The Sierra Club will not be making a Davis City Council endorsement this year “since all candidates were perceived by our management committee as being equally qualified and all did very well in responding to our series of questions.”
The Sierra Club assessment of the Davis City Council candidates is as follows:
“The Sierra Club Yolano Group has carefully assessed all of the answers submitted by the four Davis City Council candidates in response to our questionnaire. Although there are some minor differences of opinions between candidates and we do not agree with all candidates on all issues, we find all of the candidates are equally worthy of receiving Sierra Club endorsement for this elective office. All demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the general environmental pressures facing the City and our planet and all seemed genuinely cognizant of the necessary urgency in responding to this challenge. Indeed, in our opinion this is the most environmentally knowledgeable and committed slate of candidates to ever run for City Council in Davis. Unfortunately, Sierra Club rules prevent endorsement of more candidates than there are available open seats in an election so the Sierra Club Yolano Group must take a ‘no endorsement’ in this Council race.“
The Vanguard will break the responses into a four-part series.
5 – Davis has adopted a Zero Waste Resolution striving to achieve zero waste by 2025. As part of this program, it is proposed to restrict food service industry use of non-recyclable or non-compostable food service and drink containers – including a ban on all Styrofoam containers.
Do you support or oppose such restrictions in Davis and why or why not?
Will Arnold:
I support moving completely to recyclable and compostable food and drink containers. I have seen many local restaurants move in that direction already, leading me to believe the change does not present an insurmountable financial or logistical burden.
Lucas Frerichs:
I support a citywide Styrofoam ban- we’ll join many other jurisdictions throughout California in doing so.
I’d take a further step, mandate the use of paper straws- the single use disposable plastic straws are a major pet peeve of mine, and we needlessly waste billions per year. If people need a straw at all, a paper one works just as well.
Brett Lee:
Yes, I support this. I have mentioned this before. In Oakland they have been requiring this for years. In Davis we already have several businesses doing this already.
Matt Williams:
Yes, as a member of the Natural Resources Commission, I voted in support of the Zero Waste Resolution.
6 – The long term waste management plan for the City of Davis calls for mandatory commercial and multi-family food scrap collection and composting.
Do you support these measures and why or why not?
Will Arnold:
I support the waste management plan, I support commercial and multi-family food scrap composting, and I support green waste containerization that combines food waste and yard waste. These are important steps toward diverting as much as possible away from landfills.
Lucas Frerichs:
Yes. While on the City Council, I voted in favor of instituting the mandatory citywide organics program –which will roll-out citywide this summer (2016). I helped negotiate the new contract with DWR, which builds on the successful (but inadequate) voluntary food scrap collection program. The only way we can to state required 75% diversion, and ultimately Zero Waste, is through mandatory actions like the green waste/food scrap collection program..
Brett Lee:
We are moving forward with the residential program this Summer. I thought we were already planning this for commercial and mutli-family as well (I know we have had a successful pilot program). I will check into this. If we are not doing it for commercial and multi-family, I will see why not. I see no reason not to.
Matt Williams:
Yes, as a member of the Natural Resources Commission, I voted in support of the long-term waste management plan.
7 – The Davis City Council has called for a voluntary city-wide 20% reduction in water usage over the next 3 years.
What water conservation measures for the City and its businesses, and residents would you recommend as being most productive and cost-effective?
Will Arnold:
I support this reduction goal and commend Davis citizens for meeting and exceeding the tough water conservation goals set by the State in summer 2015. Now that El Niño has given us somewhat of a reprieve, it is important that we do not revert back to the pre-drought mentality, but continue to strive for water savings in times both wet and dry. We must make water efficiency and saving a major part of any rebuilding, re-landscaping, or new building project. The promotion of greywater and rain capture systems is especially important.
Lucas Frerichs:
I’ve advocated for the City to start a “Cash for Grass” program, which would incentivize the removal of unneeded/unused yet water intensive turf.
I also supported ending the toilet rebate program, which has not shown to be the best use of our precious rebate dollars.
I supported the hiring of Dawn Calciano, who is the City’s new Water Conservation Coordinator, the first time Davis has hired someone expressly for this purpose.
Lastly, the City needs to continue to be leading by example…we cannot ask residents to conserve if the City is not doing its part by reducing watering, removing unused turf, and replacing with drought tolerant landscaping.
Brett Lee:
Increased simplicity of gray water usage permitting. Using gray water should not require a lot of red tape and expense.
We finally hired the water conservation person. I would like to see a robust city water conservation office that offers residents free water usage audits and provides recommendations on water wise gardening and landscaping ideas as well as inside the home water efficiency suggestions. This office can be staffed by UCD student volunteers coordinated by our full time staffer.
Matt Williams:
For the typical Davis residence, outdoor water use for plant irrigation is three times the amount of indoor water use. Given that, improvements in irrigation efficiency and reduction in irrigation demand will be the most effective water conservation measure. I personally have implemented reduced water demand in my own life The home I owned together with my ex-wife in El Macero from 1998 through 2014 did not have a single blade of turf grass on the property..
8 – The Yolo County Health Council has continued calls for mandatory system-wide fluoridation of our water supply as a dental decay preventative measure.
Do you support or oppose municipal water fluoridation in Davis and why or why not?
Will Arnold:
I don’t think we should revisit the fluoride proposal. The citizens and the City have spoken on that issue. As a major supporter of the joint surface water project, I saw this issue as an unnecessary distraction from the important goal of securing a sustainable supply of clean water. I do strongly support providing access to important dental care to those in need, and I am interested in continuing to explore targeted dental healthcare improvements.
Lucas Frerichs:
Oppose- I voted against municipal fluoridation back in 2013. I felt like the whole fluoridation issue was a bait and switch – the community was asked to support the surface water project without fluoride…and at the last minute there was a push by some to make fluoride part of the surface water project.
I think fluoride can be effective, but works best when topically applied, and not included in our entire water supply….I applaud the efforts of the Davis Oral Health Project in trying to provide additional resources to children who need oral health assistance.
Brett Lee:
I voted no on water fluoridation. I believe that there are more appropriate ways of addressing dental health.
Having said that, I am a little troubled by the fact that we have not come up with a more robust children’s dental health program.
Matt Williams:
Given the controversial nature of municipal fluoridation in Davis, I believe it is prudent not to proceed with a system-wide fluoridation implementation.
With that said, neither the pro-fluoridation nor the anti-fluoridation camps have presented up-to-date peer-reviewed, primary, scientific evidence that supports their position. The evidence provided by the pro-fluoridation camp is stale dated, and the evidence provided by the anti-fluoridation camp is secondary. Until either camp remedies the problems in their evidence, any decision regarding fluoridation in Davis will be a political calculation.
Ha, just switch water surface project with MRIC and switch fluoride to housing and look what we have.
Like people stated when the plastic bag ban was instituted, give them an inch then the door is wide open. I remember commenters saying that was just a red herring argument, but here you go.
This also serves as a warning to any soda tax, first soda then down the road what foods will be next?
I guarantee that soda tax will not be the final measure for dealing with diabetes and obesity.
So you’re saying if a soda tax ever gets enacted in Davis other foods or products will follow?
Or something else will get active now
The styrofoam ban and the plastic bag ordinance are both small parts of a comprehensive solid waste management plan that was adopted by our city council in 2012. Implementation of the ordinances are staggered in order to give staff time to engage in community outreach and give businesses time to adapt to the changes. It’s not a conspiracy plan to trick people.
[moderator] edited. Please adhere to the Vanguard Comment Policy.
BP
“Like people stated when the plastic bag ban was instituted, give them an inch then the door is wide open.”
So if you “give them an inch” and there is improvement in the environment from either the “inch” or the enabled “open door”, I would see this as cause for applause. Thank goodness that we are gradually seeing a societal realization that we cannot simply consume, discard, waste, pollute for our own convenience and not leave vast environmental problems for our children.
BP seems to think that there is a chain of dominoes that falls with the first move. Instead, I think the system is more akin to people chipping around a wall. You can break off a piece at times, but the wall remains upright for the most part. The system is resilient to a fault.
I have yet to see these 4 candidates disagree on anything. Their answers on every major issue are almost always exactly the same. Are we in Davis anymore?
We need better dental care and support for low income children and families in Davis. As it stands now we are failing this group in our community, but the consqennces of this our depressing and doesn’t seem to fit into the canned, generic answers, that this group of candidates appear to give when answering questions.
“I have yet to see these 4 candidates disagree on anything. Their answers on every major issue are almost always exactly the same. Are we in Davis anymore?”
That’s not a good thing. There is plenty of dissension in the community, but it’s not reflected in the council candidates which means most people don’t see the council as a way to address issues of import to Davis.
They seemed to have morphed into one giant candidate that gives the same generic, safe answer to every question. I know them all well enough to know that this is not an accurate assessment. I wish at least one of them would be brave enough to put down the script they all seem to be working off of and give answers that have substance and move the dialogue forward.
Michelle, when you compare the questions that the Sierra Club asked with the four weekly questions that the Vanguard has asked, there is a clear difference in the way the questions are constructed. For the most part The Sierra Club has asked “closed” questions, while the Vanguard has asked “open” questions. When the Sierra Club asked “open” questions like #4 (published in the first article in this Sierra Club series), they got much more of a variety of answers.
For example, in today’s #8 the Sierra Club asked, “Do you support or oppose municipal water fluoridation in Davis and why or why not?” The focus of that Sierra Club question is very specifically on a single policy decision … how our water system should be handled.
Compare that to this week’s Public Safety question, “In September a murder at KetMoRee caused the community to reflect on its downtown policies. But Davis overall is changing in terms of crime and types of crime and related challenges. What is your view of policing in Davis? You can discuss issues such as staffing, resource priorities, community outreach, police oversight, and transparency like body worn cameras.” If 100 people were asked what is the focus of the that Vanguard question there would be at least a dozen different answers. Some would say late night bar scene safety. Others would say police oversight. Others would say judgment in police staffing. Bottom-line, there is no single focus to that kind of “open” question, and as a result, it invites a multi-faceted response . . . and the four candidate answers are very different from one another. Further, the assessment of the candidate answers by the commenters differed as well. Sisterhood has been very consistent over the years in her comments about the propriety of police behavior and crimes of a sexual nature. As a result, Will’s and Brett’s respective focus on those two topics resonated with her. Other readers had different interests, and saw the answers differently.
One other factor that affects the answers is how they were posed to the candidates. For the Vanguard questions, the questions come one-at-a-time. In the case of the Sierra Club, the questions came 22-at-a-time. That is a very different work load, and while the period allotted by the Sierra Club for preparing the answers was 4-times longer than the Vanguard allots, the weight of the whole 22-question task affected each individual question answering exercise.