In a strange turn of events the evening of March 6, 2008 the Davis City Council passed a recommendation for the Sphere of Influence (SOI) that was notable in that it excluded from its sphere two controversial properties on Davis’ periphery–Northwest Quadrant, Covell Village and the Nishi Property. The motion made by Lamar Heystek and seconded by Mayor Sue Greenwald passed by a strange vote of 2-1-2. Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Don Saylor, a month before the council election decided to abstain from that vote.
This was a reconsideration of a vote that had originally attempted to make the SOI extremely large. When LAFCO originally took up this item in April, they expressed concern that the size of the original SOI would invite properties not intended for development in the foreseeable future. LAFCO’s report warns that adding such areas would lead to land speculation on those sites for the purpose of development.
As a result, the council revisited the issue. At the May meeting Councilmember Heystek complained about the lack of clear direction from city staff on the issue of the SOI.
“I don’t see this as merely a ministerial action of the council, because personally I will speak very frankly, I don’t feel that I received enough information from city staff to be able to make a decision. I understand that LAFCO has made a recommendation that certain sites be excluded, but I have not received information for our staff as to why certain sites should be included.”
He continued:
“I don’t understand and I haven’t heard from city staff, why we have to include other areas such as the northwest quadrant, such as Covell Village, such as the Nishi site, when we know we already have Measure J, when we know we already have the pass-through agreement, and we know that those are really the strongest protections from unwarranted or undesirable development on our borders.”
As a result of that discussion, the motion to exclude the Northwest Quadrant, Covell, and Nishi was passed largely because neither Councilmember Souza nor Councilmember Saylor voted on the matter.
The LAFCO staff recommendation rejected the Davis City Council’s proposed boundaries.
This is from the LAFCO staff report:
As previously discussed, a sphere of influence under LAFCO law is a guidance document for the Commission to determine what areas are best suited for inclusion, or removal, from a city or special district. Historically, spheres of influence for cities in Yolo County have been drawn tightly; however, those lines must be drawn with the intent to meet the projected growth and service capabilities of the affected agency. The latest request by the City of Davis would not provide sufficient land within the sphere for the City to meet its own population growth projections in the coming years.
Staff believes that given existing policies, service capabilities and impacts on agricultural land, the LAFCO staff recommended sphere of influence includes the areas that are best considered for annexation over the next twenty years. The staff recommended areas that are already developed, are infill property, or have already been evaluated in previous studies. The City’s current land use policies call for controlled and well planned growth. The County’s general plan identifies itself as the protector of agricultural land. The land use policies in conjunction with the City-County Redevelopment Agreement and Davis’ Measure J provide strong adjuncts to controlled growth in the City of Davis. The staff recommended boundaries balance the need for some expansion of boundaries while addressing the need for deliberate, logical and orderly annexations.
The first map is the Davis City Council recommended Sphere of Influence:
a. Ten year sphere of influence:
i. City owned property: Davis Municipal Golf Course, City of Davis Park on County Road (CR) 102 (Old Landfill Site), and Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant.ii. Urbanized properties: El Macero, Willowbank, Royal Oaks (formerly Barthel’s Mobile Home Park), Rust home site parcel, and University of California, Davis campus.iii. Undeveloped properties: Covell Village (Hunt-Wesson) parcel, Mace Curve parcel and Nishi parcel.b. Twenty year sphere of influence:
i. Urbanized property: Cactus Corners (CR 98 and Russell Blvd).ii. Undeveloped property: Northwest Quadrant (north to Binning Tract subdivision, east to State Hwy 113, south to Covell Boulevard, and west to CR 99).
“I wanted to raise the issue of yesterday’s LAFCO vote on the sphere of influence. I was not able to attend the meeting, however, talking to folks who did I got the impression that the message was somehow conveyed that the LAFCO staff report was what the council majority wanted. [Note: Councilmember Souza had actually acknowledged this in response to Councilmember Heystek’s question]I am a bit confused by that if it is that case, because the most recent vote that I am aware of on May 6, 2008 ended with a very different recommendation from the Davis city council.That vote was a bit odd in that two members supported, one opposed, and two members abstained. However, it was a valid vote of the council. The motion passed and that was the recommendation ostensibly sent to LAFCO.
If that is the case, then I do not know how it could be accurate to suggest that the majority of the Davis city council wanted anything but the May 6th vote results.As such I am very confused and would like an explanation as to how the message was apparently conveyed otherwise. And I would like to also know if the will of the council, as expressed by vote on the night of May 6th, was represented by the current LAFCO representative from this council.”
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Its simple they didn’t want to do it before the election. Take a vote to affirm at the council what LAFCO did and it will come out 3-2 in favor of inclusion of Covell Village. The debate on development was done during the election. People knew who they vote for and they voted for more development. The nimby’s lost. Sell out now nimby cheaper housing is coming to town.
Its simple they didn’t want to do it before the election. Take a vote to affirm at the council what LAFCO did and it will come out 3-2 in favor of inclusion of Covell Village. The debate on development was done during the election. People knew who they vote for and they voted for more development. The nimby’s lost. Sell out now nimby cheaper housing is coming to town.
Its simple they didn’t want to do it before the election. Take a vote to affirm at the council what LAFCO did and it will come out 3-2 in favor of inclusion of Covell Village. The debate on development was done during the election. People knew who they vote for and they voted for more development. The nimby’s lost. Sell out now nimby cheaper housing is coming to town.
Its simple they didn’t want to do it before the election. Take a vote to affirm at the council what LAFCO did and it will come out 3-2 in favor of inclusion of Covell Village. The debate on development was done during the election. People knew who they vote for and they voted for more development. The nimby’s lost. Sell out now nimby cheaper housing is coming to town.
People knew who they voted for and they voted for more development.
People knew who they voted for and they voted for more development.
People knew who they voted for and they voted for more development.
People knew who they voted for and they voted for more development.
So…. we already see newly reelected Souza’s position on Davis future growth issues “evolving”. Watch him next “evolve” concerning his support for the orginal Measure J being on the 2010 ballot(without multiple versions to “game” the result). He is the swing vote on the Council and we will need another citizen referendum to protect our Measure J as Councilman Souza very quickly has thrown off the populist cloak that he wore for his reelection and returned to his “I’m the Decider” persona demonstrating his open contempt for the will of the Davis electorate; a recall petition coul well be in his future much like the one that was potentially facing Supervisor Yamada.
So…. we already see newly reelected Souza’s position on Davis future growth issues “evolving”. Watch him next “evolve” concerning his support for the orginal Measure J being on the 2010 ballot(without multiple versions to “game” the result). He is the swing vote on the Council and we will need another citizen referendum to protect our Measure J as Councilman Souza very quickly has thrown off the populist cloak that he wore for his reelection and returned to his “I’m the Decider” persona demonstrating his open contempt for the will of the Davis electorate; a recall petition coul well be in his future much like the one that was potentially facing Supervisor Yamada.
So…. we already see newly reelected Souza’s position on Davis future growth issues “evolving”. Watch him next “evolve” concerning his support for the orginal Measure J being on the 2010 ballot(without multiple versions to “game” the result). He is the swing vote on the Council and we will need another citizen referendum to protect our Measure J as Councilman Souza very quickly has thrown off the populist cloak that he wore for his reelection and returned to his “I’m the Decider” persona demonstrating his open contempt for the will of the Davis electorate; a recall petition coul well be in his future much like the one that was potentially facing Supervisor Yamada.
So…. we already see newly reelected Souza’s position on Davis future growth issues “evolving”. Watch him next “evolve” concerning his support for the orginal Measure J being on the 2010 ballot(without multiple versions to “game” the result). He is the swing vote on the Council and we will need another citizen referendum to protect our Measure J as Councilman Souza very quickly has thrown off the populist cloak that he wore for his reelection and returned to his “I’m the Decider” persona demonstrating his open contempt for the will of the Davis electorate; a recall petition coul well be in his future much like the one that was potentially facing Supervisor Yamada.
The election is over, and Saylor and Souza, who abstained for a reason, came back and through the back door did what they wanted to do through the front door but couldn’t politically. They figure since they were re-elected, that represents a mandate of their pro-development views. Same goes for Yamada, who also wanted peripheral development on the Northwest quadrant. LAFCO is going to “listen” to what they perceive as the “will of the people” based on who was elected, and the elected’s view on LAFCO. Keep it up Souza and Saylor – the more you defy voters, the less your chance is to succeed in being elected to higher office. Souza’s move is particularly unsavory, since he is in effect circumventing process by misrepresenting the original vote. However, note that Saylor and Souza abstaining makes it convenient for them to change their mind after the fact, play both sides, say just about anything they want after the fact.
I would suggest Saylor and Souza might think about the possibility that the reason they were re-elected was not necessarily bc anyone liked either of them – but bc the field of candidates was not stellar. Voters picked the evils of lessers, what they knew rather than what they didn’t know. But never underestimate the intelligence of the voter. Remember the Measure J vote? I dare Souza and Saylor to mess with Measure J, propose development on the Covell Village site anytime soon, or Yamada propose development on the northwest quadrant. With the expense of city services facing us squarely in the face, and taxes going up, no one is in the mood to have taxes go higher bc new development will require it since it brings with it the need for more city services.
The election is over, and Saylor and Souza, who abstained for a reason, came back and through the back door did what they wanted to do through the front door but couldn’t politically. They figure since they were re-elected, that represents a mandate of their pro-development views. Same goes for Yamada, who also wanted peripheral development on the Northwest quadrant. LAFCO is going to “listen” to what they perceive as the “will of the people” based on who was elected, and the elected’s view on LAFCO. Keep it up Souza and Saylor – the more you defy voters, the less your chance is to succeed in being elected to higher office. Souza’s move is particularly unsavory, since he is in effect circumventing process by misrepresenting the original vote. However, note that Saylor and Souza abstaining makes it convenient for them to change their mind after the fact, play both sides, say just about anything they want after the fact.
I would suggest Saylor and Souza might think about the possibility that the reason they were re-elected was not necessarily bc anyone liked either of them – but bc the field of candidates was not stellar. Voters picked the evils of lessers, what they knew rather than what they didn’t know. But never underestimate the intelligence of the voter. Remember the Measure J vote? I dare Souza and Saylor to mess with Measure J, propose development on the Covell Village site anytime soon, or Yamada propose development on the northwest quadrant. With the expense of city services facing us squarely in the face, and taxes going up, no one is in the mood to have taxes go higher bc new development will require it since it brings with it the need for more city services.
The election is over, and Saylor and Souza, who abstained for a reason, came back and through the back door did what they wanted to do through the front door but couldn’t politically. They figure since they were re-elected, that represents a mandate of their pro-development views. Same goes for Yamada, who also wanted peripheral development on the Northwest quadrant. LAFCO is going to “listen” to what they perceive as the “will of the people” based on who was elected, and the elected’s view on LAFCO. Keep it up Souza and Saylor – the more you defy voters, the less your chance is to succeed in being elected to higher office. Souza’s move is particularly unsavory, since he is in effect circumventing process by misrepresenting the original vote. However, note that Saylor and Souza abstaining makes it convenient for them to change their mind after the fact, play both sides, say just about anything they want after the fact.
I would suggest Saylor and Souza might think about the possibility that the reason they were re-elected was not necessarily bc anyone liked either of them – but bc the field of candidates was not stellar. Voters picked the evils of lessers, what they knew rather than what they didn’t know. But never underestimate the intelligence of the voter. Remember the Measure J vote? I dare Souza and Saylor to mess with Measure J, propose development on the Covell Village site anytime soon, or Yamada propose development on the northwest quadrant. With the expense of city services facing us squarely in the face, and taxes going up, no one is in the mood to have taxes go higher bc new development will require it since it brings with it the need for more city services.
The election is over, and Saylor and Souza, who abstained for a reason, came back and through the back door did what they wanted to do through the front door but couldn’t politically. They figure since they were re-elected, that represents a mandate of their pro-development views. Same goes for Yamada, who also wanted peripheral development on the Northwest quadrant. LAFCO is going to “listen” to what they perceive as the “will of the people” based on who was elected, and the elected’s view on LAFCO. Keep it up Souza and Saylor – the more you defy voters, the less your chance is to succeed in being elected to higher office. Souza’s move is particularly unsavory, since he is in effect circumventing process by misrepresenting the original vote. However, note that Saylor and Souza abstaining makes it convenient for them to change their mind after the fact, play both sides, say just about anything they want after the fact.
I would suggest Saylor and Souza might think about the possibility that the reason they were re-elected was not necessarily bc anyone liked either of them – but bc the field of candidates was not stellar. Voters picked the evils of lessers, what they knew rather than what they didn’t know. But never underestimate the intelligence of the voter. Remember the Measure J vote? I dare Souza and Saylor to mess with Measure J, propose development on the Covell Village site anytime soon, or Yamada propose development on the northwest quadrant. With the expense of city services facing us squarely in the face, and taxes going up, no one is in the mood to have taxes go higher bc new development will require it since it brings with it the need for more city services.
Stephen Souza has lost all credibility in my book. I voted for him the first time and after that I could see him following the direction of the wind$. I was not impressed after his first term in office. I wish more people paid attention.
First, I don’t see him as a very bright individual as Helen Thomson alluded in some publication for his campaign.
Second, he waffles all over the place on issues telling one group one message and another group another message on the same subject.
He was re-elected because people were not paying attention. He tries to give the impression that he is some humble, guy next door type. The reality is that voters have to watch him closely. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Stephen Souza has lost all credibility in my book. I voted for him the first time and after that I could see him following the direction of the wind$. I was not impressed after his first term in office. I wish more people paid attention.
First, I don’t see him as a very bright individual as Helen Thomson alluded in some publication for his campaign.
Second, he waffles all over the place on issues telling one group one message and another group another message on the same subject.
He was re-elected because people were not paying attention. He tries to give the impression that he is some humble, guy next door type. The reality is that voters have to watch him closely. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Stephen Souza has lost all credibility in my book. I voted for him the first time and after that I could see him following the direction of the wind$. I was not impressed after his first term in office. I wish more people paid attention.
First, I don’t see him as a very bright individual as Helen Thomson alluded in some publication for his campaign.
Second, he waffles all over the place on issues telling one group one message and another group another message on the same subject.
He was re-elected because people were not paying attention. He tries to give the impression that he is some humble, guy next door type. The reality is that voters have to watch him closely. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Stephen Souza has lost all credibility in my book. I voted for him the first time and after that I could see him following the direction of the wind$. I was not impressed after his first term in office. I wish more people paid attention.
First, I don’t see him as a very bright individual as Helen Thomson alluded in some publication for his campaign.
Second, he waffles all over the place on issues telling one group one message and another group another message on the same subject.
He was re-elected because people were not paying attention. He tries to give the impression that he is some humble, guy next door type. The reality is that voters have to watch him closely. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Voters voted for the three incumbents because there was a low turnout. There was a low turnout for the school board election too. When there is a low turnout research shows that incumbents win.
My bet is that he also waffles on Measure J.
Voters voted for the three incumbents because there was a low turnout. There was a low turnout for the school board election too. When there is a low turnout research shows that incumbents win.
My bet is that he also waffles on Measure J.
Voters voted for the three incumbents because there was a low turnout. There was a low turnout for the school board election too. When there is a low turnout research shows that incumbents win.
My bet is that he also waffles on Measure J.
Voters voted for the three incumbents because there was a low turnout. There was a low turnout for the school board election too. When there is a low turnout research shows that incumbents win.
My bet is that he also waffles on Measure J.
Oh relax- the City’s position was far from clear and LAFCO’s staff and consultant never changed their recommendation. The City first wanted the sphere to include everything from here to eternity and then changed to reccomend that it include nothing. This waffling resulted from the mayor’s confusion and realization that she could not control LAFCO. Souza and Saylor abstained from the vote because of the fiasco generated by the Mayor. Meassure J protects Davis from the evils of development, making the shere of influence and all your hysteria irrelevant. Under Measure J everyone gets one vote including Saylor and Souza so you may want to find another culprit.
Oh relax- the City’s position was far from clear and LAFCO’s staff and consultant never changed their recommendation. The City first wanted the sphere to include everything from here to eternity and then changed to reccomend that it include nothing. This waffling resulted from the mayor’s confusion and realization that she could not control LAFCO. Souza and Saylor abstained from the vote because of the fiasco generated by the Mayor. Meassure J protects Davis from the evils of development, making the shere of influence and all your hysteria irrelevant. Under Measure J everyone gets one vote including Saylor and Souza so you may want to find another culprit.
Oh relax- the City’s position was far from clear and LAFCO’s staff and consultant never changed their recommendation. The City first wanted the sphere to include everything from here to eternity and then changed to reccomend that it include nothing. This waffling resulted from the mayor’s confusion and realization that she could not control LAFCO. Souza and Saylor abstained from the vote because of the fiasco generated by the Mayor. Meassure J protects Davis from the evils of development, making the shere of influence and all your hysteria irrelevant. Under Measure J everyone gets one vote including Saylor and Souza so you may want to find another culprit.
Oh relax- the City’s position was far from clear and LAFCO’s staff and consultant never changed their recommendation. The City first wanted the sphere to include everything from here to eternity and then changed to reccomend that it include nothing. This waffling resulted from the mayor’s confusion and realization that she could not control LAFCO. Souza and Saylor abstained from the vote because of the fiasco generated by the Mayor. Meassure J protects Davis from the evils of development, making the shere of influence and all your hysteria irrelevant. Under Measure J everyone gets one vote including Saylor and Souza so you may want to find another culprit.
The city staff and a majority of the council, county officials and board of supervisors feel that they know what is best for us… With that much institutional bias in favor of Covell Village, we are going to find that “the price of peace is eternal vigilance”
Is there an organization that can be funded to pay attention to this kind of thing, or should one be formed?
The city staff and a majority of the council, county officials and board of supervisors feel that they know what is best for us… With that much institutional bias in favor of Covell Village, we are going to find that “the price of peace is eternal vigilance”
Is there an organization that can be funded to pay attention to this kind of thing, or should one be formed?
The city staff and a majority of the council, county officials and board of supervisors feel that they know what is best for us… With that much institutional bias in favor of Covell Village, we are going to find that “the price of peace is eternal vigilance”
Is there an organization that can be funded to pay attention to this kind of thing, or should one be formed?
The city staff and a majority of the council, county officials and board of supervisors feel that they know what is best for us… With that much institutional bias in favor of Covell Village, we are going to find that “the price of peace is eternal vigilance”
Is there an organization that can be funded to pay attention to this kind of thing, or should one be formed?
BS Wolf. Plenty of people were paying attention. Everyone I know who voted for Souza and Saylor did so because they wanted growth. That’s also why you saw Sidney take such a strong 4th in the last election.
As to low voter turnout, it’s called disenfranchisement. People are really tired of the faux-liberal agenda that has dominated this city for the last 10 yrs.
The community is splitting into two camps with lines being drawn at certain age and income brackets. That split needs to be addressed but it won’t. Why? Because it would expose how narrowly focused the progressive agenda is and the local landed barons need to think of themselves as generous and socially forward, specifically when they are anything but.
The hypocrisy in this town is not going unnoticed, not by a long shot.
BS Wolf. Plenty of people were paying attention. Everyone I know who voted for Souza and Saylor did so because they wanted growth. That’s also why you saw Sidney take such a strong 4th in the last election.
As to low voter turnout, it’s called disenfranchisement. People are really tired of the faux-liberal agenda that has dominated this city for the last 10 yrs.
The community is splitting into two camps with lines being drawn at certain age and income brackets. That split needs to be addressed but it won’t. Why? Because it would expose how narrowly focused the progressive agenda is and the local landed barons need to think of themselves as generous and socially forward, specifically when they are anything but.
The hypocrisy in this town is not going unnoticed, not by a long shot.
BS Wolf. Plenty of people were paying attention. Everyone I know who voted for Souza and Saylor did so because they wanted growth. That’s also why you saw Sidney take such a strong 4th in the last election.
As to low voter turnout, it’s called disenfranchisement. People are really tired of the faux-liberal agenda that has dominated this city for the last 10 yrs.
The community is splitting into two camps with lines being drawn at certain age and income brackets. That split needs to be addressed but it won’t. Why? Because it would expose how narrowly focused the progressive agenda is and the local landed barons need to think of themselves as generous and socially forward, specifically when they are anything but.
The hypocrisy in this town is not going unnoticed, not by a long shot.
BS Wolf. Plenty of people were paying attention. Everyone I know who voted for Souza and Saylor did so because they wanted growth. That’s also why you saw Sidney take such a strong 4th in the last election.
As to low voter turnout, it’s called disenfranchisement. People are really tired of the faux-liberal agenda that has dominated this city for the last 10 yrs.
The community is splitting into two camps with lines being drawn at certain age and income brackets. That split needs to be addressed but it won’t. Why? Because it would expose how narrowly focused the progressive agenda is and the local landed barons need to think of themselves as generous and socially forward, specifically when they are anything but.
The hypocrisy in this town is not going unnoticed, not by a long shot.
Old Timer,
People don’t want growth. Your analysis is off. The people voted for what was familiar in a low turnout election. The fourth vote went to the Souza and Saylor’s third vote. It doesn’t come as a surprise. It’s not rocket science. You like the rest of us live in this town because we like the quality of life. Don’t act like it’s not important to you.
Old Timer,
People don’t want growth. Your analysis is off. The people voted for what was familiar in a low turnout election. The fourth vote went to the Souza and Saylor’s third vote. It doesn’t come as a surprise. It’s not rocket science. You like the rest of us live in this town because we like the quality of life. Don’t act like it’s not important to you.
Old Timer,
People don’t want growth. Your analysis is off. The people voted for what was familiar in a low turnout election. The fourth vote went to the Souza and Saylor’s third vote. It doesn’t come as a surprise. It’s not rocket science. You like the rest of us live in this town because we like the quality of life. Don’t act like it’s not important to you.
Old Timer,
People don’t want growth. Your analysis is off. The people voted for what was familiar in a low turnout election. The fourth vote went to the Souza and Saylor’s third vote. It doesn’t come as a surprise. It’s not rocket science. You like the rest of us live in this town because we like the quality of life. Don’t act like it’s not important to you.
You nimbys are really too much.
First you want to analyze away your elecion defeat as if you don’t understand that whatever the reason Souza and Saylor are in for four more years and they owe you nothing.
Second, you act as if the vote against Covell Village made that land sacred and inviolable. Guess what? The same people still have title and they can bring another proposal any time they want. They are probably going to see what happens with measure J and the housing market but maybe not. Hopefully they learned from their defeat and will come up with something better suited to the needs of the community next time or the time after that or after that. Yes these sort of issues go on forever or until you either buy it and make it a park or somebody pushes through a project.
As for measure J I think we should kill the sucker. All it does is allow a bunch of rich homeowners to keep their property values up. It is self-serving and exclusionary. Of course you will argue that it is all about quality of life while never discussing your fears about your home values.
Meanwhile the schools fight off decline by getting the developers to donate tens of thousands a pop to the school foundation in order to keep Davis’ legendary schools on top while the nimby’s whine about ponying up another $100 a year on their $600,000 home.
You nimbys are really too much.
First you want to analyze away your elecion defeat as if you don’t understand that whatever the reason Souza and Saylor are in for four more years and they owe you nothing.
Second, you act as if the vote against Covell Village made that land sacred and inviolable. Guess what? The same people still have title and they can bring another proposal any time they want. They are probably going to see what happens with measure J and the housing market but maybe not. Hopefully they learned from their defeat and will come up with something better suited to the needs of the community next time or the time after that or after that. Yes these sort of issues go on forever or until you either buy it and make it a park or somebody pushes through a project.
As for measure J I think we should kill the sucker. All it does is allow a bunch of rich homeowners to keep their property values up. It is self-serving and exclusionary. Of course you will argue that it is all about quality of life while never discussing your fears about your home values.
Meanwhile the schools fight off decline by getting the developers to donate tens of thousands a pop to the school foundation in order to keep Davis’ legendary schools on top while the nimby’s whine about ponying up another $100 a year on their $600,000 home.
You nimbys are really too much.
First you want to analyze away your elecion defeat as if you don’t understand that whatever the reason Souza and Saylor are in for four more years and they owe you nothing.
Second, you act as if the vote against Covell Village made that land sacred and inviolable. Guess what? The same people still have title and they can bring another proposal any time they want. They are probably going to see what happens with measure J and the housing market but maybe not. Hopefully they learned from their defeat and will come up with something better suited to the needs of the community next time or the time after that or after that. Yes these sort of issues go on forever or until you either buy it and make it a park or somebody pushes through a project.
As for measure J I think we should kill the sucker. All it does is allow a bunch of rich homeowners to keep their property values up. It is self-serving and exclusionary. Of course you will argue that it is all about quality of life while never discussing your fears about your home values.
Meanwhile the schools fight off decline by getting the developers to donate tens of thousands a pop to the school foundation in order to keep Davis’ legendary schools on top while the nimby’s whine about ponying up another $100 a year on their $600,000 home.
You nimbys are really too much.
First you want to analyze away your elecion defeat as if you don’t understand that whatever the reason Souza and Saylor are in for four more years and they owe you nothing.
Second, you act as if the vote against Covell Village made that land sacred and inviolable. Guess what? The same people still have title and they can bring another proposal any time they want. They are probably going to see what happens with measure J and the housing market but maybe not. Hopefully they learned from their defeat and will come up with something better suited to the needs of the community next time or the time after that or after that. Yes these sort of issues go on forever or until you either buy it and make it a park or somebody pushes through a project.
As for measure J I think we should kill the sucker. All it does is allow a bunch of rich homeowners to keep their property values up. It is self-serving and exclusionary. Of course you will argue that it is all about quality of life while never discussing your fears about your home values.
Meanwhile the schools fight off decline by getting the developers to donate tens of thousands a pop to the school foundation in order to keep Davis’ legendary schools on top while the nimby’s whine about ponying up another $100 a year on their $600,000 home.
You nimbys are really too much.
First you want to analyze away your elecion defeat as if you don’t understand that whatever the reason Souza and Saylor are in for four more years and they owe you nothing.
Second, you act as if the vote against Covell Village made that land sacred and inviolable. Guess what? The same people still have title and they can bring another proposal any time they want. They are probably going to see what happens with measure J and the housing market but maybe not. Hopefully they learned from their defeat and will come up with something better suited to the needs of the community next time or the time after that or after that. Yes these sort of issues go on forever or until you either buy it and make it a park or somebody pushes through a project.
As for measure J I think we should kill the sucker. All it does is allow a bunch of rich homeowners to keep their property values up. It is self-serving and exclusionary. Of course you will argue that it is all about quality of life while never discussing your fears about your home values.
Meanwhile the schools fight off decline by getting the developers to donate tens of thousands a pop to the school foundation in order to keep Davis’ legendary schools on top while the nimby’s whine about ponying up another $100 a year on their $600,000 home.
You nimbys are really too much.
First you want to analyze away your elecion defeat as if you don’t understand that whatever the reason Souza and Saylor are in for four more years and they owe you nothing.
Second, you act as if the vote against Covell Village made that land sacred and inviolable. Guess what? The same people still have title and they can bring another proposal any time they want. They are probably going to see what happens with measure J and the housing market but maybe not. Hopefully they learned from their defeat and will come up with something better suited to the needs of the community next time or the time after that or after that. Yes these sort of issues go on forever or until you either buy it and make it a park or somebody pushes through a project.
As for measure J I think we should kill the sucker. All it does is allow a bunch of rich homeowners to keep their property values up. It is self-serving and exclusionary. Of course you will argue that it is all about quality of life while never discussing your fears about your home values.
Meanwhile the schools fight off decline by getting the developers to donate tens of thousands a pop to the school foundation in order to keep Davis’ legendary schools on top while the nimby’s whine about ponying up another $100 a year on their $600,000 home.
You nimbys are really too much.
First you want to analyze away your elecion defeat as if you don’t understand that whatever the reason Souza and Saylor are in for four more years and they owe you nothing.
Second, you act as if the vote against Covell Village made that land sacred and inviolable. Guess what? The same people still have title and they can bring another proposal any time they want. They are probably going to see what happens with measure J and the housing market but maybe not. Hopefully they learned from their defeat and will come up with something better suited to the needs of the community next time or the time after that or after that. Yes these sort of issues go on forever or until you either buy it and make it a park or somebody pushes through a project.
As for measure J I think we should kill the sucker. All it does is allow a bunch of rich homeowners to keep their property values up. It is self-serving and exclusionary. Of course you will argue that it is all about quality of life while never discussing your fears about your home values.
Meanwhile the schools fight off decline by getting the developers to donate tens of thousands a pop to the school foundation in order to keep Davis’ legendary schools on top while the nimby’s whine about ponying up another $100 a year on their $600,000 home.
You nimbys are really too much.
First you want to analyze away your elecion defeat as if you don’t understand that whatever the reason Souza and Saylor are in for four more years and they owe you nothing.
Second, you act as if the vote against Covell Village made that land sacred and inviolable. Guess what? The same people still have title and they can bring another proposal any time they want. They are probably going to see what happens with measure J and the housing market but maybe not. Hopefully they learned from their defeat and will come up with something better suited to the needs of the community next time or the time after that or after that. Yes these sort of issues go on forever or until you either buy it and make it a park or somebody pushes through a project.
As for measure J I think we should kill the sucker. All it does is allow a bunch of rich homeowners to keep their property values up. It is self-serving and exclusionary. Of course you will argue that it is all about quality of life while never discussing your fears about your home values.
Meanwhile the schools fight off decline by getting the developers to donate tens of thousands a pop to the school foundation in order to keep Davis’ legendary schools on top while the nimby’s whine about ponying up another $100 a year on their $600,000 home.
Black Bart: I’m more concerned with the procedural aspect of this than anything else.
Black Bart: I’m more concerned with the procedural aspect of this than anything else.
Black Bart: I’m more concerned with the procedural aspect of this than anything else.
Black Bart: I’m more concerned with the procedural aspect of this than anything else.
BS Wolf. Plenty of people were paying attention. Everyone I know who voted for Souza and Saylor did so because they wanted growth. That’s also why you saw Sidney take such a strong 4th in the last election.
this is the classic mistake made by politicians since the beginning of time
people voted for me because they actually paid attention to my history and positions
a lot of mediocre politicians have prematurely buried themselves over the years believing this
the results of the last election are most readily explained in terms of the continuing degradation of grassroots political participation and the increased population of the city
hence, name identification, money and volunteers (now apparently predominately obtained from local government unions), all factors that tend to favor incumbents, now dictate the outcome of elections, and we have seen it manifested in both the school board and city council elections
the public’s position on growth in Davis will depend upon the project in question, and will crystallize only when the public is made aware of it and considers it (and note, I suspect quite a number of residents think that there is not likely to be much for awhile because of increasingly dire economic conditions), but the more serious question, one much more serious than whether a small, medium or large number of houses get built, is the increasingly alienation of the community from political involvement
the days of a Julie Partansky winning a seat on the council on a shoestring are long gone, if you want to get in the game now, you are going to have to put down at least $50,000, and possibly more, and make concessions to the local police and fire unions (or, in the case of school board elections, the teachers)
Davis likes to think of itself as different, but it is now not very much different than the rest of California, and indeed, the country
so, as I said, any politician who mistakes the tactical requirements for victory for a validation of their political stance is silly, indeed, if the same factors that resulted in these recent outcomes didn’t want development, than that’s what the winners would support
–Richard Estes
BS Wolf. Plenty of people were paying attention. Everyone I know who voted for Souza and Saylor did so because they wanted growth. That’s also why you saw Sidney take such a strong 4th in the last election.
this is the classic mistake made by politicians since the beginning of time
people voted for me because they actually paid attention to my history and positions
a lot of mediocre politicians have prematurely buried themselves over the years believing this
the results of the last election are most readily explained in terms of the continuing degradation of grassroots political participation and the increased population of the city
hence, name identification, money and volunteers (now apparently predominately obtained from local government unions), all factors that tend to favor incumbents, now dictate the outcome of elections, and we have seen it manifested in both the school board and city council elections
the public’s position on growth in Davis will depend upon the project in question, and will crystallize only when the public is made aware of it and considers it (and note, I suspect quite a number of residents think that there is not likely to be much for awhile because of increasingly dire economic conditions), but the more serious question, one much more serious than whether a small, medium or large number of houses get built, is the increasingly alienation of the community from political involvement
the days of a Julie Partansky winning a seat on the council on a shoestring are long gone, if you want to get in the game now, you are going to have to put down at least $50,000, and possibly more, and make concessions to the local police and fire unions (or, in the case of school board elections, the teachers)
Davis likes to think of itself as different, but it is now not very much different than the rest of California, and indeed, the country
so, as I said, any politician who mistakes the tactical requirements for victory for a validation of their political stance is silly, indeed, if the same factors that resulted in these recent outcomes didn’t want development, than that’s what the winners would support
–Richard Estes
BS Wolf. Plenty of people were paying attention. Everyone I know who voted for Souza and Saylor did so because they wanted growth. That’s also why you saw Sidney take such a strong 4th in the last election.
this is the classic mistake made by politicians since the beginning of time
people voted for me because they actually paid attention to my history and positions
a lot of mediocre politicians have prematurely buried themselves over the years believing this
the results of the last election are most readily explained in terms of the continuing degradation of grassroots political participation and the increased population of the city
hence, name identification, money and volunteers (now apparently predominately obtained from local government unions), all factors that tend to favor incumbents, now dictate the outcome of elections, and we have seen it manifested in both the school board and city council elections
the public’s position on growth in Davis will depend upon the project in question, and will crystallize only when the public is made aware of it and considers it (and note, I suspect quite a number of residents think that there is not likely to be much for awhile because of increasingly dire economic conditions), but the more serious question, one much more serious than whether a small, medium or large number of houses get built, is the increasingly alienation of the community from political involvement
the days of a Julie Partansky winning a seat on the council on a shoestring are long gone, if you want to get in the game now, you are going to have to put down at least $50,000, and possibly more, and make concessions to the local police and fire unions (or, in the case of school board elections, the teachers)
Davis likes to think of itself as different, but it is now not very much different than the rest of California, and indeed, the country
so, as I said, any politician who mistakes the tactical requirements for victory for a validation of their political stance is silly, indeed, if the same factors that resulted in these recent outcomes didn’t want development, than that’s what the winners would support
–Richard Estes
BS Wolf. Plenty of people were paying attention. Everyone I know who voted for Souza and Saylor did so because they wanted growth. That’s also why you saw Sidney take such a strong 4th in the last election.
this is the classic mistake made by politicians since the beginning of time
people voted for me because they actually paid attention to my history and positions
a lot of mediocre politicians have prematurely buried themselves over the years believing this
the results of the last election are most readily explained in terms of the continuing degradation of grassroots political participation and the increased population of the city
hence, name identification, money and volunteers (now apparently predominately obtained from local government unions), all factors that tend to favor incumbents, now dictate the outcome of elections, and we have seen it manifested in both the school board and city council elections
the public’s position on growth in Davis will depend upon the project in question, and will crystallize only when the public is made aware of it and considers it (and note, I suspect quite a number of residents think that there is not likely to be much for awhile because of increasingly dire economic conditions), but the more serious question, one much more serious than whether a small, medium or large number of houses get built, is the increasingly alienation of the community from political involvement
the days of a Julie Partansky winning a seat on the council on a shoestring are long gone, if you want to get in the game now, you are going to have to put down at least $50,000, and possibly more, and make concessions to the local police and fire unions (or, in the case of school board elections, the teachers)
Davis likes to think of itself as different, but it is now not very much different than the rest of California, and indeed, the country
so, as I said, any politician who mistakes the tactical requirements for victory for a validation of their political stance is silly, indeed, if the same factors that resulted in these recent outcomes didn’t want development, than that’s what the winners would support
–Richard Estes
“All it does is allow a bunch of rich homeowners to keep their property values up.”
In communities that don’t have a Measure J, growth decisions are made by a process of developer proposals and staff review. Period. Dixon and Winters are good examples of how growth proceeds that way. Measure J provides a check on large peripheral projects. Voters in Davis, who are not all “rich homeowners,” have approved large developments such as Mace Ranch. Your analysis is wrong. Davis voters aren’t nimby’s. But they don’t like big projects (Covell Village) or drastic changes (Richards Blvd underpass).
“All it does is allow a bunch of rich homeowners to keep their property values up.”
In communities that don’t have a Measure J, growth decisions are made by a process of developer proposals and staff review. Period. Dixon and Winters are good examples of how growth proceeds that way. Measure J provides a check on large peripheral projects. Voters in Davis, who are not all “rich homeowners,” have approved large developments such as Mace Ranch. Your analysis is wrong. Davis voters aren’t nimby’s. But they don’t like big projects (Covell Village) or drastic changes (Richards Blvd underpass).
“All it does is allow a bunch of rich homeowners to keep their property values up.”
In communities that don’t have a Measure J, growth decisions are made by a process of developer proposals and staff review. Period. Dixon and Winters are good examples of how growth proceeds that way. Measure J provides a check on large peripheral projects. Voters in Davis, who are not all “rich homeowners,” have approved large developments such as Mace Ranch. Your analysis is wrong. Davis voters aren’t nimby’s. But they don’t like big projects (Covell Village) or drastic changes (Richards Blvd underpass).
“All it does is allow a bunch of rich homeowners to keep their property values up.”
In communities that don’t have a Measure J, growth decisions are made by a process of developer proposals and staff review. Period. Dixon and Winters are good examples of how growth proceeds that way. Measure J provides a check on large peripheral projects. Voters in Davis, who are not all “rich homeowners,” have approved large developments such as Mace Ranch. Your analysis is wrong. Davis voters aren’t nimby’s. But they don’t like big projects (Covell Village) or drastic changes (Richards Blvd underpass).
Richard,
I think you misunderstood. The people that voted for Souza and Saylor did so knowing what they were getting.
True, this comes from my admittedly small sampling scattered across UCD but what I found was that the anti growth folks tended to be older and owned homes here for 15+ yrs and voted for Sue and Cecilia. My impression was that the third vote was a throw away for this crowd.
The pro-growth crowd turned out for Souza and Saylor and Sidney. The younger folks seemed to have the most enthusiasim for Sidney as they distrusted the old guard completely but felt they had little choice. I was surprised at the lack of support for Rob in the younger crowd.
As for the folks who never bothered to vote, and I know several, it was pure disenfranchisement. Personally, I found that to be the most shocking revelation of the election.
Did they vote differently after speaking with me? Maybe. I did not follow them into the booth so I have to go by what was said to me.
Wolf,
We live here because we work here and for no other reason. If UCD were to relocate to another town, we’d be gone in a heartbeat, gladly. I was raised in OC and lived in SF, Berkeley, Seattle, and Sacramento before moving here. Of all those towns, Davis reminds me the most of OC in it’s sense of smug self-satisfying entitlement. “White, Weathly, and Conservative”, Wasserman was absolutely correct. Davis wants you as a consumer but not as a neighbor.
Richard,
I think you misunderstood. The people that voted for Souza and Saylor did so knowing what they were getting.
True, this comes from my admittedly small sampling scattered across UCD but what I found was that the anti growth folks tended to be older and owned homes here for 15+ yrs and voted for Sue and Cecilia. My impression was that the third vote was a throw away for this crowd.
The pro-growth crowd turned out for Souza and Saylor and Sidney. The younger folks seemed to have the most enthusiasim for Sidney as they distrusted the old guard completely but felt they had little choice. I was surprised at the lack of support for Rob in the younger crowd.
As for the folks who never bothered to vote, and I know several, it was pure disenfranchisement. Personally, I found that to be the most shocking revelation of the election.
Did they vote differently after speaking with me? Maybe. I did not follow them into the booth so I have to go by what was said to me.
Wolf,
We live here because we work here and for no other reason. If UCD were to relocate to another town, we’d be gone in a heartbeat, gladly. I was raised in OC and lived in SF, Berkeley, Seattle, and Sacramento before moving here. Of all those towns, Davis reminds me the most of OC in it’s sense of smug self-satisfying entitlement. “White, Weathly, and Conservative”, Wasserman was absolutely correct. Davis wants you as a consumer but not as a neighbor.
Richard,
I think you misunderstood. The people that voted for Souza and Saylor did so knowing what they were getting.
True, this comes from my admittedly small sampling scattered across UCD but what I found was that the anti growth folks tended to be older and owned homes here for 15+ yrs and voted for Sue and Cecilia. My impression was that the third vote was a throw away for this crowd.
The pro-growth crowd turned out for Souza and Saylor and Sidney. The younger folks seemed to have the most enthusiasim for Sidney as they distrusted the old guard completely but felt they had little choice. I was surprised at the lack of support for Rob in the younger crowd.
As for the folks who never bothered to vote, and I know several, it was pure disenfranchisement. Personally, I found that to be the most shocking revelation of the election.
Did they vote differently after speaking with me? Maybe. I did not follow them into the booth so I have to go by what was said to me.
Wolf,
We live here because we work here and for no other reason. If UCD were to relocate to another town, we’d be gone in a heartbeat, gladly. I was raised in OC and lived in SF, Berkeley, Seattle, and Sacramento before moving here. Of all those towns, Davis reminds me the most of OC in it’s sense of smug self-satisfying entitlement. “White, Weathly, and Conservative”, Wasserman was absolutely correct. Davis wants you as a consumer but not as a neighbor.
Richard,
I think you misunderstood. The people that voted for Souza and Saylor did so knowing what they were getting.
True, this comes from my admittedly small sampling scattered across UCD but what I found was that the anti growth folks tended to be older and owned homes here for 15+ yrs and voted for Sue and Cecilia. My impression was that the third vote was a throw away for this crowd.
The pro-growth crowd turned out for Souza and Saylor and Sidney. The younger folks seemed to have the most enthusiasim for Sidney as they distrusted the old guard completely but felt they had little choice. I was surprised at the lack of support for Rob in the younger crowd.
As for the folks who never bothered to vote, and I know several, it was pure disenfranchisement. Personally, I found that to be the most shocking revelation of the election.
Did they vote differently after speaking with me? Maybe. I did not follow them into the booth so I have to go by what was said to me.
Wolf,
We live here because we work here and for no other reason. If UCD were to relocate to another town, we’d be gone in a heartbeat, gladly. I was raised in OC and lived in SF, Berkeley, Seattle, and Sacramento before moving here. Of all those towns, Davis reminds me the most of OC in it’s sense of smug self-satisfying entitlement. “White, Weathly, and Conservative”, Wasserman was absolutely correct. Davis wants you as a consumer but not as a neighbor.
richard said…
…the days of a Julie Partansky winning a seat on the council on a shoestring are long gone…
Why is that? (Just an honest question)
I remember “developer” money getting thrown around in elections in the 1990’s when she was active.
richard said…
…the days of a Julie Partansky winning a seat on the council on a shoestring are long gone…
Why is that? (Just an honest question)
I remember “developer” money getting thrown around in elections in the 1990’s when she was active.
richard said…
…the days of a Julie Partansky winning a seat on the council on a shoestring are long gone…
Why is that? (Just an honest question)
I remember “developer” money getting thrown around in elections in the 1990’s when she was active.
richard said…
…the days of a Julie Partansky winning a seat on the council on a shoestring are long gone…
Why is that? (Just an honest question)
I remember “developer” money getting thrown around in elections in the 1990’s when she was active.
Don, you left out a step, city councils vote on the proposals. Its called representative democracy and while it is not perfect it does have a long tradition in this country.
Wasn’t Mace Ranch a big peripheral development? By the way I agree that Covell Partners overreached and even said I hoped they would come up with something that better suits the needs of the commuity. Whats so bad about peripheral developments anyway? As long as they don’t leapfrog it is a natural way to grow. Hell, even bacterial colonies grow this way. Oh yes you’re not Nimbys your Nimfys NOT IN MY FRONT YARD or we will have it rezoned to permit parking only. We wouldn’t want those college students who live so far away becasue there isn’t adequate housing for them in town to save a few bucks on parking.
Don, you left out a step, city councils vote on the proposals. Its called representative democracy and while it is not perfect it does have a long tradition in this country.
Wasn’t Mace Ranch a big peripheral development? By the way I agree that Covell Partners overreached and even said I hoped they would come up with something that better suits the needs of the commuity. Whats so bad about peripheral developments anyway? As long as they don’t leapfrog it is a natural way to grow. Hell, even bacterial colonies grow this way. Oh yes you’re not Nimbys your Nimfys NOT IN MY FRONT YARD or we will have it rezoned to permit parking only. We wouldn’t want those college students who live so far away becasue there isn’t adequate housing for them in town to save a few bucks on parking.
Don, you left out a step, city councils vote on the proposals. Its called representative democracy and while it is not perfect it does have a long tradition in this country.
Wasn’t Mace Ranch a big peripheral development? By the way I agree that Covell Partners overreached and even said I hoped they would come up with something that better suits the needs of the commuity. Whats so bad about peripheral developments anyway? As long as they don’t leapfrog it is a natural way to grow. Hell, even bacterial colonies grow this way. Oh yes you’re not Nimbys your Nimfys NOT IN MY FRONT YARD or we will have it rezoned to permit parking only. We wouldn’t want those college students who live so far away becasue there isn’t adequate housing for them in town to save a few bucks on parking.
Don, you left out a step, city councils vote on the proposals. Its called representative democracy and while it is not perfect it does have a long tradition in this country.
Wasn’t Mace Ranch a big peripheral development? By the way I agree that Covell Partners overreached and even said I hoped they would come up with something that better suits the needs of the commuity. Whats so bad about peripheral developments anyway? As long as they don’t leapfrog it is a natural way to grow. Hell, even bacterial colonies grow this way. Oh yes you’re not Nimbys your Nimfys NOT IN MY FRONT YARD or we will have it rezoned to permit parking only. We wouldn’t want those college students who live so far away becasue there isn’t adequate housing for them in town to save a few bucks on parking.
DPD, ask for another vote I bet you Diner at Mariachi it will come out 3-2 just as Souza implied to Rexroad.
DPD, ask for another vote I bet you Diner at Mariachi it will come out 3-2 just as Souza implied to Rexroad.
DPD, ask for another vote I bet you Diner at Mariachi it will come out 3-2 just as Souza implied to Rexroad.
DPD, ask for another vote I bet you Diner at Mariachi it will come out 3-2 just as Souza implied to Rexroad.
Don, you left out a step, city councils vote on the proposals. Its called representative democracy and while it is not perfect it does have a long tradition in this country.
Wasn’t Mace Ranch a big peripheral development? By the way I agree that Covell Partners overreached and even said I hoped they would come up with something that better suits the needs of the commuity. Whats so bad about peripheral developments anyway? As long as they don’t leapfrog it is a natural way to grow. Hell, even bacterial colonies grow this way. Oh yes you’re not Nimbys your Nimfys NOT IN MY FRONT YARD or we will have it rezoned to permit parking only. We wouldn’t want those college students who live so far away becasue there isn’t adequate housing for them in town to save a few bucks on parking.
Don, you left out a step, city councils vote on the proposals. Its called representative democracy and while it is not perfect it does have a long tradition in this country.
Wasn’t Mace Ranch a big peripheral development? By the way I agree that Covell Partners overreached and even said I hoped they would come up with something that better suits the needs of the commuity. Whats so bad about peripheral developments anyway? As long as they don’t leapfrog it is a natural way to grow. Hell, even bacterial colonies grow this way. Oh yes you’re not Nimbys your Nimfys NOT IN MY FRONT YARD or we will have it rezoned to permit parking only. We wouldn’t want those college students who live so far away becasue there isn’t adequate housing for them in town to save a few bucks on parking.
Don, you left out a step, city councils vote on the proposals. Its called representative democracy and while it is not perfect it does have a long tradition in this country.
Wasn’t Mace Ranch a big peripheral development? By the way I agree that Covell Partners overreached and even said I hoped they would come up with something that better suits the needs of the commuity. Whats so bad about peripheral developments anyway? As long as they don’t leapfrog it is a natural way to grow. Hell, even bacterial colonies grow this way. Oh yes you’re not Nimbys your Nimfys NOT IN MY FRONT YARD or we will have it rezoned to permit parking only. We wouldn’t want those college students who live so far away becasue there isn’t adequate housing for them in town to save a few bucks on parking.
Don, you left out a step, city councils vote on the proposals. Its called representative democracy and while it is not perfect it does have a long tradition in this country.
Wasn’t Mace Ranch a big peripheral development? By the way I agree that Covell Partners overreached and even said I hoped they would come up with something that better suits the needs of the commuity. Whats so bad about peripheral developments anyway? As long as they don’t leapfrog it is a natural way to grow. Hell, even bacterial colonies grow this way. Oh yes you’re not Nimbys your Nimfys NOT IN MY FRONT YARD or we will have it rezoned to permit parking only. We wouldn’t want those college students who live so far away becasue there isn’t adequate housing for them in town to save a few bucks on parking.
Richard,
I think you misunderstood. The people that voted for Souza and Saylor did so knowing what they were getting.
True, this comes from my admittedly small sampling scattered across UCD but what I found was that the anti growth folks tended to be older and owned homes here for 15+ yrs and voted for Sue and Cecilia. My impression was that the third vote was a throw away for this crowd.
no, I didn’t misunderstand
I call this the DailyKos mistake, after the liberals and progressives who debate the minutae of policy endlessly on that website
on the implicit assumptions of the participants there is that people generally follow politics and participate in it as avidly as they do
and, note the birds of a feather tend to flock together (one of the most useful aphorisms of daily life, it confirms itself again and again), you are engaged, so you tend to talk with others, equally engaged
in fact, most people know very little about the numerous issues discussed there, they are too busy with other things, other interests
is there support for development in Davis, sure, there is some to the extent that people perceived in idealized way consistent with what they want, this is a change for the hostility of the mid-1990s in response to the Mace Ranch buildout, but, then, wait until a project is proposed, and then you will see fractures depending upon the nature of that development
but, I’ll play along, and naively assume that Davis is some sort of engaged, Jeffersonian electorate
fact is, from what I heard, neither Souza nor Saylor advocated development in the campaign, and neither emphasized development at Covell Center or in the Northwest Quadrant
just as the Davis electorate is increasingly consistent with the alienated one we see nationally, Souza and Saylor ran on vague, difficult to substantiate platforms, which is what you do when you are relying upon money, name ID and volunteers, in other word, you money and your ground operation, to win
the last thing you do as that kind of candidate is embrace any sort of polarizing issue that will energize opposition
and, this is confirmed by the covert, inside baseball approach to governing that we see from them, as displayed by Souza here at the LAFCO meeting, talking one way in front of one audience, voting one way when there is a lot of attention, and then voting another way and obtaining a different result in a different forum that is not closely followed by the public
there is a necessity to this approach because Saylor and Souza no doubt understand, as the winner of the Presidential campaign will as well, that non-ideological victories of this nature are not very helpful in enabling one to govern very effectively in a highly public fashion
–Richard Estes
Richard,
I think you misunderstood. The people that voted for Souza and Saylor did so knowing what they were getting.
True, this comes from my admittedly small sampling scattered across UCD but what I found was that the anti growth folks tended to be older and owned homes here for 15+ yrs and voted for Sue and Cecilia. My impression was that the third vote was a throw away for this crowd.
no, I didn’t misunderstand
I call this the DailyKos mistake, after the liberals and progressives who debate the minutae of policy endlessly on that website
on the implicit assumptions of the participants there is that people generally follow politics and participate in it as avidly as they do
and, note the birds of a feather tend to flock together (one of the most useful aphorisms of daily life, it confirms itself again and again), you are engaged, so you tend to talk with others, equally engaged
in fact, most people know very little about the numerous issues discussed there, they are too busy with other things, other interests
is there support for development in Davis, sure, there is some to the extent that people perceived in idealized way consistent with what they want, this is a change for the hostility of the mid-1990s in response to the Mace Ranch buildout, but, then, wait until a project is proposed, and then you will see fractures depending upon the nature of that development
but, I’ll play along, and naively assume that Davis is some sort of engaged, Jeffersonian electorate
fact is, from what I heard, neither Souza nor Saylor advocated development in the campaign, and neither emphasized development at Covell Center or in the Northwest Quadrant
just as the Davis electorate is increasingly consistent with the alienated one we see nationally, Souza and Saylor ran on vague, difficult to substantiate platforms, which is what you do when you are relying upon money, name ID and volunteers, in other word, you money and your ground operation, to win
the last thing you do as that kind of candidate is embrace any sort of polarizing issue that will energize opposition
and, this is confirmed by the covert, inside baseball approach to governing that we see from them, as displayed by Souza here at the LAFCO meeting, talking one way in front of one audience, voting one way when there is a lot of attention, and then voting another way and obtaining a different result in a different forum that is not closely followed by the public
there is a necessity to this approach because Saylor and Souza no doubt understand, as the winner of the Presidential campaign will as well, that non-ideological victories of this nature are not very helpful in enabling one to govern very effectively in a highly public fashion
–Richard Estes
Richard,
I think you misunderstood. The people that voted for Souza and Saylor did so knowing what they were getting.
True, this comes from my admittedly small sampling scattered across UCD but what I found was that the anti growth folks tended to be older and owned homes here for 15+ yrs and voted for Sue and Cecilia. My impression was that the third vote was a throw away for this crowd.
no, I didn’t misunderstand
I call this the DailyKos mistake, after the liberals and progressives who debate the minutae of policy endlessly on that website
on the implicit assumptions of the participants there is that people generally follow politics and participate in it as avidly as they do
and, note the birds of a feather tend to flock together (one of the most useful aphorisms of daily life, it confirms itself again and again), you are engaged, so you tend to talk with others, equally engaged
in fact, most people know very little about the numerous issues discussed there, they are too busy with other things, other interests
is there support for development in Davis, sure, there is some to the extent that people perceived in idealized way consistent with what they want, this is a change for the hostility of the mid-1990s in response to the Mace Ranch buildout, but, then, wait until a project is proposed, and then you will see fractures depending upon the nature of that development
but, I’ll play along, and naively assume that Davis is some sort of engaged, Jeffersonian electorate
fact is, from what I heard, neither Souza nor Saylor advocated development in the campaign, and neither emphasized development at Covell Center or in the Northwest Quadrant
just as the Davis electorate is increasingly consistent with the alienated one we see nationally, Souza and Saylor ran on vague, difficult to substantiate platforms, which is what you do when you are relying upon money, name ID and volunteers, in other word, you money and your ground operation, to win
the last thing you do as that kind of candidate is embrace any sort of polarizing issue that will energize opposition
and, this is confirmed by the covert, inside baseball approach to governing that we see from them, as displayed by Souza here at the LAFCO meeting, talking one way in front of one audience, voting one way when there is a lot of attention, and then voting another way and obtaining a different result in a different forum that is not closely followed by the public
there is a necessity to this approach because Saylor and Souza no doubt understand, as the winner of the Presidential campaign will as well, that non-ideological victories of this nature are not very helpful in enabling one to govern very effectively in a highly public fashion
–Richard Estes
Richard,
I think you misunderstood. The people that voted for Souza and Saylor did so knowing what they were getting.
True, this comes from my admittedly small sampling scattered across UCD but what I found was that the anti growth folks tended to be older and owned homes here for 15+ yrs and voted for Sue and Cecilia. My impression was that the third vote was a throw away for this crowd.
no, I didn’t misunderstand
I call this the DailyKos mistake, after the liberals and progressives who debate the minutae of policy endlessly on that website
on the implicit assumptions of the participants there is that people generally follow politics and participate in it as avidly as they do
and, note the birds of a feather tend to flock together (one of the most useful aphorisms of daily life, it confirms itself again and again), you are engaged, so you tend to talk with others, equally engaged
in fact, most people know very little about the numerous issues discussed there, they are too busy with other things, other interests
is there support for development in Davis, sure, there is some to the extent that people perceived in idealized way consistent with what they want, this is a change for the hostility of the mid-1990s in response to the Mace Ranch buildout, but, then, wait until a project is proposed, and then you will see fractures depending upon the nature of that development
but, I’ll play along, and naively assume that Davis is some sort of engaged, Jeffersonian electorate
fact is, from what I heard, neither Souza nor Saylor advocated development in the campaign, and neither emphasized development at Covell Center or in the Northwest Quadrant
just as the Davis electorate is increasingly consistent with the alienated one we see nationally, Souza and Saylor ran on vague, difficult to substantiate platforms, which is what you do when you are relying upon money, name ID and volunteers, in other word, you money and your ground operation, to win
the last thing you do as that kind of candidate is embrace any sort of polarizing issue that will energize opposition
and, this is confirmed by the covert, inside baseball approach to governing that we see from them, as displayed by Souza here at the LAFCO meeting, talking one way in front of one audience, voting one way when there is a lot of attention, and then voting another way and obtaining a different result in a different forum that is not closely followed by the public
there is a necessity to this approach because Saylor and Souza no doubt understand, as the winner of the Presidential campaign will as well, that non-ideological victories of this nature are not very helpful in enabling one to govern very effectively in a highly public fashion
–Richard Estes
Sorry Old Timer, but you stand corrected again. A straw poll at UCD landed the top votes for Rob Roy and Cecilia. And the Cal Aggie paper endorsed Cecilia, Sue and Rob. And the college democrats endorsed Cecilia.
What do all of these have in common? The students supported true Progressives and were not buying the rhetoric that Souza and Saylor were dishing out with recruitment of the third vote they recruited to run.
It’s all math pure and simple.
Sorry Old Timer, but you stand corrected again. A straw poll at UCD landed the top votes for Rob Roy and Cecilia. And the Cal Aggie paper endorsed Cecilia, Sue and Rob. And the college democrats endorsed Cecilia.
What do all of these have in common? The students supported true Progressives and were not buying the rhetoric that Souza and Saylor were dishing out with recruitment of the third vote they recruited to run.
It’s all math pure and simple.
Sorry Old Timer, but you stand corrected again. A straw poll at UCD landed the top votes for Rob Roy and Cecilia. And the Cal Aggie paper endorsed Cecilia, Sue and Rob. And the college democrats endorsed Cecilia.
What do all of these have in common? The students supported true Progressives and were not buying the rhetoric that Souza and Saylor were dishing out with recruitment of the third vote they recruited to run.
It’s all math pure and simple.
Sorry Old Timer, but you stand corrected again. A straw poll at UCD landed the top votes for Rob Roy and Cecilia. And the Cal Aggie paper endorsed Cecilia, Sue and Rob. And the college democrats endorsed Cecilia.
What do all of these have in common? The students supported true Progressives and were not buying the rhetoric that Souza and Saylor were dishing out with recruitment of the third vote they recruited to run.
It’s all math pure and simple.
“you are engaged, so you tend to talk with others, equally engaged”
Richard, I went out of my way to talk to people about the election that weren’t of my normal circle. That is why I spoke about people abstaining and folks that were firmly pro Sue etc. But that doesn’t matter because you have a pisser on which is too bad.
Usually you are the moderating tone on this site that I look to examine a topic for all sides but I just can’t figure you out on this one.
“you are engaged, so you tend to talk with others, equally engaged”
Richard, I went out of my way to talk to people about the election that weren’t of my normal circle. That is why I spoke about people abstaining and folks that were firmly pro Sue etc. But that doesn’t matter because you have a pisser on which is too bad.
Usually you are the moderating tone on this site that I look to examine a topic for all sides but I just can’t figure you out on this one.
“you are engaged, so you tend to talk with others, equally engaged”
Richard, I went out of my way to talk to people about the election that weren’t of my normal circle. That is why I spoke about people abstaining and folks that were firmly pro Sue etc. But that doesn’t matter because you have a pisser on which is too bad.
Usually you are the moderating tone on this site that I look to examine a topic for all sides but I just can’t figure you out on this one.
“you are engaged, so you tend to talk with others, equally engaged”
Richard, I went out of my way to talk to people about the election that weren’t of my normal circle. That is why I spoke about people abstaining and folks that were firmly pro Sue etc. But that doesn’t matter because you have a pisser on which is too bad.
Usually you are the moderating tone on this site that I look to examine a topic for all sides but I just can’t figure you out on this one.
The people who think that more development will lower housing prices in Davis are deluding themselves. The developers will try to build when prices start going back up. They’re in it for as much profit as they can get. The only thing that is going to lower housing prices in Davis any further is a worsening of the recession we are currently in. If you want to buy a house in Davis now is the time. You will never see prices this low again.
The people who think that more development will lower housing prices in Davis are deluding themselves. The developers will try to build when prices start going back up. They’re in it for as much profit as they can get. The only thing that is going to lower housing prices in Davis any further is a worsening of the recession we are currently in. If you want to buy a house in Davis now is the time. You will never see prices this low again.
The people who think that more development will lower housing prices in Davis are deluding themselves. The developers will try to build when prices start going back up. They’re in it for as much profit as they can get. The only thing that is going to lower housing prices in Davis any further is a worsening of the recession we are currently in. If you want to buy a house in Davis now is the time. You will never see prices this low again.
The people who think that more development will lower housing prices in Davis are deluding themselves. The developers will try to build when prices start going back up. They’re in it for as much profit as they can get. The only thing that is going to lower housing prices in Davis any further is a worsening of the recession we are currently in. If you want to buy a house in Davis now is the time. You will never see prices this low again.
It may be true that building more housing in Davis wont lower prices much- but there is a direct correlation between building none-and higher prices. Who is responsible for no growth and high prices? So called progressives doing the dirty work for the rich white homeowners. No growthers, vanguarders, make this town elitist. Councilpeople cant vote if they own property within 500feet of a proposal before council but registered voters owning homes can vote on Measuure J when there is a direct financial benefit to them to deny projects.
It may be true that building more housing in Davis wont lower prices much- but there is a direct correlation between building none-and higher prices. Who is responsible for no growth and high prices? So called progressives doing the dirty work for the rich white homeowners. No growthers, vanguarders, make this town elitist. Councilpeople cant vote if they own property within 500feet of a proposal before council but registered voters owning homes can vote on Measuure J when there is a direct financial benefit to them to deny projects.
It may be true that building more housing in Davis wont lower prices much- but there is a direct correlation between building none-and higher prices. Who is responsible for no growth and high prices? So called progressives doing the dirty work for the rich white homeowners. No growthers, vanguarders, make this town elitist. Councilpeople cant vote if they own property within 500feet of a proposal before council but registered voters owning homes can vote on Measuure J when there is a direct financial benefit to them to deny projects.
It may be true that building more housing in Davis wont lower prices much- but there is a direct correlation between building none-and higher prices. Who is responsible for no growth and high prices? So called progressives doing the dirty work for the rich white homeowners. No growthers, vanguarders, make this town elitist. Councilpeople cant vote if they own property within 500feet of a proposal before council but registered voters owning homes can vote on Measuure J when there is a direct financial benefit to them to deny projects.
A few observations:
I had hoped to take two years off before running for office again, in order to pursue other projects that are important to me. I was also not eager to run in a campaign with two Greenwalds on the ballot.
I started my campaign very late –after the filing date, in fact, only after searching for and failing to find a candidate willing to run who I trusted to both be both electable and able to advocate for the policy goals that I care about.
Aside from a literature drop of one brochure, the extent of my field operation was the Saturday Farmers’ Market and walking two blocks of Yancho Yolo. This was due to lack of time. Of course, I regretted that I hadn’t started earlier, but running in this particular cycle had not been my first choice.
Although my contact with voters was regrettably limited, I made the following observations:
1) Most voters just don’t follow local politics.
2) Most voters have very vague, and often incorrect, perceptions of incumbents, their records and their positions.
3) This is why money and organization count.
4) Money and organization is important, but not sufficient. Some fine and talented people who would make good elected officials make poor candidates, because, for some reason or other, they don’t resonate with the voters in a particular city at a particular time, no matter how much money they spend. Bob Schelen has been one such example.
I am going to relate two telling anecdotes:
EXAMPLE ONE: At the third door that I knocked on in Rancho Yolo, a woman answered. I told her my name, that I was the current Mayor, and that I was running for re-election. She looked irritated and said : “If you’re the Mayor, why have you let the city grow so fast? I thought this was supposed to be a slow growth city”.
I answered “I was the only councilmember to vote against Covell Village, but I was outnumbered and lost”.
She answered “Okay. Then you’re the one I’ll vote for”.
This was pretty typical of the reactions that I got during my one afternoon of precinct walking.
Lesson: Don’t interpret candidate election results as mandates for any position, unless every candidate has knocked on every the door and told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about their positions.
EXAMPLE TWO:
Two weeks before the election, I stopped by the Scrabble table at Farmers’ Market. My friend Nick was there with about six of his friends. One friend said : “Hey Sue, are you and Cecilia sisters?” I thought for a second and said slowly, “How many of you think that Cecilia and I are related?” All six nodded or raised their hands. Then I asked: “How many of you would be less likely to vote for two related people to be on the city council”. They all answered to the effect that they wouldn’t be inclined to vote for two related people to be on the city council.
Lesson: Just because you and your friends follow elections and know the players, don’t assume that most voters do.
A few observations:
I had hoped to take two years off before running for office again, in order to pursue other projects that are important to me. I was also not eager to run in a campaign with two Greenwalds on the ballot.
I started my campaign very late –after the filing date, in fact, only after searching for and failing to find a candidate willing to run who I trusted to both be both electable and able to advocate for the policy goals that I care about.
Aside from a literature drop of one brochure, the extent of my field operation was the Saturday Farmers’ Market and walking two blocks of Yancho Yolo. This was due to lack of time. Of course, I regretted that I hadn’t started earlier, but running in this particular cycle had not been my first choice.
Although my contact with voters was regrettably limited, I made the following observations:
1) Most voters just don’t follow local politics.
2) Most voters have very vague, and often incorrect, perceptions of incumbents, their records and their positions.
3) This is why money and organization count.
4) Money and organization is important, but not sufficient. Some fine and talented people who would make good elected officials make poor candidates, because, for some reason or other, they don’t resonate with the voters in a particular city at a particular time, no matter how much money they spend. Bob Schelen has been one such example.
I am going to relate two telling anecdotes:
EXAMPLE ONE: At the third door that I knocked on in Rancho Yolo, a woman answered. I told her my name, that I was the current Mayor, and that I was running for re-election. She looked irritated and said : “If you’re the Mayor, why have you let the city grow so fast? I thought this was supposed to be a slow growth city”.
I answered “I was the only councilmember to vote against Covell Village, but I was outnumbered and lost”.
She answered “Okay. Then you’re the one I’ll vote for”.
This was pretty typical of the reactions that I got during my one afternoon of precinct walking.
Lesson: Don’t interpret candidate election results as mandates for any position, unless every candidate has knocked on every the door and told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about their positions.
EXAMPLE TWO:
Two weeks before the election, I stopped by the Scrabble table at Farmers’ Market. My friend Nick was there with about six of his friends. One friend said : “Hey Sue, are you and Cecilia sisters?” I thought for a second and said slowly, “How many of you think that Cecilia and I are related?” All six nodded or raised their hands. Then I asked: “How many of you would be less likely to vote for two related people to be on the city council”. They all answered to the effect that they wouldn’t be inclined to vote for two related people to be on the city council.
Lesson: Just because you and your friends follow elections and know the players, don’t assume that most voters do.
A few observations:
I had hoped to take two years off before running for office again, in order to pursue other projects that are important to me. I was also not eager to run in a campaign with two Greenwalds on the ballot.
I started my campaign very late –after the filing date, in fact, only after searching for and failing to find a candidate willing to run who I trusted to both be both electable and able to advocate for the policy goals that I care about.
Aside from a literature drop of one brochure, the extent of my field operation was the Saturday Farmers’ Market and walking two blocks of Yancho Yolo. This was due to lack of time. Of course, I regretted that I hadn’t started earlier, but running in this particular cycle had not been my first choice.
Although my contact with voters was regrettably limited, I made the following observations:
1) Most voters just don’t follow local politics.
2) Most voters have very vague, and often incorrect, perceptions of incumbents, their records and their positions.
3) This is why money and organization count.
4) Money and organization is important, but not sufficient. Some fine and talented people who would make good elected officials make poor candidates, because, for some reason or other, they don’t resonate with the voters in a particular city at a particular time, no matter how much money they spend. Bob Schelen has been one such example.
I am going to relate two telling anecdotes:
EXAMPLE ONE: At the third door that I knocked on in Rancho Yolo, a woman answered. I told her my name, that I was the current Mayor, and that I was running for re-election. She looked irritated and said : “If you’re the Mayor, why have you let the city grow so fast? I thought this was supposed to be a slow growth city”.
I answered “I was the only councilmember to vote against Covell Village, but I was outnumbered and lost”.
She answered “Okay. Then you’re the one I’ll vote for”.
This was pretty typical of the reactions that I got during my one afternoon of precinct walking.
Lesson: Don’t interpret candidate election results as mandates for any position, unless every candidate has knocked on every the door and told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about their positions.
EXAMPLE TWO:
Two weeks before the election, I stopped by the Scrabble table at Farmers’ Market. My friend Nick was there with about six of his friends. One friend said : “Hey Sue, are you and Cecilia sisters?” I thought for a second and said slowly, “How many of you think that Cecilia and I are related?” All six nodded or raised their hands. Then I asked: “How many of you would be less likely to vote for two related people to be on the city council”. They all answered to the effect that they wouldn’t be inclined to vote for two related people to be on the city council.
Lesson: Just because you and your friends follow elections and know the players, don’t assume that most voters do.
A few observations:
I had hoped to take two years off before running for office again, in order to pursue other projects that are important to me. I was also not eager to run in a campaign with two Greenwalds on the ballot.
I started my campaign very late –after the filing date, in fact, only after searching for and failing to find a candidate willing to run who I trusted to both be both electable and able to advocate for the policy goals that I care about.
Aside from a literature drop of one brochure, the extent of my field operation was the Saturday Farmers’ Market and walking two blocks of Yancho Yolo. This was due to lack of time. Of course, I regretted that I hadn’t started earlier, but running in this particular cycle had not been my first choice.
Although my contact with voters was regrettably limited, I made the following observations:
1) Most voters just don’t follow local politics.
2) Most voters have very vague, and often incorrect, perceptions of incumbents, their records and their positions.
3) This is why money and organization count.
4) Money and organization is important, but not sufficient. Some fine and talented people who would make good elected officials make poor candidates, because, for some reason or other, they don’t resonate with the voters in a particular city at a particular time, no matter how much money they spend. Bob Schelen has been one such example.
I am going to relate two telling anecdotes:
EXAMPLE ONE: At the third door that I knocked on in Rancho Yolo, a woman answered. I told her my name, that I was the current Mayor, and that I was running for re-election. She looked irritated and said : “If you’re the Mayor, why have you let the city grow so fast? I thought this was supposed to be a slow growth city”.
I answered “I was the only councilmember to vote against Covell Village, but I was outnumbered and lost”.
She answered “Okay. Then you’re the one I’ll vote for”.
This was pretty typical of the reactions that I got during my one afternoon of precinct walking.
Lesson: Don’t interpret candidate election results as mandates for any position, unless every candidate has knocked on every the door and told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about their positions.
EXAMPLE TWO:
Two weeks before the election, I stopped by the Scrabble table at Farmers’ Market. My friend Nick was there with about six of his friends. One friend said : “Hey Sue, are you and Cecilia sisters?” I thought for a second and said slowly, “How many of you think that Cecilia and I are related?” All six nodded or raised their hands. Then I asked: “How many of you would be less likely to vote for two related people to be on the city council”. They all answered to the effect that they wouldn’t be inclined to vote for two related people to be on the city council.
Lesson: Just because you and your friends follow elections and know the players, don’t assume that most voters do.
Mayor Greewald,
Do you think that having two “Greenwalds” on the ballot hurt you or Cecilia?
Mayor Greewald,
Do you think that having two “Greenwalds” on the ballot hurt you or Cecilia?
Mayor Greewald,
Do you think that having two “Greenwalds” on the ballot hurt you or Cecilia?
Mayor Greewald,
Do you think that having two “Greenwalds” on the ballot hurt you or Cecilia?
“you are engaged, so you tend to talk with others, equally engaged”
Richard, I went out of my way to talk to people about the election that weren’t of my normal circle. That is why I spoke about people abstaining and folks that were firmly pro Sue etc. But that doesn’t matter because you have a pisser on which is too bad.
Usually you are the moderating tone on this site that I look to examine a topic for all sides but I just can’t figure you out on this one.
Well, one could start with reading what I actually posted, and responding to it. My analysis is fairly straightforward and concrete. _
On a more serious note, if what you say is true, then I would expect the council majority to push more development projects in a highly public fashion so as to draw attention to themselves for doing what the public purportedly elected them to do.
But Souza’s action on the LAFCO board suggests that that’s not going to happen. A careful reading of my posts provides an explanation as to why that’s the case.
Along these lines, as Elaine Roberts Musser has pointed out, expect the emergence of high end senior housing proposals, resulting in the importation of more upper middle income people into the community, while the needs of people like you continue to go unaddressed.
With the application of a little inferential thinking, my posts also suggest why this might happen as well.
–Richard
P. S. I am a moderating tone on this site? Yikes!
“you are engaged, so you tend to talk with others, equally engaged”
Richard, I went out of my way to talk to people about the election that weren’t of my normal circle. That is why I spoke about people abstaining and folks that were firmly pro Sue etc. But that doesn’t matter because you have a pisser on which is too bad.
Usually you are the moderating tone on this site that I look to examine a topic for all sides but I just can’t figure you out on this one.
Well, one could start with reading what I actually posted, and responding to it. My analysis is fairly straightforward and concrete. _
On a more serious note, if what you say is true, then I would expect the council majority to push more development projects in a highly public fashion so as to draw attention to themselves for doing what the public purportedly elected them to do.
But Souza’s action on the LAFCO board suggests that that’s not going to happen. A careful reading of my posts provides an explanation as to why that’s the case.
Along these lines, as Elaine Roberts Musser has pointed out, expect the emergence of high end senior housing proposals, resulting in the importation of more upper middle income people into the community, while the needs of people like you continue to go unaddressed.
With the application of a little inferential thinking, my posts also suggest why this might happen as well.
–Richard
P. S. I am a moderating tone on this site? Yikes!
“you are engaged, so you tend to talk with others, equally engaged”
Richard, I went out of my way to talk to people about the election that weren’t of my normal circle. That is why I spoke about people abstaining and folks that were firmly pro Sue etc. But that doesn’t matter because you have a pisser on which is too bad.
Usually you are the moderating tone on this site that I look to examine a topic for all sides but I just can’t figure you out on this one.
Well, one could start with reading what I actually posted, and responding to it. My analysis is fairly straightforward and concrete. _
On a more serious note, if what you say is true, then I would expect the council majority to push more development projects in a highly public fashion so as to draw attention to themselves for doing what the public purportedly elected them to do.
But Souza’s action on the LAFCO board suggests that that’s not going to happen. A careful reading of my posts provides an explanation as to why that’s the case.
Along these lines, as Elaine Roberts Musser has pointed out, expect the emergence of high end senior housing proposals, resulting in the importation of more upper middle income people into the community, while the needs of people like you continue to go unaddressed.
With the application of a little inferential thinking, my posts also suggest why this might happen as well.
–Richard
P. S. I am a moderating tone on this site? Yikes!
“you are engaged, so you tend to talk with others, equally engaged”
Richard, I went out of my way to talk to people about the election that weren’t of my normal circle. That is why I spoke about people abstaining and folks that were firmly pro Sue etc. But that doesn’t matter because you have a pisser on which is too bad.
Usually you are the moderating tone on this site that I look to examine a topic for all sides but I just can’t figure you out on this one.
Well, one could start with reading what I actually posted, and responding to it. My analysis is fairly straightforward and concrete. _
On a more serious note, if what you say is true, then I would expect the council majority to push more development projects in a highly public fashion so as to draw attention to themselves for doing what the public purportedly elected them to do.
But Souza’s action on the LAFCO board suggests that that’s not going to happen. A careful reading of my posts provides an explanation as to why that’s the case.
Along these lines, as Elaine Roberts Musser has pointed out, expect the emergence of high end senior housing proposals, resulting in the importation of more upper middle income people into the community, while the needs of people like you continue to go unaddressed.
With the application of a little inferential thinking, my posts also suggest why this might happen as well.
–Richard
P. S. I am a moderating tone on this site? Yikes!
What I want to know is if Don Saylor was concise when he abstained? After he abstained on the resolution against the war in Iraq I told him that if you are going to abstain the least you could do is keep it short. I hope he took my advise.
The contempt for the voters here is really sickening. Sue Greenwald talks to about 10 people and extrapolates that to the entire community. I think you need a bigger sample than that to reach any conclusions about the electorate.
As for Richard’s lament about the money there is another view that the money flows to the best candidate instead of the money manufacturing the best candidate.
Even so most voters try to find the best person to vote for in an election. I had people who don’t pay attention ask me who to vote for and why. They were trying to figure it out in their own way and knew I paid attention and trusted my political instincts. Others look at endorsements or just vote for the first person on the list. Still when you have a big enough sample and a large enough margin it is fair to assume that enough of the electorate knew what they were voting on to validate the outcome.
At this point none of this matters, the winners get to govern. Let us hope that they do a better job going forward then they did in the past by not putting enough demands on the developers to develop what Davis needs instead of what makes the most money for the developers.
What I want to know is if Don Saylor was concise when he abstained? After he abstained on the resolution against the war in Iraq I told him that if you are going to abstain the least you could do is keep it short. I hope he took my advise.
The contempt for the voters here is really sickening. Sue Greenwald talks to about 10 people and extrapolates that to the entire community. I think you need a bigger sample than that to reach any conclusions about the electorate.
As for Richard’s lament about the money there is another view that the money flows to the best candidate instead of the money manufacturing the best candidate.
Even so most voters try to find the best person to vote for in an election. I had people who don’t pay attention ask me who to vote for and why. They were trying to figure it out in their own way and knew I paid attention and trusted my political instincts. Others look at endorsements or just vote for the first person on the list. Still when you have a big enough sample and a large enough margin it is fair to assume that enough of the electorate knew what they were voting on to validate the outcome.
At this point none of this matters, the winners get to govern. Let us hope that they do a better job going forward then they did in the past by not putting enough demands on the developers to develop what Davis needs instead of what makes the most money for the developers.
What I want to know is if Don Saylor was concise when he abstained? After he abstained on the resolution against the war in Iraq I told him that if you are going to abstain the least you could do is keep it short. I hope he took my advise.
The contempt for the voters here is really sickening. Sue Greenwald talks to about 10 people and extrapolates that to the entire community. I think you need a bigger sample than that to reach any conclusions about the electorate.
As for Richard’s lament about the money there is another view that the money flows to the best candidate instead of the money manufacturing the best candidate.
Even so most voters try to find the best person to vote for in an election. I had people who don’t pay attention ask me who to vote for and why. They were trying to figure it out in their own way and knew I paid attention and trusted my political instincts. Others look at endorsements or just vote for the first person on the list. Still when you have a big enough sample and a large enough margin it is fair to assume that enough of the electorate knew what they were voting on to validate the outcome.
At this point none of this matters, the winners get to govern. Let us hope that they do a better job going forward then they did in the past by not putting enough demands on the developers to develop what Davis needs instead of what makes the most money for the developers.
What I want to know is if Don Saylor was concise when he abstained? After he abstained on the resolution against the war in Iraq I told him that if you are going to abstain the least you could do is keep it short. I hope he took my advise.
The contempt for the voters here is really sickening. Sue Greenwald talks to about 10 people and extrapolates that to the entire community. I think you need a bigger sample than that to reach any conclusions about the electorate.
As for Richard’s lament about the money there is another view that the money flows to the best candidate instead of the money manufacturing the best candidate.
Even so most voters try to find the best person to vote for in an election. I had people who don’t pay attention ask me who to vote for and why. They were trying to figure it out in their own way and knew I paid attention and trusted my political instincts. Others look at endorsements or just vote for the first person on the list. Still when you have a big enough sample and a large enough margin it is fair to assume that enough of the electorate knew what they were voting on to validate the outcome.
At this point none of this matters, the winners get to govern. Let us hope that they do a better job going forward then they did in the past by not putting enough demands on the developers to develop what Davis needs instead of what makes the most money for the developers.
As for Richard’s lament about the money there is another view that the money flows to the best candidate instead of the money manufacturing the best candidate.
Corporations certainly feel that way. Look at the presidents and congressional representatives we’ve gotten in the last 30 years. Money flowed to the best candidate and money flowed right back to the corporate interests that supported them.
I guess that people who will believe that, and believe that it results in good government, will believe just about anything.
–Richard Estes
As for Richard’s lament about the money there is another view that the money flows to the best candidate instead of the money manufacturing the best candidate.
Corporations certainly feel that way. Look at the presidents and congressional representatives we’ve gotten in the last 30 years. Money flowed to the best candidate and money flowed right back to the corporate interests that supported them.
I guess that people who will believe that, and believe that it results in good government, will believe just about anything.
–Richard Estes
As for Richard’s lament about the money there is another view that the money flows to the best candidate instead of the money manufacturing the best candidate.
Corporations certainly feel that way. Look at the presidents and congressional representatives we’ve gotten in the last 30 years. Money flowed to the best candidate and money flowed right back to the corporate interests that supported them.
I guess that people who will believe that, and believe that it results in good government, will believe just about anything.
–Richard Estes
As for Richard’s lament about the money there is another view that the money flows to the best candidate instead of the money manufacturing the best candidate.
Corporations certainly feel that way. Look at the presidents and congressional representatives we’ve gotten in the last 30 years. Money flowed to the best candidate and money flowed right back to the corporate interests that supported them.
I guess that people who will believe that, and believe that it results in good government, will believe just about anything.
–Richard Estes
Ron Glick:
I thought it was generally understood by the educated, mildly liberal masses, that special interests contribute heavily to some candidates, and that this almost always affects, or at least reflects, the successful candidates future votes.
To deny this places you to the right of most Republicans.
Ron Glick:
I thought it was generally understood by the educated, mildly liberal masses, that special interests contribute heavily to some candidates, and that this almost always affects, or at least reflects, the successful candidates future votes.
To deny this places you to the right of most Republicans.
Ron Glick:
I thought it was generally understood by the educated, mildly liberal masses, that special interests contribute heavily to some candidates, and that this almost always affects, or at least reflects, the successful candidates future votes.
To deny this places you to the right of most Republicans.
Ron Glick:
I thought it was generally understood by the educated, mildly liberal masses, that special interests contribute heavily to some candidates, and that this almost always affects, or at least reflects, the successful candidates future votes.
To deny this places you to the right of most Republicans.
My point is that sometimes money goes where it should. Not always but sometimes it does. It may be the mothers milk of politics but t isn’t the end all be all of politics. Look at Obama as a person who is generating massive amounts of campaign cash and is an amazing candidate. Look at Cabaldon who wasted massive amounts of money. If the candidate isn’t any good there is a chance that the money can’t save them from defeat.
My point is that sometimes money goes where it should. Not always but sometimes it does. It may be the mothers milk of politics but t isn’t the end all be all of politics. Look at Obama as a person who is generating massive amounts of campaign cash and is an amazing candidate. Look at Cabaldon who wasted massive amounts of money. If the candidate isn’t any good there is a chance that the money can’t save them from defeat.
My point is that sometimes money goes where it should. Not always but sometimes it does. It may be the mothers milk of politics but t isn’t the end all be all of politics. Look at Obama as a person who is generating massive amounts of campaign cash and is an amazing candidate. Look at Cabaldon who wasted massive amounts of money. If the candidate isn’t any good there is a chance that the money can’t save them from defeat.
My point is that sometimes money goes where it should. Not always but sometimes it does. It may be the mothers milk of politics but t isn’t the end all be all of politics. Look at Obama as a person who is generating massive amounts of campaign cash and is an amazing candidate. Look at Cabaldon who wasted massive amounts of money. If the candidate isn’t any good there is a chance that the money can’t save them from defeat.
Anonymous:
“The people who think that more development will lower housing prices in Davis are deluding themselves. The developers will try to build when prices start going back up. They’re in it for as much profit as they can get. The only thing that is going to lower housing prices in Davis any further is a worsening of the recession we are currently in. If you want to buy a house in Davis now is the time. You will never see prices this low again.”
That’s partially true, but I think the real thing that would lower housing prices in Davis would be a decline in the quality of the public schools here. The schools and children safety are the two main community features that bring young families to Davis, and that create excess demand for Davis housing.
Anonymous:
“The people who think that more development will lower housing prices in Davis are deluding themselves. The developers will try to build when prices start going back up. They’re in it for as much profit as they can get. The only thing that is going to lower housing prices in Davis any further is a worsening of the recession we are currently in. If you want to buy a house in Davis now is the time. You will never see prices this low again.”
That’s partially true, but I think the real thing that would lower housing prices in Davis would be a decline in the quality of the public schools here. The schools and children safety are the two main community features that bring young families to Davis, and that create excess demand for Davis housing.
Anonymous:
“The people who think that more development will lower housing prices in Davis are deluding themselves. The developers will try to build when prices start going back up. They’re in it for as much profit as they can get. The only thing that is going to lower housing prices in Davis any further is a worsening of the recession we are currently in. If you want to buy a house in Davis now is the time. You will never see prices this low again.”
That’s partially true, but I think the real thing that would lower housing prices in Davis would be a decline in the quality of the public schools here. The schools and children safety are the two main community features that bring young families to Davis, and that create excess demand for Davis housing.
Anonymous:
“The people who think that more development will lower housing prices in Davis are deluding themselves. The developers will try to build when prices start going back up. They’re in it for as much profit as they can get. The only thing that is going to lower housing prices in Davis any further is a worsening of the recession we are currently in. If you want to buy a house in Davis now is the time. You will never see prices this low again.”
That’s partially true, but I think the real thing that would lower housing prices in Davis would be a decline in the quality of the public schools here. The schools and children safety are the two main community features that bring young families to Davis, and that create excess demand for Davis housing.
“Corporations certainly feel that way. Look at the presidents and congressional representatives we’ve gotten in the last 30 years. Money flowed to the best candidate and money flowed right back to the corporate interests that supported them.
I guess that people who will believe that, and believe that it results in good government, will believe just about anything.
–Richard Estes”
It certainly seems to be working for Barack Obama.
“Corporations certainly feel that way. Look at the presidents and congressional representatives we’ve gotten in the last 30 years. Money flowed to the best candidate and money flowed right back to the corporate interests that supported them.
I guess that people who will believe that, and believe that it results in good government, will believe just about anything.
–Richard Estes”
It certainly seems to be working for Barack Obama.
“Corporations certainly feel that way. Look at the presidents and congressional representatives we’ve gotten in the last 30 years. Money flowed to the best candidate and money flowed right back to the corporate interests that supported them.
I guess that people who will believe that, and believe that it results in good government, will believe just about anything.
–Richard Estes”
It certainly seems to be working for Barack Obama.
“Corporations certainly feel that way. Look at the presidents and congressional representatives we’ve gotten in the last 30 years. Money flowed to the best candidate and money flowed right back to the corporate interests that supported them.
I guess that people who will believe that, and believe that it results in good government, will believe just about anything.
–Richard Estes”
It certainly seems to be working for Barack Obama.
Sue,
You need to get over the two Greenwald’s issue. You talked about it through the entire campaign process and continue to talk about it even after the election. I had a conversation with you during the campaign and it’s all you wanted to talk about. I would have rather heard about your policy preferences and issues facing the city.
Cecilia had a right to run, just as you and the other candidates did. It didn’t hurt you like you feared. Get over it.
Sue,
You need to get over the two Greenwald’s issue. You talked about it through the entire campaign process and continue to talk about it even after the election. I had a conversation with you during the campaign and it’s all you wanted to talk about. I would have rather heard about your policy preferences and issues facing the city.
Cecilia had a right to run, just as you and the other candidates did. It didn’t hurt you like you feared. Get over it.
Sue,
You need to get over the two Greenwald’s issue. You talked about it through the entire campaign process and continue to talk about it even after the election. I had a conversation with you during the campaign and it’s all you wanted to talk about. I would have rather heard about your policy preferences and issues facing the city.
Cecilia had a right to run, just as you and the other candidates did. It didn’t hurt you like you feared. Get over it.
Sue,
You need to get over the two Greenwald’s issue. You talked about it through the entire campaign process and continue to talk about it even after the election. I had a conversation with you during the campaign and it’s all you wanted to talk about. I would have rather heard about your policy preferences and issues facing the city.
Cecilia had a right to run, just as you and the other candidates did. It didn’t hurt you like you feared. Get over it.
Sue started late and didn’t really want to run in this cycle. Don worked his ass off maybe that is why he came in first.
Sue started late and didn’t really want to run in this cycle. Don worked his ass off maybe that is why he came in first.
Sue started late and didn’t really want to run in this cycle. Don worked his ass off maybe that is why he came in first.
Sue started late and didn’t really want to run in this cycle. Don worked his ass off maybe that is why he came in first.
Another thing that might cause home prices to fall is if the stock market declines. Many of the young people who buy in Davis do so with help from their parents or other relatives. I don’t condemn them for it but it does add to the elitism produced by no growth policies.
Another thing that might cause home prices to fall is if the stock market declines. Many of the young people who buy in Davis do so with help from their parents or other relatives. I don’t condemn them for it but it does add to the elitism produced by no growth policies.
Another thing that might cause home prices to fall is if the stock market declines. Many of the young people who buy in Davis do so with help from their parents or other relatives. I don’t condemn them for it but it does add to the elitism produced by no growth policies.
Another thing that might cause home prices to fall is if the stock market declines. Many of the young people who buy in Davis do so with help from their parents or other relatives. I don’t condemn them for it but it does add to the elitism produced by no growth policies.
Don Shor said…
“Corporations certainly feel that way. Look at the presidents and congressional representatives we’ve gotten in the last 30 years. Money flowed to the best candidate and money flowed right back to the corporate interests that supported them.
I guess that people who will believe that, and believe that it results in good government, will believe just about anything.
–Richard Estes”
It certainly seems to be working for Barack Obama
6/25/08 4:51 PM
ah, Saint Barack, I hear a lot of that these days, you’d think that people will allow him to take office and actually make a few decisions before saying this sort of thing
oh, by the way, did you catch that vote today that effectively grants immunity for all those telecommunication companies that illegally wiretapped at Bush’s direction?
as a consequence, we will ever even know the extent to which they conducted illegal surveilleance of telephonic communications in this country
bi-partisan, it was, and rumor has it that a lot of those who voted against cloture today (before ultimately voting for its passage in the next few days) received substantial amounts of campaign contributions from the telecommunications industry
one of those examples, I guess, of how money flows to the best candidate, resulting in good governance for us all
–Richard Estes
Don Shor said…
“Corporations certainly feel that way. Look at the presidents and congressional representatives we’ve gotten in the last 30 years. Money flowed to the best candidate and money flowed right back to the corporate interests that supported them.
I guess that people who will believe that, and believe that it results in good government, will believe just about anything.
–Richard Estes”
It certainly seems to be working for Barack Obama
6/25/08 4:51 PM
ah, Saint Barack, I hear a lot of that these days, you’d think that people will allow him to take office and actually make a few decisions before saying this sort of thing
oh, by the way, did you catch that vote today that effectively grants immunity for all those telecommunication companies that illegally wiretapped at Bush’s direction?
as a consequence, we will ever even know the extent to which they conducted illegal surveilleance of telephonic communications in this country
bi-partisan, it was, and rumor has it that a lot of those who voted against cloture today (before ultimately voting for its passage in the next few days) received substantial amounts of campaign contributions from the telecommunications industry
one of those examples, I guess, of how money flows to the best candidate, resulting in good governance for us all
–Richard Estes
Don Shor said…
“Corporations certainly feel that way. Look at the presidents and congressional representatives we’ve gotten in the last 30 years. Money flowed to the best candidate and money flowed right back to the corporate interests that supported them.
I guess that people who will believe that, and believe that it results in good government, will believe just about anything.
–Richard Estes”
It certainly seems to be working for Barack Obama
6/25/08 4:51 PM
ah, Saint Barack, I hear a lot of that these days, you’d think that people will allow him to take office and actually make a few decisions before saying this sort of thing
oh, by the way, did you catch that vote today that effectively grants immunity for all those telecommunication companies that illegally wiretapped at Bush’s direction?
as a consequence, we will ever even know the extent to which they conducted illegal surveilleance of telephonic communications in this country
bi-partisan, it was, and rumor has it that a lot of those who voted against cloture today (before ultimately voting for its passage in the next few days) received substantial amounts of campaign contributions from the telecommunications industry
one of those examples, I guess, of how money flows to the best candidate, resulting in good governance for us all
–Richard Estes
Don Shor said…
“Corporations certainly feel that way. Look at the presidents and congressional representatives we’ve gotten in the last 30 years. Money flowed to the best candidate and money flowed right back to the corporate interests that supported them.
I guess that people who will believe that, and believe that it results in good government, will believe just about anything.
–Richard Estes”
It certainly seems to be working for Barack Obama
6/25/08 4:51 PM
ah, Saint Barack, I hear a lot of that these days, you’d think that people will allow him to take office and actually make a few decisions before saying this sort of thing
oh, by the way, did you catch that vote today that effectively grants immunity for all those telecommunication companies that illegally wiretapped at Bush’s direction?
as a consequence, we will ever even know the extent to which they conducted illegal surveilleance of telephonic communications in this country
bi-partisan, it was, and rumor has it that a lot of those who voted against cloture today (before ultimately voting for its passage in the next few days) received substantial amounts of campaign contributions from the telecommunications industry
one of those examples, I guess, of how money flows to the best candidate, resulting in good governance for us all
–Richard Estes
I am very sorry that Cecilia and Rob did not win.
Don and Steve won fairly big, and I think that was a function of incumbancy, a fairly tranquil electorate, and the fact that we all know that both Don and Steve worked long and hard in their campaigns.
Anyway, congratulations to Don, Steve and Sue, and have fun with all that testimony ranging from speed bumps, fence heights, dog parks, and border control!
I am very sorry that Cecilia and Rob did not win.
Don and Steve won fairly big, and I think that was a function of incumbancy, a fairly tranquil electorate, and the fact that we all know that both Don and Steve worked long and hard in their campaigns.
Anyway, congratulations to Don, Steve and Sue, and have fun with all that testimony ranging from speed bumps, fence heights, dog parks, and border control!
I am very sorry that Cecilia and Rob did not win.
Don and Steve won fairly big, and I think that was a function of incumbancy, a fairly tranquil electorate, and the fact that we all know that both Don and Steve worked long and hard in their campaigns.
Anyway, congratulations to Don, Steve and Sue, and have fun with all that testimony ranging from speed bumps, fence heights, dog parks, and border control!
I am very sorry that Cecilia and Rob did not win.
Don and Steve won fairly big, and I think that was a function of incumbancy, a fairly tranquil electorate, and the fact that we all know that both Don and Steve worked long and hard in their campaigns.
Anyway, congratulations to Don, Steve and Sue, and have fun with all that testimony ranging from speed bumps, fence heights, dog parks, and border control!
I didn’t call him a saint, Richard. My point was simply that he has raised millions of dollars in donations from individual donors. 3 million donors, 2.7 million giving less than $100.
“oh, by the way, did you catch that vote today that effectively grants immunity for all those telecommunication companies that illegally wiretapped at Bush’s direction?
as a consequence, we will ever even know the extent to which they conducted illegal surveilleance of telephonic communications in this country”
Granting immunity to the industry doesn’t preclude investigations. I expect a great deal of information about illegal actions by the Bush administration will come out in the next year or so, probably with some indictments.
I didn’t call him a saint, Richard. My point was simply that he has raised millions of dollars in donations from individual donors. 3 million donors, 2.7 million giving less than $100.
“oh, by the way, did you catch that vote today that effectively grants immunity for all those telecommunication companies that illegally wiretapped at Bush’s direction?
as a consequence, we will ever even know the extent to which they conducted illegal surveilleance of telephonic communications in this country”
Granting immunity to the industry doesn’t preclude investigations. I expect a great deal of information about illegal actions by the Bush administration will come out in the next year or so, probably with some indictments.
I didn’t call him a saint, Richard. My point was simply that he has raised millions of dollars in donations from individual donors. 3 million donors, 2.7 million giving less than $100.
“oh, by the way, did you catch that vote today that effectively grants immunity for all those telecommunication companies that illegally wiretapped at Bush’s direction?
as a consequence, we will ever even know the extent to which they conducted illegal surveilleance of telephonic communications in this country”
Granting immunity to the industry doesn’t preclude investigations. I expect a great deal of information about illegal actions by the Bush administration will come out in the next year or so, probably with some indictments.
I didn’t call him a saint, Richard. My point was simply that he has raised millions of dollars in donations from individual donors. 3 million donors, 2.7 million giving less than $100.
“oh, by the way, did you catch that vote today that effectively grants immunity for all those telecommunication companies that illegally wiretapped at Bush’s direction?
as a consequence, we will ever even know the extent to which they conducted illegal surveilleance of telephonic communications in this country”
Granting immunity to the industry doesn’t preclude investigations. I expect a great deal of information about illegal actions by the Bush administration will come out in the next year or so, probably with some indictments.
Take a look at what our Congress is doing this week…
Congressional Resolution Demands Bush Act on Iran
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2008-06-24 11:41.
* Iran
By Maya Schenwar and Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t
A non-binding resolution to demand that President Bush impose “stringent inspection requirements” on trade with Iran – language that leaves the door open for a military blockade – will likely come to the House floor this week, according to sources close to Congressional leadership. The legislation, H.Con.Res.362, which is paralleled by a similar Senate bill, has gained bipartisan support rapidly, with more co-sponsors signing on by the day. Once it hits the floor, it’s bound to “pass like a hot knife through butter,” a staffer in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office told Chelsea Mozen of the nonprofit Just Foreign Policy.
Trita Parsi, co-founder and president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), concurred, saying passage may happen as early as Tuesday.
“This bill will likely be put on the floor under suspension – meaning that it will pass without even a vote,” Parsi told Truthout.
Bills placed under rules of suspension are usually uncontroversial. However, this one is an ominous exception, according to Parsi.
“It sets the stage for a very dangerous escalation,” he said.
The most strongly worded section of the legislation is article three, which states: “Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress – (3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia [among other things], prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”
The resolution makes no mention of the National Intelligence Estimate report released in December 2007, which found that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003.
The language regarding inspection requirements and restrictions of movement have led critics of the bill to suggest that, if implemented, this type of international sanction would amount to an embargo and would have to be put into place at gunpoint. Such action would be illegal under international law, unless approved by the UN, according to Ethan Chorin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Middle East Program. UN approval is not mentioned in the bill.
Moreover, the resolution would unquestionably send a hostile message to Iran, according to Chorin.
“The Iranians would certainly view this as an act of war, whether or not they acted on it as such,” Chorin told Truthout. “All of this would confirm the Gulf Arabs’ perceptions that the US is playing an increasingly destabilizing role in the region.”
However, despite the new Iran resolution’s hard-line language, it counts some of Congress’s most liberally voting members among its co-sponsors, including Representative Robert Wexler, an outspoken advocate of impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney; Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, one of Congress’s most vocal critics of the Bush administration’s missteps; and Representative Jan Schakowsky, rated the most liberal Democrat in Congress by the nonpartisan vote-tracking project GovTrack.
Mozen cites heavy lobbying as one motivation for the resolution’s widespread support. The bill was promoted by the highly influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which, according to Parsi, has been the driving force behind its momentum.
“[H.Con.Res.362] was the top agenda point of the 7,000 AIPAC members who descended on Capitol Hill two weeks ago,” Parsi said.
A spokesperson for AIPAC denied allegations that the legislation would necessitate a naval blockade or military actions to accomplish its goals.
“People describing it as a blockade [are] totally inaccurate. This bill is about increasing sanctions on Iran and banning the sale of refined petroleum products to the country,” AIPAC spokesperson Josh Block told Truthout, adding, “it is being misportrayed by groups like NIAC.”
The self-titled America’s pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, has been pushing for increased pressure on Iran to prevent that country’s alleged goal of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Just days after the bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Gary Ackerman (D-New York), AIPAC put out a memo detailing its support for the intentions of the legislation. The memo does not specifically mention the proposed legislation, but contains almost identical language.
AIPAC memo:
The United States should sanction the Central Bank of Iran for its involvement in the funding of terrorism and the financing of Iran’s proliferation activities.
H. Con. Res. 362 (2)(A):
Congress urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on – the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;
AIPAC memo:
The United States should impose sanctions on companies that have invested more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector in violation of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), originally passed in 1996.
H. Con. Res. 362 (2)(C):
Congress urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on – energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
AIPAC memo:
The United States also should use existing authority to sanction foreign entities that continue to do business with the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps …
H. Con. Res. 362 (2)(D):
Congress urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on – all companies which continue to do business with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
“We don’t draft legislation. We support this Congressional effort. We were reflecting the sentiment of the legislation in our statements,” Block said when asked about the similarities.
Jordan Goldes, press secretary for Representative Ackerman, the bill’s author, did not return calls for comment on the similarities between the two documents by press time.
Besides AIPAC’s strong pull, Mozen pointed to the resolution’s references to diplomacy as a draw for some vocal antiwar Democrats.
“Some in Congress see such a resolution, in part because it is non-binding, as a way to forestall or prevent more serious action against Iran,” Mozen said. “However, with the atmosphere as it is on the Hill, with the election debate hinging in part on the debate about Iran, most folks in favor of diplomacy won’t be pro-active for it, I gather because they think this will open them up to criticism. Those in favor of stronger action on Iran are pushing for it now and they have AIPAC pushing too. As a result, the folks that want to wait it out are looking to non-binding resolutions to quiet the need for stronger action and buy them time until January. I suppose it seems like a tug-o-war with only one side tugging and the other thinking about when to tug in the future.”
Robert Naiman, Just Foreign Policy’s national coordinator, noted that the bill’s “non-binding” status is deceptive. The bill does not immediately do anything; it merely expresses a “sense of Congress.” In itself, it does not authorize war, he added.
“It still has consequences,” Naiman told Truthout. “The Kyl-Lieberman resolution was a non-binding resolution and it helped lead to the Quds Force being classified as a terrorist organization.”
While liberal-leaning Congress members may perceive the passage of a non-binding resolution as a stall tactic, keeping the administration sated while waiting for a new administration to take office, Mozen called the legislation a “slippery slope” toward further tensions.
“It certainly would not be good to set such a precedent from Congress that could taint the ability of the next administration to make progress in US-Iranian relations,” Mozen said.
Take a look at what our Congress is doing this week…
Congressional Resolution Demands Bush Act on Iran
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2008-06-24 11:41.
* Iran
By Maya Schenwar and Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t
A non-binding resolution to demand that President Bush impose “stringent inspection requirements” on trade with Iran – language that leaves the door open for a military blockade – will likely come to the House floor this week, according to sources close to Congressional leadership. The legislation, H.Con.Res.362, which is paralleled by a similar Senate bill, has gained bipartisan support rapidly, with more co-sponsors signing on by the day. Once it hits the floor, it’s bound to “pass like a hot knife through butter,” a staffer in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office told Chelsea Mozen of the nonprofit Just Foreign Policy.
Trita Parsi, co-founder and president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), concurred, saying passage may happen as early as Tuesday.
“This bill will likely be put on the floor under suspension – meaning that it will pass without even a vote,” Parsi told Truthout.
Bills placed under rules of suspension are usually uncontroversial. However, this one is an ominous exception, according to Parsi.
“It sets the stage for a very dangerous escalation,” he said.
The most strongly worded section of the legislation is article three, which states: “Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress – (3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia [among other things], prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”
The resolution makes no mention of the National Intelligence Estimate report released in December 2007, which found that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003.
The language regarding inspection requirements and restrictions of movement have led critics of the bill to suggest that, if implemented, this type of international sanction would amount to an embargo and would have to be put into place at gunpoint. Such action would be illegal under international law, unless approved by the UN, according to Ethan Chorin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Middle East Program. UN approval is not mentioned in the bill.
Moreover, the resolution would unquestionably send a hostile message to Iran, according to Chorin.
“The Iranians would certainly view this as an act of war, whether or not they acted on it as such,” Chorin told Truthout. “All of this would confirm the Gulf Arabs’ perceptions that the US is playing an increasingly destabilizing role in the region.”
However, despite the new Iran resolution’s hard-line language, it counts some of Congress’s most liberally voting members among its co-sponsors, including Representative Robert Wexler, an outspoken advocate of impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney; Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, one of Congress’s most vocal critics of the Bush administration’s missteps; and Representative Jan Schakowsky, rated the most liberal Democrat in Congress by the nonpartisan vote-tracking project GovTrack.
Mozen cites heavy lobbying as one motivation for the resolution’s widespread support. The bill was promoted by the highly influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which, according to Parsi, has been the driving force behind its momentum.
“[H.Con.Res.362] was the top agenda point of the 7,000 AIPAC members who descended on Capitol Hill two weeks ago,” Parsi said.
A spokesperson for AIPAC denied allegations that the legislation would necessitate a naval blockade or military actions to accomplish its goals.
“People describing it as a blockade [are] totally inaccurate. This bill is about increasing sanctions on Iran and banning the sale of refined petroleum products to the country,” AIPAC spokesperson Josh Block told Truthout, adding, “it is being misportrayed by groups like NIAC.”
The self-titled America’s pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, has been pushing for increased pressure on Iran to prevent that country’s alleged goal of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Just days after the bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Gary Ackerman (D-New York), AIPAC put out a memo detailing its support for the intentions of the legislation. The memo does not specifically mention the proposed legislation, but contains almost identical language.
AIPAC memo:
The United States should sanction the Central Bank of Iran for its involvement in the funding of terrorism and the financing of Iran’s proliferation activities.
H. Con. Res. 362 (2)(A):
Congress urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on – the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;
AIPAC memo:
The United States should impose sanctions on companies that have invested more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector in violation of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), originally passed in 1996.
H. Con. Res. 362 (2)(C):
Congress urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on – energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
AIPAC memo:
The United States also should use existing authority to sanction foreign entities that continue to do business with the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps …
H. Con. Res. 362 (2)(D):
Congress urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on – all companies which continue to do business with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
“We don’t draft legislation. We support this Congressional effort. We were reflecting the sentiment of the legislation in our statements,” Block said when asked about the similarities.
Jordan Goldes, press secretary for Representative Ackerman, the bill’s author, did not return calls for comment on the similarities between the two documents by press time.
Besides AIPAC’s strong pull, Mozen pointed to the resolution’s references to diplomacy as a draw for some vocal antiwar Democrats.
“Some in Congress see such a resolution, in part because it is non-binding, as a way to forestall or prevent more serious action against Iran,” Mozen said. “However, with the atmosphere as it is on the Hill, with the election debate hinging in part on the debate about Iran, most folks in favor of diplomacy won’t be pro-active for it, I gather because they think this will open them up to criticism. Those in favor of stronger action on Iran are pushing for it now and they have AIPAC pushing too. As a result, the folks that want to wait it out are looking to non-binding resolutions to quiet the need for stronger action and buy them time until January. I suppose it seems like a tug-o-war with only one side tugging and the other thinking about when to tug in the future.”
Robert Naiman, Just Foreign Policy’s national coordinator, noted that the bill’s “non-binding” status is deceptive. The bill does not immediately do anything; it merely expresses a “sense of Congress.” In itself, it does not authorize war, he added.
“It still has consequences,” Naiman told Truthout. “The Kyl-Lieberman resolution was a non-binding resolution and it helped lead to the Quds Force being classified as a terrorist organization.”
While liberal-leaning Congress members may perceive the passage of a non-binding resolution as a stall tactic, keeping the administration sated while waiting for a new administration to take office, Mozen called the legislation a “slippery slope” toward further tensions.
“It certainly would not be good to set such a precedent from Congress that could taint the ability of the next administration to make progress in US-Iranian relations,” Mozen said.
Take a look at what our Congress is doing this week…
Congressional Resolution Demands Bush Act on Iran
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2008-06-24 11:41.
* Iran
By Maya Schenwar and Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t
A non-binding resolution to demand that President Bush impose “stringent inspection requirements” on trade with Iran – language that leaves the door open for a military blockade – will likely come to the House floor this week, according to sources close to Congressional leadership. The legislation, H.Con.Res.362, which is paralleled by a similar Senate bill, has gained bipartisan support rapidly, with more co-sponsors signing on by the day. Once it hits the floor, it’s bound to “pass like a hot knife through butter,” a staffer in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office told Chelsea Mozen of the nonprofit Just Foreign Policy.
Trita Parsi, co-founder and president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), concurred, saying passage may happen as early as Tuesday.
“This bill will likely be put on the floor under suspension – meaning that it will pass without even a vote,” Parsi told Truthout.
Bills placed under rules of suspension are usually uncontroversial. However, this one is an ominous exception, according to Parsi.
“It sets the stage for a very dangerous escalation,” he said.
The most strongly worded section of the legislation is article three, which states: “Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress – (3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia [among other things], prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”
The resolution makes no mention of the National Intelligence Estimate report released in December 2007, which found that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003.
The language regarding inspection requirements and restrictions of movement have led critics of the bill to suggest that, if implemented, this type of international sanction would amount to an embargo and would have to be put into place at gunpoint. Such action would be illegal under international law, unless approved by the UN, according to Ethan Chorin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Middle East Program. UN approval is not mentioned in the bill.
Moreover, the resolution would unquestionably send a hostile message to Iran, according to Chorin.
“The Iranians would certainly view this as an act of war, whether or not they acted on it as such,” Chorin told Truthout. “All of this would confirm the Gulf Arabs’ perceptions that the US is playing an increasingly destabilizing role in the region.”
However, despite the new Iran resolution’s hard-line language, it counts some of Congress’s most liberally voting members among its co-sponsors, including Representative Robert Wexler, an outspoken advocate of impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney; Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, one of Congress’s most vocal critics of the Bush administration’s missteps; and Representative Jan Schakowsky, rated the most liberal Democrat in Congress by the nonpartisan vote-tracking project GovTrack.
Mozen cites heavy lobbying as one motivation for the resolution’s widespread support. The bill was promoted by the highly influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which, according to Parsi, has been the driving force behind its momentum.
“[H.Con.Res.362] was the top agenda point of the 7,000 AIPAC members who descended on Capitol Hill two weeks ago,” Parsi said.
A spokesperson for AIPAC denied allegations that the legislation would necessitate a naval blockade or military actions to accomplish its goals.
“People describing it as a blockade [are] totally inaccurate. This bill is about increasing sanctions on Iran and banning the sale of refined petroleum products to the country,” AIPAC spokesperson Josh Block told Truthout, adding, “it is being misportrayed by groups like NIAC.”
The self-titled America’s pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, has been pushing for increased pressure on Iran to prevent that country’s alleged goal of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Just days after the bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Gary Ackerman (D-New York), AIPAC put out a memo detailing its support for the intentions of the legislation. The memo does not specifically mention the proposed legislation, but contains almost identical language.
AIPAC memo:
The United States should sanction the Central Bank of Iran for its involvement in the funding of terrorism and the financing of Iran’s proliferation activities.
H. Con. Res. 362 (2)(A):
Congress urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on – the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;
AIPAC memo:
The United States should impose sanctions on companies that have invested more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector in violation of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), originally passed in 1996.
H. Con. Res. 362 (2)(C):
Congress urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on – energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
AIPAC memo:
The United States also should use existing authority to sanction foreign entities that continue to do business with the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps …
H. Con. Res. 362 (2)(D):
Congress urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on – all companies which continue to do business with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
“We don’t draft legislation. We support this Congressional effort. We were reflecting the sentiment of the legislation in our statements,” Block said when asked about the similarities.
Jordan Goldes, press secretary for Representative Ackerman, the bill’s author, did not return calls for comment on the similarities between the two documents by press time.
Besides AIPAC’s strong pull, Mozen pointed to the resolution’s references to diplomacy as a draw for some vocal antiwar Democrats.
“Some in Congress see such a resolution, in part because it is non-binding, as a way to forestall or prevent more serious action against Iran,” Mozen said. “However, with the atmosphere as it is on the Hill, with the election debate hinging in part on the debate about Iran, most folks in favor of diplomacy won’t be pro-active for it, I gather because they think this will open them up to criticism. Those in favor of stronger action on Iran are pushing for it now and they have AIPAC pushing too. As a result, the folks that want to wait it out are looking to non-binding resolutions to quiet the need for stronger action and buy them time until January. I suppose it seems like a tug-o-war with only one side tugging and the other thinking about when to tug in the future.”
Robert Naiman, Just Foreign Policy’s national coordinator, noted that the bill’s “non-binding” status is deceptive. The bill does not immediately do anything; it merely expresses a “sense of Congress.” In itself, it does not authorize war, he added.
“It still has consequences,” Naiman told Truthout. “The Kyl-Lieberman resolution was a non-binding resolution and it helped lead to the Quds Force being classified as a terrorist organization.”
While liberal-leaning Congress members may perceive the passage of a non-binding resolution as a stall tactic, keeping the administration sated while waiting for a new administration to take office, Mozen called the legislation a “slippery slope” toward further tensions.
“It certainly would not be good to set such a precedent from Congress that could taint the ability of the next administration to make progress in US-Iranian relations,” Mozen said.
Take a look at what our Congress is doing this week…
Congressional Resolution Demands Bush Act on Iran
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2008-06-24 11:41.
* Iran
By Maya Schenwar and Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t
A non-binding resolution to demand that President Bush impose “stringent inspection requirements” on trade with Iran – language that leaves the door open for a military blockade – will likely come to the House floor this week, according to sources close to Congressional leadership. The legislation, H.Con.Res.362, which is paralleled by a similar Senate bill, has gained bipartisan support rapidly, with more co-sponsors signing on by the day. Once it hits the floor, it’s bound to “pass like a hot knife through butter,” a staffer in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office told Chelsea Mozen of the nonprofit Just Foreign Policy.
Trita Parsi, co-founder and president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), concurred, saying passage may happen as early as Tuesday.
“This bill will likely be put on the floor under suspension – meaning that it will pass without even a vote,” Parsi told Truthout.
Bills placed under rules of suspension are usually uncontroversial. However, this one is an ominous exception, according to Parsi.
“It sets the stage for a very dangerous escalation,” he said.
The most strongly worded section of the legislation is article three, which states: “Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress – (3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia [among other things], prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”
The resolution makes no mention of the National Intelligence Estimate report released in December 2007, which found that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003.
The language regarding inspection requirements and restrictions of movement have led critics of the bill to suggest that, if implemented, this type of international sanction would amount to an embargo and would have to be put into place at gunpoint. Such action would be illegal under international law, unless approved by the UN, according to Ethan Chorin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Middle East Program. UN approval is not mentioned in the bill.
Moreover, the resolution would unquestionably send a hostile message to Iran, according to Chorin.
“The Iranians would certainly view this as an act of war, whether or not they acted on it as such,” Chorin told Truthout. “All of this would confirm the Gulf Arabs’ perceptions that the US is playing an increasingly destabilizing role in the region.”
However, despite the new Iran resolution’s hard-line language, it counts some of Congress’s most liberally voting members among its co-sponsors, including Representative Robert Wexler, an outspoken advocate of impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney; Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, one of Congress’s most vocal critics of the Bush administration’s missteps; and Representative Jan Schakowsky, rated the most liberal Democrat in Congress by the nonpartisan vote-tracking project GovTrack.
Mozen cites heavy lobbying as one motivation for the resolution’s widespread support. The bill was promoted by the highly influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which, according to Parsi, has been the driving force behind its momentum.
“[H.Con.Res.362] was the top agenda point of the 7,000 AIPAC members who descended on Capitol Hill two weeks ago,” Parsi said.
A spokesperson for AIPAC denied allegations that the legislation would necessitate a naval blockade or military actions to accomplish its goals.
“People describing it as a blockade [are] totally inaccurate. This bill is about increasing sanctions on Iran and banning the sale of refined petroleum products to the country,” AIPAC spokesperson Josh Block told Truthout, adding, “it is being misportrayed by groups like NIAC.”
The self-titled America’s pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, has been pushing for increased pressure on Iran to prevent that country’s alleged goal of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Just days after the bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Gary Ackerman (D-New York), AIPAC put out a memo detailing its support for the intentions of the legislation. The memo does not specifically mention the proposed legislation, but contains almost identical language.
AIPAC memo:
The United States should sanction the Central Bank of Iran for its involvement in the funding of terrorism and the financing of Iran’s proliferation activities.
H. Con. Res. 362 (2)(A):
Congress urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on – the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;
AIPAC memo:
The United States should impose sanctions on companies that have invested more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector in violation of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), originally passed in 1996.
H. Con. Res. 362 (2)(C):
Congress urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on – energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
AIPAC memo:
The United States also should use existing authority to sanction foreign entities that continue to do business with the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps …
H. Con. Res. 362 (2)(D):
Congress urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on – all companies which continue to do business with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
“We don’t draft legislation. We support this Congressional effort. We were reflecting the sentiment of the legislation in our statements,” Block said when asked about the similarities.
Jordan Goldes, press secretary for Representative Ackerman, the bill’s author, did not return calls for comment on the similarities between the two documents by press time.
Besides AIPAC’s strong pull, Mozen pointed to the resolution’s references to diplomacy as a draw for some vocal antiwar Democrats.
“Some in Congress see such a resolution, in part because it is non-binding, as a way to forestall or prevent more serious action against Iran,” Mozen said. “However, with the atmosphere as it is on the Hill, with the election debate hinging in part on the debate about Iran, most folks in favor of diplomacy won’t be pro-active for it, I gather because they think this will open them up to criticism. Those in favor of stronger action on Iran are pushing for it now and they have AIPAC pushing too. As a result, the folks that want to wait it out are looking to non-binding resolutions to quiet the need for stronger action and buy them time until January. I suppose it seems like a tug-o-war with only one side tugging and the other thinking about when to tug in the future.”
Robert Naiman, Just Foreign Policy’s national coordinator, noted that the bill’s “non-binding” status is deceptive. The bill does not immediately do anything; it merely expresses a “sense of Congress.” In itself, it does not authorize war, he added.
“It still has consequences,” Naiman told Truthout. “The Kyl-Lieberman resolution was a non-binding resolution and it helped lead to the Quds Force being classified as a terrorist organization.”
While liberal-leaning Congress members may perceive the passage of a non-binding resolution as a stall tactic, keeping the administration sated while waiting for a new administration to take office, Mozen called the legislation a “slippery slope” toward further tensions.
“It certainly would not be good to set such a precedent from Congress that could taint the ability of the next administration to make progress in US-Iranian relations,” Mozen said.
Sue,
I was going to support and vote for you and Cecilia, but grew tired of your bad mouthing and drama over the Greenwald name. I heard you rant at market and was so turned off. I endorsed Cecilia and contributed money.
For heavens sake she has a hyphenated name and you are the mayor. If people don’t know you by now and can’t tell the difference or don’t know that you are not related then they should not be voting.
I was fed up with you bad mouthing another good progressive candidate so I only voted for Cecilia and Rob.
It is very arrogant of you to think that nobody is as good a candidate as you. As others have said Sue you need to get over it.
Please don’t run again. You divide groups instead of bringing them together. You have done some good work in the past and it is now time to retire in four years and work on your projects.
Sue,
I was going to support and vote for you and Cecilia, but grew tired of your bad mouthing and drama over the Greenwald name. I heard you rant at market and was so turned off. I endorsed Cecilia and contributed money.
For heavens sake she has a hyphenated name and you are the mayor. If people don’t know you by now and can’t tell the difference or don’t know that you are not related then they should not be voting.
I was fed up with you bad mouthing another good progressive candidate so I only voted for Cecilia and Rob.
It is very arrogant of you to think that nobody is as good a candidate as you. As others have said Sue you need to get over it.
Please don’t run again. You divide groups instead of bringing them together. You have done some good work in the past and it is now time to retire in four years and work on your projects.
Sue,
I was going to support and vote for you and Cecilia, but grew tired of your bad mouthing and drama over the Greenwald name. I heard you rant at market and was so turned off. I endorsed Cecilia and contributed money.
For heavens sake she has a hyphenated name and you are the mayor. If people don’t know you by now and can’t tell the difference or don’t know that you are not related then they should not be voting.
I was fed up with you bad mouthing another good progressive candidate so I only voted for Cecilia and Rob.
It is very arrogant of you to think that nobody is as good a candidate as you. As others have said Sue you need to get over it.
Please don’t run again. You divide groups instead of bringing them together. You have done some good work in the past and it is now time to retire in four years and work on your projects.
Sue,
I was going to support and vote for you and Cecilia, but grew tired of your bad mouthing and drama over the Greenwald name. I heard you rant at market and was so turned off. I endorsed Cecilia and contributed money.
For heavens sake she has a hyphenated name and you are the mayor. If people don’t know you by now and can’t tell the difference or don’t know that you are not related then they should not be voting.
I was fed up with you bad mouthing another good progressive candidate so I only voted for Cecilia and Rob.
It is very arrogant of you to think that nobody is as good a candidate as you. As others have said Sue you need to get over it.
Please don’t run again. You divide groups instead of bringing them together. You have done some good work in the past and it is now time to retire in four years and work on your projects.
I will reiterate what I have always said: Ask any political consultant, and they will tell you that it is extremely damaging to an incumbent to run someone of the same sex and same rare last name. This is common knowledge in the profession.
At this point, I just ask that you not support anyone named Leonard Heystek in two years. That would be a terrible mistake.
I will reiterate what I have always said: Ask any political consultant, and they will tell you that it is extremely damaging to an incumbent to run someone of the same sex and same rare last name. This is common knowledge in the profession.
At this point, I just ask that you not support anyone named Leonard Heystek in two years. That would be a terrible mistake.
I will reiterate what I have always said: Ask any political consultant, and they will tell you that it is extremely damaging to an incumbent to run someone of the same sex and same rare last name. This is common knowledge in the profession.
At this point, I just ask that you not support anyone named Leonard Heystek in two years. That would be a terrible mistake.
I will reiterate what I have always said: Ask any political consultant, and they will tell you that it is extremely damaging to an incumbent to run someone of the same sex and same rare last name. This is common knowledge in the profession.
At this point, I just ask that you not support anyone named Leonard Heystek in two years. That would be a terrible mistake.
I always thought that the two Greenwalds could have had fun with the last name putting an emphasis on the “greening” of our city and preservation of open space and agricultural land. But in order to do that it would require cooperation and our mayor is not known to be a team player. It’s really too bad, because we’re stuck with a council majority that supports development.
I always thought that the two Greenwalds could have had fun with the last name putting an emphasis on the “greening” of our city and preservation of open space and agricultural land. But in order to do that it would require cooperation and our mayor is not known to be a team player. It’s really too bad, because we’re stuck with a council majority that supports development.
I always thought that the two Greenwalds could have had fun with the last name putting an emphasis on the “greening” of our city and preservation of open space and agricultural land. But in order to do that it would require cooperation and our mayor is not known to be a team player. It’s really too bad, because we’re stuck with a council majority that supports development.
I always thought that the two Greenwalds could have had fun with the last name putting an emphasis on the “greening” of our city and preservation of open space and agricultural land. But in order to do that it would require cooperation and our mayor is not known to be a team player. It’s really too bad, because we’re stuck with a council majority that supports development.
Sue, Cecelia had the right to run. If you feel it interfered with your campaign, that is irrelevant. The fact that you came in third probably had more to do with the fact that you chose not to campaign at the last minute, for whatever reason. It is not appropriate to blame a candidate for running against you. Frankly, it is UNAMERICAN.
The best thing you can do is study the issues, and pick apart the hypocrisy of the majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza. Saylor and Souza have aspirations for higher office – use that knowledge to your benefit. The longer you fixate on the nonissue of Cecilia, the less effective you become.
If being on the Council is not your wish, then step down. Or take a deep breath, wade into the fray, and show us why we voted for you.
Sue, Cecelia had the right to run. If you feel it interfered with your campaign, that is irrelevant. The fact that you came in third probably had more to do with the fact that you chose not to campaign at the last minute, for whatever reason. It is not appropriate to blame a candidate for running against you. Frankly, it is UNAMERICAN.
The best thing you can do is study the issues, and pick apart the hypocrisy of the majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza. Saylor and Souza have aspirations for higher office – use that knowledge to your benefit. The longer you fixate on the nonissue of Cecilia, the less effective you become.
If being on the Council is not your wish, then step down. Or take a deep breath, wade into the fray, and show us why we voted for you.
Sue, Cecelia had the right to run. If you feel it interfered with your campaign, that is irrelevant. The fact that you came in third probably had more to do with the fact that you chose not to campaign at the last minute, for whatever reason. It is not appropriate to blame a candidate for running against you. Frankly, it is UNAMERICAN.
The best thing you can do is study the issues, and pick apart the hypocrisy of the majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza. Saylor and Souza have aspirations for higher office – use that knowledge to your benefit. The longer you fixate on the nonissue of Cecilia, the less effective you become.
If being on the Council is not your wish, then step down. Or take a deep breath, wade into the fray, and show us why we voted for you.
Sue, Cecelia had the right to run. If you feel it interfered with your campaign, that is irrelevant. The fact that you came in third probably had more to do with the fact that you chose not to campaign at the last minute, for whatever reason. It is not appropriate to blame a candidate for running against you. Frankly, it is UNAMERICAN.
The best thing you can do is study the issues, and pick apart the hypocrisy of the majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza. Saylor and Souza have aspirations for higher office – use that knowledge to your benefit. The longer you fixate on the nonissue of Cecilia, the less effective you become.
If being on the Council is not your wish, then step down. Or take a deep breath, wade into the fray, and show us why we voted for you.
I was at the LAFCO meeting and Mr. Souza’s comments where exactly the actions that the Council took before the public hearing and after. He also stated the reason for those actions. He also said the vote for the most resent action was 2-1-2. He concluded with that he abstained and gave the reason why. The minutes and any audio tape will bear this out.
I was at the LAFCO meeting and Mr. Souza’s comments where exactly the actions that the Council took before the public hearing and after. He also stated the reason for those actions. He also said the vote for the most resent action was 2-1-2. He concluded with that he abstained and gave the reason why. The minutes and any audio tape will bear this out.
I was at the LAFCO meeting and Mr. Souza’s comments where exactly the actions that the Council took before the public hearing and after. He also stated the reason for those actions. He also said the vote for the most resent action was 2-1-2. He concluded with that he abstained and gave the reason why. The minutes and any audio tape will bear this out.
I was at the LAFCO meeting and Mr. Souza’s comments where exactly the actions that the Council took before the public hearing and after. He also stated the reason for those actions. He also said the vote for the most resent action was 2-1-2. He concluded with that he abstained and gave the reason why. The minutes and any audio tape will bear this out.
” Anonymous said…
I was at the LAFCO meeting and Mr. Souza’s comments where exactly the actions that the Council took before the public hearing and after. He also stated the reason for those actions. He also said the vote for the most resent action was 2-1-2. He concluded with that he abstained and gave the reason why. The minutes and any audio tape will bear this out.
6/27/08 4:43 PM”
There was an abstention for a reason. Souza knew if he made his vote more plain, he would draw the ire of one group or the other. So abstention was the convenient way to go – to make it look as if the City Council was ambivalent, when we know better. A, S & S are pro-development, and everyone in this town knows it. The political maneuvering of Souza is a commonplace occurrence – unfortunately it got him re-elected. But let him try running for higher office. He wouldn’t get the vote of a gorged tick on a dog.
” Anonymous said…
I was at the LAFCO meeting and Mr. Souza’s comments where exactly the actions that the Council took before the public hearing and after. He also stated the reason for those actions. He also said the vote for the most resent action was 2-1-2. He concluded with that he abstained and gave the reason why. The minutes and any audio tape will bear this out.
6/27/08 4:43 PM”
There was an abstention for a reason. Souza knew if he made his vote more plain, he would draw the ire of one group or the other. So abstention was the convenient way to go – to make it look as if the City Council was ambivalent, when we know better. A, S & S are pro-development, and everyone in this town knows it. The political maneuvering of Souza is a commonplace occurrence – unfortunately it got him re-elected. But let him try running for higher office. He wouldn’t get the vote of a gorged tick on a dog.
” Anonymous said…
I was at the LAFCO meeting and Mr. Souza’s comments where exactly the actions that the Council took before the public hearing and after. He also stated the reason for those actions. He also said the vote for the most resent action was 2-1-2. He concluded with that he abstained and gave the reason why. The minutes and any audio tape will bear this out.
6/27/08 4:43 PM”
There was an abstention for a reason. Souza knew if he made his vote more plain, he would draw the ire of one group or the other. So abstention was the convenient way to go – to make it look as if the City Council was ambivalent, when we know better. A, S & S are pro-development, and everyone in this town knows it. The political maneuvering of Souza is a commonplace occurrence – unfortunately it got him re-elected. But let him try running for higher office. He wouldn’t get the vote of a gorged tick on a dog.
” Anonymous said…
I was at the LAFCO meeting and Mr. Souza’s comments where exactly the actions that the Council took before the public hearing and after. He also stated the reason for those actions. He also said the vote for the most resent action was 2-1-2. He concluded with that he abstained and gave the reason why. The minutes and any audio tape will bear this out.
6/27/08 4:43 PM”
There was an abstention for a reason. Souza knew if he made his vote more plain, he would draw the ire of one group or the other. So abstention was the convenient way to go – to make it look as if the City Council was ambivalent, when we know better. A, S & S are pro-development, and everyone in this town knows it. The political maneuvering of Souza is a commonplace occurrence – unfortunately it got him re-elected. But let him try running for higher office. He wouldn’t get the vote of a gorged tick on a dog.