On Tuesday, I received an interesting email, “Most people I know are voting against the parks parcel tax. I’m still thinking about it.”
The email surprised me a bit. We ran a parks article and even most of the conservatives seems to have not much of a problem with the idea of extending the well-underfunded tax.
I talk to a lot of people and haven’t met one who is actually opposed to the parks tax. In fact, one of the people heading up the Measure D committee reported to me on Tuesday that the parks tax is so-non-controversial that people do not even stop to talk to them about it, they simply wave and say they are supporting it and move on.
On Tuesday night, the city nevertheless laid out their options in the unlikely event that the city were to lose out on the $1.36 million generated by the tax, which comes in at a very modest $49 annually.
We will paraphrase what the city manager said on Tuesday: it would be bad.
If you want a fuller version: “It would mean a permanent reduction in the quality of the parks that we have in the community,” Steve Pinkerton told the council on Tuesday night.
The problem is that I kind of get the frustration of the email message, as well.
The problem is not the parks, it’s city governance, and frankly I am disappointed and growing more disappointed at the city and what it has done since June 30, 2011 on the budget – which is nothing except pound and pray.
The pounding portion is the additional $75 grand that they gave to their professional negotiator whose job it is to exact blood from the city employees.
The pray is that somehow that will be enough money to stave off catastrophe.
I will spoil the ending for all involved – it won’t be.
As much as I supported the 3-2 vote which was supported by Dan Wolk and opposed by Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza, I still have grave concerns about the city’s approach to the budget deficit.
One of the reasons I supported closing down the pool last year was a message to the community that we are in trouble. Sadly, most that do not follow this stuff daily do not seem to get it.
The problem is that one of the things I suggested is that we figure out what our budget priorities truly are. I agree that we need to put more money toward pensions and retiree health to shore up what are large and growing unfunded liabilities. I agree with budgeting $1 million – I have a severe problem with the fact that the budget was passed on June 30 and not implemented in any way, shape or form.
I understand Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza both believed that the cuts needed to start through collective bargaining, but the number that we need to get to is NOT $2.5 million, it is probably closer to $7.5 million, the number cited last year by Sue Greenwald that Paul Navazio shockingly did not dispute.
That gets us back to the parks tax. The dilemma that you have here is that the parks tax itself only funds one-quarter of the parks funding. Ultimately, I think some of the bleak scenarios that Mr. Pinkerton laid out on Tuesday will have to come to pass.
He said, as I lift from the Davis Enterprise article: “You won’t have parks mowed every week … you’re not going to see any more edging along the sidewalks in any of our parks or around the play areas, you won’t have the dollars for fertilizer, you won’t have the dollars to check our shrubs every year to see if we need to prune those, you’re going to see less water on our grass, it’s not going to be the Davis green that you’re used to. It’s going to be somewhere south of green in the future.”
But because the parks tax only funds one-quarter of the costs, and because some of those costs are pretty fixed, it does not make sense at this time to pull the tax funding.
AND YET, and here is the critical point, we have not done what we needed to do on the budget this year. We needed to figure out what we as a community have to fund, what we want to fund, and what we can no longer afford to fund.
I truly believe that if we want a city recreation program and greenbelts and green parks, we need to find public-private partnerships, because $7.5 million is more than 20% of the current budget.
Moreover, I resent the fact that we have patch-worked this process. In 2010 we passed the sales tax, in 2012 we are asked to pass the parks tax. But we have no plan. We are flying by the seat of our pants and praying for a miracle that quite frankly is not going to come.
We are not going to fix this with new revenue from economic development. The real estate bubble is probably never going to return to the double-digit annual revenue increases. And the bills are coming due very soon.
So, part of me wants to agree with the hardline view that the city has been run poorly and that, despite the best of intentions in the last year, it is really not being run much better now, and we still have no plan.
The public does not pay attention until we close their pools, brown their green belts and close their parks.
And yet, despite all of this, there is no part of me that thinks this will get better magically if $1.36 million in additional revenue disappears.
Ask yourself if losing another $1.36 million will make things better or worse and then decide for yourself.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I watched the City Manager present this Tues night and was very unimpressed. It was all doom and gloom. It was all what we won’t see if it isn’t passed. RATHER than look to see how we could do things differently if it doesn’t, or maybe, hopefully if it does, e.g., different, less maintenance plantings, different schedules, maybe volunteers etc etc. totally reminded me of current school board who laments and cuts but rarely solves by coming up with alternate ways to do things. Someone said Tues that Davis has more parks than any other city-well maybe we need to give some up during these difficult times. They ARE difficult times, right?!
I keep waiting to be impressed with the city manager, still hopeful. David will you be providing an evaluation at some point?
[i]We are not going to fix this with new revenue from economic development. The real estate bubble is probably never going to return to the double-digit annual revenue increases. And the bills are coming due very soon.[/i]
Lets hope our newly elected city council has a much different view than you. Economic development is not hoping or planning for a real estate bubble to return, but true economic development absolutely can help us grow out of this malaise. A business development plan that welcomes business instead of “shooing” it away, using the strengths that we have (UCD, highly educated work force)can attract businesses that can significantly increase the tax base and subsequently retail revenues and sales taxes.
Continually increasing taxes on households is not going fly with the taxpayers. City finances have to be brought under control, which I think all the candidates understand. In my view, we need elected officials that are interested in moving Davis to the future, instead of clinging to the past.
[quote]Someone said Tues that Davis has more parks than any other city-well maybe we need to give some up during these difficult times. [/quote]SODA… am assuming you’re volunteering to give up the parks and/or greenbelts within 1/4 mile of your home. Thank you for your generosity.
Hpierce
In South Davis (SODA) my green belt is more natural, takes less maintenance than others so yes think I have. Why so nasty? Do you not agree with trying to do things differently or do you believe status quo will work today?
With all of the current focus on the growing crisis of obesity in the nation, funding for safe and beautiful parks and greenbelts is essential. If we are going to get rid of a tax, let’s get rid of the Open Space tax or figure out a way to divert those funds to actual accessible open space on the periphery of town. Proponents of no peripheral growth and densification should be campaigning for the Parks tax. Densification won’t work unless there are parks and open space within walking distance of homes to help maintain sanity. What people don’t know is that this tax started out as a fee, but changed to a tax when challenged in a lawsuit. We’ve been voting in favor of it ever since. We expect people, who move here because they like what Davis has to offer, to vote for it again. This tax results in a direct benefit to everyone in town, unlike the schools taxes, which only has an indirect benefit.
Sorry, this is a bit off topic… but despite the opinion expressed in the e-mail, I will be incredibly shocked if the park tax is not renewed. In fact, Davis parks are so popular that it causes me to suspect that the ChamberPAC’s support for Measure D is simply to build an appealing facade for the townspeople in order to distract from the legally dubious addition of candidate support to the PAC agenda. If most of the money generated by the PAC goes towards Measure D, what a waste because it’s a lock anyway. And yet, if the money primary helps candidates, what a sham.
David’s article makes sense. I agree with the points suggested, except that even if the pool closed down, I don’t think most Davisites would necessarily “get it.”
[i]”In my view, we need elected officials that are interested in moving Davis to the future, instead of clinging to the past.”[/i]
Adam, well said. Agree 100%.
[i]”It was all doom and gloom. It was all what we won’t see if it isn’t passed.”[/i]
SODA, you have hit on the root of the problem. We need a huge paradigm shift in government and the public sector for getting creative for ways to provide essential and higher value services. However, they are both stuck in a routine of “I can’t do it unless I get more money”. You can understand this… their jobs are not on the line like would be working for a private sector business cutting service to customers. The public are captive customers, and the public-sector businesses have the monopoly. The union-political strategy is to let enough customer pain develop that we gladly tax ourselves more. This strategy worked so well for Democrats and the unions in the past, but as is the case, all good things eventually come to an end.
My idea would be to completely change how many municipal services are provided by replacing full-time paid city workers by part-time citizen workers. For example, we could pay citizens $10-12 per hour without benefits for working no more than 20 hours per week to maintain the parks. How many college students would jump at chance to do this work to help pay for their education? How about the same for the fire department? Have a smaller core crew of professionals and paid volunteers to fill the rest of the need. Yes these volunteers would need to be trained; but how much money would we save paying $15-20 per hour without benefits to replace 40-50% of the highly-paid professional staff. Both of these roles would work well for part-time labor because the work can be staffed outside the normal 8-5 work/school day.
[quote]Someone said Tues that Davis has more parks than any other city-well maybe we need to give some up during these difficult times.
[quote][/quote]Hpierce
In South Davis (SODA) my green belt is more natural, takes less maintenance than others so [b]yes think I have[/b][have what?]. Why so nasty? Do you not agree with trying to do things differently or do you believe status quo will work today? [/quote]Dd not intend to be “nasty”… sorry if I came off in that manner. So, your area has no turf, the trees, shrubs, need no maintenance, no encroachments on on pathways… if we cannot afford all parks and greenbelts, do you have a priority list/criteria for which ones are left to neglect? I actually agree with you, from the standpoint that we may (probably) need to cut back standard to save money. I would be willing to volunteer [and, have in the past] to put “work equity” into maintenance. Are you prepared to do the same? How many citizens can be expected to do so? [rhetorical question. not directed to SODA].
Considering how many parks are co-located with schools (no ‘accident) and how many greenbelt systems, particularly bikepaths, were designed to provide least-risk access to schools, perhaps the DJUSD should help share in the maintenance costs. They take a much bigger share of my taxes than do the parks/greenbelt assessments.
I would like to offer a slightly different perspective. I was there during the presentation at the City Council meeting. What surprised me is just how many parks have been added to the Davis inventory over the last 10-15 years. It has increased something like 3 fold, yet the parks tax has stayed virtually the same. (Sorry I cannot give more exact numbers, I am just conjuring up from vague recollections that evening.) Yet personnel have been/will be cut to take care of a huge amount of public parks acreage that Davis chose to invest in when times were good.
Secondly, Davis is a compact community, with very little in the way of yards (except perhaps El Macero), which makes parks and greenbelts almost a necessity. In fact, if we do away with turf grass and start xeriscaping to save on water and maintenance, Dr. Tschobonglous indicated in a IWRS Charrette recently we can expect temperatures within the city to go up by as much as 10 degrees. Global warming anyone?
I tend not to be in favor of tax measures in general, but this one to me seems like a no-brainer…
“We are not going to fix this with new revenue from economic development.” –David Greenwald
I don’t know what to make of this statement at all. There are 3 ways to solve a budget deficit: 1) all cuts; 2) all revenue increase; 3) a combination of the two. We are not some podunk town on the backass of nowhere entirely dependent upon a depleted silver or coal mine. Davis has a mine (UCD) that has a resource (intellectual capital) that will never be depleted (unless it self-destructs or the legislature destroys it). This valuable resource, intellectual capital, is laying around on the street in our community. All we have to do is pick it up. The Chamber PAC is loudly advocating for #3.
Speaking of which, the front page of today’s Enterprise make it yet again clear why the PAC endorsed Souza, Wolk, and Frerichs. In the article, “On budget, it’s all about personnel for candidates”, provided each of the 5 candidates plans for guiding the city to fiscal sustainability. Greenwald states that the ability to increase our revenues is “limited since much economic development is revenue-neutral”. Lee does not mention revenue growth at all. Souza, Wolk, and Frerichs all state that revenue growth has to be part of the solution.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC member)
PS: More on this subject in the next few days.
“In fact, Davis parks are so popular that it causes me to suspect that the ChamberPAC’s support for Measure D is simply to build an appealing facade for the townspeople in order to distract from the legally dubious addition of candidate support to the PAC agenda. If most of the money generated by the PAC goes towards Measure D, what a waste because it’s a lock anyway.”
Here we go again with the scurrilous and unsubstantiated charges. There is absolutely nothing legally dubious about advocating for a robust local economy to foster a sustainable Davis community. Or to support candidates that agree with this advocacy. It never ceases to amaze me that certain individuals find this objectionable.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC member)
Well hpierce, just getting back to DV after spending my day volunteering at two Davis locales. Volunteerism is a wonderful part of Davis I am sure we can agree on that.
Well there are two parks within 1/4 mi of me, maybe 3-4 even and although my kids are grown I have taken my grandsons to a couple of them and IF NEED BE to work within our city’s means, yes I would agree to close one.
As far as helping, here in S Davis with our lower maintenance green belts as compared to other side of freeway, my husband has removed a number of dead brush over the years.
What I forgot to say wasmwhynin the world is the city considering a 50m state of the art pool. If I read the paper correctly we are or will pay a consultant to analyze the idea. That isan example of why I am disappointed in the city. They just don’t get it. Agree with that?
I’ve never understood why the definition of ‘greenbelt’ in Davis equates to lawn. All it takes is a quick bike ride around town to understand that the vast majority of our lawn acreage is never used for games, picnics etc., so why do we put so much time and money into maintaining a manicured lawn?
“[i]You won’t have parks mowed every week … you’re not going to see any more edging along the sidewalks in any of our parks or around the play areas, you won’t have the dollars for fertilizer, you won’t have the dollars to check our shrubs every year to see if we need to prune those, you’re going to see less water on our grass…[/i]”
My question is why didn’t we implement these changes in 2008 when the economy went south? If we only keep the lawn in areas that are utilized as play space, and replace the rest with native grasses, forbs and shrubs, the cost of maintaining the space would have dropped without impacting the ‘green.’ We aren’t managing a golf course, so why are we paying for one?
Thank you Mark. That is- a great example of what I am talking about! But I heard none of that from the City Mgr (or the school district/Board)
Michael, your PAC is illegal and corrupt. Anyone with at least borderline intelligence can see that you are violating Municipal Code 12.01.035. Kemble is director of your PAC, and yet he was Souza’s campaign consultant and, Souza apparently also publishes Kemble’s Davis Voice blog. You’re full of it. 😀
The PAC is a harm to local democracy because it will always give the edge to businesses over individual interests. According to what I’ve heard, Souza’s been trying to fast-track the Davis water project since day 1. If we Davis residents would have been complacent and not signed for the referendum, we would have paid millions more that we shouldn’t have. The delay caused by the referendum has brought with it great negotiations in price, to the tunes of tens of millions of dollars, or so I’m told.
I suggest the city establish a citizen’s advisory commission of landscape professionals to review the parks and greenbelts and suggest actions that could be taken to reduce water use and maintenance costs.
Scott: no personal attacks, please.
Don, I wasn’t personally attacking anyone. Ban me if you wish. They are breaking the law, they are corrupt, and they know it. A simple reading of the law proves this. I didn’t call them names; I used the adjective “corrupt” to describe them because they are. I can’t pretend they are innocent and not breaking the law.
I won’t bow down to those too sensitive to handle raw honesty. Ban me if I’m too much for you all to handle. Sheesh!
And besides, he told me I was full of it too. Just because he didn’t say it exactly in those words, but rather he clouded it with politically correct neutralized jargon doesn’t change anything. It’s lame that you single me out. I’m a fan of saying what I mean not obfuscating things.
Wow, one of you had to nerve to delete the truth… I’m done with this site if it believes in censoring the truth.
Nothing I said was a personal attack. I stand by that, and I’m really bothered that a site I respected would bar personal opinions based on documented facts. I guess this is goodbye. Cheers!
Scott: this is what I was referring to: [i]You’re full of it. :D[/i] I have no problem with your analysis or your opinion of the ChamberPAC. Just don’t get personal with other blog participants, please. That’s all.
He is full of it. I’m done with you, your censorship, and the site. As I just told you on the wiki, I refuse to pander to such types and when people like you look after them, that immediately cuts me off. Have a nice life.
“The PAC is a harm to local democracy because it will always give the edge to businesses over individual interests.” -Scott Meehleib
It never occured to me that local businesses were at odds with individual interest. Last time I checked, local business owners were themselves individuals and members of the community. Last time I checked, local business owners provided the good and services that the community depended upon. Last time I checked, local business owners provided jobs so that individuals could support their families. Last time I checked, local business owners were part of the fabric of the community. Now Scott would have me believe we are the enemy waging war against the community. Scott, I’m not buying into it.
The other thing I’m not buying into is the notion that business owners don’t have the right to organize and participate in the political process. Last time I checked, we have every right to do so as does every other interest group. And we have every right to raise funds, so that we can inform the community that part of being sustainable is having the financial wherewithal to pay for vital city services, community amenities, and good schools.
-Michael Bisch
MIchael: [i]Speaking of which, the front page of today’s Enterprise make it yet again clear why the PAC endorsed Souza, Wolk, and Frerichs.[/i]
From the article cited:
Souza: [i]”We must increase and diversify revenues by attracting new businesses and entertainment to our vibrant downtown and neighborhood shopping centers.”[/i]
What has the incumbent done to attract new businesses, particularly to the moribund neighborhood shopping centers?
Wolk: [i]we need to address personnel expenses, support a robust local economy, share services with other agencies and expand public-private partnerships[/i].
With much less time in office, can you cite an instance of Dan’s support for any specific public-private partnerships?
I’m afraid I find Lucas’es responses pretty much non-starters. The city isn’t going to combine purchasing with the school district for a lot of reasons that the finance staff of those agencies can explain. And it’s easy to talk about “a comprehensive line-by-line look at the budget,” but I’d be more interested to hear what Lucas has found as he’s done that. The city’s budget is available. I doubt he’s going to find all that much outside of personnel costs.
The parks tax is an immediate need. Economic development may provide long-term help to the city’s finances. But Sue provides a note of realism that city services to new development often cost more than expected. If a peripheral site is developed, for example, would we need the 4th fire station that was advocated by Stephen Souza? What would be the annual and long term cost to the city? How many police and fire calls are created by freeway-based sites? What kind of revenues to tech firms provide to the city?
Don, I agree with most of what you say, but:
“Economic development may provide long-term help to the city’s finances.”
It most certainly will. The sooner we start, the sooner we benefit. Had we started 4 years ago, where would be today? For example, had we taken measures to boost our local economy 2% p.a. 4 years ago, our local economy would be 8.2% larger. In 10 years the local economy would be 22% larger.
“But Sue provides a note of realism that city services to new development often cost more than expected.”
Why do you equate economic growth with new development growth? Why can’t we generate more economic growth out of the land that is already developed?
“Economic development is a good general idea. Most people would support it in concept,…”
I don’t think most politically active people in this community support it in concept. From my observations, most politically active people in our community are unaware that economic activity pays directly or indirectly for everything. And a vociferous minority are openly hostile to the notion.
Look, we are in essence a low density bedroom community. Our local economy reflects this fact. We could choose to be different. In fact, our planning documents state we should be different. And we are indeed, slooowly choosing to be different. Meanwhile, as we are sloooowly choosing to be different, circumstances around us are changing rapidly (in a negative direction!).
-Michael Bisch
Michael: “[i]Why do you equate economic growth with new development growth? Why can’t we generate more economic growth out of the land that is already developed?”[/i]
I assume we have four areas of economic development: downtown redevelopment, Nishi, infill, and the peripheral sites that the special committee is reviewing.
Everybody seems to favor Nishi now, but I’d be curious exactly what the incumbents are doing or have been doing to further that.
As to downtown redevelopment, the parking/retail is on hold. I have my doubts it will ever be developed, but let’s remain optimistic. With Rochelle conflicted out, you’ve got a problem getting to three votes to go forward.
Other downtown projects will need to be considered case by case. What did you have in mind? What have the incumbents done to further any other downtown projects?
Any infill sites and peripheral sites are a long ways off.
Again: what have the incumbents done to attract business to the shopping centers? Or to attract new businesses of any kind to anywhere? Where’s the meat in your endorsements?
By the way, I see that Dimple Records is closing. [url]http://daviswiki.org/Dimple_Records[/url]
hpierce
” I actually agree with you, from the standpoint that we may (probably) need to cut back standard to save money. I would be willing to volunteer [and, have in the past] to put “work equity” into maintenance. Are you prepared to do the same? How many citizens can be expected to do so? [rhetorical question. not directed to SODA]. “
You raise an interesting point about how we support our community. From your post, it looks as though you feel better prepared to support with your time than with money in the form of taxes. I think you would find, if we had an accurate means of counting, that many Davisites do support their community through volunteerism. For some it is in the schools, for some clinics associated with the university, for others, elder care, Habitat for Humanity, homeless shelters, community clean up days….
What is of interest to me in this is how we assign value. For me, having put enormous amounts of time into attaining the monetary compensation I have now, and as a former and current volunteer, I would now prefer to pay higher taxes than to spend a day maintaining the green belt.
I would support a system in which everyone contributes in some way. We could establish a monetary value for an hour of volunteer work and allow people to put in the time or put in the money. Their choice.
[quote]I suggest the city establish a citizen’s advisory commission of landscape professionals to review the parks and greenbelts and suggest actions that could be taken to reduce water use and maintenance costs.[/quote]
Interesting suggestion…
[quote]I would support a system in which everyone contributes in some way. We could establish a monetary value for an hour of volunteer work and allow people to put in the time or put in the money. Their choice. [/quote]
You would have a choice to simply write a check. Others would have no choice but sweat equity, bc they don’t have the money to write a check. But their time in their busy lives is just as valuable relative to yours. Many low income folks are working graveyard shifts and well past 40 hrs per week to make ends meet – but yet you want them to be able to find the time to do city landscape maintenance while you conveniently write a check bc you can afford it? Doesn’t sound very fair to me…
medwoman, I like that idea too. I am doing home renovation, and I am capable of doing much of the work. However, there is that time-value-money thing. For some things I simply cannot afford to pay for the labor costs, so I do it myself. For other things I happily pay someone else because I don’t have the time, or I dislike the type of work. I really like the idea of citizens being able to work in lieu of paying some taxes.
In addition, I like the idea of a part-time citizen volunteer workforce. It gives citizens a way to earn some extra income, but the city would pay a much lower rate than the total compensation it pays to full-time employees.
On Elaine’s point about fairness, I think this would be more fair in that it would serve to help balance our budget so we can adequately fund the services used by citizens. If someone is working two jobs and barely making ends meet, of course they would not have time. However, they still have to pay their taxes. Pick you poision so to speak.
To Jeff Boone and medwoman: I assumed from medwoman’s description that she wanted volunteers without pay versus check writers. There is a difference in her vision and yours, Jeff. If what is being advocated for is a way for low income to earn some extra money, I have no problem with that. But what medwoman seemed to be advocating for was that park maintenance be taken care of by either writing a check or providing labor [u][i][b]without pay[/b][/i][/u], to wit:
[quote]We could establish a monetary value for an hour of volunteer work and allow people to put in the time or put in the money.[/quote]
Such a system is inherently unfair to low income, who do not have the wherewithal to write a check. They would be expected to provide all the sweat equity, while the wealthy can easily write checks in a jiffy for cheaper labor (the low income volunteers) – thereby saving themselves money in the form of less in the way of tax hikes for no effort other than to push a pen across paper. Works for the wealthy, but certainly not for the low income, who now have to provide labor on top of the 40++ hours a week they already must provide to keep their families fed…
Elaine, I get your point except for the fact that these would be people that are going to have to pay their taxes anyway. If they don’t have time then okay, they will not be able to “work off” some of their tax liability. However, they are still going to have to pay their taxes.
Think of it this way… every community will have a collection of people blessed with a level of four things: health, time, skills and money. Right now we are only focused on extracting the last of these four to provide all of the city services we need/desire. What if we could find a way to leverage the other three in addition? My thinking is that it would cost less than the current process of extracting money and hiring city employees. So, in the end it helps the people with limited resources by decreasing their tax bill and adequately funding services they rely on.
Note related to previous…
I am more interested in a paid-volunteer citizen workforce… because I think it is more likely that it would generate enough interest.
Does somebody have information on the average total compensation we are paying a city parks maintenance worker? I would bet that we could easily hire part-time citizen workers for less than half what it costs us today.
[quote]I am more interested in a paid-volunteer citizen workforce… because I think it is more likely that it would generate enough interest. [/quote]
If you PAY the low income for their work, then I’m all for the plan…
Elaine
I am not interested in exploiting the labor of the poor. What I am in favor of is allowing those of equal income to choose to work or pay.
If I had complete say, everyone who contributes to the society would make the same amount of money since our time is of equal value.
But I realize that is hopelessly utopian and I had better stop before Jeff has a heart attack.
Medwoman: LOL!
ERM, medwoman, Jeff, what’s interesting is that the hypothetical you are discussing is no longer hypothetical. The city manager has already stated we are heading toward some variation of what you are discussing. He has flatly stated that the level of service that we are receiving is no longer sustainable. He has openly discussed neighborhoods deciding what level of service they will receive. If the residents choose a lower level of service, they will have to provide the service themselves or watch their neighborhood deteriorate. This is why I become exceedingly frustrated when I hear residents say that we must not change, we must maintain the status quo. The status quo is a state of decline.
-Michael Bisch
DT Businessman
I am curious about who you hear saing “we must not change, we must maintain the status quo.”
I have not heard, or read anyone saying this. I think we all know that change is an inevitable part of life. Perhaps this is what you hear when people have a different vision for what change might look like than you do.
medwoman, I’m surprised by your assertion. There are frequent, explicit posts on the Vanguard stating we must maintain our community exactly the way it is. I receive emails stating the same, I witness public comments at council meetings stating the same, I hear it at our Brown Bag Lunches, committee meetings, and in my daily life. These are explicit statements to the effect, “I like things just the way they are and I do not want them changed.” That’s not a vision, that’s a desire to maintain (cling to) the status quo.
Furthermore, opposing project and policy proposals to address community challenges WITHOUT offering viable alternatives has the same practical effect. The end result is identical to fighting to maintain the status quo. Finally, waiting around for some miracle also has the same practical effect unless, of course, the miracle comes to pass.
I rarely hear Davisites speak of their vision for the community with the exception of certain activist stakeholder groups, but even there, the vision is narrowly focused on only certain aspects of the community.
-Michael Bisch