Measure O Passes Handily, Measure P Ahead
With 100% of the precincts reporting, one thing is clear, Robb Davis finished first and will be the Mayor Pro Tem on the Council starting July 1, 2014 and Mayor of Davis starting in 2016. Mr. Davis led Rochelle Swanson by just under 800 votes.
Robb Davis won all but six precincts, and finished in the top 2 in all but the easternmost precinct in South Davis, where he finished third.
The battle for the second seat is much closer. Rochelle Swanson, who trailed after the initial absentee ballots, built a 213 vote lead over John Munn. Sheila Allen finished a distant fourth and Daniel Parrella an even more distant fifth.
Mr. Munn issued a statement to Rochelle Swanson indicating that he has been told “there are still about 3,000 ballots to be counted.“ This was unconfirmed, but he stated, “I want to check on this tomorrow. If there really are a large number of uncounted ballots, I think the wisest course is to allow the counting to be completed before conceding the election. This is not to prolong an already long campaign, but simply to confirm the outcome of a relatively close race.”
The Vanguard will check into this in the morning.
In the meantime, Measure O passed overwhelmingly with a nearly 1900 vote margin, 58.5 percent to 41.5 percent, setting up a potential parcel tax for November.
The bigger surprise was the narrow 264 vote margin for Measure P, which, if it holds, would repeal the city’s water rates, leading to speculation of a potential lawsuit to invalidate Measure I.
The Vanguard spoke to Robb Davis moments after he learned that he had won.
He told the Vanguard, “I was running to get on the council and the issue wasn’t being in first place, I really didn’t even give it a thought.” He added, “I’m not even sure first matters, it’s two of us that are going to serve.”
Robb Davis attributed his victory to team work. “We ran, I think, the best campaign, and we did it as a team,” he noted that they brought in 80 to 90 volunteers that did significant things. “I attribute it to the hard work of grassroots people, many of whom have never been engaged in any political campaign at all – who came out, walked precincts, hosted coffees, put lawn signs in their yard – I just think it’s an effort of a team of people that were committed to seeing me get elected.”
“I just attribute it to the hard work of everybody,” he added.
Robb Davis noted that, while he is one of five people on the council, “the first month or two is going to have to be taken up by a conversation among all councilmembers about the maintenance backlogs in our streets and other infrastructure.”
He said that Measure O passing “gives us breathing room even though cuts are going to come into the budget. It gives us breathing room to start working and to keep working on the economic development piece. The bottom line is it doesn’t do anything to deal with the major backlogs that we face.”
He said as a result they will have to decide “if, and the amount that, they come back to the voters” in November. While he did not commit to a parcel tax, he did say that someone would have to show him a viable alternative to deal with the significant infrastructure backlogs in the short-term, without putting it off for five years.
“I think we have to make a case to the voters that this is critical to the situation of the city,” he added.
The Vanguard spoke with Rochelle Swanson, as well. She indicated that she was not declaring victory at this point. “I’m just going to wait and see how the ballot count rolls out,” she said.
“What I witnessed tonight at the different parties I went to, is that there was a lot of surprise at some of the outcomes, and I think that this election was a good snap shot of what happens with a very low voter turnout. I think people make assumptions about how things will turn out, so they think their vote is represented, so they don’t actually make their vote count.”
She said that if she indeed ends up being elected, her first priority is “getting this budget through and getting it approved.”
Rochelle Swanson indicated that she and Lucas Frerichs are on the city manager subcommittee, and that they will begin the interview process shortly to hire the permanent replacement for Steve Pinkerton who left at the end of April after being hired in February to take the General Manager position at Incline Village, Nevada.
While there maybe some sorting out to do, it is safe to say that Robb Davis will be the next mayor. Rochelle Swanson and Measure P remain undetermined, though it seems likely that their respective leads will hold.
The Vanguard will have more analysis on these election night results in the coming days.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Congratulations Robb! The City of Davis is lucky to have you. Seriously though can you get on those big potholes on my street, oh yeah the streetlight is really bright, can you do something about that? Oh and my neighbors dog will not stop barking, can you talk to them?
Mr. Munn issued a statement to Rochelle Swanson indicating that he has been told “there are still about 3,000 ballots to be counted.“
I can imagine there are more ballots to be counted. It usually takes 3-4 weeks before the official tally is made final. They probably have to hand-check signatures on some ballots and figure out what to do with those where the person voted provisionally (e.g., voted at the wrong polling place). Yet I doubt it is anywhere near 3,000 in Davis. It might be 3,000 across all of Yolo County. I doubt anything is going to change here. None of our votes was all that close–meaning under 100 votes one way or the other.
I must say I am surprised Measure P passed. I think its strong showing accounts for John Munn’s very strong showing. My thinking going in was that all of the passion was on the Yes side for Measure P, but its vote total would be just under 50%. I suspect that if the Measure P vote were taken in November it would have lost amid a higher turnout.
In the end I voted Yes on Measure O–only because I have several friends and acquaintances who work for the City of Davis and, through no fault of their own, they would have lost their jobs had Measure O failed. So I am happy for them. But I am more worried about the fact that our City Council and executive city staff has yet to acknowledge the mistakes they made which got us in this mess.
I am hopeful that Robb Davis, who has a better grasp of what needs to be done than the incumbents he will join, will make a difference and in 2016, when the next new contracts begin, the City will be on a sustainable path for the first time in nearly 20 years. … Oh, sustainable other than we need another new tax (which I will support) to repair our terrible roads and sidewalks.
Congratulations to all the successful candidates!
I am surprised by the relatively low turnout for Davis — 30.4% participated in the Davis City Council election as of 12:46 this morning. I imagine that will go up slightly as late absentee ballots are counted, those turned in at polling stations yesterday.
Compare that to the participation in the mail-only election for the Measure A school parcel tax in May 2011 of 38% of registered voters.
Or 47.3% who participated in this same scenario election 8 years ago, June 2006 — an incumbent governor running for re-election, 5 CC candidates running for two seats, including one incumbent candidate (Ruth Asmundson).
Or the 32.8% who participated in the school board/school parcel tax/library parcel tax election in November 2007.
Does that mean that locally voters feel more engaged with the school district than the city government? I figured that a Davis CC election would have a higher draw than a school district election because more voters might feel engaged. Plus two strong Davis candidates were running for the 4th district assembly seat. Davis still had the highest voter participation in the county, at least compared to Winters & Woodland CC races. And even Winters & Woodland had higher rates of participation in 2006 than for this year.
This is what Freddie Oakley said a few days ago:
It seems like she pretty much nailed it as far as the participation rate for Davis. Anyone here have additional thoughts as to why a lower turnout this time around?
“Anyone here have additional thoughts as to why a lower turnout this time around?”
Lazy, lame, stupid people . . . nice going, average Davis person. (I say this offending probably no one, as I doubt anyone who reads the Vanguard didn’t vote.)
Look who called it right:
Barack Palin
June 3, 2014 at 3:09 pm
Okay, my prediction:
Robb Davis
Rochelle Swanson
John Munn
Sheila Allen
Daniel Parrella
Posting under a fake name does not count. For all I know, you have 25 pseudonyms and each character you pretend to be made his own prediction and only under this moniker you got it right.
Don’t get upset that I got it right and you missed it.
You do know that you do not really exist?
Then someone that doesn’t exist got the election right when all the expert pundits got it wrong, how does that make you feel?
David, you posted late this morning. Up late last night at a Robb Davis victory party?
I went to nine parties yesterday. The election results came in just before one. I interviewed Robb Davis and then Rochelle Swanson last night, wrote up the story and went to bed about 2:30 after 22 and a half day. Got up about 6:30 and interviewed Bill Dodd and exchanged texts with Will Arnold and the Krovoza campaign.
“I went to nine parties yesterday.”
I went to just one, because it was the only one within 200 feet of my house: the Robb Davis party, where I did in fact see David and his wife, Cecilia, and a large number of familiar folks.
The great challenge at an event like that is running into so many people who know who I am and, while I may know who they are, I cannot for the life of me remember their names. This sort of imbalance must be far worse for the candidates. The result is a lot of, “Hey! How’s it going? Looks like Robb is having a great night!”
I think this election cycle confirms an important and positive shift in the Davis electorate: the dominance of the independent, unaligned candidate.
From Joe Krovoza four years ago, to Brett Lee in 2012, with Rochelle and Robb this year: the two major alliances that dominated council elections for many years have broken down. Being the candidate of the local Democratic Party stalwarts doesn’t guarantee success. Being from the anti-growth wing that prevailed against Covell Village doesn’t guarantee success. Union support is, if anything, a negative. Party labels are meaningless; might even be detrimental.
What works is walking districts and coming across as thoughtful and open-minded and independent.
good point don, but you’re missing the key nexus. in 2010, joe krovoza and rochelle swanson refused to take money from the firefighters. that effectively cut off candidates from what had been a key source of money linking the establishment to the unions. instrumental in that move was the vanguard’s continued expose’s of the firefighters union.
I am not sure if this is true of Rochelle, but it is of Joe, he also refused to take money from developers who were doing business before the Davis City Council. I think as much as anyone (probably since Julie Partansky), Joe always had very high integrity in terms of not allowing himself to have the appearance of a conflict of interest. This is in complete contrast to the Saylor-Souza-Asmundson group (including the ones among them who never made it to the Council), and their followers now on the Council, Wolk and Frerichs, who don’t have any feeling that dirty money has made them appear to be filthy.
“What works is walking districts and coming across as thoughtful and open-minded and independent.”
I talked with Dick Livingston for a while last night at Robb’s party, and that is exactly what he thinks, too. Dick helped run Brett Lee’s campaign; and he did the same for Robb. And they used the same strategy you describe. I think the same also could be said of Lamar Heystek’s effort.
Daniel Parrella, who also employed that approach (and who I spotted also at Robb’s party), did not win with it, this time. But neither did Lamar the first time he ran. If Daniel stays engaged with Davis politics for the next two years, and voters see him as an adult with adult ideas–it hurts him that he looks so young–Daniel very well might break through in two years, the same way then-young Lamar did in his second run.
Can Daniel grow a beard? Might help next time.
Frankly wrote:
> Can Daniel grow a beard? Might help next time.
Shaving his head will also make him look older, and as Rich has pointed out everyone seems to remember the name of young bald guys…
And it seems to work for Matt Rexroad in Woodland.
Way to go Robb! I stayed away from any of your campaign events to help ensure I would not tarnish your image by association. My strategy seems to have helped… 😉
Not surprised about Measure O. The trick of the looter is to take just a little bit more each time so the looted set a new financial normal each time. Thankfully the brain cells will kick in sometime before 100% taxation… at least I hope. I fully expect the next parcel tax increase measure to fail.
I am also not surprised about Measure P. People respond strongly to a feeling of unfairness. There are quite a few voters with grass and gardens and families that like to shower and swim. I was someone early on that was vocal about the CBFR model unfairly penalizing certain people. Let this be a lesson for those social engineers out there… for you to succeed you need a majority of moochers that will vote for your scheme. Your problem in Davis is that is have been growing more and more affluent, and many the student renters don’t vote… and so there are fewer and fewer people that would vote for the beneficiary side of social engineering schemes.
My biggest sigh of relief is that Sheila Allen will not be on the CC. She is probably a very nice person, but her connection with the public employee unions makes her a giant hazard for the city.
“I was someone early on that was vocal about the CBFR model unfairly penalizing certain people”
but the people it unfairly penalized were on the low end, not the grass and garden people. they still paid less per gallon under cbfr.
Their increase is costs was going to be higher per gallon… much higher per gallon… than would the low end people pay.
The only math that a rate payer would care about is that which calculates the difference in their water bill. The difference was considered unfair even though proponents pushed the more complex view that CBFR was fair if you ignore what you used to pay.
I also think the 6 month look back caused anxiety in people for their water use, and that added to their dislike of CBFR.
It is just too bad that the CBFR proponents did not listen to these things early on… and instead kept with the same argument that you make.
Now we’re going to find out if the sky is falling fear mongering if Measure P passed actually plays out. That will go a long way in telling voters who they can believe and who they can’t in the future.
I predict the sky will not fall. You can hold me to that prediction.
Please join me in a year or two shoving the unfallen sky into the face of our City’s Chicken Littles.
Any predictions on the number of days until Mike Harrington sues the City over the validity of Measure I, now that Measure P has passed?
It all depends on Harrington’s incentive to sue.
No one ever said that there was 100% likelihood of such a suit, just that there was an actuarial risk profile based on whatever that percentage likelihood was (now is). Insurance companies live and breathe actuarial calculations (and tables) in order to manage risk. They set aside reserves based on those actuarial calculations. Then when actual claims arise they have the money set aside to pay the claims.
We now have actuarial risk but no reserves set aside to pay for the dollars and cents that will come due if the risk turns into certainty.
Of course if you live in a binary “trust vs no trust” world, then the concept of actuarial risk is alien to you.
Take your pick, Ryan:
Matt, 5/31:
Matt, 6/4:
… and your point is Don?
“Their increase is costs was going to be higher per gallon… much higher per gallon… than would the low end people pay.”
still less per gallon than what the low end users pay.
Frankly wrote:
> I fully expect the next parcel tax increase measure to fail.
I don’t… and I wonder if anyone knows if a parcel tax in Davis has EVER failed (on the SF Peninsula where people are richer, but not quite as liberal 100% of the parcel taxes have passed)…
I think we should keep a tally of Frankly’s political predictions. He’s not got a strong track record.
Go ahead.
Note that I am not so much concerned about being right as I am influencing right. Because when a person knows he is right, he does not care what others think.
I save my betting urge for business opportunity.
The parcel tax will fail. Should fail. It is wrong.
Measure O passed and people that voted for it were wrong.
So you are predicting it will fail because you think it should fail?
So you are predicting it will fail because you think it should fail?
I am taking a position of optimism that enough people will join the “I get it” group and will do the right thing.
I don’t care if I am wrong as much as I would care that I join the sheep marching to the line (oh, it will pass because historically they always pass).
So, basically, your political comments are spin, not analysis. Useful to know for future discussions.
you still haven’t explained your plan to fund roads, parks, and building infrastructure without capital funding backs by parcel tax funding?
So, basically, your political comments are spin, not analysis. Useful to know for future discussions.
Not spin. Projections related to the timing in human evolutionary advances.
you still haven’t explained your plan to fund roads, parks, and building infrastructure without capital funding backs by parcel tax funding?
Yes I have. Over and over and over again. I have even gone to CC meetings and talked to individual CC members and made the points.
Frankly
“Because when a person knows he is right, he does not care what others think.”
This is equally true for many people who are in fact, wrong.
“My biggest sigh of relief is that Sheila Allen will not be on the CC. She is probably a very nice person, but her connection with the public employee unions makes her a giant hazard for the city.”
my view is that sheila would be a great county supervisor. but her core constituencies – seniors, health care, education are not part of the city council position. she was miscast by running for council.
I agree on all counts DP. The problem for Sheila in that arena is that Jim Provenza doesn’t look like he is going anywhere soon, and even if Jim did move on, Sheila would have to duke it out with Gina Daleiden for the open seat.
Just talked to Yolo County elections there are 9600 ballots to be counted in Yolo. I’m not expecting that to change the outcome in Davis given the vote totals so far.
Interesting… might bode well for Mr. Wolk?
D.G.: Just talked to Yolo County elections there are 9600 ballots to be counted in Yolo.
Wow. Well that might be an additional 10% of the electorate at the county level (~100K voters in Yolo C.).
Any idea when those will be counted and reported?
I was told that they will be counted on Friday and Monday. A percentage of those are in West Sacramento which is not in the Assembly District, so the total impacting AD4 is probably closer to 7000.
I suspect that these are mostly absentee ballots that were turned in at the poling place. Is there really any reason to believe that the percentage voting for one candidate or another would change significantly from the rest of the population? Unless the number of these ballots from Yolo County are considerably greater than the number from the rest of AD4, I find it hard to believe that the candidates rank order will change once these ballots are counted.
Completely agree. That’s precisely my take. My experience is that the same-day absentees mirror the voting trends of election day and unless there is a huge skew towards one county – and there’s no evidence of that – it’s going to sort out fairly similarly. If these results were within 50 votes, I’d say the results are up in the air, otherwise I believe we’ll see about what we see now.
One thing about absentee voters–they tend to skew a bit more conservative. They are not necessarily the same as the entire voting electorate.
While that used to be the case, it’s less so now that mail voting has greatly expanded. And moreover, the absentee voters on election day tend to vote closer to that of the electorate than the absentee voters prior to election day.
Those 9600 ballots are primarily provisional ballots and/or vote-by-mail ballots. Each require individual review to determine if their validity is verified prior to being opened, and counted. Therefore, it is unlikely that all 9600 ballots will be ‘counted’.
Correct. 8200 are election day or late arriving VBMs, another 1000 are provision and 276 are damaged. However, that’s county-wide. Excluding West Sac may reduce by close to one-third