A letter to the Enterprise indicates that the Davis League of Women Voters have canceled the debate on Measure P. They cite a policy to select “speakers to represent a balanced forum on ballot initiatives/ measures.” Further they suggest that they were not “able to come to agree with the No on Measure P campaign group.” Therefore, they decided there will be no League of Women Voters-sponsored debate on the matter.
John Moses, President and Jean Canary, Vice President and Moderator for the League of Women Voters conclude in their letter published in the Davis Enterprise:
“The league’s board members have come to the conclusion that it would best for the league’s reputation for fairness to withdraw our offer to provide a debate.”
The Vanguard has it on fairly good word that the point at issue was the insistence of the No on P side of including a sitting member of the city council as a panelist. It has long been a League policy not to include sitting elected officials as a matter of fairness. We have also been informed that this is the first such cancellation in the league’s over 30 years of sponsoring such events in Davis.
We were initially contacted last week by Jean Canary, Vice President of the Davis League of Women Voters, inviting us to our second debate on Measure P. The format was similar to the first debate. Ms. Canary informed us that the “same folks” from the Yes on P panel would be included. We were also informed by Ms. Canary that our panel from the previous debate was not acceptable to the Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters because our panel included a current City Council member. We believe that the No on P campaign has every right to choose who best represents our views. Jean Canary’s and the League’s allegations of unfairness regarding our panelists of Davis residents are puzzling in light of the fact that the Yes on P campaign was allowed to use their same team, consisting of three paid developer consultants (two of whom do not even live in Davis). Parlin Development has already outspent us $90,000 (to $1000) in this election. If anything, this is unfair, yet we believe that Parlin has the right to choose their representatives, just as we have the right to choose ours. Despite our objections, League President Joan Moses and League Vice President Canary replied that they would not agree to a debate if we insisted on our same panel.
For the No on P side this is far more tragic than for the Yes on P side. I have consistently heard complaints about a well-financed Yes on P side, able to easily get its message out to the public. On the other hand, the No on P side, needs to be able to gain whatever free media attention they can get. They don’t have the luxury to lose opportunities of this sort. They don’t have the resources to overcome it.
Already this appears to be a very low turnout race. Some reports we have received, placed the number at less than ten percent of the voters even know an election is coming. While this site has always had a lively debate (to say the least) the participants here seem to be the exception in Davis, not the rule.
We are closing in on a month before the election, and we have seen exactly one debate and at this point that might be it. There are plenty of points of dispute. Both sides have a number of complaints about the process and the validity of statements. Literature will emphasize key points. Written responses will emphasize other key points.
Nothing quite replaces the spontaneity of a good debate and that is something that unfortunately now is lost to the people of Davis, many of whom will try to sort through competing claims. And now they will not have the benefit of a debate to help them do so.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Nothing quite replaces the spontaneity of a good debate and that is something that unfortunately now is lost to the people of Davis, many of whom will try to sort through competing claims. And now they will not have the benefit of a debate to help them do so.”
David, the “good debate” that you lament the voters of Davis voters have lost already occurred; Sept 21st at Birch Lane Elementary School, sponsored by the Slide Hill Neighborhood Association, and now available for full public viewing at davismedia.org or on DCN TV (local cable channel 15) at the following dates and times:
Wed, 10/07/09, 04:30 PM, Channel 15
Tue, 10/06/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15
Mon, 10/05/09, 01:00 PM, Channel 15
Sun, 10/04/09, 04:00 PM, Channel 15
We felt our positions were well argued by Mark Siegler, Phil King, and Sue Greenwald (all Davis residents) on 9/21 and when Jean Canary stated that the Yes on P panel would remain the same, we wanted equity and wanted our panel from 9/21 to also remain the same. She replied that she wanted “regular folks” on our panel. Are John Tallman and Shahin Monfared (paid employees of Parlin Development and neither of whom are Davis residents) and Bill Ritter (paid campaign consultant of Parlin, at $15,000 per last month) to be considered “regular folks”???
I encourage all who are reading this blog to view that original debate it in its entirety and then see if David’s claims of “But the people who will likely be the losers in all of this are the voters and the process” hold true.
(By the way, why were you not at the Slide Hill debate? the Enterprise reporter was there to cover it.)
“why were you not at the Slide Hill debate? “
I had a severe case of tendinitis in my shoulder and had to have a cortisone shot, I could not move without screaming and asked Matt Williams to cover it for me.
David:
AS someone who as also had severe tendinitis and two cortisone shots in the past, my sympathies.
But Greg’s analysis of what happened in the debate negotiations is exactly right and I participated in the negotiation process along with Greg. How the local chapter of the League could exclude a sitting Council member (ironically, who also happened to be the only woman on the entire six-member panel) but include three paid developers/consultants is still beyond me. Believe me we were not happy about the process either and we do want to get our message out.
WE made counter offer that we would also be willing to debate if the panel had no paid developers, no politicians and only Davis resident, which we presumed would deal with the “regular people” issue). However our counter offer was completely ignored–we concluded that the whole process was a ruse.
Incidentally my wife, who has supported the League for years was completely disgusted by this as we all should be. WE continue to be willing to deabte on any reasonable terms. In the meantime please watch the original debate or visit us at the farmer’s market.
You’re arguing there is a gender issue here? That the League of WOMEN voters is biased against women?
To Curious:
I merely stated what happened.
Phil
And I am merely asking why the point is even relevant?
David, I noticed you referred to excerpts from Jean Canary’s and Joan Moses’ letter to the Enterprise, but failed to mention any part of mine; so for fairness (I know it’s hard for you to not be biased with this project), I am posting my letter below (in entirety) which was also published in Friday’s Enterprise (by the way, Bob Dunning has a hilarious take in this morning’s Enterprise on the whole “really greeen” and “really affordable” message that Yes on P paid college students ($15/hour) are spreading door-to-door)
Dear Editor:
This reply is in response to the letter submitted by the Davis League of Women Voters regarding the cancellation of a debate on Measure P.
We were initially contacted last week by Jean Canary, Vice President of the Davis League of Women Voters, inviting us to our second debate on Measure P. The format was similar to the first debate. Ms. Canary informed us that the “same folks” from the Yes on P panel would be included. We were also informed by Ms. Canary that our panel from the previous debate was not acceptable to the Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters because our panel included a current City Council member.
We believe that the No on P campaign has every right to choose who best represents our views. Jean Canary’s and the League’s allegations of unfairness regarding our panelists of Davis residents are puzzling in light of the fact that the Yes on P campaign was allowed to use their same team, consisting of three paid developer consultants (two of whom do not even live in Davis).
Parlin Development has already outspent us $90,000 (to $1000) in this election. If anything, this is unfair, yet we believe that Parlin has the right to choose their representatives, just as we have the right to choose ours. Despite our objections, League President Joan Moses and League Vice President Canary replied that they would not agree to a debate if we insisted on our same panel.
Our first debate, which was graciously hosted by the Slide Hill Neighborhood Association, was held at Birch Lane Elementary on September 17, and is now available for viewing on DCTV (local cable channel 15) and at http://www.davismedia.org. We hope that the public will view this debate.
We looked forward to again arguing our points in opposition to Measure P with our original debate panel from September 17, as the Yes on P side was allowed. We would be happy to debate again, with the same Yes on P team. We regret the decision to cancel the debate.
Sincerely,
Greg Sokolov
No on P (www.2000HomesAreEnough.org)
Greg: I missed your letter or it would have been included.
I have added your response to the original article, thank you for pointing out my oversight.
Sue does it again. Wrecks the process that everyone else follows. Blames it on others. Sucks a few of her political supporters into her meltdown. Plays the victim. How boring. How predictable. How … disappointing that the voters in Davis are losing the value of a LWV sponsored debate. How sad.
Sue Greenwald-re-elected two times
Mike Parlington-ONE TERMER
Enough said!!!
“Some reports we have received, placed the number at less than ten percent of the voters even know an election is coming.”
…an interesting observation. Why haven’t we seen Yes on P lawn signs sprouting up like mushrooms all over Davis. The developer-funded Yes on P campaign certainly has the resources and could, if they chose, started their lawn sign campaign almost 2 months ago(someone please tell me if there is a Yes on P lawn sign in front of Ken Wagstaff’s home). The No on P campaign has been working to gather funds for their campaign. Their grassroots resources have finally swelled to the point that allows them to launch their lawn sign campaign now as well as mobilize NON-PAID VOLUNTEERS(go to their website, http://www.2000homesareenough.org) to find out how to participate) to do walk and drop, alerting Davis voters that there IS an election on Nov. 4. There can be only two explanations why we have not seen Yes on P signs all over Davis by now. Either the Yes on P campaign cannot find ANYONE(highly unlikely even with the marginal citizen support for their cause) to accept their lawn signs OR THEY DO NOT WANT DAVIS VOTERS TO EVEN KNOW THAT THERE IS AN ELECTION IN LESS THAN A MONTH. They have obviously come to the conclusion that a Yes on P victory can only be won by anti-democratic(small d) means, i.e., use your money to identify your supporters, run a well-funded get-out-those identified-voter campaign on election day and do all you can to KEEP THE TURNOUT LOW!
“Both sides have a number of complaints about the process and the validity of statements.”
…another interesting observation. This statement by David clearly is intended to give the impression that there is some sort of “balance” in the validity of statements made by the Yes and NO campaigns. David.. please describe the Yes on P complaints about the ravaging of our Measure J process. Please describe where the NO on P campaign statements have even remotely approached the deception attempted by the Yes on P campaign both in their mailers and what still appears in the Yes on P ballot statement!
No lawn signs…..?yes on P thinks slam dunk?
Hope not.
I think No on P cut off their nose to spite their face. They should have substituted another qualified debater. Sounds like League should have honored No’s request for no developer but think no side is hurt more by no debate. If League has rule of no elected official (is that true and precedent shows it to be true?) then No should have honored.
And I’m probably a no on principle.
One thing which I did not understand for a long time and I suspect others don’t know now is that The League of Women voters does not view itself as an unbiased organization. They frequently take political positions on controversial questions. They could still effectively moderate a debate. But they also might favor one side in the debate over the other for their own purposes.
This is a direct quote from Jean Canary in a May 18, 2008, letter to The Enterprise: “The League of Women Voters is involved in registering voters, educating voters and moderating forums on the issues. But, we do take supporting and opposing positions on issues as well.”
The DLWV has moderated debates regarding some state and local propositions and then actively campaigned for one side on those questions. For example, the Davis League worked for the passage of the most recent increases in the library tax and the school parcel tax and moderated a forum on these questions. Jean Canary wrote to the Enterprise a few days after she moderated an event on these referenda: “While the league never supports candidates, we do take positions on issues that we have studied. After looking at the details in Measures P and Q, our board felt strongly that these measures were essential for our community’s children and families.”
I don’t know if the DLWV has yet endorsed a yes or a no vote on the current Measure P (not to be confused with the library vote, which was also a Measure P). However, it would not surprise me that the actions of the DLWV in cancelling another debate reflect the bias of some members of that admittedly biased group.
“Parlin Development has already outspent us $90,000 (to $1000) in this election.
This will be only a fraction of what will be spent on the Yes on P campaign. The timing of mandatory filings of campaign expenditures including payouts to hired consultants are usually timed, in “David vs. Goliath” campaigns,so that this information is not available to the voters until right before the election date or, even more often,after the election.
Then doesn’t it behoove the No on folks to take advantage of free ops for press and not antagonize the LWV’s?
To SODA’ite:
but think no side is hurt more by no debate
THERE ALREADY HAS BEEN A DEBATE! (Please watch online, if you don’t get DCN TV)
The Slide Hill Association gave us NO pre-set mandates, the debate was well moderated by Walt Bunter (who is no politico in town) and the debate was reported by Vanguard/Matt Williams (covering for David Greenwald) as being “civil and polite”; questions were asked by audience members to BOTH sides, so there is plenty information from both sides which has ALREADY been debated and recorded!
Mike Harrington you have junked the Yes on P chances of winning. The odds maker now have the vote at 57.5% no and 42.5% yes.
Yes I did read about the Slide Hill debate, that it was civil etc but also that there were more questions after time ran out. I just see and believe thathaving more discussion in debate format only helps the NO side.
If there has already been a debate, then how many people in this town do you think have watched it? Almost no one watched Channel 15 except people who pay attention to everything and therefore have likely made up their minds. The Enterprise reaches maybe one-third of the households. David claims the Vanguard gets about one-third the readership of the Enterprise and of course there is a lot of overlap. Polling shows something like one-tenth of the people know there is an election. I’m not sure why you are so cavalier about losing an opportunity to gain attention with a group that is as reputable as the LWV.
To Anon:
This will be only a fraction of what will be spent on the Yes on P campaign
You are SO RIGHT on this; the next mandatory filing of campaign finances will be in about three weeks; there was a half page ad today in Davis Enterprise (that cost about $8,000 alone!), not to mention the snazzy “GREEN” Gap-looking brochures everyone received in their mail boxes; I would be one to support campaign finance limits in ALL future Measure J elections (and would hope that the City Council could agree to this); we have only raised about $1,500 (about 1/10 what Parlin has paid to Bill Ritter last month!), but we gladly welcome all those fine people who have donated at the Farmer’s Market or by mail; one man came by booth yesterday and threw two gold dollar coins in our bucket for a sign…if anyone is interested
“Mike Harrington you have junked the Yes on P chances of winning. The odds maker now have the vote at 57.5% no and 42.5% yes.”
You are obviously a novice in politics. Mike’s comments are not being read by a wide enough audience to effect anything. This campaign is determined by who gets their voters to the polls, nothing more, nothing less.
Oops, got cut off…if anyone is interested in donating to the NO ON P campaign, please send your donations to:
2000 Homes Are Enough
PO Box 389
Davis,CA 95617
“there was a half page ad today in Davis Enterprise (that cost about $8,000 alone!)”
I’m fairly certain a full page ad costs $3000 unless the cost has gone up since the last time I posted an ad.
Greg: Just wanted to point out that while you may disagree with David, think he’s biased, even bad mouth him, and yet here he is allowing you to post a plea for money on his site for free. I hope you can at least acknowledge and appreciate that.
To anon says: “Then doesn’t it behoove the No on folks to take advantage of free ops for press and not antagonize the LWV’s?”
Authentic grassroots community activism does not fall to its knees before status-quo Establishment institutions. I think that Phil King’s response, “WE made counter offer that we would also be willing to debate if the panel had no paid developers, no politicians and only Davis residents, which we presumed would deal with the “regular people” issue).However our counter offer was completely ignored-” is quite telling. Rich Rifkin’s description of the potential underlying political bias of the LWV should not be overlooked .
For an excellent debate on Measure P, go online to http://www.davismedia.org
You and Phil both miss the point, the LMV has rules and you don’t get to make the rules.
[quote]I think No on P cut off their nose to spite their face. They should have substituted another qualified debater. Sounds like League should have honored No’s request for no developer but think no side is hurt more by no debate. If League has rule of no elected official (is that true and precedent shows it to be true?) then No should have honored.
And I’m probably a no on principle. [/quote]
This
To Vanguardian:
Thank you David Greenwald for allowing me post our information for donations FREE of CHARGE on the Vanguard, much appreciated.
REMINDER: website address is 2000HomesAreEnough.org
To anon says: “You and Phil both miss the point, the LMV has rules and you don’t get to make the rules.”
No To anon, I get your point. You miss mine. AUTHENTIC grassroots activity has no problem with challenging the legitimacy of rules that are created by the Establishment power structure.
…as an oldtimer, myself, voting ‘NO’ was never a question to me. Developers have done considerable damage to Davis’ small town concept,and continue to pry at the corners of the community for their own profit motives…never for the sake of the community. I was, however, appalled at the League’s position regarding the debate…so much for grassroots.
It is important for people to realize that it is longstanding policy in Davis for various developer/political factions to take over local chapters of anything and everything with a prestigious national name.
Over the years, I have seen this with the Sierra Club (different developer factions at different times) to the National Organization of Women.
The League Board of the Davis Chapter is made up of a few individuals. Many have clear political leanings. One of the most longstanding members is Donna Lott, who ran as a city council candidate backed by Ruth Asmundson and her faction.
Endorsements by these organizations have to be taken with a grain of salt, and impartiality can never be assumed.
There is no additional coverage to be gained by this particular debate. It is only seen on DCTV. It is not likely to be covered by the Enterprise, since it is so similar to the last debate. Everyone who watches DCTV and logs onto DCN will see the first debate.
As an aside, it is pretty amazing that the DAVIS CHAPTER of League of Women Voters would accept Yes on P panel made up of three paid employees of the developer, two of whom live outside of Davis, because they are “regular folks”.
” Mike’s comments are not being read by a wide enough audience to effect anything. This campaign is determined by who gets their voters to the polls, nothing more, nothing less.”
Your statement that the outcome depends on who gets their voters to the polls is not quite accurate as more than 50% of voters will vote from their homes by mail-in ballot. As to your hope that no one is reading the Vanguard postings on the Measure P issue, I have it on very good authority that the on-line “hits” for postings and “lurkers” on the Measure P issue are near astronomical for a community of our size.
To our No on P’ers. Please take the time to express your views with our chapter of the Sierra Club. Pam is on the Yes on P side and got their endorsement without them even listening to the opposition. Please write to them and inform them what is happening in our town and what they are supporting. Encourage them to remove their endorsement. Yes you too Rick Rifkin can say No to P.
The more people that read the Vanguard, the more people will vote No on P based on Mike Harrington’s vitriolic comments.
Michelle says: “Encourage them to remove their endorsement.”
Our local Davis chapter of the Sierra Club CANNOT give a Sierra Club endorsement. Pam knows this as we all had to go the the Mother Lode chapter to present arguments and get their approval to put out a statement that the Sierra Club opposes Whitcombe’s Covell Village. I would guess that you could count the local chapter people who endorsed the WHR development on one hand and now the slick flyer we all just received is emblazoned with the statement that the Sierra Club endorsed the WHR development. This, without a presentation arguing against it ( e.g.traffic, increased automobile emissions as it is on our periphery and most likely inhabited by those who work in Sac. the savaging of the full, in-depth process that Measure J calls for to inform the voters)locally or at the authorizing regional chapter.
Greg:
The Neighborhood debate was indeed a good one, but virtually no one except those who really follow an issue of interest watch channel 15. The League debate is always THE debate to attend and follow. It was definitely not smart to lose the opportunity to participate in the League debate. Sue should not have participated in the neighborhood debate either, but I know she insisted.
The current local Yolano Sierra Club board is heavily weighted with members who have a close and long-standing political relationship with Bill Ritter, the very well paid political consultant for Parlin.
In that context, it is easier to see why the board would support this peripheral site, and promote it to the national Sierra Club, without allowing the opposition to present their views on why this project does not represent smart growth.
Dear League Member (I wish you would blog with your real name):
I am sorry that you feel so unfavorably about our local DCN network, but I believe they would have been the ones to televise the League debate, no?
Also, point of clarification from the No on P campaign:
Sue did not “insist” on debating at either Slide Hill or for the League Debate, both Phil King and I asked for her participation (in fact, Sue was feeling sick the night of 9/21 and almost cancelled) We asked for Sue’s participation at both debates because if you read her Davis Op-Ed piece today on the fiscal problems and untruths of this proposed project, you will see that there is NO more knowledgeable person than Sue to address and directly tackle the issues for the opposition campaign, and give the voters of Davis the real truth before they vote.
Oh, by the way, Sue is volunteering her time for us and unlike the entire Yes on P panel, she is on NO one’s payroll….
[i]”if you read her Davis Op-Ed piece today on the fiscal problems and untruths of this proposed project, you will see that there is NO more knowledgeable person than Sue to address and directly tackle the issues for the opposition campaign”[/i]
No matter where you stand on the Measure P vote, any fair-minded reader would have to agree that her op/ed was a strong argument for the No side. Other than repeating herself with her pet phrase “the city’s developer-friendly* fiscal model,” Sue’s piece is very well written.
My feeling is the No sides’s best two points, both explained by Sue, are these related points:
1. “Since city staffers used a 15-year fiscal forecast, they claim the project breaks even. But after 15 years, the deficit suddenly reappears;” and
2. “The Yes on P campaign made a wildly fallacious claim in its ballot statement rebuttal. The campaign claimed the project would bring a fiscal windfall of $4 million to the city which, the campaign said, would provide a ‘reliable annual source of funding for city services.’ … False ballot statements of this magnitude set a very bad precedent. In order for democracy to work, voters must be honestly informed about the facts.”
*It should be understood that this model is said to be “developer-friendly” because it does not account for future increases in the rates charged to the City of Davis by CalPERS. While I agree that increased PERS rates ought to be included in the model, it’s important to understand that all of the long-term costs of labor are subject to negotiation; and that there is no reason the taxpayers have to absorb these increases. We have the option — if our Council has the City’s best interests in mind — to change the future labor contracts in ways which will protect the taxpayers. The fact that the Council has failed to do that in the past does not guarantee it won’t wise up moving forward.
“it should be understood that this model is said to be “developer-friendly” because it does not account for future increases in the rates charged to the City of Davis by CalPERS. While I agree that increased PERS rates ought to be included in the model….”
While I did not read Sue’s OP/ED piece, Sue has previously talked about many other issues, ie low impact fees assessed to the developer as compared to other cities and the reworked Navasio fiscal analysis, after he was sent back to his desk by the Council majority to redo it, that for the first time allows a developer to pay one-time up front fees that are calculated for the next 15 years. then completely running out, leaving the city holding the bag.
Ol Timer: I read Sue’s piece in the paper. It’s all about the money. What she omits is that the fiscal impact model outcome can change with a single 1% change in tax revenue, increase/cut employee payroll, inflation, etc etc etc. I’ve looked at the information, and Parlin is close enough, plus/minus a little. None of us have a crystal ball, and the numbers could easily change up or down. So to me, the fiscal analysis is good enough, and I turn my attention to the other beneficial features of the project. As to the rest of it, Sue said nothing. (Oh, she did make a back-handed swipe again at process, but we all know that she was a big part of setting the stage for the 1 am meltdown she had on 7/29, so whatever, Sue … keep pointing out to all of us your specialty, meltdowns.)
Pam and Carolyn: your piece was the best written of anything I have read on this project. Someone should copy it, and mail to the voters.
One more thing: I know that many of you are scared of Sue and her famous retribution mentality if she perceives that you have been disloyal or have crossed her. There are only 3 other residents of Davis who have sat up on the dais and in closed session with her for 4 years. I call things as I see them.
Other than Sue and one or two others who hide behind Anonymous, over the months and years I have used my name and publically commented about Sue’s process issues, meltdowns, playing the victim, sucking others into her tantrums, not one of the readers of this Blog have come out and disagreed with me. She is a public figure, and the issues I raise are highly appropriate to anyone who cares about local government and politics.
I happen to think that maintaining good civil process is as important as the substantive vote. When she wigs out on the dais, or melts down a staff or political meeting, I happen to think that she discredits all of us, and hurts the progressive cause in Davis. I personally think we could do without her on the dais, and get someone else who will represent our views, but without the meltdowns and anger.
Do any of you have a clue what Lamar faces up there on the dais? The guy is a prince to want to run again and have to deal with her.
Unfortunately, I am one of the few with the background and standing in this city to comment on these issues. Since she has chosen to make it a campaign issue as to how she conducts herself on the F & B Commission and Open Space, and her preparation for CC meetings, her extreme level of abuse of the LWV such that they cancelled THE most important debate after 30 yrs of always having the best show in town, etc etc., I will continue to comment on what I see happening.
Repeat the post from earlier today:
“Sue Greenwald-re-elected two times
Mike Parlington-ONE TERMER
Enough said!!!”
The one who seems to be having all the “meltdowns” is Mr. Parlington, now sounding almost desperate in his attacks of Sue, after he sees all the flaws that are being exposed in his “nice little project”!
Keep it up, Mike Harrington. Every time you go into one of you outrageous, slanderous tirades, you turn more people against your project.
Now,I have a question for you:
[quote]White Rock Investments is the company that selects and acquires our properties and Parlin Development is our service organization that manages the entitlement of our properties and provides financial services to the LLC’s that are formed to acquire and entitle the properties.
Our main focus is creating value and wealth for our investors. In a relatively short amount of time we have built a diversified portfolio of quality properties located in the Northern California. — Parlin Website Home Page[/quote]
Now tell us, Mike Harrington: Are you an investor in one of Parlin’s LLC’s?
Now tell us, Mike Harrington: Are you an investor in one of Parlin’s LLC’s?
I wouldn’t be shocked at all if he has some financial benefits to gain if this project gets approved, what else would describe the vitriolic anger he spews…it is fear of losing a lot of money!!
To ” A chapter on Davis Chapters:
“In that context, it is easier to see why the board would support this peripheral site, and promote it to the national Sierra Club, without allowing the opposition to present their views on why this project does not represent smart growth.”
The local Group held two publically announced (in the Davis Enterprise) meetings where it was stated that the Wildhorse Ranch project was going to be discussed. One person showed up at the first meeting on this issue. He supported the project. No one from the public showed up at the second meeting on this issue. There was, then, opportunity for the opposition to come forward, but no one did. After studying the project, the local Group determined that this project met virtually all of the Sierra Club smart growth criteria.
Exactly what are your arguments as to why this project does not represent smart growth? I would really like to hear them.
“*It should be understood that this model is said to be “developer-friendly” because it does not account for future increases in the rates charged to the City of Davis by CalPERS. While I agree that increased PERS rates ought to be included in the model, it’s important to understand that all of the long-term costs of labor are subject to negotiation; and that there is no reason the taxpayers have to absorb these increases. We have the option — if our Council has the City’s best interests in mind — to change the future labor contracts in ways which will protect the taxpayers. The fact that the Council has failed to do that in the past does not guarantee it won’t wise up moving forward.”
Since when has the City Council majority had the city’s best interests in mind? You are living in la la land!
[quote]Since when has the City Council majority had the city’s best interests in mind? [/quote]The majority elects the council.
Hey folks- just some clarification. Davis Media Access runs DCTV Channel 15, KDRT 95.7fm and davismedia.org
http://davismedia.org/content/what-davis-media-access
There is no “DCN TV”. I assume you mean Davis Community Network
http://www2.dcn.org/dcn/about
Anyway, again the Slide Hill Debate was recorded by Davis Media Access and can be seen on DCTV Channel 15 at these times:
Wed, 10/07/09, 04:30 PM, Channel 15
Tue, 10/06/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15
I’m sure there are other replays being scheduled as I speak. Call 530-757-2419 to find out, or go to the website, davismedia.org.
You can also view the video online at our website. As of 3:35pm Tuesday 10/6, it has been viewed only 53 times. If would like a higher quality DVD copy, you can also call us and purchase one.
Hopefully they’ll be more information available to the public soon.
thanks!
Jeff Shaw
production manager
davis media access