The council majority, who resented the term that implied a set voting bloc, would often argue that most decisions of council were done unanimously and that the 3-2 vote was rare. However, I think that view ignores the reality of the situation – the 3-2 voting bloc loomed over the process. So if each vote did not end up at 3-2, if there were times four and five councilmembers joined, it was often because the minority members were working on the margins to improve the policy rather than joining the policy because they supported it.
But on the biggest votes, the ones that mattered most in this community from land use decisions, to several fire fighters votes, to several water votes, to the 2009 budget, and to the various MOUs, it was that 3-2 voting bloc that held and was decisive.
Unlike in the legislature, on the city council a 3-2 majority with a cohesive voting bloc can dominate policy. The minority has few options and alternatives other than trying to bargain and reason.
The new council will have a very make up and will be far less predictable. Joe Krovoza on the evening of his election as incoming Mayor Pro Tem noted, “I see it as a very very different council,” said the Mayor-Pro Tem elect who will be sworn in on July 13, “I think this is a council that’s going to be harder to predict but probably more focused on a results and exactly what really connects with the vibe of the community.”
The 2006 to 2010 council will leave behind an interesting legacy because despite that 3-2 stranglehold, the council did not have complete control of its destiny.
First, while this was clearly a pro-growth council, they presided over a very slow growth era, arguably the most slow growth period in the city’s recent history. There are several reasons for that. The first is of course Measure J. Ironically this council voted 5-0 to renew the tool that was used to prevent them from getting the growth they wanted. While Measure X precedes this particular council, it shaped the landscape.
The council often complained especially Don Saylor and Stephen Souza in the 2008 election about the lack of building permits pulled. They argued then that we needed more housing. However, while it true that Measure J constrained their ability to grow outside of the current borders. It is also clear that following the defeat of Measure X in 2005, right before the June 2006 elections, the council had no back up plan. They put all of their eggs in that 2000 unit project and when it got voted down it took until 2008 before another major subdivision was voted on, Verona.
In the meantime, fate would conspire against them as in the fall of 2008, the collapse of the real estate market was coupled with the collapse of the financial markets and that effectively ended growth in Davis for the time being. It is notable that during the entire tenure of this pro-growth council, not a single major housing development was actually constructed.
The end of the specter of growth came from an unlikely source, as Measure P was supported by a mix of Councilmembers as Ruth Asmundson, Don Saylor, and Lamar Heystek joined to support the doomed housing project. The voters, at the height of the real estate market malaise, dismissed that project by a 75-25 vote, larger than the 60-40 defeat of Covell Village.
As the coup de grace, the voters then approved Measure R, the renewal of Measure J, by a similar margin. That marked a huge increase in the support of Measure R over the original tightly fought measure.
And so one of the ironic legacies is that the pro growth council that never voted against a single housing development, never saw one actually built.
The other big and emerging issue during this council’s tenure was the fiscal issue. Again, they largely were bystanders in this process. The preceding council passed most of the MOUs that put the city into dire straights. And let us not let the council majority off the hook here, because Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson were all part of the council majority in the 2004-2006 council where they were joined by Ted Puntillo against Sue Greenwald to pass all of the major MOUs.
Make no mistake as well, up until 2009, the council majority continued the trend of increased spending and paid little head to the developing crisis of unfunded liabilities, exploding pensions, and increasing compensation costs. Indeed, in the 2008 election Sue Greenwald and candidate Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald (whom I seem to be related to), were warning of the impending fiscal crisis at a time when Stephen Souza and Don Saylor were bragging about balancing the budget with a 15 percent reserve.
This council was forced to become budget hawks due to external circumstances. The collapse of the economy shattered the myth of fiscal sustainability. However, the council majority balked at major reforms. Instead they aimed their budget cuts towards leaving vacant open positions and an ad hoc shuffle of departments. The MOUs barely scratched the surface of the core issues and instead focused on one-time furloughs and concessions to close the immediate deficit but leave the underlying problems untouched.
The council majority paid homage to their financial backers by failing to hone in fire department abuses revealed by the 2008 Grand Jury report, they created a $400,000 new expenditures for an unnecessary battalion chief model, they voted 3-2 on the 2009 budget that did not go far enough in terms of the needed cuts, and they voted 3-2 to keep collective bargaining in the dark and support MOUs that failed to address critical issues.
In short, while they have gained the rhetoric of fiscal restraint and reform, their record on it is shoddy at best. They now leave the next council a huge mess to clean up as we have laid out for the past two years. The question facing the incoming council is now whether or not we will have to go through bankruptcy, because unfortunately, we failed to deal with crucial issues that could have prevented problems down the road.
In short, this will go down as a powerful council that had a strong and cohesive voting block, but at least on the two biggest issues of the day, land use and finances, were largely ineffectual. To find their true impacts, we will need to scratch below the surface to other issues such as water, climate change, and things of that sort, where I think they had a greater impact.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How will the past City Council be remembered?
Not well.
They set a standard for poor process, rudeness, lack of concern for what Davis voters wanted and fiscal irresponsibility.
Good riddance.
Lets cross our fingers that the new City Council will do better.
Certainly the bar has been set very low.
“They set a standard for poor process, rudeness, lack of concern for what Davis voters wanted and fiscal irresponsibility.”
We still have to get rid of Saylor and Souza then we have a chance for a new beginning.
“whom I seem to be related to”? Chuckle…
Rusty: Well you have six months on Saylor. At least two years on Souza.
Charlie: I was wondering who would pick up on that first.
Excellent analysis David. Thanks.
Somehow I figured Mr. Saylor would take this happy occasion to announce he’ll be doing the right thing. What’s the outside date he can save Davis money vacating his mayor’s position? Or is it already too late?
It’s gotta be relatively soon, remember last year the end of July marked the drop dead date for getting a special election on the ballot. Not sure if the fact that there is already an election extends that time. I guess we should look at the school board filing deadline.
I will remember this City Council majority for its abuse of process; lack of process; blantantly ignoring process; contempt for process (and the public)…
It’s gotta be relatively soon, remember last year the end of July marked the drop dead date for getting a special election on the ballot. Not sure if the fact that there is already an election extends that time. I guess we should look at the school board filing deadline.
In the June 27 issue of the Enterprise, Jeff Hudson wrote an article on the school board elections in November. This is what he said in that article about filing deadlines:
“The filing period, which begins July 12, will continue through Aug. 6. If one of the three incumbents does not file for re-election by that deadline, then the filing period will automatically be extended through Aug. 11.”
[i]”First, while this was clearly a pro-growth council, they presided over a very slow growth era, arguably the most slow growth period in the city’s recent history.”[/i]
Measured as a percentage of population increase and housing stock increase, the last 10 years have been the slowest period of growth in Davis since the 1910s. (What eventually came to be known as Old North Davis began in that period and incorporation came in that decade, but the town barely grew from 1910-1920.)
As to remembering this council, I agree with what you have highlighted as the salient points.
I would put the two big issues, fiscal irresponsibility and land use, like this:
1. The council majority was out of touch with the citizenry at large on growth. (I should note that I was also out of touch with the citizenry at large, as I voted yes on X and P.) And in light of the great, nearly nationwide collapse of the housing market, we are lucky the citizenry voted no on those two measures. Surely we would have far more of a crisis in Davis today, if we had a thousand or so extra housing units on the market; and
2. Even though I cast great blame on this council majority for its reckless labor contracts, it is unfair to blame them alone. These problems of overcompensation, underwork, and unfunded liabilities have been building for 20 years. We the people of Davis have been electing people who (with very few exceptions) never spend the taxpayers’ money as if they have a loyalty to the taxpayers. Some members of the council (going back a long time) appear to be very pleased with themselves if the people they are supposed to be bargaining against win the negotiations.
It is not true that our current problems are the extent of what these bad faith negotiations over 20 years have caused. Most of today’s crisis is due to the economy. The real great crisis caused by our bad labor policy is coming in 5-8 years, when the combination of retiree health care and terribly inflated pension payments swamps us. Davis will go into bankruptcy. I have no faith that any actions we will take in the next 4 years will change that destiny.
I think it is somewhat like global warming. If we — meaning all the people alive today — want to make the planet a healthier place in 50 years, we need to pay a lot more (in effluent taxes) today to burn carbon into our common atmosphere. But very few today are willing to pay that price. So we will put off the solution and let the generations which come decades from now suffer the consequences of our irresponsibility. The 2006-2010 council will let the people and council of 2016-18 deal with the problems they knew were there but let slide.
rr: “It is not true that our current problems are the extent of what these bad faith negotiations over 20 years have caused. Most of today’s crisis is due to the economy. The real great crisis caused by our bad labor policy is coming in 5-8 years, when the combination of retiree health care and terribly inflated pension payments swamps us. Davis will go into bankruptcy. I have no faith that any actions we will take in the next 4 years will change that destiny.”
I read a NY Times (I think) article on the local gov’t pension crisis, the most notable being New York. The gist of the article said that so many municipalities are struggling with the pension crisis, gov’t reform may be on the way. But I can’t think what the feds can do about it – they can’t even keep their own house in order!
So we will put off the solution and let the generations which come decades from now suffer the consequences of our irresponsibility. The 2006-2010 council will let the people and council of 2016-18 deal with the problems they knew were there but let slide.
Focus on short-term gratification/solutions rather than taking a long term view seems to be a characteristic human weakness
[i]”so many municipalities are struggling with the pension crisis, gov’t reform may be on the way”[/i]
There is a proposal heading to November’s ballot in San Francisco ([url]http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Adachi_Pension_Measure_Could_Reshape_National_Politics_8292.html[/url]) to take some baby steps at labor cost reform. I don’t think it goes nearly far enough, but it has the hackles of the fire union in SF already up in arms: [quote](San Francisco) Public Defender Jeff Adachi submitted signatures yesterday for a November ballot measure that could reshape both San Francisco and national politics. … a ballot measure that would require city workers to contribute 9 to 10 percent of their pay to their pensions, and to double their contributions to dependents health care coverage from 25 to 50 percent. …
Organized labor will prioritize defeating an initiative that would raise pension contributions for city employees, and whose passage in “liberal” San Francisco could inspire further attacks on public sector compensation throughout the nation. …
Having spoken with Adachi, I know he is driven by his deep concern that, absent immediate action, San Francisco’s fiscal crisis will soon get much worse. [/quote]
I realize this is off-topic, but it relates to a thread from a few days ago I cannot find. I noted there that the U.S.’s current racism problem pales next to that in most countries. The most racist country I have ever lived in is Mexico, though Mexico is nowhere near as racist as countries like Russia or Indonesia. I was shocked living in Guadalajara when nightclubs I went to with my girlfriend (who was as pale as I am) would not permit entry to some of our darker skinned friends. The police there are also, very often, prejudiced in enforcing the laws against dark-skinned Indians. Anyhow, I bring this up because the LA Times today ([url]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-racism-20100705,0,1962746.story[/url]) is covering this issue: [quote]Every morning during television coverage of the World Cup, on the Mexican equivalent of the “Today” show, co-hosts chat, trade barbs and yuck it up. Behind them, actors in blackface makeup, dressed in fake animal skins and wild “Afro” wigs, gyrate, wave spears and pretend to represent a cartoonish version of South Africa.
Yes, in the 21st century, blackface characters on a major television network.
“Racism in Mexico is covered up,” said Ricardo Bucio, head of the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, which has protested the blackface TV caricatures. “There is a lot of denial about it.”
Or, as columnist Katia D’Artigues once put it: “Although subtle, discrimination has become something invisible in our society. We no longer see it, or we consider it normal!”
Still, in Mexico and other parts of Latin America, people operate with a different comfort level when it comes to physical attributes. It remains common for Mexicans to use nicknames like “Chino” for someone with almond-shaped eyes, “Negrito” for someone with dark skin, “Gordo” (Fatso) for a plump person.[/quote]