Make no mistake about it, the entry of Lucas Frerichs into the Davis City Council race is a major shakeup. There is no doubt that Mr. Frerichs is a formidable candidate, and his endorsement sheet was filed with practically the entire Davis School Board and a who’s who of Davis politics for the last two decades.
With three incumbents on the ballot, we may well see the first incumbent in Davis to lose since 2004 when Michael Harrington – yes that Michael Harrington – was unseated by a combination of the strength of Stephen Souza and Don Saylor and the dirty tricks of Steve Gidaro.
The political climate is quite different from four years ago, when three incumbents including Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald were reelected. Those were still the pre-collapse days.
As we attempt to handicap this race, we bear in mind that things can change very quickly. This week is only the beginning of the filing period, the end does not come until mid-March. Other candidates could join the fray, but we believe that this is the final major candidate.
Two years ago at this time, many believed that Sydney Vergis was a cinch to win one of the two open seats. We however always believed she was quite a bit weaker than conventional wisdom held, and eventually we were proven correct as her candidacy seemed to collapse down the stretch and ultimately she was defeated by Rochelle Swanson, in addition to Joe Krovoza.
We believe at this point that Dan Wolk is the odds-on favorite to become the next Mayor Pro Tem and eventually replace Joe Krovoza. Not only does he have a name advantage, not only does he have a 3 to 1 spending advantage over his nearest competition, but he appeals across what is left of the city’s political divide.
Make no mistake, as the issue of land use has declined in the last few years, as Measure J realities have taken hold, as a consensus has formed even at the county level that growth on a city’s periphery should be the purview of the city not the county, and other issues have risen in prominence – namely water and the budget – the traditional battle lines have broken down.
Dan Wolk appeals not only to the constituency who elected his mother, but to the constituency who applauds the last budget and his deciding vote in a 3-2 vote to take money from employee compensation and move it to shore up the city’s infrastructure and unfunded liabilities.
Lucas Frerichs has the potential to capture a similar constituency – as he appeals across traditional lines. However, if you look at many of the supporters of Mr. Frerichs they have tended to be on the establishment and more pro-development side. Likewise, his strong support for Covell Village may harm him with the more progressive elements of the city. Nevertheless, his demeanor, and his long service to this community will serve him well.
If Dan Wolk is the front runner – does that make Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza vulnerable?
The two longest serving members on the Davis City Council might be seen as vulnerable. Stephen Souza, aside from his ill-considered move to become mayor at the beginning of last year, has been a more low-key figure on this council. No longer does he generally belong to the 3-2 voting block and no longer can he occasionally become the swing vote.
In a lot of ways, he has struggled for an identity and perhaps even a constituency.
Sue Greenwald has no such problem. Her identity remains intact, she is the ardent defender on most issues of fiscal sustainability, the lone dissenter on the September 6 water issue, and she has a strong core constituency as perhaps the last progressive on council.
While her style has produced a number of detractors, she emerges with a strong following still, with those who admire her stances on land use and those who appreciate her fight for fiscal sanity.
Where does that leave Brett Lee, the other challenger in this race? In our view, Mr. Lee, who is likely the least known of the candidates, has a lot of work to do to get into this race. He needs to stake out his core ground and emerge with his core constituency. We need to see some fire, passion and urgency from him.
Things can change quickly. But as we handicap this race, here is how we see it. The first place finish is Dan Wolk’s to lose. He ought to try to avoid getting complacent, but barring the proverbial skeleton emerging it is difficult to see anyone else getting more votes than him.
Lucas Frerichs has a good chance of knocking off one of the incumbents. He is young, he is smart, he is a very nice guy, and for those who have been concerned in the past about the tenor of the council, he will fit in with the new kinder and gentler council.
We could be misreading things, but right now we see Stephen Souza as more vulnerable than Sue Greenwald. Certainly Sue Greenwald is a more polarizing figure – people tend to love her immensely or hate her with the fire of a thousand suns. But she has her niche, and her core constituency emerges more intact than does Mr. Souza’s.
However, that is going to be a close race and if it is, Stephen Souza has the potential to outwork Sue Greenwald.
We are not saying Lucas Frerichs is a lock by any stretch. It has been eight years since an incumbent has been defeated and both Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza have strong followings. It is entirely possible that both incumbents get reelected.
As we said, Brett Lee has work to do. He too is a nice guy, he is very bright as well, but he has to capture a core constituency and he has to get his name out. There is time to do that and as someone who worked tirelessly against Covell Village, he has that capacity, but there needs to be a lot of urgency in his game.
Who else will emerge? We do not believe any major candidates will – but you never know. More likely a student or someone like a Jon Li will come in who will not spend any money but rather use the election as a bully pulpit.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Dr. Wu was so right when she/he quoted in yesterday’s blog —
“Candidate Wolk,Lee and Freirichs’ public positions to-date are long on safe general platitudes that attempt to straddle both sides of the fence on important upcoming policy issues and short on clear answers. Without a clear public record to assess, this is troubling if we are to be able to assess what their political direction will be if they gain a seat on our Council.”
Until we hear more specifics about the policies of Wolk, Lee; and Frerichs we really don’t know what their effect on our City will be. The voters should be scrutinizing all 5 of the candidates carefully and asking for more information from them.
2cowherd: Thanks for the reinforcement–I was quoting davisite2 from the same blog yesterday.
A corollary: we know where Sue stands on the issues and imho Sue deserves our vote–she has been right on most of the important issues–and often before they became the popular stand (e.g., water, WHR, fiscal responsibility).
Do we want someone who will tell us what we want to hear now or someone who will take the tough votes even when they are unpopular? (Though ultimately they become the right vote.)
We also know where Souza stands on the issues and I suspect most regular readers of this blog will be unlikely to vote for Souza.
If you support fiscal responsibility and smart growth, you should vote for Sue even if you do not agree with her on each and every issue.
Don’t forget Steve got more votes than Sue last time. I think you also have forgotten Sue kicking Ruth when she was down, something, I believe, that is still fresh in many voters minds.
The big thing that you seem to have missed is the chance for a generational transition should Dan and the newcomers sweep. It would be great to see if the young people in this town grew up, got the vote out and stopped letting their parents make their decisions for them.
“I think you also have forgotten Sue kicking Ruth when she was down, something, I believe, that is still fresh in many voters minds.”
That was part of the consideration, though to be honest, I don’t hear it mentioned much when people talk about Sue. I suspect the people who care about that, are people who are unlikely to vote for Sue in the first place.
Sue is a shoe in. With her slow growth stance and her stand against the water project she has a built in large base of votes.
“Dan Wolk appeals not only to the constituency who elected his mother, but to the constituency who applauds the last budget and his deciding vote in a 3-2 vote to take money from employee compensation and move it to shore up the city’s infrastructure and unfunded liabilities.”
I wonder if Dan’s mother situation might not also be a burden. Sometime’s fresh faces just look like just kids. How much might people write off his earlier council selection as a reflection of his mother’s power and influence? And, while we some of us might admire his principled stand with the majority on budgeting, how many of the people who will vote know or care about it?
Sue and Stephen, unlike the others, have built reputations based on how they behave and how effective they are on the council. Some votes for the lesser-knowns might even come from people voting AGAINST them.
I don’t see Lucas quickly jumping to the top of the list, regardless of his service and his niceness. How many voters have heard the name Freriches?
[quote]It would be great to see if the young people in this town grew up, got the vote out and stopped letting their parents make their decisions for them[/quote]
We also need someone with experience (not named Souza).
Don’t forget that Joe and Rochelle are relatively new and Wolk is essentially brand new, so at the most we’d have two old timers.
I don’t think having a completely new and untested City Council with little experience is an advantage–yes new blood is good, but so is experience.
David. You continue to predict Dan will follow Joe as mayor. What happened to Rochelle? 🙂
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Sue is a [b]shoe[/b] in. With her slow growth stance and her stand against the water project she has a built in large base of votes.”[/i]
Very punny rusty. Were you referring to Sue kicking Ruth when sh was down, or were you saying she was a shoo-in?
Thanks Matt, I’m glad somebody caught my humor.
“I suspect the people who care about that, are people who are unlikely to vote for Sue in the first place.”
In as much as people who supported Preston Brooks didn’t lose their support of him after the caning of Charles Sumner. Still I think there are people in town who may have supported Sue in the past who want their civil society to be civil and will never vote for Sue again. In my own case I voted for Sue until I realized that her politics were an impediment ( shoe reference) to my interests but seeing her belligerent behavior on the dais both online and in person is what really turned me against her. I suspect that there are others who no longer support Sue who once did. Remember her vote total peaked two elections ago.
Sue is going to do fine. Most of the time she votes in favor of local business, for city fiscal sanity, for good land use planning, for neighborhood preservation, for careful planning of our water supply system
Twelve years of getting it right ( other than DACHA, of course) will give her a big win this time
So, if these were district elections, how would this be shaping up? Any idea what part of town these candidates reside?
“David. You continue to predict Dan will follow Joe as mayor. What happened to Rochelle? :-)”
Dan just called…wanted to thank David for running his handsome face to illustrate a story on “then there were five” candidates. Hopes he’ll do it again–large, in color and often–during the campaign. Said he’d appreciate being the designated shoo-in the next time the candidates’ chances are evaluated.
It’s funny how perceptions, and maybe memories, differ, but (allowing for the fact that I did not attend or watch all council meetings), it is my recollection that almost always Sue has been incredibly civil and professional, especially given that on many issues she was in a minority of one. On the other hand, not uncommonly, I found Ruth’s leadership of the council as mayor pro-tempore high-handed, uncivil, and impatient and particularly with respect to Sue. To me comments on Sue such “as kicking Ruth when she was down” remind me of the Republican accusation that Obama is engaging in class warfare.
As I have said in the past, Sue most certainly deserves re-election for many reasons including the good ones put forth by Dr. Wu. But, alas, given how unfairly she has been treated by her political opponents, and in view of her courageous stances we alas cannot and should not take this for granted and nor should we.
[i]”You continue to predict Dan will follow Joe as mayor. What happened to Rochelle?”[/i]
No one has answered this good question, so I will. Joe is the mayor now, but he is so only because Don Saylor left for the Board of Supervisors and the others on the Council chose Joe to replace Don as mayor. Because Joe won the most votes in the 2010 race, Joe won the right–under the current rules–to serve as mayor for his 3rd and 4th years of his 2010-2014 term. So Joe will become “the people’s mayor” after this year’s election. By finishing second in 2010 Rochelle was never in position to be mayor, unless the others on the Council had favored her to fill in for Don.
“Twelve years of getting it right ( other than DACHA, of course) will give her a big win this time.”
Maybe you haven’t been keeping up. She got DACHA right. Neighborhood Partners are the only ones who got it wrong. Shoely she’s still batting 1000.
[i]”So, if these were district elections, how would this be shaping up? Any idea what part of town these candidates reside?”[/i]
From what my telephone listings tell me:
Dan Wolk–Stonegate (WEST)
Sue Greenwald–Rice/University Area (CENTRAL)
Stephen Souza–Wild Horse (NORTH)
Brett Lee–Central Davis (CENTRAL)
Lucas Frerichs–Covell Park (NORTH)
No one from South Davis, East Davis or Mace Ranch is running … or biking … or walking.
Rich, thank you for raising the question and answering it about when someone will follow Joe. Is there any suggestion that the “current rule” would be changed by the council itself, esp. given the awkward, embarrassing attempt to change it once before?
So, this election will determine who typically would be selected be the council as mayor for 2015-2016? And Rochelle’s earliest future hope would be 2017-2018?
How did we decide we don’t want to elect the Mayor of Davisville and when?
I like most of the candidates, but to me, it seems that everyone but Sue is drinking from the same quart of JPA provided Kool Aid that we need the surface water plant. Maybe when I look at literature I might endorse another one
I would like to weigh in on the time I said “Ruth, you lied about my motion”.
I understand that this is politics, and David Greenwald posted my most irritable moment on u-tube. It is one thing to report it; it is another to post it on u-tube. This was David Greenwald’s choice. It hurt me very deeply on a personal as well as on a political level. But again, it was David’s choice. He knew what he was doing.
When I said “Ruth, you lied about my motion”, it was late at night at the end of a difficult and long meeting. I was very upset about the council’s lack of progress on the cafeteria cash-out because I knew it would lead to the problems the city faces today. I was particularly frustrated because I felt that Ruth really did agree with me, but was voting with Don Saylor and Stephen Souza. And because Ruth really did agree with me, I often miss her on the council. She would have voted with me to retain a larger neighborhood-compatible high-tech/non-profit component of the Cannery project last week.
That said, I should not have said “Ruth, you lied about my motion”. I should have given it up or said “Ruth, you’re 180 degrees wrong about my motion.
But let’s face it. It is just not out of the realm of what politicians say about issues. Witness the presidential primaries.
One thing I want to hear from all of them is whether our rates are unconstitutional as violating the proportionality requirement. See, City of Palmdale decision, filed by the 2nd DCA on august 9, amended Aug 25, 2011
This has nothing to do with the surface water plant. It’s all about our current rates, and how residential users heavily subsidize commercial, but the city costs to provide each gallon are the same I ask each candidate to comment on this issue.
[i]”Is there any suggestion that the ‘current rule’ would be changed by the council itself, esp. given the awkward, embarrassing attempt to change it once before?”[/i]
I doubt it will be changed. Unless there is an upswell in feeling that the current system for picking the mayor is broken, I would guess inertia will cause it to remain in place.
That said, the mayor should be chosen by the council itself. The two major powers of the mayor–to help set the agenda; and to run the meetings–should be the purview of a majority on the council, not the purview of the person who happened to get a few dozen more votes than anyone else two years prior.
My advice is that the members of the council select the mayor for a one year term* at the last meeting of each fiscal year (that is, the last meeting in June) and the person chosen becomes mayor at the first meeting of the next fiscal year. I would not set any term limits, so the Council could choose any one of the five, including the incumbent mayor.
[i]”So, this election will determine who typically would be selected by the council as mayor for 2015-2016?”[/i]
The first place finisher in the 2012 election will serve as mayor pro-tempore from 2012-14 and then will automatically be the mayor from 2014-16. The other members of the council will not “select” the 2014-16 mayor. Joe Krovoza, as I noted above, will be the mayor from 2012-14 due to his first place finish in 2010.
[i]”And Rochelle’s earliest future hope would be 2017-2018?”[/i]
If Rochelle runs for reelection in 2014 and finishes first, she would serve as mayor pro-tempore from 2014-16 and the serve as mayor from 2016-18.
[i]”How did we decide we don’t want to elect the Mayor of Davisville and when?”[/i]
The people of Davis have never directly elected the mayor. For the first 60 or so years, the council majority chose who the mayor was. From 1917 to 1947, for example, every single term the council majority picked Gordon Anderson (the grandfather of Davis Ace’s Jennifer Anderson) or Calvin Covell as mayor.
But since the late 1980s–I don’t recall exactly the year the change was made–the council has automatically awarded the position of mayor to the top vote-getter in the council race two years prior. Not that she did a bad job of it, but I think the mayoralty of Susie Boyd showed why this system is not so good. Boyd won the most votes in her race because she was the lone pro-growth candidate in a very anti-growth period of Davis politics. On the council, even though she was mayor, her colleagues usually outvoted her 4-1 on every controversial issue. It would have made far more sense to have one of the people in the majority as their “speaker,” but the system gave that title to a minority of one on that council.
*In my ideal system, if a majority on the council wanted to unseat the mayor before his/her one year term was up, they could do so at any time. It’s good to have that flexibility, because some people chosen as mayor may prove to lack the skills it takes to run the meetings or retain the support of the others on the council.