This week, Robb Davis announced in an email to friends and supporters that he has decided to run for the Davis City Council in the June 2014 election. That makes him the first announced candidate for two seats currently held by Mayor Joe Krovoza, who is running for the California State Assembly, and Rochelle Swanson who has told supporters that she plans to run for reelection.
In addition to Mr. Davis, it is also widely believed that School Board Member Sheila Allen will run for the city council as well.
He said he is running for city council, because “I want Davis to be a socially, environmentally, and economically healthy city.”
“I believe I will be an effective Council member. Davis faces challenges and opportunities in protecting and sustaining community health,” he wrote. “To face the challenges and make the most of opportunities we need elected officials who can weigh alternatives, analyze tradeoffs and make informed and transparent decisions. I believe that I can do these things.”
He added, “I will bring my experience and the following strengths to the process: I am a good listener, able to ask relevant questions and probe to go deeper; I am a tireless worker who prepares for the task before me; I am able to take complex topics and articulate them in ways that citizens can understand; I am respectful of others and value team work to solve problems. Most importantly I am willing to learn and go on learning to improve my ability to make informed decisions.”
“A city needs more from leadership than simply making decisions,” he said. “It needs leaders who can help create and nurture a vision for the future. I am a forward looking person. As I learn about the city, its problems and its potential, I will work with citizens to identify our values, assure that our policies are consistent with them, and seek creative ways to implement these policies. I will listen, learn and respectfully walk with my neighbors to chart our collective future.”
The official announcement will be on Saturday, October 26 at 10:00 am at the city property at 5th and D Streets (on the southeast side of the intersection, just west of the fire station). “This is the location of the Davis Community Meals Cold Weather Shelter and the STEAC Resource Center,” he wrote.
Robb Davis was one of the original members of the Vanguard Editorial Board. He resigned from his position last week prior to announcing his run. He has been a consistent contributor and participant on the Vanguard.
He has been a member of the Bicycling Advisory Commission with the city of Davis. He also served as a member of the Downtown Parking Task Force. The parking task force last month sent up a strong recommendation to the Davis City Council.
He told the Enterprise last month, “Now, the devil obviously is in the details and the exact configuration is where we’re divided, but there are eight of us saying we favor (paid parking).”
Robb Davis has been an advocate for better bike connectivity at the Cannery.
“The Cannery project, whatever its value in terms of housing provided, suffers from a significant problem of lack of connectivity to the rest of the city,” he wrote.
In an op-ed co-authored with Mont Hubbard, he wrote, “To understand how connectivity-challenged this project is, imagine your home in your neighborhood of 550 homes (you choose the other 549). Then imagine building a wall around the neighborhood and creating just one entrance/exit, requiring everyone to come and go through this single portal into the busiest artery in the city!”
“The developers don’t seem to understand that good bike connectivity is a strong economic advantage,” they wrote, “But it doesn’t have to be this way. The development could be acceptable if the connectivity challenges were addressed squarely with a grade separated SE Covell bike crossing at J or L St. and SW connectivity to the H St. tunnel.”
On wood smoke, he recently wrote, “We have the tools and resources to deal with wood smoke conflicts in this way – to find alternative forms of conflict resolution that will serve the needs of those whose health is adversely affected while providing those who desire to burn wood some latitude to do so.”
He argues that “people should be given resources so they can seek out neighbors and deal face-to-face with them in a respectful and direct way. “
Mr. Davis also wrote an essay on direct democracy, noting “As the calls multiply for various issues to be placed on the ballot here in Davis, I think it is important for us to take a critical look at the purpose of these calls, and examine alternatives that remove the confrontation inherent in them while providing us with what we as a community need to move forward on contentious issues.”
“I am not opposed to direct democracy – especially if it is deployed to hold elected officials accountable. But in order to use it effectively for that purpose we must focus first on increasing accountability in a way that makes referendums rare – a kind of last resort for when the priorities of the community are disregarded,” he added.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Finding a slogan shouldn’t be too difficult;-).
[b]Davis 4 Davis[/b]
Does that one work B. Nice?
If Wolk moves on his replacement will be appointed?
“If Wolk moves on his replacement will be appointed?”
Yes
I know Robb and am impressed by his ability to analyze an issue and to help find a solution to a problem. He’s got my vote.
Does he spell his name with two b’s because he doesn’t want the slogan and election signs to read
[quote]Rob Davis[/quote]
Robb was at Provenza’s annual fundraiser last night. I don’t recall him ever attending in the past although I haven’t attended every year. I love it when people decide to run for office and then start showing up at events they have never before attended. Sheila Allen was there too but at least she has been a regular at these events over the years.
Sort of reminds me of that old Stevie Wonder lyric:
I live in the ghetto,
You just come to visit me ’round election time
What is his position on the water project? Did he sign either of Harrington’s petitions?
Good point, Toad. Let’s focus on which political gatherings Robb has regularly attended, never mind his many years of community service. Are you sure that’s what Stevie meant?
-Michael Bisch
I would like to know if Robb is for or against peripheral growth. A thumbs up or a thumbs down. Not any of this I’ll have to weigh each project etc……because we all know where that leads.
From my time working with Robb on the Vanguard editorial board I have come to appreciate two qualities he exemplifies.
1) Openmindedness – While we do not always agree on issues, I have always felt that Robb listened carefully and considered the merits of my point of view.
2) Personal integrity – Robb, as much as anyone I know chooses to live in accordance with his personal and publicly expressed beliefs. When he says the environment is of major importance to him and lives without a car, I gain confidence in his words. Likewise, when he says he believes in social justice and spends many of his evenings working with the homeless, I gain trust in his sincerity.
I have been impressed with Robb’s thoughtful comments and articles on the DV. He often seems to bring a new idea to the table, presented in an articulate, measured way. Although I will want to hear his views on a number of issues in the future, my first impression is support. Think he would bring an interesting dynamic to the CC.
[i]I would like to know if Robb is for or against peripheral growth.[/i]
Likewise.
[i] A thumbs up or a thumbs down. Not any of this I’ll have to weigh each project etc.[/i]
Now why would we want to elect someone that does not want to weigh each project?
[i]..because we all know where that leads[/i]
Complete and utter fiscal collapse after our infrastructure crumbles, our programs are cut, and several attempts to solve the problem by raising our taxes fails miserably.
[quote]I would like to know if Robb is for or against peripheral growth.
Likewise.
[/quote]
Frankly, I would like to know how Robb leans, pro-growth or anti-growth. I think everyone knows how they stand on this issue. I just don’t want a wishy-washy answer like “I’ll have to weigh each project” because in essence that answer is just a dodge.
“Robb, as much as anyone I know chooses to live in accordance with his personal and publicly expressed beliefs.”
Yes, but does he think the rest of us should live in accordance with his personal beliefs?
By the way last night he was sitting for dinner with Brett Lee, Matt Williams and Dick Livingston.
[i]I would like to know how Robb leans, pro-growth or anti-growth.[/i]
GI, I agree. But there is tremendous room for nuance related to various projects that can and will be proposed. I would hope we elect people that make decision based on careful analysis of all the factors, and not people that lock themselves into one particular worldview.
Having said this, I do agree that we need to hear them explain their mindset on peripheral development… and all development in fact. Related to this, they need to explain how they think we need to solve Davis’s budget problems. Now there is something that I will not accept any wish-washy answers for. There is cutting, raising taxes and economic development. I like Robb as a person, but he has previously proposed a sales tax increase as a way to solve our budget problems. If that continues to be his solution, he will not get my vote.
“Robb was at Provenza’s annual fundraiser last night. I don’t recall him ever attending in the past although I haven’t attended every year. I love it when people decide to run for office and then start showing up at events they have never before attended. “
When you run a campaign, you do a lot of things most people have never done before. Robb will likely walk precincts. Robb will probably call people asking for their support and/ or money. Are these also inappropriate? Should we expect candidates to carry on as they always have?
I’m very impressed by Robb’s demeanor and by his thoughtful approach to the issues. I think he would make a great council member.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”By the way last night he was sitting for dinner with Brett Lee, Matt Williams and Dick Livingston.”[/i]
True, and the other four people at our table were Lois Wolk, Bruce Wolk, Gina Daleiden and Ken Wagstaff.
mr. toad: if you’re against robb davis, why not just state it?
Did he sign either of Harrington’s water initiatives? Does he support or not support the water project?
“Did he sign either of Harrington’s water initiatives? Does he support or not support the water project?”
don’t you remember taking on harrington is painful detail last year?
What’s your point, Toad? You seem to object to Robb actually campaigning. What’s he supposed to do, announce and then twiddle his thumbs until June rolls around? And your comment about who was at the table? Those appear to be roughly the same people surrounding Brett when he ran. Is the community any worse off for it?
Ryan, Robb’s record on the water project is quite clear. He advocated for it & gave a clear, coherent rationale for his support. It should not be difficult to find his VG postings on the subject. I would be very surprised if he tried to run away from his record. Barring a significant change to the project, why would be revise his position?
-Michael Bisch
Who was Mr. Toad sitting with?
I just wanted to know where Rob stands on the water project. Actions speak louder than campaign soundbites. Thank you for clarifying his position for me, Michael B.
I’m not for Robb Davis or against him. i don’t even know him. i’ve never seen him at a political event before although he might have been there and I just didn’t know him. Its mostly what I said, that I always find it interesting when people show up at stuff they never attended before once they start running. I made similar remarks when Ted Puntillo showed up on MLK day when he ran for CC and when that Parish guy showed up at memorial day when he ran for Judge. Now I don’t expect people to sit on their hands when they run but I would prefer people who have a record of participation before they throw their hat in the ring.
As for my question above in response to Medwoman I am most concerned about his philosophical view of governance. Here is a guy who clearly leads by example having given up his car while living near his job but not everyone can do that because they live farther from their work or they physically are unable to commute by bicycle.
While I argued for giving a younger generation a chance to lead in the last election i am growing concerned with the way they are willing to use their authority to gain compliance with their goals. In my mind both the decision on variable pricing of container sizing of trash to reduce landfill use when there is already high recycling rates and the proposal to make fireplace use in my home a crime because of complaints against 8 residences seem like over reach. My question is can we expect more of these kinds of lifestyle issues to become regulated instead of trying to gain better compliance through the use of incentives? Is he a carrot or a stick guy that is the question.
In Rob’s case his unwillingness to compromise on the Canary bicycle access issues worry me. If Canary had no bicycle access it would be one thing but Robb’s all or none attitude seems too inflexible for a leadership role in the community especially since Conagra is dealing with unreasonable neighbors that are trying to do everything they can to block the project. His argument about small children not being able to make it up a small hill on a bike so we should kill the project seems extreme to me.
So yes, I have concerns about his candidacy, but it is still early, we don’t even know who is in the field. As such i’m not yet committed to any candidates.
Mr. Toad wrote:
> By the way last night he was sitting for dinner with
> Brett Lee, Matt Williams and Dick Livingston.
If I was running for city council I would be spending a lot of time with Brett, Matt and Dick (and Ken Wagstaff, Dan Wolk, Ruth Asmundson and Stephen Souza)…
Then Don wrote:
> Who was Mr. Toad sitting with?
Mr. Toad better hope Davis Progressive does not see a guest list for the event since if he was able to “out” the Davis firefighter just by reading posts with the same writing style I’m sure he could find Toad in under 5 min. with a list of names…
P.S. I have never heard anyone say anything bad about Robb (even people that disagree with him on many issues), but now that he is running for office I expect this will change (and one of the reasons that I will never run for office)…
SOD
[quote]Mr. Toad better hope Davis Progressive does not see a guest list for the event since if he was able to “out” the Davis firefighter just by reading posts with the same writing style I’m sure he could find Toad in under 5 min. with a list of names…
[/quote]
What makes you think Davis Progressive is a “he”?
Did I say something bad about him? I actually respect that he is willing to lead by example. Did I say something bad about who he sat with? I’ve known all these people for years. It was funny when I was talking with Dick towards the end of the night Brett seemed protective of Dick. I don’t think Brett knows Dick and I have been friends for 25 years.
Maybe way down near the bottom of the thread I raise a point about Rob’s seeming inflexibility. Aside from that I think I’m raising serious concerns about style of governance and positions on issues. Rather than being threatened with being outed by the Vanguard moderator, who doesn’t even have a vote in our local election, and others, perhaps the candidate would like to address my concerns.
why is robb being accused of inflexibility? is he obligated to compromise on what to him is a critical issue? if i took a strong stance against the death penalty, i’m inflexible if i don’t compromise?
ps, the only person who doesn’t know who mr. toad is, is his wife.
[quote]ps, the only person who doesn’t know who mr. toad is, is his wife. [/quote]
Sounds kind of personal there David Progressive.
it was meant as a joke, lighten up francis.
not too funny
In the biblical sense?
[quote]Rather than being threatened with being outed by the Vanguard moderator[/quote]
I didn’t threaten to out you.
“why is robb being accused of inflexibility? is he obligated to compromise on what to him is a critical issue?”
As a private citizen its not an issue but when you run for office for the first time its often hard to discern if a person is a good fit to be a decision maker for the community. Can we expect years of this sort of inflexibility? Is that the leadership the community wants? These are important questions for him to answer.
Of course the standard for when a person is threatened is if the victim felt threatened. I feel its was a threat.
Robb is certainly not alone in his concerns about the connectivity issue. Mayor Krovoza has said he will oppose the Cannery project if that issue is not resolved (Enterprise Aug. 18). It seems the inflexibility is mostly on the part of landowners, not decision-makers.
I agree with Mr.Toad’s comments. While Robb Davis’ candidacy announcement claims that he looks for solutions as if he was diplomatic. However, rather than looking into solving the problems, he has basically used ultimatums to try to get his way. It is disturbing to see him using threats to stop the Cannery if he does not get his unreasonable demands such as a second grade separated crossing, (a position that he has convinced the Bike Advisory Commission and others of).
I also get the sense that that he may be a bit of an extremist on bike issues because I have read that he does not own a car and, in fact, he seems to be somewhat “anti-car”. I am all for good bike paths but Robb Davis’ opposition to the proposed bike under the Covell Village overpass (Option 1) is unreasonable. Option 1 is a great solution, but apparently he has his own agenda.
Meanwhile, at the same time Robb Davis demands the impossible… a path to the H St. bike tunnel along Cranbrook Court Apt. which the Covell Village developer owner has refused to give an easement to. The fact is I have not heard of him even raising any feasibility questions, but instead just making his demands. If Robb does not get his way, he advocates to stop the project. This is not problem solving.
Since Robb has been driving this agenda for a second (unneeded) grade separated crossing involving Covell Village land, which resurrects the Covell Village battle, he seems very insensitive to the other land use problems that he is creating which our community had to deal with before.
We need people who are problem solvers on the City Council, not people who would be intractable and basically create more problems.
Mr. Toad: I’ve gotten to know Robb pretty well over the years, and I have found him to be very flexible and very willing to listen. So I don’t think you have much to worry about. The issue of bike connectivity is an issue that he holds as very important – what middle ground would you suggest he support?
Folks – I look forward to seeing everyone on the 26th. After the public announcement I will head over to the Farmer’s Market and be available to discuss issues raised here and any others of interest. I am also willing to meet one on one with individuals who would like to discuss issues with me. Contact me at robbbike@me.com to set something up. Right now I have some flexibility in my schedule.
I view this as a 9 month “job interview” process during which citizens will decide whether they want to “hire” me or not. It should be a great learning process for all of us (as good job interviews always are).
One factual issue to correct in the article: I did not provide the quote concerning “paid parking” to the Enterprise. That statement was made during the last Task Force meeting. I will remind everyone that the Task Force sent, by a vote of 10-0, a [i]comprehensive[/i] set of recommendations to the City Council. It is important to note that no one recommendation stands alone but rather that all 19 TOGETHER are key. Thanks.
Robb’s got my vote. I’ve worked with him on various issues and he’s certainly grounded, forward-looking and values-driven. In particular, I was able to participate in a process of bringing three disparate organizations together… three organizations who didn’t exactly have a history of working together well. The entire tenor and tone of the relationship b/t these groups changed by the end of the process.
“what middle ground would you suggest he support?”
One where he understands you don’t get everything you want in politics instead of making unreasonable demands as a condition for support. We have seen people like that on the council before who are for things that will never happen so they can say they tried or aren’t opposed to everything.
So your definition of “middle ground” is that he should support the Cannery project as proposed by the property owner?
and apparently it doesn’t matter that three members of the current council have the same position
“One where he understands you don’t get everything you want in politics instead of making unreasonable demands as a condition for support.”
Mr. Toad are you saying that people need to realize that they can’t get everything they want and shouldn’t make unreasonable demands? I think you would be one of the first people to support someone taking a stand for what they believe is important, especially when it is a safety issue.
I think we can see where digging in and unwillingness to compromise leads in governing by looking at the Federal Government.
sorry i’m just not quite buying it.
David M. Greenwald wrote, “When you run a campaign, you do a lot of things most people have never done before. Robb will likely walk precincts. Robb will probably call people asking for their support and/ or money. Are these also inappropriate? Should we expect candidates to carry on as they always have?”
If candidates “carry on as they always have” they will not be elected. By asking for support, donations, and “showing your face” you are acting like a mainstream candidate. Visibility is a huge part of campaigning. I believe Robb is a “straight shooter” and I wish him luck during his campaign. Trust me, campaigning in Davis is truly an “eye opening” experience. Robb, illegitimi non carborundum!
My guess is that Robb will sit down with just about anyone to answer questions and give honest and open answers about what he supports and does not support. Related to this point, I need to retract my point about him supporting a sales tax increase until I have a chance to ask him about it.
I hope nobody attacks Robb’s integrity without sufficient cause. My impression of him is that he exudes integrity.
But then there is Davis politics and it is generally always fought with knives.
I could not agree more with Mr. Toad’s comments.
Regarding Robb’s supporters who appear to be coming out on this blog to support him, here are a few thoughts. If Robb is serious about running for Council he needs to start acting like someone who is capable of handling a leadership role. He could start by considering realistic solutions regarding the Cannery bike path subject, rather than decreeing his ultimatums.
In my opinion, the biggest and most important job of a City Council member is some one with the ability to find solutions to problems that actually work. At this point I am not seeing that ability demonstrated by Robb Davis by any means. I just see him as a problem creator, not a problem solver.
I am curious in what way the developer has compromised with respect to bike access on the Cannery site. This is a genuine question, not rhetorical: I haven’t gone back to look at the various articles about it. And if their proposal for bike access is insufficient in the eyes of the bike commission, what position would you advise the member of that commission to take regarding the Cannery project?
[quote]He could start by considering realistic solutions regarding the Cannery bike path subject, rather than decreeing his ultimatums. [/quote]
Becky – who are you representing? Are you being paid by the Cannery developers?
Robb is not presenting ultimata – he is reflecting the thinking and goals of many people who want this development to be successful in terms of traffic circulation in Davis. The fact that there is only one and a half automobile entrances and no bus circulation is even more of a red flag to me – I saw this kind of development in Walnut Creek many times, and it leads to horrendous traffic congestion on the main street – Covell, in this case. It’s not just a bike circulation issue.
As for realistic solutions to the Cannery bike paths, if the owners of the property leading to the H street tunnel continue to be obstructionist, there is always the eminent domain solution. Eminent domain is used when a situation requires action for the public good. This situation appears to qualify for that.
Regarding Robb’s supporters who appear to be coming out on this blog to support him, here are a few thoughts. If Robb is serious about running for Council he needs to start acting like someone who is capable of handling a leadership role.”
I don’t know Robb, but I’ve seen more consensus (from people who rarely agree), regarding his character, on this thread then I normally see on most Vanguard threads. To me, that speaks volumes about him and has made him a strong contender for my support, and gives me confidence in his ability to lead.
jrberg:
Let’s start with I am representing myself, but I can say that I know many others who agree with me on this issue.
On your second question, no, I am not being paid by the Cannery developers. I will add that I will try to not take this as an insulting question, because maybe you honestly thought his might be a possibility? But then again, maybe someone else with another agenda asked you to post this question. Whatever motivated you to ask, the answer is, no.
I think this entitles me to a few questions:
Are you part of any bike group or entity?
If not. are you an avid bike riding person who knows Robb Davis?
I don’t need to ask the question as to if you a part of Robb’s election campaign. That’s ok. I would expect Robb’s bike groups that he has been working with to be his defense campaign as well.
On your comments that seem to simplify eminent domain. Is the Davis bike community willing to help with funding to for their eminent domain idea?
Don: Regarding your question.
I would say that rather than make unreasonable demands and giving ultimatums, Robb should try asking the relevant questions regarding options being discussed:
1) What bike options are physically and financially feasible?
2) What is(are) the best feasible solution(s)?
The bike access “east of the project” language that Robb has so ambiguously used is a HUGH issue, since it would involve access through Covell Village. However, Robb Davis and his bike friends apparently have no care or concern about this issue which is a major concern to many, many other Davis residents who do not want the resurrection of Covell Village. Not only is this an insensitive demand made by Robb and his bike friends, but it creates significant land use problems, rather than solutions.
Bill: Regarding your post.
Were any or all of the three organizations that you referred to that Robb worked with, were they bike organization related?
Or were any of the entities that Robb worked with connected in any way to either the Covell Village developers or Tandem or Pyramid?
Becky
[quote]We need people who are problem solvers on the City Council, not people who would be intractable and basically create more problems.[/quote]
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember from posts a long time ago on old threads which I unfortunately was not able to find tonight, that you have been a strong supporter of the Cannery project. I am wondering if your stated perception of Robb as a “problem maker” rather than “problem solver” is because you are at odds on this one issue and perhaps see anything that might threaten the project as unacceptable even if it would make for a superior project if achieved. Have you seen any other instances of what you would describe as intransigence on Robb’s part, or is this a single make or break issue for you ?
Becky, why would you expect a bike organization to pay for a bike path required for a developers project. One being proposed by a $30 billion company requesting entitlements for a $300 million project? As a community should we settle for subpar bike safety or error on the side of increased bike safety which will lead to fewer car trips. Offsite improvements are common requirements for developments of this scale. Try to forget for a moment who owns the adjacent property- it is not relevant.
“Not only is this an insensitive demand made by Robb and his bike friends, but it creates significant land use problems, rather than solutions.”
His “bike friends?” You make them sound like some pack of deviants, rather then people supporting a healthier, cleaner, cheaper, mode of transportation, that benefits the community in numerous ways. (For the record I own a car and drive it much more often then I bike, so I’m not part of this nefarious bike gang.)
Don has made a very important point here: Robb is representing – with integrity – the conclusions he has come to as a member of the bike commission. He’s doing his job , in the role he has been appointed to by us (the City of Davis). When Robb becomes a member of the council, the scope of his job will expand…and when it does I am confident that he will rise to the occasion.
Case in point: Lucas – a former chair of the Planning Commission – does not, as a council member, vote 100% in line with PC recommendations. The scope of his job has changed, and with it the scope of his reasoning.
As for the more rhetorical questions (which are a valuable to the debate), I think that Mr. Toad and others will find answers to their satisfaction in time…and even quicker if they make a point of speaking with Robb in person.
“On your comments that seem to simplify eminent domain. Is the Davis bike community willing to help with funding to for their eminent domain idea? “
Why can’t the developer pay for this? They will be the ones finically profiting from this project, not Robb and his bike friends.
[quote]jrberg:
Let’s start with I am representing myself, but I can say that I know many others who agree with me on this issue.
On your second question, no, I am not being paid by the Cannery developers. I will add that I will try to not take this as an insulting question, because maybe you honestly thought his might be a possibility? But then again, maybe someone else with another agenda asked you to post this question. Whatever motivated you to ask, the answer is, no.
I think this entitles me to a few questions:
Are you part of any bike group or entity?
If not. are you an avid bike riding person who knows Robb Davis?
I don’t need to ask the question as to if you a part of Robb’s election campaign. That’s ok. I would expect Robb’s bike groups that he has been working with to be his defense campaign as well.
On your comments that seem to simplify eminent domain. Is the Davis bike community willing to help with funding to for their eminent domain idea? [/quote]
Becky, I still want to know who and why you are so adamant about this project, and why you reject the requests of the cycling community.
Me? I’m the Chair of the Davis Bicycle Advisory Commission. Robb is my Vice Chair. I am not part of Robb’s campaign, since I only learned about it a couple of weeks ago. I am also a member of the Davis Bike Club, which organization is decidedly apolitical.
If the City were to decide about eminent domain, they would either pay for the taking or have the developers pay for the taking. Your question about bike advocates paying is irrelevant.
Once again, I ask, who are you representing? I do not believe you are asking these questions on your own behalf.
As a Davis newbie, I’m still trying to figure out the political rules of engagement. According to this thread, supporting or opposing projects unconditionally is acceptable, but supporting or opposing a project conditionally makes one inflexible. In other words, there is no room for nuance in Davis. Do I have that right? I’ll only accept 1-word responses, thank you.
For the record, I like to ride my bike (I’m a closet deviant). I support development of a 3rd downtown parking structure. I’m an environmentalist abhorring sprawl. I’m an evil small business owner. I am not connected with Covell Village developers or Tandem. I’d probably be connected with Pyramid (Chuck, Mark & Caren are really good people!), but they have long since gone out of business. I am clearly a pretty confused person by Davis standards.
-Michael Bisch
[quote] I’ll only accept 1-word responses, thank you. [/quote]
Bingo.
Perhaps
rberg: Regarding your post:
I have already answered your question, but here it is again. I am representing myself, but have spoken to many other with who agree that the Cannery project is a great project with the community has given much input for years. The design is great it satisfies our SACOG fair share requirements. We are very disturbed about Robb and his bike friends demanding land use s that would involve Covell Village. Our community already when through that battle and would rather that that issue not be resurrected.
The issue I have with Robb and his bike groups is that the demands that have put forth have had no discussion of feasibility, practicality or simply asking, what is the best solution? They have been presented simply as demands and ultimatums. Ignoring the rest of the communities concerns regarding the land use impacts that would ensue is not a very holistic approach.
I am asking all of these questions on behalf of the many citizens who simply do not want Robb and his bike friends to be resurrecting Covell Village.
DT Businessman
You are such a funny guy…
[quote]I could not agree more with Mr. Toad’s comments.
Regarding Robb’s supporters who appear to be coming out on this blog to support him, here are a few thoughts. If Robb is serious about running for Council he needs to start acting like someone who is capable of handling a leadership role. He could start by considering realistic solutions regarding the Cannery bike path subject, rather than decreeing his ultimatums.
In my opinion, the biggest and most important job of a City Council member is some one with the ability to find solutions to problems that actually work. At this point I am not seeing that ability demonstrated by Robb Davis by any means. I just see him as a problem creator, not a problem solver.[/quote]
Becky, your point is an interesting one and for me the most important word in it is “realistic” as in “start by considering realistic solutions.”
For able-bodied adult bicyclists almost any solution is realistic. Foe elementary school children bicycling to North Davis Elementary School the definition of realistic is much more limited. Able-bodied adults can pedal to the corner of Covell and F Street and walk their bicycle safely across the intersection. It simply isn’t realistic to place Elementary school children in harm’s way in that manner. They need the benefit of a protected tunnel — like the one that goes from J Street to H Street. So the good folks on the Cannery team, and I think they are good folks, have approached the Cranbrook Apartments owners with the [u]most realistic[/u] solution, a bike path straight down the unused land on the border of the apartment complex and the Union Pacific railroad right of way.
Unfortunately what is [u]most realistic[/u] for me is not considered to be [u]most realistic[/u] for the apartment’s owners. They haven’t given any reason. They have simply said no way.
Another [u]realistic[/u] alternative would be to build a bicycle underpass at L Street that would serve both the Covell Village property and the Cannery property with both property owners sharing equally in the cash outlay for the tunnel. Unfortunately what is [u]most realistic[/u] for me is not considered to be [u]most realistic[/u] for the Covell Village property’s owners. They haven’t given any reason. They have simply said no way.
So when it comes to evaluating the situation it all comes down to what your definition of “realistic” is.
DTB – [i]1-word response[/i]
incongruent
[quote]I would say that rather than make unreasonable demands and giving ultimatums, Robb should try asking the relevant questions regarding options being discussed:
1) What bike options are physically and financially feasible?
2) What is(are) the best feasible solution(s)?
The bike access “east of the project” language that Robb has so ambiguously used is a HUGH issue, since it would involve access through Covell Village. However, Robb Davis and his bike friends apparently have no care or concern about this issue which is a major concern to many, many other Davis residents who do not want the resurrection of Covell Village. Not only is this an insensitive demand made by Robb and his bike friends, but it creates significant land use problems, rather than solutions.[/quote]
Those are two excellent questions Becky. To address 1) I have some questions back for you. Specifically,
[b]Is the straight line bike lane south along the unused western edge of Cranbrook Apartments physically feasible?
In order to determine if it is financially feasible, what are its costs and how were those costs determined?
Is the most important component of the definition of “feasible” getting across the Union Pacific railroad tracks?[/b]
To address your question 2) it seems to me that the way to determine the best feasible solution is contained in the old rule that “the shortest route between two points is a straight line” and that one ends of such a line is at the entrance to the H Street Tunnel. So what is the most direct, most realistic, shortest route from the H Street Tunnel to the Cannery?
Frankly you didn’t want to go with “crappy”?.
I’m still working on mine…..
[quote]B. Nice
10/14/13 – 09:29 PM
…
“On your comments that seem to simplify eminent domain. Is the Davis bike community willing to help with funding to for their eminent domain idea? ”
Why can’t the developer pay for this? They will be the ones finically profiting from this project, not Robb and his bike friends.[/quote]
Since the land along the edge of Cranbrook Apartments is currently unused and almost surely will never be used in the future, why can’t Cranbrook Apartments act like a good citizen and donate the land for the bicycle path to the City in the interests of “the greater good”? After all, at some time in the past they donated the land for the existing bicycle path to the City that connects J Street to the H Street Tunnel. This seems like a very easy thing for the Apartment owners to do.
“Able-bodied adults can pedal to the corner of Covell and F Street and walk their bicycle safely across the intersection. It simply isn’t realistic to place Elementary school children in harm’s way in that manner. They need the benefit of a protected tunnel — like the one that goes from J Street to H Street.”
I’d argue that some of us able-bodied adults need the benefit of a protected tunnel too….
[quote]DT Businessman
10/14/13 – 09:44 PM
For the record, I like to ride my bike (I’m a closet deviant).
-Michael Bisch [/quote]
For the record my bicycle which has accumulated a substantial layer of dust in my garage has had no air in its tires for going on seven years now. I enjoy bicycling almost as much as Alan Pryor enjoys wood smoke and fluoride.
[quote]B. Nice
10/14/13 – 10:56 PM
I’d argue that some of us able-bodied adults need the benefit of a protected tunnel too…. [/quote]
You only get a protected tunnel if you are color blind and can’t tell the green light at F and Covell from the red light.
My one-word answer for Becky is “Thatcher.”
“Since the land along the edge of Cranbrook Apartments is currently unused and almost surely will never be used in the future, why can’t Cranbrook Apartments act like a good citizen and donate the land for the bicycle path to the City in the interests of “the greater good”? After all, at some time in the past they donated the land for the existing bicycle path to the City that connects J Street to the H Street Tunnel. This seems like a very easy thing for the Apartment owners to do.”
Totally agree. I haven’t heard an explanation of why they are unwilling to do this. Maybe Robb should sic his “bike friends” on the owner.
Davis is featured in this video regarding bike friendliness:
http://www.upworthy.com/a-dutch-guy-is-disgusted-by-america-but-he-has-a-hell-of-a-point?c=ufb1
I’d say the bike access issue and the Cannery project will be resolved before the council election, so this will be in the nature of a ‘how would you have voted’ question for the candidates. Likewise the issue of ag conservation easement for Mace 391 will be resolved by March.
In the ‘how will you vote’ realm will be things like
— which, if any, parcels would you consider for annexation, Measure R, and development?
— how would you propose the city address long-term budget issues of revenue and expenses? Short-term?
— does Davis need more housing, and, if so, where?
— how would you work with UCD to provide more student housing?
— do you think more parking is needed downtown?
I”m sure all of you can add to this list.
Here is the Mayor Krovoza’s Facebook post regarding this issue:
[quote]Join me in advocating for an acceptable circulation elements for the Cannery Project. Our Planning Commission and Bicycle Advisory Commission say NO to Cannery unless there are two high-quality, grade-separated bike/ped crossings of Covell. Lower GHG, reduce car traffic on Covell for all, and increase active transportation — all accentuate the Davis quality of life. Imagine a Cannery parent driving a child to NDE or DSHS that could otherwise ride? Anyone driving to Nugget? Makes no sense, unless you fear crossing a busy arterial. Sign the Davis Bicycles petition to make sure the project is done right. This is at the core of our Safe Routes to Schools efforts. Share this widely. Thanks.[/quote]
Dt: self described innocent, my water pail!
I always watch out for the lawyer who claims to know little and has a scruffy old briefcase.
“I’ll only accept 1-word responses, thank you.”
Irrelevant
“I would say that rather than make unreasonable demands and giving ultimatums, Robb should try asking the relevant questions regarding options being discussed: “
I remain unconvinced Becky. I am just having trouble seeing Robb and his biking friends as representing a low key spin off of “Sons of Anarchy”.
In this case, it seems to me that the words ” reasonable” vs “unreasonable” are tending to hinge on whether one views the connectivity of the
Cannery as now proposed as adequate to meet the needs of the city as well as the needs of the developers and the needs of the future residents. I think it is “reasonable” to take into account all of these needs. Although I am not a member of the biking community, I do have a strong interest in public health and safety and definitely see increased connectivity with protected passages as the superior option for the future
Cannery residents and the city as a whole. I am sure, as has been stated previously, that when Robb’s duty is to the optimal functioning of the
City as a whole, he will step into that role graciously, cooperatively and competently.
Becky, sorry for the delayed response. The three groups were social services related. Rob saw the groups working against each other rather than together. He drew the three groups together and they ended up developing a cohesive approach to the issue.