A few weeks ago, the No on Nishi campaign, put out a Facebook-sponsored ad, with the lead: “Who do the Nishi Developers support for Davis City Council?”
But the add itself, quoting from the February Davis Enterprise article, quickly became muddled, conflating “Nishi Developers” with all developers.
For instance, it quotes the Enterprise, stating, “Carson received contributions from 130 people, including … local developers Tim Ruff, Dave Taormino and Dan Ramos.” The accuracy of the ad’s lead is called into question by conflating the Nishi Developer – in this case Tim Ruff – with Dave Taormino of the West Davis Active Adult Community and Dan Ramos of Mace Ranch Innovation Center.
At that time, for the period ending in December 31, they each gave $100. The Enterprise actually underreported the contributions, because both Dave Taormino’s wife and Tim Ruff’s wife also contributed $100 at that time. But still you are talking $500 out of $13,000 raised by the Dan Carson campaign. Five contributions out of 130.
There was a long debate about all of this on Facebook, but I have now looked at each candidate’s contributors – for four of them – and developer money is certainly there, but not very pervasive. When you consider the centrality of the issue of housing to this campaign, the lack of developer influence is noteworthy and probably at least in part attributable to the now $150 campaign contribution limitation that kicked in on January 1 of this year.
It is worth noting that several candidates are not accepting money from developers. Ezra Beeman, when the Sierra Club asked the question, stated: “A conflict of interest or the appearance of a 
conflict arises when taking money from groups or individuals with desires that are contrary to the interests of the community. Hence, I am taking no such contributions whether from city employees or associations, developers, or those with city contracts.”
Linda Deos said, “I have not taken any money from developers, unions, or other entities doing business with the City of Davis.”
Larry Guenther also stated, “I am not accepting any contributions from people doing business with the City Council; City employees, employee unions, developers, business applicants, etc.”
Luis Rios stated, “I do not believe in collecting donations from developer or elected politicians to run for city council.”
Four candidates have taken money from developers. In our view, it is always tricky to determine just who a developer is. For example, someone like Chuck Cunningham is not a developer, but his well-regarded Engineering Company probably works for every project or nearly every project in the city. For the purposes here, we are only considering developers as those who actually have ownership stakes.
Under that category, Dan Carson has received the most direct money from developers. In addition to the $500 identified from 2017, he received $100 from John Ott (Plaza 2555), $150 from Richard Harris (Plaza 255), and $200 total from John Whitcombe and his wife. That is another $450 – that means $950 in direct contributions from developers.
That’s $950 out of $35,000 or nine contributions out of nearly 300. A more expansive list which would include people who are working on the project or the campaign, and you can get maybe another $500 to $1000. So, at most, $2000 out of $35,000 have some connection to development projects before the city of Davis.
Mary Jo Bryan received $100 from Jason Taormino, $200 from Dave Taormino and his wife, and $100 total from John Whitcombe for a total of $400 out of her $11,000.
Gloria Partida received $100 from John Whitcombe.
Eric Gudz received $100 from Steve Greenfield and $100 from Kemble Pope (Trackside) with another $77 coming from Sandy Whitcombe.
Mark West has said he will take money from developers but to date has not received any. He stated, “My vote is not for sale, nor am I a windsock responding to the amount or direction of hot air in the room. I will make decisions that I believe are in the best interests of the city following evaluation of all the available data and input, using my values as a guide. Consequently, I do not care where my support comes from, and will accept financial support from anyone who offers.”
In conclusion, if you are a voter who wants people not to take any money from developers, then you have four clear choices as Ezra Beeman, Linda Deos, Larry Guenther and Luis Rios have said they will not take money from developers.
However, our overall analysis shows that, while developer money is present in the race, even in the case of Dan Carson you are talking about only $950 in direct contributions from developers and $2000 or so if you use a much more expansive definition. In neither case is it likely to play a huge role in his decision making process.
All told, developers have contributed to those four candidates less than $3000 out of more than $60,000 that the four have collectively raised. The nice thing about this campaign is that voters have a choice – they can be purists or they can be pragmatists. Either way, they have plenty of candidates to choose from.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Or, as Clemens (Twain) might have said, “The effect of campaign contributions from developer/related folk on CC decision-making has been greatly exaggerated” …
> Or, as Clemens (Twain) might have said, ” . . .
Or, as Shania (Twain) might have said, “Man, I feel like a woman”.
David
“The accuracy of the ad’s lead is called into question by conflating the Nishi Developer – in this case Tim Ruff – with Dave Taormino of the West Davis Active Adult Community and Dan Ramos of Mace Ranch Innovation Center.”
Conflating: “to fuse into one entity; merge:”
I generally agree with most of the points made in the article. However, I do not believe that there was “conflation” in its negative connotation which would call accuracy into question. It was an accurate listing of individuals whose occupation happens to be development. How that calls anything else into question is beyond me. Can you clarify?
The ad lead with “Nishi developers” but then named three developers, only one of whom was a Nishi developer.
I think we are quickly moving forward to where the old narrative of bad=developer and good=anti-growth activist is going to reverse. From my perspective we are already there… and have been for the last 20 years.
The arguments from the anti-growth activists have always been 90% fabrications and lies attempting to cover their selfish interests. Their problem is that they don’t know when to stop and thus they are losing their cover as fewer and fewer people can find a place to live and are asking why.
“Their problem is that they don’t know when to stop”
It’s always good to take one’s own advice.
Looks like you are making a hobby out of commenting about me personally. Although I consider it kinda’ fun like it was teasing my less-developed younger brother growing up, I think for the sake of the quality of content on this community blog you should focus on the issues.
Your habit of labeling anything foreign or distasteful to your own peculiar sense with neo-con pejoratives is at least as detrimental to the “quality of content” as my pointed, humorous and accurate observations.
Focus on the topic and you should be allowed a few pokes of those clinging to their fixed mindset worldview of all ideological things that have been proven failures.
But you have wasted ink here without anything useful focusing the topic.
Maybe you should write a piece on the topic of Jeff M’s use of neo-con pejoratives so you at least can stick to a topic.
Gotta disagree with you here, Jeff… you wrote,
Several levels… first being the “old narrative” is very much alive, and may be getting more traction with a majority of the candidates.. more is the pity… second being 20 years? Really?
I say this as someone who supports growth @ 2 %/year as far as population (call it “inflation”)… yet, as the City has been lagging behind that both for residential and commerical growth, I’m cool with a “booster shot” to make up for the laggard past… and yes, I know most here will vehemently disagee…
Maybe.
But there is this… https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/dan-walters-who-will-control-land-use-in-california/
Jef
I disagree that there has ever been a pervasive bad= developer, good = anti growth activist narrative except of course the one in your mind that you like to drag out periddiocly. You have demonstrated this nicely by saying it has not been on play for 20 years.
I think with Avery rare potential exception, most of us address these issues on a project by project basis depending on how we perceive the Pros & cons of the presented plan. Many people wrongly identify Eileen Samitz as “anti-growth” ignoring her support for the Cannery. Others have labeled me similarly, ignoring my support for both Nishi & Lincoln 40.
I think we would be better served by listening carefully to each other’s perspectives than we are by labeling & name calling especially with to regard to calling others “liars”. As our private conversations have confirmed, I may honestly disagree with what you firmly believe to be true.
Transparency is good – going overboard is not. Dan Carson is not going to be heavily influenced by a small amount of developer money. Not taking developer money to me comes across as sanctimonious not to mention arbitrary.
Mais oui… certainment…
Craig & Howard
Honest question. How did you each feel about bundled firefighter money?
Tia – I’ll just point out that the firefighters were delivering 40 bundled contributions for $4000 and backing it up with an IE campaign with doorhangers and a mailer. That is just not in the same universe as a few scattered contributions by developers.
As part of that, developer A has no interest in giving developer B a leg up… developers are not monolithic… trust me on this… they often have competing interests…
Howard
True as written. But all have a common interest in making it easier to get projects approved.
Your patent prejudices are patent…
Same way I’d feel about a bunch for folks from a neighborhood, sit around, perhaps over coffee, and come up with their “slate”, and each pledge to contribute to “the slate”… concerning, but perfectly legal.
A difference with the FF’s is that there could be coercion at play (union leadership), which is disturbing, and abhorrent.
The FF’s were semi-transparent about it… neighborhood ‘cliques’ are opaque…
“neighborhood ‘cliques’ are opaque”
Assuming that such groups exist of course.
We’ll never know, one way or the other… if they exist (and are you denying they do?) they are opaque… I have my sources, too…
David
While I agree with the magnitude of the amount of money being different, I do not agree with the fundamental concern of appearance of dealing favorably with those who have donated to you. I think that there is a difference between a candidate saying I will not accept developer money and a candidate who says I will not accept money from anyone doing business with the city.
I feel that consistency is important largely because what may be “influential” to an individual who is financial insecure may be entirely different from what is “influential” to someone who is affluent. Also it may simply be a matter of influence as Mulvaney stated plainly. He made it clear that he would not even bother to talk with those who had not given him money. I doubt there would be a clear quid pro quo here on the local level, but more subtly “gratitude” for support could certainly play a role. As a matter of fact, from past campaigns, I know it does. I remember quite clearly being told by a prominent candidate in a past campaign, “Why would I support that individual who did not support me ?” even though their stated positions were quite similar.
My point would that operating within the normal rules limits the amount of influence any interest can accrue. It was the extraordinary action of bundling contributions that led to undue influence.
David
“My point would that operating within the normal rules limits the amount of influence any interest can accrue.”
I would have to see what you are defining as “within the normal rules”. In city and regional races we have seen wide differences in what people considered ideal donation handling, what modes of communication to use, the degree of consultancy ( acquaintance, former local politicians, professional or hired consultants and advocates). So I think I would have to know your terms before commenting further.
The current system limits influence of single actors by limiting donations, now to $150. The result is that even in this environment, the developers are only a small portion of the donations to any given candidate. By bundling, the firefighters subverted that protection and increased their influence heavily.