Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning yesterday evening continued his attack upon Joe Krovoza, the lone dissenter in a 4-1 vote to continue voluntary no-burn days for wood burning.
If you missed it, the Mayor Pro Tem made a very rational and reasonable appeal for mandatory burning. His concern is with the health impacts of smoke on neighbors.
Wrote Mr. Dunning, “Joe Krovoza, arguing for mandatory rather than voluntary restrictions on wood burning, came up with a strange bit of illogic for a man who reminded everyone that he had spent considerable time studying law. ‘Environmental law, in particular,’ ” he noted.
“‘Krovoza claimed that mandatory restrictions would somehow encourage someone who wanted to have a fire to actually talk to his neighbors,” he added.
“‘Said Joe Kro: ‘If we have a mandatory program, you can go to your neighbors and say: Hey, we’re going to have some friends over at 6 o’clock, we’re going to put a fire on and we’ll be done by 8:30. Is that cool with you?’ “
Mr. Dunning concludes, “‘In other words,’ I continued in this very space, ‘if I’m following his illogical progression here, if you want to have a fire on a mandatory no-burn day, all you need is the permission of your neighbors. And who knew your neighbors had the power to waive a citywide ordinance on a case-by-case basis?’ “
Mr. Dunning then adds, “Having never studied environmental law with the diligence or depth that the councilman has, I was merely relying on common sense when it comes to my understanding of what’s legal and what’s not.”
The problem is that Mr. Krovoza was not making a legal argument per se, but more importantly he was right about the law. What Bob Dunning is calling common sense here is actually an attempt to conflate very different issues with enforcement mechanisms to suggest that Mr. Krovoza’s statement was absurd.
Bob Dunning then brings Councilmember Sue Greenwald into the argument when he adds, “Wrote Greenwald on one of the many blogs popping up in this town, ‘Joe’s logic concerning the complaint-based enforcement of the proposed wood-burning was correct. If you have an ordinance that is explicitly enforced only through complaints, you should have nothing to worry about if you have your neighbors’ approval.’ “
Hmmm, I wonder what blog he was referring to.
Mr. Dunning then translates, “What the councilwoman is saying, in plain simple English, is that it’s OK to directly and intentionally violate the law if your neighbors are complicit in the dirty deed. That if you light a fire in your fireplace on a mandatory no-burn day, you are not violating the law if no one complains.”
That is certainly one interpretation of it. But I think we have to back up a step. There are two things going on with regards to wood-burning issues, as Joe Krovoza explained in the portion of his comments that Bob Dunning didn’t single out for ridicule. There is the ambient level of smoke in the atmosphere, and there is the neighbor-to-neighbor contact.
Looking at the ambient smoke levels in this community, Davis is relatively well-off. We generally get enough breeze to blow the smoke out of the area, except on those days in December when the fog locks us in.
The bigger problem, I think, is the neighbor-to-neighbor impacts. We can point to relatively few complaints, but that misses the point. Who wants to call up and complain about their neighbors? They have to live next them.
Joe Krovoza described in detail trying to coincide with student renters. On his one side are quiet and considerate student renters, but on the other side of his residence are less considerate ones who do not mow the lawn. He described complaining about antennas on the roof, until giving up.
No one wants to deal with that hassle, and no one wants to complain even if the neighbors are burning smoke and causing problems. I think the real problem is understated by quite a bit, looking only at the complaint data.
I think Joe Krovoza is exactly right. There are enough children with allergies and asthma who are not able to go out and play on days when people are burning wood in their fireplaces. How do we handle that? Do we ignore it? Do we mock them?
Bob Dunning decides to compare this to speeding down Russell Blvd at 2 in the morning rather than the more obvious parallel, the noise ordinance. The noise ordinance is based on decibel readings and times of day, but really it is complaint-based. Which means that your neighbors are the ones who decide when it should be enforced.
That means if you have a party and discuss with your neighbors in advance that you are going to have a party, and you ask them to let you know if the noise gets out of hand, they are less likely to call on the police to enforce the law.
That is how this ordinance would work as well. You can make arrangements with your neighbors and if the smoke bothers them, then they can handle it privately rather than involving the police.
Is that not what we want in this community? People to handle their own issues rather than resorting to the police and the government to solve their problems for them? And certainly there is a time that the police need to be called in when a party is out of hand and the partiers are getting out of control and not responding, but it is better when you do not have to call the police on your neighbors.
That is the point that Joe Krovoza was getting at. It is certainly a matter for discussion, but ridicule seems out of line. It is a very reasonable position. This is not the equivalent of a speeding violation or a burglary where there is really no private action that would alleviate the problem. This is the equivalent of a noise ordinance.
People are free to disagree on the issue of wood burning. I know that my wife has trouble going out for walks during the winter because the wood-burned particles get into her lungs and trigger her asthma which gets her very seriously ill. I also know that Bob Dunning wants to be able to burn his wood and he doesn’t care how much it might impact his neighbors.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Can we move on and forget about wood burning? Joe’s explanation on this blog satisfied me. I don’t think its the most elegant legal solution but its defensible.
More importantly this just distracts us from the important business. Dunning’s stock in trade is making fun of Davis politics and he has had ample material, but leaving it to neighbors to complain about wood-burning is sensible and a reasonable compromise to what has been along drawn out process.
Please can we move on? And I am concerned about David’s obsession with Bob Dunning.
Davis’ obsession with Dunning is the same as the nation’s obsession with Glenn Beck – you just cannot believe someone could be so out there and so wrong on so many issues yet be so self-absorbed with one’s own self-importance.
[quote]I also know that Bob Dunning wants to be able to burn his wood and he doesn’t care how much it might impact his neighbors.[/quote]
Not sure that is a fair characterization of Mr. Dunning’s ‘position’, but perhaps you have information I don’t.
Bottom line… TODAY, without any ordinances, regulations, etc., we are all empowered to [quote]go to your neighbors and say: Hey, we’re going to have some friends over at 6 o’clock, we’re going to put a fire on and we’ll be done by 8:30. Is that cool with you?'[/quote]… why the hell NOT? If I knew or suspected that my neighbors had respiratory issues, I’d do it… by the same token I’d not be upset if one of my neighbors (even if they were 4 blocks away) came to me after I burned wood in my fireplace and said “do you realize that your fire produced smoke that is negatively impacting me?”… I’d apologize and be more careful when I chose to burn… however, if someone came to me and said, “you A-hole… you burned wood on an illegal day, and I’ve called the police on you”, I might test my lexicon of epithets…
BTW, haven’t burned wood in 20 + years, haven’t even used my “gas log” in the last two, learned that presto-logs create deposits in the chimney that aren’t good (fire hazard) but reserve the ‘right’ to burn well-seasoned hardwood in my fireplace.
It’s interesting… there is a leash ordinance in town (that only applies to dogs–discrimination?)… in the 70’s, there was an exception for dogs under “voice/command” control… the busy-butts removed the exemption… I have a dog under ‘toy control’ (it likes to fetch… passionately)… I ignore the regulation much like Mr. Krovoza seems to support, as long as I’m not getting complaints from passers-by. Am assuming you would support this as well…
moderator… might be useful to periodically refresh the “understandings” of what posts are appropriate or not… I understand that personal attacks are strongly discouraged, but there seem to be exceptions, based on some combination of being a ‘public person’, etc…. are attacks on “public persons” OK? If so, politicians would seem to be fair game, but what about City/County staff who are not elected? Columnists? People who write ‘letters to the editor’ that get published? People who disagree with David, &/or you? [I haven’t sensed the latter, but just threw that out there to cover the ‘universe’].
“you just cannot believe someone could be so out there and so wrong on so many issues yet be so self-absorbed with one’s own self-importance.”
Are you talking about Obama?
hpierce: attack the position, not the person is the general principle, but I admit it is pretty ad hoc and subjective.
Bob Dunning is very much a public figure in Davis, and is well aware that his columns generate controversy. So they, and he, are grounds for discussion. But the principle applies: discuss the issue and avoid personal characterizations that can be construed as an attack.
“I also know that Bob Dunning wants to be able to burn his wood and he doesn’t care how much it might impact his neighbors.” I consider that over the top. But I don’t edit David’s content, just the replies.
City and county senior staff have come in for criticism, and some of it has been harsh. In general I consider their actions fair game. Please avoid personal characterizations (that is a good rule in general):
“what she did was horrible!” vs “she is horrible!”
Please do not attack individuals who express their opinions in letters to the editor or on blogs.
If you see something that you think merits review, please email me at donshor@gmail.com. More than once things have been brought to my attention that I overlooked or that were worthy of a second look. If you are concerned about breaking anonymity by contacting me, please be assured that I consider one of the absolute rules of moderating this blog is that the administrator and moderator must not ‘out’ anybody or break confidentiality.
Don: I’m fine with all of that. Maybe my parting shot was pointed, but considering he was pretty much blasting Joe and Sue, I don’t think my shot was any worse than his.
[quote]And I am concerned about David’s obsession with Bob Dunning. [/quote]
Why is that? I’m responding to him where I disagree, just as he responds to me (albeit never by name). For instance today, “there’s a rumor floating around that the city is renegotiating parts of its Zipcar contract to try to limit city liability in case one of those zippy renters cracks his Zipcar into someone who decides to sue…”
Yeah interesting way of responding to me, but he still is. Is he obsessed with me? Come on. It’s a debate/ dialogue.
[quote]Def: Obsessive Dunning Disorder [ODD]: an anxiety disorder characterized by recurrent and persistent thoughts and repetitive, ritualized hostility to Bob Dunning’s columns. This is a rare disorder only found among bloggers in Davis, California.
In extreme cases the patient may exhibit what is colloquially known as “Dung fever.” Symptoms include clouded judgment and tirades against Dunning in the middle of the night or early morning.
Treatment: Take Dunning’s column with a grain of salt. Diazepam may also be indicated. Medical marijuana is not indicated as it may increase paranoia.
[/quote]
Two cents/ sticking my nose where it don’t belong, I’ve lived in this community for years and Dunning isn’t someone to be taken with a grain of salt. He’s very dangerous. He has the ability to focus people on a narrow agenda and then savage them. Too many people fear him. Someone’s at least willing to stand up to the bully of hte davis playground.
David:
I hope you do not remove the previous post. It was meant t be humorous and not mean-spirited and I hope you take it that way.
My point is that you can take Dunning too seriously. On this particular matter I agree with you, but there have been other times when your opposition appears to be motivated by your feelings toward Dunning. Both of you offer Davis resident’s information/opinion on what is going on in our fair city, though your politics are complete;y different.
dmg: “That is the point that Joe Krovoza was getting at. It is certainly a matter for discussion, but ridicule seems out of line. It is a very reasonable position. This is not the equivalent of a speeding violation or a burglary where there is really no private action that would alleviate the problem. This is the equivalent of a noise ordinance.”
And how well has the noise ordinance worked? It certainly didn’t work well in the child care center case for the nearest neighbors, now did it? The success of the noise ordinance tends to hinge too much on how cooperative neighbors are.
dmg: “People are free to disagree on the issue of wood burning. I know that my wife has trouble going out for walks during the winter because the wood-burned particles get into her lungs and trigger her asthma which gets her very seriously ill. I also know that Bob Dunning wants to be able to burn his wood and he doesn’t care how much it might impact his neighbors.”
And here is one of the basic problems with the “ratting out” wood-burning ordinance”. If it is bad for everyone, and particularly bad for asthma sufferers who are out walking, then a noise ordinance type of system isn’t really going to address the problem.
I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other on this issue, but I can see some real inconsistencies in the type of “compromise” ordinance that Joe was proposing. And I can also see some of Bob Dunning’s logic.
By all means stand up to Dunning but don’t let him get to you. Meg got to Jerry last night and we saw the result.
Dunning is a breath of fresh air in Davis politics, someone who’s willing to speak his mind even if it doesn’t fall in line with the far left wing liberal policies of many in The Ruplublic of Davis.
Dr. Wu: I took in the best possible light. I understand your that you are making. For me, I just wish Bob cared about some of the broader issues in Davis like compensation as much as he does Zipcars.
Now I do think that burning presents a health issue that we have not considered closely enough. This kind of gets at Elaine’s point as, I think there are inconsistencies in the types of compromise ordinances that Joe and others have proposed because it is not a simple issue.
I was out with my nephew on a field trip to the pumpkin patch this morning, and there was some smoke from a fire somewhere and the kids were kind of coughing and getting smoke in their eyes. My wife had to take her inhaler. I’m feeling it a little as well.
rusty49: “Dunning is a breath of fresh air in Davis politics, someone who’s willing to speak his mind even if it doesn’t fall in line with the far left wing liberal policies of many in The Ruplublic of Davis.”
On some issues yes, other issues not so much. But he certainly got Zipgate right!
Bob Dunning , knows how to write an article and get his message delivered . He is a professional who has a local column 5 days a week , and he doesn’t print hearsay !
Howard is right: We’ve got all the capability we need to deal with the few (three?) households that were reported burning on a no-burn day last winter. But, it’s more important to some to criminalize wood-burning–as the first step toward a total ban in Davis–than to use a targeted, educational approach to the barely significant “nearest neighbor” problem here.
Alan is wrong: He’s obviously is engaging in projection in his Dunning observations. It should be a lesson to all proponents that their insistence on a “take no prisoners” battle plan twice has backfired. Reasonable solutions to the issue would be welcomed by the council as well as by Davis citizens.
Joe & Sue are wrong: We heard what Joe said during the meeting, and no amount of subsequent clarifications help the original lack of logic in his statement. Sue’s approach of “ignore the law, but make sure your neighbor doesn’t turn you in” just compounds the basic flaw in Joe’s observation. And David’s protestations about “what the Councilors [u]really[/u] said was…” tell us more about [u]his[/u] well-considered views than about [u]theirs[/u].
Don is right: Claiming that one [u]knows[/u] what another person “wants” and knows that “he doesn’t care how much it might impact his neighbors” is a pretty good example of example of a “personal characterization[s]s[/s] that can be construed as an attack” instead of attacking his position. Particularly if it’s thrown out there with with no basis or supporting facts.
David is wrong: The noise ordinance analogy fails in a most critical way–if you think Alan and others of his ilk won’t be out-and-about documenting violators of no-burn days, you aren’t considering the essential nature of many of the ban supporters. (You don’t have to be a “nearest neighbor” to file complaints about law violators.)
Dr. Wu is right: This continuing obsession with Dunning’s scribbles is not healthy. The sarcasm, humor and satire are expected of “Above-Pictured Columnist” and most readers take that into account when evaluating his writing. You’ll have to admit that the way the City has been dealing with recent issues–such as Zipcars, Hanlee’s, back-in parking, water tank art, Wells Fargo, affordable housing foreclosure and solid waste ballfields–has been ridiculous to one degree or another. Hence, the on-going ridicule. Reading (and writing about) Dunning too frequently is ridiculous.
The Doctor has provided his ODD diagnosis. It’s hazardous to your health. Do what the good Doctor ordered before it’s too late! After all, he’s a doctor.
JustSaying: “You’ll have to admit that the way the City has been dealing with recent issues–such as Zipcars, Hanlee’s, back-in parking, water tank art, Wells Fargo, affordable housing foreclosure and solid waste ballfields–has been ridiculous to one degree or another. Hence, the on-going ridicule.”
Except for perhaps the issue of Hanlee’s, this is spot on!
This is an interesting philosophical question, and one that I have wondered about.
If you Google “complaint-based ordinance”, you will see that the concept is applied widely in our country. It is common in nuisance-related offenses. I don’t know the legal or philosophical history or theory behind this concept, but it is widespread and it seems to me that there is an implicit understanding that the proscribed activity is often commonplace and problematic in some circumstances and not others. It also seems implicit that it is not morally reprehensible to engage in the proscribed conduct if there are no complaints.
Maybe some of the legal scholars out there can help us with this one?
Well, that’s [u]your[/u] opinion….
Sorry, Sue, you slipped in here while I was trying to attack Elaine’s outrageous commentary. I apologize if I appear to be responding to your much more sensible post.
But, now that you’re here, do you [u]really[/u] want to encourage us to disregard city ordinances if we think we can get away with it by trying to keep anyone from complaining? I didn’t think so. Were you just trying to find a way to provide some support for your colleague? I thought so.
You raise interesting questions re. complaint-based enforcement. If you’re correct, it may suggest this is some kind of accepted, compromise approach to combating bad behavior. I’d be a little concerned if the issue is one in which zealots, rather than neighbors, could end up being the enforcers. That would disrupt the fine balance you seek in neighborhood nuisance matters.
In addition to our noise ordinance, I’d think it also applies to our “visual blight” ordinance. I’ll be interested to see what results from your call for some legal analysis.
If the complaints are limited to real neighbors as opposed to zealots I think its a workable solution and I don’t care how we got there as long as we stop discussing wood-burning.
To me the way our CC dealt with Hanlees is just another example of a rush to judgement, poor staff work and a deal that ultimately will probably not help the City much.
Dunning has so much good material in this City.
… and so does David.
[quote]I’d be a little concerned if the issue is one in which zealots, rather than neighbors, could end up being the enforcers. That would disrupt the fine balance you seek in neighborhood nuisance matters.[/quote]I made reference to this contingency in my comments on the 10/10/10 blog on woodburning. I said:[quote] If you have an ordinance that is explicitly enforced only through complaints, you should have nothing to worry about if you have your neighbors’ approval. (The ordinance would have to explicitly state that the complaint would have to come from a neighbor who lives within a certain number of feet of the burning).
[/quote]Berkeley’s ordinance refers to distance from the source, so I suspect that we could wordsmith an ordinance that would make it difficult for a vigilante to drive around town lodging complaints.
I can see the Dunning column now:
“Wood-burning Vigilantes take over Davis”
Lets try and avoid that.
Here is my 2 cents , Burning all winter long , keeping PG&E out of my wallet , OH YEA OH YEA !!!!!!
To JustSaying and Dr. Wu: I would ask, but it would be off topic, but what is it about the Hanlee’s deal you find so outrageous? I’d be willing to listen. Perhaps David will do an article on it sometime in the future, and we can “have at it”!
Sue Greenwald: “If you Google “complaint-based ordinance”, you will see that the concept is applied widely in our country. It is common in nuisance-related offenses. I don’t know the legal or philosophical history or theory behind this concept, but it is widespread and it seems to me that there is an implicit understanding that the proscribed activity is often commonplace and problematic in some circumstances and not others. It also seems implicit that it is not morally reprehensible to engage in the proscribed conduct if there are no complaints. Maybe some of the legal scholars out there can help us with this one?”
From Wikipedia: “Nuisance signifies that the “right of quiet enjoyment” is being disrupted to such a degree that a tort is being committed.” As you can see, it is the degree to which something is done that may make it a nuisance, not necessarily that something is morally reprehensible in its own right.
An example of this would be the noise ordinance. Sound in and of itself is not a reprehensible behavior. However, the level of sound may disrupt the right of quiet enjoyment of a neighbor’s property, and thus be deemed a nuisance that is impermissable. It also may depend on how close your nearest neighbor is whether the noise is too loud.
The enforcement mechanism can be constructed in such a way that if a neighbor complains, and the noise level is found to be legally unacceptable by the ordinance’s specific standards, then the perpetrator can be forced to reduce the degree of the activity (sound) to comply with the directives of the ordinance. But as we have seen in the case of the child care center, the noise ordinance did not work very well, despite numerous neighbor complaints.
But with the woodburning issue we are not really talking about degree here, or right of quiet enjoyment of a neighbor. If you are asthmatic, woodburning of any kind is going to be a “nuisance” to you, even if from a fire burning blocks or even miles away. Others find woodburning a delightful smell on a winter’s evening and have no problems with it (I grew up with it, and it does not bother me, and never has.) If you find it objectionable at all bc for instance you are asthmatic, then you may constantly complain about anybody burning wood anywhere.
So it would seem to me the only logical thing to do is to decide as a city what is an acceptable level (say Sacramento’s system), and stick with it, as opposed to basing it on neighbor complaints. But that is just my view.
[quote]”But with the woodburning issue we are not really talking about degree here, or right of quiet enjoyment of a neighbor….If you find it objectionable at all bc for instance you are asthmatic, then you may constantly complain about anybody burning wood anywhere.”[/quote] I think you’ve hit on something here, Elaine, that really helps explain why the wood-burning matter is more than a simple nuisance issue, why it’s become such a divisive problem over the past two year, and why it will be difficult to solve.
Alan and the NR Commissioners have attempted to make the case that breathing wood smoke is a serious, life-and-death matter. It’s difficult to argue much with this general, worst case proposition. The case becomes weak, however, when it comes to applying it to Davis’ situations. But that doesn’t faze proponents–they just keep trying to discredit Dr. Cahill (and his research and reputation) with no basis for questioning his findings.
I’d lay odds that the City Council will remain unable to resolve this one, as long those who want to criminalize all wood-burning in Davis keep up their campaign. (And as long as Avatar and Alan each insist that their way is the only way.)
With respect to the Hanlee’s sweetheart deal, I just wonder whether thinking we would lure their VW dealership from Napa was a poor use of $1-million in city development funds. If it makes business sense for Hanlee’s to make the move, it’s a waste of our money to subsidize them by forfeiting $1-million in sales tax revenues over the next decade. On the other hand, if the VW operation fails here, we’re sitting here holding a big loan.
As I remember, you covered the council’s consideration of this proposal. Did you really think it was given adequate evaluation by the staff and careful thought by the council? Or, was it, like so many other schemes lately, rushed through a bewildered council? Are they (and you) unable to come up with a more productive use for a million bucks than to loan it out and hope that a business operation will be successful enough [u]not[/u] to repay a penny of principal or interest?
.
[img]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/ra/img/Redev-Area-Map-1.gif[/img]
[quote]With respect to the Hanlee’s sweetheart deal, I just wonder whether thinking we would lure their VW dealership from Napa was a poor use of $1-million in city development funds. If it makes business sense for Hanlee’s to make the move, it’s a waste of our money to subsidize them by forfeiting $1-million in sales tax revenues over the next decade. On the other hand, if the VW operation fails here, we’re sitting here holding a big loan. [/quote]
I agree with Justsayin on Hanlees and would go even further:
1. Like zipcar it involves a public subsidy of a private business. In both cases its not general fund money (zip car from mitigation, Hanlees is redevelopment money I believe–see map of RDA area above) so the City think, who cares.
But anytime you subsidize a private business you should be careful. Zipcar argued it would lower GHG or something to that effect based on studies from much bigger cities with questionable methodology. Hanlees ostensibly lowers blight.
2. The claim for Hanlees as I understand it is that the sales taxes would benefit the City. First off–that’s true of any retail business–why subsidize Hanlees?
But one needs to take into account the fact that a Hanlees VW dealership would lower sales taxes from other local dealerships (some people would buy a VW locally instead of a Toyota or whatever). In addition, as Sue also pointed out a while ago, when you buy a VW or any other car outside of Davis, a portion of the sales tax goes to Davis anyway–unlike other purchases some auto sales tax dollars spent outside Davis come back to Davis –so if Hanlees sells a VW to someone in Davis who would have bought a VW elsewhere the gain in sales tax dollars is less than it appears.
Bottom line. WE’re loaning a private business money and letting them use sales taxes generated to pay back the loan. But if Hanlees generates $1 million in sales tax dollars a good deal of that is simply displaced sales that would have been gone to the City anyway.
And the purpose of RDA funds is to eliminate blight (in RDA). As I understand it there is a business in the building–can’t we find something better? Could the City have some sort of competition for the funds. As with zipcar it sounds like a private business spend its money lobbying our staff so they could use public funds to aid their business. That is poor practice in my opinion.
To JustSaying: You are spot on with your woodburning analysis.
To Dr. Wu and JustSaying: Despite the danger from being censured for being off topic, I would like to address your thoughtful comments about the Hanlee deal.
As I understood it, there is blight in the buildng in question, bc only a small portion is being used for an auto mechanic business that is not really suitable for an auto showroom building.
Dr. Wu: “WE’re loaning a private business money and letting them use sales taxes generated to pay back the loan.”
We don’t forfeit any tax revenue with this deal. NONE. What we do is forgive loan repayment to the RDA depending on how much sales tax revenue is generated to the city. The more sales tax revenue that is generated, the more of the RDA loan that is forgiven. But the city keeps every penny of sales tax revenue. The loss will only be to the RDA funds, but there will be a comensurate gain in sales tax revenue to the city. The general fund of the city is in far more need of money than the RDA.
We subsidized the Varsity Theater (a private business) with RDA money, so other businesses have been given RDA money besides Hanlee’s. And have the improvements to the Varsity Theater been a big sales tax revenue generator? I don’t know, but I would suspect the Hanlee’s VW dealership has more potential to bring in far more $$$ to the city’s general fund than the Varsity Theater.
Dr. Wu: “But one needs to take into account the fact that a Hanlees VW dealership would lower sales taxes from other local dealerships (some people would buy a VW locally instead of a Toyota or whatever).”
That is a fair point, except most of the dealerships are owned by Hanlee’s! I’m trying to think if there is a dealership in Davis that isn’t owned by Hanlee’s. Anyone know? However, I think the theory is that having a VW dealership will bring in more customers to Davis “auto row”, which will be good for all the dealerships there, even those not owned by Hanlee’s.
The only argument I can see against this deal is that the RDA money could have gone to some other project to remove blight elsewhere. 1) But where would have been better?; 2) And in what way would it have generated sizeable sales tax revenue to the city? Do either of you have any suggestions that would have been a better use of the RDA money?
By the way, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful answers. The use of RDA money has always generated a lot of controversy. Part of that I think is bc of a basic misunderstanding of how it works, what it has to be spent on, that sort of thing. I know at one time I was totally confused what it was all about, but with a bit of research and much discussion on this blog, and listening to City Council meetings, I feel much more in touch with how it works. Altho I have to tell you the Hanlee’s deal was extremely complicated so that even the City Council had to keep asking repeatedly for clarification.
One point I think is a fair criticism of the Hanlee’s deal – it was done too much behind closed doors, with no chance for any meaningful public input, and no effort at explaining the full details of the very complicated deal. The only reason I know as much as I do was I just happened to be at the City Council meeting for another matter, so listened carefully to the Hanlee’s discussion. It was also the night of the Zipcar fiasco (ZIPGATE). I remember shaking my head when that deal was approved bc I thought it was very unwise from the city’s perspective. But the Hanlee’s deal seemed to be a good way of promoting business in Davis with the use of RDA funds, that would remove blight, and generate sizeable tax revenue for the city.
Bottom line, if Hanlee’s VW can generate something like $1 million in tax revenue, approx the entire RDA loan will be forgiven. If the RDA money were used to remove blight to build a non-business in Davis elsewhere, it would generate no tax revenue for the city. Now such a non-business might generate property tax revenue – that one I’m not sure on. Someone more knowlegeable would have to comment on that.
Its common to use RDA funds for private businesses. I personally don’t like this unless you have a business like an older theater which really needs a subsidy (and provide some culture) or if you have really serious blight. To me an auto dealership doesn’t fall into that category, but people can always disagree.
Part of the issue is that the way RDAs were set up originally allows for huge boondoggles at a time when State and local govts are cash strapped.
Dr. Wu: “Part of the issue is that the way RDAs were set up originally allows for huge boondoggles at a time when State and local govts are cash strapped.”
Now this part bothers me too. This is the old “different pots of money” scam the gov’t runs on us to hide the ball as to their profligate spending. Here we are laying teachers off, while spending millions in RDA money for what really isn’t what I would consider true “blight”. I’m really with you there on this observation…
But if the RDA money is there, and it can only be spent on Davis “blight” (LOL), then why not spend it in a fashion that will help get the city out of debt? You would prefer to spend it on improving culture, which is certainly a worthy cause. But right now, I think tax revenue generation is more important. However, as you so rightly point out, people can agree to disagree on that point 🙂
Elaine, it sounds as though the key to this being a “good” move for the city is pulling out the money locked in our RDA Pot and moving it into the GF Pot (so we can start spending the cash on our unsustainable personnel costs). In any other venture, this is called “money laundering.”
If this scheme works out the way it’s designed to, we’ll have shoveled more than $1-million (don’t forget the forgiven interest) into Hanlee’s pockets. When it’s over, the RDA pot will be more than $1-million smaller than it would’ve been without this back-room, sweetheart giveaway. In any other venture, this is called a “shell game.”
So, we end up with zero lasting improvements in the city Infrastructure or in the blighted areas like Olive Drive, where dozens of businesses try to operate and where some of our poorest residents live. The lost opportunity costs of this decision are enormous, IMO. To give a large pile of RDA cash to one big outfit in an area we long ago earmarked to be blighted permanently by an auto/RV row is a questionable use of blight funds. In any other venture, this might be called a “fraud.”
This is such a complicated accounting arena it’s difficult to be sure this scheme is going to generate the promised increase in auto sales taxes to the city. Some financial tradeoffs already are known (more than $1-million reduction in the RDA fund). We just have to hope that the financial analysts we hired to verify that this scheme will be a good deal for the city end up earning their pay.
Avatar writes:
Bob Dunning knows how to write an article and get his message delivered. He is a professional who has a local column 5 days a week, and he doesn’t print hearsay !
Mr. Greenwald writes:
“…the Mayor Pro Tem made a very rational and reasonable appeal for mandatory burning.”
I agree with Avatar. I supply the quotation from Mr. Greenwald as a single example of many, many typos, mispunctuations, and clumsy writing that force a reader to struggle to stick with Mr. Greenwald’s writing. Mr. Greenwald makes reading a boring chore. Obviously, Mr. Greenwald’s intented meaning of the phrase I quote in the context of his opinion piece is that the Mayor Pro Tem made an appeal for mandatory restrictions on burning.
Bob Dunning knows how to write and cares about the craft of writing. Which is why his writing appeals to many who may not agree with him. Mr. Greenwald’s writing appeals to those who already agree with him; he persuades no one because his distorted language either means a reader will bravely trudge on through the sludge because they already agree with Mr. Greenwald, or give up, unconvinced. Mr. Greenwald loses credibility and respect because of his poorly copyedited writing.
I’ve pointed out typos and whatnot in the past and the anonymous copyeditor has thanked me. Then the copyeditor continues to miss mistakes like the one in today’s article. Oh, well, as Kurt Vonnegut once wrote, “So it goes.”
You’re comparing the writing of someone with a professional copy editor to one of a person with a volunteer or intern doing grammar checks, that’s completely unfair.
A concern I have about complaint-based ordinances is that they can be, and are, often abused. Some of the potential abuses include vigilantism, revenge and harassment. Complaints may be more related to pre-existing neighbor relations than to the severity of the offense.
Consider Joe K’s hypothetical scenario of a neighbor proposing to violate a wood-burning ordinance by (politely) seeking the acquiesence of a neighbor. (Actually, s/he would really need to consult ALL of his/her neighbors for several houses in each direction – something I have difficulty envisioning anyone taking the time to do.) After having done so, the good neighbor has his guests over, starts his fire and is surprised by the police at the door one hour later. The problem? It turns out that, after garnering the approval of potentially-affected neighbors, he was reported by someone who hates wood smoke and lives a half-mile away, but was out for a walk and complained about every home s/he passed that was burning wood. Might someone who believes that anything short of a total ban on wood-burning is insufficient do such a thing?
Or, imagine neighbors engaged in long-standing feud over a fence, an ill-behaved dog, a perceived social slight, or deep political differences. Neighbor A lights up. Neighbor B, despite being upwind and unaffected by the smoke, drops a dime Neighbor A, just to “nail the bastard.”
Are people really that childish? You be the judge.
On the other end of the spectrum might be an asthmatics who is very senstive to smoke, but refrains from complaining about her upwind wood-fire enthusiast neighbor either because they don’t want to offend him/her out of fear of reprisal or just a desire to “be a good neighbor.”
The result? Uneven and unpredictable complaints and enforcement.
Just Saying: “If this scheme works out the way it’s designed to, we’ll have shoveled more than $1-million (don’t forget the forgiven interest) into Hanlee’s pockets. When it’s over, the RDA pot will be more than $1-million smaller than it would’ve been without this back-room, sweetheart giveaway. In any other venture, this is called a “shell game.”
That is true. But if it weren’t spent on Hanlee’s it would be spent on something else. It is not as if the RDA money would sit there indefinitely unspent, right?
JustSaying: “So, we end up with zero lasting improvements in the city Infrastructure or in the blighted areas like Olive Drive, where dozens of businesses try to operate and where some of our poorest residents live. The lost opportunity costs of this decision are enormous, IMO. To give a large pile of RDA cash to one big outfit in an area we long ago earmarked to be blighted permanently by an auto/RV row is a questionable use of blight funds. In any other venture, this might be called a “fraud.””
OK, this is where I think you have a point, and people can agree to disagree. You see “true blight” on Olive Drive, and would rather see RDA money spent there than giving it to Hanlee’s. The RDA money will still be spent down by $1 million, but just spent on Olive Drive instead. However, will the RDA money spent on Olive Drive generate tax revenue for the city in this down economy? And if so, how much? That is the beauty of the Hanlee’s plan. For every dollar over $130,000 generated in sales tax revenue, Hanlee’s gets a dollar for dollar decrease in their loan. So what that says is that Hanlee’s must generate no less than $130,001 in sales tax revenue in a year to get any loan forgiveness, and the more sales tax revenue they generate, the more loan forgiveness they receive. It is a built in incentive to generate $1 million in sales tax revenue to get the entire loan forgiven.
justsaying: “This is such a complicated accounting arena it’s difficult to be sure this scheme is going to generate the promised increase in auto sales taxes to the city. Some financial tradeoffs already are known (more than $1-million reduction in the RDA fund). We just have to hope that the financial analysts we hired to verify that this scheme will be a good deal for the city end up earning their pay.”
Now that is the $1 million dollar question. Were city staff’s sales tax revenue projections accurate? A lot depends on how well the economy recovers. We may not know for several years. It is definitely a gamble.
JustSaying: “Elaine, it sounds as though the key to this being a “good” move for the city is pulling out the money locked in our RDA Pot and moving it into the GF Pot (so we can start spending the cash on our unsustainable personnel costs).”
If it were up to me, I’d do away with the whole RDA concept. We cannot afford it as a state…