The Chamber of Commerce got the honors on Thursday night to kick off the council elections. Overall, it would be difficult to argue that any of the candidates did poorly. In fact, we would argue the opposite – they all comported themselves well and were able to articulate their positions. Winners and losers will largely be judged based on people’s individual policy preferences.
We will also critique the Chamber’s format and performance a little bit, while acknowledging and praising the fact that they stepped out of the comfort zone and attempted to create an atmosphere that was very different from what we normally see. There were few hitches, our worst fears were not founded, and the Chamber largely pulled off a very good opening act that other entities might consider emulating.
Those caveats, and the fact that all candidates did very well, now laid out there, the Vanguard is not about fuzzy bunny feelings, but rather about critical analysis of the issues and candidates. We also weave a critic of the Chamber’s questions into the analysis of the candidate’s responses.
The Incumbents
Sue Greenwald
A number of commenters mention it and we agree – there was open hostility toward Sue Greenwald by the Chamber and the Director. We understand that the Chamber wanted to ask tough questions of all incumbents, but there is a line between tough and simply mean-spirited, and you can agree or disagree with Councilmember Sue Greenwald, but a couple of the questions were over the top.
Asking a councilmember if they view profit as a four-letter word was over the top in our view. Her answer was good, she simply said, no, the audience laughed, and Mr. Pope had to re-focus his question. There is a legitimate point that the city has not maximized the benefits of development agreements and the competitive process, but that is not the same as demonizing those who seek profit, whether they be businesses or developers.
There is also the flap over rent control. Councilmember Greenwald responded to a question, “I never said rent control downtown, I don’t know where that idea came from.” The question said that she “opposed” rent control downtown. The Vanguard asked for clarification on this issue after some insisted that she had made claims about rent control. We got no response. It seems like a non-issue. She made her position rather clear that she believes densification will lead to increased rents for merchants and she opposes residences above businesses in the downtown.
Our biggest concern is that Sue Greenwald is the only candidate to take issue with another candidate’s position. When Brett Lee supported increasing height limitations, Ms. Greenwald pounced in her rebuttal, stating, “I couldn’t disagree more strongly with Brett Lee. It’s against everything I’ve ever believed in for our downtown. What he’s suggesting is close your eyes for a minute and envision the entire downtown being three-story or four-story buildings, wall to wall. It would change everything about what we are and what our downtown is. I’m very disappointed to hear that, he’s saying throw out – pretty much – the design guidelines, that is going to kill the charm and also drive out our little business.”
And she did not let it go the next day. In our view, it makes little sense to go after Brett Lee, given that he does not seem an electoral threat to her and despite some small differences, he appears to be the closest thing she has to an ideological ally in the council race. We would prefer that each candidate highlight their own viewpoints and let the voters decide – for the most part that happened on Thursday; this was exception.
Sue Greenwald continues to push for development on the PG&E site. We are well aware of PG&E’s views on development at this point. We understand that Ms. Greenwald believes they can be persuaded otherwise, but she has little back-up position. We also are concerned about her pushing for Nishi, when she understands the huge infrastructure hurdles on that site.
Stephen Souza
Stephen Souza was clear and articulate. We thought he gave a very good performance overall. He had depth of answers, he was quick on his feet, and he spoke passionately for what he believed.
When Kemble Pope attempted to jam him on his abstention on a vote involving Marie Ogryziak’s proposal, he was able to clearly and articulately explain why, despite the fact that her proposal was creative and innovative, it did not fit the design parameters of the project.
On the other hand, we thought he dodged the issue of accountability on the September water rates that he championed. He was not pressed on his strong opposition to the referendum process, which is actually what led to the creation of the Water Advisory Committee that he argued would set rates that will be “fair and equitable,” and he dodged acknowledging the problems of the September water rates. Unfortunately, the format did not allow for the moderator to pin him down there.
He also dipped back into the 2008 playbook very briefly. He started a response on the need for senior housing and innovation hub, but somehow worked into that answer: “If we don’t do something to fill these needs, we are going to see a community become older and older and the schools have fewer and fewer children in them.” The needs he was actually addressing were senior housing needs and he never explained how addressing senior housing needs would keep the community from getting older or increase the number of children.
Finally the biggest problem was not necessarily Stephen Souza’s. The Chamber chose to ask Dan Wolk about his vote on Davis Diamonds, when in many ways that was a softball question for him as his was probably the only sincere vote in allowing the popular gym to move to the automall. Whereas, it seemed a good opportunity to bring up a contradiction for Stephen Souza.
We also are disappointed that Mr. Souza was not asked to justify his past votes on the budget, increases to salaries and pensions, and a whole range of issues from his first two terms on council, and reconcile that with his new view on the budget. This is the question we think is most important in terms of moving forward for Mr. Souza and he twice had the opportunity to offer his position in rebuttals, and chose not to enter that fray.
Dan Wolk
Dan Wolk gave strong answers to the three questions directly posed him. He was forceful and unapologetic for his vote on Davis Diamonds. We believe that this was a sincere vote on his part and he got a chance to explain that, while he has concerns about city dollars, his priorities as a councilmember prominently include programs affecting children. He would later defend his vote on the parking garage and his preference against the DBO process – although he did articulate his belief that we need a public operator for the water project.
When baited on the role of the council versus the role of expert staff, he was strong and unequivocal in his belief, “If you’re suggesting that the council should usurp it’s role, or should allow professionals to usurp its role as a representative of a the people in determining how projects are to be built, I fundamentally disagree with that. Council’s job is to certainly listen to the professionals – I know I do. But to say that council should just buy wholesale what comes to them as a recommendation, I think is not a very good policy.”
That was a strong response to a tough question. We have two primary criticisms of Mr. Wolk’s performance, which was, again, overall very good.
First, he only used one of his rebuttals and he did so in the later round that we did not cover. It became a running joke that he had not used his rebuttal cards. We need to be clear here, our critique is not that he did not talk enough.
Rather it seemed he was playing it safe and he did not weigh into the fray on some critical issues, in particular the growth issue.
Also he had a missed opportunity on water. He got the question about the DBO process with water, but missed his chance to nail the problems with the rate structure. Problems that he could have argued would have been avoided if he had found a third vote back in September, and problems that he and Rochelle Swanson helped to fix three months later in December.
On the other hand, we think that his answer on Davis Diamonds actually was misleading to the public on several levels, even as we acknowledge that this was largely a vote on behalf of his commitment to children’s programming.
He argued that Davis Diamonds “tried to find alternative sites… but they had been unsuccessful.” Something that he did not mention was the role of the real estate broker in this matter and the fact that he had a vested interest in putting Davis Diamonds in the spot on the automall, as he also represented the owner of that property. We know that Davis Diamonds did not look as diligently as they presented and that a number of listings went unexplored.
He also know that Mr. Wolk argued, “The current lessee contacted many dealers and tried to solicit them and he got no one to bite.” In fact, Ken Hiatt told the council, including Mr. Wolk, that there was a potential auto dealer willing to move in there but the move was precluded by the presence of Davis Diamonds.
Finally, Mr. Wolk argued that there was “a high probability of Davis Diamonds leaving our community.” We don’t believe there was ever a real threat of that occurring either.
We understand Mr. Wolk’s view on Davis Diamonds, and we see no need to throw out false justifications for it.
The Challengers
Overall we thought both Lucas Frerichs and Brett Lee comported themselves well. They were both well-versed on the questions – in fact, more so than most challengers we have seen in previous years. They certainly seemed capable and they both had good demeanors throughout.
Lucas Frerichs
It would be difficult to find a lot of flaws in the performance of Lucas Frerichs. He had a good response to Dan Wolk on the Davis Diamonds question when he argued, “Davis Diamonds is a total community jewel, there’s no question about it. But I do think there are other options and other viable options for them.”
He was appropriately critical of city staff on that issue, as well as on the Whole Foods issue, for which he was also able to properly articulate the problem of a food store as opposed to sales tax generating retail.
We did not like the commission merger question, but Mr. Frerichs addressed that one as well as could be addressed.
We cannot quibble much with Mr. Frerich’s answers, but we would have liked, perhaps, a stronger response on the initial budget reform question.
“There’s going to be pension reform coming from the state level,” he said. “In terms of the city budget, there needs to be a comprehensive, top to bottom, bottom to top, however you want to start, line-by-line look at the city’s budget and prioritization of where we want to spend our dollars, precious sales tax dollars where we fund city programs and there are a lot of ways to be more efficient.”
The problem is that when most of the budget is employee compensation, you are not going to find a $7 million chunk of money (a point that he never articulated) by weeding out paid internship positions – a point he acknowledged but stated, “It is a symptom of a larger issue” where you could go through the entire budget to find inefficiencies.
The hard issue is compensation and negotiations, and he largely did not address that point here or later when he talked about needed pension reform in the rebuttal to a question given to Brett Lee.
We would simply like to see Mr. Frerichs lay some of these points out on the table so that we can evaluate whether he will be the councilmember to help fix the city budget.
Brett Lee
Again, overall we thought Brett Lee gave a good performance. He was prepared. He spoke well. He was articulate. He is probably the candidate that people knew the least about, and I think most came away with a favorable impression.
His best moment came with a thoughtful answer on contract negotiations, where he spoke of the need for concessions by employees, and he spoke of a commitment not to lay off employees if possible. He concluded, “The employees serve a vital function for our city. My goal would not be to reduce services… We are basically in an economic crisis – I think it’s fair to ask the employees to step up and have a little bit of shared sacrifice along with the community members.”
He was then pressed by Mr. Pope, who suggested he heard “mostly about the stick, are there any carrots you would use as a labor negotiating tool?”
Confused but unfazed, Mr. Lee responded, “Sorry, you heard only stick? I thought that was carrot. [laughs]…That’s funny how we see the glass half empty/half full.” He continued, “That was me being diplomatic and nice saying basically all the employees can be assured they’ll maintain their jobs in the city provided they make a modest contribution towards their pension costs.”
The best moment of the debate came when he said, “The stick would be if…” Then the bell rang. Kemble Pope made a comment that he thought he and Rose, the Chamber President, were supposed to be on the same side and we never got to hear Mr. Lee’s stick response.
Sue Greenwald focused on Brett Lee’s response on the question about zoning and height restrictions, where Brett Lee spoke of increasing those height requirements. I think, if done well, raising the height requirements is something we could do, but I would hate to see the city streamline that process and allow for zoning changes to height restriction in the core area without design review by council or the Planning Commission.
Likewise, we think Mr. Lee missed a chance on peripheral growth to hammer the proposal by CHA and the Covell Village partners, and it was a mistake not to at least clarify that he would not support developing a huge senior housing facility out on Covell and Pole Line.
Finally, while we think he did well with his answer on contract negotiations, we have the same critique for him as we did for Lucas Frerichs, and that is be specific about the contract problems and the need to solve them. Simply shifting small costs to the employees does not get us out of this.
Again, we have attempted to give a balanced view of the candidates and their responses here. Overall, everyone did very well and I was impressed by the amount of articulateness, especially by the challengers who are often lacking in the kind of institutional knowledge that incumbents possess.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In future debates I would like each candidate to tell us how they would vote for the plastic bag ordinance and fireplace burning restrictions. I know there are bigger issues but I still think Davis voters should know how they stand because they will be the ones casting these votes.
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Our biggest concern is that Sue Greenwald is the only candidate to take issue with another candidate’s position. When Brett Lee supported increasing height limitations, Ms. Greenwald pounced in her rebuttal stating, “I couldn’t disagree more strongly with Brett Lee. It’s against everything I’ve ever believed in for our downtown. What he’s suggesting is close your eyes for a minute and envision the entire downtown being three-story or four-story buildings, wall to wall. It would change everything about what we are and what our downtown is. I’m very disappointed to hear that, he’s saying throw out – pretty much – the design guidelines, that is going to kill the charm and also drive out our little business.”
And she did not let it go the next day. In our view, it makes little sense to go after Brett Lee given that he does not seem an electoral threat to her and despite some small differences, he appears to be the closest thing she has to an ideological ally in the council race.”[/i]
Well said David. Sue began her public campaigning attacks against Brett Lee back in December here in the Vanguard and she has not let up since. At that time I asked her why the only candidate she was campaigning against was the one who appeared to be her closest ideological ally. She chose not to answer that question, rather to label it a personal attack.
It still bewilders me that Sue doesn’t appear to see collaboration and consensus building as important attributes of a Council member who represents the City and its residents.
Rusty: I had lunch with one of the councilmembers this week, one of the interesting things you learn is that often they do not know how they are going to vote going into a meeting. Some of it, depends on what the particular details of the proposal. This councilmember may support a ban but probably not the ordinance that the NRC moved forward. So I don’t know how anyone could say how they would vote absent a specific proposal and information from staff. I’m sure the issues will come up, I just object to the specificity of telling us how they would vote on a given issue – I hope they don’t know how they would vote on any issue.
[quote]Our biggest concern is that Sue Greenwald is the only candidate to take issue with another candidate’s position.–[b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]This charge is ridiculous and disingenuous. David, I didn’t “go after” Brett Lee. We were participating in a policy debate. Brett Lee spoke in favor of a radical policy change for which the Chamber of Commerce/DDBA had been strongly lobbying. And it is a policy that I have opposed since my involvement in the core area specific plan, which led to my membership in the general plan update committee years before I got on the council. And David, you know my history on this issue.
We were given rebuttal cards to use to rebut policies we disagreed with. According to you, Brett Lee had said that: [quote]he likes the residential zoning process where, if there are no variances, the approval process is automatic – that is, “the default assumption is that it will be approved. I’d like the same type of situation for the downtown –[b]Brett Lee as paraphrased by David Greenwald[/b][/quote]He also mentioned that he wanted to eliminate design review and advocated switching to a system of “permitted use” zoning for downtown buildings, which you didn’t report.
Now, Brett’s comment was a pretty heavy statement. Again, it would represent a total departure from our current mechanism — a mechanism that has been associated with some very nice buildings, and which has served us well.
The problem with Brett’s “automatic approval approach” is that the zoning parameters have to be set to the outermost limits. So Brett is saying that a land owner can virtually walk in to the planning department and merely show that the plans conform to the outermost zoning parameters. This means that there is nothing to keep the entire downtown from being built to the outermost parameters of the zoning, which means pretty much lot edge to lot edge and whatever height is set – I believe he would like to start with four stories, but I hope he will correct me himself if I am wrong. And without design review, the buildings could be cheaply unattractively designed.
David, I have always strongly disagreed with this zoning approach, which has long been favored by developers. If anyone had made the statements that Brett made, I would have used my rebuttal card to rebut it. That is what a debate is supposed to be.
You of all people should applaud a genuine policy debate.
I’m questioning why you singled out Brett rather than any of the others, all of whom issued statements you disagree on and I’m pointing out it was the only case where an individual’s position was turned into an issue. I think you could have raised your point without mentioning or criticizing Brett.
I should add that one of the things that like about our current system of careful development is that it encourages the adaptive reuse of our older cottage-style core area cottages as restaurants. Think of the charm and synergy that Burghers and Brew and our other cottage restaurants bring to the downtown. I think, for example, that it is quite likely that Village Restaurant — the old house that was converted to a lovely restaurant at 4th and F Streets, would have been the originally proposed four-story, stucco, lot-line to lot-line building had it not been for our existing process.
In the Dunning’s Enerprise article on the candidate field, he offered his position that “SUE GREENWALD KEEPS THE COUNCIL HONEST(my caps)”. This observation of Dunnings’ rests on Councilperson Greenwald’s extensive public record of openly challenging the arguments and positions of her Council colleagues and Council candidates when she finds them Not to be in the best interests of the citizens of Davis.
[quote]I’m questioning why you singled out Brett rather than any of the others, all of whom issued statements you disagree — [b]David Greenwald [/b][/quote]I didn’t single out Brett, David. I think maybe your own political bias is creeping in here. If Lucas had made this statement and I had responded in the same way, I doubt that you would be criticizing my appropriate rebuttal. In this particular debate, David, no one said anything that I disagreed with that radically. Stephen, in fact, said he supported the existing zoning process with regard to an infill development on B Street.
Everyone else was pretty generic — not necessarily a good thing, by the way.
David. Did I miss your comments/critique about the format and moderator? I expected a paragraph or two at end?
Thx for reporting on this.
Soda – I embedded the critique of the format and moderator within the critique of the candidates.
Sue: Yes you did single him out.
You said: “I couldn’t disagree more strongly with Brett Lee.” And later you added, “I’m very disappointed to hear that…”
That is by definition “singling” him out. You didn’t do that with anyone else. No one else did that with anyone else.
You’ll also note I defended you on the rent control flap which I still don’t get.
Any candidate who doesn’t know where she or he is on the proposals to ban shopping bags and fireplace/woodstove burning should withdraw from the race. What more can the staff offer councillors the night go the vote?
Sue, why are you and the others refusing to respond to questions about the DACHA op-ed and other affordable housing program issues? Wil this continue throughout the campaign person and past the election date?
Will you also help with my question about who approves the city’s commission expenditures, like the NRC decision to do an environmental study re. bag banning? Does the council have anything to say on such matters before money is spent by commissions?
[i]”We also are disappointed that Mr. Souza was not asked to justify his past votes on the budget, increases to salaries and pensions, and a whole range of issues from his first two terms on council and reconcile that with his new view on the budget.”[/i]
I think every candidate should be asked more detailed questions about the budget, since the current and continuing fiscal condition of the city is the top priority.
Try this: “Do you think impasse is a dirty word?”
“Any candidate who doesn’t know where she or he is on the proposals to ban shopping bags and fireplace/woodstove burning should withdraw from the race. What more can the staff offer councillors the night go the vote?”
You missed a critical nuance – the difference between where one stands and how one votes. For example, I would vote against the current ordinance but support the concept in general. So if I were on council, how I would vote would depend on what the ordinance says.
[quote]”Our biggest concern is that Sue Greenwald is the only candidate to take issue with another candidate’s position.[/quote]
Isn’t the purpose of a forum/debate to bring out policy differences? Typically in these forums the candidates take predictable positions.
For example, the vast majority of Davis citizens have rejected two plans to expand housing on the periphery–so guess what — the candidates all oppose or at least take a cautious stand on peripheral growth. Similarly all the candidates now favor fiscal responsibility, though past council members, Sue excepted, simply went along with more generous salaries and benefit packages.
So its good to hear some actual differences in policy. Sue did not attack Brett Lee but simply disagreed (strongly) with his position. Good for her–and if Brett Lee has a different approach he has every right to argue for his position.
What I worry about most in these forums are generic answers which tell us little about how a candidate will vote. To me the exchange was one of the more enlightening moments of the debate.
David, I’m not sure your demand that Sue give Brett deference during any specific rebuttal point just because they’re some kind of ideological twins makes a lot of sense. Why should she deal with the same way she does with other council members or other competitors in this race?
It seems as though we’d complain that she’s “going easy” on him if she treated him differently for that reason or because the handicappers don’t give him much chance to get more votes than she will.
PS–YOU “missed a critical nuance”–I don’t care what the staff report might say or how they might word such an ordinance. I’m looking for candidates who promise not to waste my money or the city’s good nature on efforts to criminalize behavior that’s changing voluntarily. You’re no doubt correct on your premise, just off base trying to apply it to these clear issues.
Dr Wu, Gilda Radner and Jane Curtin made us all laugh by illuminating the difference between saying, A) [i]”I have a different opinion on that issue”[/i] and then talking about the nuances of the policy issue, and B) saying a modified version of [i]”Jane, you ignorant _____”[/i] and then launching into the policy issue discussion.
On [i]Saturday Night Live[/i] the latter was funny. At the Council dias in our fair city the latter is demonstrating an inability to be an effective Ambassador for the City.
“Sue, why are you and the others refusing to respond to questions about the DACHA op-ed and other affordable housing program issues?”
The obvious answer is that the city is involved(or under threat of)with the potential for major legal liabilities.
“You said: “I couldn’t disagree more strongly with Brett Lee.”
…and so, the mere mentioning of his name in connection with his just previously stated public position is somehow a significant issue?
“Everyone else was pretty generic — not necessarily a good thing, by the way.”
There is little doubt that everyone else’s “articulate” statements were well-prepared to address the issues that were revealed during their pre-forum meetings with the Chambers’ people and their responses were heavily laced with what could only be described as political pandering to Chamber interests and concerns.
“Why should she deal with the same way she does….”. Sorry, should read:
“Why shouldn’t she deal with him the same way she does with other council members or other competitors in this race?”
JustSaying:
That’s a fair point, I was trying to raise issues with everyone, that’s the one I noted from Sue. I was not alone on it either.
As for articulating position – I understand your point, but based on my conversations, at least with the current council it’s going to depend on what the ordinance looks like. If the question is where do you stand – then I think you get a cleaner answer.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”I’m not sure your demand that Sue give Brett deference during any specific rebuttal point just because they’re some kind of ideological twins makes a lot of sense. Why should she deal with the same way she does with other council members or other competitors in this race?
It seems as though we’d complain that she’s “going easy” on him if she treated him differently for that reason or because the handicappers don’t give him much chance to get more votes than she will.”[/i]
I don’t think that David is asking Sue to “give Brett deference.” What he is asking her to do is engage the position without denigrating the person.
If Sue wants to be anything other than the “One” in a 4-1 minority on the Council she needs to collaborate and build consensus with those who have the highest probability of being her political allies. Brett is clearly the candidate that 1) best fits the description “political ally” and 2) has the support of the population segment in Davis that has historically supported the issues that Sue holds dearest.
Sue’s actions give every appearance that she would prefer not to have Brett on the Council filling a current version of the role that Lamar filled. I simply don’t understand why she appears to want that outcome.
“Why shouldn’t she deal with him the same way she does with other council members or other competitors in this race?”
And what I would point out is that she didn’t. She singled out one candidate for disagreement.
“Sue, why are you and the others refusing to respond to questions about the DACHA op-ed and other affordable housing program issues?”
“The obvious answer is that the city is involved(or under threat of)with the potential for major legal liabilities. “
That might be an answer that’s “obvious,” davisite2. But, it isn’t sensible given Sue’s long history of criticizing David Thompson, allegations made in the Vanguard by Stephen and the Mayor just weeks ago and the apparently untrue op-ed signed by the entire council recently and sent to the Enterprise and the Vanguard to publish.
What would you call an act by five people who foist such a document on the entire community to read, then go completely quiet when those they accuse offer up proof that the council’s paper and supporting documents apparently are false? Your “obvious answer” is a possibility, but our city council hasn’t yet offered it.
No doubt the “pending lawsuit” gambit been considered, but left in the dust when Harriet or someone observed how hypocritical it would be after the council’s op-ed shenanigans.
There are not many options to clean out the bad taste left by the decision to attack with the hit piece. The only case for silence about it–a reason that would be in the community interest–would be to protect some ongoing settlement effort that ends up successful. But this council’s not known for keeping such negotiations private!
What would such a belated “pending lawsuit” claim do to open discussion about affordable housing programs, RDA’s role, disposal of the DACHA properties, etc., during the campaign season? It’s impossible for candidates to tell us what they support for the city’s affordable housing program in the future without considering our history. And it’s impossible to evaluate the history without looking at our DACHA performance.
While I have serious concerns with Sue being on the council again, I don’t see the issue of Sue specifically stating a difference of opinion with another candidate (Brett).
In terms of the plastic bag issue, I am supportive of environmental care. But, I believe there are more urgent and important matters at hand that the Council should be focusing on. I just wish the Council could focus a vision and stick to the important and urgent issues rather than constantly being sidetracked.
“I just wish the Council could focus a vision and stick to the important and urgent issues rather than constantly being sidetracked. “
So if a commission moves an issue forward such as what happened this week, what exactly do you want the council to do? Again, this is an issue that a number of communities have taken up, it may not be the most important issue before them, but it is before them at this point.
Matt suggests that Sue treated Brett the same way she treats her council colleagues, and is critical of her for it. David says she treated him differently than she treated the other candidates, and is critical of her for it.
You can have it both ways (since you’re two different people), but my point simply that it’s just Sue being Sue–pretty much the same way she always is when she disagrees with anyone, prospective ally or not.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”Matt suggests that Sue treated Brett the same way she treats her council colleagues, and is critical of her for it. David says she treated him differently than she treated the other candidates, and is critical of her for it.
You can have it both ways (since you’re two different people), but my point simply that it’s just Sue being Sue–pretty much the same way she always is when she disagrees with anyone, prospective ally or not.”[/i]
Well said JustSaying. In the context of Thursday night in isolation, Sue did what David has cited. In the broader context of her historical behavior with colleagues and peers, Sue did what I pointed out.
Botton-line, you are absolutely right . . . it was just Sue being Sue.
Oops! “Bottom-line” not “Botton-line”
[quote]He also mentioned that he wanted to eliminate design review and advocated switching to a system of “permitted use” zoning for downtown buildings, which you didn’t report.
Now, Brett’s comment was a pretty heavy statement. Again, it would represent a total departure from our current mechanism — a mechanism that has been associated with some very nice buildings, and which has served us well.
The problem with Brett’s “automatic approval approach” is that the zoning parameters have to be set to the outermost limits. So Brett is saying that a land owner can virtually walk in to the planning department and merely show that the plans conform to the outermost zoning parameters. This means that there is nothing to keep the entire downtown from being built to the outermost parameters of the zoning, which means pretty much lot edge to lot edge and whatever height is set – I believe he would like to start with four stories, but I hope he will correct me himself if I am wrong. And without design review, the buildings could be cheaply unattractively designed.
[/quote]
This is what Brett Lee said:
[quote]Brett Lee: “I differ a little bit from what Sue has said. I believe we should not try to micromanage what businesses locate downtown.” He added, “I believe the downtown, our core area, the height restrictions should be relaxed in a planned thoughtful way.” He believes that the downtown should grow with mixed-use and retails possibilities.[/quote]
Height restrictions should be relaxed in a PLANNED AND THOUGHTFUL WAY. I did not hear the extreme view Council member Sue Greenwald is trying to ascribe to Mr. Lee.
“So if a commission moves an issue forward such as what happened this week, what exactly do you want the council to do? Again, this is an issue that a number of communities have taken up, it may not be the most important issue before them, but it is before them at this point.”
That’s easy, just say, “Get thee behind me!”. If a commission or a concerned citizen or a conflicted city staffer pops up with yet another low-priority concern–send them packing with the council’s thanks and best wishes.
Otherwise, our council members will end up meeting until all hours, approving stuff they end up wishing they hadn’t okayed, carrying important issues over meeting after meeting, resolving high-priority too late to be effective and so on. You wouldn’t want our council to get into that trap, would you?
David, do you know who decides (and approves the necessary funding) to proceed “when a commission moves an issue forward”? What if the council members all feel the way I do about this issue? Are they locked out of any decision making until August, after we’ve spent lots of money on studies, staff reports and ordinance drafts, meetings, when they vote down the ordinance? Just a process question that applies to all city commission operations.
[quote]What would such a belated “pending lawsuit” claim do to open discussion about affordable housing programs, RDA’s role, disposal of the DACHA properties, etc., during the campaign season? It’s impossible for candidates to tell us what they support for the city’s affordable housing program in the future without considering our history. And it’s impossible to evaluate the history without looking at our DACHA performance.[/quote]
The City Council will be forming an affordable housing advisory committee. It is my understanding that past actions will be looked at, to make sure the same mistakes are not made in the future…
Elaine,
In your post, you chose to only quote part of what Brett Lee said. He also is quoted as saying:
“Responded that he likes the residential zoning process where, if there are no variances, the approval process is automatic – that is, “the default assumption is that it will be approved. I’d like the same type of situation for the downtown and I’d like a planned controlled way of raising the height restrictions.” He considers the Chinn Building or the new Yolo Federal Credit Union Building’s height “as good examples of nice attractive buildings that do benefit the downtown.” He wants businesses entering the process “to have some certainty so that they don’t worry at the 11th hour, when they’re getting ready to do final contracts with their contractor, that some entity will come in and stop and say sorry…” Beyond those limitation, there would be a review of the limitations, so they may not get a streamlined process.
I believe that this is the part of his commentary with which Sue took exception. To me, this implies that he favors more loosening of the current review and approval process than is currently the case. This is just one issue and I am not sure that this represents more than just an initially general point of view and is possibly not truly reflective of how he might vote on an actual proposal. As David has pointed out, general tendencies or points of view will not necessarily translate into votes depending on how the proposals are written. It will be interesting to see how the candidates positions evolve over time as they doubtless will.
David M. Greenwald 03/31/12 – 10:34 AM [i]”So if a commission moves an issue forward such as what happened this week, what exactly do you want the council to do?[/i]”
If the item is not a priority to the Council then the commission should be told to table the issue until a later date and not spend any more time or money on it.
“[i]Again, this is an issue that a number of communities have taken up, it may not be the most important issue before them, but it is before them at this point.[/i]”
So what if someone else is looking at it, maybe it is the most important issue facing those other jurisdictions. This is moving forward because it is a pet projects of a few commission members, not because it is an important priority to Davis.
It has been pointed out by others that many voters in town will have one or two candidates they strongly support, and then have to choose between the remaining for their third vote. There have also been suggestions that Sue benefits from many of these ‘third’ votes because of the perceived need for her contrary point of view on the Council. I doubt that Brett will be able to generate enough direct support to be elected, but if he is perceived to be ‘similar’ to Sue in having a view that is contrary to the majority, then he could take some of those third votes. I expect this to be a close election, especially for the third spot. Consequently who voters select for their ‘contrary’ voice may well determine the election. With that in mind, Sue needs to differentiate herself from Brett, more so than from the other candidates.
On a separate note, I think Sue had one of the best performances at the debate. She was clear and concise, and I think greatly benefited from the time restrictions because it forced her out of her normal rambling style of discussion. I still largely disagree with her point of view, but I commend her for her performance.
[b]@David Greenwald:[/b] The Council has a duty to prioritize IMHO. If they lay out, as Brett suggested, 5 priorities and focus on only those 5 priorities, then things would move forward to address the most urgent and important issues. The Commissions, likewise, would know the 5 issues that the Council is focusing on and realize that their “pet projects” might be tabled for a later date. Btw, I’m not a Brett groupie, but I do think he made a valid point.
I’m not an expert on the Commissions. Can someone educate me about process… when a commission puts something forward to the Council, is the Council required to act on it? Or can it be tabled?
[quote]If Sue wants to be anything other than the “One” in a 4-1 minority on the Council she needs to collaborate and build consensus with those who have the highest probability of being her political allies.[/quote]
Funny thing is that even though Sue is often in the minority (not always 4-1 though, often 3-2), again and again the Council ends up moving toward her position. For example:
1. wage and benefits negotiations–Sue was once the lone voice on this issue, now its conventional wisdom
2. Peripheral growth–the only Council member who opposed both CV and WHR, both projects overwhelmingly rejected.
3. water–she was critical of the project, City Council pushed forward but low and behold we are now looking at it again.
The moral I take away from all this is without Sue on the Council a lot of potentially bad policies could be implemented. Its nice that others take positions that are uncontroversial now. Where were they before?
Sue has consistently done her homework and asked the important questions no one else would–and she is generally right. You can’t say that about any other candidate.
Mark:
If there is considerable community interest in exploring a plastic bag ban, and there seems to be, whose to say this is a low priority issue.
BTW, I think its entirely possible that this comes to us through a completely different process similar to what happened down in SLO County.
Dr. Wu, you are missing the point. The real issue is was Sue more effective when Lamar was on the Council than she is now? Or was she less effective?
As it is now, even though she has done precisely what you say above, she still did not “carry the day.”
BTW, Sue has said very clearly that she is for surface water. It is the timing and the structure of the project that she has called to task. Brett has said virtually the exact same thing, just with different issues with the structure. Further, it was not Sue that caused Dan and Rochelle to make the motion on December 6th. It was the public referendum process that did that.
Regarding peripheral growth, a vote on CV and WHR is not exactly the Litmus Test. Was Sue alone on the vote for the renewal of Measure J? What exactly was Lamar’s vote with respect to WHR? Are you saying that the Measure P voting process was a bad idea?
As Paul Harvey would say, [i]”And now you have the rest of the story.”[/i]
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”If there is considerable community interest in exploring a plastic bag ban, and there seems to be, whose to say this is a low priority issue.
BTW, I think its entirely possible that this comes to us through a completely different process similar to what happened down in SLO County.”[/i]
David, I fully support active efforts to reduce our community’s use of “single use plastic bags.” The point where I am a bit uncomfortable with the process the NRC has followed is the choice of a “ban” rather than applying something like a 10 cent fee for each bag used. As Brett Lee pointed out in the debate there are carrots and there are sticks. The NRC seems to have an aversion to carrots.
[b]@David Greenwald[/b]: There’s more urgent matters than a plastic bag ban. It may be important, but it’s not urgent. We don’t have the luxury of spending valuable time on this right now. Maybe later, but not right now.
Dr. Wu,
You’ve cherry-picked a couple of issues, let me suggest a counter interpretation.
You claim: “wage and benefits negotiations–Sue was once the lone voice on this issue, now its conventional wisdom”
Let’s suppose you’re correct here that she was the lone wolf, and we’ll ignore her complicity in getting to this point. I’ll argue she was not influential in getting to this point.
The momentum on this issue swung when the Vanguard started publishing 100K charts back in 08 and 09. By that point, Sue was not a lone wolf anyway, she had Lamar.
Lamar was likely more influential on the Vanguard than Sue.
It was the Vanguard’s advocacy that won over people like Joe, Rochelle and probably Dan.
So I would argue the Vanguard was more influential on this point than Sue. At one point a baffled Bobby weist even posted under a psuedonym that he couldn’t believe a blog could be some influential in completing changing city policy. I’ll have to find that comment.
Brian
You seemed to have picked only one cherry. My claim was that Sue took difficult stands that ultimately were proven right. The corollary to that is that its easy for politicians to take the easy stands (and most do).
Who is to say how we collectively changed our minds on all of these issues but Sue was part of the conversation and she was early. You seem to expect everything from Sue …
Matt: I think what the council ultimately approves will look very different from the HRC proposal – that’s based on the conversations I have had with council members on this.
Concerned: I don’t think time is the most valuable asset at the moment.
David: With all the issues facing the City you really think plastic bags should be a priority? Right up there with tree roots perhaps?
No wonder the meetings last so long and still nothing gets done as we shift our focus to the sideshows instead of the main event.
“If there is considerable community interest in exploring a plastic bag ban, and there seems to be, whose to say this is a low priority issue.
BTW, I think its entirely possible that this comes to us through a completely different process similar to what happened down in SLO County.”
Since you have no basis for your claim that the community wants the city council to “explore” a plastic bag ban–what a weak word anyway to call for spending our time and money–let me suggest the opposite, that there’s more interest in NOT banning paper and plastic shopping bags. My evidence is a rough count of those who spoke at the NRC hearing combined with those who’ve responded in the Vanguard.
What’s your research for the claim of “considerable community interest”? Do the numbers dramatically exceed my survey of a couple dozen outspoken folks? Would you welcome a vote of the people to truly determine citizen interest in banning bags and making stores charge for paper and maintain records and sworn reports?
Please explain what you mean about the SLO ordinance, the one the Vanguard headline claimed (falsely) is essentially the same as our proposed ordinance. It sounds as though you have yet another difference (process?). Since Alan has left all of your readers hanging back at his story, there are lots of unanswered concerns about this ordinance as it now stands.
Do you have any idea of the process we’re in now with respect to who pays for and who approves undertaking the next steps?
[quote]Height restrictions should be relaxed in a PLANNED AND THOUGHTFUL WAY. I did not hear the extreme view Council member Sue Greenwald is trying to ascribe to Mr. Lee.— [b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]Elaine, I think you didn’t see the quote of Brett Lee’s that concerns me. Please read my 7:45 AM post. David quotes Brett talking about an “automatic approval process”. David didn’t quote the sentences when he also talked about switching to permitted-use zoning and elimination of design review.
Brett ALSO said that height restrictions should be relaxed in a planned and thoughtful manner. The part that concerned me was the permitted-use zoning and elimination of design review.
“Since you have no basis for your claim that the community wants the city council to “explore” a plastic bag ban”
Of course I have basis – there people who have put this forward. It may not be sufficient from your standpoint, but it is basis.
“My evidence is a rough count of those who spoke at the NRC hearing combined with those who’ve responded in the Vanguard. “
Several thousand people read the Vanguard each day, most don’t comment on it. Those who do are for whatever significantly (for the most part) more conservative than the community as a whole or the overall readership.
You’re cold in terms of what I meant by the SLO ordinance, you are looking at the wording rather than the structure it arose in. More on that later.
“Do you have any idea of the process we’re in now with respect to who pays for and who approves undertaking the next steps? “
It seems that the process goes to EIR unless the council puts a stop to it. It comes from general fund although they may have alternatives to that.
I’m working on something very different in terms of an overall approach, we’ll see if I can get it together in time for something next week.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”David: With all the issues facing the City you really think plastic bags should be a priority? Right up there with [b]tree roots[/b] perhaps?
No wonder the meetings last so long and still nothing gets done as we shift our focus to the sideshows instead of the main event.”[/i]
Perfect example Mark. The cost of adding an extra 6 inches of material to the sidewalk above the current material and invading roots would be a whole lot less expensive than cost of all the Staff time spent preparing reports on what is a very simple and trivial issue. Plus the solution would be DONE months earlier and the liability risk would be mitigated. The pedestrians walking 6 inches higher above Sea Level would not be a burden on anyone. The trees continue to provide shade and beauty and the pedestrians are safe and the sidewalks are functional. Why should this even be a Council-level issue?
“Matt: I think what the council ultimately approves will look very different from the HRC proposal – that’s based on the conversations I have had with council members on this.”
David, what’s the topic? Human Resources? Historical Resources? Or, are you still one paper and plastic bags (NRC?)?
If still on bags, why would we be spending money to study if council members already, secretly plan on something “very different” when “the council ultimately approves” something. If they, like you, don’t support the onerous reporting requirements for stores, why spend time and money to evaluate impacts and get public input on that aspect? Hence, my question re. process.
If your conversations with councillors were about the NRC bag ordinance, it seems disingenuous for council members to acquiesce to six months of expensive process just to humor one of its commissions. If you’re not talking about the NRC proposal…never mind.
NRC, sorry.
I wouldn’t characterize it as the council members having a secret plan. What I would suggest is another way that this will come forward that will make a lot more sense.
Hi Don Shor et al,
I was recently forwarded a comment that Don recently made on the Vanguard, “… it is clear to me that the Chamber and the DDBA are going to try to posit that certain candidates are harmful to business and downtown interests. You [Michael Bisch] and Kemble have made that clear.” I must refute that assertion and ask that you please reconsider. The DDBA is NOT a partner in Chamber PAC efforts, though they are watching with interest and the Board of the DDBA is kept up to date on our progress.
We worked very hard to create tough, direct questions for EVERY candidate based on their records and public/private statements. Souza: abstention on 2nd&B Ogrydziak project, water rates unfair to businesses. Wolk: Davis Diamonds zoning inconsistency, micro-managing technical staff. Frerichs: micro-managing property owners and “allowable/desired” businesses. Lee: inconsistent position on peripheral growth. Obviously, with the time constraints we could not be exhaustive and we were hoping that the rebuttal cards wold allow every candidate to weigh in on the issues important to them and/or call out inconsistencies that the moderator did not.
I believe that there was a level playing field for all of the candidates: everyone was similarly cut-off when their time was out and within the time constraints, I attempted to fairly draw out every candidate on specific answers… everyone got a “yellow” card for being off-topic and Wolk was the only one to get a “red-card” for being off topic.
Regarding Sue Greenwald’s “profit” question, please note the last part of the question, “Is profit a four-letter word or[i] somehow inconsistent with the Davis way of life[/i]?” Some people in this town believe that different types of businesses and levels of profit are unsavory and should be regulated/taxed differently. That is a legitimate concern for any business who desires a clear path to open/expand in our community AND for business people who make their home here and so generously give back to our community.
The desire for a higher quality of life is the basis of regulations, zoning and community planning. In modern times, we recognize that certain industrial/commercial activities have different negative effects on the community that must be mitigated. I don’t want a nightclub opening up behind my house because of the noise and probable decrease in safety, but if the City has the proper regulations and taxes/fees in place to mitigate the sound and ensure safety then I might be supportive. Many people argue for higher gasoline prices (like Europe) to pay for the costs incurred by road maintenance, increased incidence of asthma near highways and to subsidize safer pedestrian and bike access.
The question was meant to allow Mrs. Greenwald to explore the various types of for-profit businesses that she believes should be treated differently and HOPEFULLY, uncover the beginning of some community consensus on how we can all be more open and up-front about how to regulate business. From my perspective, business owners for the most part do not mind local regulations, as long as those regulations are clear, consistent and don’t change in the middle of the game.
Our fellow citizens are entitled to privately villainize successful business owners for being “greedy” or somehow taking advantage of our community (this is more common than you think), but we believe that type of behavior completely undermines successful community building. Mrs. Greenwald, when pressed, did admit that land developers, redevelopers and other unnamed businesses should have more profits “extracted” from them, though she denied ever villainizing business owners.
The business community would much prefer that this policy discussion about financial regulations on businesses be held publicly and respectfully, rather than behind closed doors which creates too many divisions and misunderstandings. Then, perhaps we can come to some community consensus on how to best regulate local businesses, and then legislate and codify the results so that we can all expect clear and consistent behavior from our elected officials and staff.
For the record, the ChamberPAC will NOT be working against any candidates. IF (and that is still a big IF) the ChamberPAC decides to actually endorse and support candidates we believe to be business friendly and good Ambassadors for our community, our efforts will only be positive in nature. There will be NO negative campaigning, directly, indirectly or by insinuation.
Please know that our leadership continues to have in-depth conversations about the benefits and disadvantages of a more visible and active role for the ChamberPACin the political sphere. The consensus now is that the business community ( in our case, that is 550+ businesses who employee tens of thousands of people in this region) must step forward and advocate for more efficient government and rational, community supported decisions so that we do not stagnate and miss opportunities to improve our collective quality of life.
I hope that in the coming months you will all continue to learn more about how our Chamber of Commerce, under new leadership, is providing more value to our members, actively trying to improve the quality of life for our community and attempting to create more respectful working relationships throughout our community. I would be happy to sit down with anyone in person to clear up any further misunderstandings and strengthen community relationships.
Don, Thanks for your time and all you do to raise the bar on respectful dialogue in our community. I don’t have the time to follow the Vanguard comments section, but I’m told that you do a good job of keeping those conversations respectful and on-topic.
Sincerely,
Kemble K. Pope
Davis Chamber of Commerce PAC
756-5160
director (at) davischamber (dot) com
PS – I hope that you will all join us for the annual Chamber of Commerce event, Celebrate Davis, on the evening of Thursday, May 17th in Community Park.
[quote]Brett Lee:…the default assumption is that it will be approved. I’d like the same type of situation for the downtown and I’d like a PLANNED CONTROLLED WAY of raising the height restrictions.” He considers the Chinn Building or the new Yolo Federal Credit Union Building’s height “as good examples of nice attractive buildings that do benefit the downtown …Beyond those limitation, there would be a review of the limitations, so they may not get a streamlined process…
Medwoman: I believe that this is the part of his commentary with which Sue took exception. To me, this implies that he favors more loosening of the current review and approval process than is currently the case.[/quote]
There is a huge difference between saying Brett Lee favors more loosening of the current review and approval process (which if you knew anything about the current process you would realize it is riddled with inconsistencies, favoritism, contradictions, unfairness, antiquatedness, etc.) and what Sue indicated:
[quote]Sue Greenwald:Brett is saying that a land owner can virtually walk in to the planning department and merely show that the plans conform to the outermost zoning parameters. This means that there is nothing to keep the entire downtown from being built to the outermost parameters of the zoning, which means pretty much lot edge to lot edge and whatever height is set – I believe he would like to start with four stories[/quote]
Okay, Elaine. I guess I will have to repeat more of the earlier post.
[quote]Brett Lee likes the residential zoning process where, if there are no variances, the approval process is automatic – that is, “the default assumption is that it will be approved. I’d like the same type of situation for the downtown — [b]Brett Lee as paraphrased by David Greenwald[/b].
He also mentions that he wants to eliminate design review and advocated switching to a system of “permitted use” zoning for downtown buildings, which you didn’t report. [/quote]These are the comments that concern me. The fact that he said that we wants to raise the height limit from 4 stories to higher in the future “in a planned and relaxed way” is not the topic of my concerns.
If Brett Lee wants to give a more detailed view of his thoughts on permitted-use zoning and design review, I would really appreciate it, because I am really concerned about how the future council will vote on this issue. I would also like to know how the other candidates feel about it.
After a further 50 reader postings, I believe that its worth repeating my #6 posting which should be enough to garner a vote from every Davis resident who wants at least one Council member who can be relied upon to “KEEP THE COUNCIL HONEST” as Dunning so succinctly put it in his commentary on the current field of candidates.
“When Brett Lee supported increasing height limitations, Ms. Greenwald pounced in her rebuttal, stating, “I couldn’t disagree more strongly with Brett Lee. It’s against everything I’ve ever believed in for our downtown.”
But then she uses Vancouver as a model, a city that is 20 stories high. Go figure?
Sue wants to protect downtown from the wrong kind of growth but thinks converting old houses to restaurants is a good idea. One wonders what is to replace this hollowing out of our downtown housing stock? Not peripheral growth Sue opposes that too.
Oh she will argue we should get that PG&E land. One wonders how you get unwilling sellers to sell? Eminent domain condemnation! Of course not. So, while the housing stock of Davis decreases as we eternally wait for PG&E to see the light, Sue can argue she is not opposed to everything. No just everything the current reality allows. Hey its not absolute.
[quote]But then she uses Vancouver as a model, a city that is 20 stories high. Go figure? — [b]Toad[/b][/quote]
Actually, Toad, I believe the tallest building in Vancouver is 62 stories high. My friend’s condo there is in a building about 35 stories high. I am happy you brought this topic up, Toad, because it is a good example of the fact that the building of more ownership housing units does not necessarily bring prices down. In Vancouver, the more units they built, the more expensive housing became. And the housing is very, very expensive.
The point I was making, Toad, is exactly that even in Vancouver they felt it important to put in place a conscious policy of discouraging redevelopment along their commercial strip, which is largely funky old one and two story buildings.
Sue said”The point I was making, Toad, is exactly that even in Vancouver they felt it important to put in place a conscious policy of discouraging redevelopment along their commercial strip, which is largely funky old one and two story buildings.”
But like it or not Sue, Vancouver provided a way for the city to grow, something you have failed to address accomplish in 12 years.
[i]”He considers [b]the Chinn Building[/b] or the new Yolo Federal Credit Union Building’s height ‘as good examples of nice attractive buildings that do benefit the downtown.'”[/i]
It is [u]the Chen Building[/u], not the Chinn Building or the Chin Building. It was named for Lee Chen and his family. Mr. Chen passed away a couple of years ago.
[img]http://www.loopnet.com/Attachments/E/5/B/xy_E5B19AC4-3C32-4872-8ED4-B33B7D348562__.jpg[/img]
Sue said “Toad, because it is a good example of the fact that the building of more ownership housing units does not necessarily bring prices down. In Vancouver, the more units they built, the more expensive housing became. And the housing is very, very expensive. “
Of course this is just nonsense as a quick glance at the first MLS site that google provided when I asked for Vancouver real estate.
Check it out yourself codos as low as $150,000.
http://jaybanks.ca/vancouver-condos/vancouver-downtown-condos.php
This is the kind of stuff Sue likes to put out there that Vancouver real estate is expensive and a commodity that defies supply and demand, or Davis real estate defies it too, or that building leads to bank robbery, or that we should build on land that is not available by owner or any number of things that upon close examination make no sense at all. The notion that people take her seriously is really a poor reflection on the political sensibility of Davis.
Sue, don’t let them bait you. 75% of Davis voted against growth in the last election in which development was on the ballot. You don’t need to defend yourself, most of Davis gets it and you will be re-elected if you just stick to your guns. Don’t bring yourself down to their level.
[i]”The momentum on this issue swung when the Vanguard started publishing 100K charts back in 08 and 09.”[/i]
No. Momentum changed because the housing market collapsed. Even though I was writing about the profligate compensation of the City employees going back to 2003 (when in my column I produced the list of all twelve $100k city employees) and I wrote about the pending collapse of our housing bubble in late 2004 and what that would bring, and David started writing about the labor deals some years after that, the only thing that really counts is that the bills started coming due when the revenues stopped flowing.
Kemble: [i]”We worked very hard to create tough, direct questions for EVERY candidate based on their records and public/private statements.”[/i]
It was obvious to me–and since reading David’s articles I think obvious to a lot of other people–that your questions to Sue were different than your questions to all the other four candidates. That is not to say you posed softballs to them and only heaters to Sue.
What you did, to your discredit, is you prefaced your questions to Sue with claims that she had said or done or stood for various things and then based your question on that pretext, when in at least 3 instances, such as your “rent control” claim, she had never said she was for that or at least claims she has never said that.
I should add that I have spoken with Sue, one on one, maybe 300 times, about issues of downtown and development. Dozens of times she has told me that she worries that tearing down small, old commercial buildings in the core and replacing them with larger, shiny, new buildings will result in the loss of independent, local merchants to be replaced by franchise operators or businesses owned by large corporations. In those hundreds of conversations–Sue can confirm we have talked one on one that much–she has never once mentioned to me rent control or any other price-fixing scheme.
I say this with the note that Sue does not agree with my vision for the area bounded by 1st and E to 5th and G. I favor permitting the replacement of small, mostly ugly buildings constructed in the 1950s to the 1970s with larger buildings that offer first rate ground floor retail space, second floor office and third floor residential. In areas along G Street, especially, where we have public parking lots fronting the street, I would like to see the City permit and encourage redevelopment, so the parking shifts back toward the rail line, and retail moves up to G Street.
[i]”… a good example of the fact that the building of more ownership housing units does not necessarily bring prices down. In Vancouver, the more units they built, [b]the more expensive housing became[/b].”[/i]
What really happened in Vancouver, BC flowed from something which happened in 1897 in China.
Really? Yes.
At the end of the 19th C., Great Britain signed a 100 year agreement with the rot of the Chinese emperor which handed Hong Kong over to the English for 100 years. (The Brits had run Hong Kong prior to that for many years. This agreement just formalized it and put an end date on matters.)
So why did that affect the cost of living in Vancouver, BC?
It did so because in the years leading up to 1997, when China (run by the evil Communist bastards) was going to take back control of Hong Kong and the benign Brits were to pull out, virtually every wealthy Hong Kong resident–and because Hong Kong was a hugely successful capitalist port it had tens of thousands of multi-millionaires–bought Canadian citizenship and property in Vancouver, BC, as insurance against the Communists f&cking up Hong Kong.
It was this influx of Chinese people and more importantly money from Hong Kong which caused property values in Vancouver to skyrocket. And even though most Hong Kongers who bought citizenship in Canada never moved to Canada, they invested a lot of money there.
Another thing which happened to Vancouver was that in the last 10-15 years, as China itself has produced hundreds of thousands of multi-millionaires, many of them decided to invest in Vancouver, also. Chinese people and Chinese money (first from Hong Kong, now from all over China) have played a big part in the increase in housing prices ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-16/chinese-spreading-wealth-make-vancouver-homes-pricier-than-nyc.html[/url]) in all of British Columbia for the last 25 years.
Thank you Rich for that information. We can all (Sue included) consider that to be a Paul Harvey moment.
Elaine
“which if you knew anything about the current process you would realize it is riddled with inconsistencies, favoritism, contradictions, unfairness, antiquatedness, etc.”
You are correct in the implication that I know nothing about the current process. But from what you just wrote, it would seem to me that what is needed is more consistent and fair regulation, not necessarily less regulation overall.
Well said medwoman. The City could learn a lot from Yolo County on this score.
Matt
Can you elaborate on your comment ? I don’t know anything about the Yolo County processes either.
Yolo County Planning and Public Works has a very well thought out, very well executed process that eliminates a substantial amount of the uncertainty that currently exists in the same process in the City of Davis. Their process is organized, consistent and reliable.
Rich,
Nice history of Vancouver, Rich. Hong Kong was the source of Vancouver wealth, but every city has its source of wealth or lack thereof. If Vancouver had stayed a small city, do you think all the wealthy immigrants would have come? If Vancouver had stayed a small town, do you think its housing prices would be 10 times what they are today because supply was restricted? Of course not. The housing demand is elastic in towns that are considered appealing.
Check out this cool video of Vancouver housing prices over time: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqOn5XEm86A[/url]
Sue should have been named “Terpsichore” .
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Terpsichore.jpg/220px-Terpsichore.jpg[/img]
She has the hat right.
And, the steps !
Sue said “Check out this cool video of Vancouver housing prices over time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqOn5XEm86A“
So now your arguments are based on cartoons. But wait, you started off touting how Vancouver has preserved its downtown, now you want to change the discussion to real estate speculation, but the facts remain. If Vancouver had not gone up it would not have met demand. Even if they would not have overbuilt they would have needed to do something to deal with actual demand. This is where your comparison to Davis fails and fails so absolutely that I dare you to ever make the comparison again in a debate where the other candidates will have a chance to bury you with it. You are so absolutely wrong that it calls into question your lucidity just as so many things you have done or said that have alienated your once mayoral base off support. Yes some of us can admit our mistakes. As an example I voted for you 4 times. Luckily, you only won two of those times. People forget that this is the sixth time in the last 16 years you have run for council. Honestly 12 years is enough.
Once again we see that the monitoring of nasty comments on this blog is not applied even handedly.
It is clear that a team of people is bent on Sue bashing. Disagreements over policy are fine but the previous comment and some others cross the line. If this is to be a true community forum the monitoring needs to be applied evenly.
“Once again we see that the monitoring of nasty comments on this blog is not applied even handedly.”
That’s a ludicrous charge. Don Shor is in charge of monitoring comments and he has defended Sue the last several days. So how can that be?
Dr. Wu- Sue is a public figure, running for public office . Some have pointed out the fallacy of her Vancouver example and her avoidance of questions posed . Comes with the territory . The fact that she responds with the same non-answers and then blames the questioners for their misunderstanding is, to me, disingenuous and frequently amusing . But then I live in a town where we let petty Vegas thugs squeeze us for an arena, while people are camped out in the rain at Cal Expo, so that they can see a dentist or a doctor . So please feel free to go off on KJ on sacbee.com anytime . (I sure as heck do !)
I have removed several comments that were posted this morning before I got a chance to check this thread. Concerns about comments and moderation practices can be directed to me at donshor@gmail.com
I agree with David that that is a ludicrous charge to lay on Don . . . and as one of the offending parties I am offended.
It is interesting to me to see that Dr. Wu finds either of the following as nasty
1) The use of the name of the Muse of Sidestepping to point out the act of sidestepping.
2) Mr Toad’s straightforward description of why Sue has lost his vote.
Perhaps Dr. Wu will come back and explain his/her rationale.
So Sue gets carte blanche to dodge questions and pithy comments are removed because they are deemed unworthy by the apparently partisan moderator . (“It’s clear enough that the Chamber is against Sue, but I would have thought the executive director wouldn’t have been so blatant about it.”) Trying to reverse your perceived slight of Sue by the Chamber ?
Hi,
Just a quick post to mention a couple of things:
I think it was fine that Sue pointed out a real policy difference between us during the debate. I didn’t take it personally or think it was inappropriate; that was the purpose of the rebuttal cards. I am not sure she characterizes my views accurately, but I am not too worried about that.
I did happen to see the earlier posts that Don removed; I am glad he removed them. I was out at the time and planned on emailing him to ask about those posts when I got home today. Now that I am home (for 10 minutes!) I have a chance to write. I think that we should as best as possible keep the debate about the issues. The posts referred to another candidate in a way that seemed to cross the line. I am not sure they really furthered the discussion in a meaningful way. I know the person is a public figure but the image seemed inappropriate.
Just my 2 cents.
Happy Sunday!
While I find the sanitation of certain comments that showed a woman’s breast an over reach of the censorship powers granted to someone unsuited to the task I at least understand it. As for the removal of my post that addressed the substantive failure of Sue to rebuke my criticism of her absolutely absurd comparison of Davis and Vancouver I am truly flummoxed as to the sin for which my comment has been relegated to the dustbin.
Comments or criticisms of moderation can be directed to me at donshor@gmail.com
[quote]I think it was fine that Sue pointed out a real policy difference between us during the debate. I didn’t take it personally or think it was inappropriate; that was the purpose of the rebuttal cards. I am not sure she characterizes my views accurately, but I am not too worried about that. [/quote]
I didn’t think Sue characterized your views with much accuracy, because it was not what I heard the evening of the debate. I assume you will clarify your specific views as the City Council election debates continue. What I did glean from the debate was a difference in approach between you and Sue. What I heard Sue state was that she wants to keep the downtown “as is”, to wit – “funky”; whereas you prefer to be more flexible in approach in a planned and thoughtful way. I don’t think being flexible in a planned and thoughtful way implies a desire for an exaggerated wholesale makeover of the entire downtown as was mischaracterized.
I would much prefer candidates tell us what they themselves would or would not do. I am not interested in candidates rephrasing what they think another candidate might or might not do.
It was an interesting forum. My only complaint was that the moderator talked too much. I think he was allowed to talk longer than the candidates. He described the rules in detail at the beginning, but then seemed to add new rules or variations of these rules as the forum went on and then took valuable time to explain the new rule/variation. I got tired of hearing his voice. The questions asked appeared to be an attempt to flesh out weaknesses – Wolk on his Davis Diamonds vote, Souza on his negative vote on a specific development project on B Street, Sue on developing in downtown Davis, Lee and Frerichs on their inexperience.
All did well, but some seemed more prepared than others. Sue quickly adjusted her responses to fit the time alloted and I believe she actually benefited from the time constraints. It was interesting to note that she could effectively make her point or argument in 90 seconds or less. Lee was slow in his responses and did not adjust this, so many of his responses were cut off and ended up incomplete or vague in nature, which made me feel that he hadn’t really resolved where he stands on more than a few narrow issues. Frerich did fine answering the limited questions. His understanding of planning issues appeared to be his strength. Wolk and Souza did well with the questions asked and explained themselves well.
It was very polite. However, I didn’t really learn anything new about each candidate.