The resolution was read into the record by Councilmember Lamar Heystek. The consensus emerged following the public comment of dozens of residents, most of who came forward strongly in support of the project.
One of the points made during public comment was asking why we did a road diet for Farmer’s Market on Fifth Street. Councilmember Heystek asked that question of city staff.
The answer in short was that it better controlled the flow of traffic during a peak period of traffic. From the standpoint of city staff it created a shorter point of travel for pedestrians to enable them to cross the street more safely from the district parking lot to C Street. It also slows the traffic.
Councilmember Heystek followed up,
“If we do it for the Farmer’s Market it must be good for the downtown. And if it’s good for downtown, it must be good for Davis.”
The point here is that no one seems to believe that fewer people will come to the downtown for Farmer’s Market due to the road diet. And they create the diet far later than it would occur in this plan, which means traffic actually backs up somewhat more than it would if it was designed at a more natural choke point. And even then, it does not really impede the flow of traffic through the corridor.
Councilmember Souza during his question/ comment period suggested that as a bicyclist this street was an adrenaline rush as huge trucks wiz by in lanes next to the bicyclist. He describes numerous times where he had narrowly avoided collisions with vehicles swerving out to avoid cars making left turns.
“Will this solve all of the problems? I’m not sure but I’m at least willing to continue where we’ve begun and that is to move the ball forward.”
He expressed hope that this could solve the problems that occur without “impairing some of the activities that occur within the downtown for our merchants.”
One of the key points he made directly addresses the concerns of downtown business.
“I firmly believe that we’ll get to the downtown whether we have a diet on the roadway or not. People that want to shop at the downtown or be entertained at the downtown will get to the downtown in many other routes besides Fifth Street frankly I avoid the section of Fifth Street all the time. I go down L Street and I go to Third. I go to B Street and I’ll turn to Third or Second. I avoid it most of the time because I find it very unsafe at least between G and A. It isn’t as big of a problem from G to L because you don’t have as much traffic interacting.”
Councilmember Souza’s observations gibe with countless others I have spoken to. Others have suggested they take Eighth Street to bypass Fifth altogether. The concern from downtown is that people will take other routes–the reality is that they already do. What downtown needs to focus on is to make the downtown the best attraction to the public as possible and then they will come there regardless of the route and probably more of them will do so if Fifth Street were safer and more available to bicyclists and pedestrians.
Councilmember Don Saylor in more measured terms also expressed support for the diet in concept while still taking into consideration the concerns that have come for others:
“I really like the idea of improving safety on Fifth Street, it’s a problem. I really do like the idea of enhancing the walkability of our community. I do think that we need to make a changeon Fifth Street… My gut feeling is that need to proceed with the complete street.”
Councilmember Sue Greenwald wanted a very short statement of support. She was outflanked on that but was able to get it incorporated into the cover letter.
“Council supports the reconfiguration of the Fifth Street Corridor and directs staff to move forward with CEQA and to identify funding sources.”
Councilmember Souza moved in a substitute motion and seconded by Councilmember Saylor the support of the staff’s resolution in support of Fifth Street.
Councilmember Heystek read the entire resolution into the record.
“This is a resolution of the City of Davis establishing that a road diet should be implemented on the Fifth Street Corridor providing for the reconfiguration of two traffic lanes with center left turns lanes and on-street bicycle lanes between A and L Streets and directing staff to undertake implementing actions.”
The resolution goes on to talk about priorities relating to the need for traffic calming and multi-modal transportation, various safety issue, among other things.
This was a resolution that all on the council could support and help staff to move forward with an application for funding from SACOG showing strong but not unanimous community support and very strong council support.
Commentary
There are many people in this community–and it was a broad-based community effort to get this passed. Clearly without the support of the bicycling community who came out en masse last night, this would not have happened. The resident of Old North Davis have long been advocates of a Fifth Street Redesign. They see the problems every day as they try to walk from their homes to the downtown, as they try to bike from their homes to the downtown, and as they try to drive from their homes perhaps to other portions of town if not the downtown.
But as the map posted yesterday on the Vanguard and displayed yesterday at the council meeting demonstrates, this was not one simply one neighborhood, it was not simply one community supporting this project, it was all of Davis. Many of the people who came out last night were not people that you see coming to council meetings in support of various projects week after week. They were people concerned about the safety and accessibility of a key street in town. A street that has been far too dangerous for far too long.
As Mayor Asmundson pointed out, this is a discussion that has come before every council that she has been a part of–what does that tell us? This is a street that has among the highest accident rates in town.
A few years ago they brought us the staggered lights on F and G. Those lights solved one problem–the problem of a specific accident on those intersections. But they caused more problems. The signals were for a fixed length of time and one found themselves stopped for 63 seconds out of every 90 seconds regardless of the amount of traffic on the side street. I have often been on that street at 4 or 5 in the morning and there are no cars around and I find myself stopped for a minute. That is a waste of fuel and a waste of time.
The road diet plan has worked elsewhere. We have run models for it. We had the great presentation this past winter on it. And Steve Tracy deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing forward with it through multiple obstacles over many years.
This resolution is of course only the key first step. We still need funding and there still needs to be follow through regardless of whether SACOG funding is approved, but let us make no mistake this was a huge first step as it signals for the first time really in concrete and unequivocal writing that the council supports this action and they deserve tremendous credit for pushing through this in the face of opposition from the downtown.
I believe this will do nothing but help the downtown, and I think they all recognize the need to work with the downtown in order to mitigate whatever harmful effects there might be particularly in terms back up on the sides streets–if that really is going to be a problem.
Most of the concerns of downtown can be addressed with thoughtful planning and good design work. I look forward to seeing this process through. As I have said since the announcement of the deal to bring DeLanos to Westlake, this has become my top priority for Davis. I am glad to see this one well on its way to fruition.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thank you for the well-written summary of last night’s meeting. And the compliment. But as I said last night this was not really about any of us there in the room. Or maybe it was. In my view as a planner, this was about people we will never meet, or at least never know for sure who they are. People who in the future will have a safe and uneventful trip on Fifth Street. Over the years dozens, then hundreds of folks will use the street never knowing that with the current design they might have been the person who’s travels were interrupted by some traumatic accident. An accident this better design may prevent. So each and every one of us now has the opportunity on every future trip we make on Fifth Street to smile and say “Today…I’m the ONE! It’s me who isn’t having the accident. I am special.” That’s what this was about. SAFETY.
At the beginning of the public comment period I tried to explain that the supporters of this redesign have no animosity towards the business owners, in spite of all their opposition to this safer street. Our feeling is more one of bewilderment: Many of us have friendships or personal relationships with business operators. We can’t understand how they let the people speaking for them show such indifference to our safety.
For every merchant worried about access to their business, there are hundreds or thousands of us on the other end of that equation. For five years now we have only been asking that they understand our desire to make that trip to downtown without feeling threatened by the chaotic traffic on Fifth Street. The Council Chamber was filled with people reaching for the ceiling when I asked who would still support the merchants downtown after the street is redesigned.
So after our effort to ease the fears of the business community, I was very shocked to once again have them respond with distortions of the traffic model outputs, and some outright lies about our interactions with the Chamber of Commerce and the DDBA. The Chamber of Commerce leader said we had never approached them about Fifth Street, and that we disrupted a Chamber/DDBA stakeholder meeting with City staff.
I know the Chamber is a big organization, which may have the same failures in internal communication we have all experienced in groups. We did approach the Chamber, and I attended a meeting in their offices with Old North Davis Neighborhood Association (ONDNA) then-President Sheryl Gerety, Chamber President Stephen Greenfield, and Chamber member Marty O’Hara. Mr. Greenfield declined our offer to make a presentation to the Chamber at large or their Board, and dismissed our concerns about the extremely high accident rate to drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Fifth Street as “An acceptable risk.” After that brush-off and the attacks that followed, we gave up.
The current Chamber President told the Council last night that one of their meetings had been disrupted. The inference is that supports of the redesign had somehow made a scene. Past ONDNA President Bruce Winterhalder and I attended one of the two meetings City staff scheduled to get input from the DDBA and Chamber membership about the Fifth Street proposal. We genuinely care about these businesses, and wanted to hear their concerns. This was a public meeting, held in a public building, attended by public employees getting comments on a public project, and advertised by the DDBA as open to everyone. We were very respectful, and because of the way the chairs were placed could not even sit together. We were in the back of the room, quietly listening, not smirking or poking each other or being impolite in any way. Suddenly the DDBA Co-President in attendance jumped up from her chair and began shouting and pointing at me to “GET OUT!” Our City staff elected to allow this ejection to occur rather than comply with state law about open meetings. Bruce suggested he and I should “take the high road” and we departed. That was the disturbance, and it was not caused in any way by supporters of the redesign. I do not recall seeing the current Chamber President in the room that evening, yet last night he chose to revisit the incident and blame supporters of the redesign for it.
That had me twisting in my seat, to be sure. I wish to thank Mayor Ruth Asmundson for giving me a brief opportunity to set the record straight at the hearing last night.
To the business community, we are all still here. We will be coming through your doors today and many tomorrows to move dollars from our pockets to your cash registers. We care about your success, because we value your goods and services just as much just as you need us. So will you please work with your leadership to get them to operate with the same respectful tone the supporters of the redesign carried into the hearing last night. And as we go on to the design phase of this effort, let’s focus on the facts rather than distortions and personal attacks.
Thank you. Steve Tracy
Amazing that this thing was controversial at all.
I saw Steve’s data and analysis years ago, and it was clear that the roadway safety and traffic flow would significantly improve.
Glad that it is finally going to get done. And maybe I won’t hear so many screaching tires as cars serve to avoid parents and baby carriages crossing Fifth to get to shopping in Downtown.
Forty years ago the business community in this town thought that opening on Sunday was heresy, so give the poor folks another few decades and they’ll come around. Why someday the ‘DDBA’ may even figure out a way to run a shuttle service to the far ‘burbs. . .
Business people are naturally conservative and I can understand that. If you are making money under the present conditions — resist change, even if you might make more thereby.
I, too, want a thriving downtown, I hate to see empty stores, or people failing. But Fifth Street is like a wall between uptown and downtown. I hate to cross it on foot or by bike.
And, we need a safe bike corridor between West and East. There is none now. Covell is out of the question and 8th St. only goes part way. From personal observation, I get the impression that many living in the newer parts of East Davis have never considered using a bike for their trips because there is no safe corridor to downtown or campus.
Congratulations on moving forward with a resolution on the 5th Street corridor. I bicycle a lot and I don’t like 5th Street either.
[i]Somehow during the course of the discussion the language shifted from one of punting to another football related metaphor of moving the ball forward.[/i]
Hopefully they aren’t just kicking the can down the road.
Just my contribution to mixed metaphors for the day.
[i]Suddenly the DDBA Co-President in attendance jumped up from her chair and began shouting and pointing at me to “GET OUT!”[/i]
“Suddenly and for no earthly reason she leaped up and started screaming at me!” LOL, Steve. I have heard these stories before, because I have children.
First, a hearty thanks to the citizens who are successfully leading a grass roots movement to keep Davis a pedestrian and bicycle-oriented city. You, along with the West Davis citizens who single-handedly brought a grocery to West Davis, have shown that grass roots movements in Davis are the driving force that keeps Davis the city we are.
On a sadder note, deadline is passed, and the Yes on P campaign did not correct the flagrant fabrication on the Yes on P rebuttal statement. STILL no story in the Davis Vanguard.
Why is this important? It is important because the Yes on Measure P ballot rebuttal falsely claims that the Wildhorse Ranch project will bring a huge windfall that will fund city services, and that staff confirms this. Not single word in this statement is true. If this statement were true, I would be campaigning for the project.
With a grossly dishonest ballot statements by the big money developer campaign, a precedent has been set that has deeply damaged the democratic process in Davis. Although the law provides recourse when statements that are this flagrantly untrue are made, citizens don’t usually have the money to undertake the required legal action.
At least we have the Davis Enterprise to rely on. They did cover the story. Thank you, Davis Enterprise.
Greg.
There were lots of other people in the room who may want to verify this happened exactly as I reported. I would suggest you start with a call to either Bob Clarke or Mike Webb. I’m not sure if they were both at that meeting, but one of them was for sure.
I can only assume that my presence had offended her from the beginning, and the pressure was finally too much.
Someone want to step up here and tell Greg that what I wrote is true?
Steve.
Sue: Instead of asking David over and over again to write something, you’re free to do your own journalism for the Vanguard. If you register and write a blog entry, it will appear in the left column, where many people here will read it. If you want more readers, you could then ask David to have it posted in the middle column. That is up to him to decide, but it’s a much easier request than asking him to write what you want him to write.
If you write the article, then you could give it the most provocative title that you can think of, within reason. E.g., you could try, “Yes on P prints blatant falsehood! Film at 11”
I wasn’t at the meeting, but Jennifer is very, very passionate about this issue. Steve, I hope someone who was it this meeting who will clarify the events, but I can tell you that from my experience, slander, untrue statements and personal attacks are standard fare in politics, and it is why so few good people are willing to run.
Along the same lines as Greg, we also know that David has been sick. Was he at the council meeting last night covering this? Maybe he’s getting better now. But he is still only one person, whereas if the Enterprise reporter gets sick they usually have someone who can fill in. I guess it’s easier to attack David for not doing everything you want him to do.
Amazing that this thing was controversial at all
One of my past jobs was directing a corporate project management office for a large company. We averaged about 70 concurrent projects at any given time. The standard project methodology included upfront and ongoing stakeholder analyses. Project stakeholders are critical entities because they present risks and opportunities for achieving project success. After identifying all entities (individual or group) that have a stake in the project, we documented each of their “what’s in it for us/me” (WIFM) considerations and concerns. On the risk management component of the project, we identify the most critical of the list of stakeholders and give them special attention including involving them in the initial conceptualization, design and planning for the project. We continue to touch base with the critical stakeholders throughout the project. We also keep looping through the analysis to uncover new stakeholders as the scope of the project changes or the surrounding organization changes.
Understanding and working the WIFM stakeholder principle are key actions supporting the successful implementation of substantive change. We will see if Obama has figured it our when we addresses the nation on healthcare reform later today. However, it is a lesson for all levels of government, and also those wishing to inspire change in government, to understand who the stakeholders are and what are their driving motivations to block or support the suggested change. Critical stakeholders can quickly line up against change if are made to feel outside the circle of consideration. This is what has happened with seniors and healthcare reform. I think it may also have been what happened with the Davis downtown merchants and the 5th street plan. Some smart people came up with the road diet idea, but didn’t engage the most critical stakeholders early enough in the project. Consequently these critical stakeholders lined up against the change. The fallout from this was a difficult PR effort to either change their minds or find enough outside support to overcome their objections.
Aligned with this need for careful involvement and management of critical stakeholders is the need for capable change leadership. There will always be a percentage of constituents against the change, and the numbers will vary depending on the individual and collective understanding of WIFM benefit. The IRAQ war was an example of change with a very difficult job to sell WIFM benefit. Add to this one of the most incapable change-leading Presidents in the history of the US, and it is easy to understand why support for this project eroded. However, no good deed will ever go unpunished, and sometimes the role of true leadership means the leader must push unpopular change and suffer the consequences. Bush did. It will be interesting to see if Obama can either utilize his significant salesman gifts to recover from his administration’s poor job of critical stakeholder management, or if he will be willing to step up as a true leader and push unpopular change while accepting the consequences. My guess is that he will not be able to change enough minds, and so his choice will be to either back down or push unpopular change.
As for the 5th street project, the lesson going forward should be to first involve the downtown merchants in helping to come up with the solution, and then look to our city council to demonstrate true leadership for doing what is right.
[quote]Was he at the council meeting last night covering this?[/quote]I had to leave a bit early, but David was not there, unless he came late. However, there really is no difference if you watch it live on cable TV.
At the very least, Jennifer Anderson has to be worried right now about her store getting hit hard by Target.
And I note that Target will have much better bicycle parking.
As for what Steve Tracy said about this crazy meeting, whether it is “true” is not the right question. It cannot possibly be the whole truth. As I said, I’m a parent, I know these things.
[i]The IRAQ war was an example of change with a very difficult job to sell WIFM benefit.[/i]
No kidding, Jeff. It truly was between a crock and a hard sell.
Harry and Greg,
Since David had assured us over and over again that changes would be made, I think he should host a discussion of the story. If he is too ill to write more than one in-depth article a day, all he would have to do is write a few sentences: “I guess I was wrong about my assurances that changes would be made in Wildhorse Ranch rebuttal. I would be interested in hearing from both sides; you are welcome to defend your positions.”
I don’t have time to write a serious piece that might not get posted. I think I am getting my point across for those who are receptive, and I don’t even know about this left column thing that Greg is referring to, so I doubt it gets much readership.
David has every right to ignore this issue, and I have every right to point out that he is ignoring it.
Finally, since when have Vanguard posts not been repetitive and off-topic? This seems to be the norm, although usually the posters are anonymous. At least my comments are directing people to a critically important issue that is being swept under the rug.
Sue: I think the point is David was sick and probably intended to do more than he has. Instead of you understanding that, and perhaps showing a little compassion given how hard the man clearly works, you’ve raised the point over and over again.
I’d also like to point out an inconsistency in your line of thinking.
Greg: “Instead of asking David over and over again to write something, you’re free to do your own journalism for the Vanguard. If you register and write a blog entry, it will appear in the left column, where many people here will read it. If you want more readers, you could then ask David to have it posted in the middle column. That is up to him to decide, but it’s a much easier request than asking him to write what you want him to write.”
Sue: “I don’t have time to write a serious piece that might not get posted.”
Sue: “If he is too ill to write more than one in-depth article a day, all he would have to do is write a few sentences”
Couldn’t you just do that and post it on the left side and ask David to post it in the center? Or would that take too much time for you to do as well?
There are some other problems I have with you post, such as your seeming unspoken assumption that David will see the proceedings the same way you do and your assertion that you lack time but yet notoriously spend much of your days calling people around town, surely you can forgo at least one of those phone cals to write a short yet clear and pointed piece in response to what you view as a miscarriage of justice.
I’m not saying that to be flippant, just suggesting you have other approaches other than posting the same comment over and over again.
Have you tried to call David and see how he’s feeling and when you might expect a piece?
Sue, stop calling people dishonest and liars. It makes you look … small. And don’t mix article subjects. I opened this one to read about Fifth Street, and here you are, calling everyone liars about the Measure P.
Like I have said, go “sue” them if it’s incorrect. You have the funds, or go get some from the other developers who hate this project as competition for them. If you just sit there and rant at your keyboards, all of us are just going to conclude that your argument has no merit because you don’t believe it enough to lift more than a finger to deal with it. So take the safe route.
And you go on and on about public process?? My understanding is that for weeks before the 7/28 meeting, you were a hard NO vote, due to allegedly too many other project units approved but not yet built. You made it clear. You made it known. Far and wide. You refused to deal with the contractor or the docket files.
Speaking of “road diet” were any of you out there yesterday, trying to drive down 5th while they were seal coating the pavement? The traffic was shunted into [u]1 lane[/u] and the cars were backed up to the 113 off ramp. I think we need a real physical test of the “studies” before we pull the trigger on this project. The city should cone off the areas that will be converted to bike lanes and see if this works in the real world. I think the first week of the UCD fall quarter would be a good test . . .
I appreciate your concern, and I wonder if it would be possible, though I think the first week of UCD is not a good testing period, I would start something confusing during a slower period.
Part of what your concern misses is that part of this effort will be to redirect traffic, so at B St, 43% turn south, 7% turn north, and 50% stay straight. Would directing cars to immediately go to those lanes cause back up there? Certainly not like blocking a lane without using redirects. It might back up temporarily until people learned the new system and how to avoid the back up–which would be go to your lane immediately.
Vincente: The point is that when David posted his article on the rebuttal, he asked me a few times not to discuss the flagrant fabrications in the rebuttal, because he had inside information that they were being corrected. They were not corrected, and so IMHO, he should write the story.
Mike Harrington: You say: “So sue then”, knowing full well that citizens don’t have the money to sue well-funded developer campaigns. This is typical developer strong-arm tactics, and is setting a precedent that seriously damages grass-roots politics.
Sue – cut the crap and keep on the subject!
Congratulations Steve Tracy, and all who have assisted in this process, including those who signed the petition. Petitions are a very powerful tool, when used correctly (and I would know!).
Just for the record, I was not too crazy about the road diet at first, bc intuitively one would think that narrowing a street from two lanes to one would slow traffic considerably. But after reading all that was in the Davis Vanguard blog, including video clips, and perusing what was in the Davis Enterprise, and after some investigation and thinking about it on my own, I most definitely changed my mind some months ago. Hence my signature on the petition.
I want to thank Lamar Heystek for picking up on my Farmer’s Market comment, and running with it in closely and intelligently questioning city staff. (One thing I really appreciate about Lamar is his open mind in listening to public comment.) The mini “road diet” implemented every Saturday morning at A Street was/is a pretty powerful point – we already impose a road diet each and every weekend, and no downtown merchants have complained about that. Furthermore, this mini-road diet does not result in an appreciable bottle-neck nor troubles on other side streets. How does one credibly argue that what is good for the Farmers Market on Saturdays, implemented for the safety of pedestrians, is somehow bad the other six days a week for downtown business? It is not really a sustainable nor tenable position.
As for the comments from DDBA/Chamber of Commerce nonsense about an ostensible disruption of their meeting, it is nothing more than a political tactic when losing the argument on common sense grounds. We have heard this sort of babble before – if the opposition is getting traction, accuse them of “attacking”, “belittling”, “browbeating”. To disagree with the DDBA/Chamber of Commerce is somehow “disruptive”. This technique in Davis is getting old, and is not particularly effective anymore. People generally will gravitate towards a common sense approach, that is not threatening – which is what Steve Tracy and others have done, and it convinced me as well as 2,499 others who signed the petitions to make 5th Street safer with a road diet.
I suspect downtown businesses had the same reservations I did initially, but refused to keep an open mind. They staked out a position, and obdurately clung to it despite good evidence to the contrary. But in doing so, downtown businesses have generated a lot of hard feeling among potential customers, which needs to be reversed. I would strongly encourage the DDBA/Chamber of Commerce to begin constructive discussions about their concerns, and not allow themselves to devolve into devising ways to sabotage the beginning efforts to make 5th Street safer – which will hopefully be accomplished with SACOG funding.
As I said, I can understand the DDBA/Chamber of Commerce’s initial reluctance to embrace the road diet – but their continued close-mindedness in the face of overwhelming evidence this new plan will make 5th Street much safer for everyone and actually not cause slower traffic will be detrimental to their business in the long run. The downtown businesses should embrace change, think Farmer’s Market if they have doubts, and appreciate that the safety concerns of their customers should APPEAR to be paramount in their thinking.
I would also like to thank the City Council for sending a clear message to SACOG they are UNANIMOUSLY in favor of trying the road diet. Had they done anything short of a unanimous vote, it is far less likely we would receive any SACOG funding for this project.
And lastly, I wish DPD a speedy recovery from his flu shot debacle!
And in the intervening time, he got sick, so we have no idea what he plans to do at this point or what his original plan was.
Jeff: “Critical stakeholders can quickly line up against change if are made to feel outside the circle of consideration. This is what has happened with seniors and healthcare reform. I think it may also have been what happened with the Davis downtown merchants and the 5th street plan. Some smart people came up with the road diet idea, but didn’t engage the most critical stakeholders early enough in the project. Consequently these critical stakeholders lined up against the change.”
There is also a long and continuing adversarial relationship between the neighborhood association and the downtown merchants. You are probably seeing some carryover from previous conflicts.
[quote]your assertion that you lack time but yet notoriously spend much of your days calling people around town[/quote]Vincente, I am happy to see that you acknowledge, albeit in a hostile fashion, that I spent a huge amount of time personally contacting rebuttal signers of the Wildhorse Ranch campaign, trying to explain the situation and to settle the issue amicably. I assumed that they did not understand that the project does NOT provide a huge windfall that will fund city services as stated in the rebuttal, and that they would not want to have signed the statement if they knew that it wasn’t true.
I had a very nice talk with Ken Wagstaff, who felt a strongly that the ballot argument should be truthful. Unfortunately for the future of citizen-based politics in Davis, the campaign did not correct the gross fabrication.
I will stop posting on this topic when Mike Harrington and the anonymous poster stop attacking me.
Meanwhile, I want to again thank the citizen activists who are succeeding in bringing modern traffic planning to Davis.
Sue, The Enterprise did an article about your concerns on September 3rd. The article described your options to get the ballot statements corrected. An article on this blog is not necessary. Go do what you need to do. Harping on the people here will do nothing to change the wording of the ballot arguments. We understand that there is no huge windfall, just an absorption of costs. We understand. Now let us be.
“There is also a long and continuing adversarial relationship between the neighborhood association and the downtown merchants. You are probably seeing some carryover from previous conflicts.”
Please explain. What exactly is the neighborhood association you are referring to? And why was there an adversial relationship between the neighborhood association, whoever that is, and the downtown merchants?
Don Shor,
The adversarial relationship between the downtown merchants and the surrounding neighborhood is a new phenomenon. Back in the early 90’s when the core area specific plan threatened to change the residential zoning of the University neighborhood, I approached Stan Forbes and suggested that the downtown merchants and the progressive surrounding neighborhoods form an alliance, because the downtown has no more loyal supporters than these neighbors. Stan agreed to support the maintenance of the residential zoning West of B Street, and I agreed to help reassure the neighborhood and round up support for the downtown merchants’ issues.
All that changed when the DBA pushed to rezone B Street. Unfortunately, things have gone downhill since, which is unfortunate because the downtown’s greatest supporters have always been the surrounding residential neighbors.
Ryan,
If you want me to stop posting on the Wildhorse Ranch issue, why do you keep bringing up new misconceptions that I am forced to address?
Ryan, there is not even “an absorption of costs”, but I will leave that discussion for another day.
And there is no way for citizens to deal with fabrications in developer ballot arguments but to “harp” on them in any forum possible, because we lack the funds with which to launch lawsuits or send out mailers.
But why do you need to get in the last word? Isn’t that harping? Again, I will stop posting on this topic when I stop being attacked for my original post.
Ah, Sue, you play the victim so well …. as always. Since the 1990s.
Regardless of whether you are for or against Measure P — I am for it — I think Sue is right in pointing out that it is unethical of the pro-P side to include information in its ballot statement it knows to be wrong. I think by not removing it, this might harm the chances of P passing. Also, if it is not removed, and P ends up a success, it might set a precedent for future misstatements in ballot arguments.
That said, regardless of whether or not David Greenwald implied that he was going to get his friends who are behind Measure P to change the language, this is ultimately not David’s responsibility, even if he had not become sick. The onus is on the developer, who I believe has made a big mistake in this case.
Mike Harrington says that the No on P folks should file a lawsuit. That may have been possible (if not too expensive in this case), but it misplaces the responsibility. Mike shouldn’t be advising the No on P folks what they need to do. Mike needs to tell the Yes on P, his side, what they need to do. It is the Yes on P group which made the mistake in its ballot argument.
From the Davis Enterprise article:
“From the point of view of the developer, Masud Monfared, managing principal at Parlin Development Co., the $4 million total is reached by adding one-time construction tax fees of about $791,476 to an estimated $3 million in subsidy fees that he plans to absorb. Because the city typically spends $80,000 to $90,000 in subsidies for each affordable housing rental unit, Monfared considers the savings a gain for the city.”
And
“The reason it wasn’t confirmed by city staff is because it’s not how the city thinks about costs and benefits,” Siegler said, adding, “I’m not saying these things aren’t benefits or costs, but they’re not part of fiscal analyses from a city perspective.”
And
“According to County Clerk-Recorder Freddie Oakley, there are two options for modifying ballot statements that have been submitted to the Elections Office. The parties can either work it out with one another or the opposing side can file a writ of mandate with the court within 10 days of the statement deadline, she said.”
And
“Shahin Monfared, “Yes on Measure P” community outreach coordinator, said the campaign stands by the statement, but is willing to make changes in the spirit of collaboration.”
So, Work it out with them, Sue.
“As I have said since the announcement of the deal to bring DeLanos to Westlake, this has become my top priority for Davis.”
Dear David:
Glad to see you’re feeling better and back to the blogging business; and I’m especially glad that you have again mentioned the Delano market deal.
It seems interesting that two of the signers of the rebuttal statement favoring Measure P (Carolyn Hinshaw and Eric Nelson) are also two members of DANG! (Davis Advocates for Neighborhood Groceries). Why this is even more interesting now is that the “grapevine” out there is saying that as Bill Ritter helped lobby to get DANG the Delano Market deal, West Davis neighbors are now being asked to support Ritter in the Yes on P vote, in some sort of political “quid pro quo” deal.
Now, if Davis citizens, some of whom are labeled as “neighborhood activists” support Wildhorse Ranch on its presumed merits (“green” project; serves as “affordable” housing), that’s fine; but what really riles me is to vote for this project as a return favor for Bill Ritter’s lobbying efforts for the Delano deal. This sort of political manuvering was vehemently opposed by the same people in the No on X, Covell Village, Whitcomb-Mike Corbin Alliance, yet it is now okay in the Delano-Wildhorse pact????
I had thought that certain Davis citizens strayed above these low-ball political deals, but I guess I was dead wrong!!!
Ryan: “Shahin Monfared, “Yes on Measure P” community outreach coordinator, said the campaign stands by the statement, but is willing to make changes in the spirit of collaboration.”
If they now know the statements to be incorrect, they should make the changes without having to “work it out” with anybody. If the independent analysis is not supported by staff (or for that matter, if Matt now agrees it was flawed), the Yes on P campaign should not anything further: their statement in the ballot argument is factually incorrect. If they go forward with it, knowing that it is factually incorrect, then they are being intentionally misleading. It seems to me that a campaign that uses misleading arguments ought not be rewarded with a ‘Yes’ vote. Having an informed electorate requires that accurate information be presented to the voting public. I don’t see why proponents keep putting this back on Sue to somehow “correct” the ballot argument. It’s the job of those who rushed their arguments to the ballot under tight deadline in the first place: the developer and the supporters of Wildhorse Ranch.
What’s the hurry on this development? Why can’t the Finance and Budget Commission review it? Why can’t the fee reductions by staff be reviewed more thoroughly? Why can’t the fiscal impact of the project be more fully explored? A ‘No’ vote doesn’t kill the project, it just sends it back to the drawing board. This may be the greatest housing development in Davis since Village Homes, or it may just be another pretty nice peripheral project with some green features. But the voters can’t make up their minds if the information in front of them is confusing or inaccurate.
the Yes on P campaign should not need anything further: their statement in the ballot argument is factually incorrect. If
To Anonymous Poster Above: Why don’t you ask Carolyn or Eric?
Hi Don,
I’m just saying that, instead of using the “harp on any forum available” method (Sue’s words), she ought to do something that might have a better chance of actually changing it. Unless she prefers to have the statement remain on the ballot, so she can hope for people to reach the same conclusion you write above and vote no. Knowing Sue, she actually loves the fact that she has something to “harp about.” Just because the city doesn’t view it as a benefit, doesn’t mean the developer won’t view it as a cost for his project. He explained how he reached his number. I agree that this is not a source of funding for the city that could be used to offset other obligations. Since the developers are probably reading this, they will know that this is an issue for people.
Don Shor,
Thanks. The reason that I am so disturbed today is that the Yes on P campaign knew that yesterday was the last day that they were legally allowed to start action to correct the statement, and they didn’t. I confirmed this today with Freddie Oakley. They didn’t even take out the statement “staff confirmed”, which staff told me they had asked them to do. That means that the developer knowingly allowed a grossly incorrect statement to go forward.
Again, they can’t correct it. Although the developer said he would correct it, and surrogates repeated that he would correct it, he didn’t.
Dear “Interesting”-
Sorry you are barking up the wrong tree . . . I checked Parlin’s facts and I checked their math and I checked the City Staff report (July 28th) which does support Parlin’s claim. Some of you ought to do the same before shooting from the lip . . . and stop acting like you work for Faux News! You are using the same tactics as those opposing real health care reform . . . stick to the facts and not try to manufacture them.
[u]In the interest of full disclosure on my end[/u] (which probably doesn’t interest the fiction writers above): DANG has nothing to do with this issue and DANG will not be engaged as an entity. I personally support this small precedent setting development on its merits. I didn’t realize Carolyn was a co-signing supporter of the ballot rebuttal until I saw that the document had her signature on it. Good [u]open[/u] minds think alike. Bill is a long time friend who I have worked with on a couple of campaigns and a couple of human relations commission issues. Bill was very involved in the Westlake issue, as he (and Maynard Skinner) were the local liaison for the Westlake owner. Bill and Maynard kept all the stakeholders at the table when we were faced with one impasse after another. They stayed in there and did a great job of solving a community problem . . . the grocery is happening! But even if I didn’t know Bill, I would still be supporting WHR, Measure P, and would have signed the rebuttal.
Now Ms./Mr. “Interesting” I challenge you to disclose who you are and who you are aligned with and why!
Eric Nelson
PS- David can we get another WHR page going so we can get back to the subject here?
Eric: I’d love to when I have something to report.
Ryan: “..Hi Don,
I’m just saying that, instead of using the “harp on any forum available” method (Sue’s words), she ought to do something that might have a better chance of actually changing it.”
I understand that. But as Sue points out, it’s too late. The ballot arguments now go forward as written, even known to be erroneous. Apparently, that was intentional; if not, I’d like some WHR supporters to come on here and explain what happened. To me, intentional misrepresentation disqualifies the project from voter support.
Rich: “I think Sue is right in pointing out that it is unethical of the pro-P side to include information in its ballot statement it knows to be wrong.”
Will you still support it if you believe this to be unethical? You’ve got a soapbox.
I guess we’re done with 5th Street comments. But Greg, you were not at the DDBA/Chamber meeting in question, so how can you possibly offer an opinion about the truth of what I’m saying? I regret engaging you on this issue. What I said to the Council last night set the record straight with an accurate account of what happened. I was kicked out of a meeting by Jennifer Anderson for sitting silently and respectfully in the back of the room. My affront was, in her eyes, crashing “a private meeting.” I’m going to go catch up on my long neglected household chores. Take care, everyone. Steve.
[quote]”From the point of view of the developer, Masud Monfared, managing principal at Parlin Development Co., the $4 million total is reached by adding one-time construction tax fees of about $791,476 to an estimated $3 million in subsidy fees that he plans to absorb. Because the city typically spends $80,000 to $90,000 in subsidies for each affordable housing rental unit, Monfared considers the savings a gain for the city. — Ryan Kelly”[/quote]Ryan: This statement is completely wrong on a number of counts:
1) The developer is not “absorbing $3 million” of housing trust fund developer fees. The City has typically spent $80,000 to $90,000 in subsidies per unit when the developer chooses a land dedication because:
a) We were subsidizing a different, more expensive projects.
b) We were chronically overpaying, which we can just stop doing.
c) According to Elvia Garcia, head of the social services department, if the developer were to give the city a land dedication, the city could probably send out an RFP and deed over the land to another developer who would develop the land without city subsidy. She thinks we could find a developer to do this without city subsidy, but even if we could not, we certainly wouldn’t have to pay a $3 million subsidy.
2) More importantly, there is no $3 million dollar subsidy absorbed, but even if there were, it would be a savings to the dedicated affordable housing fund, which builds housing which results in a huge net fiscal less to the city, because affordable housing pays no property tax. Any money saved by the affordable housing fund is not a “net fiscal benefit” to the city, and could in no way be used to “pay for city services”, as stated in the ballot argument. In fact, any resultant additional housing built would be a HUGE drain on our fund which pays for city services. But again, there is no $3 million subsidy absorbed anyway.
3)Lastly, and most outrageously, I have seen the most recent draft of the development agreement, and the developer has not committed to building the affordable units without city subsidy. In fact, it states that if he can’t get adequate state and federal subsidies, he will provide a land dedication. Staff said that they have been negotiating with the developer, and he refused to commit to building the affordable housing without city subsidy.
Ryan: [i]”(Sue) ought to do something that might have a better chance of actually changing it.”[/i]
I think you are wrong here, in terms of [i]who ought to be doing something.[/i] It’s not Sue’s responsibility that Parlin is acting unethically. It’s Parlin’s responsibility. Parlin knows that the city staff does not agree with their statement. The statement, I believe, was made with good intentions originally. But a mistake was made and pointed out to them, and staff recognizes that it’s a mistake. Parlin needs to own up to that and retract the statement.
Ryan: [i]”Unless she prefers to have the statement remain on the ballot, so she can hope for people to reach the same conclusion you write above and vote no. Knowing Sue, she actually loves the fact that she has something to [i]’harp about.'”[/i]
Perhaps knowing Sue a bit better than you, I think you are wrong in this instance, too. I think what Sue cares about, more than the outcome of this vote, more than having something to harp about, is having a fair fight, one in which neither the proponents or the opponents are intentionally misleading the voters.
Ryan: [i]”Just because the city doesn’t view it as a benefit, doesn’t mean the developer won’t view it as a cost for his project.”[/i]
Keep in mind that the developer’s statement explicitly says that the city staff supports his contention. That may have been true at one point. However, it is false, now.
Ryan: [i]”He explained how he reached his number.”[/i]
I think the number was derived independently by Matt Williams, not by Parlin. It is also my understanding (though I have not heard or read where Matt actually said this) that Matt now believes his calculation was in error.
Ryan: [i]”I agree that this is not a source of funding for the city that could be used to offset other obligations.”[/i]
I think the most important consideration to understand is this: in a best case scenario with residential development which includes a low-income housing component (as all large developments in Davis must by ordinance), the net revenue effect to the city will be very slightly positive. However, in most instances of residential building, the net revenue effect to the city is negative. Thus, when a developer (even if an independent analyst did the calculation) says that his project is going to be a huge boon to the city’s coffers, you have to view those numbers with extreme skepticism. Now that the city staff has denied the validity of that calculation, I think it is important that the developer backs off from his statement.
Ryan: [i]”Since the developers are probably reading this, they will know that this is an issue for people.”[/i]
Perhaps. However, if Parlin does not budge and this passes, the lesson learned may be that it’s okay to lie (or in this case to knowingly include false information in a ballot argument).
Don Shor: [i]”Will you still support it if you believe this to be unethical?”[/i]
I don’t know, yet, Don. I do like a number of things about this project. I don’t, however, like the idea of winning an argument based on a misstatement of fact.
[i]”You’ve got a soapbox.”[/i]
Now all I need is a big hill to roll my wooden car down.
I am extremely troubled by the Measure P rebuttal issue. I am sure most voters assume the elections office would not include in the ballot pamphlet any argument for or against a proposition that includes false factual material. In other words, the ballot statements attain some measure of credibility by virtue of being printed by a government office with our tax dollars (which I assume is what the developer is counting on). Is there really nothing that Freddie’s office can do in the event that an argument contains an indisputable factual misrepresentation, i.e., that City staff agrees with the assertion in the rebuttal?
Before the rebuttal issue came up, I was pretty sure I was going to support Measure P, largely because of the green approach. But I will not send a message that it is profitable to include misrepresentations in ballot statements.
Re the topic of this blog — Many thanks to Steve Tracy for all of his work to help make this city safer.
Congrats to all of the people who have been working on the 5th Street proposal. Great job for hanging in there and being willing to explain again and again and again how this design works to handle traffic while increasing safety. It’s really nice to see this move one big step closer to being implemented.
Don: There are a features of Wildhorse Ranch that I don’t particularly like. On balance, it doesn’t matter a whole lot to me whether this development is approved.
Even so, you’ve reduced the discussion to argument from fallacy ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy[/url]). Of course, just because I give a bad argument in favor of an idea, that doesn’t mean that it’s a bad idea. Even if I argued for an idea with outrageous lies, it might still be a good idea.
Argument from fallacy, especially in its liar form, is a dangerous distraction in courtrooms. It often happens that a defendant gets himself convicted not because he’s guilty of the crime, but because he’s a repulsive liar. Or because his lawyer is a repulsive liar. A strange relativism creeps in, so that people no longer believe in objective truth; instead the only truth is which side made a better argument.
Actually, jury instructions somewhat invite this weird relativism; juries are sort-of instructed not to consider any “facts” other than what the two sides provide. But some of that is just plain unreasonable, even in a jury trial. In any case, a city ballot measure isn’t a jury trial.
In other words, it’s valid to object to a dishonest argument in favor of Measure P (say), but the first thing to do is to consider the measure on its own merits.
“Lastly, and most outrageously, I have seen the most recent draft of the development agreement, and the developer has not committed to building the affordable units without city subsidy. In fact, it states that if he can’t get adequate state and federal subsidies, he will provide a land dedication. Staff said that they have been negotiating with the developer, and he refused to commit to building the affordable housing without city subsidy.”
I don’t care if this blog started about Fifth Street re-design; this is the first I have heard now of these Parlin developers (“green as green comes”) now balking on their whole “affordable housing” pitch without subsidies!!! we have been hearing all spring and summer their paid supporters spew at City Planning and City Council meetings how this project was going to be a real boost for “affordable housing” for “Davis workforce”; when are there lies going to stop! I want every reasonably minded Davis citizen (who has not yet been brainwashed by Bill Ritter) to seriously consider this issue and the whole fiscal analysis fallacy showing profits to the City when you vote on this only second Measure J issue to come before Davis voters!
“You are using the same tactics as those opposing real health care reform . . . stick to the facts and not try to manufacture them.”
Hey Eric:
I support health care reform! It’s Parlin that doing the “dirty tricks” with this argument that this project will bring net revenue to the City; something clearly that has not been verified by anyone in the City; no surprise from GOP (Grand Ole’ Parlin, whose chief principal Monfared was big donator to Republican political causes!)
Greg,
Don’t you think that ignoring the fact that a campaign has made dishonest statements will lead to an escalation of dishonest campaigns? I am concerned that if there are no consequences for major misrepresentations and fabrications, that our electoral process will deteriorate, and that the lies will escalate.
Most people don’t take the time that you obviously take to go to the sources and weed out fact from fiction, nor do most voters share your research and analytical skills. Most assume that what they read has some element of truth, particularly if the statements are signed by people that they trust, such as former mayors.
I’m interested in exploring the tension between on the one hand claiming “every reasonably minded Davis citizen” and on the other hand saying, “who has not yet been brainwashed by Bill Ritter,” thereby implying irrationality and paranoia. I have no dog in this fight, but do you understand you come across as “whack” when you say shit like that?
Greg: “it’s valid to object to a dishonest argument in favor of Measure P (say), but the first thing to do is to consider the measure on its own merits.”
My point is, of course, that if the ballot arguments are dishonest, then the public can’t make an informed decision. Then the campaign becomes a squabble about the information rather than the relative merits of the project. Also, speaking as a father I tend to think that bad behavior shouldn’t be rewarded.
[i]Don’t you think that ignoring the fact that a campaign has made dishonest statements will lead to an escalation of dishonest campaigns?[/i]
Look, I’m a mathematician. By my training, I can never use this reasoning: “Professor Nixon lied in his proof of the Chinese Remainder Theorem, therefore the Chinese Remainder Theorem is not true.” That is not quite exactly what you’re saying, but I’m also trained not to think this way: “Professor Nixon lied in his proof of the Chinese Remainder Theorem, so let’s spend the hour on that instead of whether the theorem is true.”
I’m not saying that you should ignore it, by the way. Honesty among mathematicians is important (and is an issue now and then), and so is honesty in ballot arguments. But I am saying that I have no interest in obsessing over it.
The first reason that I won’t obsess over it is that I would rather first decide the merits of the measure.
The second reason is that the horse is out of the barn anyway on many ballot measures and propositions. For instance, the No on P argument has the false statement that, “Most greenhouse gases come from auto emissions”. If I were to vote on Measure P on the basis of opposing false statements, I’m not sure which way I would vote.
The third reason is that I find it arrogant to look over the shoulders of other voters, more than in moderation. Again, sometimes it’s an appropriate question, an important question. But often it’s just an excuse for personal bias, to worry so much about how other people are misinformed.
[quote]For instance, the No on P argument has the false statement that, “Most greenhouse gases come from auto emissions[/quote]
Come on, Greg. Now you are being a bit crotchety. O.K, the largest single source of man-made greenhouse gasses in the U.S. is auto emissions. Does that make you feel better?
No, because that is exactly what isn’t true. The largest single source of man-made greenhouse gases in the US is electricity generation.
[img]http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/ES9-9.gif[/img]
Good point, Greg. The climate change seminars that we have attended must have been estimating greenhouse gas produced by heating and cooling residential buildings compared to greenhouse gasses from residential driving. I don’t know how they derived these estimates or if they are accurate.
I haven’t been able to cut and paste a pie chart I found from the Pew Institute, but it shows 17% of greenhouse gas emissions from a sector called “residential” and 28% from a sector called “transportation”. I guess some analysts have tried to estimate the transportation fraction that is residentially-associated transportation.
I’ll try to get details on various analyses from our sustainability coordinator, so that we can use the correct terminology and the best available information.
Thanks.
Greg: “that is exactly what isn’t true.” Really?
I’m not an energy expert, so I do what everyone else does. I google it.
Everything you wanted to know about greenhouse emissions:
[url]http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html[/url]
I think both statements about greenhouse gases are arguably supported by available sources, depending on how the transportation sector is apportioned:
“When the electric power sector is considered by itself, it is the largest sector in terms of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions….”
and
“Transportation Remains the Largest Emitter Among End-Use Sectors”
If you’re looking for ethical equivalence between the campaigns, I don’t think that the statement about whether or not the city staff still supports the fiscal analysis is even arguably true. They can confirm this, I assume, but it either is or isn’t. You’re not going to google it and find competing data. Likewise, I don’t know whether Matt still stands by the fiscal analysis that was cited (he can confirm that, I assume). He either does, or he doesn’t.
There are any number of people who can address this issue about the veracity of the ballot argument, and who can explain why no action was taken once the discrepancies were pointed out. They all read this blog. I hope they won’t try to deflect the issue with these sorts of diversions, but will instead deal with it honestly and directly.
“Honesty among mathematicians is important (and is an issue now and then….”
The only mathematician I know by name is the one immortalized by Tom Lehrer.
Sue: That page is here ([url]http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/us_emissions/usghgemsector.cfm[/url]). Indeed, electricity use is divided into separate residential and commercial sectors, but transportation isn’t. Of course transportation includes planes, trains, ships, trucks, and buses, and not just “autos”. Granted, you say something similar with the phrase “residential driving”.
[i]I think both statements about greenhouse gases are arguably supported by available sources, depending on how the transportation sector is apportioned[/i]
Don: But the ballot statement says “autos”, not “transportation”. And it really should say “autos”, in the sense of comparing residential transportation to residential electricity use. It makes no sense to criticize housing in Davis on the argument that it does nothing about bunker fuel on ships.
[i]If you’re looking for ethical equivalence between the campaigns[/i]
I’m not. But just in general, if you’re keen to defend the integrity of ballot arguments, then you might as well try to defend virginity in Nevada.
[i]The only mathematician I know by name is the one immortalized by Tom Lehrer.[/i]
Well, Tom Lehrer is a mathematician immortalized by Tom Lehrer :-). So that at least makes two if you also count Lobachevsky. Of course the song is about dishonesty in mathematics.
Shouldn’t you count me as a mathematician that you know by name? After all, you sold me a fig tree.
Okay, if you mean famous mathematicians, surely you would count Isaac Newton.
Greg,
Here is another example of the type of data that I imagine some of these generalizations derive from: http://www.ci.redwood-city.ca.us/cds/planning/pdf/RWC_Sust_Indic_Rpt/Energy_GHG_Emissions.pdf Table 13 p.2
These are calculations for Redwood City, CA. Again, 18.9% of greenhouse emissions is attributed to of the the category “residential”, whereas 50.9% is attributable to transportation. Again, I don’t know how they apportion “transportation” between residential, commercial and industrial.
In Redwood City, CA, it appears that transportation is the largest greenhouse gas emitter. However, you have brought up a good point. It would have been better to write something like “Wildhorse Ranch is located on the periphery, so its value as a sustainability model is limited to residential building energy-efficiency.
I consider this less of an issue than the Yes on Measure P statements that every house is affordable, or that the project breaks even when staff says it doesn’t. Yet we didn’t complain about the latter distortions.
To say that the project results in a windfall that would essentially solve our budget problems is in a totally different class. It is an untruthful fabrication of monumental proportions that could easily determine the outcome of the election. This untruthful statement is simply not the moral equivalent of other possible errors, exaggerations or questionable claims made by sides.
Here is the link to the Redwood City energy calculations.
http://www.ci.redwood-city.ca.us/cds/planning/pdf/RWC_Sust_Indic_Rpt/Energy_GHG_Emissions.pdf
Sue – In your post on 9/09 at 7:07 pm you attributed a quote to me. Specifically “From the point of view of the developer, Masud Monfared, managing principal at Parlin Development Co., the $4 million total is reached…”
I never said this. This was a quote taken directly from The Davis Enterprise article on Sept. 3.
A fallacious ballot statement is unacceptable. It calls into question every other thing Parlin has said or promised about their project. Nor do I think it appropriate to reward bad behavior. To vote for Measure P and have it pass will set a precedent that false ballot statements will get a developer what he/she wants. I will be voting NO ON P as a matter of principle – I was unsure up to now which way I would note – now I am sure it will be “NO”.
Parlin consultants are you listening? You have only this coming Tuesday Council meeting left to stop this train wreck. You are going to loose a Nov. election and alot of money. Go for an April election, correct your ballot statement and get more support before you go to the voters.
Sue you really should get some sleep . . . your statement made at 2:30 AM:
[quote]”To say that the project results in a windfall that would essentially solve our budget problems is in a totally different class. It is an untruthful fabrication of monumental proportions that could easily determine the outcome of the election. This untruthful statement is simply not the moral equivalent of other possible errors, exaggerations or questionable claims made by sides.”[/quote]
Really, you are saying that WHR/Parlin have said that their project will solve the City’s budget problem? I haven’t seen any quote from any source on the WHR side that makes the claim that you are attributing to them. Talk about a “fabrication of monumental proportions”! Be careful of stowing thrones and remember to practice what you screech! And the rest of you should check the reliability/credibilty of your sources.
[i]It would have been better to write something like “Wildhorse Ranch is located on the periphery, so its value as a sustainability model is limited to residential building energy-efficiency.”[/i]
This isn’t true either. Based on commuting patterns, the true periphery of Davis is Woodland, West Sacramento, Dixon, Winters, and Vacaville, and lately even Elk Grove. Wildhorse Ranch has more “value as a sustainability model” than any of these.
[i]A fallacious ballot statement is unacceptable.[/i]
Without arguing moral equivalence, those who argue for zero tolerance of a widespread practice are usually swayed for entirely different reasons.
“A fallacious ballot statement is unacceptable.”
“Without arguing moral equivalence, those who argue for zero tolerance of a widespread practice are usually swayed for entirely different reasons.”
A false ballot statement by any other name is still a false ballot statement, and this clearly is since the developer is even conceding they will change it if there is enough of a ground swell to do so.
Secondly, I was on the fence about this project, and now I am not. Who the hell are you to tell me why I was swayed in my decision to vote “NO” on Measure P? I made my decision once I realized Parline was willing to allow misleading info on the ballot statement. I’m not OK w that.
Thirdly, this sets a bad precedent, for other developers to do the same thing – mislead the voters. I, for one, do not want to reward that sort of bad behavior. If you want to condone underhanded sleazy tactics such as this, that give develepors a bad name, go right ahead. Obviously your moral compass is different than mine!
[quote]Secondly, I was on the fence about this project, and now I am not. [/quote]You may or may not be telling the truth about how you felt about this project and how this misstatement by Parlin has swayed you. However, because you won’t put your name to this statement, but instead are using Yowzer!, your statement lacks credibility, the very credibility you are demanding of others. For all we know, you are a signatory to the No on P campaign or even a neighbor who has been fighting WHR for a year.
If you really have gone south on this project due to this one issue — an issue, mind you, which very much bothers me as well — then tell us who you are. Only then we will know if you were in fact someone who had previously expressed negative, positive or mixed sentiments about WHR.
I hear all the time from the pseudonymous posters that the reason they cannot use their real names is because doing so would put their jobs or their lives or their children’s lives or the fate of humanity on the line. However, changing from “on the fence” to “against Measure P” surely won’t jeopardize your future prospects as a Davisite. Signing in on this sort of statement as Yowzer! really just leads your readers to think you are dissembling.
I don’t have any particular advice to “Yowzer” as to whether he or she should remain anonymous. That is his or her choice and I don’t care to out people. However, otherwise I agree with Rich.
One of the silly uses of anonymity is simply to carry a bigger chip on your shoulder. If you are anonymous, then no one can challenge the way that you describe yourself. But as Rich points out, such a self-description also isn’t useful. Anyone can anonymously say, “I am a disabled veteran, I once carried the Olympic torch, and I was a huge fan of Measure XYZ until I was mugged by reality; now I feel betrayed.” What does it prove?
On the other hand, you might offer important facts, leaks, insights, or sentiments that don’t depend on who you are; then it could be very useful to share them anonymously.
For the record, I did not say why “Yowzer” specifically decided to vote no on Measure P, and not just because I don’t know who “Yowzer” is. What I said was that when people claim zero tolerance of a widespread practice, they [b]usually[/b] have something else in mind. Usually is not the same as always.
In any case “Yowzer” and “Now I am sure” suggested a reason, the desire not to reward dishonest [b]developers[/b] specifically. I suspect that it matters more that they are developers than that they bent the truth in a ballot argument. Because it’s as obvious as blue sky that ballot arguments in general aren’t honest.
I wish that they were honest; the way that they read is outright embarrassing. But that is more of an election rules question than a voting booth question. If you feel provoked by specific cases, then it’s like feeling provoked by specific cases of media bias or specific bad drivers on the road. That is, the reaction on average makes things worse, not better.
[quote]Sue – In your post on 9/09 at 7:07 pm you attributed a quote to me. Specifically “From the point of view of the developer, Masud Monfared, managing principal at Parlin Development Co., the $4 million total is reached…”
I never said this. This was a quote taken directly from The Davis Enterprise article on Sept. 3.
[/quote]
Thanks, Ryan. I will use the proper citation in the future.
Hey Parlin: “You lie!”
The nom-de-plume (or nom-de-guerre) issue often resurfaces… I suggest that it’s OK to be anonymous if you cite/correct facts [if you can cite either resources or followup contacts, for others to verify]… there are those of us who could have negative actions taken against us for even this, if nothing else, socially. Calling a “spade a spade” (even if it is a shovel of something) should also be permitted… citing personal ‘authority’, beyond that, properly should have a name/affiliation/authority cited… many contributors to this effort identify their name, but give no clue as to their biases, based on occupation (or lack thereof), affiliations (axes to grind), etc. Just because you speak truth, or ask legitimate questions, doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean you completely identify yourself. If this is uncouth for the majority, I’ll content myself with reading, but won’t “contribute”… demagouges often don’t hesitate to identify themselves with their opinion, no matter how ‘contrived’ (witness Rush Limbaugh)…
Last year it was Joe the Plumber, now we have Joe the Jerk . . . why are they all drooling boobs?
Like I said, some have a different moral compass than I do. I don’t appreciate misleading information on ballots, and don’t intend to reward it. If you don’t believe I was on the fence with respect to this project, and now have decided to vote “NO, NO and hell NO” on Measure P, I don’t give a good goshdarn (and I’m being polite here).
Who died and made you the Arbitor of All Things Right and Relevant about Anonymous Postings Mr. Rifkin? You constantly raise this issue when you can’t argue the logic of the debate. If I want to post anonymously, I have every right to do so, and you have every right to doubt my sincerity. But don’t try and bait me to “out” myself with self-righteous drivel about credibility. No one has a lock on credibility, as “decline to state” points out. I certainly could question your motives on all sorts of things, bc I believe you have a ton of biases, but I would much rather stick to the actual argument than stoop to name calling which essentially amounts to the phrase “liar, liar, pants on fire!”.
Greg —
You are correct that the electricity generation is the largest share of greenhouse gasses, but the fastest growing portion for the last several decades has been transportation. From a blog post I wrote a few years ago :
Ultimately, the atmosphere doesn’t care where the emissions come from. One CO2 molecule is mathematically indistinguishable from another; it doesn’t matter if it came from the talepipe of a Toyota Prius, the smokestack of a Chinese button factory, or from the breath of a sleeping baby.
You are correct that, as a species, we would achieve the biggest emission reductions by going after coal plants. However, since we don’t live in a centrally planned economy, it makes the most sense to go after the carbon sources that we have under our direct control. I bet you aren’t running a coal fired power plant in your backyard, but I bet you do drive a car.
The reason that transportation emissions have been growing so fast, despite the steady increase in fuel efficiency, is (a) the explosion of vehicle miles traveled and (b) the reduction in achieved fuel efficiency due to congested traffic.
So, in the carbon cutting game, you can think of cutting coal emissions as putting money in your checking account, and cutting transportation emissions as putting money in your savings account. Both are good for the same ultimate reason, but they good in subtly different ways.
Drat, I thought this would do HTML elements. Here is the graph I mentioned :
[img]http://vort.org/media/images/sec_co2.png[/img]
and the article :
[url]http://vort.org/2007/12/18/the-carbon-cutting-game/[/url]
That’s what I get for not using preview.