How Davis has Dropped Out of the Race for Environmental Leadership –
During the 1970s and 1980s, Davis enjoyed an unparalleled and well-deserved reputation for its environmentally progressive polices. The City served as a beacon for other cities seeking to emulate our sensible, protective laws and sustainable regulations. From our earliest adoption of energy-efficient building standards and restrictions on cigarette smoking in public to our alternative neighborhood designs and bike-friendly layout to an aggressive recycling program, Davis became the standard by which other progressive communities judged their own performance. Our elected leaders in those days deserved the right to promote themselves as environmentally-friendly and staunch advocates for green policies. Our current City Council also claims to be very environmentally responsible and one can hardly sit through a public meeting in Davis without one Council member or another reminding us that we live in a very environmentally-friendly community and reaffirming Davis’ leadership role in promoting environmentally sustainable policies.
Sadly, however, this claim to environmental leadership in Davis is no longer even remotely true. Our reputation for breaking new ground in protecting the environment has almost completely evaporated over the past eight years during the current Council’s tenure. While many necessary and laudable environmental initiatives ranging from water and energy conservation and climate control initiatives to innovative IPM programs have been embraced by dozens of other communities throughout the state, these changes and practices have been neglected, diminished, or completely dismissed in Davis. Indeed, an objective evaluation of our City’s recent environmental record compared to many other progressive cities throughout California shows that not only are we no longer leaders in implementing sustainable policies, in many cases we are not even in the race anymore.
The best that can now be said of Davis’ environmental strategy is that we will consider environmentally-beneficial policies only 1) if they are both first implemented by other cities and they are easy and cheap or, 2) if it is mandated by state law. Indeed, most of the current environmental initiatives being pursued in Davis, including the Climate Action Team effort), were only begun after legislation mandating such activities was promulgated by the state legislature. Contrast this with the days when state laws and legislators instead followed Davis’ initiatives, policies, and lead and Davis was a Mecca for international visitors interested in learning how we did things.
In fact, if you now look at almost any pressing environmental concern and contrast Davis’ progress in addressing that problem with that made by other more progressive municipalities up and down the state, one can’t help but wonder if there is any real commitment to this issue by our Council and City staff. In every single area of environmental importance, Davis has lost so much ground compared to many cutting-edge cities that we are becoming a distant follower in the race for environmental and sustainable municipal management.
The fact that the current long-standing Davis City Council members continue to applaud and promote themselves as environmentalists while the City’s environmental initiatives languish and never become reality has become an issue of genuine concern to a group of Davis citizens. To raise awareness of these various pressing issues, a series of topic-specific articles will be presented over the coming several months. These articles will highlight our environmental shortcomings in Davis compared to programs implemented in other more environmentally responsible communities in California. Subsequent (and one recent) articles will address the following areas in which other cities have leaped far ahead of Davis in terms of environmental stewardship.
1) Water Conservation (see recent Vanguard Guest Article published April 22, 2009)
2) Energy Conservation and Climate Control
3) Recycling and Waste Reduction
4) Air Pollution Reduction
5) Pesticides and Toxics Reduction
Each of these subsequent articles will discuss specific measures implemented by other cities in California or elsewhere that provide measurable and sustainable improvements in their cities’ environment at justifiable costs to and/or effort by those cities. In most cases, these initiatives were formulated and implemented by cities with staffs having comparatively far fewer available resources than those accessible to the Davis city bureaucracy .
What is different in these cities compared to Davis? Is their citizenry more demanding or environmentally aware? Do they have larger staff’s and greater budgets? Well, in some cases, a few of these cities do have a larger overall and per capita budget than does Davis. On the other hand, in many more cases these municipalities face far greater financial constraints than those facing Davis. But the overriding differences between these more environmentally activist cities and Davis are actually more fundamental and quite simple. In those cities where the greatest gains in environmental protection were made, those cities had both 1) strong Council leadership committed to improving the environment no matter what the political risks, and 2) staff committed to making the city the greenest possible and making this quality of life decision central in their allocation of resources.
Although we believe the individual Council members are fundamentally supportive of improved environmental conditions in Davis as they repeatedly stress in their public statements, it is also clear that they have failed to focus these inclinations into the effective leadership strategy that is critically necessary to mandate that staff aggressively implement these desirable changes. Neither has the City staff been responsibly activist or innovative in their implementation of environmentally beneficial changes. Until these two factors change, instead of being a cutting-edge leader in innovative environmental leadership, Davis will continue to be relegated to the position where we only implement state regulations as they come along or watch and learn from other more progressive or better managed cities.
It is time to hold our Council to their word when they tell us they support environmental stewardship and hold our City up as a green standard. Environmental leadership starts at the top and our Council needs to understand it is more than just self-proclaiming platitudes, getting photo-ops in the City’s electric vehicles, or showing up for fund-raisers. If our Council members are truly green leaders as they repeatedly attest, then it is time for them to prove it by advancing a truly comprehensive environmental program in Davis. The first step is to demand accountability, responsiveness, and action from our City staff. As will be pointed out in subsequent articles, far too often commendable initiatives have been delegated by Council to staff only to see them languish and die or watered-down to meaningless platitudes.
And we hear time and again from staff that they do not have the resources or budget to implement many desirable environmental initiatives. Well, we pay our City staff as if they are the best available because they are presumably top-notch people. But if they cannot get the job done despite having resources far in excess of those available to other environmentally trail-blazing cities, then it is time to replace them with people that have the necessary aptitude and desire. And if our City Council cannot at least attempt regain the environmental stature enjoyed by Davis prior to this Council’s long tenure, then it is time they stepped down or we elect more responsible leadership.
The 2001 General Plan, 2/1 adjacent outboard mitigation acreage, Measure O (open space fund from small tax on parcels) and Measure J kept Davis on the environmental map. Time will tell if these policies make it through the next year or two.
Why must Davis be a leader in environmentalism? What is this, a contest, and Davis always has to win first prize? How silly!
I look forward to any positive suggestions you may have, of projects that would save money in the long run. Because that is the criteria we must look toward now, w the huge budget deficits we face in this city…
Of course you forgot two things; your names and Davis’ greatest contribution to humanity, the bike lane.
Measure J is a disaster for all but the landed causing housing prices to go through the roof by constricting supply and restraining peripheral growth in the most natural spot on the map, Covell Village, where the development would have been south of development on both its east and west sides.
Much of this greenhouse gas argument about 1990 levels doesn’t seem to take into account how many more people there are and Davis’ roll in educating them. In 1990 there were 5 billion people now we are closing in on 7 billion. As such when we talk about 1990 levels are we doing so based on the 1990 population or the 2010 population, on CO2 production per capita, or for the community? Its makes a big difference and the question remains are the people who wrote the article willing to lead by example or do they want to put the burden of coming into compliance with the 1990 level on the newcomers and finally, how can the newcomers reduce thier production enough to offset what those who came before them produce since the people who are here already produce more CO2 than the 1990 level?
My understanding is that the eventual goal is an 80% reduction of GHGs by 2050. That would seem to take into account increases to population since 1990.
I guess it’s an easy canard to ask people to lead by example, but in terms of collective impact, it doesn’t go far. Presumably, any new policy would impact those proposing the changes just as much as anyone else.
To My View: I guess it depends on whether you believe it is worthwhile to be environmentally conscious or not. I think a lot of these things are not necessarily going to be budget busters and many will actually help with the budget. I’m not involved in the group, but there are real potentials for revenue with things like a solar farm and other innovations.
To 350:
And what is your name?
Measure J saved Davis from becoming just another sprawl town with all the attendant problems of high service and infrastructure costs, increased crime, decreased air quality, and ugly, destructive peripheral malls. It has helped to save prime ag land and essential habitat. It role in preventing the uninspired and uninspiring Covell Village same-old, same-old, old model of sprawl development saved Davis from major impacts of the housing industry bust. Just think where we would be if that project had moved forward.
Developers and their cronies and supporters just keep bringing up the old argument that Davis’s good planning principles result in “restrained” growth and high housing prices, without ever explaining the phenomenon here in the mid to late 90’s. We grew at a rate approaching 5%, flooding the market with homes in Mace Ranch, Wild Horse, south Davis, etc., yet housing prices here did not decrease, but instead continued to climb. Davis is not like a lot of other communities. People want to live here for many reasons, many of which would not exist if we had gone the way of other valley towns. It is a desirable community and people are willing to pay more to live here. Developers know that, so price housing accordingly. Therefore, housing prices remain high.
I am sure the folks who wrote the article are prepared to lead by example and by action. As to the GHG reductions. We have to start some time and some where. Arguing about who did what is not productive.
This was a very good piece, and I commend the author(s). I look forward to seeing more thought-provoking pieces in the future.
I think we should prioritize the needs of the citizens of Davis, since it is their money that we are spending. Given limited resources, I think we should spend our resources educating our children with a great public school system. The state is reducing its commitment to education, and I can’t think of anything more important for Davis and its future than educating our children. Next in line would be solving the water and sewage issues confronting our city.
I understand that being green is an important issue, and we can educate our citizens and promote good practices in this regard. However, it should not be our highest priority at this time.
This issue has been argued to death over and over. What I keep hearing is a commitment to extreme environmental policies at any cost, even if it drives our economy into the ground. I don’t think anyone has to worry about CO2 emmissions in Davis. If the people cant afford to pay their water/sewer bills are forced out of town, no more cars on the road. Problem solved!
-DGM
Isn’t solar a way to reduce all of our energy costs. Looking towards means of water conservation could forestall or prevent the need for costly new water projects. You are thinking way too one-dimensionally by assuming that everything means things are going to cost more when in fact it could mean things cost less.
I’m just a nutty commenter but I think if people are going to write an opinion piece they should probably put their name on it. If they don’t want to sign it and identify themselves and Greenwald wants to publish it that is his choice but it does reflect on the seriousness of the piece just as using a nom de plume as a commenter reduces my credibility.
350: If you attack the authors of the piece, I don’t think you have any standing unless you put your own name on your comments. However, the bike lanes rank up there in the top 6 progressive city policies, ever! Thanks for bring it up.
I’m just a nutty commenter but I think if people are going to write an opinion piece they should probably put their name on it.
350: So you tell me your real name is a three digit number?
[b]In 1990 there were 5 billion people now we are closing in on 7 billion. As such when we talk about 1990 levels are we doing so based on the 1990 population or the 2010 population, on CO2 production per capita, or for the community?[/b]
My take on the 1990 number is that it’s an interim goal. By a certain date, if we’ve got it dialed back to that level, we know we are making progress and can move forward. If we’ve reached date-X and still have not reached 1990 or made progress toward it, we will know we are failing.
What will [i]not[/i] get us where we need to go (on a global basis), in my opinion, is making very small marginal changes, like exchanging a car which got 25 mph on gasoline for one which gets 35 mph on gasoline. All else held equal, that’s beneficial. But what will really solve the CO2 problem in the future, if we ever solve it, will be converting to non-carbon based fuels: nuclear, solar and wind-powered electricity in place of coal and natural gas; maybe hydrogen fuel cells; maybe electric cars.
If zero-carbon technologies progress as I expect they will over the next 10-20 years, it would not surprise me that, as a planet, 5 years after we reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels, we will get down to 1980 levels and keep moving back from there without sacrificing economic progress.
The interim key, I think, will be to sufficiently tax carbon effluence and use the revenues to subsidize zero-carbon energy, so that it makes good financial sense for consumers to buy electric cars, put photovoltaics on their homes and for power companies to replace coal-fired electric plants with nuclear, wind, solar and so on.
[b]”exchanging a car which got 25 mph on gasoline for one which gets 35 mph on gasoline.”[/b]
One thing folks unfamiliar with the PHEV should know: UC Davis’s mechanical engineering department has developed plug-in hybrid electric vehicles ([url]http://phev.ucdavis.edu/[/url]) which get something like 120 mpg. Those cars have batteries which can take you about 50 miles on an electric motor (very powerful motor, too); and they include a back-up engine powered by ethanol. The director of the Davis program told me that, where a 30 mpg gasoline-powered car costs say $2.30 in gas, the PHEV he built costs something like 60 cents* in electricity to go those 30 miles.
*To be frank, I don’t recall the exact number. It’s been some years since I was told this. Nonetheless, it was far, far less than the cost of gasoline.
Is it a secret who wrote it? Did they forget to put their names or do they not want to put their names? I guess they want to remain anonymous. I’m okay with that I just don’t think they have any credibility by doing so.
Responding to “350”:
No more credibility than the anonymous Ron who hides behind his pseudonym “350.”
350 — look at the very top of this page: [quote]The De-Greening of Davis
[b]Written by David Greenwald[/b]
Sunday, 03 May 2009 03:53 [/quote] Doesn’t that suggest who “Citizens for a Greener Davis” is?
No that just suggests I posted the article.
My wife often tells me to be careful because the people who run the blog know who you are even if you don’t post your name. I have often argued that David wouldn’t out someone who didn’t want to have their name posted even when they disagree. I guess she was right and I was wrong, and even though I admitted that by remaining anonymous I was limiting my credibility, this blog posts my first name as if that doesn’t lift the veil enough. So beware citizens of Davis this blog will out you with the boot heal of the progressives if they don’t like what you have to say.
My wife often tells me to be careful because the people who run the blog know who you are even if you don’t post your name. I have often argued that David wouldn’t out someone who didn’t want to have their name posted even when they disagree. I guess she was right and I was wrong, and even though I admitted that by remaining anonymous I was limiting my credibility, this blog posts my first name as if that doesn’t lift the veil enough. So beware citizens of Davis this blog will out you with the boot heal of the progressives if they don’t like what you have to say.
Calm down! There is nothing wrong with posting your views. As far as progressives harassing you when they don’t agree with you, that usually happens when they run in packs. If you go to one of their rediculous rallies, that is when they get most obnoxious and act self-important, and self-indulgent. I think their are a few issues that you have to be careful on in certain circles. For example, prop 8. is so heated with progressives, many of them won’t allow for disagreement. I think they can better stomach the war and others but they get the most militant about 8. If you are worried, just lay off 8 and all will be well.
AHA! An example of the very problem I was trying to report to you David. 🙂 Misinterpretation of your endorsement, authorship, editing, or co-authorship because of the default(?) tag for posts being ‘Written by’.
You are incorrect to state that such a tag doesn’t convey or imply to SOME people that you have one of those relationships to the mere post (as a neutral publisher). I therefore suggest, as I was trying to on the feedback page, that you alter that code to label your role/relationship to the material. Make it something more in line with your actual feelings on the subject, rather than have to correct people when it comes up, and argue that they should not assume, that on your own site, when it says you wrote something, that you did not, etc.
While those who know you, or those who investigate the whole site, might reasonably conclude things are just as you say, it would be easier and clearer to all if you fixed that oversight. This site is great so why allow wiggle room or chances for misinterpretation? It is tough enough to try to be both a neutral publisher and contributor of your own opinion so why make it any harder on yourself? ‘Written by’ implies authorship (and tacit endorsement) and ‘Posted by’ does not. It is a useful distinction.