Following one of the votes at Tuesday’s council meeting, I had an interesting conversation with one of the councilmembers who mentioned to me that they really had only gotten feedback from the public in one direction – favoring the staff recommendation as opposed to the opposition. They inferred from that that the public was largely supportive of the staff recommendation, and that there was limited opposition to it.
I have a somewhat different view, and actually believe that receiving feedback in that manner biases one’s perception about the public. To get into this discussion, I need to back up.
For the first four years of the Vanguard‘s existence, we had one council from the foundation of the Vanguard in July 2006 until June of 2010. The same five councilmembers served on the council, and they were rather predictable in their voting, with mostly clear-cut 3-2 votes on contentious issues.
My view of that council’s responsiveness to public opinion is that the councilmembers largely made up their minds well in advance, and everything else was window dressing. Occasionally, on issues when they perceived that there was a clear-cut majority against them in the community, they might create the appearance that they were either taking a middle ground or bucking to public opinion.
They may have supported, for example, Fifth Street redesign by a 5-0 vote and then counted on city staff to drag the process out. Or they may have taken a position on wood smoke with a nuanced compromised position. But on the big issues, particularly development and fiscal issues, they made up their minds well in advance – protests to the contrary and claims notwithstanding.
That kind of approach produces a chilling effect on the public process. Groups simply became beaten down by this arrangement. There were some groups and individuals that simply dropped out of the process and no longer bothered to write to council anymore about issues.
In June of 2010, the voters elected Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson to the council. In January of 2011, they appointed Dan Wolk to the council to replace Don Saylor. And now in June of 2012, the last two remnants of the old council were voted out and replaced with Brett Lee and Lucas Frerichs.
Change is often more subtle than sudden. For instance, the new council in September 6, 2011 made a critical error in supporting the old council’s water project. A group of citizens brought forth a referendum and the council decided to change course.
The new council, on a lot of issues, has been much more responsive to public opinion. I think there is a real effort and intent to listen to the public, even on the big issues like water where the views of council are less malleable than on smaller issues like Target pads or wood burning.
There are two problems however, that I can see with this kind of approach.
First, there are a sizable number of people who used to be active in the community, who have burned out. They still live in town. They still have strong views on public policy. But they were beaten down time and again with the old council and many may not see as large a difference in the old versus new council as I do.
That leads to a second problem here – if you are a councilmember and you are trying to be responsive to public concerns, you are using communications from the public as one gauge of the pulse of the public. You don’t have public opinion surveys available to you and you do not have the resources to really do outreach.
In the absence of more sophisticated methods, looking at email communications, calls from the public and, of course, public comment is at least a proxy measure.
But there are all sorts of problems with this approach.
First, it gives a critical advantage to monied interests who have the ability to organize citizens through their resource advantages. This effort clearly backfired with CHA (Choices for Healthy Aging), which was too transparently astroturf. But it gives an advantage to the business and developer community.
Second, the people most likely to speak out are the most passionate on an issue. But passion does not mean they are in the majority. A good example from the national level is that if you look at the polls, the majority in the public support gun control. However, those who support gun control do so far less passionately than those who oppose it.
Those who oppose gun control are more likely to vote on the basis of that issue as opposed to other concerns. They are most likely to write letters. They are most likely to write letters to the editor. They are most likely to speak out.
So, if the city of Davis wanted to create a tough new gun law (for some strange reason – just follow me through this ridiculous hypothetical), they might be bombarded with citizens complaining about the measure, they might get out-of-area letters, and yet there might be a strong majority favoring the measure but who are just not communicating with the council because they do not feel as passionate about that issue as the other side.
Is that the best way to govern?
This council, I think, genuinely wants to do right by the citizens. I think they go out of their way to avoid the mistakes of the previous council. It’s not that they have not made mistakes (September 6 was a huge one), but their mistakes are of a different sort.
So then we go back to the issue of the Target pads. There you have the developer negotiating with the DDBA on a way forward.
But there is something missing. The public is not there. The neighborhood shopping centers are not there.
What is going on?
Well, you can conclude, as perhaps some did on Tuesday night, that without the public there, everyone was kind of okay with it.
But there is another view. The folks who fought against Target so vehemently six years ago were literally beaten down by the process to the point where few of them still participate in city governance. It was a close vote that resulted from a huge resource discrepancy along with a sizable vote from students to push it over the top.
In the meantime, the biggest impact from Target may well be on these neighborhood shopping centers. The impact on them is diffuse, however – it is not an immediate threat that is going to trigger large numbers of the public showing up.
People show up when you plan to build something that will immediately and dramatically impact their lives, not necessarily for something that may further reduce vehicle trips to neighborhood shopping centers and continue a destructive trend.
This is where the council needs to stop listening to everyone else, and look at the issue. The trend and numbers are clear. The council needs to decide what its priority is – do you want to save the neighborhood shopping center?
If you do, then you have to look at what the impact of this proposal will be on that shopping center. You cannot look just at the public response, because this is not an issue that is likely to trigger a huge public response, but that does not mean there are not people out there concerned about this issue.
The problem is those people have just given up. It is your job to represent those people. And it is your job to get them to reengage in the process by empowering people to believe that once again they will be hurt by the leadership in this city. That is just as important a task as it is to put the fiscal house back in order. In fact, it might be more important and a far tougher task.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“How Responsive is Council and Should the Council Be to Public Opinion?” -DG
I had high hopes for a truly weighty piece when I first saw the headline and feel sadly let down now having read the piece. David, you have enitrely missed the crux of the matter in my view. Does a leader represent the people, whatever that means, or does a leader represent the interests of the people? Isn’t the challenge of leadership weighing what your constituents want versus what you think is in their best interest? More importantly, isn’t the definition of leadership to lead; rather, than to follow (public opinion)? Isn’t forming public opinion a critical component of leadership? Isn’t having a vision and the ability to make a compelling case for your vision a critical component of leadership? Isn’t taking effective action toward realizing the stated vision a critical component of leadership?
I do not elect followers to leadership positions. I elect leaders who I judge to have a positive vision for the community, can make a compelling argument, and can take effective action in realizing the vision. This is the measure by which I judge my leaders and I’m real curious what others think about this issue.
-Michael Bisch
DT
“More importantly, isn’t the definition of leadership to lead; rather, than to follow (public opinion)? “
My answer to this question is ….”it depends”. I agree that I would prefer a leader who has a clear vision and ability to communicate that vision effectively. However, I also want my leaders to be flexible and open to the points of view of others.This may at times vary from their initial stance as more information becomes available to them. There is a fine line between “following public opinion” and being willing to reconsider one’s initial opinion based on a new perspective. Ideally, I want my leaders to be able to incorporate different perspectives into their own vision to achieve a balance between the extremes of dictatorial edicts and simply blowing with the perceived wind of public opinion.
Totally agree medwoman. Wise words. Fine line indeed and tough for CC members to invest the time it would take to more objectively gather info regarding voter views. Only emails, public opinion as stated OR only relying on small group of supporters is not ideal…..
I think the piece did discuss some of DT’s concerns, but I more broadly agree on Medwoman. When I bore for people I am looking for people with a hared vision of the future who can also be responsive to public concerns. A leader who ignores the public is no leader and not Lon for being an officeholder.
medwoman and SODA, there’s no daylight between your position and mine as far as I can tell, perhaps only in the logical sequence. A leader cannot weigh “…what your constituents want versus what you think is in their best interest?” until said leader has determined the constituents’ best interests. Determining their best interests necessitates a discovery process, which requires a DIALOGUE with the constituents among other things. But once the discovery process has been completed, the leader must act exercising his/her best judgement. To be clear, the discovery process is imperfect, fluid and ongoing. Gather information, form bi-directional opinion, act, weigh results, adjust for errors, repeat.
The above process and outcome is where community and political leadership has fallen short in Davis as far as I have experienced it. I’m advocating for improving it.
What David appears to be suggesting is to do away with representative democracy and to strive to improve/perfect non-representative democracy.
-Michael Bisch
Whoops! I meant to conclude with …improve/perfect non-representative, i.e. direct democracy.
-Michael Bisch
I appreciate the discussion here and think that vision, good listening skills and flexibility are key to good leadership. One thing that I have not seen discussed very much in relation to the 2nd Street Crossing issue concerns how CC (or staff) uses “data” for decision making. I am not talking about counting the number of phone calls or emails for or against an issue but data that would enable the CC to analyze what the true impact of Target has been on the downtown and the neighborhood shopping centers.
To gauge that impact the current CC has one study that suggests that trips pre-Target and post-Target to the downtown and the neighborhood shopping centers are down. I would argue that this a very, very limited snapshot of what Target has meant to the retail climate of the city. We all know all the caveats that need to be added on to any conclusion from this study that Target has harmed eithe the downtown or the neighborhood center. For example, the economy was in a deep recession during this period and there is the normal turnover in small businesses that that draw people to both locations. On the second point: I used to make frequent trips to the South Davis center because Yolo Credit Union was there–but they have moved downtown so I never go there anymore but have not increased my trips into downtown because I just go to the credit union during regular trips. This one anecdote illustrates the problem with using “trips to” as a proxy for impact of Target on neighborhood or downtown trips. Think of the turnover you are aware of in the downtown and in the neighborhood shopping centers in this period and then ask what are the possible causal directions that could explain the data.
I am not saying that Target has not had a negative effect on either, I am saying that the data in hand does not permit me (or the CC) to conclude very much. The question is, are there sources of data that either we are not exploiting or rapid survey collection methods we could use to create a more complete picture? I do not know the answer to that question but I know that without a better picture our leaders are greatly limited in their ability to do what Michael is calling for: make decisions that are best for the city.
I would rather see us shift a bit more attention to what we might do to add to the evidence base that will enable more substantive community discussion of the issue and a more solid foundation upon which the CC could make a decision. In general, I see far too many “data free” decisions made in Davis. This is not because the data does not exist or could not be better exploited. I believe it is because there are interests–inclduding city staff–(on any issue) that would rather appeal to emotion or vague ideologies or other motivations to guide deicisions. This does not serve us well and does enable informed decisions by our CC.
Robb
I agree with your points and would like to add another dimension to the discussion. What has been discussed so far seems to have been centered on effects on the business community exclusively, and this would seem natural since we are discussing a business development. However, I do think that there are broader issues to also be considered.
For example, would the type of business being considered lead to more or less car trips with their undesirable environmental impacts ? As I recall, the only discussion surrounding this during the initial Target consideration was the proposed positive effect of lessening automobile trips to surrounding communities. But are we now thinking in terms of how this proposal may effect automobile vs bike vs foot vs bus traffic in our community ?
I throw this out as only one of many possible seemingly peripheral concerns that might impact many in the community but are not so obvious on casual consideration of the business impact.
I woud be very interested in the comments of those who are more versed than I in community planning, which would include almost everyone who posts here.
[i]”But there is something missing. The public is not there. The neighborhood shopping centers are not there.”[/i]
The reason the owners of those neighborhood shopping centers were not involved is because they generally do not buy the proposition that a change in the zoning at the Target mall site affects them. They likely realize that the data which says that since Target opened the traffic to the shopping centers declined by X-percent took place for reasons unrelated to Target itself.
If this change at the Target mall really were a threat to the owners of The Marketplace on West Covell or The Oakshade Town Center on Cowell or Oak Tree Plaza on East Covell, these property owners would have been the first to fight the change.
That the downtown interests spoke out as they did suggests that they genuinely felt that the zoning change would be harmful to the downtown.
I think the major difference between downtown’s fears and the neighborhood centers’ indifference is that most of the traffic going to the neighborhood malls is driven by anchor-store supermarkets (Safeway, Nugget, etc.) and the zoning change won’t affect that traffic. By contrast, a lot of downtown’s business comes from destination restaurants and this proposed change at the Target mall would diminish that flow to downtown.
[i]The reason the owners of those neighborhood shopping centers were not involved is because they generally do not buy the proposition that a change in the zoning at the Target mall site affects them.
[/i]
On what do you base this conclusion? Actually, it isn’t the owners of the shopping centers I would contact if I were seeking input. It would be the owners of the businesses that rent from the owners of the shopping centers.
[i]They likely realize that the data which says that since Target opened the traffic to the shopping centers declined by X-percent took place for reasons unrelated to Target itself. [/i]
On what do you base this conclusion? About what they ‘realize’ or even about the proposition itself? The anchors at each neighborhood center include a grocery store and, in some cases, chain businesses. It seems evident to me that sales at a sporting goods store in northwest Davis probably fell off when Target opened, and that sales at an office supply store in south Davis fell off when Target opened. I don’t even need a traffic study to reach that conclusion.
When sales at an office supply store fall, it seems evident that traffic to that center decreases. When traffic decreases, it seems evident to me that sales at the smaller stores that inhabit that same shopping center are likely to decline. When some of those small stores and restaurants close, and their spaces remain vacant for over two years, it seems evident to me that there is a negative impact on all the remaining stores.
For evidence of my supposition, please speak to the owner of Common Grounds. Any evidence of your suppositions?
Robb: “I am not saying that Target has not had a negative effect on either, I am saying that the data in hand does not permit me (or the CC) to conclude very much. The question is, are there sources of data that either we are not exploiting or rapid survey collection methods we could use to create a more complete picture?”
What you need is the detailed information the State Board of Equalization provides to the city about sales tax revenues in different categories. They even have specific store information, but that is confidential. You would need staff to analyze the data, and I don’t know that they have any direction from council or incentive to do so.
My guess, if I could see the sector data, would be that we would see shifts from Board of Equalization categories in (for example) office supplies, sporting goods, pet supplies, toys, electronics, and housewares, as they are purchased at general merchandisers (Target) instead of businesses that report in those categories. You can guess which local stores are in those categories.
[i]”By contrast, a lot of downtown’s business comes from [b]trips to small business and[/b] destination restaurants and this proposed change at the Target mall would diminish that flow to downtown [b]by permitting similar sized competitors from opening up at the Target mall[/b].”[/i]
Fixed.
I might add that there was a big fight in Davis in 1964 over a very similar issue: A San Francisco-based developer proposed to build that year the second neighborhood shopping center outside of downtown. (Davis Manor on E. 8th had already opened.) The developer’s proposal was to construct a new Safeway (Davis already had one on G Street, where the Co-op now is) and a Pick-and-Pack (which, in a series of brand changes, became Pay-and-Save not long after) in his brand new, indoor, air-conditioned* University Mall.
Owners of downtown businesses went nuts!!! They not only feared that downtown supermarkets (like State Market on Second Street) and downtown pharmacies (like Star Pharmacy and Quessenberries, both also on Second Street) would lose business, but they were worried that the smaller shops inside the mall would reduce trips downtown. The downtown merchants fought, and ultimately lost, this battle.
The result of that defeat for the downtown merchants was that Davis soon adopted its ordinance that guaranteed a new shopping center in every new neighborhood. Those centers have clearly played a role in changing the types of businesses which could succeed downtown.
—————————-
*The University Mall was the first air-conditioned neighborhood shopping center built in the United States west of the Mississippi River.
I’m still participating as a private citizen here.
“What has been discussed so far seems to have been centered on effects on the business community exclusively, and this would seem natural since we are discussing a business development.” -medwoman
Hm, I don’t agree with this comments. I have consistently heard and read communications from Davis Downtown weighing the zoning amendment application in the context of building community, fostering a sustainable community and quality of life. In this context, there have been numerous statements pertaining to:
1)Developing/maintaining a compact community with greenbelts and surrounded by open space.
2)Environmental impacts including carbon emissions generation.
3)Reducing sales tax leakage to fund city services.
4)The visual/aesthethic impact of constructing I80 retail sprawl.
5)Providing a greater variety of shopping choices to residents.
6)And, of course, the process, i.e. whether the democratic process been circumvented.
Apart from Davis Downtown, there have been any number of other commentators who have addressed these issues.
I’d also like to quibble on a philosophical point that you’ve raised indirectly here, medwoman. Is the pursuit of commerce an objective in and of itself? Or is the pursuit of commerce a means to an end? I would argue the latter. So even if some aspects of this months long debate focused on commerce, they still are all about building community, fostering a sustainable community and quality of life.
-Michael Bisch
Rich: [i]”The reason the owners of those neighborhood shopping centers were not involved is because they generally do not buy the proposition that a change in the zoning at the Target mall site affects them.”[/i]
Don: [i]”On what do you base this conclusion?”[/i]
My basis is obvious: they were silent. If it was going to harm their wallets, they would have acted. Businesses always get involved when their bottom lines will be harmed.
Don: [i]”The owners of the shopping centers don’t live here or work here or involve themselves locally in any way.”[/i]
It doesn’t matter where they live. It matters whether the change will or will not harm their incomes. If it would cost them significant amounts of money, they would have, at the very least, sent represenatives. Since none did, it clearly suggests they don’t think this change will harm them. (The exception here is Jennifer Anderson, who is an owner of a neighborhood shopping center and a downtown merchant. I don’t know if her primary antipathy to the change was focused on Anderson Plaza or Davis Ace.)
Don: [i]”Actually, it isn’t the owners of the shopping centers I would contact if I were seeking input. It would be the owners of the businesses that rent from the owners of the shopping centers.”[/i]
It sounds like the owners of these businesses also do not believe that the change in zoning at the Target mall will hurt them. If they thought it would, they would have gotten involved. In this case, their inaction speaks for itself.
“The reason the owners of those neighborhood shopping centers were not involved is because they generally do not buy the proposition that a change in the zoning at the Target mall site affects them. They likely realize that the data which says that since Target opened the traffic to the shopping centers declined by X-percent took place for reasons unrelated to Target itself.” -RR
I disagree with this statement. As Don mentioned, these out-of-town landlords have very little knowledge of Davis developments. They might be monitoring trends in the greater Sacramento region, but even that is doubtful for some of them. The same is true of some of their property managers and leasing agents. Even if these parties were aware of the proposed zoning amendment, I’m not sure they’d take any action?. Can they take effective action? Would the effort be worth it? What impact on their overall investment portfolio will the impact on their Davis investment have? Do they have business dealings with Ramos/Oates?
I am surprised however that the independentally-owned business tenants are not speaking out. Then again, there’s a lot of apathy out there and many of them have really full plates running their businesses. Or maybe they agree with Rich that this zoning amendment will have no impact on their businesses. I don’t know. Keep in mind, staff’s notice only went out 500 ft.
-Michael Bisch
[i] Since none did, it clearly suggests they don’t think this change will harm them.
[/i]
I doubt if the owners of the neighborhood centers in question* are even aware of this proposed zoning change. As to the owners of the businesses, the few that I have spoken to see no point in involving themselves in Davis politics.
*Oakshade was bought by Regency Centers in 2011: “As of June 30, 2011, [Recency Centers] owned 367 retail properties, including those held in co-investment partnerships. Including tenant-owned square footage, the portfolio encompassed 50.1 million square feet.” I don’t think they give a hoot about Mr. Ramos’es minor zoning changes.
“Businesses always get involved when their bottom lines will be harmed.” -RR
Nope, not true. Businesses always weigh, consciously or sub-consciously, an individual course of action against the spectrum of actions at their disposal (opportunity cost). They also weigh the likely outcome of any action against the effort. And finally, small, independentally-owned business also weigh the opportunity cost for the other aspects of their lives such as family, community services, leisure activities, etc.
-Michael Bisch
It’s not apathy, Michael. They aren’t notified, so they have very little means of becoming aware of issues like this. And most business owners, as you know, feel there is risk in getting involved in politics (local or otherwise) and very little likelihood of benefit.
I’d also hypothesize that my previous post explains why many small business owners when asked will readily complain about something after the fact rather then actively engage before the fact.
-Michael Bisch
Which, I see, is pretty much what you said while I was posting!
Don, I stand corrected. “Apathy” was a poor choice of words. “Overwhelmed” is nearer the mark. And the political advocacy risk/return ratio is not in their favor. That’s why the downtown businesses have an entity that does it for them (we can argue over whether it has been effective).
-Michael Bisch
DT
[quote]Hm, I don’t agree with this comments. I have consistently heard and read communications from Davis Downtown weighing the zoning amendment application in the context of building community, fostering a sustainable community and quality of life. In this context, there have been numerous statements pertaining to:[/quote]
I agree with you that I spoke too broadly here. In the past, I think there was a fair amount of consideration given to these issues. I think I should have been more specific in my feeling that these peripheral concerns may be given less attention this go round. Of course, I would also consider that I may have missed at least some of the conversation while out of the country…..or just not paying attention. One question though. You are very specific in saying that you have heard and read communications from Davis Downtown weighing these concerns. Have you also heard from any other constituencies regarding these issues ? If not, I would stand by my comment a little more firmly since I think the environmental, transportation, safety and health issues involve the entire community, not just the downtown.
medwoman, your use of the term “constituencies” has me struggling a bit to the point where I looked up the definition. I have not heard from voters in other electoral districts. If you were referring to other “organizations” or “interest groups”, the only one I recall hearing address all or some of these issues is the Chamber.
-Michael Bisch
medwoman, I might also add my observation that there have been very few participants in the Vanguard threads pertaining to 2nd Street Crossing and certainly even less that have participated in the discussions over the broader implications for the community. It wasn’t until David printed this rather inflammatory headline, “Davis Downtown Sells Itself Out to Target Developer”, that a diverse group of participants chimed in.
These are just casual observations of mine. Robb, feel free to chime in with some precise Vanguard data compilation. 🙂
-Michael Bisch
Don – I know the conversation has gone in a different direction but back to what you wrote:
“What you need is the detailed information the State Board of Equalization provides to the city about sales tax revenues in different categories. They even have specific store information, but that is confidential. You would need staff to analyze the data, and I don’t know that they have any direction from council or incentive to do so.”
My point is that we need the CC and staff need to make a commitment to get and analyze such data. There are LOTS of hypotheses here about the effects of Target but very little data to test any of them. As a result we are left with the hypotheses and (in the case of the thread here) lots of assumptions about why landlords are or not acting in certain ways. My point is, we can and must do better at using extant data and commit to using it to inform decision making. Having said that, I have no illusions about the lack of clarity that will continue to exist even if we have an use data. However, we need to start constructing evidence to guide conversation and decision making and I do not see much of that at this point.
Robb,
I asked Paul Navazio for that information twice: in 2010, and earlier this year. I didn’t follow up in 2010, and in March when I asked him he was just about to make his move to Woodland. I was requesting specific sales tax data in certain use categories, and it seemed that with a little time and collation they could provide that information. But then he left.
Given the staff analysis shown in reports such as what accompanied the developers proposal before the city council this week, I am dubious about staff having any inclination to do the number-crunching that would be necessary. It would be better done independently after obtaining the raw data (redacted as might be necessary).
This entire discussion misses the point. People turn out when they care about something otherwise they leave it to the council to get it right. At one point there was a heated discussion about Target. Now even many who voted no shop there and nobody really cares about changing the pad configuration besides a few business people. This is why the incessant call for elections on every minor issue falls on deaf ears, its just a few people who see the sky falling at every turn, who oppose everything trying to get the masses worked up. Don’t get me wrong we need people to stir it up so that the council hears it when they are off course but if they fail to get the community worked up it is probably because nobody cares enough to challenge the council’s decisions on ordinary matters.
Put the changes on the ballot and you’ll see data analysis and interest.
Section C zoning specifics can only be changed by the voters.
Staff are gambling local lawyers won’t take the case.
The lawyers will do what the people that hire them pay them to do. Staff may be betting that nobody cares enough to pay for a lawyer to take the case. By the way, if i had to have a vote on it and I was the developer, I wouldn’t even run a campaign. I’d simply say that the voters should be angry with the people who make the citizens vote on every silly thing and that whichever way the vote comes out is fine with him.
David: [i]”First, it gives a critical advantage to monied interests who have the ability to organize citizens through their resource advantages. This effort clearly backfired with CHA (Choices for Healthy Aging), which was too transparently astroturf. But it gives an advantage to the business and developer community.”[/i]
In considering the interest groups in town that have the most influence in effecting policy, the business and developer communit[ies] would not be high on my list. Old North Davis Neighborhood Association, bike advocacy groups, and grass-roots slow-growth coalitions seem to have had much more impact. In fact, I can’t really point to any issues on which the downtown business interests have had much traction, and the ‘developer community’ must be wondering what the heck you’re talking about.
[quote]People turn out when they care about something otherwise they leave it to the council to get it right.[/quote]
True enough, but the council often relies upon staff analysis, and when the issues are complex with no bright line between the right and wrong decision without a detailed and expensive investigation, staff tends to support the applicant. That puts the burden of overcoming the staff analysis upon community members, who generally lack the time, expertise and money to develop a compelling countervailing analysis. Applicant wins by default rather than merit.
.