Nobody on the current council was there for two weeks in a row back in 2009 when the council foolishly put forth a resolution taking a position on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute over Gaza. What was accomplished? A division between the Jewish community and the Muslim community, two meetings that had so many public commenters they went late into the night, and nothing to gain from it.
What few will remember is that there was a very real downside. The second meeting’s long public comment meant that a very important item was heard after 1 am. That would be the Davis Fire Report, where Bob Aaronson was being questioned by the council about a report that the city manager refused to release to the public, and the council had voted in December 2008 not to read.
The late night fatigue was costly, as normally sharp members of council failed to pick up on important notes from the investigator. It would take five years and multiple lawsuits to get the report out to the public.
This year we have already seen the risk of resolutions and ceremonial things that are really not the purview of the council. A Gandhi statue, that was passed in February on consent, led to a midnight meeting a month ago and, now, we will have the unveiling of a Gandhi statue with 200 protesters this morning.
A council resolution against the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) ended up angering the business and investment community, triggering a sharp debate and a war of words.
So now the city council has put on a Resolution in Opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Will Arnold and Lucas Frerichs have put the measure forward after a September 13 council meeting saw several people speak during public comment, “urging the City Council to take a stand on the Dakota Access Pipeline. The concerns ranged from lack of respect for Indigenous rights and jurisdiction to the provision of clean and safe water.”
According to the staff report, “The Subcommittee is bringing forward the proposed resolution, which supports the opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline, citing the importance of Indigenous sovereignty and environmental justice.”
For the record, I am fully supportive of this issue – I just do not think it is an issue that the Davis City Council should support.
For one thing, I think there is a bit of problem here on the issue of oil transport. We have come out against oil by rail, which is an issue that directly affects Davis since we would have had oil trains rolling right through town. Not only is it a public safety issue, it is a Davis sovereignty issue, as other locales would have had direct control over what transports through our community.
But the issue of the oil pipeline, “the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline would carry as many as 570,000 barrels of hydraulically-fractured (‘fracked’) crude oil per day for more than 1,170 miles from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota to Illinois, passing over sensitive landscapes including Treaty-protected land containing recognized cultural resources and across or under 209 rivers, creeks, and tributaries including the pristine Missouri River, which provides drinking water and irrigates agricultural land in communities across the Midwest,” does not directly impact us.
Although at some point, as long as we are going to continue to rely on internal combustion engines primarily fueled by petroleum, we are going to have to resolve the tension between opposition to rail and pipeline.
My point here is that this is not a Davis City Council issue. While I think the Standing Rock issue is less divisive for this community than Gandhi (apparently), Palestinian-Israeli Police and TPP – as several of these issues showed – that fact should not be taken for granted. Who expected a Gandhi statute to become controversial?
I am intentionally picking an issue I agree with to make this point, that I suggest the Davis City Council should limit when they issue resolutions on these sorts of issues.
Here is the test I would offer:
- Does the issue directly impact Davis? Based on this test, we could have a resolution on the oil train, since the trains roll right through Davis. We might be able to file an amicus brief on same-sex marriage, since there are citizens are impacted by the court’s decision.
- Does the council participation make a difference? I am sorry but, while Davis “has made a firm commitment to reduce its own dependence on fossil fuels and aims for carbon neutrality by 2050,” our resolution is not going to make any difference whatsoever.
- Is this issue one of consensus? This is tricky. On the surface, I suspect most Davisites are opposed to the pipeline, but I wouldn’t have thought the Gandhi issue would have exploded either, or even TPP. I think here the council needs to think – if there is not much we can do and this does not impact us directly, we should avoid it unless there is clear community consensus to do this.
This is an important issue, but not for the city of Davis. After seeing the downside risks, I now change my mind and think it would be better if the council focus on issues that they have control over, and avoid possible entanglements with issues that offer only downside acrimony without the possibility of actually impacting policy.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
You and I stand on the same side of this issue with regard to the rights of indigenous peoples, but on different sides of the issue with regard to whether or not this issue affects Davis. I am in agreement with your three criteria questions, but I would offer different answers and would add one more question.
1. Does the issue involve Davis ?
I believe that it does. I believe that how one group of people, historically disrespected as a people by governments at all levels throughout the United States, affects all peoples. If the rights of one group can be repeatedly over ridden for the expediency of others, can we not expect the same treatment if it is our rights that are being threatened ?
2. Does the council participation make a difference ?
I believe that as one isolated entity, it would not. But if more and more individuals and cities were to express their opinions publicly, it very well might.
David
You and I stand on the same side of this issue with regard to the rights of indigenous peoples, but on different sides of the issue with regard to whether or not this issue affects Davis. I am in agreement with your three criteria questions, but I would offer some different answers and would add one more question.
1. Does the issue involve Davis ?
I believe that it does. I believe that how one group of people, historically disrespected as a people by governments at all levels throughout the United States, affects all peoples. If the rights of one group can be repeatedly over ridden for the expediency of others, can we not expect the same treatment if it is our rights that are being threatened ?
2. Does the council participation make a difference ?
I believe that as one isolated entity, it would not. But if more and more individuals and cities were to express their opinions publicly, it very well might. This is how movements are built , how opinions are changed, and ultimately how many social issues are ultimately addressed for the improvement of our society. You probably are not old enough to remember how berated northern whites were for participating in the anti Jim Crow movement of the south with comments that this was none of their businesses and they should just go home. I do remember. I feel that this is much the same issue. When there is a clear moral wrong, I believe that we all have not only the right, but the obligation to speak out with our feelings on the matter, both as private citizens and as elected officials if we have been petitioned to do so by members of our constituency.
3. Is there a consensus – I agree…..its tricky.
4. Is there a clear and overriding moral issue ?
In this case, I do not believe that there is any doubt. I worked on the Tohono Ottam reservation in Arizona for two years. I had a first hand view of how previous decisions made by our governments ( multiple levels) through the taking of land which made the pursuit of the native lifestyle nearly impossible devastated a population of indigenous people leading to physical disease and societal breakdown. This occurred with multiple indigenous populations across this country. It is my feeling that each generation has had some opportunities to treat these groups of people with honor and respect, or to continue our incessant disregard for their rights for our profit and convenience. This is one of our opportunities. I feel that it is the right and obligation of everyone who becomes aware to voice their individual and collective opinion about how to handle this particular challenge to their way of life.
PS – sorry for the partial repetition. I have no idea how I did that.
Probably the best presentation ever of a Council procedural issue that has long festered in Davis, and long begged for a solution.
What makes this particular notion appealing is that it contains policy statements to address and correct. Dump the consensus value. It’s not only tricky, it’s not really needed, and sure to prolong the reform effort to where the desired policy may die due to sheer exhaustion.
David wrote:
> Here is the test I would offer:
Great test (that the politicians will probably never use)
> Does the issue directly impact Davis?
No, not at all (the pipeline is about 1,500 miles from Davis).
> Does the council participation make a difference?
No, not at all (the oil company CEO is not going to cancel the project when he hears about the Davis vote).
> Is this issue one of consensus?
No not at all, David may suspect “most Davisites are opposed to the pipeline” since people tend to hang out with people with similar views (most people I know realize this is just a cash grab by the Indians since a gas pipe has been in the same area for years).
P.S. I have no problem if the entire city council focus all their free time on this issue (or Syria or Israel or South Africa), but it has no place in the Davis City Council meetings…
South of Davis
One question for you.
Will the citizens of Davis in any way benefit from this transport of oil ?
If the answer to this question is, “yes” because it will provide financial benefit in the form of less costly energy that will even indirectly benefit us, then I think that we must also address the downsides of actions taken for our benefit.
Tia wrote:
> If the answer to this question is, “yes” because it will provide financial
> benefit in the form of less costly energy
California has “special” fuel that can only be sold here so I don’t think we will even get any of the oil from the pipeline. It blows my mind every time I drive from Truckee (with some of the most expensive gas in America) to Reno where gas is usually about $1 less per gallon.
P.S. Last weekend I was at a wedding in the South and every gas station we saw had gas under $2/gallon (the lowest I saw was $1.66/gallon)
Thank you David, you’ve got this right.
God I hate this type of thing from our city council. What pompous self-righteous elites they must feel they are to waste one second of the precious time we elected them for and pay them for to make political decisions on DAVIS ISSUES.
If symbolism matters, then the Davis City Council members are doing well reflecting the foolishness of the general voting population of this declining city.
I would expect this from Lucas, but was hoping the new CC members were a different breed of Davis political leaders. Looks like Will is also interested in a political career and so he need to start building his activism accomplishment to help make him a media and Democrat Party darling.
Very disappointing.
Frankly
“What pompous self-righteous elites they must feel they are to waste one second of the precious time we elected them for and pay them for to make political decisions on DAVIS ISSUES.”
Perhaps you do not realize that our city council members do not sit around idly dreaming up items to “waste one second on”. These issues that you and many others do not see as relevant to our community are obviously of importance to other members of the community who bring their concerns to the attention of council members. Do you really think it is a good idea for council members to be arbitrarily deciding to totally ignore concerns which are felt to be legitimate by other members of the community ? They are elected to make this kind of decision. If you want to do so, perhaps you should consider running for city council and then your voice would be equal to each of theirs.
The TTP is NAFTA on steroids. The Trans Canada Pipeline Corp has recently filed a $15 billion claim against the USA for, in large part, loss of future profits for refusing to approve the KeystoneXL pipeline. It will be adjudicated by a NAFTA tribunal whose decision cannot be appealed to any state, local or even the supreme court. It would be very easy for any shipping, refining, etc. Corp from any of the 11 potential signatories of the TTP to file a similar claim should oil trains not be allowed to transport crude from the Bakken fields through Davis to ports and refineries in the bay area for shipping abroad. So Davis has a very real interest in voicing it’s disapproval (or support depending on how you feel about oil trains, etc.) on these types of issues.
Maybe if the council approves a resolution on the oil pipeline, TTP, NAFTA, Keystone XL, Cap and trade, micro aggressions, global warming and the estate tax then the roads will get fixed, people will be able to afford their rent and students will have a place to live.
Yes, I just wish that the Council members could understand this point.
And I hope that our Council members will always remember and understand the point that when moral principles are involved ( as they certainly are in degrading and despoiling the land of others and honoring previous agreements made with others) it is always legitimate to voice one’s views whether as individual citizens and/or as elected officials. When and if asked by concerned citizens, I hope that they will always give consideration to the issue and not remain silent.