This morning’s Davis Enterprise has come out against Measure N. And for a very simple reason:
“Davis doesn’t have enough information to decide in favor of Measure N.”
Furthermore, they suggest:
“Could there be any worse time for Measure N than the Nov. 4 ballot?
Our attention is being pulled in myriad – and important – different ways, by a riveting presidential campaign, a plethora of statewide ballot measures, a handful of key local races and a critical school parcel tax.”
This has been one of my concerns about both Measure N and Measure W. The voters have been swamped on the ballot. The main focus of most voters has been the Presidential Election. However, at least with Measure W, the public has seen a slew of articles and op-eds over the last few months. Moreover, last spring, everyone was aware of the condition of our schools.
While I agree with both points, and I certainly agree that the public has had its attention pulled in a number of different and important directions. And yet, if the Davis Enterprise wants to argue that the public does not have enough information about Measure N, are they not themselves partly to blame here?
How many articles has the Davis Enterprise run on Measure N? One on the measure itself on October 14–that was this week if you are keeping score at home.
Prior to that there was a single letter on October 8 to the Editor on Measure entitled: “We need more info; vote no on N.” Peggy Epstein writes:
“The Davis voting public ought to be better informed about the wide implications of becoming a charter city before we vote to become one. In the meantime, I recommend a no vote on Measure N.”
Prior to the October 14, 2008 article in the Enterprise, the last article on the charter was July 16, when the councilmembers voted to put it on the ballot. There was also an article on June 25, 2008.
So in the last almost six months, the Davis Enterprise has had exactly three articles on the issue. So maybe if the public is uninformed about the charter, they ought to put at least some of the blame on their themselves for failing to inform the public.
Why did the Enterprise spend so little time on this issue? Back in July, I was concerned with some of the possible consequences of the charter city proposal and implored a reporter for the Enterprise to cover it a bit more. The thought back then was that there was a lack of interest in the issue itself.
However, our story on the ballot language in mid-August drew 45 comments and some heated debates. Even more so in late August with Councilmember Lamar Heystek’s op-ed. Still the Enterprise did not cover the issue despite clear interest at least by those who read this blog.
All of this said, one cannot put all of the criticism for the lack of information on the Davis Enterprise, though clearly there was not nearly enough coverage on an issue that has the potential to fundamentally change this city.
I also put the onus on the sponsors.
I mentioned this issue earlier this week, and I repeat it now. The decision to divorce the charter city proposal from the choice voting proposal was an error in my view. Why? In 2006, there was Measure L, an advisory vote about choice voting on the ballot. It drew a groundswell of support and had a large grassroots organization behind it.
Now as one of the sponsors of Measure N recently told me, many of those people were UC Davis students who have since moved on. And I appreciate that. Nevertheless the energy came from that issue and when the charter city issue was separated it seemed to sap the young energy for this change. Subsequently, I do not see the movement afoot.
This decision was made in part to gain the support of Mayor Ruth Asmundson who was willing to support a charter on the ballot but not choice voting. That gained council a 4-1 vote, but one has to wonder at least whether the measure would be stronger and have more energy with choice voting attached to it.
Second problem, this measure seems like a rushed job to get it on the ballot. Now let me explain because as the sponsors will rightly counter this measure is two years in the making. However, I would have liked to have seen a bunch of higher profile outreach meetings back in the spring with the likely ballot initiative that could have been explained fully to the public. There did not seem to be enough community discussion on this measure.
Furthermore, where is the Measure N campaign itself. I have received to this point in time no literature on Measure N. No phone calls. No door-to-door people. I even have the luxury of having both a permanent absentee voter and a vote on election day voter in my household so we get the early literature and the late literature. Nothing.
The bottom line here is that the public is not informed on this issue, the Davis Enterprise is correct about that and they are correct that that is a reason why this measure should not pass. Not the only reason as we have discussed earlier this week. However, if that is the indictment, I would like to see the Davis Enterprise take responsibility for failing to do their part to educate the public on this issue. One article since July 16 (over three months ago) is not acceptable.
And yes they have a lot to cover, but they never seem to have a problem printing their fluff pieces, err human interest stories.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
For those that might be interested, there is an upcoming forum concerning the Measure N City Charter Proposal(see below for details):
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters (LWV)
State Ballot and Local Measures Forum
Yolo County Democratic and Republican Party
Officials are slated to debate the differing positions on 10 state ballot measures (with the exception of the local
ballot measures N and W) these ballot measure campaigns
will have their own representatives debating at the forum.
7:00 p.m.
Open to the Public. Admission is Free.
If more information is desired, please log on to the following website:
http://www.lwvdavis.org/calendar.html.
For those that might be interested, there is an upcoming forum concerning the Measure N City Charter Proposal(see below for details):
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters (LWV)
State Ballot and Local Measures Forum
Yolo County Democratic and Republican Party
Officials are slated to debate the differing positions on 10 state ballot measures (with the exception of the local
ballot measures N and W) these ballot measure campaigns
will have their own representatives debating at the forum.
7:00 p.m.
Open to the Public. Admission is Free.
If more information is desired, please log on to the following website:
http://www.lwvdavis.org/calendar.html.
For those that might be interested, there is an upcoming forum concerning the Measure N City Charter Proposal(see below for details):
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters (LWV)
State Ballot and Local Measures Forum
Yolo County Democratic and Republican Party
Officials are slated to debate the differing positions on 10 state ballot measures (with the exception of the local
ballot measures N and W) these ballot measure campaigns
will have their own representatives debating at the forum.
7:00 p.m.
Open to the Public. Admission is Free.
If more information is desired, please log on to the following website:
http://www.lwvdavis.org/calendar.html.
For those that might be interested, there is an upcoming forum concerning the Measure N City Charter Proposal(see below for details):
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters (LWV)
State Ballot and Local Measures Forum
Yolo County Democratic and Republican Party
Officials are slated to debate the differing positions on 10 state ballot measures (with the exception of the local
ballot measures N and W) these ballot measure campaigns
will have their own representatives debating at the forum.
7:00 p.m.
Open to the Public. Admission is Free.
If more information is desired, please log on to the following website:
http://www.lwvdavis.org/calendar.html.
Well, DPD, I would not coount Meausre N out. They did a good job with their ballot statement, and the city has sent out informative pieces. There is no organized opposition. Don Saylor has done little to support his single NO vote. This meausure might have enough inertia plus late votes from the ballot statement to inch over the finish line.
Also, I find the “home rule” phrase offensive. It reminds me of Bush’s “homeland security” phrase, a false war based on lies, secret spying, Wall Street greed. “Local control” seems like a better term.
Well, DPD, I would not coount Meausre N out. They did a good job with their ballot statement, and the city has sent out informative pieces. There is no organized opposition. Don Saylor has done little to support his single NO vote. This meausure might have enough inertia plus late votes from the ballot statement to inch over the finish line.
Also, I find the “home rule” phrase offensive. It reminds me of Bush’s “homeland security” phrase, a false war based on lies, secret spying, Wall Street greed. “Local control” seems like a better term.
Well, DPD, I would not coount Meausre N out. They did a good job with their ballot statement, and the city has sent out informative pieces. There is no organized opposition. Don Saylor has done little to support his single NO vote. This meausure might have enough inertia plus late votes from the ballot statement to inch over the finish line.
Also, I find the “home rule” phrase offensive. It reminds me of Bush’s “homeland security” phrase, a false war based on lies, secret spying, Wall Street greed. “Local control” seems like a better term.
Well, DPD, I would not coount Meausre N out. They did a good job with their ballot statement, and the city has sent out informative pieces. There is no organized opposition. Don Saylor has done little to support his single NO vote. This meausure might have enough inertia plus late votes from the ballot statement to inch over the finish line.
Also, I find the “home rule” phrase offensive. It reminds me of Bush’s “homeland security” phrase, a false war based on lies, secret spying, Wall Street greed. “Local control” seems like a better term.
This is slightly off topic, but the recent Sacramento News and Review had an article on the concept of farm to school programs, such as represented by the “crunch lunch” program in the Davis schools.
Personally, I like the concept, and the article offered some greater context. Nevertheless, I know that there is a contingent on this blog who are rather upset with this program.
This is slightly off topic, but the recent Sacramento News and Review had an article on the concept of farm to school programs, such as represented by the “crunch lunch” program in the Davis schools.
Personally, I like the concept, and the article offered some greater context. Nevertheless, I know that there is a contingent on this blog who are rather upset with this program.
This is slightly off topic, but the recent Sacramento News and Review had an article on the concept of farm to school programs, such as represented by the “crunch lunch” program in the Davis schools.
Personally, I like the concept, and the article offered some greater context. Nevertheless, I know that there is a contingent on this blog who are rather upset with this program.
This is slightly off topic, but the recent Sacramento News and Review had an article on the concept of farm to school programs, such as represented by the “crunch lunch” program in the Davis schools.
Personally, I like the concept, and the article offered some greater context. Nevertheless, I know that there is a contingent on this blog who are rather upset with this program.
David: Read your piece on Measure N (the "Charter"-), and agree that the Enterprise did not devote enough "column inches" to what should have been a major debate throughout the community.
Not sure their laxity to cover the issue more fully was a failure by the Enterprise or a simple journalistic decision: don't waste time & space on something no one seems to care about.
And that opens a whole new (and very important) debate about the role the media should play. Should they merely report the news? Should they create news?
Until you began writing about Measure N (the proposed Charter), very few Davis citizens knew anything about Measure N or the proposed charter, so in a sense you created the news(or story).
On the other hand, your coverage was fueled at least in part by your readers. So I wouldn't criticize the Enterprise, but rather praise you & the Vanguard for giving all of us an open forum to raise, dicuss & debate issues.
The Enterprise plays an important role in our community, and we should appreciate that. The Vanguard plays a very different and, arguably, more important role by encouraging open debate.
Message: The Enterprise could have done better in covering the Measure N, Charter City proposal, undoubtedly. The good news is that you (i.e., Vanguard)have covered it well -good job.
As an aside to Mike Harrington: Agree with your No on N position; your arguments against N are right on target. BUT,are you doing anything SUBSTANTIVE to defeat Measure N?
What about a public challenge to Lamar Heystek? Lamar ran his campaign out of your office, and was a champion(when campaigning)for citizens' rights and slow-growth.
Now, Heystek has signed on the Measure N ballot argument with three strong supporters of Covell Center and opponents of Measure J. That makes Lamar an enemy to me.
So, why do you and other, so-called "progressives" continue to give Heystek a free ride? And where are your letters to the Enterprise or public outrage over Measure N?
David: Read your piece on Measure N (the "Charter"-), and agree that the Enterprise did not devote enough "column inches" to what should have been a major debate throughout the community.
Not sure their laxity to cover the issue more fully was a failure by the Enterprise or a simple journalistic decision: don't waste time & space on something no one seems to care about.
And that opens a whole new (and very important) debate about the role the media should play. Should they merely report the news? Should they create news?
Until you began writing about Measure N (the proposed Charter), very few Davis citizens knew anything about Measure N or the proposed charter, so in a sense you created the news(or story).
On the other hand, your coverage was fueled at least in part by your readers. So I wouldn't criticize the Enterprise, but rather praise you & the Vanguard for giving all of us an open forum to raise, dicuss & debate issues.
The Enterprise plays an important role in our community, and we should appreciate that. The Vanguard plays a very different and, arguably, more important role by encouraging open debate.
Message: The Enterprise could have done better in covering the Measure N, Charter City proposal, undoubtedly. The good news is that you (i.e., Vanguard)have covered it well -good job.
As an aside to Mike Harrington: Agree with your No on N position; your arguments against N are right on target. BUT,are you doing anything SUBSTANTIVE to defeat Measure N?
What about a public challenge to Lamar Heystek? Lamar ran his campaign out of your office, and was a champion(when campaigning)for citizens' rights and slow-growth.
Now, Heystek has signed on the Measure N ballot argument with three strong supporters of Covell Center and opponents of Measure J. That makes Lamar an enemy to me.
So, why do you and other, so-called "progressives" continue to give Heystek a free ride? And where are your letters to the Enterprise or public outrage over Measure N?
David: Read your piece on Measure N (the "Charter"-), and agree that the Enterprise did not devote enough "column inches" to what should have been a major debate throughout the community.
Not sure their laxity to cover the issue more fully was a failure by the Enterprise or a simple journalistic decision: don't waste time & space on something no one seems to care about.
And that opens a whole new (and very important) debate about the role the media should play. Should they merely report the news? Should they create news?
Until you began writing about Measure N (the proposed Charter), very few Davis citizens knew anything about Measure N or the proposed charter, so in a sense you created the news(or story).
On the other hand, your coverage was fueled at least in part by your readers. So I wouldn't criticize the Enterprise, but rather praise you & the Vanguard for giving all of us an open forum to raise, dicuss & debate issues.
The Enterprise plays an important role in our community, and we should appreciate that. The Vanguard plays a very different and, arguably, more important role by encouraging open debate.
Message: The Enterprise could have done better in covering the Measure N, Charter City proposal, undoubtedly. The good news is that you (i.e., Vanguard)have covered it well -good job.
As an aside to Mike Harrington: Agree with your No on N position; your arguments against N are right on target. BUT,are you doing anything SUBSTANTIVE to defeat Measure N?
What about a public challenge to Lamar Heystek? Lamar ran his campaign out of your office, and was a champion(when campaigning)for citizens' rights and slow-growth.
Now, Heystek has signed on the Measure N ballot argument with three strong supporters of Covell Center and opponents of Measure J. That makes Lamar an enemy to me.
So, why do you and other, so-called "progressives" continue to give Heystek a free ride? And where are your letters to the Enterprise or public outrage over Measure N?
David: Read your piece on Measure N (the "Charter"-), and agree that the Enterprise did not devote enough "column inches" to what should have been a major debate throughout the community.
Not sure their laxity to cover the issue more fully was a failure by the Enterprise or a simple journalistic decision: don't waste time & space on something no one seems to care about.
And that opens a whole new (and very important) debate about the role the media should play. Should they merely report the news? Should they create news?
Until you began writing about Measure N (the proposed Charter), very few Davis citizens knew anything about Measure N or the proposed charter, so in a sense you created the news(or story).
On the other hand, your coverage was fueled at least in part by your readers. So I wouldn't criticize the Enterprise, but rather praise you & the Vanguard for giving all of us an open forum to raise, dicuss & debate issues.
The Enterprise plays an important role in our community, and we should appreciate that. The Vanguard plays a very different and, arguably, more important role by encouraging open debate.
Message: The Enterprise could have done better in covering the Measure N, Charter City proposal, undoubtedly. The good news is that you (i.e., Vanguard)have covered it well -good job.
As an aside to Mike Harrington: Agree with your No on N position; your arguments against N are right on target. BUT,are you doing anything SUBSTANTIVE to defeat Measure N?
What about a public challenge to Lamar Heystek? Lamar ran his campaign out of your office, and was a champion(when campaigning)for citizens' rights and slow-growth.
Now, Heystek has signed on the Measure N ballot argument with three strong supporters of Covell Center and opponents of Measure J. That makes Lamar an enemy to me.
So, why do you and other, so-called "progressives" continue to give Heystek a free ride? And where are your letters to the Enterprise or public outrage over Measure N?
Who is this new David Greenwald reporter for the Vanguard?
Is he filling in for DPD?
Who is this new David Greenwald reporter for the Vanguard?
Is he filling in for DPD?
Who is this new David Greenwald reporter for the Vanguard?
Is he filling in for DPD?
Who is this new David Greenwald reporter for the Vanguard?
Is he filling in for DPD?
“So, why do you and other, so-called “progressives” continue to give Heystek a free ride?”
Free ride or a benefit of the doubt?
For me this is the first time that Lamar Heystek has done something that I do not agree with on a major policy decision. That is in just over two years. I think that’s a pretty good track record. He’s his own person, he certainly does not have to be in lockstep with anyone. So I do not see why he shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt on this issue. He’s certainly entitled to vote his conscience on a variety of issues. On most every issue he’s been pretty much in agreement with those on the progressive side of Davis politics.
“So, why do you and other, so-called “progressives” continue to give Heystek a free ride?”
Free ride or a benefit of the doubt?
For me this is the first time that Lamar Heystek has done something that I do not agree with on a major policy decision. That is in just over two years. I think that’s a pretty good track record. He’s his own person, he certainly does not have to be in lockstep with anyone. So I do not see why he shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt on this issue. He’s certainly entitled to vote his conscience on a variety of issues. On most every issue he’s been pretty much in agreement with those on the progressive side of Davis politics.
“So, why do you and other, so-called “progressives” continue to give Heystek a free ride?”
Free ride or a benefit of the doubt?
For me this is the first time that Lamar Heystek has done something that I do not agree with on a major policy decision. That is in just over two years. I think that’s a pretty good track record. He’s his own person, he certainly does not have to be in lockstep with anyone. So I do not see why he shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt on this issue. He’s certainly entitled to vote his conscience on a variety of issues. On most every issue he’s been pretty much in agreement with those on the progressive side of Davis politics.
“So, why do you and other, so-called “progressives” continue to give Heystek a free ride?”
Free ride or a benefit of the doubt?
For me this is the first time that Lamar Heystek has done something that I do not agree with on a major policy decision. That is in just over two years. I think that’s a pretty good track record. He’s his own person, he certainly does not have to be in lockstep with anyone. So I do not see why he shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt on this issue. He’s certainly entitled to vote his conscience on a variety of issues. On most every issue he’s been pretty much in agreement with those on the progressive side of Davis politics.
Choice voting is supported, not abandoned, by the charter.
A misconception is that the charter does not advance choice voting simply because the charter does not explicitly mention it. The Davis Enterprise editorial propogates this misrepresentation about the charter. In fact, the option to adopt choice voting is one of the local control powers Davis will acquire “as though they were specifically enumerated in this Charter.”
Measure N is not a referendum on choice voting; there are many other important issues involved. However, the passage of Measure N will set the stage for Davis to specifically and carefully consider the adoption of choice voting, as requested by voters in 2006. Sometimes change happens a step at a time.
But no one should be misled into believing that the charter has abandoned choice voting.
Choice voting is supported, not abandoned, by the charter.
A misconception is that the charter does not advance choice voting simply because the charter does not explicitly mention it. The Davis Enterprise editorial propogates this misrepresentation about the charter. In fact, the option to adopt choice voting is one of the local control powers Davis will acquire “as though they were specifically enumerated in this Charter.”
Measure N is not a referendum on choice voting; there are many other important issues involved. However, the passage of Measure N will set the stage for Davis to specifically and carefully consider the adoption of choice voting, as requested by voters in 2006. Sometimes change happens a step at a time.
But no one should be misled into believing that the charter has abandoned choice voting.
Choice voting is supported, not abandoned, by the charter.
A misconception is that the charter does not advance choice voting simply because the charter does not explicitly mention it. The Davis Enterprise editorial propogates this misrepresentation about the charter. In fact, the option to adopt choice voting is one of the local control powers Davis will acquire “as though they were specifically enumerated in this Charter.”
Measure N is not a referendum on choice voting; there are many other important issues involved. However, the passage of Measure N will set the stage for Davis to specifically and carefully consider the adoption of choice voting, as requested by voters in 2006. Sometimes change happens a step at a time.
But no one should be misled into believing that the charter has abandoned choice voting.
Choice voting is supported, not abandoned, by the charter.
A misconception is that the charter does not advance choice voting simply because the charter does not explicitly mention it. The Davis Enterprise editorial propogates this misrepresentation about the charter. In fact, the option to adopt choice voting is one of the local control powers Davis will acquire “as though they were specifically enumerated in this Charter.”
Measure N is not a referendum on choice voting; there are many other important issues involved. However, the passage of Measure N will set the stage for Davis to specifically and carefully consider the adoption of choice voting, as requested by voters in 2006. Sometimes change happens a step at a time.
But no one should be misled into believing that the charter has abandoned choice voting.
You all forget the Sue Greenwald voted to put Measure N on the ballot. Does that make her an enemy of progressives? Of course not.
Measure N isn’t an “us-versus-them” issue. It’s a matter with reasonable minds on both sides.
You all forget the Sue Greenwald voted to put Measure N on the ballot. Does that make her an enemy of progressives? Of course not.
Measure N isn’t an “us-versus-them” issue. It’s a matter with reasonable minds on both sides.
You all forget the Sue Greenwald voted to put Measure N on the ballot. Does that make her an enemy of progressives? Of course not.
Measure N isn’t an “us-versus-them” issue. It’s a matter with reasonable minds on both sides.
You all forget the Sue Greenwald voted to put Measure N on the ballot. Does that make her an enemy of progressives? Of course not.
Measure N isn’t an “us-versus-them” issue. It’s a matter with reasonable minds on both sides.
“Measure N isn’t an “us-versus-them” issue. It’s a matter with reasonable minds on both sides.”
Yeah, but I’ve noticed that some people prefer their politics to be black and white.
“Measure N isn’t an “us-versus-them” issue. It’s a matter with reasonable minds on both sides.”
Yeah, but I’ve noticed that some people prefer their politics to be black and white.
“Measure N isn’t an “us-versus-them” issue. It’s a matter with reasonable minds on both sides.”
Yeah, but I’ve noticed that some people prefer their politics to be black and white.
“Measure N isn’t an “us-versus-them” issue. It’s a matter with reasonable minds on both sides.”
Yeah, but I’ve noticed that some people prefer their politics to be black and white.