Unlike some, the Vanguard does not fret the fact that the Davis Chamber of Commerce has chosen to take a more active role in Davis politics. In fact, we applaud it. We think more people in general need to, and perhaps this will facilitate that.
Executive Director Kemble Pope further told the Vanguard that the Chamber PAC seeks to be fully transparent, and will go above and beyond current reporting guidelines to have weekly reports on donations and expenditures. The Vanguard has requested to know who voted for the endorsements, but over the weekend, at least, has not heard back.
The Vanguard has attempted to remain as neutral as possible in this race. Part of that is so that we can perform what we believe is our most important duty, which is to ask the tough questions of the candidates and call the candidates on issues whether we agree or disagree with their core message.
Previously, we called out the incumbents on their vote on Davis Diamonds, we called out Dan Wolk for his decision to play to the crowd on Crown Castle, and we called out Sue Greenwald for going negative against Brett Lee in a debate.
Looking at the council race from the Chamber of Commerce’s perspective, two of their endorsements make a good deal of sense. However, they ought to be at least somewhat troubled by the decision by two of their selections – Dan Wolk and Stephen Souza – to vote for an exemption for Davis Diamonds to move into the auto mall at the cost, potentially, of sizable amounts of sales tax.
At the same time, that is simply one vote, whereas there is an even bigger disconnect for one of the endorsed candidates.
When the Chamber launched their PAC back in late March, they did so with a concern about “significant structural budget deficits.”
They wrote, “Parcel tax measures and fee increases have been implemented with yet more proposals under consideration to fund remaining services. Deferred maintenance on streets, water, and other vital infrastructure continue to accrue with no clear strategy to address these deficits threatening to further degrade our quality of life. Yet many community opinion makers insist that we must maintain the status quo and abdicate our collective responsibility to effectively address these challenges to our quality of life.”
It can be argued that on the current council, there is no greater culprit than Stephen Souza when it comes to the current state of the budget.
It was Stephen Souza who, during his first term, took $3 million that the city would annually collect as the result of their half cent sales tax measure, and virtually gave it directly to the firefighters in the form a 36% salary increase.
The voters had passed the measure back in 2004, ostensibly to avoid service cuts, but instead it helped push total compensation for firefighters to nearly $150,000 a year.
It was Stephen Souza who, on the brink of the economic collapse, insisted that the city had a balanced budget and a 15% reserve, despite at that time what was $13 million in deferred maintenance.
It was Stephen Souza who helped pushed through not only the budget in 2009 by a 3-2 vote, but the series of MOUs in 2009 and 2010 that did little to change the status quo. He was the swing vote on all of those and went against the side of fiscal sustainability.
Yes, now he says he gets it. And he may very well understand, as he says, that we can no longer continue with business as usual. But to date, he has not actually voted in that direction.
He had the chance last June to help the new council led by Joe Krovoza, Rochelle Swanson and Dan Wolk put $1 million into road repair and another $1.5 million to shore up unfunded health and pension liabilities, and declined to do so.
Perhaps he was playing to 150 city employees. Perhaps he was sincere.
The city still has not taken those steps and now we approach the latest round of MOUs in a crisis. The city needs to find a way to cut costs, up to $7 million.
And we understand why Mr. Souza, in other areas, is alluring to the business community.
When the Vanguard asked him how he will reduce costs by $7 million in the coming years, he talked about organizational restructuring and revenue growth.
He writes, “My definition of economic development is a collaborate process by which government, private sector, the university, and nonprofits partners work together creating a sustainable condition for economic growth, job creation and a better quality of life within the values of our community.”
No one can disagree with that. On the other hand even if we can “increase and diversify revenues by attracting new businesses and entertainment to our vibrant downtown and neighborhood shopping centers,” we are not going to make a huge dent in the budget as our previous analysis shows. We are only going to get to millions in savings by cutting millions from the budget, and that means either layoffs or employee concessions.
So, is it a disconnect for the chamber?
Not completely. The Chamber obviously primarily supports business development and Mr. Souza is probably in their minds among the stronger candidates in that area. Certainly his answer to the Vanguard on the budget suggests that.
It does not take much of stretch to see that the Chamber folks – at least some of those posting on the Vanguard – have serious disagreements with Councilmember Sue Greenwald.
On the other hand, Brett Lee is a new face, an unknown, and they probably took issues with some of his stands as well, and perhaps do not believe he can win.
In short, totalling it all up, it makes sense that Stephen Souza would be the pick of the Chamber. It is important to look at endorsements for what they are. They tell us how a known group with known values evaluates a given candidate.
In the end, it is up to the voters to decide if they agree or disagree with that assessment.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Souza is about the most anti-business candidate/Council Member that Davis has ever had. He gave away millions and millions of public money to the employee union(s) that walked precincts for him and Saylor.
He supported Covell Village, a project that was facially a huge drain on city coffers in the best of times, and which would have most likely turned by 2008 into a near bankrupt sea of half built homes, like its friend up the road, Springlake. CV also would have shaved huge amounts of value from existing Davis homes. Chamber PAC: how is THAT being business friendly?
He and Saylor gave away millions and millions of the Measure S sales tax increment increase to the firefighters in 2005. In 2004, the CC and staff told the voters the extra money was for parks and rec programs. I voted to put it on the ballot; man, were we all duped.
He has repeatedly been the third vote to block meaningful City budget reform.
He is the JPA Chair and primary CC chearleader for the surface water project and the rate debacle last fall that nearly lifted about $500 million out of the wallets of Davis and Woodland rate payers. There is no proof we need any plant, let alone the one he pushed with no rate study supporting the rates.
Souza should move to Stockton, which seems to like the voting philisophies of CC members like Souza. (Stockton is now nearly bankrupt.)
Dear Chamber PAC: sorry, but you could not have made a worse choice of pro-business candidate than what you did with Souza. I understand you want to give him a tip for his votes over the years, but why make yourselves look so bad?
Harrington has evolved in recent years into the perfect contrarian indicator. Over the weekend he expressed hypocritical PAC disclosure concerns, now a negative critique. The PAC must be on the right track.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Is Kemble Pope both the executive director of the Chamber and Souza’s campaign manager?
http://stephensouza.com/node/48
He is not. That is four years old I believe, as evidenced by the fact that April 13 was a Friday this year, not a Sunday.
Good luck with “propriety” standards for the Vanguard, where Mr Harrington can rail unchecked and Mr Li is expunged from the record.
I could be wrong, but when I read your article David, it seems that you feel the best endorsement option for the Chamber PAC was [i]”Anybody but Sue.”[/i] Is that a fair assessment?
That was my reading through the window-panes at their selection.
hpierce-Too well said .
Mr. Harrington cannot “rail unchecked” as he can assure you. And the topic of this thread is the Chamber’s endorsements.
The problem For Souza is that what I said is all public, all recorded, and historically factual. I may put a little judgmental comments into the mix, but the basis is all a matter of his voting record. So, why are you shooting the messenger? You guys all did it during the lead up to the referendum that stopped the surface water plant give-away.
In contrast to Steve Souza’s irresponsible votes regarding city finances, Sue Greenwald has for years been voice and vote on the council for fiscal prudence and caution about the unfunded liabilities that would come to haunt the city and strap the budget – as she said they would and have. That’s why I support her candidacy and will vote for her.
For the first time in 15 years I am voting for Sue G, based on her votes for sound budget practices, and her NO vote on Dan Wolk’s motion to increase the water rates, and her motion to put the rate increase on the ballot (not one of the CC seconded her motion).
Tell me, why on earth would any Davis business person vote for Souza? Or homeowner who has a tight budget for city utilities, etc.?
The Chamber should have tossed Souza, and at least endorsed Brett Lee. He is a responsible and reasonable engineer.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Brett Lee […] is a responsible and reasonable engineer.”[/i]
I agree wholeheartedly Michael.
Souza’s comment several years ago that he votes city money for his friends, no matter what they want it for, may be a clue as to why the
CC PAC is endorsing Souza.
Eagle Eye: can you please provide a cite to a public document that supports your statement that Steve “votes city money for his friends”? If it’s black and white that he said it that way, in a public record or email, I might put it on a card and mail to the voters.
Hey eagle eye, you might have keen eyesight, but your memory is a bit faulty. You don’t need to seek clues as to why the Chamber PAC endorsed Souza, Wolk, and Frerichs. David reported the PAC’s reasononing in detail over the weekend and he provided the video as well. Remember? You commented on the very thread.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
I can understand why commercial development interests would endorse Stephen Souza. I don’t know why retail business owners would. So the Chamber’s endorsement is in the interest of one subset of the Chamber, but against the interests of another.
Well, Don, the retailers are supporting the PAC effort. You will see that is the case in the weekly campaign disclosures. The reasons for the retailer support are clearly stated in the PAC press releases.
“So the Chamber’s endorsement is in the interest of one subset of the Chamber, but against the interests of another.” Don, this statement is factually incorrect.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
People can rail all they want, but I trust a lot of thought went into the decision of Souza, Wolk and Frerichs by the PAC. I’m curious if Michael Harrington(or anyone who opposes the selections) attended the brown bag lunches hosted by the DDBA to hear from those candidates directly. That would have been the time and place to ask questions and challenge the candidates on their views/stances relating to businesses. I’m sure there were other forums as well. It’s so easy sometimes to criticize from the sidelines, from the safety of the keyboard.
I will look forward to the list of contributors to see which retailers are satisfied with this outcome:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/Targetimpactautotrips.png[/img]
I especially look forward to seeing what percentage of Davis retailers have joined in this Chamber effort.
Michael:[i] “So the Chamber’s endorsement is in the interest of one subset of the Chamber, but against the interests of another.”
Don, this statement is factually incorrect.
[/i]
If a council member has taken positions that harm existing retailers, and the Chamber endorses that council member, then the Chamber is acting against the interests of the retail members. As the Chamber has done before and is doing again.
My statement stands.
Can anyone provide a link to the disclosure statement of who has contributed to the ChamberPAC, and which Chamber members are involved in it?
Don, you keep sniping about the Chamber and retailers, but it’s all kind of insider lingo and hints. Maybe you’ve explained all this before, but what’s the beef you suggest exists between the organization and Davis “retail businesses”? For the benefit of the non-business readers, bring us up to speed.
JS: Isn’t not a mystery, it’s about Target.
[i]”Isn’t not a mystery, it’s about [b]Target[/b].”[/i]
Isn’t not???
I bought some short pants ($10.99) and a nice leather belt ($17.99) yesterday at Target. I have no idea where else in Davis I would buy either of those items. I also don’t know if any other Davis retailers would offer prices anywhere close to what I paid for similar quality.
I am happy to pay the Davis sales tax at Target. If it were up to the folks Don seems to be referring to, I would be shopping in Woodland and paying Woodland’s sales tax. But I understand their theory: Not having Target would make Davis better?
The Chamber has very few retail members. In 2006 the Chamber endorsed Target. The first two public speakers (Jerry Adler and Bill Streng) at the city council meeting on the subject were from the Chamber, introduced themselves as representing the Chamber, and spoke in favor of the project. At the time, I noted how few retailers locally were actually members of the Chamber. Ultimately the Chamber board backed off from their endorsement, taking a very quiet “neutral” stance after Jennifer Anderson blistered them for what they had done.
There are a total of 17 local retail businesses who are members of the Davis Chamber of Commerce. They comprise a total of about 5 – 6% of the total membership, and are a tiny fraction of the number of retailers in town. Unfortunately, to most people “Chamber of Commerce” means retailers. But it doesn’t really. Not locally, and not at the state or national levels either. As noted on the previous thread, the membership comes from other business interests. If they support these political actions by the Chamber, fine. But it is important that the public understand two things:
The local Chamber of Commerce does not represent local retailers.
The actions of the ChamberPAC do not represent local retailers.
A few, I’m sure, subscribe to what is being done. You can look on the Chamber membership directory and see which of your local retailers are in the Chamber. I will be very curious which, if any, have actually contributed to this PAC.
The reason I am singling out Stephen Souza on this is that he actively promoted Second Street Crossing (the site of Target). When I was giving local talks against it, I was usually right before or after Stephen. He and Don Saylor deserve much of the credit for promoting it and moving it forward. Thus it should be a consideration for any local business considering whom to endorse or support financially: Stephen has taken a public position that led to direct harm to local retailers.
Rich: [i]Not having Target would make Davis better?[/i]
Not having subverted the General Plan and its guiding principles would kept Davis better. Target was welcome at any time to build a 35,000 sq ft store in one of the existing shopping centers. That way, there wouldn’t be a measured 22% loss of traffic to those shopping centers due to Second Street Crossing.
To put it another way, Rich, the rules that Big 5 and OfficeMax and all the other chains abide by were flouted in the planning and development of Second Street Crossing. As a result, those stores are very likely adversely affected by the change in traffic patterns. When traffic is down, smaller tenants in those centers suffer. There are substantial vacancies at the South Davis shopping center, for example. Vacancies are the first part of blight.
So Second Street Crossing has, [i]ipso facto,[/i] created blight.
Unfortunately, both Stephen Souza and Don Saylor apparently didn’t think that would happen. Or something. So they (the other council members, except Sue, did also — but they actively promoted it) initiated and promoted a change in local retail planning that harmed local retailers, and created blight. It was predictable and predicted.
[i]”Not having subverted the General Plan and its guiding principles would have kept Davis better.”[/i]
One of the key arguments of deferring to the rules and restrictions of the General Plan is that [i]the public supports the General Plan[/i], that the General Plan reflects the wants and desires of the people of Davis, and that the GP was written with public input.
Yet when Target was put up for a vote of the people, it passed. (Granted, the win was narrow.) Since Target has opened, the people of Davis have been shopping there. The store was crowded on Sunday afternoon when I stopped in. When I drive by (on I-80), Target’s parking lot never seems shy of cars.
If the General Plan does not have the support of the people, then it needs to be revised. The popular vote in favor of Target was ultimately a revision in line with what the public wants. It is what the GP should be.
Along those lines, my guess is that if a developer wanted to build a shopping mall on the north side of Covell Blvd* which included a large department store (such as Nordstrom or Macy’s or a similar brand) and a Costco or one of its competitors and a large scale electronics/appliances warehouse type store, the people of Davis would vote to approve such a project. That type of retail project is currently outside the scope of the General Plan (or better said contrary to the restrictions of the GP). But if I am right that it would have popular support in a referendum, then it’s worth questioning whether the GP is really a reflection of the people’s vision in various respects and whether some of that much touted “public input” was not really the exertion of muscle by special interests looking to protect their own finances.
*Although I think the people of Davis would approve this, I don’t think the two owners of that land (from the rail tracks/F Street to Pole Line) would do it for two reasons: 1) they seem convinced that Davis needs more single-family housing units and that use is more profitable; and 2) retail is overbuilt in our region, now, and I doubt that large retailers would be interested in that project. I do, however, think that its distance from the interstate [i]would not[/i] be a detriment for most big-box retailers, there, if its scale and features were such that it drew citywide and regional shoppers. But given the state of our economy and the sad state of retail in general, no one is going to propose such a project in Davis.
[i]” and whether some of that much touted “public input” was not really the exertion of muscle by special interests looking to protect their own finances.”[/i]
Or conversely, whether the outcome of that election was affected by the massive spending disparity by the special interests protecting their own finances.
It’s easier to win a special election than to control the outcome of a public planning process.
I was blind and now can see. Thank you.
Now that I understand it’s all about Target, I’ve got a some questions. So, what is the change in Chamber membership of the aforementioned “retail business” category since the organization supported Target?
As I remember a recent discussion about the city’s agreement with Target, most every type of “retail business” in Davis is protected from competition from businesses that will build in the Target shopping center.
Second, do our downtown businesses still really hold a grudge about Target now that we had some time to observe the impacts? And, finally, are the Target sales tax revenues helping out city revenue levels (esp. compared to the auto row business upon which we’ve relied in the past?
It’s about planning and deal-making, not Target.
It’s about respect for the collaborative public planning process that we use in Davis. Another good example would be the ConAgra site. The city council appointed a housing task force, with members from a broad spectrum of the community. Hundreds of hours of deliberations, remarkable output. The possible housing sites in Davis were ranked green, yellow, etc. So why is ConAgra even being considered for a zoning change? It is disrespectful to the citizens to set a public process in place and then disregard the outcome. ConAgra was a yellow-ranked site. The council action should have been simple when the EIR proposal came forward: “no.”
We have had council members who seek to make deals, to micro-manage the details of housing projects, etc. Example: the headline just before the Second Street Crossing vote that some deal had been reached that union scale would be paid to workers on that project, thanks to the efforts of two council members (you can guess who). What ever came of that, I have no idea.
Some council members and local interests seem to consider planning documents and processes as obstacles to be overcome. Read the minutes of BEDC and the innovation task force. Someone there suggested that some peripheral commercial projects should be exempted from Measure J/R. Why?
We have a citizenry that is engaged in the planning process in this town. The processes, principles, and guiding documents should be respected.
Here’s an interesting factoid: of the 84 retailers who are in the DDBA (which includes all downtown retailers), 13 are members of the Davis Chamber.
Here are the membership dues to join the Chamber:
1–4 employees:$242/year
5–20 employees:$368/year
21–50 employees:$599/year
51+ employees:$819/year
Individuals are welcome to join. Here’s the link:[url]http://www.davischamber.com/join[/url]
[quote]We have a citizenry that is engaged in the planning process in this town. The processes, principles, and guiding documents should be respected. [b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]I agree completely. The HESC recommended 100% residential on the ConAgra site.
Lewis (ConAgra) from the HESC:
“[i]21.A Need analysis of city need and feasibility of nonresidential
uses of the site.
21.B Need analysis of fiscal impacts and impacts on
city services.”[/i]
If they held them to the higher end of the HESC density recommendation (776 units) rather than allowing them to build at the lower end (586 units proposed), maybe they would build some apartments and help solve the rental housing problem that no council candidate seems to want to address.
Don: If they were allowed to dump the “business park” component and go from 80% to 100% residential, they could build a whole boatload of apartments on the land that would otherwise be consumed with non-residential uses.
Since business park in Davis takes forever to fill-up, I suspect that ConAgra would trade business park for apartments in a heartbeat.
The point I would make to the Davis Chamber and the Davis ChamberPAC is that if you do not know your past history, you are bound to repeat it. You have a new executive director who has professed that he is unaware of what went on in 2006. So I urge you to consider the adverse consequences of this new activism. To the ChamberPAC, your protestations of independence and autonomy are not going to ring true for the simple reason that you are using the Chamber name. And as a business owner, I am very concerned about any perception of who you are speaking for.
We have yet to see (perhaps I haven’t looked in the right places) who is supporting this PAC. Before it goes much further, I urge you to change the name to better represent your donors’ interests, and sever any linkage with the Davis Chamber. And I urge you to do some outreach to discern why you have such paltry retail membership. This has been a problem for years, and I am afraid your leadership, and that of the DDBA, is going to make things worse, not better.
To the DDBA leadership, I repeat that political advocacy on your part is very problematic, since your members can’t quit.
Don: ChamberPAC is the name of the California Chamber of Commerce, and its ID number is ID #950352. http://www.calchamber.com/governmentrelations/politicalaction/chamberpac/pages/default.aspx
Does anyone know the name and ID number of the Davis Chamber of Commerce PAC?
[url]http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1073021&view=received&session=2011[/url]
Davis Chamber of Commerce Business Issues Committee
Filer ID 980946
Phone # is the Davis Chamber office.
“Stephen has taken a public position that led to direct harm to local retailers.”
The local retailers that I’m engaged with on a daily basis have applied a somewhat broader standard. Which candidates, not only will do no harm to local retail, but will adopt policies and projects conducive to local retail and ensure that city staff implement them throughout the upcoming 4 year council term. There are 5 candidates and 3 slots this go around. There are 2 more openings in 2 years. Don, applying this standard, which candidates do you support? Keep in mind, there are only these 5 candidates, “warts and all”, to choose from.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
The problem I have Mr. Bisch is that what you call “warts and all” is actions by one of the councilmembers that puts this city on the brink of total fiscal crisis – do you not understand the gravity of the situation? And if so, why do you seem to simply shrug that off? And btw, the councilmember that has put us in that position is not the one you hate. I have no love for Sue Greenwald, but your anger is aimed at the wrong person and frankly I don’t get it. To put it very bluntly, your endorsement of Souza makes the Chamber look like buffoons and you look like an apologist.
[quote]Here’s an interesting factoid: of the 84 retailers who are in the DDBA (which includes all downtown retailers), 13 are members of the Davis Chamber.[/quote]
That is indeed an interesting factoid.
[quote]I bought some short pants ($10.99) and a nice leather belt ($17.99) yesterday at Target. I have no idea where else in Davis I would buy either of those items. I also don’t know if any other Davis retailers would offer prices anywhere close to what I paid for similar quality. [/quote]
Target does indeed sell some items that you cannot find elsewhere in Davis but it also sells a multitude of items that you can get.
Mr. Rifkin does not have kids, but those of us who do know the drill. Its Saturday, you have to go to a birthday party (or two or three!). Before Target you’d likely go downtown to a local toy store and get something. Now you go to Target–check the Lego isle on a Saturday morning.
Target has brought some sales tax dollars to davis, but far less than claimed in the EIR (by CBRE). However we’ve also seen a number of children’s stores go under since it opened.
Is this pro business? Depends on your definition, but its certainly not good for local retailers.
I agree Souza has been a disaster for this town. Sue has done a great deal to help our downtown but its clear that the chamber has its sites set clearly on her.. So we need to ask who are these people and whose interests do they represent. Sue has been a strong advocate for limiting peripheral growth. Do you think some construction and development types might be happy to see her go?
Why has the Chamber which is claiming transparency not disclosed to the Vanguard who voted for the endorsement? We know that Steven Greenfield is on that committee. Steven Greenfield works for Cunningham Engineering. Cunningham Engineering works on development projects in Davis. My guess is you will find Steven Greenfield, Chuck Cunningham and Mark Rukaiser (sp) among Souza’s contributors.
Once again for the record, had I lived in Davis at the time, I would have actively opposed the Second Street Crossing development as contrary to fostering a sustainable community. However, in contrast to any number of local policymakers, I would have proposed and worked to implement policies and projects to bolster a struggling local retail sector. All too often, opinion makers here oppose policies or projects without making ANY of their own viable proposals. “No, no, no” is not a viable alternative in my view. Failure to effectivel address community challenges is an abdication of leadership.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
And depleting city resources in givebacks to public employee unions that bankroll city council campaigns is a viable alternative?
“Here’s an interesting factoid: of the 84 retailers who are in the DDBA (which includes all downtown retailers), 13 are members of the Davis Chamber.”
Dr. Wu, like most factoids, without an understanding of the background, it’s difficult to determine the relevancy of a factoid or its implications. For instance, most DDBA members likely don’t see the point in paying membership dues/assessments to belong to multiple business organizations, especially when they are already compelled to belong to one of them (the DDBA). Indeed, it is likely that the majority of retailers wouldn’t belong to any business organization if they had the choice. That’s likely a reflection of our society as a whole where the majority of citizens are not engaged in broad communal efforts. It can be challenging to energize/engage individuals to jointly work toward the common good. There is no doubt that DDBA needs to do a better job of energizing/engaging its members.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Brian said . . .
[i]”Why has the Chamber which is claiming transparency not disclosed to the Vanguard who voted for the endorsement? We know that Steven Greenfield is on that committee. Steven Greenfield works for Cunningham Engineering. Cunningham Engineering works on development projects in Davis. My guess is you will find Steven Greenfield, Chuck Cunningham and Mark Rukaiser (sp) among Souza’s contributors.”[/i]
Brian, for the record Mark works for UC Davis.
Out of curiosity, when was the last time a “peripheral development” structure was built in Davis? The Housing Element Steering Committee very clearly stated that infill was where Davis should be concentrating its efforts. The result of the Measure P vote clearly stated that infill was where Davis should be concentrating its efforts. The renewal of Measure J/R clearly stated that infill was where Davis should be concentrating its efforts. No individual Council member will be able to reverse that very clear message from and by the people of Davis. I’ve never personally met Chuck Cunningham or Steve Greenfield in my life. I’ve seen them speak in public, but have never had a conversation with either of them. With that said, Cunningham Engineering’s signs appear on a number of infill projects distributed around Davis. It appears to me that Cunningham is doing its part to concentrate on infill. Why is that bad?
Brian, who are the three candidates that you believe the Chamber PAC should endorse? Why those three?
Brian, applying Don’s standard, or my variation of his standard, which 3 of the 5 candidates should retailers endorse?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Brian, upon further review of one of your posts, I categorically reject your insinuation that civil engineering in general, and Cunningham Engineering in particular, are somehow evil influences working to undermine our community. There is no doubt that our quality of life in the community would be substantially lower without civil engineers.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
To the questions by both Mr. Bisch and Matt Williams: Wolk and Frerichs are no- brainers, so for a third candidate you either don’t take a third candidate or you take Brett Lee. Lee may not be ideal but he is clean with regards to the budget and himself an analyst with training that could prove an asset.
Cunningham Engineering IS NOT AN EVIL INFLUENCE, it does however have a financial stake in development and while they have worked on infill projects, they will also work on peripheral projects.
Matt: I forgot about Mark moving on. I don’t think that changes a lot of what was said.
[quote]most DDBA members likely don’t see the point in paying membership dues/assessments to belong to multiple business organizations, especially when they are already compelled to belong to one of them (the DDBA). Indeed, it is likely that the majority of retailers wouldn’t belong to any business organization if they had the choice.[/quote]
Perhaps the downtown Business Association should change its name since when most of us think of “downtown business” we think of retail. If retail is grossly under-represented in the DDBA then they should not claim to represent the majority of downtown businesses.
Don Schor’s factoid is extremely illuminating, especially since he is, in fact, a downtown retailer. We often disagree about many things, but on this issue we are simpatico.
Don’t say you represent downtown business if most retailers are left out.
That is Orwellian.
[quote][/quote]”No, no, no” is not a viable alternative in my view.
If No means:
No to unnecessary peripheral development
No to salaries and benefits that we cannot afford and that places davis in fiscal jeopardy
No to fiscal irresponsibility
Then No is good. Souza’s problem is that he has said yes to often and we are now paying the price.
Very well said Dr. Wu. You have just defined the hill that Steve Souza has to climb in this election. Add to your point the fact that he has turned off a lot of his core support with his attempt to be Mayor, and that hill looks very, very steep indeed.
DOC: [i]”It’s Saturday, you have to go to a birthday party (or two or three!). Before Target you’d likely go downtown to a local toy store and get something. Now you go to Target–check the Lego isle on a Saturday morning.”[/i]
That suggests that most consumers chose (and continue to choose) Target for those gift purchases because Target brings them value that the other stores did not: either its prices were better or something else that shoppers prefer.
Businesses exist (and thrive) for one principal reason: To bring value to consumers. Those that don’t disappear, unless government steps in and prohibits competition. In my short 48 years companies which once were titans in the United States–like Sears, Newberry, Woolworth, Kodak, American Motors, AIG, Honeywell, Pan Am, etc, etc–have gone from the top to the bottom of their industries. That is the nature of the creative destruction of capitalism. That’s what happens to companies that don’t bring enough value to their customers.
Brian said . . .
[i]”To the questions by both Mr. Bisch and Matt Williams: Wolk and Frerichs are no- brainers, so for a third candidate you either don’t take a third candidate or you take Brett Lee. Lee may not be ideal but [b][Lee] is clean with regards to the budget and himself an analyst with training that could prove an asset.[/b]”[/i]
Every time I meet Brett Lee, or talk to someone who has met him, two things come through loud and clear 1) the value of his business analyst training in the way he approaches issues, 2) the way he truly listens to what people are saying, and 3) his orientation toward collaboration and building consensus. So I would say Brett is a lot more than “clean” . . . he is a very good choice.
A real life example of all three of those attributes is clearly displayed in his December OpEd [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4953:a-davis-water-plan-to-move-forward&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79]A Davis Water Plan To Move Forward[/url] regarding the JPA Surface Water project (published here in the Vanguard and in the Enterprise). He lays out his concerns in a logical analytical way. Then he proposes possible solutions. Then he closes with a recognition that more information is needed and that [i]”if reliable new information comes along, I am quite willing to re-think my approach and adjust my thoughts based upon that information.”[/i] Finally, he has done the kind of very appropriate follow-up I want to see from a candidate . . . he has attended every Water Advisory Committee meeting so that he can be in a good position to actually see if reliable new information is indeed coming along.
Interestingly enough, what Brett is doing in this election period is very similar to what Rochelle Swanson did in the last election period. They both attended Council meetings and other important City meetings like the WAC. Bottom-line, they showed that they were willing to work hard and do their homework by listening to what Davis had to say. The idea of Brett and Rochelle working together on the Council is very appealing indeed.
[i]If retail is grossly under-represented in the DDBA then they should not claim to represent the majority of downtown businesses.
Don Schor’s factoid is extremely illuminating, especially since he is, in fact, a downtown retailer.[/i]
Just to clarify: retailers are under-represented in the [i]Chamber[/i], not the DDBA. And I am not technically a downtown retailer. Fortunately, I am not in the DDBA assessment district. Unfortunately, actions and positions their board takes may adversely affect me and other retailers elsewhere in the city.
Rifkin: “Businesses exist (and thrive) for one principal reason: To bring value to consumers. Those that don’t disappear, unless government steps in and prohibits competition.”
Or if the government steps in to save them. I love capitalist rhetoric, but it is more appropriate in philosophy discussions than real life.
Pro business regulations and lobbying have sometimes proven far more profitable than “bringing value” to customers. AT & T anyone?
Civil, I agree. You have restated what I said.
What’s worth noting is that governmental decisions or policies or regulations or laws have, from the very earliest times of the United States, played a part in the success or failure of some uncompetitive companies and some uncompetitive industries. For that reason certain businesses or types of businesses have spent a lot of money investing in politicians–what we call campaign finance, but should be called corruption.
In the early days of the U.S., various American industrialists (principally in the Northern states) used political power to keep out manufactured products from England (and the rest of Europe). A partial result of that protectionism through tariffs was to inflate the incomes of companies based in New England, New York and Pennsylvania and inflate the costs of farming inputs and consumer goods for farmers and consumers in the South. Although it was not the only reason, it was a factor in why the North had a much higher standard of living (among whites) than the South had at the start of the Civil War.
When the railroad industry rose up in the decades prior to the Civil War, anti-competitive laws, the result of buying political influence through campaign finance, made the fortunes of certain companies and certain individuals at the expense of many others. That railroad period vastly increased the “investments” regulated companies made in politicians, and vastly increased the size of government in the United States.
What has changed over the last 220 years is largely the order of magnitude. Before the New Deal, when government regulation was much less intrusive and much less decisive in most respects, the vast majority of national income rose or fell regardless of the actions of regulators. But since the 1930s, no sectors of our economy are without their own lobbyists buying politicians.
Individual firms must still try to bring more value to their customers than their competitors (if they have competitors). For that reason Southwest Airlines is growing; United and Delta are shrinking. But the airline industry as a whole relies on its purchased influence with elected officials to make sure they have their way as a group.
Predatory pricing and discriminatory buying practices are among the anti-competitive practices of mega-retailers. Since antitrust actions by government are nearly non-existent in retail, these tilt the playing field heavily in their favor. Category killers have used these routinely.
Zoning practices are the simplest way to level the playing field. Hence the store-size limitations.
Dr. Wu, you are seriously confused. The DDBA is not the Chamber. I have already stated that retailers make up the largest share of the DDBA board; even though they do not make-up the largest share of the membership. Downtown retailers have outsized representation on the DDBA board. All downtown retailers are DDBA members with full membership rights. The downtown is a formalized business district; membership is mandated. My co-president is a retailer. Our policies are dominated by downtown retail interests and tempered/broadened by the perspectives of non-retail board members.
“No, no, no” means no curiosity, no exploration, no innovation. It means, “I reject your proposal to address a community challenge, I refuse to submit my own proposal with achievable goals, in fact, I reject the notion outright that there are challenges. Everything is hunky-dory just the way it is. We need to preserve, not progress.”
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez
Don Shor: I agree with most if not all of your points made above.
What’s interesting is that others besides myself are finding the courage to call Souza out for the harm he has done to our community.
You guys dont like Sue? OK, fine. But you wont catch her repeatedly, over years, casting votes that have led our community towards near bankruptcy, closing of pools for our kids, laying off lower level city employees so those 4 member fire crews can keep cruising around going to non-injury accidents, etc. Souza has done all of that, and far far more. So did Saylor, but he escaped to the COunty ust as the city fiscal Piper was needing to be paid.
Yes, I know about Sue and DACHA. She has made huge mistakes with DACHA. SHe was duped by staff, over and over. Now she is too proud to admit it. She is too proud to fire the City Attorney and the involved housing staff. But re-elect her, and I think you will see her come to her senses as additional evidence comes in via the civil litigation.
Don and others: I am proud you guys are calling Souza out. I know as small local businesses, all of you have concerns about taking on a sitting CC member. Some of them can be very, very punitive.
One reason I speak as freely as I do is because I know I am representing many local businesses who do not feel comfortable calling out CC members and staff over horrible decisions that are leading our town towards bankruptcy. As many of you know, most of my money comes nationally or internationally in aviation and marine law cases, so I really don’t care if someone at City Hall is pissed off at me when I call them out. Stopping the surface water rate increases (for the moment) took 6 weeks out of my law practice in the fall, and about $9,000, but it was well worth it to be able to speak and act for so many other businesses and residents because they themselves could not, other than sign our confidential petitions.
The DDBA is not involved in the Davis Chamber PAC. But it could certainly be confusing since the co-president of the DDBA is the only one participating on the topic, with no input from the Chamber or the ChamberPAC here.
Hello Vanguardians,
It is busy times around our office here at the Davis Chamber of Commerce (DCOC)… At our monthly luncheon (open to the public, first Tuesday of every month) today, we awarded the 16th Annual Bill Streng Business of the Year Award to Yolo Federal Credit Union. That award is given to the local business that demonstrates excellent customer service, socially responsible and ethical business practices, ongoing support and promotion of the community, and lastly, creativity and innovation.
We are also busy planning “Celebrate Davis”, the community wide celebration on May 17th in Community Park (members should sponsor and register by May 4th: [url]www.davischamber.com/cd[/url]). This annual event is hosted and organized by the DCOC and our members as a free celebration for the community. About 10,000 Davisites join us yearly to learn more about our members (retailers, service providers and many other businesses that don’t sell directly to consumers (most are business to business)), enjoy the many family friendly activities (including a Battle of the Youth Bands), eat dinner with local restaurants and watch the fireworks at 9pm.
If you know someone with a pet that is scared of loud noises, please help us prepare them for Thursday, May 17th at 9pm.
I tell you all of that to explain why we’ve been slow to respond to this discussion. Unfortunately we do not have time to monitor and respond to the comments section on The Davis Vanguard (even though we’re proud to have them as an Annual Sponsor of DCOC.)
As we’ve noted in every thing the Davis ChamberPAC (aka Business Issues Committee, but that’s kind of a mouthful and not very memorable) has released, the Davis ChamberPAC is not supported by DCOC membership dues at all. The Davis ChamberPAC’s sole funding is voluntary donations from local businesses and individuals who support an economically sustainable community. On Friday, the Davis ChamberPAC hired a local consultant, Brooke Carpenter, to manage their activities so that DCOC staff resources are only used for our members.
In the next week, the Davis ChamberPAC will release a video of the Candidate’s forum, launch a new website and facebook page and start hosting weekly Fundraising Friday Happy Hour’s at local restaurant/bars.
Last Friday, I sent out our first weekly financial disclosure to The Vanguard, Patch.com, The Davis Enterprise, The Sacramento Bee and The Sacramento Business Journal so that the public would remain up to date about our fundraising and spending. Our goal is financial transparency at every step of the way… above and beyond the State and City’s reporting requirements that only occur on March 22nd, May 24th, May 31st and July 31st, 2012.
Here is a copy of the information that was publicly released last Friday.
STARTING BALANCE: $2,394.00
Langstaff & Wan, Inc. $250.00
G.T. Construction Co. $200.00
Aguilar Janitorial Service $100.00
Doug Tolson Construction $100.00
Alyce LLC $1,000.00
Haute Again $25.00
nestware $20.00
Business Credit Card Systems $250.00
Robert Family LLC $150.00
California Statewide Certified Development Corporation $600.00
Saylor for Supervisor 2010 $50.00
John Natsoulas Gallery $100.00
Purves and Associates $250.00
University Hospitality Group $500.00
Jason Taormino Real Estate $200.00
Davis Commercial Properties $100.00
Jon & Diane Parro $50.00
Theresa & Steven Greenfield $100.00
G. William & Karmen Streng$100.00
Ashley Prince and David Moore $100.00
Greg McNece $500.00
William and Amy Habicht $50.00
Steve Cohan $100.00
George Barden $20.00
[u]Daniel Tomasello $25.00[/u]
[b]TOTAL DONATIONS 2012: $4,940.00 [/b]
Expenditures Detail
$876.00 City of Davis: Community Chambers Rental Fee
$326.25 The Secretariat
[u]$ 75.00 Davis Chamber of Commerce: e-Blast[/u]
[b]$1,277.25 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2012 [/b]
[b]TOTAL CASH ON HAND: $6,056.75[/b]
If you have any further questions for/about the Davis ChamberPAC, please email me directly at “director (at) davischamber (dot) com” and I’ll make sure that your questions are answered.
All the best,
Kemble K. Pope
Executive Director, DCOC
PS – Don: I was an active Davis community member in 2006 and I participated in all of the conversations that you allude to…
Davis Chamber of Commerce
Business Issues Committee aka Davis ChamberPAC
The Davis Chamber of Commerce maintains a Political Action Committee which is known as the “Business Issues Committee (BIC)” aka “Davis ChamberPAC”. The purpose of the Davis ChamberPAC is to support (or oppose) local, county or state ballot measures and candidates which impact the business environment in Davis.
The Davis ChamberPAC was created by vote of the Board of Directors in December 1997, edited in 2003 to increase the maximum monetary contribution from $500 to $1000 and edited in February 2012 to broaden the scope of efforts to include support of candidates.
Davis ChamberPAC Guidelines
1. The Board of Directors of the Davis ChamberPAC shall be comprised of:
-One member of the Executive Committee of the Chamber’s Board of Directors (Chair).
-Executive Director of the Chamber
-At least three (3) other Chamber members as appointed by the Chairperson of the Board of Directors.
2. Ballot measures & candidates will be supported (or opposed) by the Davis ChamberPAC only after a two-thirds majority vote of the Davis ChamberPAC Board.
3. Responsibility for oversight of the activities of the Davis ChamberPAC will rest with the Government Relations Committee of the Davis Chamber of Commerce.
4. The sole funding source for the Davis ChamberPAC will be voluntary contributions by individual members of the Davis Chamber of Commerce. No funds from the operating budget of the Chamber will be used to support Davis ChamberPAC activities.
5. The maximum contribution allowed to the Davis ChamberPAC will be $1,000 per calendar year.
6. Financial activities of the Davis ChamberPAC will be reported as required by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and the City of Davis.
For further information regarding the Davis ChamberPAC contact a member of the Government Relations Committee or the Executive Director of the Davis Chamber of Commerce.
Created December 1997.
Revised May 2003.
Revised February 2012.
Current Board of Directors of the Davis ChamberPAC:
Steve Greenfield, Kemble Pope, Gregg Herrington, Michael Bisch, Tom Cross
DDBA Liaison (non-voting)/Newsbeat Owner: Janis Lott
Members of the Davis ChamberPAC Board interviewed all five candidates, held the debate, and then discussed the debate/interviews at length before making the endorsement decision. Then before going to the public, the Davis ChamberPAC Board shared the selections with the Davis Chamber’s Government Relations Committee and there was no dissension from the members present at that meeting (Doby Fleeman, Clark Dodsworth, Jeanne Jones, Bill Streng & Don Palm.)
I would say that list of donors confirms my description of the interests represented by the Davis Chamber PAC. Very little retail representation; lots of commercial and property-related businesses. Note that the largest single donation is from Jeff Boone’s company.
Don, why is the large contribution from California Statewide Certified Development Corporation (“CSCDC”) a red flag for you? Does CSCDC not lend to retail small businesses? Help me understand your comment.
It’s not a red flag, but I would be curious as to Jeff’s explanation for why his company is choosing to be politically active this way.
Don, your statement regarding Jeff Boone’s company is incorrect. Furthermore, CSCDC made their generous contribution without even knowing which candidates would be endorsed (as is the case with all of the donors on the list). Those donations were all made solely to support fostering a stronger local economy. As for retail donations, stay tuned.
Really, the sniping, the search for hidden agendas, the insinuations, the attempts at demonization, what is the point? How is the community dialogue improved with these tactics? Wouldn’t our time be better spent debating the merits of the Chamber’s objectives? Wouldn’t our time be better spent debating the strengths and weaknesses of the candidats? David’s article does a great job of framing the debate. With some notable exception, most of what has followed has been unproductive gobbeldy gook.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
[i]Don, your statement regarding Jeff Boone’s company is incorrect.
[/i]
In what way?
[i] Which candidates, not only will [b]do no harm to local retail[/b], but will adopt policies and projects [b]conducive to local retail [/b]and ensure that city staff implement them throughout the upcoming 4 year council term. There are 5 candidates and 3 slots this go around. There are 2 more openings in 2 years. Don, applying this standard, which candidates do you support? Keep in mind, there are only these 5 candidates, “warts and all”, to choose from. [/i]
Please tell me, using these criteria, how [i]you[/i] arrived at your endorsements.
Kendel, since you are being so forthcoming with the info (Thanks for that), could you provide the detail behind the Balance Forward amount of $2,394.00.
Don, your concern about retail representation is a wild goose chase. There are more donations and greater sums from retail/restaurant than from developers on the list above. I assure you retail participation in this effort will continue to be very strong as the effort gathers momentum and more donations roll in. I have been telegraphing on the Vanguard for quite sometime that there is broad based support for this effort. If any sector ends up being under-represented, it’ll likely be the tech sector. But who knows? Perhaps the techies will surprise me.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
Ooooops Kemble . . . not Kendel. Sorry!
[i]There are more donations and greater sums from retail/restaurant than from developers on the list above. [/i]
Really? Sure doesn’t look that way to me.
[i] I assure you retail participation in this effort will continue to be very strong[/i]
The Davis Chamber does not represent retail well. Local retailers simply do not belong to the Chamber. I have demonstrated that statistically more than once. Your own organization’s retail members barely join the Chamber. You really need to recognize this disconnect and stop trying to sell something that isn’t there. And to repeat: the Davis ChamberPAC should not be construed by the community has having broad support from the local business community, particularly the local retail business community.
Now, how did the PAC come to the conclusion that Stephen Souza would do no harm to local retail?
Is there a comprehensive/easy-to-access online list of the DCOC membership? Under Davis Chamber/PAC Guideline #4, only DCOC members can contribute to the PAC. I’m not sure a lot of businesses or individuals that might otherwise be supportive of the PAC are going to want to pony up between $121 to $819 and go through the hassle of registration in order to make a donation. Because of this problem, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to discuss the proportional representation of donors from of various sectors of the Davis economy.
Don, we’re talking past each other. You are making statements regarding the Chamber representing retail. I am making statements about retailers supporting this effort and about broad-based community support for this effort. I don’t need to prove my point, upcoming financial disclosures will do it for me. Even Brett Lee supports this effort for godssake. Even David appears to generally support this effort although he appears to disagree with the Souza endorsement aspect (correct me, David, if I I got it wrong). What are you arguing about? Apart from you, I have not heard any business owners disparaging the effort. That’s not to say that they all agree with each endorsement. What they do support is the advocacy for more focus on economic development and good governance.
Don, you’re the one that slammed Souza with your harm-local-retailers measure. Quit stalling and apply it to the other candidates. Or are you concerned about how some of the others measure up?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
I would have urged the ChamberPAC to endorse Lucas and Dan and leave it at that. That wouldn’t have muddied your message.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”If they are going to insist on taking partisan positions, I would have urged the ChamberPAC to endorse Lucas and Dan and leave it at that. That wouldn’t have muddied your message.”[/i]
Don, what is it about Brett Lee that you object to? Why do you think he falls short on Chamber issues?
I don’t object to Brett. I think he would probably make a fine council member. I don’t make my judgments on the narrow criteria put forth by Michael B., and I’m guessing they just didn’t see a track record they could get behind yet. Lucas has a history on local commissions with relevance to business issues, and Dan has a voting record and a demonstrated commitment to collaborative decision-making (plus everyone likes him; I’d wager he’ll be the top vote-getter).
But I look at the totality of a candidate’s positions on things like the budget, ConAgra, and the water project, with some strategic considerations (Sue is a lone vote on water issues, otherwise I would be less likely to support her).
If I were endorsing based on what I know now, it would be Sue, Dan, and Brett. But my only reservations about Lucas have to do with his possible support of peripheral projects, and that is largely conjecture based on who is supporting him.
I would really like the candidates to address affordable housing and how we are going to house 5000 more students. I have yet to see a candidate who seems to care about renters. My kid and my employees pay a premium to live in Davis, thanks to the lack of reasonable rental housing. There seems to be a forgotten demographic here.
I happen to think the Chamber is taking positions based on rather vague criteria about who says the right platitudes about economic development. As noted before, they could have just said ‘vote for anybody except Sue’. Their endorsements don’t match their stated rationale.
“But my only reservations about Lucas have to do with his possible support of peripheral projects, and that is largely conjecture based on who is supporting him.”
Instead of conjecture based on guilt by association why don’t you ask him. If you did you would find him in the mainstream of thought on infill as a priority.
“I don’t make my judgments on the narrow criteria put forth by Michael B”
Don, neither do I. You were the one that focused the discussion on retail, not I. As a DDBA Co-President, retail is incredibly important to me as it should be for the entire community. But my focus is on fostering a sustainable community. Retail is only one component of a vibrant local economy and a vibrant local economy is only one component of a sustainable community. I am not working at filling a council slot. I am working at forming a council that can effectively address community challenges to foster a sustainable community. The council has 5 slots, not 4. We have 5 candidates, not 10, 15 or 20. We have an election immediately before us and another one in 2 years. Although desirable, not all council members must be strong in all aspects of community sustainability. But the council AS A WHOLE must be strong in all aspects of community sustainability.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
“I am working at forming a council that can effectively address community challenges to foster a sustainable community. “
The key question that you have not answered Mr. Bisch, is how do you claim you are doing that when one of your picks helped create a mess so bad that we may end up having to declare bankruptcy. How does that create a sustainable community? What happens to business if that occurs?
Brian, what part of the following requires further clarification?
“I am not working at filling a council slot. I am working at forming a council that can effectively address community challenges to foster a sustainable community. The council has 5 slots, not 4. We have 5 candidates, not 10, 15 or 20. We have an election immediately before us and another one in 2 years. Although desirable, not all council members must be strong in all aspects of community sustainability. But the council AS A WHOLE must be strong in all aspects of community sustainability.”
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
So Mr. Bisch, your reasoning is that it’s okay to have one very person who contributed to a problem that could completely undermine the possibility of a sustainable community because he is only one vote among five? I fail to see the logic there.
Brian, the logic is only 3 votes are necessary to move any particular policy or project forward. As long as none of the council members use tactics to bring the proeceedings to a screeching halt, the 3 or 4 cooler heads will prevail. You are falling into the same trap that has been repeated on this subject over and over again the past few days. We have only the 5 candidates, they each have their strengths, they each have their weaknesses. We do not have numerous perfect candidates to choose from. And 3 candidates are going to be picked no matter what. I hardly think come June that we’re only going to have a 3 or 4 member council due to imperfect candidates. And in 2 years we get another crack at it.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
Michael: I have to say, stepping in here, I’m completely baffled by your reasoning here.
Hey, at least I’m providing my reasoning. Who else is doing so? Most of the posters here are attacking a particular candidate, refuse to debate the merits of the PAC’s objectives, refuse to debate the strengths and weaknesses of each of the candidates, hold a particular candidate to a particular standard without applying it to the other candidates, and generally would rather engage in demonization, insinutation, and other tactics to destroy a meaningful debate.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
David: Seems pretty clear to me. Three open seats. Three endorsements.
I figured that part out, thanks.
The Davis ChamberPAC is committed to complete financial transparency. In addition to the required state and local financial disclosure reporting periods, it will release financial reporting information every Friday until the election on June 5th, 2012.
The Davis ChamberPAC has endorsed Lucas Frerichs, Stephen Souza, Dan Wolk and Yes on Measure D for the June 5th, 2012 Statewide Primary Election in Davis, California.
Contributions are limited to $1,000. Please send contributions to 604 Third Street, Davis, CA 95616. More information and donation options will soon be available online at http://www.davischamberpac.com
Financial Disclosure as of Friday, May 4th, 2012
Business Amount
Aguilar Janitorial Service $ 100.00
Alyce LLC $ 1,000.00
Brooks Painting $ 300.00
Business Credit Card Systems $ 250.00
California Statewide Certified Development Corporation
$ 600.00
Davis Commcercial Properties $ 100.00
Doug Tolson Construction $ 100.00
El Mariachi Taqueria $ 20.00
Fleet Feet Sports $ 300.00
G.T. Construction Co. $ 200.00
Haute Again $ 25.00
Jason Taormino Real Estate $ 200.00
John Natsoulas Gallery $ 100.00
KetMoRee Thai Restaurant & Bar $ 200.00
Langstaff & Wan, Inc. $ 250.00
M.C.’s & Sons $ 100.00
Mother & Baby Source $ 100.00
nestware $ 20.00
Newman Associates $ 100.00
Newsbeat $ 50.00
Purves and Associates $ 250.00
Red 88 Noodle Bar $ 200.00
Robert Family LLC $ 150.00
Star-Crossed Group $ 500.00
The Avid Reader $ 100.00
University Hospitality Group $ 500.00
Varsity Theatre $ 100.00
Village Pizza & Grill $ 100.00
West Yost Associate $ 1,000.00
Individuals Amount
Ashley Prince & David Moore $ 100.00
Bob Bockwinkel $ 25.00
Charles Cunningham $ 200.00
Charles Roe $ 200.00
Daniel Tomasello $ 25.00
G. William & Karmen Streng $ 100.00
George Barden $ 20.00
Greg McNece $ 500.00
Janice Foley $ 40.00
Jon & Diane Parro $ 50.00
Lynne Ferda & Scott Daugherty $ 100.00
Sinisa Novakovic $ 100.00
Steve Cohan $ 100.00
Theresa & Steven Greenfield $ 100.00
William and Amy Habicht $ 50.00
Committee Donations Amount
Saylor for Supervisor 2010 $ 50.00
Expenditures Detail
$876.00 City of Davis: Community Chambers Rental Fee
$326.25 The Secretariat
$ 75.00 Davis Chamber of Commerce: e-Blast
$1,277.25 Total Expenditures 2012
TOTAL DONATIONS 2012 $ 8,775.00
STARTING BALANCE $ 2,394.00
(less) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,277.25
CASH ON HAND $ 9,891.75