There are no surprises so far, five candidates have now pulled paperwork and two candidates, Stephen Souza and Dan Wolk, have filed their papers.
Stephen Souza was the first to return his papers – he returned his paperwork to run for a third term last week. Dan Wolk filed his paperwork to run for his first full term on Tuesday. Mr. Wolk was appointed last February to replace Don Saylor on the Davis City Council.
In a statement, Stephen Souza said, “Davis is a world-class city. Our neighborhoods are filled with trees and parks. We are surrounded by agricultural land and open space. Our streets are among the safest in the nation. Children, young professionals, families and seniors thrive and prosper in our inclusive community. The university and our proximity to the state capitol give Davis a uniquely intelligent, thoughtful and diverse population. All of these elements give our community a quality of life that is second to none.”
“It has been my pleasure to serve as your City Councilmember for the last eight years. In that time, I’ve helped Davis become an even better place to live by bringing forth ideas that work to enhance our community and quality of life,” he added focusing on issues such as a balanced budget that deals with unfunded liabilities and needs, job creation and economic development, a clean, safe and reliable water source and providing green, clean energy via solar farms.
“I want to continue to lead and serve our community, finding solutions to these issues in collaboration with my colleagues and listening to your ideas,” Mr. Souza said.
Dan Wolk returned his paperwork on Tuesday.
“Ever since I announced in October, I have been humbled by the outpouring of support I’ve received from all parts of our community,” said Dan Wolk in a press release.
Mr. Wolk, who grew up in Davis and works as an attorney for Solano County, was appointed to the City Council a year ago. He now seeks a full term.
In his statement, Mr. Wolk said he is running for three main reasons. “First, to give back to a community that has given me so much. Second, to make sure my daughters and their generation will thrive in Davis the way Jamima and I did. And, third, to continue to bring new ideas and leadership to city hall.”
Continued Dan Wolk, “We are dealing with tough issues right now, issues that will define our future, and we must face them squarely, not leave them to our children. I am proud of what I have accomplished so far, but there is much left to do.”
Dan Wolk lists as priorities: Build a structurally sound city budget, improve our water quality, streets, and parks, prioritize economic vitality and the downtown, achieve environmental sustainability, and create affordable housing for seniors and young families.
Dan Wolk’s nomination signatories reflect the diversity – and strength – of that support. The thirty signatories are: Jamima Wolk; State Senator Lois Wolk; Bruce Wolk; Former Yolo County Supervisor Helen Thomson; Former Davis Mayor Ann M. Evans; Assemblymember Mariko Yamada; Former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin; Former Davis Mayor Bill Kopper; Yolo County Public Guardian Cass Sylvia; Yolo County Supervisor Jim Provenza; Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor; Rosalie Paine; Nina Gatewood; Steve Boschken; Pam Nieberg; Raychel Adler; Will Arnold; Calvin Handy; Rose Cholewinski; Stephen Nowicki; Mary Lou Willett; Ben Pearl; Robb Davis; Andrew Fulks; Widgen Neagley; Nora Brazil; Jose Martinez; Shama Mesiwala; John Mott‐Smith; Gregg Herrington.
Stephen Souza lists as his thirty signatures: Lea Rosenberg, Herb Bauer, Betty Weir, Gregg Herrington, Arun Sen, Beth Annon, Rosalie Paine, Sara Smith, Kari Fry, Maynard Skinner, Bob Bockwinkel, Jejj Adamski, Ruth Asmundson, Don Saylor, Jennifer Raven, Rick Gonzales, Kelsey McQuaid, Susan Lovenburg, Betsy Marchand, Cass Sylvia, Helen Thomson, Rose Cholewinski, Bill Streng, Charlie Russell, Sheila Allen, Lydia Delis-Schlosser, Bob Schelen, Janet Sarenana, Mariko Yamada, Jim Provenza.
Last week, Lucas Frerichs, one of two challengers, pulled his paperwork. He has not returned that paperwork as of yet.
He sent a statement to the Vanguard on Wednesday, stating, “I have been extremely busy throughout the past several weeks, as I have been on an intentional ‘listening tour’ and having in-depth conversations with residents all across the city.”
He added, “I’m really looking forward to this campaign, and I relish the opportunity to further highlight and discuss the issues that I’ve been hearing about from the concerned citizens of this community.”
According to the City Clerk Zoe Mirabile, both Sue Greenwald and Brett Lee pulled their paperwork yesterday.
The Vanguard was unable to reach Sue Greenwald, however, Brett Lee told the Vanguard that the campaign is moving along “fairly well.”
“We have started to attend the Farmers Market every Saturday morning. I have been very pleased with the number of people who have come by our booth,” he told the Vanguard.
He also said a recent coffee was well attended. “I was impressed by the very direct policy questions I was asked. I had an opportunity to describe my views on the proposed water project and my opposition to the ConAgra proposal,” he noted.
“This Friday we will be launching a new campaign website at www.brett4davis.com,” he added.
He told the Vanguard that the next neighborhood coffee will be Sunday March 4th at the home of Ken and Dianne Wagstaff.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Sue earned my endorsement and vote on September 6th when she was the sole vote against proceeding with the fraudulent and unconstitutional water rates. (See, City of Palmdale decision, 2nd DCA, 8/9/11)
I have not heard anything from the other candidates as to the surface water plant or rates that makes any sense to me. Maybe their literature will say something.
Steve Souza is quoted by the DV: “It has been my pleasure to serve as your City Councilmember for the last eight years. In that time, I’ve helped Davis become an even better place to live by bringing forth ideas that work to enhance our community and quality of life,” he added focusing on issues such as a balanced budget that deals with unfunded liabilities and needs, job creation and economic development, a clean, safe and reliable water source and providing green, clean energy via solar farms.
“I want to continue to lead and serve our community, finding solutions to these issues in collaboration with my colleagues and listening to your ideas,” Mr. Souza said
Steve: Sorry, but you and Don Saylor did not lead us to any sort of balanced budget. The two of you nearly bankrupted the City, and Don scooted leaving you to hold the bag.
Your blind support for the suface water project is but one example.
Also, did your water lawyers and consultants tell you about the City of Palmdale decision (2nd DCA, 8/8/11), released a month before your Sept 6th vote for the new rates? That decision held that a water rate system nearly identical to Davis’ system was unconstitutional because one class of user was subsidizing the other. In Davis, residential class users heavily subsidize the commercial class. I have verified that the Davis business group that was meeting with staff had it; I have verified that your water consultant had it before your Sept 6th vote.
Steve: did the Davis CC have it before Sept 6th? Did the City Attorney have it? The truth will come out.
Mr. Harrington, would that decision also hold true for lower income water users being subsidized by everyone else’s higher rates?
To correct any misleading information from above comments: The Palmdale decision was about a class of users (in this case the city who irrigated a lot of park space) being forced to pay higher rates than other users – bc they were clearly forced into higher tier rates at an earlier cutoff point than other user classes. More precisely, the city as a class was forced to pay the higher tiered prices once they reached 130% of an allocated water budget, whereas other user classes were forced into the upper tiers only when they reached 160% (or greater) than the allocated water budget. That is patently unconstitutional – bc it violates state law that requires that any rate structure be based on proportionality – users are charged based on the amount of water consumed…
Thank you, Elaine, for clarifying the Palmdale decision. It is getting easier and easier to not think of Mike Harrington as a good source of information. Mike served one term and lost his bid for re-election to a 2nd term. I’m not so sure having his endorsement would be of any value to any candidate.
Rusty49: I dont think income levels bear on the analysis. It’s more that residential class subsidizes the middle to higher usage of the commercial class. The City does not hook up a meter and bill a household as a low income, versus a higher income.
My two downtown D St properties prove my point about City of Palmdale: the same water system delivers identical water to both lots, but above Tier 1 residential, I pay more for the next unit of residential water than I do for the next unit of commercial.
This disparity has been built into the Davis water rates for years, and none of us caught it. The California Constitutional Law on teh subject is clear; the Aug 9, 2011 City of Palmdale decision did not make new law. The burden of proof would be on the City of Davis to prove it costs less to deliver commercial class water, and we all know that is not the case.
Rusty49: the fraudulent rates that they pushed through on Sept 6th is actually the least of the City’s problems. From what I can tell, staff and the City Attorney pushed those rates as lawful when the City of Palmdale decision makes it crystal clear that the rate structure here is unconstitutional.
In other words, Rusty49, the City is basically stealing money from residential users, and your friendly city leaders have known about it for some time.
It’s the dirty little secret of city staff that business leaders have known for some time, and note that the business group suddenly stopped their opposition to the higher rates immediately after the August 9, 2011 City of Palmdale decision. The group did not want to upset the apple cart; they had been enjoying those extra apples for a long time.
BTW, my research is now tending to the conclusion that the current city sewer rates are also unconstitutional. (David G: you should do a story on those sewer rates.)
Both rate structures were developed by the same group that want to give you the surface water plant, and those fraudulent rates at the Sept 6th CC vote.
So, in conclusion, I am supporting Sue Greenwald for her vote against those rates on September 6th and her unsucessful motion to put the matter on the ballot. (The motion did not receive a second.)
[quote]would that decision also hold true for lower income water users being subsidized by everyone else’s higher rates? [/quote]
Water rate structures include rate classes, e.g. residential, commercial, but a parcel owner’s income is not a criteria used to determine a rate class. I believe the city of Woodland is using some of its community development block grant funding (CDBG funding) to assist low income folks with their water/sewer bills, but Davis decided that was probably not a viable option for our city. Too many local non-profit programs depend on our CDBG funds. Additionally, with the state’s decision to do away with redevelopment agencies, I don’t know where that leaves CDBG funding…
ERM: you are wrong, just as you were when you attacked us for opposing the current surface water plant, for running the rate referendum. As the evidence now proves overwhelmingly, you were also flat wrong when you attacked David Thompson and Luke Watkins.
Read the Palmdale decision and look at Davis’ rates. It’s not complicated.
You also mis-read the proportionality doctrine: it stands for the simple idea that what the water supplier charges the user is proportional to the supplier’s cost to supply it.
Here, the city charges residential and commercial class users disproportionately, but without any proof that the cost to supply differs by class.
ERM, as you know, the burden is on the City of Davis to show that cost differential, and the city does not have a shred of supporting cost data.
Brett Lee ” I had an opportunity to describe my views on the proposed water project and my opposition to the ConAgra proposal,” he noted.”
I wonder about his living situation. Does he rent or own? I am only curious because being against new housing seems like an odd thing to have as the centerpiece of a campaign. It makes me wonder why?
ERM: since you claim to be a lawyer who works for seniors and the poor in Davis, why would you continue to allow those residential users to heavily subsidize the commercial class? I think you should use your research skills and get to the bottom of what the City is doing to those you claim to represent.
[b]@Mike Harrington:[/b]Mike, I’m not running against the water project; I am merely worried about the cumulative water/sewer/garbage rates and looking for ways to handle our infrastructure improvements in a fiscally manageable fashion. I would prefer if you would focus on the positive things that I have done in this regard, such as bringing in the right consultants to save us $100 million on the waste water treatment plant and helping to bring more accuracy to the water discussion. If elected, hopefully I will be able to help us deal with water supply in a fiscally responsible fashion as well. Let’s give the WAC some time to study the project.
Also, I am asking my supporters to focus on the positive things that I have done over the last twelve years, rather than to go on the attack. It is hard to get good people to run if the campaign discussion gets nasty.
We are all just citizens volunteering our time, so let’s try to keep it positive.
Thanks.
Positive on the campaign trail but nasty in on the dais. Just like you remembered that Ruth was volunteering with your kick em while they are down remarks.
Mike – “My two downtown D St properties prove my point about City of Palmdale: the same water system delivers identical water to both lots, but above Tier 1 residential, I pay more for the next unit of residential water than I do for the next unit of commercial.”
What are you trying to say? Are you saying that you should be paying more for water on your commercial lot? Should commercial rates be raised higher to match the higher tiers of residential? Run that by the business owners in town, Mike, and see what they have to say about that idea.
Do you ever listen to yourself?
[b]@Ryan Kelly[/b] If in fact residential is subsidizing commercial, as looks likely, it is something that should be discussed up front for two reasons.
The first is that our rates could well triple our more, and homeowners who accepted subsidizing commercial when rates were low might refuse to do so when their rates triple or more. Our rates will have to pass 218 votes are will be subject to referendum over the years, so it is better to have the issue on the table sooner rather than later, so that everyone can make informed decisions.
Secondly, as Mike Harrington rightfully points out, it could be illegal to employ a system whereby residential subsidizes commercial. Full disclosure is appropriate.
So much for supporting a vibrant downtown Sue.
Are you saying that residential rates should come down as commercial rates go up? Well then aren’t your cost estimates of tripling too high then? I mean why not say rates could go up ten times? From civility to fear mongering in a single bound
[b]@Toad:[/b]You know darn well that’s not what I said, Toad.
i thought you said our rates could triple. Isn’t that fear mongering?
I did say that our rates could triple, and they probably will according to the current cost estimates.
“I wonder about his living situation. Does he rent or own? I am only curious because being against new housing seems like an odd thing to have as the centerpiece of a campaign. It makes me wonder why?”
Toad, being that 75% of Davis voted against the last housing measure it’s a great centerpiece to have for a campaign. He gets my vote.
Could be right Rusty although I’m not sure the Cannery is as unpopular as Wild Horse Ranch. What i was wondering is if Brett Lee’s position is in opposition to his own personal interest in home ownership? Maybe he already owns, maybe he rents and has no interest in owning or maybe he rents and plans to buy from existing housing stock. I don’t know but I think it is an interesting question.
Aside from Sue who else is claiming water rates will triple? Seems like fear mongering to me.
The last pro-forma that I saw said that our 10/11 total revenues were $9,582,557, with equal expenditures. That should be about the same as today’s, since the rate increase did not go through. It lists the 18/19 revenues as $38,852,000.
There was a surplus carried over through years (I have been told that is a strange way to do the entries, but that’s the way it was done) that ended up as $11,400,000 in 18/19.
The expenditures in 18/19 were expected to be $27,452,000.
So expenditures are expected to be about triple what they are today, and add to the rates increases that will be required to build an $11,400,000 reserve.
“I am only curious because being against new housing seems like an odd thing to have as the centerpiece of a campaign. It makes me wonder why?”
This does not seem so strange if you consider that the majority of Davis voters, at least within the past decade or so have clearly favored a very cautious approach to growth for the sake of growth even if euphemized with the term “vibrant”. For me, this is a major issue and a big plus for me
In considering for whom to vote. I suspect I am not alone in this.
[i]” I am only curious because being against new housing seems like an odd thing to have as the centerpiece of a campaign.”[/i]
Toad manages to be both inaccurate and unfair in one fell swoop.
If you look at Brett Lee’s campaign website ([url]http://brettfordavis.com/views/[/url]), he lists the priorities of his campaign (though he does not say they fall in this particular order). He explains each of his positions with further verbiage, but these are the bullet points:
● Protect the amenities of our community.
● Provide affordable and wisely managed water for Davis.
● I support placing the water rate referendum on the ballot.
● Require that any growth be community driven, not developer driven.
● Provide economic growth opportunities.
● Provide critical oversight to our City administration.
● We must adhere to a realistic and affordable city government.
● Protect the character and viability of the downtown.
● The City should not build ugly and inappropriate parking structures in the center of our downtown.
● Promote improved pedestrian and neighborhood safety.
● Promote landlord and tenant responsibility.
● I want Davis to be more effective in its use of natural resources and make Davis once again a model for innovative community planning.
[i]”Require that any growth be community driven, not developer driven.”[/i]
This sentence, by the way, oft repeated by the Davis left, is largely vacuous … if you give it a few seconds of thought. If all it means is that we can have a General Plan and zoning and various requirements to deal with the effluents and effects of real estate development, then he is saying nothing, since we all know that and have lived with that model since the 1920s in Davis.
On the other hand, if development which is not “developer driven” means that the City Council and its appointed commissioners and perhaps some members of staff should decide the specific details of a development–“You need to build a 1,700 s.f. red house on this parcel, the siding must be hardiboard and you must sell it by February 23 for $184,875”–that is just another way of saying we should have no development whatsoever. … You think my conclusion is wrong? Well, think about a different type of business … say a hardware store or a nursery. Are the small details of those businesses in Davis decided by the owners (“the developers”) or are they decided by the collective?
The only possible way of having any development which is not driven by the profit motive of developers is a Soviet model, where the City actually builds housing and decides who the winners are and who the losers are. And face it, even in Davis that sh!t won’t fly.
Many of the small details, as you call them, of our building were indeed decided by the planning staff and/or the design review process. The color of our building was chosen by the design review commission. The color of our roof was chosen by the city staff. The shape of our building was opposed by the city staff but approved by the design review commission.
Zoning is a basic tool by which communities determine their character. Housing density is a basic tool that can determine the cost range of the housing units. In community driven growth, the sites would be based on consensus of the community, with priority set after community meetings. In developer driven growth, it … oh, never mind. Just go to Vacaville to see what results.
Earlier in this thread, Mr. Toad complained that it was “fear-mongering” to speak of water rates tripling. Looking back, I think that I didn’t state my answer clearly enough, so I will try again.
[b]Concerning water rates tripling:[/b] The last pro-forma that I was shown listed our fiscal year 2010/2011 total revenues to be $9,582,557, and fiscal year 2010/2011 expenditures to also be $9,582,557. Fiscal year 2011/2012 revenues and expenditures should be about the same, since the rate increase did not go through. The pro-forma lists the fiscal year 18/19 revenues projected to be $38,852,000.
There was surplus revenue that grew between fy 10/11 and fy 18/19 and was carried over. It ended up as $11,400,000 in fiscal year 18/19.
The expenditures in 18/19 were expected to be $27,452,000, while the revenues were expected to be $38,852,000
Hence, expenditures are expected to be almost triple what they are today, and the rates will also have to increase enough to build up the $11,400,000 reserve.
Brett Lee ” I had an opportunity to describe my views on the proposed water project and my opposition to the ConAgra proposal,” he noted.”
Seems unequivocal to me.
By the way I agree with Rich for the most part about what housing should be developed. The problem is that the restrictions on supply of housing distorts the market such that anything proposed will maximize profit by going for the high end where the largest margins are to be found. A more rational approach would be to master plan Covell Village and the Cannery together providing the housing for a generation; senior housing, workforce housing, rentals, entry level, empty nest downsize housing and growing family housing coupled with room for services and business development while addressing the access and public transportation issues that development creates. you could even phase it in so as to build it as the community could absorb it so as to not flood the market all at once while demand is soft. A longer time frame would also provide for more stable longer term jobs. Of course taking such a rational approach that could meet the needs of the community over a generation is off the table due to the pig headed opposition to growth and the ham handed measure R exemplified by the statement of Brett Lee that he is opposed to the Cannery.
I’m still curious as to what he is for and where he lives. As Rich points out his position on housing tells us nothing.
DON: [i]”Many of the small details, as you call them, of our building were indeed decided by the planning staff and/or the design review process.”[/i]
Point taken on the small details. I stand corrected on that. However, I would say the big picture of your business was you (the developer) making the decision that Davis needed a nursery of the sort you envisioned and that you decided (as the developer) that your parcel on 5th Street would be a good location for your business. And once opened, you (the developer) have decided what plants you want to keep in stock, what plants you should have available to order and what other merchandise compliments your business. You have also decided what were the best prices you would charge for your plants and other stuff. And so on.
To me, that says the Redwood Barn is a “developer driven” business. You had to meet the outlines in the GP, the restrictions of the city code and the restrictions imposed on you by the design review commission (which we no longer have). That is more-less the model almost all developments within* Davis have followed since we first developed a GP in the late 1920s.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what those who want a “community driven” development model are calling for. If it is simply one which relies on the General Plan, then they are saying nothing. I fret they are saying they want to tell developers, “Here is what your business decisions need to be. We will decide everything for you. You can take it or leave it.” That model cannot work. There is a lot of history to show why.
*The real exceptions have been outside of Davis, like Mace Ranch and El Macero, both of which violated the GP of their time, but got county approval.
Following on what you are saying, I think we would do well to ask each candidate what her or his policy would be on affordable housing. I happen to think that zoning and density requirements would achieve affordable housing much better than our current system. But that would require telling developers “here is what your business decision needs to be” and it would very much be “take it or leave it.” Zone it for housing, state the desired density, and don’t waver from that. As it stands now, the developer is told how many houses to build at some (IMO) contrived value as a percentage of the project.
So, to Brett, Dan, Lucas, Steve, and Sue: what would be your affordable housing policy?
[i]”… that would require telling developers “here is what your business decision needs to be” and it would very much be “take it or leave it.” Zone it for housing, state the desired density, and don’t waver from that.”[/i]
As far as dictating denisities, that is already what we do in the GP. I recall that the Covell Village Partners had proposed far fewer housing units–something like 1,100 and the city staff (following the GP) said you have to have far more smaller lots, hence far more density. That is how the number of housing units in the plan the City Council passed was somthing over 1,800 units. And that scenario more-less repeated itself with the Simmons Ranch project east of the cemetery. The developer was told he had to work with the neighbors and agree on how to minimize the impacts his proposal would have on those who already lived nearby. He listened to them and came up with a project that had larger lots and lower denisity. The neighbors all said, “We can live with this.” Then staff came back and said, “Nope, that low density proposal conflicts with the GP. You have to increase your total number of houses by 50%. So he did and everyone in the neighborhood said, “Staff (pointing their arrows at Katherine Hess) threw away the deal we agreed to. We don’t like this new plan.” Then the City Council approved the new plan the neighbors disliked.
The bottom line for developers–like any business–is the bottom line. If they can make a meaningful profit, they will do so. Profit is mostly* what drives a developer.
*Mostly? I have known some developers who, given the choice between a project which strokes their ego and makes a modest profit and a project which is humdrum but makes more money will choose the former. I saw this a couple of times when I worked in real estate development in San Francisco. Some developers really love having really tall, gaudy buildings with their names over the front entrances, even if smaller, more simple buildings better meet the needs of their prospective tenants and will make them more money.
Density is great in theory but terrible in reality. If you take the human interactions out of the equation it works great just like the textbooks the planners read will tell you. Problem is when crankster smokers move in and your door is 16 feet away its terrible. Interesting what you said that the developers want fewer homes on larger lots but the planners force more units then the nimby’s complain about the number of units in the project and how much the greedy developer is going to make by overbuilding. Davis housing policy is completely nuts.
Rich: your post above really shows the extent to which you fundamentally do not understand the concept of community driven development. The idea behind is that instead of having the developer come to the council with a project proposal, you have a community based discussion of housing needs along with the idea of location priorities and at that a developer could come forward with a project that fills those needs. Instead we have seen over and over again is a developer coming forward with a project, the planning staff working with them to craft it, the council maybe asking for some changes and then it goes to the community if there’s a measure j vote. That’s the reverse of how we want these things to go.
[i]”… you have a community based discussion of housing needs along with the idea of location priorities and at that a developer could come forward with a project that fills those needs …”[/i]
Where has this happened? And why is that superior to a developer reading the market, investing his capital and his debt and taking the chance that the project will succeed or fail? And why do you think the participants in the “community based discussion” who will not be investing any of their money know better what is needed than a developer who is risking his own funds and those of his investors and those of his banker?
You start off with a jab, saying “you fundamentally do not understand the concept of community driven development.” I would respond that “you fundamentally do not understand the concept of development” or at the very least, your prescription has no basis in reality as far as I can see.
[quote]ERM: you are wrong, just as you were when you attacked us for opposing the current surface water plant, for running the rate referendum. As the evidence now proves overwhelmingly, you were also flat wrong when you attacked David Thompson and Luke Watkins.
Read the Palmdale decision and look at Davis’ rates. It’s not complicated.
You also mis-read the proportionality doctrine: it stands for the simple idea that what the water supplier charges the user is proportional to the supplier’s cost to supply it.
Here, the city charges residential and commercial class users disproportionately, but without any proof that the cost to supply differs by class.
ERM, as you know, the burden is on the City of Davis to show that cost differential, and the city does not have a shred of supporting cost data. [/quote]
Mr. Harrington, I would strongly urge you to watch the WAC meetings. The Palmdale decision was discussed last night, and will continue to be discussed. It will give you a better understanding of this case’s implications on our city’s water rates…
Mike Harrington, you do know that the WAC was created to come up with a solution to the City’s rate challenges, don’t you?
It certainly appears that you are conveniently ignoring that reality in order to stir up an emotion-driven political point.