One of the reasons we were supportive of the chamber’s efforts to become more engaged in the process is that we believe that the voice of business has been strangely missing in Davis political discussions, and we believe that the city has not taken full advantage of the high-tech boom and its proximity to a world class university.
When new director Kemble Pope launched his screed, it seemed that the chamber understood the precarious nature of Davis’ fiscal position.
However, the chamber’s pick of endorsements suggested oddly that they did not grasp this as firmly as we first believed. But people like Michael Bisch asserted strongly that they did understand the problems with Davis’ city finances, however, their priority is economic development.
And that’s fine – after all, they represent business interests in Davis. However, reading the collaborative effort of Steve Greenfield, Gregg Herrington, Kemble Pope, Michael Bisch, Janis Lott and Tom Cross demonstrates that they actually do not get it all.
This piece is not meant to disparage any of these individuals or even their efforts, but rather it is to demonstrate that their proposal, while well-intentioned, is misguided and does not properly understand the facts on the ground.
They write: “To achieve a level, sturdy and enduring stool, all three legs must be kept equally strong or fear tipping over. Clearly, Davis’ economic leg needs support if we are to meet our present and future challenges.”
In the long term, we do not disagree with this contention, but we believe that all is not equal in the short term and that we have an urgency to act in one area if we wish to even have a city that is around to facilitate the other areas.
They rightly note that there are three choices to solve a budget crisis: cut expenses, increase revenue, or combine expense cuts with increased revenue.
Naturally, you gravitate to the more mixed position, which is what they do here as well.
They write: “Focusing only on expenditure cuts decimates our community service programs.” They add, “Economic growth resulting from the successful application of economic development strategies will provide a more balanced, sustainable approach that actually would result in an improved city fiscal health condition.”
They add, “Let’s place a priority on increasing city revenue to soften the blow of serious budget cuts while helping to sustain services and facilities that our community cherishes.”
They even write: “We are not implying that it won’t be necessary to cut spending, share resources and revamp public employee pension programs to match current economic realities and longer life spans. We strongly believe employee-paid contributions will need to be stepped up for both current employees and future ones to keep the employer, our city government, healthy. We strongly believe we are at a tipping point requiring dramatic city and school reform if we are to remain a sustainable community.”
You are asking, what is wrong with this?
There are, in fact, two tremendous problems with this. The Chamber PAC’s leadership does not seem to appreciate the depth and urgency of this problem.
The next fiscal budget that the city has to pass, including the agreement on new Employee MOUs, will take place for 2012-2013.
By 2015, the city at the very least is going to have about $7.5 million in additional costs resulting from pensions, retiree health, and deferred maintenance. That may not sound like a huge number, but it is actually more than 20% of our general fund budget, that is comprised itself of around 80% in employee compensation.
I like to illustrate what I will call the insufficiency of an economic development strategy using the Target example. Target was projected to produce about $600,000 in net tax revenue.
In order to economically develop our way out this problem, we would have to develop around 12 pure Targets in two years.
Now as we know, it is unlikely that Target generated anything close to that kind of net revenue. We know that retail options would not produce that kind of net marginal return over and above the current Target. We know that the economic times are still challenging.
And moreover and more importantly, the kinds of businesses that the city is likely to produce are not going to generate that kind of point of sales revenue, anyway.
To understand the time factor, the city is looking to use some of its remaining redevelopment money to produce a hotel conference center. That is one of the few things that would produce the city tax revenue. But to expect it to be online in two years is very optimistic, to say the least.
The city is about out of money from redevelopment.
To be blunt, does anyone believe that we can add economic development that would produce even $1 million in net revenue by 2014-2015? I do not believe anyone believes that.
Even if we could do that, we are still talking about needing to cut $6.5 million from the 2014-2015 budget to avoid a fiscal crisis the likes of which we have never seen before. We are talking about the need for quick and steep cuts.
As we know from the past budget battles, anyone counting on the MOU process to yield more than $2.5 million in savings is being extremely optimistic. We are looking at the deepest cuts to our services.
The Chamber PAC writes, “Collaboration with UC Davis to achieve its 2025 goals also will ensure that our entire community will prosper economically. The best way to do this is through good strategic planning with a widely shared vision.”
And that is undoubtedly great, as is looking “to open our doors and create a clear path for UCD technology transfers and opportunities to host new agribusiness, food and wine tech, clean-tech and high-tech entrepreneurs and start-up companies.”
The problem is that 2025 is ten years AFTER 2015 and we have to get through 2015 with the city still functioning for 2025 to matter. Right now, at least, that is in some question.
Imagine what our community will look like in two years when we have to cut up to 20% of our existing services.
This is not a neutral piece either, as they are promoting their three candidates: “We urge you to cast your votes for Wolk, Frerichs and Souza because they have expressed the clearest and strongest support to foster a more sustainable and economically vibrant community.”
Dan Wolk earned our respect last year when he cast the deciding vote on the budget – a budget that would never be really implemented. Since then, his votes have been somewhat questionable on the side of fiscal prudence, whether it was Davis Diamonds that would have taken potential net revenue from the city, or Crown Castle.
Lucas Frerichs had the Davis Enterprise questioning whether he would be able to make the tough budgetary choices.
And Stephen Souza has one of the most questionable fiscal records we can imagine. Some have attempted to defend his record, suggesting it take more than one to make policy. And while true, they miss the clear fact that, in fact, he cast the deciding vote on critical budgetary issues that put Davis in the wrong direction.
Back in 2004, the voters of Davis passed a half-cent sales tax to avoid service cuts. Mr. Souza, backed in 2004 and 2008 by nearly $8000 in contributions by the firefighters, voted essentially to give the firefighters that tax revenue in the form of their new MOUs.
In 2008, Mr. Souza failed to see past his own rhetoric, which argued that we had a balanced budget and a 15% reserve. He failed to see the encroachment of unfunded retiree health care, unfunded liabilities in pensions, and back then $13 million in deferred maintenance on infrastructure euphemistically referred to as unmet needs.
Even after the collapse of the economy, Mr. Souza continued to be the deciding vote against a more austere and realistic budget in 2009. He was the deciding vote on the MOUs passed in 2009 and 2010 that ended up passing the buck to 2012.
By our count, had Stephen Souza merely voted the right way half the time, we might be looking at half the problem that we are having now. He was the deciding vote on most of those, meaning that he and he alone could have changed the outcome, but did not.
The chamber just does not get the magnitude of the crisis. We all favor economic development of one sort or another. But if the city does not fix its economic problem, there will be nothing left to develop.
That’s the crisis we face in the next two years. And it’s a crisis we will only fix through massive cuts.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“This piece is not meant to disparage any of these individuals or even their efforts, but rather it is to demonstrate that their proposal while well-intentioned is misguided and does not properly understand the facts on the ground.”
But to cut a leg off of their harmless analogy and to disparage Stephne Souza.
I don’t think it’s harmless. I think it deludes us into believing we do not have to make the tough decisions in terms of cutting programs and costs.
Let ask you this: is anything I have stated in this article inaccurate, in your estimation?
David, many thanks for continuing to cover the Chamber PAC’s efforts to focus greater community and political attention on fostering a robust local economy to create much needed jobs and pay for critical city services, valued community amenities, and great schools. The Chamber PAC’s ongoing efforts have easily been the Vanguard’s most widely covered story of this election cycle.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC
Although not about the Chamber, I question the city’s ‘getting it’ when they spend their time on exploring a new state of the art pool. What are they thinking?
I have to agree with SODA. The Community Services Dept has used $27,000 from the pool maintenance fund (with the approval of the City Council) to hire a consultant to guide them through the process of exploring replacing Community Pool with a much larger competitive? recreational? pool complex.
My sense is this is being driven by the competitive swim groups in Davis. The University has a rather new competitive pool and I wonder if the competitive swim groups in Davis have talked with the University about sharing the Schaal pool.
Given the City’s economic problems I question this expenditure.
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”And that’s fine, after all they represent business interests in Davis. However, reading the collaborative effort of Steve Greenfield, Gregg Herrington, Kemble Pope, Michael Bisch, Janis Lott and Tom Cross, demonstrates that they actually do not get it all.”[/i]
David, for those Vanguard readers who haven’t seen or read or simply don’t know your reference, could you please post the full text of what you are referring to and where it can be accessed.
I went to the Chamber PAC’s Facebook page, but there doesn’t seem to be anything there like what you are excerpting from.
Increased local business activity occurs when there is increased demand to purchase local goods and services. This occurs either by increasing the population or its individual wealth significantly(not likely in the foreseeable future). Large increases in peripheral residential development is the Chamber’s goal and not a solution to the city’s budget deficits. Large scale residential development has always been a net negative to the city’s budget.More recently,Davis has struggled to just bring large peripheral residential development to net fiscal neutral for its budget.
The Chamber may no get it; the members may be exibiting similar denial or ignorance tendencies as the general voting population. Conversely, they may be collectively and strategically targeting the less emotive of two solutions to our problems. I suspect it is more of the latter and less of the former.
I applaud the Vanguard and others ramping up the delivery of this message of fiscal unsustainability. It is time to be brave and face the unavoidable emotional conflicts that will result from having to reduce public sector jobs, wages and benefits.
Matt, Davis is referending an Enterprise op ed in today’s paper.
davisite2, once again you have ascribed false motives in order to sabotage a substantive discussion and to mislead the community. Are you entirely incapable of engaging in a meaningful debate?
-Michael Bisch, Chamber PAC member
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”You are asking what is wrong with this?
There are in fact two tremendous problems with this. The Chamber PAC’s leadership do not seem to appreciate the depth and urgency of this problem.”[/i]
David, your statement above is only true if you live in a Manechean world . . . and the truth is you don’t.
The PAC positions you are quoting do not in any way (for me) propose an either/or scenario where the PAC is saying “we have to choose economic development instead of budget cuts.” In fact the Chamber PAC is saying [u]we need both economic development and budget cuts[/u].
Further what I hear them saying is that if we want to avoid a repeat of further and further and further budget cuts in the coming years then we need economic development. They are arguing for a both/and approach not an either/or approach.
Further, your argument about sales tax increase from non point of sale jobs added to Davis is short sighted. That added employee in a non point of sale business will spend some portion of their annual salary/earnings in Davis, which produces point of sale sales tax for the City. Further, for every dollar spent by that employee in a Davis business, 70 cents gets respent in Davis, then 50 cents of that 70 cents gets spent again, then 30 cents, then 15 cents then 5 cents. Not all those cents will be point of sale sales tax generating expenditures, but they will help the sustainability of Davis’ retail and service businesses.
In closing, perhaps instead of coming up with a tenuous excoriation of the Chamber, perhaps you should simply say you think Steve Souza is a lousy candidate.
JMHO
davisite2 said . . .
“Increased local business activity occurs when there is increased demand to purchase local goods and services. [b]This occurs either by increasing the population or its individual wealth significantly(not likely in the foreseeable future).[/b]”
Your first sentence is 100% on the mark d2 . . . 100%. Your second sentence is incomplete at best. Population increase would indeed local business activity, as would increasing local wealth. However, neither of those things are likely to happen in Davis in the near term. You have overlooked the fact that you get increased demand by increasing local awareness of the retail and service options that Davis already has.
As has been said here in the Vanguard numerous times before, the fact that the per person annual spending in Davis is half the statewide average says that Davis residents (and workers) have a very poor knowledge of what they can be purchasing here in Davis rather than purchasing it from sources outside Davis.
65,000 people spending the incremental $5,000 per person that would bring Davis up to the statewide average would add $325 million of increased demand in Davis without increasing either population or individual wealth. The City’s portion of that increased $325 million of local sales could be as high as $3.25 million per year.
So, like Paul Harvey, you need to tell “the rest of the story.”
A $6.5 million deficit is only about $100 per capita, bothersome and we will need to address it, but hardly the catastrophic day of reckoning you suggest.
This of course depends on the accuracy of your analysis as well. Who knows, Mitt Romney could win and the Republicans could once again stimulate the economy instead of strangling it returning to their deficits don’t matter profligacy, filling the coffers of the Davis treasury until our cup runs full with milk and honey.
[quote]Large increases in peripheral residential development is the Chamber’s goal and not a solution to the city’s budget deficits. Large scale residential development has always been a net negative to the city’s budget.More recently,Davis has struggled to just bring large peripheral residential development to net fiscal neutral for its budget.[/quote]
I think davisite2’s observations are accurate and also explain the Souza endorsement.
AS far as the budget goes, most cities in California rely on two or three primary sources for tax revenue: property taxes, sales taxes and transient occupancy taxes (only for some cities).
Increases in property taxes require either we build more or housing prices go up. If we build more home we also increase social service costs and unless one builds quite expensive home ($450k-$500k or more) the increase in property taxes doesn’t cover the costs. Only McMansions would really help much and the demand for these houses is limited.
WE should try and increase sales taxes but again our options are somewhat limited. To increase sales taxes by $1 million, you’d need an increase in square feet of retail space on the order of 300,000 sq. ft.–f a medium sized shopping center.
Perhaps we could increase TOTs but UC Davis’ plans to expand their own Hyatt will hurt Davis hotels.
The low hanging fruit is actually on the expenditure side. The Davis Chamber seems more interested in expanding their own interests which are not necessarily those of other Davis residents.
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/opinion-columns/vote-for-collaboration-sustainability/[/url]
It’s at the online edition.
I agree with Dr. Wu’s assessment, except that I think the endorsement of Stephen Souza was because
(1) they know him, and have a strong proponent in the form of Kemble Pope due to long political association, and
(2) Stephen said all the right things to them.
I doubt if anyone, even the most avid proponents of peripheral residential development, think there is a near-term option for that, certainly not within the next council term. I do think there is a push right now to get peripheral land developed for business use, whether it’s Mace Curve or something west of town.
To Matt’s comment that it isn’t an either/or: the ChamberPAC members active on this blog have focused almost exclusively on economic development, rather than on budget cuts. And their endorsement of Souza complicates any suggestion that they understand the causes and policy options related to the budget problem. They’ve made it an either/or.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”If he had said that, would you agree with him?”[/i]
No, “lousy” is too strong for me. I do like other candidates more than Steve though, and I see him as a much less destructive candidate than Sue.
JMHO
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”It’s at the online edition.”[/i]
Very interesting that they chose to make it online only. I’m not sure that the Chamber will like that.
It will probably be in the Tuesday edition. They frequently post things online before they appear in print. My garden column usually appears a day ahead of time online.
I could not figure out why the hit piece on the Chamber of Commerce PAC – until this:
[quote]This is not a neutral piece either, as they are promoting their three candidates: “We urge you to cast your votes for Wolk, Frerichs and Souza because they have expressed the clearest and strongest support to foster a more sustainable and economically vibrant community.
Dan Wolk …votes have been somewhat questionable on the side of fiscal prudence, whether it was Davis Diamonds that would have taken potential net revenue from the city, or Crown Castle.
Lucas Frerichs had the Davis Enterprise questioning whether he would be able to make the tough budgetary choices.
And Stephen Souza has one of the most questionable fiscal records we can imagine. “[/quote]
So what this article is really about is that the Vanguard is miffed at the choices of candidate endorsements the Chamber of Commerce PAC has opted for. But then some may disagree with the candidates the Vanguard seems to be more supportive of, no? And for very good reason, no?
The irony is that the Chamber of Commerce PAC is doing what makes logical sense from a self-interest point of view – choosing to endorse candidates that it perceives as pro-business. However, I don’t see how that necessarily means the Chamber of Commerce doesn’t care about the city’s budget problems. Like Matt, I don’t think addressing the budget with cuts and/or tax increases and encouraging economic development have to be mutually exclusive issues, with only one allowed to be chosen at a time. Why can’t both be promoted at the same time as possible short or long term solutions to the budget problem?
The idea that economic development is somehow a nonstarter to solve our budgetary problems is an idea floated out there by at least one City Council member and other anti-business folks. IMHO, it is shortsighted, and does not show an understanding of how a business can generate a shower of benefits that go far beyond the simple tax revenue it may directly generate. A vibrant local economy is far more likely to generate the necessary tax revenue than a stagnant one, no? Look at Davis’s downtown, that stood us in good stead during the current economic recession. Davis fared better than many neighboring cities, no?
There is no question the city must grapple with its budgetary problems. And I would say the next round of labor negotiations is going to be key. But I see nothing wrong with looking into the future and planning for a more vibrant economy and synergistic economic relationship with UCD…
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”To Matt’s comment that it isn’t an either/or: the ChamberPAC members active on this blog have focused almost exclusively on economic development, rather than on budget cuts. And their endorsement of Souza complicates any suggestion that they understand the causes and policy options related to the budget problem. They’ve made it an either/or.”[/i]
I completely disagree Don. Where have you seen even one word by the Chamber that says don’t negotiate hard with the Unions or don’t make the budget cuts. EVERYONE understands how unsustainable the current budget realities are. The City manager is tasked with coming out of the next round of negotiations with the concessions necessary to improve that reality.
Will anyone from the Chamber be in the room when the negotiations are taking place? NO! Why then should they be spending their time talking about something that they have no influence on? In simple terms they shouldn’t.
With that said, there has been so much focus in this community on the budget and the initiatives needed to bring it under control, that the City’s revenues picture has been totally ignored. The Chamber is pursuing a both/and approach, raising the dialogue about the revenues side of the equation because NO ONE else is talking about it. The only reason that you are saying “They’ve made it an either/or” is because you are reading their efforts that way.
Go back and read what they have said. I strongly believe that you can not point to a single sentence (or word) that says “Steve Pinkerton, back off on your budget cost cutting efforts.” I look forward to any examples you, or anyone else can provide.
“When new director Kemble Pope launched his screed …” DG
Hmmm. What screed would that be? The od/ed piece certainly doesn’t fit this characterization.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”It will probably be in the Tuesday edition. They frequently post things online before they appear in print. My garden column usually appears a day ahead of time online.”[/i]
It is dated Saturday in the online edition.
All the more reason for David to print it in its entirety. Let the reader digest the whole meal. That will make the context of David’s excerpts more meaningful.
My garden beckons.
“I think davisite2’s observations are accurate and also explain the Souza endorsement.”
Dr. Wu and Don, I think local “progressives” and environmentalists are engaged in a Machevellian plot for peripheral development, which explains their Greenwald and Lee endorsements. Wow, that took no effort at all to fabricate a false charge out of thin air.
“the ChamberPAC members active on this blog have focused almost exclusively on economic development, rather than on budget cuts.” -Don Shor
Another false charge fabricated out of thin air. I’m a Chamber PAC member active on this blog and I have stated any number of times that I think David has done a splendid job of focusing attention on the need for budget reform. What part of “I agree” is not understood? The op ed piece also addresses the budget as Matt has pointed out. Don, what do you hope to gain by these false assertions?
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC
“So what this article is really about is that the Vanguard is miffed at the choices of candidate endorsements the Chamber of Commerce PAC has opted for.”
Elaine, inserting “the Vanguard and Don Schor are miffed” would have been far more accurate.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC (aka To Dense To Get It)
[quote]In closing, perhaps instead of coming up with a tenuous excoriation of the Chamber, perhaps you should simply say you think Steve Souza is a lousy candidate. Matt Williams[/quote][quote]So what this article is really about is that the Vanguard is miffed at the choices of candidate endorsements the Chamber of Commerce PAC has opted for. E Roberts Musser[/quote]I agree with MW and ERM. This is just a cynical hit piece on Souza.
There should really be a “Paid for by the Committee to Support the Brett Lee Campaign” disclosure at the bottom of the “commentary.”
I do think it’s funny that people think they know who I am going vote for or assume that somehow the five years of work I have consistently done on the budget does not exist.
Matt Williams, I aim this point at you. The problem is not that it’s Manichean the problem is that hthe timeline to cut the structural deficit is too steep to implement revenues enhance other than tax increases. It’s that simple and the part I think you and the. Chamber and a lot the candidates have not yet come to terms with. I have been beating this drum for five years now, absent all candidates.
Psdavis, Souza is dead. So you say why raise him if he’s dead. Obviously if Souza isn’t the target, the chamber itself is.
DG: So you are now targeting the DCOC? That ought to really galvanize public support around your fiscal responsibility agenda.
Have you been taking lessons on how to win friends and influence people from Sue?
If the chamber wants to play ball, then their decisions are open to scrutiny like anyone else. For years the vanguard has criticized council policies. Why do you believe the chamber shouldn’t be criticized?
Of course, the Davis Chamber of Commerce “gets it.” They are just expressing and implementing their vision and policy goals. I’d certainly like to hear more from the Davis Downtown Business Association about their vision and policy goal for Davis.
Maybe it is time for a basic local economy 101 course for Davis residents and vigorous shop local campaign. With many working outside of Davis, of course, they eat and shop outside of Davis, but understanding the local bottom-line better might shift these patterns.
[quote]dmg: Matt Williams, I aim this point at you. The problem is not that it’s Manichean the problem is that hthe timeline to cut the structural deficit is too steep to implement revenues enhance other than tax increases. It’s that simple and the part I think you and the. Chamber and a lot the candidates have not yet come to terms with. I have been beating this drum for five years now, absent all candidates….
If the chamber wants to play ball, then their decisions are open to scrutiny like anyone else. For years the vanguard has criticized council policies. Why do you believe the chamber shouldn’t be criticized?[/quote]
I think you have completely missed Matt’s excellent points, or at least have not addressed them, to wit:
[quote]Matt Williams: I completely disagree Don. Where have you seen even one word by the Chamber that says don’t negotiate hard with the Unions or don’t make the budget cuts. EVERYONE understands how unsustainable the current budget realities are. The City manager is tasked with coming out of the next round of negotiations with the concessions necessary to improve that reality.
Will anyone from the Chamber be in the room when the negotiations are taking place? NO! Why then should they be spending their time talking about something that they have no influence on? In simple terms they shouldn’t.
With that said, there has been so much focus in this community on the budget and the initiatives needed to bring it under control, that the City’s revenues picture has been totally ignored. The Chamber is pursuing a both/and approach, raising the dialogue about the revenues side of the equation because NO ONE else is talking about it. The only reason that you are saying “They’ve made it an either/or” is because you are reading their efforts that way.
Go back and read what they have said. I strongly believe that you can not point to a single sentence (or word) that says “Steve Pinkerton, back off on your budget cost cutting efforts.” I look forward to any examples you, or anyone else can provide.[/quote]
1. The Chamber of Commerce PAC will not be any part of labor negotiations, where the budget issues will be addressed the most;
2. The Chamber of Commerce PAC has never said they are not concerned about the budget – to the contrary they have repeatedly spoken of economic sustainability;
3. The Chamber of Commerce PAC has not excluded bringing in a more responsible budget as part of their platform; they want both a sustainable budget and economic development;
4. So where’s the beef?
[quote]dmg: I do think it’s funny that people think they know who I am going vote for or assume that somehow the five years of work I have consistently done on the budget does not exist. [/quote]
It’s a simple process of elimination, based on who the Vanguard most definitely does not like…
David said “Psdavis, Souza is dead.”
When! I hadn’t heard are there going to be services? Could it be that reports of his death are premature? Do you have any polling data or are you just being rude?
[quote]”When new director Kemble Pope launched his screed, it seemed that the chamber understood the precarious nature of Davis’ fiscal position.”[/quote]Are you referring to the as yet unpublished “special” letter to the editor?
Now that we know you’re responding directly to something that is going to appear in the [i]Enterprise[/i], that certainly changes my views about your commentary. It would be helpful if you’d refer to whatever is is you’re arguing with and include a link in your commentary. Better yet, since it’s so short you might have reprinted it as you have other articles that appear first in the [i]Enterprise[/i].
Your response criticizing the Chamber’s political endorsements (particularly Souza) is understandable now that we see the Chamber letter is a political support letter for their candidates. The three-legged-stool is just a start introduction to their endorsement rationale, not a serious, complete philosophical description of the organization’s strategies.
Your commentary turns their endorsement pitch on its head. But, now I think I understand why you wrote. And that doesn’t require knowing for whom you plan to vote. There’s reasons why people get the impression that Souza was your target today, and that the Chamber criticism was a way to get at it (just as their letter used that technique).
P.S.–In response to your question, I didn’t find anything untrue in your write-up.. You probably would have heard from someone more involved if your facts were off.
“If the chamber wants to play ball, then their decisions are open to scrutiny like anyone else. For years the vanguard has criticized council policies. Why do you believe the chamber shouldn’t be criticized?” DG
My point was not that the DCOC shouldn’t be criticized. I was making a cryptic insinuation that your tactics on fiscal responsibility are just as effective as Sue’s tactics on economic development. If your goal is to create polarization and be an impediment to effective problem solving, then keep up the good work. If your goal is to help craft and implement viable solutions for economic sustainability, then you just don’t get it.
The City has both a short-term cash flow problem, and a long-term strategic planning/investment problem. David is focused on one, the Chamber PAC on the other. The solutions to the problems are not mutually exclusive, but you have to first recognize that they are fundamentally two different problems that require different solutions.
In the short-term, the City will need to cut expenses and increase revenues, probably dramatically. This will require staff cuts; saying otherwise is just feel-good propaganda. The staff will need to accomplish more with less, in order to minimize the reduction in services. This may result in morale problems among the remaining staff, but good employees will understand the challenge the City faces and will respond appropriately. Those that don’t, can find new jobs. How the City manages this reduction in staff and services is a challenge for the City Council and the City Manager. Yes, the MOUs will be an important part of this process, but so too will be the choices on which jobs, or even departments, are eliminated. In the short-term we need to expect and accept a reduction in services and an increase in fees required to pay for those services.
We cannot however cut our way to prosperity. While we are making the necessary short-term changes to improve our cash flow, we also need to be planning for how to solve this problem long-term, which will only be possible with a renewed focus on economic development. In order to be successful on this front we need to accept that our policies of the past 20-30 years are what have created our problems today, and that continuing those past policies will not solve our problems in the future. We need to let go of our preconceived biases as to what economic development means and stop ‘tar and feathering’ those who come to it with a different point of view. We need to stop equating retail growth with ‘big box’ and housing growth with ‘peripheral development.’ We need more listening, less lecturing, and a renewed focus on implementation. We need more businesses, more jobs, and more retail. We need to redevelop our downtown and expand our neighborhood centers. We need more housing, especially apartments and townhomes, and we need to be planning for what we will need in 2035, not just how much cash is in our pockets today.
Finally, we need civic leaders who are willing to work collaboratively to define the problems, identify the solutions and implement of the necessary changes. We need City Council members who will make decisions that benefit the entire citizenry, not just their preferred subset; who will work to find solutions today, not whine about the problems of yesterday; and who will implement a strategy for a viable future, not argue that things are fine just the way they are. Our problems are complex and the solutions are difficult. We will not develop a sustainable future by playing one group against another, pointing fingers at who doesn’t ‘get it,’ or acting as if ‘economic growth’ was synonymous with ‘destroying the culture of Davis.’
The only question for the election is which three candidates are best prepared to lead us to that sustainable future.
Elaine,
If labor negotiations get us one-third of the way there we will be lucky.
If economic development get us one million in two years time it will be a miracle.
So what is my point, I print it very clearly, they want to soften blow with economic development, I’m arguing that they can’t in the short term. And I’m arguing that one of the candidates they are relying on has a poor track record, critically poor on this front.
[quote]David said “Psdavis, Souza is dead.”
When! I hadn’t heard are there going to be services?[/quote]
June 6
[i]DT: It is my understanding that Don Shor is an integral part of the Vanguard team, serving as moderator and censor.[/i]
I don’t discuss editorial policy or blog content with David at all.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
“Matt Williams, I aim this point at you. The problem is not that it’s Manichean the problem is that the timeline to cut the structural deficit is too steep to implement revenues enhance other than tax increases.”
David, again you are thinking in Manechean terms. The Chamber isn’t proposing revenue enhancements as a fix to the immediate budget crisis. They are 100% behind Steve Pinkerton’s efforts to resolve the cost issues that are the major contributors to that crisis. They are simply saying, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” You appear to be arguing for a TOTAL HALT to any and all efforts to increase the City’s revenues. Why do you want to do that?
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”It’s that simple and the part I think you and the. Chamber and a lot the candidates have not yet come to terms with. I have been beating this drum for five years now, absent all candidates.”[/i]
David, have you no faith in our City Manager? Do you think he will fail? How can the Chamber help Steve when he sits down to negotiate with the employes and their bargaining units? How can the Chamber help Steve when he sits down to ratchet back the pension terms?
Exactly what is it that I and the Chamber don’t get? What are either I or the Chamber arguing for that will undermine the cost control efforts Steve Pinkerton is charged with?
I look forward to your answer.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”[b]Psdavis, Souza is dead.[/b] So you say why raise him if he’s dead. Obviously if Souza isn’t the target, the chamber itself is.”[/i]
I tend to agree David, although Harry Truman might beg to differ with us.
If I were Souza and had the results of his most recent robo poll in hand, I would seriously consider withdrawing my candidacy and endorsing the three pro-business candidates who remain in the race.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”If the chamber wants to play ball, then their decisions are open to scrutiny like anyone else. For years the Vanguard has criticized council policies. Why do you believe the Chamber shouldn’t be criticized?”[/i]
David, there is no reason you shouldn’t criticize the Chamber when they deserve it. However, in this case you appear to be shouting into the wilderness with the Chamber standing in full sight behind you.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”When! I hadn’t heard are there going to be services? Could it be that reports of his death are premature? Do you have any polling data or are you just being rude?”[/i]
Toad, whether Stephen is dead or alive he has always been one to enjoy a fun time. Therefore, I think it would be a stroke of genius if his campaign scheduled a good old fashioned Irish wake in the week before the election. Everyone who comes will have a great time and if he proves to be alive it will be a celebration of what he will do going forward. If he proves to be dead it will be a celebration of what he has done.
Matt,
There are two points I disagree with the chamber on. I think mark west hit the nail on the head, though I slightly differ in that without the short term there is no long term. Thus you can’t grow enough short term to soften the blow. While I understand why they picked Souza, he’s the wrong vehicle both then and now.
I am not for a halt in revenue increase, I just hunk there is a belief we won’t have to cut as deeply as we will.
The city manager is attempting to o the right things. Mistakes have been made. Some not his fault. If we fail it won’t be lack of effort on his part.
Bargaining only gets us a most one third of the way there, it’s not clear to me you nderstand that portion.
Finally I am shouting because the chamber isn’t quite where they need to be. It is unfortunate that their committee couldn’t overcome their past tendencies.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”If labor negotiations get us one-third of the way there we will be lucky.
If economic development get us one million in two years time it will be a miracle.
So what is my point, I print it very clearly, they want to soften blow with economic development, I’m arguing that they can’t in the short term.”[/i]
Where have they ever said “soften the blow [u]in the short term[/u]”? Those are your words, not theirs.
Where do you see the words “in the short term” in the following, [i]”Economic growth resulting from the successful application of economic development strategies will provide a more balanced, sustainable approach that actually would result in an improved city fiscal health condition.”[/i]
What is it that you disagree with in their words, [i]”We are not implying that it won’t be necessary to cut spending, share resources and revamp public employee pension programs to match current economic realities and longer life spans. We strongly believe employee-paid contributions will need to be stepped up for both current employees and future ones to keep the employer, our city government, healthy. We strongly believe we are at a tipping point requiring dramatic city and school reform if we are to remain a sustainable community.”[/i]?
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”And I’m arguing that one of the candidates they are relying on has a poor track record, critically poor on this front.”[/i]
This is the true “bath water” of your article. All the rest is “baby” that you have thrown out.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I am not for a halt in revenue increase, I just hunk there is a belief we won’t have to cut as deeply as we will.”[/i]
You sure could have fooled me. Your article and subsequent comments scream out, “Economic development is bad, bad, bad, bad!!!!!”
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Finally I am shouting because the chamber isn’t quite where they need to be. It is unfortunate that their committee couldn’t overcome their past tendencies.”[/i]
Where is it that you believe the Chamber needs to be?
What are they missing?
What was a better alternative?
David Greenwald: “While I understand why they picked Souza, he’s the wrong vehicle…”
Then you should have written about how you think Steve doesn’t ‘get it’ rather than making a scurrilous attack on the Chamber PAC.
Matt,
First they said “present and future challenges” which implies short term is in play
Second, i wrote, “In the long term, we do not disagree with this contention, but we believe that all is not equal in the short term and that we have an urgency to act in one area if we wish to even have a city that is around to facilitate the other areas”
Clealy I don’t oppose economic development I only argue it won’t save us from deep cuts.
Third, they write write: “Focusing only on expenditure cuts decimates our community service programs.” They add, “Economic growth resulting from the successful application of economic development strategies will provide a more balanced, sustainable approach that actually would result in an improved city fiscal health condition.”
That seems to suggest that we can’t focus only on cuts, they early indicate this is for the present and future. Unfortunately that would seem to suggest that we can avoid cuts in the present, but we can’t.
Matt,
The other two thirds will be the most painful cuts you’ll see in your life.
“If I were Souza and had the results of his most recent robo poll in hand, I would seriously consider withdrawing my candidacy and endorsing the three pro-business candidates who remain in the race.” MW
Matt: Brett’s no more pro-business than Sue.
I appreciate Mark West’s comments on this topic.
[i]We cannot however cut our way to prosperity.[/i]
We are trying to cut our way to solvency. Focusing on prosperity when the city is insolvent seems unrealistic. There are commissions that are discussing long-term strategies for economic development. When they have more concrete proposals (such as the results of the Innovation Park Task Force, for example), we can have a community discussion about those. If they involve city funds, unfortunately, it may be hard to sell the public on spending on infrastructure when we are closing pools and letting parks go unkept.
[i]While we are making the necessary short-term changes to improve our cash flow, we also need to be planning for how to solve this problem long-term, which will only be possible with a renewed focus on economic development.[/i]
I guess the question is what the definitions of short- and long-term are.
The next council will be dealing with the MOU’s, staffing, reorganization, reductions in services.
[i]We need to redevelop our downtown and expand our neighborhood centers.[/i]
I think this is the disconnect that David is talking about. There isn’t any public money for redevelopment of downtown. Expansion of neighborhood centers is going to be by the property owners.
[i]We need more housing, especially apartments and townhomes, and we need to be planning for what we will need in 2035, not just how much cash is in our pockets today.[/i]
I agree.
There is general consensus about developing Nishi. Other policies have been discussed on various threads on this topic and there is actually a lot of agreement. I urge the focus to be on the areas of current consensus, recognizing that there isn’t any money for much else.
My problems with what the Chamber director and the ChamberPAC are doing have been addressed on other threads.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt, First they said “present and future challenges” which implies short term is in play”[/i]
David, read what they said again . . . [i]”Sustainability is like a three-legged stool. One leg represents social issues, another represents the environment and the third leg is economic development.”[/i]
Are budget cuts or revenue gains part of their first leg, social issues? By definition, no.
Are budget cuts or revenue gains part of their second leg, the environment? By definition, no.
Are budget cuts or revenue gains part of their third leg, economic development? Yes, both by definition and by process of elimination they both are.
They then go on to say [i]”To achieve a level, sturdy and enduring stool, all three legs must be kept equally strong or fear tipping over. [b]Clearly, Davis’ economic leg needs support if we are to meet our present and future challenges.[/b]
To achieve a level, sturdy and enduring stool, all three legs must be kept equally strong or fear tipping over. Clearly, Davis’ economic leg needs support if we are to meet our present and future challenges.
Local business owners are under no illusion that the three big issues facing our community — namely, our long-term water needs, [b]the city budget and the K-12 school district budget[/b] — will challenge all Davis City Council members when they are seated on the dais this July.[/i]
How much clearer do you think they can be. Is the City budget not short term? Are they not saying it is one of the three big issues? Is the School District budget not short term? Are they not saying it is one of the three big issues?
Matt, what could the city do to increase revenues significantly within the next 2 – 4 years? That is short-term.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Second, i wrote, “In the long term, we do not disagree with this contention, but we believe that [b]all is not equal in the short term and that we have an urgency to act in one area[/b] if we wish to even have a city that is around to facilitate the other areas”[/i]
Where did they say that “all needs to be equal in the short term”?
Where did they say that “we do not have an urgency to act in one area”?
You are reading into their words things that are clearly not there.
psdavis said . . .
[i]”Matt: Brett’s no more pro-business than Sue.”[/i]
And your basis for making that sweeping statement is?
“One of the reasons we were supportive of the chamber’s efforts to become more engaged in the process is that we believe that the voice of business has been strangely missing in Davis political discussions, and we believe that the city has not taken full advantage of the high-tech boom and its proximity to a world class university.”
Yet who is the most anti-development anti -business voice on the council? SUE GREENWALD!
So instead of what don’t they get how about what you don’t get? Your ever make a payroll or try to provide health insurance for your employees or keep a cool small business going in Downtown Davis? You have any idea how many hours some of these people put in trying to make their businesses work. Yeah, you have issues about the budget but you act like that is the only thing that matters. You talk about a year or two out. Some of these people worry about making payroll every week. Your insulting commentary and your rude remarks about Steve are sickening. David you may be right about his political obituary but without a poll you have nothing. I’ve seen a lot of handicapping but nobody has told me they have any poll numbers, you got any? Put em up or shut it up David.
Matt, Mark, Elaine, et al, thanks for making painfully clear that David and Don’s personal hatred of Souza have impaired their ability to read plain English. Their personal Souza vendetta masquerading as even-handed reporting and impartial moderation has been a running joke for a number of weeks now. The fact that the Chamber PAC has flatly stated that it agrees with their budget position does not dissuade them from their spiteful attacks in the least.
-Michael Bisch
Michael, it is not accurate to describe my political opinion about Stephen Souza as a “personal hatred” or “spiteful” any more than it was appropriate for a participant recently to state that I “hate” you. I could just as readily say that you “hate” Sue Greenwald. That is inflammatory rhetoric.
I disagree with Stephen Souza’s growth and development policies, as indicated by his votes over many years. I feel that his votes on MOU’s and budget issues have contributed to the city’s budget problems. For that reason, I oppose his re-election. I appreciate his many years of public service.
This is still in many ways a small town, and I feel it’s unfortunate when people talk about “hatred” and try to personalize issues. I know nearly every one of the candidates, at least casually, as well as practically every local politician active over the last three decades. They all have interesting personalities and quirks, but there’s not a single one I can think of — agree overall or not — who I felt didn’t have the best interests of the community at heart [i]as they perceived them[/i].
I feel that what you’ve done is an attempt to minimize the validity of my positions. It is one of the reasons that I think you, personally, and Kemble are both doing your respective organizations more harm than good. And you are both illustrating on a regular basis why I feel that this move by your organizations into active advocacy politics is going to be harmful. In the Chamber’s case, it is going to narrow, not widen, their appeal. In the case of DDBA, it is wholly inappropriate because DDBA is a tax assessment organization. You have no business being on the ChamberPAC as a liaison or in any way that reflects the position of the DDBA. Your members are captive to the assessment district. So I urge you to cool your rhetoric, and I urge your organizations to think hard about the downsides to these new policies.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Matt, what could the city do to increase revenues significantly within the next 2 – 4 years? That is short-term.”[/i]
Don, I have laid that out out several times before, but it never hurts to say it again.
It is time for Davis to take steps to help itself on the Revenues side of the Income Statement as well as on the Expenses side. One of the fastest ways to add Revenues to the City’s coffers is to increase Sales Tax. I believe I am correct in saying that every $100.00 increase in taxable sales adds $1.00 of Sales Tax revenues to the City.
In a thread on the Davis Vanguard, Jeff Boone posted the following, “But, here is the real kicker… Berkeley retail sales per capita is $12,700 (about the state average). Davis’s retail sales per capita is $7,752.”
What can Davis do about that $5,000 disparity?
Does every Davis resident have a vested interest in doing something about that $5,000 disparity?
Bottom-line, the answers to those two questions are YES and YES. I encourage everyone in Davis to go to the [url]www.BuyLocalBerkeley.com[/url] website. One of the key questions posed there is, [b]Why Buy Local?[/b]
Bottom-line, the answer to those two questions are YES and YES. I encourage everyone in Davis to go to the BuyLocalBerkeley.com website. As they point out there, Why Buy Local?
Ten Reasons to Buy in Davis
1. It keeps dollars in our economy — For every $100 you spend at one of our local businesses, $68 will stay in the community.
2. It fosters what makes us unique — You wouldn’t want your house to look like everyone else’s in the U.S. So why would you want your community to look that way?
3. It creates local jobs — Local businesses are better at creating higher-paying jobs for our neighbors.
4. It helps the environment — Buying from a local business conserves energy and resources in the form of less fuel for transportation, less packaging, and products that you know are safe and well made, because our neighbors stand behind them.
5. It nurtures our community — We know you, and you know us. Studies have shown that local businesses donate to community causes at more than twice the rate of chains.
6. It conserves tax dollars — Shopping in a local business district means less infrastructure, less maintenance, and more money available to beautify our community. Also, spending locally instead of online ensures that our sales taxes are reinvested where they belong—right here in our community!
7. It creates more choice — Local businesses pick the items to sell based on what you like and want. Local businesses carry a wider array of unique products because we buy for our own individual market.
8. It takes advantage of local expertise — You are our friends and neighbors, and we have a vested interest in knowing how to serve you. We’re passionate about what we do. Why not take advantage of it?
9. It invests in entrepreneurship — Creativity and entrepreneurship are what the American economy is founded upon. Nurturing local business ensures a strong community.
10. It makes us a destination — The more interesting and unique we are as a community, the more we attract tourists, shoppers and others who want to visit Davis. This benefits everyone!
11. It would help us eliminate potholes in the street — More sales tax revenues mean fewer unfunded City projects like street maintenance.
Why Don’t Davis Residents Buy in Davis?
1. At an individual purchaser level, we really don’t know the magnitude of the impact of our non-Davis purchases — I would start by asking each Davis household to look at their monthly expenditures and identify the purchases that if purchased in Davis would have contributed to raising our $7,752 sales per capita closer to Berkeley’s $12,700. $5,000 per person per year would be $325 million in our city of 65,000 residents . . . more if you include the capture of more purchases from UCD students who live on campus and UCD employees who don’t live in Davis. Lets hereafter collectively call all those groups “Davis Consumers.”
2. At an individual purchaser level, we really don’t know what our own Davis businesses offer — Armed with the list of non-Davis purchases, we can ask ourselves the simple question, “Could I have purchased each of these items locally?” Sometimes the answer is truly going to be “No.” However, even more often the answer is going to be “I honestly don’t know.” We need to immediately begin a BuyLocalDavis education campaign that helps Davis Consumers know more about their local Davis options for purchasing the items on that $325 million list.
3. At an individual purchaser level we don’t know how easy buying local can be.—Bellingham, Washington area residents initiated a “Local First” education campaign with (and for) their residents, and as a result have seen significant changes in their purchasing behavior because of it. Nearly 3 in 5 households attribute a behavior change to the campaign.
Key findings:
•58% of Bellingham residents reported that as a result of the program they are more deliberate than they were before the program began about choosing local, independently owned businesses first.
•92% of business participants would recommend the program to other businesses in their industry.
4. At a community level we are not doing enough to help ourselves — Davis has not created a resource to A) find out what people want from Davis’ independent purveyors, and/or B) provide a conduit for Davis Consumers to easily show their support for the amazing businesses and organizations that make Davis one-of-a-kind!
5. We simply haven’t collaborated enough — We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. The BuyLocalBerkeley effort grew out of Berkeley Business District Network meetings that coordinated promotional efforts of a number of shopping areas in Berkeley. In 2007, the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies hosted their annual conference at UC Berkeley and a number Berkeley Community members were inspired by the Buy Local movement active in a number of cities across the nation. Since then, the BuyLocalBerkeley group has formalized itself through a Memorandum of Understanding, a fiscal sponsor (Downtown Berkeley Association) and a steering committee. Currently, they have a contract with the City of Berkeley to conduct a niche marketing campaign to promote our community’s locally owned, independent businesses.
Can Davis Do the Same?
Not only can Davis do the same, but a group of four Davis residents (Michael Bisch, Jeff Boone, Mark West and Matt Williams) have started the process.
We have met, collaborated, built consensus, reached out to the City of Davis and begun the process of building a database of Davis retail and service businesses. We have also met with Nick Barry of [url]DavisDollars.org[/url] to see how our two efforts, which are directed at the same result can work well together. Carolyn Hinshaw has also volunteered to help and Robb Davis’ recent Social Sustainability article here in the Vanguard has synergistic potential as well.
Matt, I am a big supporter of the principle of buying local, and have been one of the earliest participants in Davis Dollars. I am very familiar with these sorts of campaigns. But is that going to increase revenues to the city in the next 2 – 4 years? Probably not. Those programs take time to build, they require some level of staff and usually some city costs, and they require a lot of citizen volunteer time. Generally they end up requiring some sort of ongoing assessment and some kind of operating staff. So I think it is a worthy project, but not likely to put much of a dent in the city’s fiscal problems anytime soon.
Realistically, what we need to deal with is the retail vacancies.
You won’t get there, Matt, primarily because of the demographics.
[i]” perhaps you should simply say you think Steve Souza is a lousy candidate.”
[/i]
If he had said that, would you agree with him?
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”Matt, David is referring an Enterprise op ed in today’s paper.”[/i]
Michael, there isn’t any such OpEd in my Enterprise today. I have one called “This Memorial Day, I remember fallen heroes” and and another called “Challenger in Yolo judicial race doesn’t measure up” but nothing from the Chamber.
But Don, the only way to deal with the retail vacancies is to demonstrate to potential tenants that there is sufficient demand in Davis to warrant their coming here.
I agree with you that a buy local initiative requires lots of citizen involvement. Part of that is volunteer time. Another big part is for citizens to simply look at their credit card statement and/or bank account and list the categories and amounts of the purchases that they have made outside Davis in the recent past (a whole year would be good.
Armed with that kind of citizen-generated data, educational efforts can be mounted to move the locus of those purchases to within the Davis community . . . either by helping the consumers know that they had a Davis alternative, or by letting retailers know that there is untapped demand that they are missing . . . or both.
[quote]”…(David’s) commentary…is to demonstrate that their proposal, while well-intentioned, is misguided and does not properly understand the facts on the ground.”[/quote]It appears the main argument here is whether the Chamber’s letter–apparently the basis of the Sunday Commentary–includes anything of significance with which anyone can find disagreement. Except, of course, their endorsement of Stephen Souza (and the other two to an infinitesimal degree) which rates five paragraphs highly critical of Stephen’s fatal flaws in today’s commentary.
What “well-intentioned…but mis-guided…proposal” are we talking about here? The only thing I seen in the letter is a few generalizations about why we should support three candidates who they think support a balanced approach to governing. Blah, blah, blah.
Since the short letter’s actual purpose simply is to express support for three candidates, one couldn’t have expected some extensive analysis detailing the Chamber’s inner feelings about municipal governance.
Yet, this commentary somehow found room to argue the Chamber “just doesn’t get it” when no one else can figure out what “it” is. Except for the obvious–Stephen Souza’s overwhelming failings, of course.
Matt: the pie is shrinking. We have economic development staff. Are you saying that their budget should be increased? At the expense of which other city department, then? If not, are you saying that citizen volunteers and private groups are going to generate the data and mount the educational efforts? If so, is that going to happen and yield results in the next 2 – 4 years?
DT: It is my understanding that Don Shor is an integral part of the Vanguard team, serving as moderator and censor.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Matt: the pie is shrinking. We have economic development staff. Are you saying that their budget should be increased? At the expense of which other city department, then? If not, are you saying that citizen volunteers and private groups are going to generate the data and mount the educational efforts? If so, is that going to happen and yield results in the next 2 – 4 years?”[/i]
At a DSIDE meeting earlier this year in response to a suggestion (that a new banner should be permanently affixed to the wall behind the dias that said “Jobs are Priority #!”), I said to the other attendees that we are collectively and individually fooling ourselves if 1) we expect the City government to either put up such a banner or lead a jobs initiative, 2) we expect that UC Davis will escape its own internal politics enough to lead a jos initiative, and/or 3) we expect the County government to lead a jobs initiative. If this city wants more jobs and a more sustainable economy, we are going to have to do it from the private sector.
We do not have to reinvent the wheel in creating BuyLocalDavis. BuyLocal Berkeley was founded in 2007, and gained a membership of 500 businesses before the conclusion of 2009.
A testament to what it means, over the past year, sales tax drops have been much smaller in Berkeley than in most surrounding communities such as Oakland and San Francisco. Many attribute this to the vigorous growth of BuyLocal Berkeley and the way it has contributed to the effort to get local businesses to support each other.
Don, continuing that thought I sent out the following e-mail a bit over a week ago to outline some possible steps that we can take that can leverage what DavisDollars has already done.
[i]Nick and Michael and Robb,
This e-mail is follow-up to my Wednesday meeting with Nick about how Davis Dollars and BuyLocalDavis can work well together. It covers a number of related topics that I think are of interest to us all.
1) Nick has as part of his Davis Dollars initiative, a group of 25 interns from UC Davis who have helped him transform Davis Dollars from an initial idea into a living, growing reality. His biggest challenge is that frequently he has the interns, but no physical space to put them to work, so solving that “space” problem is a priority. He is going to write up a short description of what would work well as space. Michael has said he believes he can find a space once he gets the description from Nick, and I am approaching an “angel” to see if we can get a donation to cover whatever the rental is.
2) Nick’s interns have created the [url]http://davisdollars.org/[/url] website for him and have the expertise to create a BuyLocalDavis.com website modeled after (replicating) what [url]http://www.buylocalberkeley.com/[/url] has created to support their initiative. Mark West has grabbed the BuyLocalDavis.com domain name, so all that is left for us to do is to make it come to life. Nick’s interns appear to have that ability. I believe the two websites (DD.org and BLB.com) should be interconnected as an internet “family” ideally with links to other meaningful Davis “community” websites (see 7. below)
3) Nick’s interns have the ability to begin enhancing the Excel database of Davis businesses (attached) that I got from the City Finance Department.
4) Nick’s interns may also be able to create a way that Davis citizens can give interactive feedback to our efforts. I believe one of the ways we can beging to create a viral aspect of out initiative is to ask people to take a look at their expenditure history (VISA or Amex statement, checkbook, budget, etc.) and share information about the kind of purchases that they have made outside Davis. That will help us with our education efforts about how those same purchases could happen in Davis rather than going out of town. I believe the education will be twofold, A) helping Davis consumers know more about their local options, and B) helping Davis businesses know more about portions of Davis demand for products and services that they currently are not capturing.
5) Carolyn Hinshaw read our description of BuyLocalDavis on the Vanguard and has stepped up as our first volunteer to help us transform it from idea into reality.
6) In my conversations with Nick and Michael it is clear that they are both working on initiatives that support Arts and Crafts in Davis. The following article
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/opening-door-to-art/ describes Michael’s activities. I encourage you to reach out to one another to explore the possibilities of how your individual efforts can work together.
7) As we look forward to how to make our internet “family” as valuable as possible for the Davis “community” I think the idea Robb describes in his email below is one that I believe is a logical family member once we get to the point where Nick’s interns are hungrily looking for new challenges to conquer. Please read it with that in mind, and share any thoughts Robb’s idea brings to mind. As I have read Michael’s posts in the Vanguard over the past week or so where he has tried to get the posters there to engage the challenges and questions central to Sustainable Economic Stability, I felt that Robb’s dialogue spaces concept would foster that kind of open discussion, but without the theater that the Vanguard often has.
So, we have seven thoughts and seven of us thinking about them. Lets hope that seven is a portent of good things to come. I look forward to your feedback.[/i]
“Local business owners are under no illusion that the three big issues facing our community — namely, our long-term water needs, the city budget and the K-12 school district budget — will challenge all Davis City Council members when they are seated on the dais this July.” –Chamber PAC op ed
“To Matt’s comment that it isn’t an either/or: the ChamberPAC members active on this blog have focused almost exclusively on economic development, rather than on budget cuts. And their endorsement of Souza complicates any suggestion that they understand the causes and policy options related to the budget problem. They’ve made it an either/or.” –Don Schor
“Michael, it is not accurate to describe my political opinion about Stephen Souza as a “personal hatred” or “spiteful” any more than it was appropriate for a participant recently to state that I “hate” you.” –Don Schor
Don, I could cite many more quotes from the op ed piece, but the one above should suffice. The chain of quotes here illustrates how you have once again blatantly misrepresented the Chamber PAC’s positions. Indeed, the first sentence of the 2nd quote is pure fabrication. There have been numerous instances of these transgressions over the past few weeks. You have been called on it by a fairly large number of bloggers, yet it does not dissuade you from continuing. David, has done the same thing. What is striking is that there is very little daylight between the Chamber PACs stated positions, on a very narrow range of subjects, and those of you and David. The glaring difference is the Chamber PAC’s support of Souza. Both you and David misrepresent and malign Chamber PAC positions, ascribe false motives to the PAC, etc. What can account for this since the PAC’s stated positions are so similar to yours? The differences are not substantive or factual, what does that leave? Personal.
PS: Demonizing the Chamber PAC as developer dominated was a particularly bizarre/brazen attack given every voting member of the DDBA board has contributed to the PAC. Are you going to accuse the DDBA board of being developer dominated?
-Michael Bisch
On a substantive note, Buy Local Berkeley was subsidized with city funds for the first 3 or 4 years. I believe they started off with $35k decreasing $5k each year thereafter.
-Michael Bisch
1. Please go back and find all the appropriate discussions from yourself, Kemble, and any other ChamberPAC supporters as to how we should cut the budget.
2. I gave you specific, substantive reasons that I oppose the ChamberPAC’s endorsement of Stephen Souza.
3. I have no personal animus toward Stephen Souza. You are deliberately misrepresenting my position in order to try to minimize the validity of the specific, substantive reasons I have given for opposing your endorsement of him.
4. Spell my friggin’ name right.
By the way, I don’t think the DJUSD K-12 school budget will challenge the city council at all. It isn’t their purview.
If in fact any of your economic development proposals require budget items, please let us know what they are and how much. Those are the specifics I’ve been looking for over these last weeks of discussion. A voluntary Buy Local Davis program is a great idea. If you want $35K annually for it, you’d probably better say so now, since that comes out of the funds for those parks, greenbelts, bike paths, and other amenities you mentioned in the op-ed.
[i]Are you going to accuse the DDBA board of being developer dominated?[/i]
No, I am going to say that the endorsement board of the ChamberPAC is strongly allied with development interests.
“The voting members of the ChamberPAC are: Steve Greenfield (an engineer for a construction firm), Kemble Pope (consultant, Souza’s 2008 campaign manager), Gregg Herrington (real estate developer), Michael Bisch (real estate agent) and Tom Cross (property management).” — DavisWiki.
You tell me.
I made the point before, and I will make it again:
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 Chamber PAC should not be construed by the community as having broad support from the local business community, particularly the local retail business community.
Don Shor, you are misdirecting.
1. My quote from 10:26am: “I’m a Chamber PAC member active on this blog and I have stated any number of times that I think David has done a splendid job of focusing attention on the need for budget reform. What part of “I agree” is not understood? The op ed piece also addresses the budget as Matt has pointed out. Don, what do you hope to gain by these false assertions?” It suffices to say, “I agree.” Repeating David’s specific proposals to cut the budget is superfluous. Do I really need to go back and find “all” of my comments over the past couple of months? Next you’ll be giving me blackboard assignments.
2. I don’t have an issue with the reasons why you don’t support Souza. We share similar objectives; we obviously don’t agree on the methods for achieving them. You’d rather demonize, make false statements, and ascribe false motives. You don’t see me accusing you of being a developer in drag, making up BS motives for you, misrepresenting your positions. These are very personal attacks having nothing to do with the facts.
3. My response #2 leads me to believe you have personal animus toward Souza and you have transposed them upon the PAC, Kemble, and myself. You have made any number of personal comments and false accusations these past weeks having nothing to do with substance or facts. What else other than animus can account for it?
4. Again, misdirection. Attack something I didn’t say, insinuate, or believe. I said you and David are guilty of some of the same sins. I didn’t say it was coordinated.
5. I apologize. Misspelling your name wasn’t intentional.
I repeat, I’m hardly the only Vanguard blogger that has made these observations.
-Michael Bisch
How am I demonizing anyone when I describe the makeup of the ChamberPAC endorsement committee? It’s a fact.
Personal comments? False accusations? No substance or facts? I give up.
I HAVE NO PERSONAL ANIMUS TOWARD STEPHEN SOUZA. He is likeable, hard-working, and has given a lot to the community. I have stated why I oppose his re-election. If he is reading this, let me make this very clear. I HAVE NO PERSONAL ANIMUS TOWARD STEPHEN SOUZA. Michael Bisch is completely, totally mistaken if he believes that. This is ridiculous.
[quote][u]”Mr.Toad [/u]: David said ‘Psdavis, Souza is dead’.”
“When! I hadn’t heard are there going to be services?”
[u]David[/u]: June 6.”[/quote]Clear. Concise. Curt. And, the cutest comment of the day.
Has Sue taken the knife out of Stephen’s back yet? She did a real number on him (after first saying he likely wasn’t involved) by announcing her new findings that she no longer considered him a victim. She’s certainly much better at playing the victim card than he is.
Have either of the two “institutional memory” folks had anything to say about David’s coup, getting the scandalous ombudsman report?
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Bargaining only gets us a most one third of the way there, it’s not clear to me you understand that portion.”[/i]
Okay, what are the other two thirds?
Matt at 3:57 Pm: wonderful post and analysis
Maybe the Chamber and DDBA can make a website like that one ?
Don: your comments responding to my downtown business colleague Michael express my thoughts, too
However, Don, you’ve been displaying an unusually high level of animus toward the Chamber since they came out of the closet a couple months ago. Not knowing if there’s some justifiable background is for this irritation between you folks, it just seems unusually testy for one successful businessman (retail, at that!) to find so much to disagree with–considering the Chamber’s purpose is to advance your and your colleagues’ causes.
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Third, they write write: “Focusing only on expenditure cuts decimates our community service programs.” They add, “Economic growth resulting from the successful application of economic development strategies will provide a more balanced, sustainable approach that actually would result in an improved city fiscal health condition.”
That seems to suggest that we can’t focus only on cuts, they early indicate this is for the present and future. Unfortunately that would seem to suggest that we can avoid cuts in the present, but we can’t.”[/i]
It doesn’t suggest that we can’t focus only on cuts . . . it very definitively and clearly states that we can’t. You appear to be advocating for a “Romans in the Coliseum” approach to dealing with the economic leg of the stool. You appear to be telling us all that we have to sit back in our seats, munch on our popcorn, and watch the bloodshed.
The Chamber is simply saying, “don’t go and enjoy yourself being spectators at the Coliseum. Instead, do something that contributed to the greater good of the community while the people who are best equipped to be gladiators fight in the arena.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The other two thirds will be the most painful cuts you’ll see in your life.”[/i]
David, that is an answer worthy of Michael Harrington.
If I didn’t know you better, I would be inclined to believe (based on that answer) that you are aspiring to be a hit and run artist like Mike.
I await a real answer from you.
[quote]”The voting members of the ChamberPAC are: Steve Greenfield (an engineer for a construction firm)[/quote]
Anal retentivity in action: Steve works for Cunningham Engineering, a planning, civil engineering and landscape architecture firm (and an occasional client of mine). They don’t do any construction, unless things have changed in the very recent past.
If I were to edit the entry, I’d describe Steve as “a principal with a civil engineering firm.”
Apologies for the interruption. Gentlemen, please resume your bickering.
.
It is very clear that the city and DJUSD need to cut costs and raise revenue. Neither path, on its own, is going to solve our financial problems. Cost cuts today, while building our economic base is a winning strategy that the ChamberPAC seems to endorse. This strategy is how we maintain schools and parks, and how we build prosperity and well being for our citizens
Those against Souza argue that he has a terrible voting record regarding cost containment; Sue has an abhorrent record (voting and in other ways) regarding economic development issues. The question is which of them can change in order to make Davis a better place. I believe Steven, despite the voting record, understands the severity of the issue and will vote to contain and control personnel and other costs. On the other hand, Sue shows no sign of change with respect toward listening to the interests of the downtown business owners or with respect to engaging in collaborative manner with UCD or others to encourage longer term economic development. I think Steven will change his vote, but Sue seems to be incapable of such a change.
Perhaps you think neither of them will change. Vote for Brett then. He is certainly better than Sue with respect to business issues and I think he understand the fiscal issues we face.
David and Don have made the point that sustainable economic development takes time. Imagine how much better off we’d be if, 8 or 10 years ago, our city council had focused as much time and effort on this as they have recently on cell phone towers or wood burning fireplaces or plastic bag bans or zip car. We should all be glad that the local business interests in town are trying to influence the political scene here – they’ve been too passive for too long.
davisite2 8:55am post: “Large increases in peripheral residential development is the Chamber’s goal and not a solution to the city’s budget deficits.”
Dr. Wu 9:47am post: “I think davisite2’s observations are accurate and also explain the Souza endorsement.”
Don Shor 9:59am post: “I agree with Dr. Wu’s assessment, except that I think the endorsement of Stephen Souza was because…”
davisite2’s post is a bald faced lie. Dr. Wu says it’s accurate and Don Shor agrees with Dr. Wu’s assessment. Let’s stop pussyfooting around here and call it what it is: lying. Don, you support a false accusation and then you wonder why the target calls you on it. Geez, strange that anyone on the Chamber PAC would object.
Don Shor 8:36pm post: “How am I demonizing anyone when I describe the makeup of the ChamberPAC endorsement committee? It’s a fact.”
This too is a lie. You have been corrected on this previously, Don, yet you persist. There is 1 developer on the 5 member committee.
Given you’re making up a bunch of sh…t, Don, I can only conclude that there is a great deal of personal animus going on here. What else would explain it?
PS: Don, you should find it worrisome that Harrington agrees with you.
-Michael Bisch
[i]Even if we could do that, we are still talking about needing to cut $6.5 million from the 2014-2015 budget to avoid a fiscal crisis the likes of which we have never seen before. We are talking about the need for quick and steep cuts.
As we know from the past budget battles, anyone counting on the MOU process to yield more than $2.5 million in savings is being extremely optimistic. We are looking at the deepest cuts to our services.[/i]
And yet, Sue voted with Souza last year, not to proceed with 2.5 million in cost cutting. If you’ve forgotten, here was Sue’s quote on the Vanguard on June 29, 2011:
[i]The difference between my motion and the Krovosa/Swanson motion is that most of our labor contracts don’t expire until July 1, 2012. By insisting on achieving those savings now, it is hard to see how staff can come up with options other than laying off around 20 employees, since we have already made most other acceptable reductions. [/i]
Perhaps it is Sue who doesn’t get it – she wants to avoid layoffs, but David’s analysis shows clearly that we need at least $5 million in cuts, even if we end up with $2.5 million in pension/health care/ etc. The ChamberPAC advocates pension/health care reform, cuts to services and economic development to avoid horrific cuts to services. Sue doesn’t vote for economic development and apparently, can’t bring herself to force layoffs.
Which path is more sustainable? I’ll take the ChamberPAC’s plan over Sue.
Thanks, Jim. I’ve corrected the info at DavisWiki to show Steve’s occupation as “a principal with a civil engineering firm.”
David, this is the second time I have ever felt compelled to post on your blog. I post to say shame on you. Calling a candidate “dead” is just rude and classless. Yuck!!!!!!!
Please do not degrade political diologue to a mean space if you want us nice regular follks in the community to take you seriously. It turns the stomach. Stay with the issues. Stay on point. I thank those who posted in this thread to elevate the conversation back to the realm of civility and respect.
JustSaying: [i]However, Don, you’ve been displaying an unusually high level of animus toward the Chamber since they came out of the closet a couple months ago. Not knowing if there’s some justifiable background is for this irritation between you folks, it just seems unusually testy for one successful businessman (retail, at that!) to find so much to disagree with–considering the Chamber’s purpose is to advance your and your colleagues’ causes.[/i]
Maybe I can explain some of my objections.
The Chamber’s executive director has strong ongoing ties with one candidate. He properly should have removed himself from the endorsement committee’s deliberations, if only for appearance’s sake.
The Chamber has never represented retail interests well, and has proportionately little retail presence in its membership and board. Yet the public, I think most people would agree, think that “chamber of commerce” means retail. I’d bet many people think that a majority of the membership of any chamber of commerce is the local downtown businesses they are familiar with. The Chamber doesn’t “advance [my] causes.” But I imagine a lot of people think the Chamber speaks for retailers.
The point I made at the outset was that the Chamber got burned the last times they ventured into local politics. I was active on the Business Day event at the Farmer’s Market in the first years that it got going (along with Alzada and some others), the event that now has become Celebrate Davis. That was created as a response to downtown retailers’ objections to the Chamber position on Borders, and the general perception that the Chamber was not sensitive to retail issues in general. Then the Chamber took an adverse position on Second Street Crossing and lost more retail membership. Now they’re back at it again, aligning with specific candidates this time. It doesn’t usually end well when they do this stuff.
The co-president of the DDBA has no business involving himself with the ChamberPAC. The DDBA membership cannot quit. DDBA should simply stay out of advocacy politics. If they want to sponsor debates and forums, fine.
The executive director of the Chamber and the co-president of the DDBA are unusually abrasive as they advocate for their positions. Recent example: Kemble Pope’s foray into editing at the DavisWiki. DavisWiki is a collaborative process of editing. Note his language and temperament exhibited here: [url] http://daviswiki.org/Davis_ChamberPAC/Talk%5B/url%5D
I am a long-time editor at DavisWiki (as any of you can be as well). Two interesting notes about that. I have established a reputation there as an advocate for local businesses, arguing on their behalf when there are adverse edits. I often lose, and I have rankled some other editors by my positions. I am probably the best friend local businesses, especially retailers, have at the DavisWiki. Note also that Kemble not only singled me out for criticism, but did so based on a completely untrue assertion about my editing history there. Just click on his personal page and you’ll see. [url] http://daviswiki.org/Users/KemblePope%5B/url%5D
As individuals they are free to take any position they want, and to be as abrasive as they like. But both have spoken on behalf of their organizations. I want it to be very clear that this local business owner is not represented by either of them. A lot of business people won’t take public positions on political issues, because there is often blowback. We have no idea how the rank and file of their organizations feel about their public statements and positions. We don’t even really know if the PAC donors agree with them. I believe this is harming their organizations and probably harming the interests of some businesses.
[quote]David, this is the second time I have ever felt compelled to post on your blog. I post to say shame on you. Calling a candidate “dead” is just rude and classless. Yuck!!!!!!! Kari Fry[/quote]It’s also wishful thinking (given the unusually low number of absentee ballots turned in).
I was wondering where Jim Frame’s quote regarding Steve Greenfield came from. Thanks to Don, we now know it came from Davis Wiki. I just now read the Davis Wiki article regarding the Davis Chamber PAC for the first time. I thought the lies, innuendo, demonization, etc. were pretty bad on the Vanguard. Little did I know even more garbage was being spewed on Davis Wiki. What a load of negative, slanted propaganda. Have the editors no shame? At a minimum, while they’re correcting Steve Greenfield’s job description, they should also correct Kemble Pope’s job description to “Davis Chamber of Commerce Executive Director”. I’m curious, of all the positions that Kemble has formerly held, why did they focus on him formerly being Souza’s campaign manager? They could just as easily have listed his position as the Climate Action Team Chair.
Time does not permit a full airing of all the garbage listed on Davis Wiki, but I will respond to one particularly egregious load, the garbage about the Chamber PAC’s supposed campaign violations (also spewed at length on the Vanguard). Why in the world would the Chamber PAC exceed all known disclosure requirements by light years if it intended on violating the law? And why would the PAC intentionally violate laws for this election when the PAC’s multi-year effort is far more important than what happens in June? The PAC has gone out of its way to telegraph its objectives to the community and how it was going to go about achieving its objectives. It has been in constant communication with the city clerk and city attorney regarding its fundraising efforts and expenditures. The PAC is operating within the letter and the spirit of the Davis ordinance and State law. I encourage anyone who feels differently to file a complaint with the authorities instead of engaging in these outrageous, underhanded attacks.
“The executive director of the Chamber and the co-president of the DDBA are unusually abrasive as they advocate for their positions.” –Don Shor
Really, Don, how many outrageous accusations and personal attacks should one tolerate before one begins shooting back? I’m abrasive? To paraphrase the movie Wall Street, “I’ll stop telling the truth, if you stop telling lies.”
-Michael Bisch
I have not read this entire thread for obvious reasons, but upon scanning it, I would like to pose a question: How exactly is my position “anti-business”? I’ll give you a hint: It isn’t. In fact, by many measures I am the most pro-business councilmember.
I am the councilmember who realized that our combined water/wastewater costs were too high, and who actually effectively managed to have the costs of the combined projects reduced by about 25%. That was HUGELY beneficial to business. I am the councilmember without whom the talks with West Sacramento on the water project would not have been reopened. Although this logical and potentially much more affordable option is not yet realized (and will be heavily fought by the building trades’ unions, so it might never happen), this move could again be HUGELY beneficial to business.
I am the only councilmember who voted to move forward with an EIR option for the Hunt-Wesson to include requiring 30 percent of the site be reserved for neighborhood-compatible high-tech and non-profit businesses, given that we are virtually out of appropriately zoned land. That is what standing up for business is all about.
And of course, I was the only councilmember the sound the alarm on the unsustainable early enhanced retirement benefits and the outsized cafeteria cash-out — as far back as eight years ago. And I was the councilmember who lead the charge to save the city over $400,000 by raising the rank and pay of 11 firefighters – a move that Don Saylor and Stephen Souza ultimately voted against, but that prevailed when Ruth Asmundson joined Lamar Heystek and myself – again, saving the city almost over $400,000 a year. It is beneficial to business that the city not go bankrupt.
“The Chamber’s executive director has strong ongoing ties with one candidate. He properly should have removed himself from the endorsement committee’s deliberations, if only for appearance’s sake.” -Don Shor
Another false assertion, Don.
-Michael Bisch
And, I forgot to mention that I am the councilmember who first ran for office on a platform of enhancing the vitality of our downtown as an arts, retail, cultural and entertainment center back before it was fashionable.
[i]Another false assertion, Don.
[/i]Provable, not false.
Who owns the Davis Voice? Who manages it?
[i] I’m curious, of all the positions that Kemble has formerly held, why did they focus on him formerly being Souza’s campaign manager?[/i]
Because Kemble Pope, Executive Director of the Davis Chamber, reactivated the ChamberPAC, and the ChamberPAC endorsement committee, of which Kemble is a member, endorsed Stephen Souza.
You’re free to edit at the DavisWiki. Anybody can. Be forewarned, though, that editing is a collaborative process. I haven’t been involved in editing any of the Chamber or ChamberPAC info (other than what I just did with Jim’s correction), because I felt it would be inappropriate for me to do so.
“Unusually abrasive” is a reasonable descriptor, I think.
[quote]How exactly is my position “anti-business”? Sue Greenwald[/quote]Sue: For starters, your support for a make-believe business park that will never get built.
We need leadership that is collaborative and can get things done – not polarizing obstructionists that talk about things that will never happen as a substitute for real accomplishment.
Why don’t you get on the same team and join your other four colleagues in supporting the Business Park Land Strategy and the Innovation Park Task Force activities. They are doing the best they can to move forward with an economic development agenda. Just because they don’t agree with you does not mean that they are ill-informed, stupid, and/or corrupt.
They are right. You are wrong. This issue is too important for political games. You should reverse your position on business park and focus on water and fiscal.
[b]@psdavis:[/b] Since you are hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, psdavis, I have no idea who you are or what makes you the arbitor of what is “make believe” and what is feasible. Personally, I think the Hunt-Wesson is more feasible than a huge peripheral business park in the northwest quadrant near Sutter hospital or the land on I-80 across Mace Blvd. and adjacent to Mace Ranch, and I think that the latter two sites would present an inferior model of city planning. I find the Nishi site the most attractive from a city planning perspective, but fear that the access and other infrastructure costs make will make in infeasible.
The Hunt-Wesson is already within the city limits, the infrastructure is in place, and we can offer the carrot of housing entitlements in exchange for putting aside some land for a high-tech cluster. The Mace/I-80 site and the “Sutter Davis site”, as I will call it, represent an older model of city planning and have even larger hurdles to overcome than would a cluster of high-tech zoned land at the Hunt-Wesson.
Interesting statements Sue. Just exactly what is it about Hunt-Wesson that makes it more feasible?
. . . and what exactly do you mean by “the carrot of housing entitlements”?
Sue Greenwald said . . .
“I have not read this entire thread for obvious reasons, but upon scanning it, I would like to pose a question: How exactly is my position “anti-business”? I’ll give you a hint: It isn’t. In fact, by many measures I am the most pro-business councilmember.
I am the councilmember who realized that our combined water/wastewater costs were too high, and who actually effectively managed to have the costs of the combined projects reduced by about 25%. That was HUGELY beneficial to business. I am the councilmember without whom the talks with West Sacramento on the water project would not have been reopened. Although this logical and potentially much more affordable option is not yet realized (and will be heavily fought by the building trades’ unions, so it might never happen), this move could again be HUGELY beneficial to business.”
Your water/wastewater activities are indeed admirable in many ways (other than your unsubstantiated vilification of an existing Davis business from the dias), but how exactly have any of those water/wastewater efforts done anything to bring new business to Davis?
That is all fine, and I would obviously support a buy-local group as a dues-paying member.
The Berkeley group has membership dues of $50 – 100 or so, and has a contract with the city for promotions. So you’re looking at an organization that would have a very small operating budget that could make some impact on local sales over a period of a few years.
Those are all good things to be working on. So far as I can tell, they don’t require anything from the city council. Nor will they have much impact on the city’s fiscal problems in the next 2 – 4 years.
Jim Frame, thanks for the clarification. Let’s see whether Don and David will correct their outrageous, weeks-long accusations which have been undermining a substantive discussion on the Chamber PAC’s objectives and thereby doing the community a great disservice.
Adam, thanks for making a coherent argument thereby doing the community a great service.
-Michael Bisch
Said another way Sue, the local city government is not the sole component of the local economy. You are obsessively focused on public sector cost controls, and that is good. However, to be pro-business, as you say you are, you have to spend some time thinking constructively about the private sector and interacting in an open and transparent way with private sector business owners who actually have names.
You need to show that you can collaborate with business in order to be pro-business.
Sue said: “Personally, I think the Hunt-Wesson is more feasible than a huge peripheral business park in the northwest quadrant near Sutter hospital or the land on I-80 across Mace Blvd. and adjacent to Mace Ranch, and I think that the latter two sites would present an inferior model of city planning.”
Aside from your vituperative attack on PS Davis for using a nom de plume, PS who obviously is well informed, rightly calls BS on the notion that you are a champion for growth of any kind. The ridiculous statement above reveals your real agenda fighting growth. If a business park is built on the Northwest Quadrant it will be built on land with poor soils and easy access to 113. In fact it reminds me of the area where Genentech and Alza/ JNJ are located with easy access off of the 505 just north of the 80 in Vacaville. It actually seems like a great place to build for industry of the type we would expect UCD to spin off. Its advantages over Cannery are obvious from both the perspective of those that might want to locate here and those that already live here. It is obviously better to have transport go west from 113 on Covell than east.
The real reason you want to hold out on Cannery is that it maintains the current footprint of Davis. You are arguing in favor of more traffic congestion on Covell. We have scene this before, by the way, your opposition to fixing the Richards underpass resulted in gridlock in that area. You unwillingness to come forward with a sensible planning process for the adjacent Covell Ranch and Cannery sites will ultimately lead to access problems on Covell Blvd. that would only be made worse by having a business park there. Something I have explained isn’t going to happen no matter how long you hold your breath or scream. Conagra has raised its dividend each year for the last 3 years and will do so again in October without your business park.
The connection between your anti-growth stubbornness and its impacts on the vitality of the private sector in Davis is the reason you are anti-business no matter what you want to claim for reasons why this is not true.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”And of course, [b]I was the only councilmember the sound the alarm on the unsustainable early enhanced retirement benefits and the outsized cafeteria cash-out[/b] — as far back as eight years ago. And I was the councilmember who lead the charge to save the city over $400,000 by raising the rank and pay of 11 firefighters – a move that Don Saylor and Stephen Souza ultimately voted against, but that prevailed when Ruth Asmundson joined Lamar Heystek and myself – again, saving the city almost over $400,000 a year. It is beneficial to business that the city not go bankrupt.”[/i]
Two questions on the above quote . . . 1) don’t you think you are selling Lamar Heystek just a bit short in your bolded comment? 2) how exactly have any of these City of Davis budgetary issues done anything to bring new business to Davis?
“The real reason you want to hold out on Cannery is that it maintains the current footprint of Davis. You are arguing in favor of more traffic congestion on Covell.” MT
Toad: The real reason Sue wants to hold out on Cannery is political. Sue has a tendency to support projects that she knows will never happen. This, in her mind, is an acceptable alternative to actually accomplishing anything.
Look at the list of the major initiatives she supports:
Her make-believe business park on ConAgra.
High density housing on PG&E.
An innovation park on Nishi.
The only thing on this list that is feasible is Nishi, and I guarantee you – if Sue is on the Council – she will flip-flop on Nishi once we start honestly dealing with the access and housing components of the project.
Look at what happened on the budget. She spent years framing herself as the only true fiscally responsible councilmember. But when it came time to deliver, she flip-flopped and voted against the budget along with Steve Souza. What’s wrong with this picture?
It’s amazing to me that she has gotten away with this for 12 years in a highly educated and engaged community like Davis.
[quote]The connection between your anti-growth stubbornness and its impacts on the vitality of the private sector in Davis is the reason you are anti-business no matter what you want to claim for reasons why this is not true. Mr. Toad[/quote]
[quote]You need to show that you can collaborate with business in order to be pro-business. Matt Williams[/quote]
“The Hunt-Wesson is already within the city limits,”
And needed for housing to meet our next RHNA obligation. The Housing Element Steering Committee supported housing on the site. The No on Covell Village campaign supported housing on the site (as documented in their campaign literature).
“the infrastructure is in place”
False statement.
“we can offer the carrot of housing entitlements in exchange for putting aside some land for a high-tech cluster.”
Even if Sue could wave her magic wand and make it happen, the tech community doesn’t want a high tech cluster in the middle of town.
“The Mace/I-80 site and the “Sutter Davis site”, as I will call it, represent an older model of city planning”
These sites haven’t been planned, so I guess Sue can see the future as well?
“and have even larger hurdles to overcome than would a cluster of high-tech zoned land at the Hunt-Wesson.”
False statement. The Mace/I-80 site has – by far – the lowest hurdles to overcome. Better infrastructure, better access, better visibility, better projected adsorption, better support from the tech community, etc., etc.
The main hurdle is Measure R. I’m going to bet on the Davis voters rather than Sue’s make-believe business park.
Oh my goodness, what an interesting discussion. Well here goes w my 2 cents worth…
[quote]Mark West: The City has both a short-term cash flow problem, and a long-term strategic planning/investment problem. David is focused on one, the Chamber PAC on the other. The solutions to the problems are not mutually exclusive, but you have to first recognize that they are fundamentally two different problems that require different solutions.
In the short-term, the City will need to cut expenses and increase revenues, probably dramatically. This will require staff cuts; saying otherwise is just feel-good propaganda. The staff will need to accomplish more with less, in order to minimize the reduction in services. This may result in morale problems among the remaining staff, but good employees will understand the challenge the City faces and will respond appropriately. Those that don’t, can find new jobs. How the City manages this reduction in staff and services is a challenge for the City Council and the City Manager. Yes, the MOUs will be an important part of this process, but so too will be the choices on which jobs, or even departments, are eliminated. In the short-term we need to expect and accept a reduction in services and an increase in fees required to pay for those services.
We cannot however cut our way to prosperity. While we are making the necessary short-term changes to improve our cash flow, we also need to be planning for how to solve this problem long-term, which will only be possible with a renewed focus on economic development. In order to be successful on this front we need to accept that our policies of the past 20-30 years are what have created our problems today, and that continuing those past policies will not solve our problems in the future. We need to let go of our preconceived biases as to what economic development means and stop ‘tar and feathering’ those who come to it with a different point of view. We need to stop equating retail growth with ‘big box’ and housing growth with ‘peripheral development.’ We need more listening, less lecturing, and a renewed focus on implementation. We need more businesses, more jobs, and more retail. We need to redevelop our downtown and expand our neighborhood centers. We need more housing, especially apartments and townhomes, and we need to be planning for what we will need in 2035, not just how much cash is in our pockets today.
Finally, we need civic leaders who are willing to work collaboratively to define the problems, identify the solutions and implement of the necessary changes. We need City Council members who will make decisions that benefit the entire citizenry, not just their preferred subset; who will work to find solutions today, not whine about the problems of yesterday; and who will implement a strategy for a viable future, not argue that things are fine just the way they are. Our problems are complex and the solutions are difficult. We will not develop a sustainable future by playing one group against another, pointing fingers at who doesn’t ‘get it,’ or acting as if ‘economic growth’ was synonymous with ‘destroying the culture of Davis.’
The only question for the election is which three candidates are best prepared to lead us to that sustainable future.[/quote]
Well said!
psdavis said . . .
[i]
“Matt: Brett’s no more pro-business than Sue.”[/i]
And your basis for making that sweeping statement is?
[quote]Matt Williams:David, there is no reason you shouldn’t criticize the Chamber when they deserve it. However, in this case you appear to be shouting into the wilderness with the Chamber standing in full sight behind you.
David Greenwald said . . . “And I’m arguing that one of the candidates they are relying on has a poor track record, critically poor on this front.”
Matt Williams: This is the true “bath water” of your article. All the rest is “baby” that you have thrown out. [/quote]
Spot on, Matt!
[quote]Matt Williams: Can Davis Do the Same?
Not only can Davis do the same, but a group of four Davis residents (Michael Bisch, Jeff Boone, Mark West and Matt Williams) have started the process.
We have met, collaborated, built consensus, reached out to the City of Davis and begun the process of building a database of Davis retail and service businesses. We have also met with Nick Barry of DavisDollars.org to see how our two efforts, which are directed at the same result can work well together. Carolyn Hinshaw has also volunteered to help and Robb Davis’ recent Social Sustainability article here in the Vanguard has synergistic potential as well.
Matt Williams: But Don, the only way to deal with the retail vacancies is to demonstrate to potential tenants that there is sufficient demand in Davis to warrant their coming here.
I agree with you that a buy local initiative requires lots of citizen involvement. Part of that is volunteer time. Another big part is for citizens to simply look at their credit card statement and/or bank account and list the categories and amounts of the purchases that they have made outside Davis in the recent past (a whole year would be good.
Armed with that kind of citizen-generated data, educational efforts can be mounted to move the locus of those purchases to within the Davis community . . . either by helping the consumers know that they had a Davis alternative, or by letting retailers know that there is untapped demand that they are missing . . . or both.[/quote]
Keep going w your campaign to buy local. What a wonderful idea. I particularly like the idea of letting retailers know why we might not buy local, so it is a collaborative effort on both sides to provide what is needed locally…
[quote]Adam Smith: David and Don have made the point that sustainable economic development takes time. Imagine how much better off we’d be if, 8 or 10 years ago, our city council had focused as much time and effort on this as they have recently on cell phone towers or wood burning fireplaces or plastic bag bans or zip car. We should all be glad that the local business interests in town are trying to influence the political scene here – they’ve been too passive for too long. [/quote]
Amen!
[quote]Sue Greenwald: I am the councilmember without whom the talks with West Sacramento on the water project would not have been reopened. Although this logical and potentially much more affordable option is not yet realized (and will be heavily fought by the building trades’ unions, so it might never happen), this move could again be HUGELY beneficial to business.[/quote]
Why don’t you allow the WAC to carry out its mission, as well as wait and see whether this option will be HUGELY beneficial to Davis, AFTER hearing ALL the evidence?
Very lively discussion!
Matt: Brett is being run by a coalition that is largely anti-business (unless that business is Parlin). In addition, his senior housing answer to the economic development question was shocking. If you really want to go down this trail, we would need to examine who is involved in his campaign and explore the obvious parallels between Brett and Lamar Heystek.
Since I agree with David Greenwald – that Brett is running fifth – these issues are probably moot. In my opinion, the race for third is between Sue and Steve. With respect to economic development, this is a Hobson’s choice.
psdavis, I think you need to look again. Brett is being run by Brett. The “coalition” you refer to “landed” on Brett because they were looking for a candidate that wasn’t Sue Greenwald. Even the “progressive” community in Davis has seen how destructive Sue can be.
In my opinion, Brett has grown a huge amount as a candidate in the months since he announced his candidacy. The biggest reason for that is that he is “a listener” and being in meetings as a candidate is a whole lot different than being in those same meetings as a citizen.
Brett’s “education” started in earnest when he came out with is position on water. Sue Greenwald promptly threw him under the bus. She was much less devious in how she did so than she was more recently when she threw Stephen under the bus. Brett quickly learned that being the “other progressive” candidate in the election meant Sue felt she was going to have to share the stage if Brett was elected, and that would put the kibosh on her ability to play the martyr unfettered.
But I digress. I strongly suggest you either catch up with Brett personally or post a bunch of important questions for him here and see if his answers are anti-business. The proof will be in the pudding.
[b]@Matt Williams:[/b]You will do your candidate a service if you stick to positive campaigning.
Matt: I have already looked very hard at Brett, and will certainly continue to look as you suggest. You should also do the same since you care about economic development and are willing to invest your time in advancing the ball.
To address some of the specific points you made:
Being the “anybody-but-Sue progressive” is not much to hang your hat on. Where has he been the last 4 years and what specific community service has he been engaged in?
On the point about independence, Lamar said the same thing and we all know how that turned out. I think its fair to judge a candidate, in part, by the company they keep. Brett is supported by a long list of individuals with anti-business tendencies as well as the old pro-Parlin gang. Bill Ritter was telling people around town that he was running Brett’s campaign until Dick Livingston stepped in and stopped him. Brett tabled with Pam Neiberg (one of his nominators) on the water controversy. I don’t see how anyone with economic development as their primary issue can vote for a Ritter/Neiberg/Livingston/etc. candidate. Brett has done nothing that I have seen to publicly put any meaningful distance between himself and his key supporters.
On the point about listening, I’m getting much different feedback. What my contacts tell me is that he hasn’t done his homework and prematurely locked down on positions held by his inner circle without doing his own due diligence. To underscore this point, Brett has made it a point to come to public comment to speak out on controversial issues. This is public record, and it corroborates the feedback I have gotten.
On the point about Sue, the fact that she might be threatened by another progressive (and reacted inappropriately) is not material to my assessment of Brett’s qualifications to serve.
I’m also reluctant to seriously consider Brett until I understand exactly what happened regarding the attack mailer. If it wasn’t for the sympathy backlash, Brett would have been the biggest benefactor of the hit piece. I am absolutely NOT suggesting Brett had any knowledge of or involvement in the mailer WHATSOEVER. However, its hard to ignore that observations that Jon Li is one of Brett’s biggest promoters (as well as an outspoken Souza critic) and Bill Ritter used to work for Jim Burchill. Too many questions. Not enough answers.
I absolutely understand your dilemma. Both Sue and Steve have serious negatives. But so does Brett. If you have come to the conclusion that it’s anybody but Sue and Steve, then I can completely understand and respect that decision. However, from what you write it seems to me like you are trying to convince me (and maybe yourself) that Brett is pro-business. That’s going to be a tough row to hoe.
If Brett puts forward an economic development plan that is harmonious with the strategy already adopted by the four pro-business candidates on the current Council, then I will definitely re-evaluate. However, all I see right now is that Brett is parroting Sue’s strategy. This, in conjunction with the crowd he runs with and his willingness to work on a referendum to overturn an action by the body he hopes to serve on, does not give me any confidence that he will emerge as a collaborative, non-polarizing force on the next Council.
Sue, as you have pointed out pointedly in the past, I don’t get to vote in a City election. As such I do not “have a candidate.” I simply try my best to report on and/or drill down into the events as they unfold.
[i]Are you saying that you didn’t throw Stephen under the bus?
Are you saying that you didn’t excoriate Bret’s initial position regarding water?
Are you saying that you didn’t vilify an existing Davis water/wastewater consulting business from the dias?[/i]
I look forward to your answers.
psdavis said . . .
[i]”On the point about listening, I’m getting much different feedback. What my contacts tell me is that he hasn’t done his homework and prematurely locked down on positions held by his inner circle without doing his own due diligence. To underscore this point, Brett has made it a point to come to public comment to speak out on controversial issues. This is public record, and it corroborates the feedback I have gotten.” [/i]
I would say that your initial sentence is a legitimate criticism of the early weeks of Brett’s campaign. When I first met Brett on February 14, 2012 it was to discuss Water in Davis. I came away saying to myself, “he is trying too hard to make an impression.” However, one of his greatest strengths (as I see it) is the underlying thought process that he has honed as a result of his background as a process engineer. Despite my face-to-face reaction in that first meeting, when I read his analysis of the water situation published both in the Enterprise and here in the Vanguard [url]http://davisvanguard.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4953:a-davis-water-plan-to-move-forward&Itemid=79[/url], I felt it was well worth my effort to give him at least another opportunity.
Read through his analysis. It was remarkably prescient of what the WAC has learned thus far in its process. Nonetheless, Sue ripped him a new one for it.
Another example was Brett’s brown bag luncheon at the DDBA, where he said in “hard-edged” terms that a monolithic multi-story parking garage was not the best solution for Davis’ parking issues. If an observer stopped at just that point they would have missed the fact that Brett has some very creative ideas for addressing parking (especially evening parking) without spending the millions of dollars and many months of construction that building the garage would take. He was about fixing the parking problem NOW. I’ve encouraged him to talk to Chuck Roe, who was his biggest critic at that DDBA brown bag. Ironically, between the two of them, if they both take the time to listen, they have some very synergistic, positive [u]implementable in the short term[/u] ideas that can make Davis’ parking situation much, much better.
Brett’s mistakes are probably very much of the same cloth as Rochelle’s and Joe’s mistakes two years ago. They are a biproduct of being somewhat green in the political fray. However, like Rochelle (who won my endorsement two years ago by the homework she was willing to do), Brett is doing his best to climb the steep learning curve by attending virtually all the City Council meetings and absolutely all of the Water Advisory Committee meetings . . . and probably lots of other meetings that I haven’t personally attended.
So my bottom-line is, honor your contacts, but take the time to reach out to Brett and talk to him. He is showing us real-time that he is a candidate with a substantial upside who can benefit all of Davis’ citizens.
psdavis
[i]”. . . and his willingness to work on a referendum to overturn an action by the body he hopes to serve on, does not give me any confidence that he will emerge as a collaborative, non-polarizing force on the next Council.”[/i]
There were lots and lots of reasons why the thoughts of Davis citizens were engaged by the Referendum. Brett explains his in his OpEd linked above.
Are you saying that all those citizens were non-collaborative and polarizing? If you do, then you and I will have to agree to disagree.
As I’ve posted here in the past, the categories and groupings of those citizens are as follows. That is a pretty wide and diverse group if you ask me.
[b]Those who opposed the JPA Plan outright:[/b]
• Those who see any added water capacity as contributing to population increase in Davis, and that removing access to water makes it very difficult (impossible) for developers to get regulatory approval to build on their land around Davis.
• Those who have serious doubts about the objectivity/intentions/actions/competence of City of Davis Staff/Council . . . some would even include concerns about fraud.
• Those who as a matter of principle object to any increase on either rates or taxes.
• Those who believe this is really a Woodland problem, and that the JPA makes Davis a captive and minority partner subject to non-Davis whims/power plays.
• Those who have serious concerns about “privatization” of any water system.
• Those who have serious doubts about the objectivity (due to profit motive) of the private sector Design-Build-Operate (DBO) firms and/or the private sector consultants/experts.
[b]Those who were concerned about one or more aspects of the JPA Plan, but as yet didn’t oppose it in its entirety:[/b]
• Those who feel the process leading to the approval of the plan is 1) proceeding too quickly, and/or 2) lacks sufficient transparency and citizen input. This group typically is not sure that the surface water project is the best alternative, and that perhaps other options are out there that have not been sufficiently explored by the JPA and/or City of Davis staff.
• Those who see the rate increase in dollars and cents terms, and simply can’t afford the increase in these hard economic times.
• Those who have a business in which water is a key component (Sudwerk, swimming clubs, etc.), and see the rate increase as a huge change to their cost of doing business and/or their ability to continue to stay in business.
• Those who see the rate structure approved in September as structurally “unfair” and don’t want to think about the JPA plan until the fairness issues in the rate structure are addressed.
• Those who have serious ethical concerns about the bidding DBO firms and/or the DBO model itself.
• Those who have serious competitiveness concerns about the DBO bidding process’ structural ability to result in truly competitive vendor bids for one or more of the Design, the Build, and/or the Operate portions of the DBO model.
[quote]”The Hunt-Wesson is already within the city limits,” [/quote]Sue, as well as David, keep using this argument as a reason to reserve the site for the envisioned neighborhood-friendly business park. I’ve always found it an odd, even a little absurd, one since it assumes that Davis residents will [u]not[/u] be supporting such a park. If we want a business park, we’d vote “yes,” right?
So, while they disparage those who are trying to develop the Hunt-Wesson property because the builders covet the site (which requires no public vote), Sue and David make the same argument themselves every time Hunt-Wesson comes up.
[i]If we want a business park, we’d vote “yes,” right? [/i]
Other than Nishi, I consider the chances of peripheral annexation for the purpose of building a business park to be pretty low. And the bigger the proposal, the less likely to pass, in my view. The advantage is the Hunt-Wesson site only requires a council majority for whatever plan is put before it, and has little built-in opposition to any development proposal. But as I’ve said before, I expect the ConAgra proposal that is moving forward right now probably has council majority support, so the site is likely to be housing.
So, all this time Sue’s been promoting the site for a business park, it’s been at least partly because we know the populace won’t want a big big business park anywhere. Of course, it’s a hopeless dream in any case since no developer is interested in putting up the cash for that kind of development.
Wouldn’t it be smarter to work [u]with[/u] developers who actually have cash and actually are interested–and encourage the type of subdivision that is most needed here, multi-family, small townhouses for us geezers, apartments, etc.
Sue can speak for herself, but her comments over a long period indicate she believes that the site is viable for a business park, not that it’s some kind of ruse as others seem to suggest. I don’t know that the other sites are “a hopeless dream” because there seem to be people advocating for them to be included in the planning process. There’s even a whole commission reviewing their suitability. I’m not a great prognosticator of Davis elections, but I think a big project is unlikely to pass.
Nevertheless, since the ConAgra owners are completely unwilling to build anything except houses, it’s probably pointless to continue trying for a business park on that site.
[quote]Nevertheless, since the ConAgra owners [b]are completely unwilling[/b] to build anything except houses, [b]it’s probably pointless[/b] to continue trying for a business park on that site. [/quote]I’d bet that ConAgra is more interested in unloading the site than developing it. I’m guessing that they feel the site will be more marketable if the land-use entitlements are in place, rather than the buyer figuring their risk to develop ANY project on the site, given Davis politics.
JS – Interesting. For years, we’ve known that there is no legitimate business or financial interest in Hunt Wesson as currently zoned and promoted by Sue. That actually fits very well with why Sue would promote it – she can look like a champion of business, when she knows that she is, in reality, ensuring that good, sound economic development doesn’t happen somewhere else.
I have a new campaign slogan for her campaign: Sue Greenwald for a Non-Sustainable Davis.