The conventional wisdom in this council election is that Joe Krovoza is the front runner and likely to finish first and that second place will come down to Sydney Vergis and Rochelle Swanson. Often in Davis, conventional wisdom is not so conventional and things do not work out as planned. Nevertheless, if true, the prospects of Rochelle Swanson received a big boost on Wednesday as Councilmember Lamar Heystek added his name to her endorsement list.
It has been a good week and a half for Ms. Swanson’s candidacy as she received both the Sacramento Bee and Davis Enterprise endorsements in addition to receiving endorsements from Mayor Ruth Asmundson and past mayor and current councilmember Sue Greenwald. Rochelle Swanson is trying to carve out the progressive wing of Davis politics, securing endorsements from both Mr. Heystek and Sue Greenwald, along with other past leaders like former Mayor Bill Kopper and Councilmember Mike Harrington.
He continued, “In my opinion, our inability to exercise better fiscal discipline has placed at greater risk the safety of our neighborhoods and roads, our constituents’ ability to continue paying for vital services and the public trust we as stewards of taxpayer dollars seek to engender in general. I predict that Rochelle will advance positive, substantive structural change for the long-term fiscal health of the city and will take advantage of the next round of labor negotiations to do so.”
He also believes that Ms. Swanson will bring a balanced view to council on matters of land use. “Furthermore, my belief is that Rochelle will contribute to a balanced view on the Council of land use matters,” he said. “In endorsing Rochelle, I echo her desire to rein in unsustainable growth by upholding the principles of our current General Plan. Very importantly, I am confident she will view with a critical eye any proposals for future residential development on our periphery. I especially appreciate her sensitivity to the public’s expressed desire for a small, compact city.”
“In general, I expect that Rochelle will not be afraid to vote “no” when necessary, while working earnestly and diligently with her Council colleagues toward consensus on common-sense alternatives,” he continued.
He also addressed the issue of Ms. Swanson’s political identification where at times she has been registered a Democrat, a Republican, and currently she is a “decline to state.” He writes, “I readily acknowledge that under other circumstances, Rochelle may not have been a natural choice for me, based on aspects of her political and professional background. However, my observation is that one’s voting history on national or state issues may not necessarily be a predictor of his or her voting record in local nonpartisan elected office.”
He continues, “Rochelle and I certainly do not agree on all issues, and as such I do not expect that she will vote precisely how I might have voted on future issues before the Council. However, I have confidence in the fundamental philosophy and independent thinking she seeks to bring to the Council dais. I also believe that Rochelle’s unique relationships within the community can translate into positive change – some of which we have already seen during her candidacy – in several aspects of community life.”
He concludes by saying, “I encourage my fellow Davisites to support Rochelle Swanson.”
Next week, beginning on Monday, the Vanguard will publish one-on-one interviews with the candidates for City Council. Our general policy is that if we receive statements or press releases from candidates we will publish the information in one form or another.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]However, my observation is that one’s voting history on national or state issues may not necessarily be a predictor of his or her voting record in local nonpartisan elected office.[/i]
But the whole point is that is a predictor. Someone who supports McCain-Palin and (rumor has it) Meg Whitman is much more likely to be on the same page as Lamar Heystek on city taxes and union contracts. I’m happy to run this quote from Meg Whitman again:
[quote]Our next governor must be tough enough to stand up to the unions and the politicians they control.[/quote]
And here is a quote from John McCain:
[quote][The auto bailout] was all about the unions. The unions didn’t want to have their very generous contracts renegotiated so we put $80 billion into both General Motors and Chrysler, and anybody believes that Chrysler is going to survive, I’d like to meet them.[/quote]
If this ideology isn’t a predictor of what Lamar Heystek wants for Davis, then the rooster isn’t a predictor of the sunrise.
I think we have four years of public record as to what Heystek wants for Davis and that begins with slow and responsible growth and fiscal responsibility.
You pretty much dodged my question last time on your view of the budget, if you want concrete terms as a mathematician, and you care enough to spent considerable hours on here expressing your opinion, why haven’t you crunched the budget numbers yourself and looked into the city’s long term liabilities regarding pensions and retirement health care?
Greg –
You are simply basing this on rumor. Have you spoken with Rochelle? Have you met Rochelle?
I know people who did not vote the same way that I did on national elections but voted for the candidates and issues I have voted locally. I still think you are basing this on rumor. I choose to deal with facts.
Rochelle is a very intelligent woman and will do well on the council. She has lived in Davis for years. She has raised a family and owned a business and understands the challenges that tax payers face. She understands that we want to keep Davis a small compact city rather than a city with a lot of sprawl. I trust her judgment the most of the candidates. I am also leaning towards voting for Joe.
Greg – I forgot to mention that I know that Lamar will not support Meg Whitman for Governor.
[i]You are simply basing this on rumor.[/i]
I am basing it on the fact that she had a McCain-Palin button on her LinkedIn page.
I should say, by the way, that I also generally trust Rochelle Swanson’s judgment. Like other leading candidates, she has only spoken in vague terms about the city budget, but I would guess that she’s usually a straightforward “fiscal responsibility” type of person like Meg Whitman. The one thing that I really don’t like about her record is the football stadium. But in all fairness, I can’t think of a similar large expenditure that is likely to tempt the city council.
[i]I forgot to mention that I know that Lamar will not support Meg Whitman for Governor.[/i]
Lamar has a lot of fervently held views, and you shouldn’t expect fervor to be consistent.
Speaking of consistency, this is what David Greenwald had to say about Don Saylor in 2006 ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=49&Itemid=90&limitstart=15[/url]):
[quote]Furthermore, the teacher’s association felt he played games in his negotiations. Following a budget negotiation agreement with the DTA in 2000, Saylor strongly opposed a pay increase that had been negotiated and was approved by the school board with a 4-1 vote (Saylor the lone dissenter)…This of course followed his failure to gain endorsement in his reelection bid and during a time of huge budget surplusses for the district that the other members voted to pass onto the teachers. In short, he was not a great friend to the union.[/quote]
David clearly meant this as a criticism of Don Saylor. His record “leaves a lot to be desired”, where do “his loyalties lie”, etc.
Here is my view: First, the school district’s budget problems are at least as bad as those of the city, and the teachers’ retirement system CalSTRS is also deeply underfunded and raises all of the same questions about “sustainability”. If many ways, the school district has it worse than the city. Second, real fiscal responsibility doesn’t just come from squeezing hard when times are bad; it doesn’t even mainly come from that. Real fiscal responsibility comes from restraint when times are good. The generous retirement packages that are such a problem for California cities now were legislated by the state in 1999.
Greg –
The football stadium is another reason to support Rochelle. The stadium was deteriorating and in terrible condition. I was a liability for the school district. I cannot believe they allowed it to deteriorate as much as they did. Rochelle led the charge to raise funds for the new football stadium even though there were a lot of naysayers. She is not afraid to do the right thing.
This is another reason to vote for Rochelle for city council.
[i]It was a liability for the school district.[/i]
If the old stadium was a safety liability for the school district, then what has the renovation accomplished? Are you aware that a football player was paralyzed at Hadley field after the first round of renovations? If children’s safety is the real concern, then football isn’t the solution, football is the problem.
Besides, the second round of the stadium renovations includes things like a press box. What does that have to do with anyone’s safety?
You talk as if the stadium project created money out of thin air. It didn’t. It took 8 million of dollars of facilities money that could have been spent on other renovations, including safety renovations. They would have been off spending half of what they are spending on the “the biggest classroom in Davis”, and spending the other half on all of the other classrooms.
Greg:
Bringing up something I wrote in 2006 is kind of like bringing up something from another lifetime, my thinking has so changed (as has the world) since then.
I actually agree with a lot of your points here:
“First, the school district’s budget problems are at least as bad as those of the city, and the teachers’ retirement system CalSTRS is also deeply underfunded and raises all of the same questions about “sustainability”.”
Yes.
“If many ways, the school district has it worse than the city.”
In most ways they do have it worse. However, they have also spent several years correcting the problems left behind by the previous superintendent and the mismanagement by their previous CBO Tahir Ahad. They have done this remarkably during a time when the district has lost $3 to $5 million annual each year since 2008. They are in better fiscal condition now than they were in 2006 despite all of this.
“Second, real fiscal responsibility doesn’t just come from squeezing hard when times are bad; it doesn’t even mainly come from that. Real fiscal responsibility comes from restraint when times are good. The generous retirement packages that are such a problem for California cities now were legislated by the state in 1999.”
The seeds were laid for the current disaster when the city went to 3% at 50 for safety, 2.5% at 55 for the rest. It was laid when the city gave the firefighters a 36% increase in 2005. It was laid during the 1990s when the city matched an annual 10% property tax revenue growth rate AND $3 million in revenue from a half-cent sales tax increase with comparable increases to compensation leaving us little margin if the economy and real estate market collapsed. You are absolutely correct here.
What I think you fail to recognize is that for the school district, once the economy rebounds and the state restores COLA, most of their fiscal concerns will decrease. They will always be vulnerable to the ebbs and flows of state government, but due to prop 13 and school financing realities that is unavoidable on their part, even budgeting in reserves and cushions.
The city is in less healthy condition because they have deferred a number of liabilities that will have to come due at sometime and unless the city resumes 10% annual increase in property tax revenue, they will not have the funds to do that.
Most of the information I have received from the city’s finance director. You need to either talk to him or do the work for yourself on this. You haven’t done your own homework and yet you are attacking mine without a real grasp of the issues involved.
Lamar Heystack is a puppet of this blog , bought and paid for by the vanguard !
[i]Bringing up something I wrote in 2006 is kind of like bringing up something from another lifetime, my thinking has so changed (as has the world) since then.[/i]
But the more things change, the more they stay the same. The Don Saylor who just wasn’t a good friend of unions and didn’t deserve their support, is the same Don Saylor who is now “bought and paid for” by the unions.
My impression is that through all of this, Saylor has kept an even keel. I definitely don’t agree with him on all issues, but I tend to trust his judgment. It is interesting that he has endorsed all three of the main candidates for city council.
Actually not much has changed. With respect to “bought and paid for,” the reference is to exactly one union and that was true then and now. Overall, his labor record is spotty at best.
[i]With respect to “bought and paid for,” the reference is to exactly one union and that was true then and now. Overall, his labor record is spotty at best.[/i]
So which is it, that Saylor is doing too much for unions or too little? Because Lamar, for one, certainly doesn’t just have in mind the firefighters’ contract. He also voted against the PASEA contract. You could certainly argue that firefighters statewide are paid more than they have to be paid, but the firefighter’s contract by itself is not going to bankrupt Davis. The fire department is only 1/5 of the general budget and only 1/15 of the total budget.
So let’s take PASEA as example, since that is both where Lamar Heystek was the most “independent” and Sue Greenwald had her blowup with Ruth Asmundson. Is Don Saylor too much of a friend of PASEA, or too little?
Whats going on with the cops negotiations in the city of davis ?
We don’t hear anything until the contract comes out.
“[Lamar Heystek] also believes that Ms. Swanson will bring a balanced view to council on matters of land use. “Furthermore, my belief is that Rochelle will contribute to a balanced view on the Council of land use matters,” he said. “In endorsing Rochelle, I echo her desire to rein in unsustainable growth by upholding the principles of our current General Plan. Very importantly, I am confident she will view with a critical eye any proposals for future residential development on our periphery. I especially appreciate her sensitivity to the public’s expressed desire for a small, compact city.”
Interesting – at David Greenwald’s pizza gathering for the candidates, someone asked Rochelle Swanson directly if she supported Covell Village, and she essentially said yes. Has she changed her mind as she has gotten wind of general public sentiment in opposition to current peripheral development?
Also her initial response to the Picnic Day debacle was rather weak – let’s not rush to judgment. When there was a groundswell of bad publicity against bars that sold cheap liquor at 6 am, including her husband’s business The Graduate, only then did she change her position along with her husband.
I find her convenient change in positions depending on which way the political wind is blowing very troubling…
Greg Kuperberg: ” The one thing that I really don’t like about her record is the football stadium…Besides, the second round of the stadium renovations includes things like a press box. What does that have to do with anyone’s safety? You talk as if the stadium project created money out of thin air. It didn’t. It took 8 million of dollars of facilities money that could have been spent on other renovations, including safety renovations.”
I don’t agree with Greg on a lot of things, but this is one issue he and I are in complete concurrence on. A serious economic downturn was not the time to build a new stadium with all sorts of frills. In my day, the “football stadium” consisted of a hill to sit on, a grass field to play on, and a dirt track to run on. To me, the renovations to Emerson Junior High seemed a lot more pressing, especially bc supposedly at one time the School Board was slating Emerson for closure bc it was “unsafe”…
I didn’t hear the response at the Meet the Candidate’s night, I do know that her responses at the CHA event and what she told me indicate that she is not in favor of that project.
“To me, the renovations to Emerson Junior High seemed a lot more pressing, especially bc supposedly at one time the School Board was slating Emerson for closure bc it was “unsafe”… “
And the conditions at Emerson were fully evaluated and were found to safe, just out of date in terms of current ADA compliance (if they do additional construction).
Whereas I toured the stadium last year with Rochelle coincidentally, and I found it extremely unsafe even for me to walk on, I nearly got injured.
DMG: “I didn’t hear the response at the Meet the Candidate’s night, I do know that her responses at the CHA event and what she told me indicate that she is not in favor of that project.”
Well I did hear her response on Candidate’s night, and it was a complete 180 degrees from what she said in later forums. I find that troubling…
DMG: “And the conditions at Emerson were fully evaluated and were found to safe…”
After parents in the area raised such a stink, the School Board backed off its original assessment… how convenient.
E Roberts Musser-“I find her convenient change in positions depending on which way the political wind is blowing very troubling..” She must have been downwind of the kettle of tar you were boiling for her. BTW, while I’m certain your memories of the boys in leather helmets, with their knickers buttoned just below the knee, running and laterally passing the ball are pleasant for you, many others saw the need to improve the old facility, after nearly a half century, and, as always, you fail to note the vast majority of the bill was paid for by fund raising, ramrodded by Rochelle. Whether one agrees or disagrees with her politics or social views, I cannot see how you can turn such a positive, community oriented labor on Ms. Swansons part into a negative.
biddlin: ” and, as always, you fail to note the vast majority of the bill was paid for by fund raising, ramrodded by Rochelle.”
As Greg Kuperberg has pointed out many times, money that went to the stadium could have gone to the DSF to save teachers’ jobs…
biddlin: “E Roberts Musser-“I find her convenient change in positions depending on which way the political wind is blowing very troubling..” She must have been downwind of the kettle of tar you were boiling for her.”
I didn’t ask the question, I just stood listening to Rochelle’s response, which was completely at odds with what she is now saying…
Didn’t the donors voluntarily give to the BWF for the stadium? So they chose to give to the stadium, they weren’t forced to, weren’t tricked into? Given that, what makes you think that they would have given to the DSF if they hadn’t given to the stadium?
“I didn’t ask the question, I just stood listening to Rochelle’s response, which was completely at odds with what she is now saying… “
What did she say exactly?
At the CHA meeting, in responding to a question as to how she as a council member would define seniors for planning for future housing needs, she responded that she would prefer defining by need not age. “The breakdown that’s been done in a couple of studies… is that 15% of seniors want to be in age restricted [housing] but 85% does not.” She then talked about the need to plan for different sizes of houses to accommodate different needs.
“Do you think it important that the city of Davis add new senior housing projects in which qualified occupants would own their home and land?”
Rochelle Swanson responded, “Rather than focus on it being an age and ownership, I would focus on it being a new development that blends into our existing community and has a cross-age element on it. It’s more about the delivery of services.”
The third question was, “Do you think that it is important that the city of Davis to allow new qualified senior housing projects that are large enough to offer comprehensive services for maintaining health and healthy social lifestyles [couldn’t hear end of question over baby noises…]”
Rochelle Swanson said, “I think we need to look at the services that we are not providing right now and how can we address those.” She wants to be sure that people have the resources here in town, she wants to look at existing services and beef those up rather than looking to expand services at this time. She wants to insure that people not only have access to those services, but that they have affordability.
The final question overall from CHA was, “Would you be an advocate for senior ownership housing projects within your term if you were elected?”
Rochelle Swanson called herself an advocate for quality housing. She also agrees that it is time to study rather than necessarily act. She suggested that not everyone needs to or wants to move and she is interested in universal design standards that would enable seniors to age in place.
If she was going to support Covell, that was the place to do it. Nowhere in her responses there did she indicate support of Covell or even the CHA agenda. Moreover later she has stressed that we need to look internally to address our housing needs.
And let us not forget. A very rare, highly coveted, slightly veiled, toungue in cheek endorsement, for Rochelle Swanson in last nights The Davis Enterprise by the one and only Bob Dunning!
[i]”The generous retirement packages that are such a problem for California cities now were legislated by the state in 1999.”[/i]
That statement is misleading. First, no state legislation ever required any cities, counties or other local agencies to adopt the retirement packages that local agencies now have. They chose to move up to 3% at 50 for safety and 2.5% for non-safety by their own accords, not the state’s. We cannot blame Gray Davis for the fact that the City of Davis changed all of its pension plans. We can blame the Davis City Council (Boyd, Freeman, Greenwald, Harrington and Wagstaff).
I am sure the state legislation you are referencing is SB400 of 1999. For some state retirees (whose pensions were funded for much lower levels, their pensions suddenly were jacked up, as if they had paid in much more all the while they were working).
Also, SB400 created for the first time the 3% at 50 formula for highway patrol, prison guards, state fire crews, and various other “safety” officers (including administrators like Don Saylor); and it gave this much better pension package to all of them, regardless of how long their pensions had been funded at lower levels. That meant for those state retirees in the year 2000, their pensions became 50% more generous overnight.
The second thing SB400 did was jack up the pension plans for non-safety state employees to 2.5% at 55. And with that, the medical bills (for retiree medical care) went through the roof for the state (as it is now going through the roof in Davis), because every state employee under the new formulas had a strong incentive to retire much younger.
SB400 further added new (more expensive, unfunded) survivor benefits which were inflated at higher levels than had been done previously.
But SB400 is still not the starting point of the state crisis. You have to go back to the mid-1990s, when the major public employee unions* — CSEA, CUSE, CCPOA, CAHP, SEIU, CNA, AFSCME, CPF, Teamsters, Operating Engineers, etc. — handpicked new, corrupted board members for CalPERS who would support their notion that the pension formulas could all be made much more generous at no extra cost and no extra risk to the system. That is the plan that CalPERS itself then sold to the Davis Administration and the state legislature (including, I might add, our own Helen Thomson, who voted yes on SB400).
—————-
*The unions (through their members) have always controlled PERS. That fact was not new in the mid-1990s. The change was that the unions decided to use PERS to sell the idea of more generous pension plans; and some of the unions, according to news accounts I have read, gave cash to PERS board members in order to influence their decision to support this change in state policy.
[i]Whereas I toured the stadium last year with Rochelle coincidentally, and I found it extremely unsafe even for me to walk on, I nearly got injured.[/i]
What happened, were you in danger of stubbing your toe? Because the fact is that a high school student from a visiting team was paralyzed after Hadley Field reopened. The safety argument for renovating this stadium is bogus. The kind of safety that people really care about is the one that scores two points.
[i]You fail to note the vast majority of the bill was paid for by fund raising, ramrodded by Rochelle.[/i]
The reason that we fail to note it is that [b]IT IS NOT REMOTELY TRUE[/b]. The Blue and White Foundation never promised to raise even a fifth of the cost of the stadium, and it also hasn’t come close to its fund-raising goal. They pledged $1.5 million, they haven’t yet found it, and the stadium costs $8 million. I know that there is a rumor or impression going around Davis that Blue and White is paying for most of the stadium. It is one of the most aggravating aspects of politics in Davis, that people can look at the biggest capital project in the school district, and somehow tell themselves that their taxes didn’t pay for it.
Again, it would probably be okay if Rochelle Swanson serves on the city council, but if people vote for her because they think that she paid for the stadium, that’s a disaster. If that’s what people think, then who knows what the city or the school district could fund, and have people think that it doesn’t cost anything.
E Roberts Musser, with her typical deflection,fails to note her demonization of Rochelle Swanson started at least a week before the CHA forum. She doesn’t like drinking and frivolity and she wants to make Davis a sober and chaste community. She misses no opportunity to use Rochelle’s candidacy as a vehicle to further her goal. To date, she has not offered any evidence that The Graduate or any of its patrons or employees had any hand in the disturbances that marred picnic day. She is angry that Rochelle worked to raise funds for the stadium instead of raising them for causes she deems important. What she will not do is admit that her accusations against the Swansons and their business are solely based on her values and fears and not on one iota of fact. I don’t agree with Rochelle on many issues, but, based on the public record, must say that she and Charley seem like good neighbors, good business people and loyal to their community. We should all have such faults.
[i]”Are you aware that a football player was paralyzed at [b]Hadley field[/b] after the first round of renovations?”[/i]
Do you mean to imply that the injury was a result of the new field? I don’t believe that is the case. In the game of football — by its very nature, violent and dangerous — even terrible injuries can take place on the safest of surfaces. The “safety” idea of the new field was not to take all the danger out of football. It was to provide a surface which reduced the likelihood of things like torn ligaments due to stepping on uneven patches.
I cannot imagine that Will Barker would be any less paralyzed if the collision had taken place on the natural grass field, which was no softer. I played 7 years of orgnanized football at Halden Field (from Pop Warner through Davis High School), and as I understand what happened* it would have been the same outcome on any surface.
Also, it’s Halden, [i]not Hadley.[/i] The field was named for Dewey Halden, who coached just about every Davis High School sport for the first 30 years of Davis High School. This comes from the Junior Blue Devils: [quote]Davis High School’s football field was named Halden Field in 1961 after Davis High School’s first football coach, W. Dewey Halden.
Coach Halden was born in 1897 and played for and coached at Simpson College in Iowa for two years before moving to California. Davis High School (DHS) hired him as a teacher in 1928, when the high school was still located on Russell Blvd., site of the current City Hall. At this time, he served as the school’s first football, track, tennis, baseball, and basketball coach.
During his tenure, Coach Halden had eleven undefeated football teams in the Yolo County Athletic League. Coach Halden coached at DHS for 28 years until his retirement in 1955, with his local career record estimated at 111-19-10.
Having fought in World War I as a pilot, Coach Halden and a Davis High School student, Bill Young, created the DHS Blue Devil mascot based upon a World War I French fighting Corps. [/quote] *I was told be a friend who was at the game that Barker was trying to make a tackle, leading with his head, which is a no-no; when he crashed into the Davis player, the force of the collision crushed Barker’s neck, as his head went down. I was not there, so I can’t say for sure that’s exactly what occurred.
[i]Do you mean to imply that the injury was a result of the new field? I don’t believe that is the case. In the game of football — by its very nature, violent and dangerous — even terrible injuries can take place on the safest of surfaces.[/i]
That’s exactly right, Rich, football is by its very nature, violent and dangerous. It is therefore a step backwards for safety to renovate a stadium to have more football. The real goal is more training, more players, more games, and more promotion. The only further steps from here would be to build a boxing ring and a large half pipe.
[i]”Again, it would probably be okay if Rochelle Swanson serves on the city council, but if people vote for her because they think that she paid for the stadium, that’s a disaster.”[/i]
It would also be a disaster if they think Rochelle Swanson voted for any public funds to go to the stadium renovation. If I recall correctly, the Board of Education decided unanimously to fund that project. The Board, rightly or wrongly, weighed all possible uses for those funds, including an Emerson upgrade, and decided it was the best use of those capital improvement dollars (which cannot be used to pay ongoing expenses, like teacher salaries). If I recall correctly, Rochelle was not serving on the BoE when the Board voted unanimously in favor of this project.
So if anyone has a beef with the action of the Board, then blame the people on the school board. Don’t blame one citizen who has helped raise private money to augment the public monies. It’s certainly not as if the decision of the Board was widely unpopular; or as if Mrs. Swanson was the sole member of the public encouraging this decision.
[i]”It is therefore a step backwards for safety to renovate a stadium to have more football.”[/i]
It won’t create “more football.” That is nonsense.
You have every right to not like football, or think football should not be a part of the schools*. (I think that’s a minority opinion, but being unpopular does not in any way invalidate it.) But it seems silly to me to focus your hatred of high school football in general against one member of the public who apparently likes high school football (the opinion of the majority of people) and believes that it should be played on a field which is safer than the field we had before.
*I have no problem with inter-scholastic high school sports. I think they are a great component of the high school experience for all students who participate in them. However, even though I am a football fan, I think the professionalized, Division I-type of college football is outside of the mission for colleges and universities. I think it’s ridiculous that the students a decade ago in Davis decided to force future matriculants to pay for the facilities and scholarships of D-I athletes at Davis.
Greg: There were deep holes and grooves on the field, and I nearly turned an ankle/ knee stepping into one. Also the track surface was extremely bad. I would not trust my kids to have used either the field or the track surface.
Here was my report at the time: link ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2775:Photo-tour-of-the-dhs-stadium&catid=68:budgettaxes&Itemid=119[/url])
“Again, it would probably be okay if Rochelle Swanson serves on the city council”
You certainly are not acting that way. Most of the comments that you have made indicate just the opposite.
” Next week, beginning on Monday, the Vanguard will publish one-on-one interviews with the candidates for City Council. “
Reading through my Democratic sample ballot today, I noticed that Li was totally absent(not that surprising given his rather “unusual” campaign rhetoric and style) and Daniel Watts did not have a Spanish translation of his candidate remarks. As I remember, it cost about $500 extra to get a Spanish translation some years ago so I am guessing that it was a campaign money issue for Daniel Watts. Sydney Vergis’ statement was interesting in that she was the only candidate who did not indicate her age in the upper right hand corner. Is this just another calculated attempt(along with her “inflated” resume) to suggest to the uninformed Davis voter that she is more experienced and more mature in years than she really is? David… perhaps you can get her explanation next week.
[i]You have every right to not like football, or think football should not be a part of the schools*[/i]
It’s not that I think that there should be no football at all. This is not an all or nothing question. It’s true that it’s a somewhat violent sport, but it’s not intolerably violent. If a student plays football, that could be just as important as if he plays violin. I just don’t think that it’s 10 times as important.
[i]It won’t create “more football.”[/i]
The only interpretation of the press box is promotion of football. I don’t see how you can look at all that they are building and think that it will only be the same as amount of football as before. The ripple effect of the renovation is obvious: It creates a huge itch to devote more time and money to football in the future.
[i]There were deep holes and grooves on the field, and I nearly turned an ankle/ knee stepping into one. Also the track surface was extremely bad. I would not trust my kids to have used either the field or the track surface.[/i]
My daughter does track and she confirms that it’s a nicer track than before. However, the old track was not in fact a quake monster that breaks ankles. And if they had just wanted to fix the track and the sod, it would not have cost $8 million or even half that much.
[i]You certainly are not acting that way.[/i]
Okay, I admit that I enjoy stirring the pot sometimes. It is true that Swanson isn’t one of my choices for city council. It is also true that I really don’t like the expensive stadium renovation. And that I think that this “progressive wing of Davis politics” has gotten soggy with hypocrisy. Those are my earnest views. But otherwise, I concede that she’d probably be okay on the city council.
“The only interpretation of the press box is promotion of football. I don’t see how you can look at all that they are building and think that it will only be the same as amount of football as before. The ripple effect of the renovation is obvious: It creates a huge itch to devote more time and money to football in the future.”
If you have some reason to believe that the schedule will be expanded to include more games, then by all means provide your evidence. Otherwise, I think your speculation is unfounded. IMO, the schedule is unlikely to change just because there is a nice new stadium. Football would not be my top priority, either, but sometimes these things are a function of popularity. Those of us who are not sports fans often bemoan the amount of resources devoted to them, but those were the priorities donors and the school board chose.
Lamar’s endorsement doesn’t surprise me. You’ll also find my name among Rochelle’s endorsements. As to her support of the Republican presidential candidates (which I think you and I were the only ones that noticed before her Linked-In page got changed!), I don’t see any particular relevance to local politics. I grew up in San Diego, where the mayor is non-partisan. Pete Wilson was mayor, very popular, and considered to be a slow-growth moderate with a strong environmental record. When he ran for statewide office, he adopted conservative positions on many issues (though I note that he never changed his pro-choice position, to his credit; it surely affected his popularity in the state Republican party). At that point I judged him on those issues. Prior to that, voters across the spectrum had no problem voting for him locally.
[i]If you have some reason to believe that the schedule will be expanded to include more games, then by all means provide your evidence.[/i]
Of course they haven’t planned the schedule far into the future, and it also isn’t just the number of varsity games, but how many teams they have and how much they train. The real point is that the football boosterism changes the political balance. The stadium, and the Blue and White Foundation itself, and some other promotions have created political incentives that could easily last for a decade.
It’s not just a matter of having more football than in a previous year, it’s that right now the district has to handle huge cuts. The question is whether football or other athletics would get any cuts. You can look at what happened with Division I athletics at UC Davis. Katehi is cutting athletics along with many other things, and athletics is throwing the biggest tantrum of any unit on campus. They say it’s a betrayal of promises implied by the move to Division I. These same political forces are clearly now at play at DJUSD.
Anyway, the fact that there might be more football rather than less, and therefore more players will get injured, isn’t the main problem. The main problem is simply that they spent a ton of money on football, and there is a political tide to keep spending.
[i]sometimes these things are a function of popularity[/i]
That’s fine, but some of this popularity is orchestrated by the district itself. And whether or not popularity is natural or astroturf, what’s really bad is when it blinds people to public spending. If people like an $8 million stadium, they may somehow imagine that it didn’t cost much in taxes. The stadium alone is almost as expensive as three years of the city’s extra sales tax. This is a lot of money, and it could have been spent on other things that district families want. Including, since David was worried about twisting his ankle, important safety work.
City Council is non-partisan but I do find it fitting that the so called progressives have found their republican roots and finally thrown off the cloak and pretext of liberalism.
Whose liberalism are you questioning specifically?
David, I believe The Toad is refering to that of David Lloyd George ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lloyd_George[/url]).
“David… perhaps you can get her explanation next week.”
Perhaps you might also ask her how she feels about being routinely smeared on your blog by davisite2, and whether that might affect her working relationship with the progressive community if she is ultimately elected or appointed to the CC.
“…..routinely smeared on your blog by davisite2”
The FACT that Sydey Vergis,who I would guess is about the same age as 27 yo Daniel Watts, chose to be the only Council candidate whose sample ballot campaign remarks does not include her age is just that, a FACT that the reader can consider and make their own judgement as to whether it is consistent with her past and present campaign strategy of obfuscation and deception.
davisite2: John Garamendi did the same thing on my sample ballot in my congressional district. I wonder why he wouldn’t want to reveal his age?
FWIW, Vergis is 28 according to this ([url]http://sydneyvergis.com/claire.html[/url]).
biddlin: “E Roberts Musser, with her typical deflection,fails to note her demonization of Rochelle Swanson started at least a week before the CHA forum. She doesn’t like drinking and frivolity and she wants to make Davis a sober and chaste community. She misses no opportunity to use Rochelle’s candidacy as a vehicle to further her goal. To date, she has not offered any evidence that The Graduate or any of its patrons or employees had any hand in the disturbances that marred picnic day. She is angry that Rochelle worked to raise funds for the stadium instead of raising them for causes she deems important. E Roberts Musser, with her typical deflection,fails to note her demonization of Rochelle Swanson started at least a week before the CHA forum. She doesn’t like drinking and frivolity and she wants to make Davis a sober and chaste community. She misses no opportunity to use Rochelle’s candidacy as a vehicle to further her goal. To date, she has not offered any evidence that The Graduate or any of its patrons or employees had any hand in the disturbances that marred picnic day. She is angry that Rochelle worked to raise funds for the stadium instead of raising them for causes she deems important. What she will not do is admit that her accusations against the Swansons and their business are solely based on her values and fears and not on one iota of fact. I don’t agree with Rochelle on many issues, but, based on the public record, must say that she and Charley seem like good neighbors, good business people and loyal to their community. We should all have such faults.
I don’t agree with Rochelle on many issues, but, based on the public record, must say that she and Charley seem like good neighbors, good business people and loyal to their community. We should all have such faults.”
1) Why are you demonizing me for expressing an opinion? I merely expressed concern that Rochelle seems to have flip-flopped on her positions, which is of concern to me personally. And I don’t agree with her position on supporting the renovation of DHS Stadium.
2) Why are you so antagonistic towards “sober and chaste” people?
3) I actually praised The Graduate for being the first Davis business that voluntarily agreed to cease serving cheap alchohol at 6 am on Picnic Day. Based on community reaction, I would have to say I was in the majority on this issue – even The Graduate saw the wisdom of my position. Joe Krovoza went so far as to demand a “dry” Picnic Day.
biddlin: “What she [E Roberts Musser] will not do is admit that her accusations against the Swansons and their business are solely based on her values and fears and not on one iota of fact.”
4) What specific “accusations against the Swansons” are you talking about?
5) Accusations that I don’t like “drinking and frivolity” are unfounded/baseless. You don’t know me…
“… a FACT that the reader can consider and make their own judgement as to whether it is consistent with her past and present campaign strategy of obfuscation and deception.”
I’ll also be taking into account the past and present campaign strategy of smear and innuendo by anti-Vergis astroturfers.
“I’ll also be taking into account the past and present campaign strategy of smear and innuendo by anti-Vergis astroturfers. “
I think you are misusing the term astroturfer here.
“John Garamendi did the same thing on my sample ballot in my congressional district…”
Don… I specifically referenced the 4 other Council candidate’s campaign statements in the sample ballot. A certain minimum age, which is commonly associated with the acquisition of a modicum of wisdom along with Davis life experiences in-common with the voters, appears to be an important element in choosing who they trust to represent them on the Council. I do not believe that we have elected a Council member less than 30 years of age since I began voting in Davis 30 years ago. Lamar Heystek was the notable exception who diligently set out to demonstrate to the Davis voters ,before his 2nd run for Council, his character and competence by working on at least 2 important citizen commissions.
E Roberts Musser- “Encouraging drinking beginning at 6 am is asking for trouble. Five or six years does not make a tradition – what it makes is money for The Graduate. I find Rochelle Swanson’s attitude extremely self-serving. .. Clearly The Graduate is part of the problem and NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION… Serving beer at 6 am is asking for trouble. Those same people who drank beer at The Graduate or at any other bar, went out the door to drink somewhere else including at private parties, and were ripe for eventually causing problems. … And had DPD not reported the Swanson connection, would the owner of The Graduate have stepped up to the plate immediately to do the right thing?…When there was a groundswell of bad publicity against bars that sold cheap liquor at 6 am, including her husband’s business The Graduate, only then did she change her position along with her husband.” I had no difficulty finding the baseless accusations, I guess I missed the praise somewhere.” Tell you what – let’s try a sober Picnic Day next year, and see what happens. Betcha it will be a lot safer… As unpopular and prudish as it sounds to some, how about a “dry” Picnic Day, where no alcohol in town is served?” I don’t know you, but you don’t sound like a party person.
“I think you are misusing the term astroturfer here.”
From Wikipedia: Astroturfing denotes political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular “grassroots” behavior.
DG: I’m guessing your position is that the benchmark of “formally planned by an organization” has not been met. I definitely see your point, but from my perspective it comes down to a question of coordination rather than institutional structure … and would encompass ad hoc groups such as “developer interests” or the “Sue Greenwald machine” if members of these groups are anonymously working in concert on the blog to achieve a political end.
Your statement also raises the interesting question of whether or not an individual posting under their own name AND an anonymous pseudonym (to create the illusion of grassroots support) is engaged in a type of “astroturfing.”
One of the reasons we created the required log in was to avoid the latter possibility. As far as I can tell, most of the posts, if not all, have been done by long established posters. I don’t see any evidence that there is anything other than a few individuals posting their own individual thoughts on the topics before us.
The best example I have seen of an astroturf campaign is CHA, where the developer created an organization to mobilize people toward a specific end, the passage of Covell Village II as a senior housing center. That’s an astroturf campaign, even a few individuals acting in concert would not really constitute an astroturf campaign as I understand it.
Don Shor said :”I wonder why he wouldn’t want to reveal his age?
My sarcasm-meter was on OFF for this one, Don….. sorry if I missed it. This Council candidate selection is serious busniness.
If CHA is a good example of astroturf, and I tend to believe David that it is one, the certainly the Blue and White Foundation is an even better example of astroturf. They are a noisy group that blew into school board meetings. Their request has dominated facilities spending in the district for several years. An attitude developed that the Blue and White Foundation speaks for all or most of the district, but the district consciously ignored groups who disagreed.
Since the stadium project started and to this day, the Blue and White Foundation has a sturdy, prominent billboard advertisement at the corner of the high school campus. Whatever faults CHA may have, they do not have a sign planted at the corner of city hall, asking residents to donate to their cause.
That’s not what an astroturf group is. It is a group started by a powerful corporate or otherwise monied entity to push a project or issue using the illusion that it is a mass group. BWF is a non-profit support group that raise money and lobbies for the high school.
The Blue and White Foundation does not lobby “for the high school”, it lobbies for the stadium. It certainly is astroturf in that it’s perfectly happy to create a magnified impression of mass support. It is also a monied interest, in the sense that they leveraged their money for a much larger district expenditure.
I wish that Blue and White did lobby for the high school, and not just for athletics at the high school. I have two kids in the school system, and they have little need for “the District’s biggest classroom”. They need the other classrooms.
That’s not the definition of an astroturf group, that’s the definition of an ordinary interest group. Now if you were alleging that some stadium builder created them, then you would have a point.
I also believe you are misstating their purpose, their mission statement indicates that they are considerably broader than you allege, you are correct that the stadium was one of their projects, but it was not the sum total of their work.
From the Wikipedia page on astroturfing ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing[/url]):
[quote]Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual promoting a personal agenda, or highly organized professional groups with money from large corporations, unions, [b]non-profits[/b], or activist organizations.[/quote]
There is no principle that just because Blue and White is non-profit, it is therefore not astroturf.
“Astroturfing denotes political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular “grassroots” behavior. The term refers to AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.”
Regardless the wikipedia article extends the definition beyond what is normally associated with astroturfing, which is a large monied interest creating a mass movement.
Furthermore this have nothing to do with the article or even the side conversation, you have once again steered the conversation toward your vendetta against the Blue and White foundation. We get it, you don’t like the stadium. Move on.
[i]you are correct that the stadium was one of their projects, but it was not the sum total of their work.[/i]
The Blue and White web site ([url]http://www.dhsblueandwhite.org/bwhistory.html[/url]) makes it clear that they care 10 times more about the stadium than everything else that they are doing, put together. And that makes sense, given how much the stadium costs.
The stadium is the elephant in the room; if Blue and White also has a pet rabbit, so what.
If anything, their tactic of claiming that they are for the high school in general makes their influence worse, because someone could give them money thinking that it would go to something other than athletics. In fact, the Blue and White Foundation has an article posted by Charlie Swanson in which he expresses jealousy of the music program, as an argument for expensive athletics. So this is not at all a matter of supporting everything that the high school wants.
But you are guilty of a recency bias, as that was their most recent effort.
Oh, this is a new one ([url]http://www.dhsblueandwhite.org/articles.html[/url]) for me. A quote from Rochelle Swanson about how the Blue and White Foundation reached its goal of $1.5 million in “donations” in support of the stadium: “We are happy to announce, that with Brown Construction’s in-kind donations, we have met our $1.5 million fundraising campaign.”
How generous of Brown Construction to donate $600,000 towards the stadium, out of their contract which this particular article pegs at $6 million. (I wish that I could find a stable number for how much the stadium project costs.) It makes you almost forget that Ron Brown is much wealthier than public employee in Davis.
Astroturf indeed. The construction company itself steps in to save the stadium, and that lets the Blue and White Foundation say that it met its fundraising promise to the district. Ron Brown says that the project has zero net profit for his company. That could be true, but it does give the stadium a stamp of plutocracy.
Only you could spin Brown Construction’s donation and at cost delivery of services as a negative.
David, the negative in this case is that the Blue and White Foundation will never meet its promise to raise $1.5 million for the stadium, which implied from the beginning $1.5 million of community support for the stadium. If Brown Construction gives the district a 10% discount for the survival of the project, that’s not really a donation, it’s only a sale price.
Yes, it’s nice that Rob Brown is, according to him, willing to build the stadium at no profit. But he’s also not losing money on the stadium. The taxpayers of the district are losing money on the stadium, and that’s the whole problem. I don’t know how many voters in Davis think that the stadium was free, but I know that biddlin isn’t the only one.
Astro ([url]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Y8m29ZLX5ag/STD63eB_06I/AAAAAAAAB1Y/pt8q9Nw_CQs/s400/JETSONS+COLOR+5.jpg[/url]) + turf ([url]http://danny.oz.au/travel/iceland/p/3387-turf-houses.jpg[/url]).
Greg: There’s nothing new about political supporters manufacturing guilts-by-association to discredit candidates they don’t support. But your arguments here stretch the technique beyond the Davis’ usual level for our local politics.
Your posts reveal incorrect attributions, wrong definitions, misdirection, unsubstantiated rumors, untruths and poor deduction. You charge ahead with more venom when others call you on your non-factual statements and far-out conclusions. I won’t review the many screwball theories you’ve spun on this topic since many others already have pointed them out.
I’m concerned, however, about your continued assault on the Blue & White Foundation, a successful local non-profit with a mission to: “…encourage, strengthen and sustain the interaction between Davis Senior High School and its alumni and friends, and to encourage philanthropic support for Davis Senior High School.”
No matter your opinion about the school board’s decision to fix up the field, the Foundation’s role in helping get donations is a success story of dedicated citizen action for community good. And the group leaders’ performance on this one project is a dedication worthy of commendation, not something to discount in order to discredit a council candidate.
Finally, I’m surprised at the lengths you go to connect our local folks with what you think is ideologically wrong in the wider world. That Lamar or Rochelle are “likely to be on the same page” with respect to specific local issues as McCain, Whitman and Palin feel about state and national issues is just fuzzy thinking. Sometimes you qualify your statements (“rumor has it”). Don’t you think it’s a little goofy to engage in a political “six degrees of separation” game that allows you to associate [u]anyone[/u] with [u]anything[/u] you think is bad.
Blue & White Foundation website:
http://www.dhsblueandwhite.org/index.html
JustSaying: I could in principle believe that the Blue and White Foundation has some commitment to Davis Senior High beyond boosterism for varsity athletics. But if so, they need to work at it, because the stadium is 99% of what they’ve accomplished so far.
As for specific local issues, I’m going to go back again to what Whitman said: “Our next governor must be tough enough to stand up to the unions and the politicians they control.” I’m sorry, but if you simply replace “governor” by “city council”, that [b]is[/b] a local issue. In fact David argues that it is [b]the main[/b] local issue this year.
It just doesn’t sit well with some people that what California’s Republicans say about California’s unions, sounds exactly the same as what some “progressives” in Davis say about local affiliates of the same unions.
The last time the progressives in Davis supported a Republican it was Stan Forbes who supported prop 187, was against having an immersion program at Ceasar Chavez and thought we should build student housing in Woodland so good luck getting what you want from a Republican this time around. Oh but then again maybe those things are consistent with the progressive agenda in Davis.
[i]”It just doesn’t sit well with some people that what California’s Republicans say about California’s unions, sounds exactly the same as what some “progressives” in Davis say about local affiliates of the same unions.”[/i]
Of course the problem in California is the public employee unions. They control the state legislature. They have controlled it for a long time. They run the Democratic Party; and they punish Democrats who don’t agree with them ([url]http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2010/01/wolk-loses-big.html[/url]). (I think term limits have only increased public union power.) The unions fund every elected Democrat. And in turn, the elected Democrats have been paying bakc their members with more and better benefits, pensions, salaries, etc.
What I find ironic is that you have explicitly said the same thing that you are attributing to Ms. Whitman. I recall your comments on here about the undue power of the CCPOA in the Davis Administration, and how you agreed with me that that union helped engineer the takeover in funding which once went to higher education and now goes to the corrections system ([url]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/S5x3nR6is6I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/9codWtltt_M/s1600-h/Prisons+vs+Higher+Education.jpg[/url]). And only yesterday, you made mention that the crisis in government — though you wrongly said city government, when in fact it is really just state government — dates to the passage of SB400 in 1999. That was the handiwork of the public employee unions and the lackeys they put on the CalPERS board. The unions even paid off some board members to get them to back SB400. As David Crane reported ([url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315404575250822189252384.html[/url]): [quote]… members of Calpers’s board had received contributions from the public employee unions who would benefit from the legislation[/quote] It’s even odder that you deride Ms. Whitman’s remark, when you yourself have explicitly said in posts on this blog that you are personally “anti-union.” I am dumbfounded that you would thus use that reason to attack Mrs. Swanson.
[i]What I find ironic is that you have explicitly said the same thing that you are attributing to Ms. Whitman.[/i]
First of all, what Whitman said is overblown. It is not true that unions “control” politicians. There are a few particularly craven pro-union politicians such as Leland Yee, but if they are “controlled” by unions, they want to be controlled. Moreover, some of these unions have at least as much direct influence over public opinion, as they have backroom influence over politicians.
Second, Whitman’s anti-union ideology is much more correct at the state level than it is at the local level. Cities have to respond to rules and incentives that are set up by the California legislature. For instance, SB400 created a massive subsidy in the compensation system, so that it was much cheaper for a time to compensate public employees with 3 at 50 than with extra salary.
The point about unions is more of a criticism of certain denials in Davis politics than it is on Rochelle Swanson herself. As I said, I would rather have a forthright Republican than a disingenuous “progressive”. Although as I also said, I don’t mind stirring the pot. (And “decline to state” is not really all that forthright.)
[i]”Whitman’s anti-union ideology is much more correct at the state level than it is at the local level.”[/i]
This keeps getting stranger. You now seem to be stating that Whitman is correct. Yet, for the longest time, you have been trying to tar Ms. Swanson because you have associated her with Whitman. I am thoroughly perplexed as to what it is you think is good and what it is you think is bad.
[i]”For instance, SB400 created a massive subsidy in the compensation system …”[/i]
No, it didn’t.
[i]”… so that it was much cheaper for a time to compensate public employees with 3 at 50 than with extra salary.” [/i]
You mean, it was cheaper to increase their total compensation by moving some into higher formulas, as long as CalPERS was being run by idiots backed by the public employee unions who put them in there. The local yokels had to first want to increase their comepensation.
PERS had for decades — I think 30 or even 40 years — valued its assets at 90% of “market value.” That was done — in all public pension funds — to reduce risk in downturns. But among the other falsehoods of SB400 was that by raising asset valuation to 95%, no extra risk would be absorbed. As we can now see, this was another huge mistake of the unions which pulled this trick.
[i]” It is not true that unions “control” politicians. There are a few particularly craven pro-union politicians such as Leland Yee, but if they are “controlled” by unions, they want to be controlled.”[/i]
That last sentence reads like something right out of 1984. Those pols are not controlled by the system. Rather, the system puts in power pols who want to be controlled.
One of those who wants to be controlled, apparently, is Mariko Yamada. She has carried the water for the unions on a number of their bills. She was a co-author of their most outrageous legislation this session, the municipal bankruptcy “reform” bill. The CPF literally wrote the bill, which Mariko “co-authored.” But I guess by your Orwellian illogic, that does not suggest she is controlled by the unions. Rather, she wants to be controlled.
[i]I am thoroughly perplexed as to what it is you think is good and what it is you think is bad.[/i]
I think that it is good when people can explain whether they agree with the Republicans about unions.
[i]That last sentence reads like something right out of 1984.[/i]
Look, I am several Earth diameters away from trusting Leland Yee. If anyone is in bed with public sector unions, he is. But let’s be fair about this. It’s not that AFSCME and UPTE “control” Leland Yee, it’s that he’s pro-union of his own accord. He represents a very liberal region of the Bay Area that believes in unions. It would be difficult for him to now switch gears and get support from the opposite side, but he’s not a puppet with strings attached. If anything, the unions also do his bidding on weird issues like “Feng Shui”.
I would say the same about the Blue and White Foundation. They scored one of the biggest touchdowns in Davis politics in the past few years. But that does not mean that they “control” the school board and the superintendent’s office. No, the real explanation is that there are some big sports fans in the latter two locations. They received the ball from the Blue and White Foundation because they wanted to.
[i]”I think that it is good when people can explain whether they agree with the Republicans about unions.”[/i]
I take it from your various postings on this topic that [u]you[/u] agree with the Republicans about unions, but you tend not to like people in Davis who agree with you and Republicans about unions. That’s almost as weird as the Matt Rexroad-Sarah Palin-Carly Fiorina marriage.
biddlin: ” I don’t know you, but you don’t sound like a party person.”
Well, you would be wrong. I like parties, just not ones that result in young women getting groped, people getting beaten, students getting so drunk they pass out/vomit on the sidewalk, making it unsafe for the rest of us in town.
biddlin quoting ERM: ” I find Rochelle Swanson’s attitude extremely self-serving. .. Clearly The Graduate is part of the problem and NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION… Serving beer at 6 am is asking for trouble. Those same people who drank beer at The Graduate or at any other bar, went out the door to drink somewhere else including at private parties, and were ripe for eventually causing problems. … “
This was my response to the Swanson’s commments that nothing untoward happened in their bar – as if to say they took no responsibility in what happened on Picnic Day just bc nothing happened in their bar. Initially the two completely ignored the possibility that advertising cheap liquor at 6 am represented a neon sign to out-of-towners to come on down and party hardy in Davis on Picnic Day. Ironically, in light of your strong defense of the “innocence” of The Graduate, its owner decided discretion was the better part of valor and subsequently voluntarily agreed not to sell cheap alcohol, and not any alcohol until 11 am. In other words, the owner of The Graduate conceded my position – and by the way, my position seemed to be the same position all CC members took, and citizens who spoke at Public Comment. Note however, that I chastized ALL BARS in town that served cheap alcohol at 6am.
biddlin: “And had DPD not reported the Swanson connection, would the owner of The Graduate have stepped up to the plate immediately to do the right thing?…When there was a groundswell of bad publicity against bars that sold cheap liquor at 6 am, including her husband’s business The Graduate, only then did she change her position along with her husband.”
Just stating the facts.
biddlin: “I had no difficulty finding the baseless accusations, I guess I missed the praise somewhere.”
Baseless? The owner of The Graduate himself saw the error of his ways, changed his policy on Picnic day, asked other businesses to follow suit – for which I praised him, and expressed hope other businesses would follow suit.
It is legal to sell alcohol from 6am to 2am, Sunday thru Saturday, Christmas, Easter, Kwanza, and yes, even Picnic Day. Socially responsible? Maybe not. Legal? Yes. Do I blame the establishments for trying to make an extra buck during these times? Hell no. The blame lies solely on the individuals whose lack of self control, lead to their inebriated misdeeds. Party responsibly. A wise bear once said, “Only you can prevent forest fires.”
preston: “It is legal to sell alcohol from 6am to 2am, Sunday thru Saturday, Christmas, Easter, Kwanza, and yes, even Picnic Day. Socially responsible? Maybe not. Legal? Yes. Do I blame the establishments for trying to make an extra buck during these times? Hell no. The blame lies solely on the individuals whose lack of self control, lead to their inebriated misdeeds. Party responsibly. A wise bear once said, “Only you can prevent forest fires.”
Before Picnic Day the bars were asked by a committee/police not to sell cheap alchohol at 6 am, and the bars ignored the warning. As a result, the message went out that Picnic Day is still a “party hardy” day, so come on in and join the drunkfest! And so many out-of-towners did just that. The Graduate finally conceded that selling cheap alcohol at 6 am could be part of the problem, and voluntarily agreed not to do so next year. They encouraged other bars to follow suit. It is also possible the city can do something legislatively as well to limit the sale of cheap alcohol at 6 am – this point is not clear.
A Task Force was formed by the DPD, CC, UCD to determine next steps. Bottom line – if Picnic Day doesn’t improve (i.e. people don’t act more responsibly as you think they should do on their own (LOL)), then Picnic Day may be cancelled altogether. Pick you preference… no Picnic Day, dry Picnic Day, semi-dry Picnic Day? Because business as usual is clearly not going to be tolerated from what I could discern from the discussion. No one believes that just saying “no” to drinking is going to make a scintilla of difference to the irresponsible.
Ms Musser,
You sure do love to attack anyone who has an opinion that differs from your own. You say that the bars were asked to not sell alcohol at 6am, and then ignored the warning. If I were to ask you to do me a favor, am I warning you that something bad will happen if you don’t agree? I never saw any advertising that said come and join the drunk fest. Were the bars advertising in other towns?
I have no problem with a dry Picnic Day. I have no problem with a semi dry Picnic Day, and I have no problem with no Picnic Day. I never said that I think people should act more responsibly on their on (LOL). I said the blame lies with them. If you were to give me a match and I burned a house down, who is at fault?
That said, it is my opinion that bars should not be open at 6am on Picnic Day, they should stick to there normal hours. This may help, but not solve the problem. It could be that we end up like Chico, where no measure stems the tide and we end having to cancel Picnic Day as they had to end Pioneer Days. It could be just one of those things that, no matter what steps are taken, happens anyway. I hope not. But I am not going to belittle anyone for having a different opinion. I hope you can do the same.
E Roberts Musser-“And had DPD not reported the Swanson connection, would the owner of The Graduate have stepped up to the plate immediately to do the right thing?” I still can’t seem to find that “praise” for Charley Swanson to which you refer. Perhaps you could locate that for me. Who from the Graduate, owner, partner, employee or patron was involved in any criminal activity on Picnic Day? The police know of none. You keep repeating the charge, where is the proof? I assume you don’t have any, rendering your accusations baseless.
To biddlin: In an article in the Davis Vanguard entitled “Graduate to Change Picnic Policy, Will Not Sell Alcohol Before 11AM”, I made the following comment, which was a follow-up to previous comments praising the owner of The Graduate –
“I would much rather see businesses step up to the plate on their own, and be part of the solution, than have the CC have to figure out ways to “fix the problem” of bars/grocery stores serving cheap alchohol at 6 am. My hope is the business community as a whole will step forward and follow suit before May 10. It will go a long way to start the community towards making (and keeping alive) Picnic Day as a family friendly event. It will also make the community forum on Picnic Day a lot more fruitful.”
preston: “Ms Musser, You sure do love to attack anyone who has an opinion that differs from your own… That said, it is my opinion that bars should not be open at 6am on Picnic Day, they should stick to there normal hours…I have no problem with a dry Picnic Day. I have no problem with a semi dry Picnic Day, and I have no problem with no Picnic Day.”
Which is pretty much exactly what I said, so I can’t quite figure out where you think we disagree. However, if your opinion did differ from mine, I would feel free to disagree on the issue and argue my position as often as I thought necessary, which is what this blog is all about, isn’t it? However, I don’t “attack” people by calling them names or hitting below the belt, so I am not certain where you are coming from here when you accuse me of “attacking” those who don’t agree with my views…
But we can agree to disagree 🙂
E Roberts Musser-Faint praise indeed.
I think some people just like to read themselves type.