If the June vote by the Business and Economic Development Commission was not a strong enough message to Councilmember Stephen Souza’s proposal for a business park exemption to Measure J, the voter approved measure that gives the voters of Davis the ability to vote on proposed land use designation changes that would pave the way for development, on Wednesday, the Planning Commission unanimously voted against placing any exemptions before the Davis voters.
During the course of discussion there seemed to be no great sense to exempt a specific property for a business park proposal. There was some concern that it would lead to an overly complicated process and a member of the public, Pam Nieberg, pointed out from the original legal advice that any exemption for a specific property could lead to a lawsuit unless all properties were considered for exemption.
There also seemed to be an overriding sense that Measure J seemed to work as it was intended to work, although there has been only one vote to date, the ill-fated Measure X vote where the Covell Village project was defeated by a 60-40 margin. Interestingly enough, most seem to regard that vote as an aberration rather than the rule of what to expect from a Measure J vote. The next test for Measure J could perhaps come as soon as this November. Council is scheduled to hear and vote upon the Wildhorse Ranch project and if approved it could be sent to the voters for a vote in Special November 2009 election.
When council heard the Measure J issue back in June, they had decided at that point in time to make the sunset date to be 10 years, although there was some sentiment to make it permanent. At this particular meeting however, two of the five attending commissioners expressed the preference for a five year sunset. Commissioners Terry Whittier and Mike Levy suggested that it ought to coincide with the next general plan that they expect to begin being worked up next year.
City Staff expressed the belief that the council was not seeking advice on this particular question and the issue never came to a vote.
While the Open Space and Habitat Commission still needs to deliberate on this matter as well, the Planning Commission was a good barometer for its prospects overall as it tends to be one of the more pro-development commissions in the city. Given the unanimous disapproval, this proposal from Councilmember Souza is clearly on life support if not outright dead.
Given that no commissioner on either commission (BEDC or Planning) has actually voted for this proposal, this would seem to be a pretty strong repudiation of Mr. Souza. He will undoubtedly claim he only wanted to raise the issue for discussion and gain feedback on it. But frankly the proposal never made a lot of sense–why a business park on a specific property? Why not simply trust the voters to approval a good and reasonable proposal while retaining the right to veto a bad and unreasonable proposal such as Covell Village and Measure X?
If you believe in democracy, you have to believe in it even when it is inconvenient to do so not just when your side wins. I have every confidence that the voters would approve a good business park proposal and I am gratified that two commissions seem to feel likewise. Hopefully we can now move on and put this on the ballot in rapid order.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]… although there was some sentiment to make it [u]permanent[/u].[/quote]
The use of the word ‘permanent’… is this intended to mean “good until changed by the voters” or is it intended to prohibit future voters from changing the provisions, or eliminating the requirements entirely, at some point in the future?
The former. The voters would have to remove the measure from the books rather than having to renew every few years.
My sense is that there is a 75% vote out there to renew J as-is, but without the sunset. I think that the CC majority knows this, so sent it through the commissions to buy time and see if they can get a commission vote that gives them political cover.
Souza clearly doesn’t like democratic rule – he wants pro-development City Council majority rule. Just bc these commissions give a clear indication Measure J should be passed as is, don’t necessarily expect the City Council majority to follow suit. Clearly there is funny business going on behind the scenes w Souza, and often Saylor and Asmundson follow suit when it comes to development issues. Thus it would behoove the public to keep the pressure on to pass Measure J as is, no exemptions.
Souza has a pentient for complicating every issue that comes before him, and mucking things up. He made a promise to support Measure J w no revisions, then went back on his word with the business exemption proposal. Souza has become a disgrace to his office…especially in these difficult times, when so much is riding on the budget issue. While staff is being led round the barn and off into the woods, we are wasting precious resources on Souza’s nonsense instead of the real issues – or is that Souza’s point – to deflect attention away from the real issues?
Be prepared to hear Souza label this latest fiasco as “I was just exploring options” or “I feel persecuted, when all I was trying to do was help” or…you catch my drift.
Congrats to Planning Commission members. You got it right folks; renew Measure J as is, no exemptions or “tweaking” of the wording allowed.
Criticisms of Souza are well-founded. During the last election (when Souza was campaigning for re-election), he pledged to support renewal of Measure J AS IS.
Now that Souza has been re-elected, he is showing his true colors by trying to change the Measure J language. How on earth can anyone ever trust Souza again? I have considered him dishonest & disingenuous for many years and, hopefully, others will now recognize him for what he is.
So,our goal is simple: Renewal of Measure J as is – no exemptions.
I second Rick E’s sentiments!