In the past week I have had several pretty interesting conversations with members of the Davis City Council. Once upon a time, it was easy to criticize the Davis City Council – it was not only out of step with much of the community, there was an utter lack of civility.
That has largely changed in the last six years. The council is comprised of five decent, well-meaning individuals – agree or disagree on the issues, it is difficult to personally dislike any of them.
But each of the people I spoke to agreed, in their own way, that there is a leadership problem right now. The mayor deserves credit for trying to engage the public, he has been out front on issues like the budget and the impending crunch as unmet needs meet unfunded liabilities, and the document that the city produced in response to the LRDP was solid – but perhaps a few months too late to make a greater difference.
In 2010, Rochelle Swanson and Joe Krovoza were elected to the city council. There was a clear mandate and a clear need for immediate action to halt the budgetary bleeding, to get compensation back in line with a city the size and scope of Davis – and therefore, in a lot of ways, through urgency of crisis there was a clear need to act and act quickly.
Still, it really took into 2012 and 2013 before the council and city manager were really able to act and get the budget into a manageable position.
Since the spring of 2014, we have really seen a leadership void, and it comes at a time when things are actually just as bad – if not worse – than they were in 2010.
The city’s budget on paper looks on solid ground, but drill down and there are problems. Unmet infrastructure needs are already bleeding into the general fund and they figure to only get worse in the coming years.
Problems with the funding for the pension system were never fixed in the last six years, and have only become more pressing.
Other than Mayor Davis, no one on council is talking about this and, other than working on the margins – such as the expansion of TOT (transient occupancy tax) and the addition of hotels – the council has not really addressed the meat and potatoes.
Back in 2014, the Vanguard hammered on the city to get out in front of these issues. We argued that the council needed to make the case for fiscal resiliency. Instead, buoyed by the false hope of an improving economy and immediate cash flow improvements, the council failed to act twice on more substantive revenue measures.
The failure to create a sense of urgency probably contributed to the loss of Nishi and potential revenue from the 300,000 square feet of R&D space.
Can the council be blamed for the loss of innovation park potential in MRIC (Mace Ranch Innovation Center) and Davis Innovation Center? Hard to know.
But the situation in the city has become dire as the prospect for a hotel conference center, always tenuous, may now be off-table – although no one seems to be able to answer that question for sure.
While the university has agreed to increase their on-campus housing up to 90 percent of new students and 40 percent of all students, that still leaves the city in a bind, needing more housing for students, in addition to other housing demographics, in a climate where the community seems unwilling to support either infill or peripheral development.
Housing projects and economic development have been bogged down in an endless cycle of neighborhood pushback and litigation that has, for all intents and purposes, paralyzed the city and efforts to remedy glaring problems of lack of student and other housing, low retail tax revenue and the need for economic development.
And yet, we are not without hope. The efforts of Mike Hart with Sierra Energy and Mark Friedman with Fulcrum Property may at some point begin expanding the economic development base within the city – independent of efforts by the council.
A change of leadership at the university might give us other opportunities as well.
But council needs to get out in front of these issues.
The crisis and challenges we face are very real. We have used the number $655 million over the next twenty years as a benchmark, but that might prove to be an optimistic number. It does not include the increases to pension costs. And it does not include the potential loss of federal money that the city relies on.
Already the city is underserved with regard to its retail tax base. We need to figure out ways to expand our economic development. None of that is going to happen by itself.
This is going to take a lot of hard work. We need to figure out ways to expand our supply of commercial space, we need to take a proactive role in working with the university and we need to figure out a way to break through our paralysis-by-analysis mindset.
Change is scary, but change is happening right now in very negative ways. We already lack the revenue to address basic infrastructure needs. At some point we will lack the revenue to fund basic services. Davis, as we know it, will cease if we do not act.
But there is another path that we can take and, as I have argued, the best way to preserve the Davis that we all love is to find a way to move forward with a strategy that preserves the core values that we love in this community while allowing for small amounts of change to save those very things we need to be able to fund – parks, greenbelts, bike paths, roads, basic services.
But that is going to take leadership from this council and action starting today. Can we do that? Can the council step up? And will the community let them? That all remains to be seen.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A couple of thoughts, some we could address immediately, some that would require major structural change to the city.
We have a structurally determined “lack of leadership” in the form of a weak mayor system. I do not believe that we can actually blame the mayor and council for this systemic issue. I think that the council has been proactive on the business side of the balance. All were openly in favor of Nishi, all were encouraging of the innovation parks at least in terms of encouraging proposals. All seem encouraging of the hotels projects. The only criticism that I could make in this regard is that I would also have liked to see them act in terms of putting forward one or more tax measures. The citizen’s have no opportunity to approve or disapprove paying more directly for our amenities if the council will not place measures on the ballot.
My question for you David would be , what specific steps would you like to see from the Mayor ( who definitely has not ignored the city’s fiscal challenges in talks and writings ) and other City Council members ?
I echo Tia’s comment about the Council but especially the Mayor. Your title implies (or I inferred) the Mayor’s lack of leadership in these matters but the article does not support that and I don’t agree either. He has been strident and forceful in his description of our position and shirt of a tax discussion, has pursued solutions though perhaps not as actively as we would hope there could be solutions.
I wonder what your comment would be regarding the City Manager’s leadership regarding the fiscal situation? As you have mentioned in the past, and I picked up also from a quote in the DE a few weeks ago, city staff seemed to be minimizing the fiscal straits by saying something like we have or are addressing it. Far from a clear honest appraisal. Dirk seems almost non existent at council meetings I remember John Meyer as much more engaged with council and Steve Pinkerton too. Can there be improvement in leadership in this area from city staff leadership-would the title fit then?
In thinking more about today’s commentary, I believe all members of the City Council have expressed knowledge and concern about the city’s funding situation. The mayor has most recently been vocal and observable talking and writing about it, but that is to be expected of one who currently occupies that position, just as Mayor Wolk called attention to this issue during his tenure. That is the proper role of a mayor. During the past year I’ve heard other Council members discuss the city’s fiscal situation during Council meetings, extensively during the budget adoption process, and even when bumping into them at the Co-op. I don’t think there is a “leadership gap” on our Council. They are all informed of the issues, articulate and committed to doing what’s best for the City. And, as I mentioned earlier today, I’m used to seeing far more visibility and leadership by city managers elsewhere. That could be a key missing piece of the puzzle in Davis. In the council-manager format, the council typically looks to the city manager for guidance and a range of solutions from which to choose.
I will answer your question over time. But at the very least, I would like to see the four councilmembers not named Robb Davis acknowledge that we have severe challenges fiscally and use their power of the pulpit to get the public’s attention on this because the problem is very severe and the public is largely unaware of how bad things are. Has anyone other than Robb said this publicly?
Agree David. Look forward to future comments.
David wrote:
> I would like to see the four councilmembers not named
> Robb Davis acknowledge that we have severe challenge
I like Robb since he is not a “politician”. Over the years I have seen very few “successful” politicians that spend much time talking about “severe challenges”. It is a lot easier to get elected talking about all the new programs you are going to fund as you work to “Make Davis Great Again”…
When I brought this up before you totally downplayed it. Now you cite it as a big concern.
Separate issues at play here. (A) Should Davis remove its sanctuary city status? (B) Does the Davis provision (which doesn’t include shielding people in jail, since Davis doesn’t have jail) mean that they will lose federal funding (C) Will Davis lose federal funding independent of Sanctuary City Status. Here’s I’m not addressing (A), but rather (C). As Dan Carson said, “I am skeptical that the Congress can or will do anything meaningful that would affect the variety of sanctuary city that the city of Davis has.” That is not the extent of the threat to federal funding as I understand it.
I think Dan Carson is wrong here. Bill Oreilly made a huge deal out of the death of Kate Steinle and funded the lobbying to create Kate’s Law. Her family is suing federal agencies, and I think even federal employees, for her wrongful death. This is legal tactic picked up several years ago for people being hassled by the IRS… to sue the actual employees of the government… personally.
Outside the coastal liberal bubble, the majority of Americans are disgusted by these cities that ignore the federal laws. And they see the contrast between this and what the Obama administration and the Democrats in Washington did to Arizona attempting to deal with illegal immigration that was and continues to cost that state billions.
Basically we have coastal and big city liberal baby boomer protesting activists that have gotten older (but never have grown up) and have ended up in politics and government positions where they continue to act like protesting activists. The refuse to comply with the law of the land they find inconvenient or distasteful while exploiting other laws convenient for pushing their coastal and big city liberal values on those that disagree with them.
We have a structurally determined “lack of leadership” in the form of a weak mayor system.
Even weaker with Measure R. Not a word about the elephant in the room.
You are fixated on Measure R. Measure R is not going anywhere. You need to plan around that fact. Anything else is denial. I don’t know how you can state this more strongly. We can’t be afraid of losing at the polls.
We might be stuck with Measure R but certainly your lack of emphasis won’t help change things. At least I continuously beat the drum of reality as to the real problem while you want to somehow believe that the council has the power to fix things that are unfixable without the support of the voters from whom all power derives.
One question you fail to ask while praising the mayor for speaking up is why, as he has stated himself, isn’t he going to run again ? My guess, and its only a guess, is that the big things he has tried to get done were blocked by Measure R.
Robb Davis is a pretty straight forward, honest and sincere person, although his anti-auto predilections are beyond what most of Davis, myself included, can handle. On things like economic development, the budget and housing Robb will tell it like it is even if he often takes much too long to do so. I’ll never forget when he declared that “Davis is open for business” while telling Ramos and Schilling that Davis couldn’t alter the procedures of Measure R. Well guess what, Davis isn’t open for business, largely because of Measure R. The mayor has tried to lead but even you seem to cherry pick the areas instead of recognizing the overall view of what the mayor gets that its all connected, economic development, housing, densification and the budget are all moving parts of the same dynamics and they are all effected by Measure R.
What is sad David, is you know it too yet you cling to this idea that Measure R is something that can be worked around. I don’t know why you feel that way but you are wrong and none of Davis’ problems are going to get solved until Davis addresses the elephant in the room, Measure R.
I view Measure R a little like Prop 13 – it is not going anywhere, so you can spend your energy attacking it, or spend your energy finding ways around it.
Measure R is in my opinion, an example of a bad law, but it is just a symptom of the City’s problems, not the underlying cause. The cause is the long-standing, behind the scenes, petty squabbles between different political factions in town, driven by people who have a profound dislike of one another and an uncontrolled greed for their own financial benefits. Decisions are not made based on what is good for the City, but rather on who’s bread is being buttered (as opposed to their backsides). Consider it a less lethal version of the Hatfields and McCoys. Measure R is an outgrowth of these squabbles, fueled by the irrational fear of change and development, and an equally irrational hatred of developers, that is prevalent among the uninformed in our community.
If we want to really address the problems of the City, we need to forget about Measure R and instead focus a spotlight on the behind-the-scenes manipulations that actually control City governance. Bring in some light and scare the roaches. David could do a world of good for the community by simply creating a ‘family tree’ of the interrelations between the long-term property owners, local developers, their projects, and the different political factions in town. In the end, it will all come back to a story of greed and personal animus.
One man’s drum is another’s dead horse.
I like our elephant, and plan to keep him.
Egg-Zackly
Measure R is only a change-blocking tool for the NIMBY and NOE people. It is unfortunately supported by a few semi-knowledgeable activist types (generally bike extremists) that are too lazy to run for office and instead prefer having a convenient change-blocking tool… one that they can exploit by firing up the easy to light fears of the old fools and hippy artists in town to oppose any new development (poor Redrum Burger, toxic air, etc.). These things don’t even need to be truthful to get the fools to vote no.
There is great similarity between the City of Davis and a previous failing unionized company like Hostess Corporation. Measure R allows those lacking connection and understanding of the long-term financial health of their host, and gives them veto power to pursue their short-term remedies to their emotional turmoil. The labor union drove Hostess Corporation to bankruptcy. Everyone lost.
Davis is heading in the same direction thanks to Measure R.
We need just one project to actually pass a Measure R vote, just to see if it can ever be done. Maybe Taormino’s senior housing project will be the one.
I think the only hope is for the state, maybe with some push by the feds, to put an end to this ability for locals to block needed development. I see it coming because other than the cost of healthcare, the single biggest hit to the pockets of the poor and work-class (and students in our case) is the cost of housing.
And the lack of commercial property in the state is becoming a big problem causing commercial property values to over-heat again.
There is bipartisan support because liberals get the high cost of housing problem, and conservatives want to see more construction jobs and a growing economy.
I can see an initiative coming to California specifically targeting college towns.
Frankly wrote:
> Measure R is only a change-blocking tool for the NIMBY and
> NOE people. It is unfortunately supported by a few
> semi-knowledgeable activist types (generally bike extremists)
While Davis does have some “change-blocking NIMBY NOE people” (who give anyone who drive to work a hard time). My estimate is that the majority of people voting to stop new development in town are just regular older people that understand how supply and demand works (who want to keep home values high so they can cash in when they sell and retire to a new town) and regular younger people that understand how supply and demand works (who want to keep home values high so they have some equity to pull out to pay for college).
This is even more of a reason for state intervention as we have existing residents forcing a false supply constraint to cause their home values to appreciate as a wealth-generation mechanism.
Gordon Gekko would approve of their behavior.
Frankly I don’t think some of your rhetoric is productive. There are plenty of bike advocates who can be convinced that Measure R is a failure but discounting them in this way won’t help bring them around. They mayor has pointed out that development within two miles of campus is desirable because it is easy to bike that far.
In 2020 Measure R must be renewed and alienating voters won’t help change or defeat it. I believe the best path forward is to try and prevail on the issues and not lose any votes by getting bogged down with name calling or stereotypes.
Yeah, we’re “riding the tide”… but doesn’t affect my vote on development… truly…
Nishi was to me, not a “growth” issue, nor any sort of threat to our “vested interests” economically… neither are a part of our ‘calculus’… it was the access issues that caused us to vote NO…
Are we glad that those idiots who want to ‘build the moat’ have increased our net worth? Not really… we did that by investing and other life choices… but, the idiots have increased our net worth… I cannot deny that…
Guess we should have been “no-growth” 100 years ago [Davis became a City in 1917]… very few of us, if any, would be opining here if that had been the case…
Sorry to completely disagree with you Misanthrop, but I think I have invested much more time and ink to this subject on the VG. Measure A defeat was a crucible in understanding that the “alienating voters” concern is basically hogwash. If a voter cannot grasp the facts and reasons and would otherwise vote no because some pro-project advocate had been “mean” to them, then this backs my point that we are a city of foolish people.
I talked to people in town and asked them why they voted no. Most of them voted no for very foolish reasons.
You cannot expect to sway a foolish person’s vote with rational debate. In most communities there is a small enough demographic of foolish people to render them harmless in the affairs of the city. However, Davis has a very high number of them. And when you add the numbers that vote to protect their property values, well you are wasting time trying to win a development stating the calm facts.
Davis is going down and at least we will know who to brand for being responsible.
I have questions about Taormino’s senior project. It sounds like it is an expansion of URC, which is a non-profit and pays no property taxes. I am wondering if the other portions of the proposed development will also be non-taxable. With these senior developments come increased emergency services (medical). I would need to see if the project would at least pay for itself, especially since this doesn’t seem to satisfy an existing community need.
“non profit” means not having shareholders, needing to make a profit… yet, many non-profits pay their directors, others, in the high six thousand, low to middle millions…
Go to ‘charity navigator’… I do… most non-profits are legit… others are not.
I would like to see all of the Council members making this a top issue. Unless the Council starts talking about this issue, the average citizen who doesn’t pay much attention to City politics isn’t going to believe that there is an issue.
Exactly
The meat and potatoes are what drives the expansion of the TOT.. not the hotels alone… just want the community to understand that. Building hotels without their meat and potatoes makes everyone go hungry. Contrary to popular belief, Council is not solving any financial problems by adding an unsustainable amount of rooms to the City.
Adding an unsustainable number of hotel rooms in a city with a housing shortage. How weird is that?
Roshan wrote:
> The meat and potatoes are what drives the expansion of the TOT..
UCD is the “meat and potatoes” that drives the demand for room nights in town. As long as UCD keeps expanding the demand for hotel rooms in town (and TOT taxes paid) will increase.
The lack of housing in town should actually “increase” the demand for hotel rooms as less and less people can “crash on a couch” in town because the both the living room and dining room in more and more homes are rented to students.
As much as people complain about rising rents and home prices in Davis the rents and home prices are still MUCH cheaper than anything around UCSD, UCLA, UCSB, UCSF & Cal…
The best way for the City to determine if a new hotel is going to be sustainable is to look at the financing, for the simple reason that those who finance these projects will not support one that is unneeded or unsustainable. The City should evaluate, and if warranted, approve new hotel projects until such time that the financing for them is no longer available. We have a long way to go in adding new rooms before we will saturate the current market demand.
Those who already own hotels in town should stop complaining about the new competition and focus instead on providing value and quality service to their customers.
Mark wrote:
> Those who already own hotels in town should stop complaining
> about the new competition and focus instead on providing value
> and quality service to their customers.
It is a lot easier (and profitable) to “work to stop new development” than to “provide value and quality service” (many apartment owners in town that did not own part of the Nishi site had No on A signs in front of their offices and on the lawns of their apartments)…
A fact that perhaps explains the protectionist policies written into our Municipal Code. Why worry about providing value and quality service when you can get your friends in government to erect legal obstacles to new competitors.
Agreed. So why is the City approving hotels that do not have secured financing? Having a Letter Of Intent to finance is not secured financing, just FYI. Your statement is great in theory if only it worked that way.
Also, in your theory, Residence Inn should not have been approved until the Embassy Suites secured 100% financing… we now have 2 approved hotels. How many hotels should we approve until your theory of financing should be put in place?
That’s according to whom again? Definitely not the professional hotel consultants point of view.
Interesting point, and a little offensive. I guess I could also argue those who don’t own hotels or are actually understand the hotel market should stay out of the hotel conversations as well? In all actuality though, I really do respect your opinion and you’re completely entitled to it.
For the record, I am not complaining about new competition. I am complaining that the City Council is not listening to professionals regarding sustainability in our hotel market. Add as many hotels as you wish.. competition is always healthy for any market… saturation isn’t.
For the record, I am not complaining about new competition. I am complaining that the City Council is not listening to professionals regarding sustainability in our hotel market.
Not sure what professionals you are referring to. The two consulting firms that studied that issue had differing opinions, so it’s not clear how the council is not listening the professionals.
Re: the reference to financing contingencies. The ES would not be the best example to use. That project may have a difficult time with traditional financing sources, or need a subsidy of some sort The conference facility (a money loser) is far too large for the number of rooms in the hotel (a money maker). It is possible that the project may locate non-traditional sources of financing (likely wealthy international families that would like to gain permanent residence in the US via investing a $1 million and creating 10 jobs).
Roshan wrote:
> I am complaining that the City Council is not listening
> to professionals regarding sustainability in our hotel market.
I have met some of the people that want to build the new hotels in town and they fit my definition of hotel “professionals“. I’m wondering if Roshan thinks the people who want to build the new hotels are not intelligent enough or “professional” enough to have any idea how many rooms the area can support?
South of Davis:
Again, I’m not taking a position, regarding the hotels. But, I understand that (at some point), new hotels “cannibalize” business from existing hotels.
Might be great for the owners of new hotels, but not as good for the city (if an existing hotel goes out of business, and/or loses large numbers of TOT-paying customers). Essentially, a “wash”, in theory.
The professionals I am referring too is the CITY commissioned hotel consultants (HVS Consulting) that were contracted to provide an “analytical and objective” overview to assist the CITY with the review of the two proposed extended-stay hotels.
HVS was hired to analyze not only the developer-hired consultant’s reports. But, to also give an independent overview of the Davis market and how the City should proceed with both proposed hotel developments.
What’s furthermore, City staff agreed to the findings of the HVS report, that only one hotel at this time is needed (read their staff report). And they recommended exactly that to the City Council.
Now all-of-a-sudden, the Council is OK with two hotels being approved? How did they come to that conclusion?
The point is; the CITY hired a 3rd party independent professional hotel consulting firm (HVS) for their opinion on what to do with two hotel proposals. City Staff agreed with the conclusions and now we have Council saying they know better than those conclusions?
South Of Davis: You’re probably right, I shouldn’t have used “professional” as my key term. The word should have been “Professional Hotel Consultants”.
I have nothing against hotel developers, I am one. I have a problem with a City Council that is only listening to hotel developers, while “Professional Hotel Consultants” and City Staff, tell them otherwise.
I have no doubt the two proposed hotels will succeed if you put them into the market tomorrow. But, at what cost to existing hoteliers and what benefit to the City? This is why we typically believe in Smart Growth policies in this City.
The City should not be in the business of picking winners and losers and should only be concerned about the quality of the proposed projects. In the case of hotels, we should continue to approve the good projects until such time that projects are no longer being proposed. Approval does not mean that the project will be built, so we should not be counting the rooms against demand until they have been constructed and are in service, or at the very least, have secured financing. The City’s job is to provide an arena for the companies to compete for our business, not decide which of those companies should get our business. In the meantime, the City should be happy to collect the fees and taxes accrued from the proposals.
I have nothing against hotel developers, I am one. I have a problem with a City Council that is only listening to hotel developers, while “Professional Hotel Consultants” and City Staff, tell them otherwise.
Well, again, there are 2 studies by the two most respected hotel consulting firms and they are divided in their opinion of the market impact.
You stated that you are a hotel developer. Do you own or have a vested interest in a hotel in Davis now? If so, it seems that you have a conflict about the impact of new hotel rooms.
Regarding City Staff – regardless of what they may have stated earlier in the year, they’ve been very clear in their recommendations to the council — they recommended both hotels for approval in the recent meetings. I’ve heard nothing from them in any of the recent meetings suggesting that they believe we should build only one additional hotel.
Maybe that’s because they looked at HVS’s historical projections for the Davis market and seen that they have drastically underestimated hotel performance in Davis. Or maybe staff is listening to people like Lina Layiktez, the director of events an conference services at UCD. AT a recent CC meeting, she reported the following: Over the past five years it has become increasingly difficult to book suitable hotel rooms in our city. In fact, an informal poll conducted among more than two dozen of my colleagues show that all but one of them had difficulty booking hotel rooms they needed on several occasions in the past year. In fact, there are many instances when planners are forced to book hotels in neighboring cities.
Pretty compelling demand evidence from a very significant user of room nights. She also stated that she believes the addition of 2 or more hotels in town will be beneficial to the city, and will support the steady increase of campus based and off campus events in Davis.
And then there is this: According to city staff, in the April 19, 2016 CC agenda materials, the owner of the Holiday Inn Express approached the city about building a Candlewood Suites extended stay hotel….in the midst of proposals for 3 other extended stay hotels. I haven’t seen more about this project, but the fact that they were asking seems to indicate bullishness on the market, in the face of three proposed projects.
In the end, perhaps the CC members are choosing to listen to locals like Lina and the steady drum beat from the community of hotel investors/developers who seem to be clamoring to risk significant capital build hotel rooms in Davis. On balance, perhaps it is wise to listen to them, instead of the out-of -market consultants like HVS, who have underestimated our hotel marketplace for a number of years.
I believe R. Patel proposed expanding his own hotel recently. Seems that there are a number of ‘hotel professionals’ who believe that the local market is far from saturation.
Once again, gentlemen, I am not against developing hotels. I agree with Lina, we are at a point where we need the additional supply of rooms to grow with the needs of UC Davis. And, once again gentlemen, the HVS Study addresses the UC Davis’s growing demand and it is accounted for in their study. No offense to Lina, but she did not exactly tell us something we didn’t already know.
Where the problem lies is when Lina or any other citizen says how many hotels we need. That is their opinion, and not a very educated one. She can make an educated statement about needing more rooms for their conferences, but she cannot make an educated statement about how many we actually need.
That is why we enlist professional hotel consultants to do this for us.
—–
RE: My hotel’s expansion
As I have been saying, I see a demand for new rooms in this City. I approached the City about an expansion of my hotel, however, after my own analysis of supply/demand, I don’t see the need to add more supply at-this-time.
I find it hard to be critical of the Council, from a number of perspectives. Being mayor or other member of city council in Davis is supposed to be a part time job. All five of the current members of Council have part-or-full time jobs. Simply reading and absorbing a massive agenda packet every week takes a lot of time, plus taking calls and email from constituents. What strikes me is the extent to which the city manager position in Davis is largely “below the radar,” if not invisible. In a town with a part-time Council, I would think the city manager position would be far more visible and responsible for exerting a leadership role in areas such as economic development, downtown revitalization, interacting with the university, etc. This is not in any way a criticism of the current city manager, as I’ve told that the city manager position in Davis has traditionally been relatively weak relative to the Council.
This situation is far different from other cities and counties in which I’ve lived and worked, in which the city manager was highly visible, proactive and was seen as “the go-to guy” on most civic issues. (Sorry, in each instance in which I was involved, the city manager or county executive was a male.) It was his job to make the city or county work, his job to execute the council’s vision, and his job to negotiate the big economic development deals. Two events in Oakland come to mind when Jerry Brown was mayor. First, Jerry and the city manager agreed that the manager would run the city and that Jerry would use his “bully pulpit” to continually give visibility and a voice to his primary themes. Second, the city manager made it publicly clear to the council that they only had one employee–him. If a council member ever wanted a staff member to perform a particular task, they had to go through the city manager’s office. Any public criticism of staff by a council member resulted in a sharp and public rebuke by the city manager.
When I look at photos of previous Davis city councils, I’m struck by the short tenure of most members, especially in comparison to other cities and counties with which I’m familiar. Maybe as structured the job of council member is too demanding; after one or two terms the member is simply exhausted and wants their life back. Given the limited time and energy of Council members who also have jobs, it may be time to rethink the role and responsibilities of city manager in Davis.
Instead of Mayor Davis having to virtually alone voice concerns about the city budget, perhaps it should be the City Manager who is “out in front” on this issue and proposing solutions. Instead of Council having to appoint two busy members to wrestle with university administrators on the UCD Long Range Development Plan and its deficient student housing provisions, the City Manager could instead be assigned to go “butt heads” with UCD. It could be possible that in the past the City Council has desired a relatively weak city manager, but the City of Davis may have reached the point where the challenges and complexities are simply too large for a part-time city council combined with a powerless and relatively invisible city manager.
I think Mayor Davis is doing a good job of representing the Council. If Councilmembers were all trying to be out front, we could wonder about leadership. If they had something different to say about the same issue, then the complaint would be about dissension. In final analysis, people get what they vote for, which in Davis has been for more of the same. Davis voters approved Measure O to balance the City’s budget with a higher sales tax while electing Council Members who decided that this meant spending most of the “temporary” Measure O revenue on employee salaries, which increases future pension obligations. Meanwhile, CalPERS will continue to lower its investment returns projection and charge more to make up shortfalls, and the City is also charging more for services. This is not likely to end well for City’s finances, which keeps me thinking that I was lucky to lose in 2012. Still coming will be a proposal to increase taxes to fix roads and other City infrastructure without explaining why this hasn’t been part of the on-going budget. So Davis voters will get a chance to once again vote for more of the same.
“Meanwhile, CalPERS will continue to lower its investment returns projection and charge more to make up shortfalls, and the City is also charging more for services.”
Maybe but as fiscal policy takes over from monetary policy in Washington we may see Calpers returns improve if both interest rates (as they will today) and equity prices move up. Time will tell but assuming that past is prologue for Calpers may be a mistake, at least in the short to intermediate term. With oil prices up 20% since the election and around 10% since the head of Exxon was appointed Secretary of State we can see the pattern. Those with capital, like Calpers, will do well under Trump.
And those with capital will be more motivated to invest it in ways that create more jobs which will then help more people earn capital.
See how that works?
Thank you Trump for the surging markets.
Or, the most recent “bubble”… anyone pouring money into the market right now is a fool… “dollar cost averagers” should be OK… we’ll see how this plays out, financially… I predict a significant “correction” before Feb 20… the smart money will either cash out now, or “stand pat”… and not invest in Carrier… United Technologies might be a good buy, as I suspect that the “deal” the president-elect made will give them very favorable treatment in the next few years… they may be getting some of the ‘contracts’ for the new AF-1’s … just a wild guess…
I’m standing pat… neither selling, nor doing any investing beyond what I’m already doing…
Unfortunately for the Donald, he was so confident in the markets and his inauguration, that he sold his stocks in the summer.
“And those with capital will be more motivated to invest it in ways that create more jobs which will then help more people earn capital.”
Maybe in some cases but with automation, union busting, right to work laws and resistance to increases in the minimum wage its doubtful much of the benefits of Trump style capitalism will reach those in most need. Capitalism will favor those with capital during the Trump years and the more capital one has the better they will do. Strangely, Calpers will be a beneficiary in its role as trustee for those vested.
Misanthrop wrote:
> Capitalism will favor those with capital during the Trump
> years and the more capital one has the better they will do.
Capitalism is fair to all while “Crony Capitalism” what we have in America where the rich pay those in power (of BOTH parties) to make laws that make them even richer is what favors the rich.
” The gap between rich and poor has widened more under Obama than under any other president.”
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/barack-obama-successfully-rich-richer/
It was not Obama’s fault that more and more politicians (of BOTH parties) are “owned” by business, developers and unions, but he did little to shine any light on the problem. I’m actually hopeful that Trump (who I don’t like and didn’t vote for) might get people to sit up and notice if he “tweets” about all the campaign cash politicians are getting from defense companies and other firms that have been ripping us off for years…
URC: hpierce is correct. I managed tax-exempt, non-profit trade associations for many years. Non-profit status is conferred by the State, and means only that earnings are distributed among shareholders. A non-profit can make any amount of revenue it wants, and probably should make a profit in order to maintain the 6-12 months of operating reserves generally recommended for such organizations. Tax-exempt designation, in contrast, is conferred by the IRS.
Relative to the tentatively proposed senior housing north of Covell near Sutter Davis Hospital: I have much less problem with such a development than I do more neighborhood student “mini-dorms,” large multi-story “mega-dorms” and other proposals that simply let UCD off the hook in terms of providing student housing commensurate with the aggressive growth embodied the “2020 Initiative” launched by former Chancellor Katehi (and not required by UCOP). I’ve never had a senior citizen throw a beer bottle at my home at 2:00 AM, park on sidewalks in our neighborhood, litter yards with empty beer bottles and cans, leave half-empty baggies of dope on the street, or engage in public urination during late-night, early morning parties. I would have voted for Measure A in an instant had it been comprised entirely of an innovation park without student housing, and am inclined to vote for annexation to accommodate senior housing (depending, of course, on the project details).
Correction: I meant to say that in non-profits, earnings are NOT distributed among shareholders. Sorry for any confusion.
Edison wrote:
> Correction: I meant to say that in non-profits, earnings are NOT distributed
I thought your correction was going to say “leave totally-empty baggies of dope on the street” (how many baggies have you really found with a 1/4 ounce of weed or a 16th of an ounce of blow “on the street”?)…