 priority is to ensure that both Sue and Cecilia get elected. With that said, please answer this question, “Who do you think is more beatable, Saylor or Souza?”
“Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4”
A look at Vergis’ campaign contributors and supporters may give some credence to the above analysis.
Rob is back in the running again.. rumor has it that his last council run was encouraged by the Saylor political faction.
“Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4”
A look at Vergis’ campaign contributors and supporters may give some credence to the above analysis.
Rob is back in the running again.. rumor has it that his last council run was encouraged by the Saylor political faction.
“Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4”
A look at Vergis’ campaign contributors and supporters may give some credence to the above analysis.
Rob is back in the running again.. rumor has it that his last council run was encouraged by the Saylor political faction.
“Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4”
A look at Vergis’ campaign contributors and supporters may give some credence to the above analysis.
Rob is back in the running again.. rumor has it that his last council run was encouraged by the Saylor political faction.
“Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4”
A look at Vergis’ campaign contributors and supporters may give some credence to the above analysis.
Rob is back in the running again.. rumor has it that his last council run was encouraged by the Saylor political faction.
“Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4”
A look at Vergis’ campaign contributors and supporters may give some credence to the above analysis.
Rob is back in the running again.. rumor has it that his last council run was encouraged by the Saylor political faction.
“Their best hope is that the field of 6 candidates will fragment the anti-Saylor-Souza vote(especially the student vote which may make a much bigger showing this time) among the other 4”
A look at Vergis’ campaign contributors and supporters may give some credence to the above analysis.
Rob is back in the running again.. rumor has it that his last council run was encouraged by the Saylor political faction.
anon 4:06
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. w My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes). In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
anon 4:06
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. w My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes). In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
anon 4:06
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. w My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes). In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
anon 4:06
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. w My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes). In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
anon 4:06
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. w My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes). In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
anon 4:06
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. w My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes). In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
anon 4:06
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. w My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes). In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
“Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will.”
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
“Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will.”
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
“Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will.”
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
“Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will.”
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
“Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will.”
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
“Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will.”
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
“Souza is more moderate and will be much more likely to result in 4-1 votes than Saylor will.”
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes).
In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
So what you are saying is that Saylor can effectively buy his reelection. I don’t “buy” that. If Measure X had not happened I might agree with you. Saylor is on the wrong side of almost every issue that the Progressives are galvanized about. No amount of money will change that.
To see how strongly Measure X changed the landscape one needs only to look at the past few Council election results. In 2006 less than 48% of the votes cast went to Asmundson and Levy, the two candidates most like Saylor. In 2004 less than 47% of the votes cast went to Saylor, Souza, Lott and Charlesworth. However, in 2002 Asmundson and Puntillo received over 62% of the votes cast.
We need to build on that trend and work for the best possible outcome. Sue and Cecilia are great candidates to build a winning campaign around. With our active support they will add a third chapter to the post-Measure X election trends in Davis.
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes).
In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
So what you are saying is that Saylor can effectively buy his reelection. I don’t “buy” that. If Measure X had not happened I might agree with you. Saylor is on the wrong side of almost every issue that the Progressives are galvanized about. No amount of money will change that.
To see how strongly Measure X changed the landscape one needs only to look at the past few Council election results. In 2006 less than 48% of the votes cast went to Asmundson and Levy, the two candidates most like Saylor. In 2004 less than 47% of the votes cast went to Saylor, Souza, Lott and Charlesworth. However, in 2002 Asmundson and Puntillo received over 62% of the votes cast.
We need to build on that trend and work for the best possible outcome. Sue and Cecilia are great candidates to build a winning campaign around. With our active support they will add a third chapter to the post-Measure X election trends in Davis.
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes).
In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
So what you are saying is that Saylor can effectively buy his reelection. I don’t “buy” that. If Measure X had not happened I might agree with you. Saylor is on the wrong side of almost every issue that the Progressives are galvanized about. No amount of money will change that.
To see how strongly Measure X changed the landscape one needs only to look at the past few Council election results. In 2006 less than 48% of the votes cast went to Asmundson and Levy, the two candidates most like Saylor. In 2004 less than 47% of the votes cast went to Saylor, Souza, Lott and Charlesworth. However, in 2002 Asmundson and Puntillo received over 62% of the votes cast.
We need to build on that trend and work for the best possible outcome. Sue and Cecilia are great candidates to build a winning campaign around. With our active support they will add a third chapter to the post-Measure X election trends in Davis.
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes).
In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
So what you are saying is that Saylor can effectively buy his reelection. I don’t “buy” that. If Measure X had not happened I might agree with you. Saylor is on the wrong side of almost every issue that the Progressives are galvanized about. No amount of money will change that.
To see how strongly Measure X changed the landscape one needs only to look at the past few Council election results. In 2006 less than 48% of the votes cast went to Asmundson and Levy, the two candidates most like Saylor. In 2004 less than 47% of the votes cast went to Saylor, Souza, Lott and Charlesworth. However, in 2002 Asmundson and Puntillo received over 62% of the votes cast.
We need to build on that trend and work for the best possible outcome. Sue and Cecilia are great candidates to build a winning campaign around. With our active support they will add a third chapter to the post-Measure X election trends in Davis.
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes).
In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
So what you are saying is that Saylor can effectively buy his reelection. I don’t “buy” that. If Measure X had not happened I might agree with you. Saylor is on the wrong side of almost every issue that the Progressives are galvanized about. No amount of money will change that.
To see how strongly Measure X changed the landscape one needs only to look at the past few Council election results. In 2006 less than 48% of the votes cast went to Asmundson and Levy, the two candidates most like Saylor. In 2004 less than 47% of the votes cast went to Saylor, Souza, Lott and Charlesworth. However, in 2002 Asmundson and Puntillo received over 62% of the votes cast.
We need to build on that trend and work for the best possible outcome. Sue and Cecilia are great candidates to build a winning campaign around. With our active support they will add a third chapter to the post-Measure X election trends in Davis.
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes).
In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
So what you are saying is that Saylor can effectively buy his reelection. I don’t “buy” that. If Measure X had not happened I might agree with you. Saylor is on the wrong side of almost every issue that the Progressives are galvanized about. No amount of money will change that.
To see how strongly Measure X changed the landscape one needs only to look at the past few Council election results. In 2006 less than 48% of the votes cast went to Asmundson and Levy, the two candidates most like Saylor. In 2004 less than 47% of the votes cast went to Saylor, Souza, Lott and Charlesworth. However, in 2002 Asmundson and Puntillo received over 62% of the votes cast.
We need to build on that trend and work for the best possible outcome. Sue and Cecilia are great candidates to build a winning campaign around. With our active support they will add a third chapter to the post-Measure X election trends in Davis.
I think that it is a close call whether Saylor or Souza has the better chance of being reelected. My guess would be that Saylor has more money and organization behind him and is a more adept politician(most are negative but effective attributes).
In any event,I repeat… a vote for Souza may very well scuttle the whole attempt to win a Sue-Cecilia-Lamar Council majority.
So what you are saying is that Saylor can effectively buy his reelection. I don’t “buy” that. If Measure X had not happened I might agree with you. Saylor is on the wrong side of almost every issue that the Progressives are galvanized about. No amount of money will change that.
To see how strongly Measure X changed the landscape one needs only to look at the past few Council election results. In 2006 less than 48% of the votes cast went to Asmundson and Levy, the two candidates most like Saylor. In 2004 less than 47% of the votes cast went to Saylor, Souza, Lott and Charlesworth. However, in 2002 Asmundson and Puntillo received over 62% of the votes cast.
We need to build on that trend and work for the best possible outcome. Sue and Cecilia are great candidates to build a winning campaign around. With our active support they will add a third chapter to the post-Measure X election trends in Davis.
Rob encouraged to run by the Saylor faction??? Are you kidding me?
Obviously you have not met Rob nor know anything about him.
Rob encouraged to run by the Saylor faction??? Are you kidding me?
Obviously you have not met Rob nor know anything about him.
Rob encouraged to run by the Saylor faction??? Are you kidding me?
Obviously you have not met Rob nor know anything about him.
Rob encouraged to run by the Saylor faction??? Are you kidding me?
Obviously you have not met Rob nor know anything about him.
Rob encouraged to run by the Saylor faction??? Are you kidding me?
Obviously you have not met Rob nor know anything about him.
Rob encouraged to run by the Saylor faction??? Are you kidding me?
Obviously you have not met Rob nor know anything about him.
Rob encouraged to run by the Saylor faction??? Are you kidding me?
Obviously you have not met Rob nor know anything about him.
davisite said…
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
I’ll answer your second question with a question. Where is the risk?
Regarding your first question, 4-1 is definitely better than 3-2. Both in the short run and in the long run. Come the 2010 Council Election the Pro-Growth contingent will be much better served by having Saylor on the Council then by having Souza on the Council. Saylor’s mind is made up. He puts lipstick on his pig, but it is still a pig. On the other hand Souza’s strength is also his weakness with the Progressives. he has shown himself to be a much better listener than Saylor has. Sometimes that propensity for listening causes him to listen to arguments that a died-in-the-wool Progressive doesn’t like, but more often than Saylor, that listening causes Souza to come out on the right side of important issues.
For example look at the recent 1% Growth Guideline reconsideration. Saylor was dead set against such a reconsideration. Souza made it very clear that he agreed that the language wasn’t being heard and acted on in the way it was intended. As a result, there is absolutely no ambiguity in the clarified language. it is not a target, it is a not-to-exceed Cap.
davisite said…
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
I’ll answer your second question with a question. Where is the risk?
Regarding your first question, 4-1 is definitely better than 3-2. Both in the short run and in the long run. Come the 2010 Council Election the Pro-Growth contingent will be much better served by having Saylor on the Council then by having Souza on the Council. Saylor’s mind is made up. He puts lipstick on his pig, but it is still a pig. On the other hand Souza’s strength is also his weakness with the Progressives. he has shown himself to be a much better listener than Saylor has. Sometimes that propensity for listening causes him to listen to arguments that a died-in-the-wool Progressive doesn’t like, but more often than Saylor, that listening causes Souza to come out on the right side of important issues.
For example look at the recent 1% Growth Guideline reconsideration. Saylor was dead set against such a reconsideration. Souza made it very clear that he agreed that the language wasn’t being heard and acted on in the way it was intended. As a result, there is absolutely no ambiguity in the clarified language. it is not a target, it is a not-to-exceed Cap.
davisite said…
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
I’ll answer your second question with a question. Where is the risk?
Regarding your first question, 4-1 is definitely better than 3-2. Both in the short run and in the long run. Come the 2010 Council Election the Pro-Growth contingent will be much better served by having Saylor on the Council then by having Souza on the Council. Saylor’s mind is made up. He puts lipstick on his pig, but it is still a pig. On the other hand Souza’s strength is also his weakness with the Progressives. he has shown himself to be a much better listener than Saylor has. Sometimes that propensity for listening causes him to listen to arguments that a died-in-the-wool Progressive doesn’t like, but more often than Saylor, that listening causes Souza to come out on the right side of important issues.
For example look at the recent 1% Growth Guideline reconsideration. Saylor was dead set against such a reconsideration. Souza made it very clear that he agreed that the language wasn’t being heard and acted on in the way it was intended. As a result, there is absolutely no ambiguity in the clarified language. it is not a target, it is a not-to-exceed Cap.
davisite said…
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
I’ll answer your second question with a question. Where is the risk?
Regarding your first question, 4-1 is definitely better than 3-2. Both in the short run and in the long run. Come the 2010 Council Election the Pro-Growth contingent will be much better served by having Saylor on the Council then by having Souza on the Council. Saylor’s mind is made up. He puts lipstick on his pig, but it is still a pig. On the other hand Souza’s strength is also his weakness with the Progressives. he has shown himself to be a much better listener than Saylor has. Sometimes that propensity for listening causes him to listen to arguments that a died-in-the-wool Progressive doesn’t like, but more often than Saylor, that listening causes Souza to come out on the right side of important issues.
For example look at the recent 1% Growth Guideline reconsideration. Saylor was dead set against such a reconsideration. Souza made it very clear that he agreed that the language wasn’t being heard and acted on in the way it was intended. As a result, there is absolutely no ambiguity in the clarified language. it is not a target, it is a not-to-exceed Cap.
davisite said…
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
I’ll answer your second question with a question. Where is the risk?
Regarding your first question, 4-1 is definitely better than 3-2. Both in the short run and in the long run. Come the 2010 Council Election the Pro-Growth contingent will be much better served by having Saylor on the Council then by having Souza on the Council. Saylor’s mind is made up. He puts lipstick on his pig, but it is still a pig. On the other hand Souza’s strength is also his weakness with the Progressives. he has shown himself to be a much better listener than Saylor has. Sometimes that propensity for listening causes him to listen to arguments that a died-in-the-wool Progressive doesn’t like, but more often than Saylor, that listening causes Souza to come out on the right side of important issues.
For example look at the recent 1% Growth Guideline reconsideration. Saylor was dead set against such a reconsideration. Souza made it very clear that he agreed that the language wasn’t being heard and acted on in the way it was intended. As a result, there is absolutely no ambiguity in the clarified language. it is not a target, it is a not-to-exceed Cap.
davisite said…
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
I’ll answer your second question with a question. Where is the risk?
Regarding your first question, 4-1 is definitely better than 3-2. Both in the short run and in the long run. Come the 2010 Council Election the Pro-Growth contingent will be much better served by having Saylor on the Council then by having Souza on the Council. Saylor’s mind is made up. He puts lipstick on his pig, but it is still a pig. On the other hand Souza’s strength is also his weakness with the Progressives. he has shown himself to be a much better listener than Saylor has. Sometimes that propensity for listening causes him to listen to arguments that a died-in-the-wool Progressive doesn’t like, but more often than Saylor, that listening causes Souza to come out on the right side of important issues.
For example look at the recent 1% Growth Guideline reconsideration. Saylor was dead set against such a reconsideration. Souza made it very clear that he agreed that the language wasn’t being heard and acted on in the way it was intended. As a result, there is absolutely no ambiguity in the clarified language. it is not a target, it is a not-to-exceed Cap.
davisite said…
3-2 votes give exactly the same result as 4-1 votes. Why try for a 4-1 majority and risk not having a Council majority at all??
I’ll answer your second question with a question. Where is the risk?
Regarding your first question, 4-1 is definitely better than 3-2. Both in the short run and in the long run. Come the 2010 Council Election the Pro-Growth contingent will be much better served by having Saylor on the Council then by having Souza on the Council. Saylor’s mind is made up. He puts lipstick on his pig, but it is still a pig. On the other hand Souza’s strength is also his weakness with the Progressives. he has shown himself to be a much better listener than Saylor has. Sometimes that propensity for listening causes him to listen to arguments that a died-in-the-wool Progressive doesn’t like, but more often than Saylor, that listening causes Souza to come out on the right side of important issues.
For example look at the recent 1% Growth Guideline reconsideration. Saylor was dead set against such a reconsideration. Souza made it very clear that he agreed that the language wasn’t being heard and acted on in the way it was intended. As a result, there is absolutely no ambiguity in the clarified language. it is not a target, it is a not-to-exceed Cap.
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?” How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?” How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?” How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?” I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?” How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?” How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?” How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?” I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?” How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?” How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?” How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?” I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?” How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?” How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?” How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?” I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?” How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?” How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?” How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?” I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?” How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?” How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?” How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?” I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?” How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?” How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?” How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?” I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
Anonymous said…
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?”
Your perspective is valid; however, it is your perspective. What you see as being against, I see as being for.
How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?”
If housing for people is the evaluation criteria, then you are right; however, if housing for all God’s creatures is the evaluation criteria, then all those creatures would say that protecting their habitat is indeed progress. Similarly, if your horizon expands from one family’s housing to myriads of people’s food, then those people who are going to eat the wheat currently growing in the fields we fight for would say that protecting the sources of that food is progressive.
How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?”
You chose this example for a reason. Can you please elaborate. I’m not sure I know enough to intelligently respond.
How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?”
Again, you have said this for a reason. Help us understand the perspective behind your comment.
I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
The birds and bees and flowers and trees beg to differ with you.
Anonymous said…
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?”
Your perspective is valid; however, it is your perspective. What you see as being against, I see as being for.
How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?”
If housing for people is the evaluation criteria, then you are right; however, if housing for all God’s creatures is the evaluation criteria, then all those creatures would say that protecting their habitat is indeed progress. Similarly, if your horizon expands from one family’s housing to myriads of people’s food, then those people who are going to eat the wheat currently growing in the fields we fight for would say that protecting the sources of that food is progressive.
How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?”
You chose this example for a reason. Can you please elaborate. I’m not sure I know enough to intelligently respond.
How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?”
Again, you have said this for a reason. Help us understand the perspective behind your comment.
I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
The birds and bees and flowers and trees beg to differ with you.
Anonymous said…
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?”
Your perspective is valid; however, it is your perspective. What you see as being against, I see as being for.
How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?”
If housing for people is the evaluation criteria, then you are right; however, if housing for all God’s creatures is the evaluation criteria, then all those creatures would say that protecting their habitat is indeed progress. Similarly, if your horizon expands from one family’s housing to myriads of people’s food, then those people who are going to eat the wheat currently growing in the fields we fight for would say that protecting the sources of that food is progressive.
How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?”
You chose this example for a reason. Can you please elaborate. I’m not sure I know enough to intelligently respond.
How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?”
Again, you have said this for a reason. Help us understand the perspective behind your comment.
I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
The birds and bees and flowers and trees beg to differ with you.
Anonymous said…
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?”
Your perspective is valid; however, it is your perspective. What you see as being against, I see as being for.
How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?”
If housing for people is the evaluation criteria, then you are right; however, if housing for all God’s creatures is the evaluation criteria, then all those creatures would say that protecting their habitat is indeed progress. Similarly, if your horizon expands from one family’s housing to myriads of people’s food, then those people who are going to eat the wheat currently growing in the fields we fight for would say that protecting the sources of that food is progressive.
How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?”
You chose this example for a reason. Can you please elaborate. I’m not sure I know enough to intelligently respond.
How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?”
Again, you have said this for a reason. Help us understand the perspective behind your comment.
I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
The birds and bees and flowers and trees beg to differ with you.
Anonymous said…
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?”
Your perspective is valid; however, it is your perspective. What you see as being against, I see as being for.
How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?”
If housing for people is the evaluation criteria, then you are right; however, if housing for all God’s creatures is the evaluation criteria, then all those creatures would say that protecting their habitat is indeed progress. Similarly, if your horizon expands from one family’s housing to myriads of people’s food, then those people who are going to eat the wheat currently growing in the fields we fight for would say that protecting the sources of that food is progressive.
How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?”
You chose this example for a reason. Can you please elaborate. I’m not sure I know enough to intelligently respond.
How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?”
Again, you have said this for a reason. Help us understand the perspective behind your comment.
I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
The birds and bees and flowers and trees beg to differ with you.
Anonymous said…
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?”
Your perspective is valid; however, it is your perspective. What you see as being against, I see as being for.
How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?”
If housing for people is the evaluation criteria, then you are right; however, if housing for all God’s creatures is the evaluation criteria, then all those creatures would say that protecting their habitat is indeed progress. Similarly, if your horizon expands from one family’s housing to myriads of people’s food, then those people who are going to eat the wheat currently growing in the fields we fight for would say that protecting the sources of that food is progressive.
How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?”
You chose this example for a reason. Can you please elaborate. I’m not sure I know enough to intelligently respond.
How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?”
Again, you have said this for a reason. Help us understand the perspective behind your comment.
I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
The birds and bees and flowers and trees beg to differ with you.
Anonymous said…
How is being against everything even remotely considered to be “progressive?”
Your perspective is valid; however, it is your perspective. What you see as being against, I see as being for.
How is denying people housing that you already possess deemed “progressive?”
If housing for people is the evaluation criteria, then you are right; however, if housing for all God’s creatures is the evaluation criteria, then all those creatures would say that protecting their habitat is indeed progress. Similarly, if your horizon expands from one family’s housing to myriads of people’s food, then those people who are going to eat the wheat currently growing in the fields we fight for would say that protecting the sources of that food is progressive.
How is driving up housing costs by filing frivilous law suits any kind of “progressivism?”
You chose this example for a reason. Can you please elaborate. I’m not sure I know enough to intelligently respond.
How is demeaning public servants and elected officials just because you don’t agree with them “progressive?”
Again, you have said this for a reason. Help us understand the perspective behind your comment.
I know what all of the above is, and none of it is even remotely “progressive?”
The birds and bees and flowers and trees beg to differ with you.
Who thinks “Skeptical speaks volumes…” is DPD masking himself? They both make the same kind of silly punctuation errors with commas.
Who thinks “Skeptical speaks volumes…” is DPD masking himself? They both make the same kind of silly punctuation errors with commas.
Who thinks “Skeptical speaks volumes…” is DPD masking himself? They both make the same kind of silly punctuation errors with commas.
Who thinks “Skeptical speaks volumes…” is DPD masking himself? They both make the same kind of silly punctuation errors with commas.
Who thinks Anonymous 4/4/08 8:17 AM is “Skeptical speaks volumes,” but is afraid to admit that he/she can’t stay away from your blog DPD.
You’re doing a great job DPD. Keep it up!
Who thinks Anonymous 4/4/08 8:17 AM is “Skeptical speaks volumes,” but is afraid to admit that he/she can’t stay away from your blog DPD.
You’re doing a great job DPD. Keep it up!
Who thinks Anonymous 4/4/08 8:17 AM is “Skeptical speaks volumes,” but is afraid to admit that he/she can’t stay away from your blog DPD.
You’re doing a great job DPD. Keep it up!
Who thinks Anonymous 4/4/08 8:17 AM is “Skeptical speaks volumes,” but is afraid to admit that he/she can’t stay away from your blog DPD.
You’re doing a great job DPD. Keep it up!
To The Above.
I think Dave Greenwald does an okay job. A great job is done by Bob Dunning. By the way Dave Greenwald, do you sign on and comment on your own blog under any other name? Just wondering.
To The Above.
I think Dave Greenwald does an okay job. A great job is done by Bob Dunning. By the way Dave Greenwald, do you sign on and comment on your own blog under any other name? Just wondering.
To The Above.
I think Dave Greenwald does an okay job. A great job is done by Bob Dunning. By the way Dave Greenwald, do you sign on and comment on your own blog under any other name? Just wondering.
To The Above.
I think Dave Greenwald does an okay job. A great job is done by Bob Dunning. By the way Dave Greenwald, do you sign on and comment on your own blog under any other name? Just wondering.
How exactly are Target and Trader Joe’s a “victory” when they haven’t even happened?
Also, along the “green lines” nice how the city council insists that the Davis Korean Church install solar panels on the roof of their new church but don’t insist that Target build a whole roof of solar panels into their “Vote Yes on Green” plan. That’s about hypocritical right.
Oh and Bob Dunning is the biggest hypocrite of them all with his boo-hooing about Valley Oak closing in his neighborhood but being okay with something bad happening in someone else’s neighborhood.
How exactly are Target and Trader Joe’s a “victory” when they haven’t even happened?
Also, along the “green lines” nice how the city council insists that the Davis Korean Church install solar panels on the roof of their new church but don’t insist that Target build a whole roof of solar panels into their “Vote Yes on Green” plan. That’s about hypocritical right.
Oh and Bob Dunning is the biggest hypocrite of them all with his boo-hooing about Valley Oak closing in his neighborhood but being okay with something bad happening in someone else’s neighborhood.
How exactly are Target and Trader Joe’s a “victory” when they haven’t even happened?
Also, along the “green lines” nice how the city council insists that the Davis Korean Church install solar panels on the roof of their new church but don’t insist that Target build a whole roof of solar panels into their “Vote Yes on Green” plan. That’s about hypocritical right.
Oh and Bob Dunning is the biggest hypocrite of them all with his boo-hooing about Valley Oak closing in his neighborhood but being okay with something bad happening in someone else’s neighborhood.
How exactly are Target and Trader Joe’s a “victory” when they haven’t even happened?
Also, along the “green lines” nice how the city council insists that the Davis Korean Church install solar panels on the roof of their new church but don’t insist that Target build a whole roof of solar panels into their “Vote Yes on Green” plan. That’s about hypocritical right.
Oh and Bob Dunning is the biggest hypocrite of them all with his boo-hooing about Valley Oak closing in his neighborhood but being okay with something bad happening in someone else’s neighborhood.
To Vanguard Follower:
“Anonymous 4/4” and “Skeptical Speaks Volumes” are two different people.
But I do enjoy coming here to get my daily tripe.
To Vanguard Follower:
“Anonymous 4/4” and “Skeptical Speaks Volumes” are two different people.
But I do enjoy coming here to get my daily tripe.
To Vanguard Follower:
“Anonymous 4/4” and “Skeptical Speaks Volumes” are two different people.
But I do enjoy coming here to get my daily tripe.
To Vanguard Follower:
“Anonymous 4/4” and “Skeptical Speaks Volumes” are two different people.
But I do enjoy coming here to get my daily tripe.