The rumors had been flying for two weeks from reliable sources that Community Development Director Katherine Hess would be making some sort of a lateral move out of the Community Development Department. The rumors heated up last week but City Manager Bill Emlen did not return calls from the Vanguard on Friday.
The Davis Enterprise however, reported this development buried deep within their story on the proposed elimination of the Recreation and Parks Department as a way to close a 1.7 million dollar hole in the 2010/11 budget.
At this point reasons are all speculated, but the Vanguard had previously heard from reliable sources that the cell tower issue was the final straw with the City Manager.
As the Vanguard reported last week, the city of Davis is now engaged in litigation with NewPath who is arguing that they should get a preliminary injunction due to having suffered irreparable harm as the result of the city’s missteps on first issuing and then revoking encroachment permits.
The encroachment permits were issued at a lower administrative level, however, NewPath had been in talks with the city for eleven months.
The city is arguing in court that NewPath operated in bad faith by convincing lower level staff that they had exemptions.
NewPath is not buying that, arguing that they cannot believe that the city manager did not know. Here is what we now know and these basic facts seem to not be in dispute.
The encroachment permits were issued by public works at a relatively low level. However, those followed months of talks apparently between Bob Clarke who is now acting Public Works Director but at that time worked under Bob Weir and Mike Webb, a principal planner, who works under the Community Development Director Katherine Hess. Apparently Ms. Hess had to know a good deal about this since she was even involved in a walk through.
That puts the level at knowledge at least at the department head level. NewPath claims that City Manager Bill Emlen knew these talks were going on, or that was represented to them. The City Manager flatly denies knowledge and only claims to have become aware when citizens raised the issue. At that point, he issued the stop work notice and rescinded the encroachment permits.
NewPath in trial claimed that City Manager Bill Emlen refused to meet with them after he issued the stop work notice. This was confirmed, however, the reason was that the city did not want to create an opportunity for additional claims by NewPath and therefore put all future communications between the city and NewPath in public hearings so as to avoid a he said/ she said conundrum.
It would seem odd that staff members would not at least get some authorization from above or at least clarify the situation. We can follow it up the food chain and we know the city had meetings and discussions as to how to proceed as high as Mike Webb and Bob Clarke, and therefore probably higher. Would the Community Development Director really not discuss the matter with the City Manager despite months of meetings that both sides acknowledge took place? From the city’s own operational standpoint, that needs to be answered.
While Ms. Hess has often been a flashpoint for controversy on a wide variety of development and land use decisions made in the city of Davis, there is also a reasonable chance that she is simply the fall person in the fall out here.
The key question is whether or not Bill Emlen himself knew what was transpiring. He told the Vanguard several weeks ago that NewPath’s claims were faulty and that he had no knowledge of the talks between the city and NewPath on the locations and placement of the cell towers. We are incredulous that Katherine Hess would be that sloppy as to not cover herself by informing Bill Emlen.
Mr. Emlen claims that he only found about it when citizens alerted the city as to what was going on right before Thanksgiving when NewPath had received to the right to proceed documents and pulled the encroachment permits. The city became aware of the problem on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving and Mr. Emlen issued the stop work notice the following business day, that Monday.
He then revoked the permits, NewPath appealed his rescission in January. The council heard the issue of the rescission and upheld the City Manager’s decision. At that point NewPath filed a lawsuit claiming that they are exempt from the city’s telecommunications ordinance and filed for a preliminary injunction.
Nevertheless, the departure of Katherine Hess will be viewed by some in this community as a victory as she has over the years become a focal point of criticism of city land use policies.
Given that this matter is a personnel matter, we may never know the full story or get to the bottom of what really happened with NewPath.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good riddance! However, as the Who once sang, “Meet the new boss—same as the old boss.” The city’s personnel infrastructure has to change more than this in order to eliminate its incompetence and genuinely reform it’s practices.
Does her salary remain the same and Ken Hiatt’s promotion include a raise ? How us that efficient?
I don’t know the answer to that.
So what ever happened to Bob Weir in all this shuffle? He used to be the go to guy until he became Director of Public Works. Then he became just another political hack. So many city employees seem to get in over their heads when they are promoted.
He retired last fall
“there is also a reasonable chance that she is simply the fall person in the fall out here”
I’m not so sure I would characterize this as a demotion. Emlen is certainly trying to minimize Hess’ visibility with the public. However, this smells to me more like a hunker-down-and-ride-out-the-NewPath-storm maneuver that was made possible by the budget-driven reorganization. Do we really want this individual responsible for oversight of economic development, redevelopment, and (most disturbing) the pass-through agreement?
“we may never know the full story or get to the bottom of what really happened with NewPath”
This reshuffle changes nothing. We still need a full accounting of what happened, including a careful examination of how this fiasco was handled at the City Manager level.
DPD: “The key question is whether or not Bill Emlen himself knew what was transpiring…Mr. Emlen claims that he only found about it when citizens alerted the city…”
Knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. The buck stops with Bill Emlen – it always has. If a city manager allows his staff to run amok, it shows incompetence. If a city manager forces his staff to take the fall for his own mistakes, that is also incompetence. If a city manager allows his staff to run rough shod over process, commissioners, citizens and their rights, that is incompetence too.
Bill Emlen has always seemed like an affable guy, but the city needs a STRONG LEADER WHO: TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS; HAS A GOOD HANDLE/GIVES SPECIFIC DIRECTION ON HOW HIS STAFF IS/SHOULD BE OPERATING; RESPECTS COMMISSIONS AND THE CITIZENRY; AND DOES NOT SYSTEMATICALLY CIRCUMVENT PROCESS.
And it is the City Council’s responsibility to give CLEAR DIRECTION to the City Manager, to make sure the position is held by someone who is a good leader, who takes full responsibility for his actions, respects commissions/the citizenry/process.
Bob Weir appeared to be a relatively young man to “retire” as head of our Public Works Department. I wonder if there is not more to that “story”. Let’s hope that he took with him the Public Work Department’s recent history of arrogance and disrespect for the will of the citizen’s of Davis and public “stonewalling”, as clearly demonstrated in its handling of the surface water plans when pressed by Council members from the dais.
The story that Emlen, our City Manager, was kept out of the loop is quite plausible. His move from Director of our Planning Department to City Manager was done on-the-fly when our previous City Manager suddenly and inexplicably was terminated. Bob Emlen’s learning curve to be an effective City Manager has been painfully slow and city government often gives the impression of being functionally “headless” for some years now.
E Roberts Musser:
It seems to me that we really need to get to the bottom of the claim that Hess did not inform Emlen. If she did, then we have a big problem. If she didn’t, the question becomes why hasn’t Emlen taken disciplinary action (especially now that this has blown up into a lawsuit)?
Selecting someone “from the ranks” to move up and take over can present problems in exerting leadership and control. We brought in someone from Seattle who successfully took charge of our Police Department. I hope that we follow a similar path in hiring a new person in charge of our Fire Department.
Isn’t it Parkinson’s principle that states,”People rise to the level of their incompetence”?
Lateral move of an incompetent employee who has caused the city an expensive law suit and now an injunction? What on earth is Manager Bill Emlen thinking? Why the cover up? There is no doubt that Hess needs to be fired before she costs the City, and us, more money in screw-ups like NewPath!
I want to know what Hess’ new salery is. It has been $166,000 with benefits yet she has been the most incompetent employee working for the City.
Hess has NO business being in Redevelopment and Economic Development when she has proven herself incapable of handling planning. Everything she works on winds up a disaster and costing the city (therefore costing us. And now they put her in a position to try to bring in revenue? She has alienated the community with her arrogance and terrible handling of the planning department since she became director.
Can we demand a Grand Jury investigation to get to the bottom of this on top of the law suit?
THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS COVERUP! Fire Hess NOW before she brings on more damage to the City.
-Eileen
“There is no doubt that Hess needs to be fired before she costs the City, and us, more money in screw-ups like NewPath!”
It is just not “Davis” to EASILY fire and/or publicly humiliate a fellow Davis resident and neighbor.
A post was removed by request –
Don
Ken Hiatt is an excellent and competent person. I’m sure he’ll do well in his new position.
Norm: “E Roberts Musser:
It seems to me that we really need to get to the bottom of the claim that Hess did not inform Emlen. If she did, then we have a big problem. If she didn’t, the question becomes why hasn’t Emlen taken disciplinary action (especially now that this has blown up into a lawsuit)?”
To me, it seems clear Bill Emlen either knew or should have known about the permitting of NewPath cell phone towers. If his own staff is not telling him about such things, what does that say about his management style/competence? As I said, I believe the buck stops with the City Manager, and the City Council who directs the City Manager.
In my experience, Ken Hiatt is a very good planner with progressive planning instincts and an excellent aesthetic sense. I have very high hopes as to what he can accomplish, particularly if the council gives him authority to proceed with visionary infill projects, such as PG&E or other large underused parcels near downtown.
E Roberts Musser:
I agree with you. However, I think that Emlen should be given a chance to take appropriate corrective action. Putting Hess in charge of redevelopment and the pass-through agreement doesn’t cut it.
Sue , I’ve talked with PG&E people from 2nd and L Street . They say it will only happen if we provide them with a brand new facility , built exactly how they want it . He quoted a cost and it was astronomical . So why do you keep throwing this option out there , when there is no chance of it ever happening ?
The guy at PG&E told me he never talked with anyone named Avatar.
“He quoted a cost and it was astronomical.”
Could you please give us the details? I heard a big number third or fourth hand, and would be curious to hear from someone that has actually talked directly to the PG&E people.
Norm , over 400 million .
Rich , you must of talked to the gatekeeper .
Avatar,
That’s more than an order of magnitude higher than the number I’ve heard floating around. If your information is accurate, then the PG&E option is indeed crazy.
I think it’s time for Sue to weigh in with her set of facts.
[b]AVA:[/b] [i]”Rich, you [u]must of[/u] talked to the gatekeeper.”[/i]
I must have.
“If your information is accurate, then the PG&E option is indeed crazy.”
…whatever the outlay is to obtain the PG&E for development, the return on this “investment” could make the plan fiscally neutral while replacing the PG & E downtown industrial facility eyesore with valuable, attractive residential housing and small business activity. The relation between these two numbers is the important consideration.
Norm: “E Roberts Musser:
I agree with you. However, I think that Emlen should be given a chance to take appropriate corrective action. Putting Hess in charge of redevelopment and the pass-through agreement doesn’t cut it.”
Good point, Norm!
After following this issue for a while I am shocked to see that the Community Planning Director has simply been moved to another department to quietly try to sweep this huge issue under the rug. Ever since reading about the NewPath debacle I am aghast about the way that Community Development Director Catherine Hess mishandled the entire thing.
I read in the Vanguard that Hess had even given a tour to NewPath in Village Homes for the cell towers to be located! After the public blow-up started she then obviously tried to diffuse blame to Public Works and others when it was her who authorized the permits.
Now because of Hess NewPath issuing the City. Yet what are the consequences to Hess? She basically gets rewarded with a transfer to another department to cover up this embarrassing and expensive mess that she has caused the City!
[i]”… replacing the PG & E downtown industrial facility eyesore with valuable, attractive residential housing and small business activity.”[/i]
In the long run, I think the PG&E site is attractive for infill, if we can strike a deal with PG&E. However, it seems to me that for the next 5-10 years, we really don’t need to find any new infill sites for development. The university is shrinking, not growing. West Village is going to provide a lot of new faculty and student housing. There are massive new dorms about to open at the corner of LaRue Road and Garrod Drive on campus. And there are hundreds of approved new housing units not being built inside the City of Davis right now, because the demand for housing is insufficient.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take with Avatar’s drinking-buddy who makes all the decisions for PG&E in San Francisco. But there is certainly no need to push a new development project in Davis for many years. I don’t think the demand will be there for a long time.
Correction: “That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t [s]take[/s] [b]talk[/b] with Avatar’s drinking-buddy …”
Concerning PG&E:
The figures floating around are nonsense, and usually come from those promoting peripheral development on cheap agricultural land.
That said, substantial infill development on prime sites is never easy, and no one said that it was. But it can be done and it has been done by cities that are committed to doing it. And it has been done on PG&E corporate yard sites. We have certain advantages; we own a lot of land outside the city boundaries that could be used for the relocation of the current low-intensity PG&E use.
If the council makes this a priority, a good planning director could quite likely make it work.
[quote][quote]But there is certainly no need to push a new development project in Davis for many years. I don’t think the demand will be there for a long time.[/quote][/quote]In general, I agree with you Rich. But I do think that there is a severe shortage of options for peope who want to live near downtown.
I have talked with a very large number of empty nesters and young professionals who would like to live near downtown, and nothing would help our downtown businesses more than having a critical mass of year-round residents in walking distance to provide a customer base during holidays and the summer vacation period.
“The figures floating around are nonsense, and usually come from those promoting peripheral development on cheap agricultural land.”
Sue:
That’s a bit too dismissive for my taste. Should we mark you down as an “I don’t know” or an “I’m not willing to tell you?” You’re the one that’s promoting the concept. You must have some legitimate information about the relocation costs. Otherwise, the idea has no credibility.
[i]”… nothing would help our downtown businesses more than having a critical mass of year-round residents in walking distance …”[/i]
How about direct bus service to the downtown from everywhere in Davis?
As you know, but most don’t, the City of Davis (using funds directed to us from state and federal gas taxes) pays the vast majority of the bill for Unitrans and then pays even more by purchasing a bus pass for every employee of the city and even more for senior riders to ride for free. The university and the students and cash-paying riders pay only a small fraction of the Unitrans budget. Yet the Unitrans system is not set up to serve our commercial core in the downtown. It is (almost entirely) designed to get students and UC employees to campus.
Most riders who would want to take a bus to the Davis Farmer’s Market or to a movie or to Davis Ace or to Border’s or to Burger’s & Brew have to transfer buses on campus. They cannot ride directly from where they live to where they want to go downtown.
The fact that the city council has failed to take seriously its responsibility to make Unitrans first serve the needs of the city of Davis is a big mistake in my opinion. At my urging, the Unitrans Committee is now looking at changing the route of just one line, the M bus, to make it go through the core area. But my sense is that the council as a whole does not care that the system is not serving the businesses of downtown and that it is not serving the needs of riders who would use direct lines to downtown if they were available.
“However, it seems to me that for the next 5-10 years, we really don’t need to find any new infill sites for development.”
Rich:
Given the lead-time on a project as complex as PG%E would be — 5-10 years isn’t very much time. The gating question IMO is whether or not it is a credible option.
Along the same lines, it seems to me that it is a bit disingenuous for Sue on the one hand to be opposing growth in a recent election arguing that 2000 homes is enough while on the other hand promoting a project that I presume would be much larger in terms of housing units. You can argue need, but 2000 homes argument didn’t account for those type of nuances either.
Rich Rifkin: “At my urging, the Unitrans Committee is now looking at changing the route of just one line, the M bus, to make it go through the core area. But my sense is that the council as a whole does not care that the system is not serving the businesses of downtown and that it is not serving the needs of riders who would use direct lines to downtown if they were available.”
I was at the Unitrans meeting discussing this issue. Geoff Straw of Unitrans is making every effort to see what can be done from a realistic point of view to run buses downtown. There will be a trial period of 6 months on the M line, to determine if having big buses downtown is feasible/desirable/workable/affordable.
The problem is heavy bus traffic may damage the roads; heavy bus traffic may endanger pedestrian and bike traffic; the DDBA has not expressed an opinion whether they are for or against this idea; the bus system is already taxed to the max w heavy ridership and extreme time constraints.
From the thoughtful discussion, it was clear the best possible solution would be to have the P and Q lines, which run around the periphery of Davis, make a detour into downtown. But right now time contraints on the system do not allow for such a solution. However, if the new 5th St reconfiguration decreases times for the P and Q lines, the issue of running them downtown may be revisited.
I would like to personally commend Geoff Straw and Unitrans staff for doing everything in its power to accommodate requests, but doing so in a responsible manner by looking carefully at all sides of the issue.
Sue ,
“” We have certain advantages; we own a lot of land outside the city boundaries that could be used for the relocation of the current low-intensity PG&E use. “”
But do ya have the money to build PG&E the buildings and infrastructure that they want ?
Anonymous nay-sayers: Staff has not been in formal discussions with PG&E recently. PG&E has been quite interested in the past, but the PG&E staff has reorganized and our staff has not started discussions with the new folks who would make the decisions. The previous management was very interested in cooperating with the city to redevelop the site.
Hopefully, the next council will do what it takes to get a project rolling. PG&E chose that site for a corporate yard initially because it was on the outskirts of town. Now it has become the center of town. I doubt they are wedded to that site, and I suspect they would welcome the good publicity that would come with cooperating with a transit-oriented development.
But why all of the anonymous negativity? To me, it just seems like part and parcel of the desire to push development to cheap, peripheral agricultural land as soon as possible.
I am excited about the very real possibility of working together to create one of the most exciting transit-oriented downtown developments in the country.
I’m not anonymous (Brian is my real name and you wouldn’t know my last name even if I listed it, because you don’t know me and I’m not a public person) and I’m not negative towards you. I just don’t understand your position that we on the one hand have enough housing (2000 houses is enough) but on the other hand) you seem to be pushing a project (that doesn’t really exist right now).
[i]”I was at the Unitrans meeting discussing this issue. Geoff Straw of Unitrans is making every effort to see what can be done from a realistic point of view to run buses downtown.”[/i]
Due to a meeting I had out of state, I wasn’t able to attend the most recent meeting of the Unitrans Committee. I have, though, been in communication with Mr. Straw, and I appreciate his leadership. I think, on the university’s behalf, he does a very fine job. He does not represent the interests of the City of Davis. Seemingly, no one does.
I think the members of the City Council (and not just the committee) need to get involved and take leadership in order to have a bus system which is serving the needs of the downtown. I suspect the members of our city council don’t realize that the city is paying most of the Unitrans bill.
Does it make sense to have two bus hubs on campus but not one in the City of Davis when the City largely pays for the system?
Sue Greenwald is now the council liaison. Before I informed her (about a year ago) of where Unitrans gets its money, she told me she thought UCD students “pay for most of it.” I think her other colleagues likely still mistakenly believe that. As such, the council does not think it has any leverage and won’t be forceful in pushing for changes.
[i]”The problem is heavy bus traffic may damage the roads; heavy bus traffic may endanger pedestrian and bike traffic;”[/i]
That is nonsense. We are spending about $5.5 million on Unitrans, this year alone. If more bus traffic on 3rd Street requires more resurfacing of that street, then a few hundred thousand dollars can be taken from that $5.5 million every year.
However, taking a bus which would be going down 5th Street and re-routing it onto 3rd does not inherently cause more damage to our streets. It just changes the wear pattern from one street to another.
Also, Unitrans buses interact perfectly well with bike and pedestrian traffic all over Davis. Why is it only on 3rd Street this is supposed to be a terrible problem?
[i]”the DDBA has not expressed an opinion whether they are for or against this idea;”[/i]
There are two problems with the DDBA. One, they had very good leadership in Laura Cole Rowe ([url]http://www.lauracolerowe.com/biography .html[/url]) and they fired her. Ms. Rowe did a goo job of promoting retail and restaurant commerce in the downtown. Now, that job itself has disappeared and the void has not been filled; and two, most members of the DDBA are not in the retail or restaurant business and thus would not greatly benefit from more bus traffic. Those who would, I think, are largely ignorant of how much money the City of Davis is paying for Unitrans and how little of it is designed to server their needs.
Brian, I have always felt that our development should be driven by the desire for a specific project — not to fulfill a quantitative goal. Council has been pushing 1% new housing a year minus affordable units, which comes to 325 units a year. According to a number of council members, we needed Wildhorse Ranch because we hadn’t had much building lately. It was to this line of argument that I was referring when I said that “2000 units are enough for now”.
In my opinion, we have almost no ownership housing near downtown, and I think that it would be nice to have some.
Sue Greenwald ,
“”In my opinion, we have almost no ownership housing near downtown, and I think that it would be nice to have some.””
Sue , nice to have some , $ 400,000.00 million to get some housing , next to the freeway and railroad tracks , maybe a supervisor job that pays is more up your alley .
Rich: “There are two problems with the DDBA. One, they had very good leadership in Laura Cole Rowe and they fired her. Ms. Rowe did a good job of promoting retail and restaurant commerce in the downtown. Now, that job itself has disappeared and the void has not been filled; and two, most members of the DDBA are not in the retail or restaurant business and thus would not greatly benefit from more bus traffic…”
And you know all this…how?
Joy Cohan replaced Laura at DDBA. Laura was not fired. The decision was made to downsize the staff and operating costs, because they were absorbing nearly all of the member assessments. My understanding is that Laura was offered the restructured job, but with fewer hours and staff support she decided to leave. She did a great job as director, but reasonably decided (I assume) that she didn’t want the same job with less compensation and support.
The DDBA board was reconstituted after the Measure K election to achieve greater retail board representation, although you are correct that retailers are not a majority. Professionals and property owners downtown are also assessed in the DDBA tax district. Board members and volunteers now do many of the things staff were doing. All of the same events are continuing. The gift card program, from what I’ve heard, was popular and successful (I’m not in DDBA).
Interestingly, DDBA is probably more representative of local retail businesses than is the Chamber of Commerce, as the Chamber has only a few retail members.
I’m not sure why your link didn’t work. Here is Laura’s consulting business: http://www.lauracolerowe.com
Last time I chatted with her, she was doing well and enjoying her work.
Here was a little different take from 2007 when the changes occurred: link ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=359:major-changes-with-the-davis-downtown-business-association&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url])
Rich:
You’re right, I’m sure surprised that the city is passing on $5.5-million this year to Unitrans! We arrived in the 1970s–so should be in the know as Unitrans was developed–but never have heard that it receives money from the city until you pointed it our. We just were happy that UCD would let non-students ride.
Unitrans always had been great. Given the magnitude of the city contribution, it seems as though there should be frequent, routine meetings to plan routes and cooperate. How do the operating costs break down, the city share and the university share?
But, are you sure the city “then pays even more by purchasing a bus pass for every employee of the city and even more for senior riders to ride for free.” Again, given the partnership, why wouldn’t city employees just show their ID to ride? And why would employees who walk and drive to work be given bus passes? Doesn’t make any sense at all. Finally, the city really pays [u]again[/u] for my hand-written, paper senior pass? Really?
(E Roberts: Were city representatives at the Unitrans meeting? One would think they could have corrected statements about street damage and other issues.)
Do we have ridership studies available? Finally, what about using, say, $1-million of the funds to run van-sized buses to and from the core?
“The figures floating around are nonsense …”
So I ask you once again – please give us your best estimate based the staff’s prior discussions with PG&E. If you don’t know, just say so. If you can disclose, just say so.
[i]”Given the magnitude of the city contribution, it seems as though there should be frequent, routine meetings to plan routes and cooperate.”[/i]
There are one or two meetings a year of the Unitrans Committee. Elaine, who serves on the Senior Commission, maybe on that committee as the Senior rep, I don’t know. That is the committee which advises Unitrans as to routes and so on. However, I sense that the committee itself is not getting strong direction from the city council to move in the direction I would like it to. It’s entirely possible that the council members are fully informed and simply disagree with me and don’t think the routes should be altered to provide more direct service to the core area. I would have less of a problem with their inaction and lack of leadership in this area if they were informed and simply disagree with me. I think, though, they are uninformed, because the money we are giving to Unitrans is handed over as “a pass through” from state and federal fuel taxes directed to the City of Davis.
One thing you might notice, if you ever ride the Yolo Bus, is that it offers much better intra-city service in Woodland than it does in Davis. The reason Yolo Bus does that is because the City of Woodland gives more of its tax “pass throughs” to Yolo Bus. Woodland leverages that money in exchange for better urban bus service in their city.
The City of Davis gives much less to Yolo Bus (though I think we give them some of our funds), and thus Yolo Bus does not serve our intra-city needs.
What I am suggesting is that becaue we fund most of Unitrans’s operations, we have a lot of leverage. We are not fully exercising that leverage. I think the city council members should at least explain why they are not, if they don’t think we deserve direct routes to downtown Davis on Unitrans.
good riddance to katherine hess…but she’s being transported to another position with in the city of davis structure? why, so she and whoever else can continue screwing the city of davis residents????
i could think of a few more that need to go.
ps. don’t vote for saylor or souza next term. don’t vote for vergis or the other right wing republican female..forgot her name, but if i had to choose vergis over the right winger, i’d take vergis any day.
Rich Rifkin: “There are one or two meetings a year of the Unitrans Committee. Elaine, who serves on the Senior Commission, maybe on that committee as the Senior rep, I don’t know. That is the committee which advises Unitrans as to routes and so on. However, I sense that the committee itself is not getting strong direction from the city council to move in the direction I would like it to.”
If you truly want your voice to be heard Mr. Rifkin, then you need to be present in person at a Unitrans meeting. You are making lots of unsubtantiated claims such as:
“He [Geoff Straw] does not represent the interests of the City of Davis”;
“I suspect the members of our city council don’t realize that the city is paying most of the Unitrans bill.”
“The fact that the city council has failed to take seriously its responsibility to make Unitrans first serve the needs of the city of Davis is a big mistake”;
“…taking a bus which would be going down 5th Street and re-routing it onto 3rd does not inherently cause more damage to our streets. It just changes the wear pattern from one street to another.”;
“Also, Unitrans buses interact perfectly well with bike and pedestrian traffic all over Davis.”;
“However, I sense that the committee itself is not getting strong direction from the city council to move in the direction I would like it to.”;
The city of Davis already greatly benefits from Unitrans – Unitrans provides bus service to students, so that the students do not need to drive cars to and from campus. Imagine no Unitrans, and how awful traffic/pollution/wear and tear on roads would be in Davis without a bus service for students. The primary purpose of Unitrans, and the reason it was established in so far as I am aware, is and should continue to be to take students to and from the UCD campus, so students don’t need to drive cars in and around UCD/Davis – which benefits all citizens of Davis.
Furthermore, the Unitrans committee struggled to determine who the target audience was for buses running through downtown other than perhaps students? It was assumed to be seniors, but the Senior Citizens Commission liaison to Unitrans Tansey Thomas disabused the Unitrans Commission of that notion, and I concurred with Tansey. Downtown Davis does not appear to be a big draw to senior citizens as an ultimate destination. The elderly are far more concerned in getting to medical appointments, the pharmacy and a grocery store. Students already get downtown using Unitrans without difficulty, according to students I have spoken with. So who is this big audience anticipated to need the Unitrans buses to all run through downtown, Mr. Rifkin? If you know, then you need to appear at a Unitrans meeting to present your evidence, because the Unitrans committee was grasping at straws to think who these people would be.
Yet city staff is going to take the time and trouble to investigate the problem of bus wear and tear on downtown streets, if a great number of buses were to run through every 15 minutes. Also bus clearance around specific troublesome corners is another issue that will be addressed/investigated. There was also a concern that heavy bus traffic could endanger pedestrian and bike safety during hours when many, many people are walking or biking downtown, e.g. the lunch hour. Mr. Rifkin, if you don’t feel any of these concerns are legitimate considerations, then you need to voice your views at a Unitrans meeting, for discussion and evaluation. To merely dismiss these concerns out of hand on a blog is hardly safisfactory.
My sense was that Geoff Straw and Unitrans staff are very open to community requests, and will accommodate them if feasible to do so in light of several factors:
1) Time constraints of an already overtaxed bus system, that must meet bus schedules as closely as possible;
2) Any request should not result in an increase in costs;
3) An established reasonable need for the service must exist;
4) Safety is always a concern;
5) Street maintenance must be taken into consideration, since heavy buses are hard on pavement upkeep.
A trial period of 6 months has been instituted on the M line – to specifically accommodate Mr. Rifken’s request (expressed in a column in the Davis Enterprise rather than directly to the City Council) to provide Unitrans bus service throught the downtown core area. If that trial period turns out to be successful, and if the 5th St reconfiguration shortens the route times for the P and Q lines, the P and Q buses may be rerouted through downtown as well. If that is not a satisfactory accommodation to your request Mr. Rifkin, what more do you want Geoff Straw or the City Council to do? Please explain…
[i]”If you truly want your voice to be heard Mr. Rifkin, then you need to be present in person at a Unitrans meeting.”[/i]
I was at the meeting in December. You missed that one. I had an appointment in Washington D.C. at the time this past meeting was held, so I could not be there. I communicated instead with Mr. Shaw by email.
[i]”You are making lots of unsubtantiated claims such as:”[/i]
[b] “He [Geoff Straw] does not represent the interests of the City of Davis”[/b]
I don’t know how you could disagree. Mr. Shaw does not work for or represent the City of Davis.
[b]”I suspect the members of our city council don’t realize that the city is paying most of the Unitrans bill.” [/b]
Sue Greenwald, who is the Unitrans liaison will tell you that before I informed her (one year ago) that the City pays the vast majority of the Unitrans costs, she was under the impression that the students and the university paid most of the cost. Thus, I think if the liaison did not know this basic fact, it is very likely her colleagues on the council were unware of it, too, Elaine.
[i]”The city of Davis already greatly benefits from Unitrans – Unitrans provides bus service to students, so that the students do not need to drive cars to and from campus.”[/i]
I agree the people of Davis benefit in some respects from Unitrans. My point is simply that since we are paying the bill, and we get almost no direct service to the heart of our commercial core, the service is not doing all it could for the people and commerce of Davis.
Also, you are wrong when you imply that the students who are riding the bus would otherwise be driving cars to campus. They have nowhere to park cars on campus. On campus parking places are very limited. If the students did not have the bus service, they would be walking or riding bicycles.
Also, the students are forced to purchase a bus pass. They pay for it whether they want to ride the bus or not. If they were given a choice, the vast majority of students would not buy a pass and would therefore ride the bus less and walk or bicycle much more. Without parking on campus for them, they would not drive instead.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that there are some members of the staff and faculty who take the bus to the campus in place of driving. But in pure numbers, as riders, they are very few compared with those students who would otherwise be walking or bicycling.
[i]”Imagine no Unitrans, and how awful traffic/pollution/wear and tear on roads would be in Davis without a bus service for students.”[/i]
No one has suggested getting rid of Unitrans service to the campus. Rather, I have suggested we improve the service to the downtown.
[i]”The primary purpose of Unitrans, and the reason it was established in so far as I am aware, is and should continue to be to take students to and from the UCD campus, so students don’t need to drive cars in and around UCD/Davis – which benefits all citizens of Davis.”[/i]
It has never taken students out of their cars.
[i]”Furthermore, the Unitrans committee struggled to determine who the target audience was for buses running through downtown other than perhaps students? … So who is this big audience anticipated to need the Unitrans buses to all run through downtown, Mr. Rifkin?”[/i]
Moviegoers, shoppers and restaurant diners, Elaine. In other words, ordinary residents of Davis who go downtown all the time by car.
[i]”If you know, then you need to appear at a Unitrans meeting to present your evidence, because the Unitrans committee was grasping at straws to think who these people would be.”[/i]
When I attended the last Unitrans committe meeting, Elaine, I gave a short presentation and told them exactly that.
I would think some people who attend the Farmer’s Market on Saturdays or Wednesdays would like to have the option of riding the bus directly to Central Park or some on Sundays directly to the Community Church across from the park.
Also, many people who work downtown drive there and take up parking places which could be used by shoppers. They also pay a lot to park (more than 90 minutes). So they too might use the bus if it were made convenient for them.
I’m sorry that you have such a hostile attitude. I realize the notion of change is difficult for some people to handle. However, I don’t think it helps when you falsely assert that I am making “unsubstantiated” claims when they are all true and fully substantiated.
Elaine:
I do not agree that Rich is “making lots of unsubtantiated claims.” He’s got his opinions just like you’ve got your opinions. If fact, many of his observations seem more substantiated than many of yours seem (seniors not interested in going downtown, students would drive to campus if not for Unitrans, students already get downtown without difficulty). Why would the students living in the same block I do have less difficulty getting to and from the movie or Hibberts via Unitrans than I have? I’ll bet most drive, like we do, for most downtown trips.
Here’s when we would have used a more convenient Unitrans route: When we worked downtown for more than a decade before we became seniors, when we’ve shop downtown for much longer, when we go downtown for dinner and entertainment, when we go to church. Now, we almost always drive. We do use Unitrans when we have time and energy to get in a good walk to get to our downtown location. But we’re shorter on both as we’ve gotten older.
Do city staff participate in Unitrans meetings? If not, would they have clarified street damage questions and other issues? You note: “Imagine no Unitrans, and how awful traffic/pollution/wear and tear on roads would be in Davis without a bus service for students.” Assuming you agree with Rich’s claim that the City pays the bigger share of the bus line’s expenses, why not expand those benefits with better service for non-students.
I didn’t realize that the Unitrans buses “are hard on pavement upkeep,” but apparently you’ve already concluded that’s a beneficial trade-off against the “…wear and tear on (Davis) roads…without a bus service…” The fact that route changes might result in some cost increases should not mean the trial is unsuccessful.
If, as you suggest, that the only reason for the trial is Rich’s proposals and that the committee struggled to determine the target audience then disregarded seniors, I’d have to agree with him that the possibilities haven’t gotten adequate consideration by our city’s leadership or Unitrans.
To improve Davis’ transit situation, the city possibly could develop its own bus service–maybe with smaller vehicles–with a portion of the funds it passes onto Unitrans. But, let’s work together with the already proven Unitrans operation to provide better service to the rest of Davis residents.