On Tuesday night there was a contentious issue involving the placement of a new development in East Eighth street by the cemetary. In this case, many neighbors came out wearing red in solidarity to argue that their agreement with the developers had been violated by city staff.
At times, the rhetoric became contentious. Many representatives from the community of course came forward to speak and as is often the case, they cheered when they agreed with the speaker.
Nevertheless, after the public in the room, and it was probably 30 people at most, cheered a statement by Councilmember Sue Greenwald, Mayor Pro Tem Saylor felt the need to get up there lecture to the public in a condescending manner. He can get away with this sometimes because he does not raise his voice and he speaks almost monotonically. Merely reading the transcription of this diatribe does not do it justice. One has to actually see his facial expressions and hear his intonation (he actually varied his tone occasionally).
Don Saylor said:
“My comments are first of all, we’re not here at a football game or a basketball game where cheering or clapping really helps the process. I was at a meeting today at the Yolo County Board of Supervisors where there was some really sensitive material being discussed, and there was a comment made by the chair of the Supervisors that there’s just a possibility that applause and cheering and hissing and booing could intimidate a person who has a different point of view. Frankly all citizens matter—all of them. Even the ones who aren’t wearing a red shirt tonight my friends.
Let me say a couple of other things, during the course of the last two and a half years or so, I have visited many of you in your yards and your houses, I’ve walked the site quite a bit. Certainly your viewpoint matters and we’ve heard it in the council. We’ve listened to it in the planning commission and it does nobody any good to have a highly charged, angry presentation. Despite what you feeling personally. And guess what, other citizens matter also and other citizens participate in the Planning Commission, and the Social Services Commission, and Housing Element Steering Commission. Many of us attended the meetings along with you. There are many people in our community that have a stake in this and every other issue.”
Mr. Saylor then continued by justifying the process that the neighbors were clearly unhappy about.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald then defended the neighbors by pointing out that Mr. Saylor’s anger and lecture was actually self-serving and selective.
“I would just like to say that I really don’t like it when citizens come to the chamber and are lectured by a councilmember. Particularly when that councilmember does not treat citizens equally. I remember being in this room when a bunch of people with red shirts from Rancho Yolo and were cheering everything that Don Saylor said and did he say it was impolite to cheer? No. But when the citizens cheer what I said, then they get a lecture. I don’t think this is appropriate.”
Councilmember Greenwald is absolutely correct here. It was not long ago that the council chambers were filled with people wearing CHA signs. At times when they spoke there was a loud applause. In fact, they had more people in the audience that night than they did this night. Councilmember Saylor never said a word.
I have been to many Davis School Board meetings. They have had many charged nights in the last three years including the closure of Valley Oak, the proposed closure of Emerson, the proposed cutbacks to music, the proposed changes to Da Vinci, teacher cuts, etc. The public has come out, often times speaking until well after midnight. The school board’s policy is to express cheers by waving your hands. This was Board member Sheila Allen’s suggestion, not to stifle the public but in part because loud applause causes the mics to cut out and in part because it becomes burdensome for people to cheer everyone. What I have never seen the body do, even when the public was against them, was try to cut off and lecture to the public.
There was a comment on the blog last night that captured my sentiments as well. Councilmember Saylor is elected by the public and serves the public. They do not serve him. Part of the job means you put up with the public disagreeing with you, sometimes in a loud and emotional way. This crowd was not out of control. The applause was not intimidating.
The conduct of the Mayor Pro Tem on the other hand, could be construed as such. That just might intimidate a person with a different point of view than the Mayor Pro Tem. That just might convince the next group not to bother to come before council.
It certainly did nothing to prevent the council from doing what they were going to do anyway. So if Mr. Saylor feels discomfort for a couple of hours, that is little compared to the upheaval that some of these people will have in their lives over a period of a few years as the result of the actions that Mr. Saylor took.
It would be one thing if Mr. Saylor treated all citizens equally. But when they are on his side–and they have been whether it be CHA, the folks over at the Korean Church, or several others–he never says anything.
He wants to talk about civility, but his lecture demonstrates an arrogant and abrasive side of him that is anything but. His lecture did not raise the level of discourse in this discussion. He was condescending and demeaning and if you watch the full clip, his facial expressions alone communicate this in a way that his words alone may not.
This was a very poor public display by a public official who likes to talk about civility but often masks his own with a moderate tone even as his words and expressions belie his true thoughts.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The Vanguard said “They have sunk their life savings into their home”
Bad move. With so many mortgages under water I feel sorry for these people but so what? Should we allow them more rights than any other property owner or citizen? While I agree that people should be allowed to yell and scream or any other thing they want rather than sit quietly as some mullahs on the council would prefer, I don’t see why the financial investment in their home is relevant. Aren’t you always whining about people with financial interests getting deference from the council and going on too long while others are given limited time? Or are you saying that having your financial investment impacted by the behavior of your neighbors gives you more rights to speak up? If so aren’t you using an argument in favor of developers rights and against measure J? Maybe if Davis hadn’t restricted supply over the years there would be fewer people who owe so much money on their homes and at risk of losing everything because even as real estate prices fall they might have been able to sink some of their capital into other asset classes providing a better cushion or a creating a more diverse portfolio.
The Vanguard said “They have sunk their life savings into their home”
Bad move. With so many mortgages under water I feel sorry for these people but so what? Should we allow them more rights than any other property owner or citizen? While I agree that people should be allowed to yell and scream or any other thing they want rather than sit quietly as some mullahs on the council would prefer, I don’t see why the financial investment in their home is relevant. Aren’t you always whining about people with financial interests getting deference from the council and going on too long while others are given limited time? Or are you saying that having your financial investment impacted by the behavior of your neighbors gives you more rights to speak up? If so aren’t you using an argument in favor of developers rights and against measure J? Maybe if Davis hadn’t restricted supply over the years there would be fewer people who owe so much money on their homes and at risk of losing everything because even as real estate prices fall they might have been able to sink some of their capital into other asset classes providing a better cushion or a creating a more diverse portfolio.
I think you took a statement which I meant to be a general one far too literally. The point is that for most people, the purchase of a home is their most sizable investment and it’s also their lives that revolve around the property. For the developers this is one project among many, for the neighbors it is so much more.
That doesn’t mean that you necessarily give the neighbors whatever they want. You still have to make the decision for the community that you think is best. Reasonable people can disagree there. My complaint is with the lack of respect shown these people by an elected councilmember–it is not his place to lecture the public.
Do agree that Don Saylor’s lecture was condescending and completely inappropriate. Steve Souza’s unannounced visit to Regis Drive (to make “neatness judgements”) wasn’t any better.
Extensive citizen input on Chiles Ranch has been an expensive rote exercise conducted only because it is standard procedure and small town politics at its worst. We’ve contributed many hours to find out that Council, Planning and the City Attorney consider the 6/24/08 neighborhood association/developer signed agreement irrelevant and without legal merit.
On Tuesday night, Don, Steve and Ruth approved the modified Chiles Ranch proposal w/ a air of boredom that seemed to imply that it was a decision already made. Interesting to note that Chiles offers absolutely no senior housing.
Let’s not forget that Chiles Ranch is more than just good hearted City Council concern about providing housing for needy families. Ignore the self serving platitudes and careful concerns about insignificant issues. Council and developers can discuss moving a few trees to preserve them (w/ zero legal commitment to do so) but Chiles Ranch is a 4 year long, $50 million dollar project with a multitude of economic benefits for City, Council and the developers.
And we should be surprised that Don Saylor speaks to people in a condescending manner, whether it be in his measured monotone or raises his”real” voice ? Please.
This “reporting” is polarizing, self-serving, and does nothing positive to advance the progressive agenda. Nothing like a good cheap shot at Saylor to increase traffic on the blog.
You have no problem with Mr. Saylor lecturing to the public.
From my observation, if he wanted to get huge traffic he should talk about land use issues all the time, because they seem to draw the most and longest comments. Topics like this just don’t seem to. So I think your charge is fallacious.
If you don’t think this is a legitimate topic or if you think Saylor conducted himself properly say so. Don’t make specious allegations that people can easily see through.
I’m in the minority here, but I think civility is always proper in civic discourse. The process is cheapened when people act like Yahoos. If Saylor is hypocritical or selective in demanding civility,as Sue contends, that is a separate issue. But I for one do not find his comments inappropriate.
I hope you watch the video because you can see the facial expressions. It’s not just what he said.
Saylor shouldn’t have said what he said, Sue Greenwald shouldn’t have used it as an opportunity to grandstand, and the Vanguard shouldn’t be further polarizing the decision after the fact.
The Vanguard could have been so much more to help this neighborhood and they weren’t. So why not? Maybe it’s because the progressive “insiders” have decided to push internal densification as a main strategy to prevent peripheral development and preserve farm land. The city is more than happy to go along with any infill project that comes forward because Measure J has brought everything on the borders of town to a standstill.
So the Chiles Ranch neighbors are just the next in a long string of neighborhoods that are going to get screwed as this agenda plays itself out.
I support Measure J completely. I oppose internal densification at the expense of existing neighborhoods. We need to find some civil way to work things out.
[quote]The Vanguard could have been so much more to help this neighborhood and they weren’t.[/quote]
I’m curious to know how.
The plot design maps shown at the meeting were just about the densest I have ever seen and then to think there are granny flats which would not have shown on the map. It appeared that it was the CITY that brought in the granny flats. Is that right and why?
And how in the world will anyone enforce Souza’s ‘great’ idea of parking in garage?
“…..On Tuesday night, Don, Steve and Ruth approved the modified Chiles Ranch proposal w/ a air of boredom that seemed to imply that it was a decision already made. Interesting to note that Chiles offers absolutely no senior housing…..”
Senior housing issues could be addressed for Chiles Ranch and all future projects within the City of Davis in a straightforward manner if the principles of universal design were part of the approval process for the City. When such projects are in compliance “enroute”, then senior housing issues are resolved “at destination”. For more information concerning universal design, please see http://www.centerforuniversaldesign.org .
Don Saylor was just being Don Saylor – trying to intimidate the opposition. Same old, same old. If you don’t like him, then for heaven’s sake vote him out when he comes up for re-election. I know I would not vote for him.
“Senior housing issues could be addressed for Chiles Ranch and all future projects within the City of Davis in a straightforward manner if the principles of universal design were part of the approval process for the City. When such projects are in compliance “enroute”, then senior housing issues are resolved “at destination”. For more information concerning universal design, please see http://www.centerforuniversaldesign.org .”
This is an excellent point. Thank you.
In case you may not know, the Sunrise Neighborhood Association, was directed by the City Council to work things out with the developer of the Chiles Ranch project…..a Letter of Agreement was signed by members of the Board of the Sunrise Neighborhood Association and the two owners of the Chiles Ranch Property….this was a compromise, no guns were held to either parties heads….they could have started building last year in June. From all the meetings I have attended no one was against the infill project, we just wanted it to be resonable…that agreement addresses density, it addresses green belts (which by the way the City Council initially voted in favor of fifty feet), it address saving some of the beautful Oak trees on the property. ….these three City Council members slapped our neighborhood in the face. They basically said all our time and energy that we put into the process was worthless!! Personally I was offended by our Mayors opening statements…it would be hard to convince anyone after hearing her that she had not already decided which way her vote was going to be…it did not matter what any of us said that night
So if you live in the neighborhood with an open lot…. beware! For the same thing can and most likely will happen you.
“….these three City Council members slapped our neighborhood in the face. They basically said all our time and energy that we put into the process was worthless!! Personally I was offended by our Mayors opening statements…it would be hard to convince anyone after hearing her that she had not already decided which way her vote was going to be…it did not matter what any of us said that night So if you live in the neighborhood with an open lot…. beware! For the same thing can and most likely will happen you.”
This is exactly what I get out of what happened. Go ahead and work on all the MOUs or LOAs you want. Ultimately the City Council can choose to ignore them to their hearts content. OK, if that is true, what should neighbors do next time? I don’t think I would bother with an MOU or LOA – it would essentially be a waste of time. So my next question is how else could the neighbors have gotten their points across? A petition perhaps? I’m open to suggestions…anyone have any other ideas?
Bottom line – what we are seeing is again the Council Majority ignoring public input for their own ends. Frankly, I find it disgusting – and will be voting accordingly in the next election.
I would also add that Don Saylor’s diatribe from the dais was a veiled attempt to cut off public comment – just as much as Ruth Asmundson’s curtailment of public comment to 15 minutes at the beginning, w no more than 2 min – unless it is an issue on which the City Council has no business weighing in on, e.g. Gaza, in which case unlimited public comment is allowed!
You said it “my view of what happened!”
Maybe the owner of this blog could put the videotape of the people shouting in favor of saylor side by side with the video of those opposing him. If what Sue said was true then Saylor has a huge credibility problem.
Yeah, I also seem to remember the city council including Saylor allowing the Gaza supporters to rant and rave for 6 hours about their cause, not cutting them off at all.
I thought people were into infill and density housing. Now when someone provides it there is all this complaining. I guess its a typical Davis story, people are for it until its in their backyard. I wonder if the neighbors would rather have lower density and more peripheral development
Hey Don Saylor, it’s called freedom of speech.
I don’t see anyone complaining about the infill. I see a lot of people complaining about the process. There is a difference.
I see all of the focus overlooking the fundamental problem. Had the Planning Director Catherine Hess gave a damn about the welfare of the residents for a change instead of the developers, this whole mess would not have happened. It was Hess that made the last minute recommendation to screw over the Chiles Ranch neighbors so that the developers could make more money. She continued to antagonize the neighbors here and in other recent developments despite all of the opposition by the neighbors. It seems pretty clear that she is on power trip and seems to enjoy the angst she causes the residents. What are we paying her $126,000 a year to basically rail against us?
Hess has had a history of screwing over the citizens and sucking up to the developers. Heck, the Vanguard reported that her son works for John Whitcombe partner of Tandem Properties of Covell Village fame. Recall that she was the leading advocate for that project rather than acting as an “objective ” staff member when she trying to ram that development through four years ago.
Hess just in recent months recently dumped on L St. neighbors, Rancho Yolo, Willowbank neighbors, Chiles Ranch not the mention the Lewis Cannery Project. She is a disaster as a “planner” and a bigger disaster as a Planning Director.
Let’s get to the root of the problem and eliminate it. The real solution is to fire Hess and if City Manager Bill Emlen won’t do it, we need to fire him too.
To Watcher – Yes, it’s very clear that City Planning makes the design decisions. When Planning recommends, Council approves. At the last Council meeting, Katherine Hess stated that citizen input is NOT considered in the design process. When asked, the City Attorney says the neighborhood/developers agreement (signed last year) has no legal value.
Ghetto – we’ve NEVER said we’re against the development. We said YES last year to a design negotiated with the developers. We are AGAINST what Planning and Council have done. City Planning proposed major changes one month before vote and Council approved them. No discussion.
I personally wish Planning/Council had some respect for citizen input. In this case, it certainly doesn’t look like it.
Its the process its the changes its the process its the changes. Of course if it wasn’t the process and the changes making the project more dense there would be no complaint so it really is about the outcome.
They reached an agreement last year and broke it. What part of that do you not understand?
“Of course if it wasn’t the process and the changes making the project more dense there would be no complaint so it really is about the outcome.”
That’s a tortured sentence. I think what you’re trying to say, is if they reduced the size of the project, the neighbors wouldn’t complain about them breaking the deal. What that forgets is that the number 107 was a compromise position–that means that the neighbors fought to get it down to 107 but compromised off a lower number. So if the developers or city reduced it from 107 there would be no problem since that would be closer to what the neighbors asked for prior to the good faith negotiations.
If I agree to pay you $150 for a job and your original asking price was $200 and my offer was $100. If I pay you $160 you will not complain, if I pay you $140 I will. That’s the nature of an agreement. You don’t seem to understand that.
Agree wholeheartedly with Jim Watson and The real problem: Katherine Hess. My sympathies to SNA for the mugging that took place Tuesday night. The decision sets an awful precedent for every neighborhood facing infill development…as a south Davis resident contemplating our fate in Round 2 of the PC and then City Council re: Willowbank Park, what incentive is there for collaborating with developers to midwife Smart Development when Community Development and Katherine Hess are right there to torpedo it? The notion that a “process” for land use planning exists anymore in this city is stupifying.
That particular piece of land has such a jinxed history. The Chiles mansion used to stand there till 1972, when a UC Davis professor killed his family in the mansion and then burned it down just before killing himself. I remember when it was still legal to walk my dog back by the Chiles mansion’s barn (still standing) with, on weekends, a few dozen other dog walkers who liked getting out and about in the scenic area behind the cemetery. Dogs would run free in and around the barn but if they strayed to the area where the mansion used to stand they’d come scampering back quick, like, pardon the pun, scaredy-cats. Something about that piece of land raised their hackles. I’d never live in a condo or apt. built on that land…
Yes, Davis used to have lots of open areas where you could walk a dog or see a toad but because of densification we need a dog park and a toad tunnel only one of which seems to work. Yes you fought densification and agreed to 107 they raised it up so now you complain. I just want to point out that at the same time people say they want densification in someone else’s backyard they don’t want it in their own. My point is that instead of densification maybe we should grow out and leave enough open space to keep Davis livable.
Ghetto – best of luck. your logic is a little too complicated for me to follow
Brian – tx for the full history.
Talluh & Real – thanks for the support. It has been a real battle (and it’s not over yet). When we first met w/ KH, she was pretty arrogant. She casually tossed out a 150-160 units project size estimate (for a residential – low density site that was zoned for 79 units) and I knew we were in trouble. She’s on a supreme power trip and does the same thing over and over.
I am disgusted that Planning Director Catherine Hess led the battle to disregard a SACOG based process for an agreement between the neighbors and the developers. Just what we don’t need…….a Planning Director who works proactively for local developers while advocating against the people of Davis. Why should we be ponying up $126,000 a year for a Planning Director working against us?
Here is a no-brainer savings for our City budget and for the welfare of the city and the citizens. Fire Planning Director Catherine Hess NOW!
We need to help support our Chiles Ranch neighbors to demand that the agreement between the neighbors and developers be honored. Why should we let the Planning Director bulldoze the 200+ vintage Oak trees on this beautiful green habitat site? Let’s unite to save these trees and this beautiful historic Spanish Land grant site!!!
Stop the madness. Fire Hess before she brings another disastrous development to any other neighborhood. Let’s get a new Planning Director who gives a damn about public input. Our current Planning Director has a clear track record of fighting for the developer interests, not ours.
In short:
SAVE DAVIS = DUMP HESS.
The attitude toward the neighbors and citizens in general as displayed in the council’s chiles ranch process is exactly what provoked concerned citizens to draft measure j and get it onto the ballot. Without citizen check of the council power the council has consistently acted to favor the developer at the expense of the citizens of davis whether they be neighbors or not. The city generally has also lost out by these unchecked council decisions. The planning staff stated that the city is expected to gain $20,000/ annum for its treasury as a result of approving this project. This is chump change. This estimate is based on nothing short of voodoo economics. This action of approving this project by the city council is a betrayal of the public trust in so many respects.
additionally, would you vote for a recall of don saylor? others?
I’d vote for a recall of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza! All three are in collusion w the developers.
Having a Planning Director in collusion with the developers is the bigger problem. Planning Director Catherine Hess keeps pushing forward lousy projects to maximize the local developer profits again, and again and again. Since most of the projects that she has been recently promoting are not ag land, and are within city limits, they are not subject to Measure J.
It is pretty obvious now that this pro-growth Council will keep approving the garbage projects that Hess “sheperds” through for her local developer buddies. So until we get rid of Hess, the neighborhoods and the citizens will continue to get screwed. Hess has other neighborhoods “targeted” so we should not wait until she destroys another part of Davis. The only practical solution to saving our neighborhoods and the future of the City is to fire Hess.