In 2016, it was notable that, while opponents of Nishi were able to narrowly defeat the measure, all four of the council candidates supported Nishi. In 2018, that shifted.
Larry Guenther described himself as a “soft no.” Whereas Ezra Beeman said, “I think it does not yet address what the community wants in its current form, e.g. onsite testing to demonstrate safety, no increase in congestion on First Street and the Richards Boulevard underpass and 35-percent affordable housing.”
Meanwhile, Nishi itself, with some ballots outstanding, barring a monumental shift in voting patterns will win overwhelmingly.
In the year 2000, old school progressives were resurgent with Ken Wagstaff, Mike Harrington and Sue Greenwald forming a council majority and the voters narrowly approving the seminal Measure J – which required a vote for any peripheral projects, greatly restricting growth on the periphery.
But soon, the numerical advantage of progressives began to wane. As soon as 2002, the progressives lost their majority as in-fighting and relatively weak candidates paved the way for victories by Ruth Asmundson and Ted Puntillo. In 2004, while Sue Greenwald finished first, Mike Harrington was defeated for reelection and Don Saylor and Stephen Souza were elected to the city council.
In 2006, Lamar Heystek won a seat, but that paved the way for four years of 3-2 votes by a council majority that was largely in lockstep.
Following the recession, growth issues were on the back burners in the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections. But they reemerged in 2016 and 2018 as the economy recovered.
Sue Greenwald appears to have been the last old-school progressive elected to the council. Since that time, you had John Munn, himself a Republican but backed by progressives, who narrowly lost to Rochelle Swanson in 2014, and now in 2018, Ezra Beeman and Larry Guenther were on the ballot.
Ezra Beeman finished a solid fourth, about 1400 votes out of second place. Larry Guenther is in sixth (he is only eight votes behind Mary Jo Bryan for fifth and could pass her depending on the remaining ballots to be counted, but seems unlikely to pass Mr. Beeman who is 600 votes ahead).
The top two vote getters come from different backgrounds and constituencies. Gloria Partida, who founded the Phoenix Coalition, is a strong supporter of housing and laments that, by passing Measure J/R, the city has altered its landscape by precluding those of modest means from moving into Davis and owning a home.
She is part of what we have referred to as new progressives. The new progressives and the old progressives have taken common cause on issues such as police reform and support for reform DA candidate Dean Johansson, but they disagree – often contentiously – on housing issues.
While Linda Deos is perhaps more moderate on housing issues, she supported Nishi and has said that if Nishi and WDAAC did not pass, we should re-evaluate Measure R. Ms. Deos ran a strong race herself but finished third, about 400 votes ahead of Mr. Beeman but nearly 1100 out of second.
On the other hand, Dan Carson, who appears to have finished second and almost certainly will be seated on the next council, was a more mainstream presence on the ballot. He played down social issues and focused heavily on fiscal issues as well as housing. He has been a strong supporter of Nishi as well as a strong supporter of fiscal discipline.
He gained the support of much of the mainstream or establishment wing of the city.
In 2016, the old progressives focused all of their energy on defeating Nishi and were narrowly successful at doing it. They got some assists, however, that were outside of their own efforts. For example, Nishi 2016 suffered self-inflicted wounds on affordable housing which led a huge number of otherwise progressive students who were in need of housing to oppose the project. That effort was bolstered with a huge wave of Bernie voters who pushed the turnout to record heights. Without the affordable housing issue, Nishi likely would have passed in 2016 as well.
Still, there were 4400 no votes on Nishi. Had most of those translated to the only two candidates to oppose Nishi, they would have likely finished in the top two.
This was a point that many supporters of the No on Nishi argued – a point that we couldn’t completely rule out. But Ezra Beeman only received about half the no on Nishi vote. Larry Guenther got 37 percent of the Nishi vote.
What happened? A number of things. First of all, voters in general are not single issue voters. In fact, many of the candidates pointed to the eclectic array of candidate combinations that voters supported.
Leaving that point aside, however, a big factor is that in order for a candidate to take advantage of a minority position on an issue, they must be completely tied into that issue. We’ve pointed out in the past that Jose Granda often far trailed behind the vote totals for No on the school parcel taxes.
While this is a more extreme example, with Mr. Granda being a more extreme candidate, the problem is similar. Voters have a far better idea where they stand on a single issue ballot measure than they are able to identify where the candidates stand on those ballot measures.
In order to be able to tie himself to the No on Nishi vote, Mr. Beeman, for example, would have had to have put out a lot of literature and contacted a lot of voters. In other words, he would have had to have done the types of things candidates do anyway, but he had to do more than he did in this particular race.
The bottom line is that it actually takes a lot of resources to tie oneself to a particular position on the ballot, in the minds of the voters.
I have often argued that the influence of old school progressives is waning in contemporary Davis politics. This election round, what we saw is the rise of new school progressives – progressive on issues of social justice, but who tie the need for housing into that framework.
It is not that old school progressives cannot influence the process. They certainly can. But in 2000, in response to a period of rapid growth, the old school progressive movement reached its secondary peak with a two-year stint on council. Since 2002, however, you can argue that only Sue Greenwald (2004 and 2008) and Lamar Heystek (2006) have been successful.
On the other hand, we have seen more impact on housing issues, where the progressives can join forces with others to oppose specific proposals. Given the housing crisis and the fact that Nishi re-tooled to address concerns from 2016, they were not nearly strong enough to block the latest proposal.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If labels were horses . . . you’d need someone to shovel the stable.
The person who may be labeled the most new progressive is Eric Gutz, whose showing you did not mention.
Your point?
You are too old to discuss “new progressives”.
How does Eric Gutz fit into your analysis?
Eric seems to focus their campaign heavily on students. The student turnout – at least from the returns that have been counted so far – did not appear to come in highly – therefore Eric finished 7th. Eric’s showing does not impact my analysis either way.
While students have long been under-represented, there is no way to change that dynamic. What seemed to have changed wasn’t that a large number of students become politically active in local issues, but rather a small number of students became very politically active in local issues.
Hold on… where do you get your stats on the “student vote”… only one precinct I saw that can be 100% attributed to students, and, as they reside on campus, their ballot did not include CC race nor City measures (and before you go there, the measures involved taxes they don’t pay… like the old joke about an Italian women asked about the Pope’s position on contraception, and she relies “he no playa the game, he no maka the rules!”…
Votes are not coded as to student/non-student… where do you get your ‘journalistic facts’?
There are times when “pay to play” is a good thing…
“While students have long been under-represented, there is no way to change that dynamic. What seemed to have changed wasn’t that a large number of students become politically active in local issues, but rather a small number of students became very politically active in local issues.”
Said another way, students choose to under-represent themselves in local issues. They could be just as well-represented as any other group if they chose to, but with rare exceptions they do not choose to.
In my personal opinion, what we saw in this election was an anomaly. We had one student and one candidate who had just recently completed his student tenure who had personal reasons to stir the pot. Eric took his “stirring” to the level of auditioning for the first step in a professional political career. Aaron focused his “stirring” on building his resume while auditioning for post-university employment.
Is Eric Gutz a “new” progressive?
Also, is Gloria Partida a “new” progressive?
Are such arbitrary classifications based upon age?
Since many developers are older folks, would they be considered “old progressive”?
Yes, Gudz (with a D) is a new progressive and so is Gloria. No, new progressive does not refer to age.
I’m wondering who the “Aaron” that “focused his “stirring” on building his resume” that Matt is talking about is…
Is Aaron a nickname for a candidate?
Aaron Latta of the Davis College Democrats.
Matt are you serious? Taking pot shots at people because your issue lost an election?
Nishi was never about padding a resume it was about working to the benefit of a community that has welcomed myself and thousands of other students. Students found that there was an open space in the community dialogue on housing issues and we decided to fill it.
And additionally IT ISNT JUST TWO STUDENTS!! DCD has 30 members all of which come to council and commission meetings. ASUCD Senators Jake Segdely and Alisha Hacker have spoke aswell, not to mention both the current ASUCD president and last years president.
It is disappointing that we couldn’t get enough students to vote for Eric but we are only starting. There is still a large portion of students who live in this town and they need to be given the opportunity to speak even if they dont take it.
This kind of rhetoric that we are easy to sway, or that we dont pay taxes, or that we are only out there for our resumes really needs to end. Eric didnt get into this race just to start a career, they could do that anywhere. Young professionals and students like Eric and I arent fishing for resume materials, believe it or not we actually care about helping our community.
And heres the fun part. Matt, we aren’t going anywhere.
Not a pot shot at all Aaron, simply an observation. If you take a little bit more care with your reading, you will see that the topic of discussion was not the Nishi election, but rather student representation. You chose to be the point person with respect to that representation. The other members of the team you assembled actively and repeatedly deferred to you.
I don’t believe the 17,000 plus 20-24 year olds your group are easy to sway, nor do I think they are homogenous. Of those 17,000 only 7,500 have bothered to register to vote, and of those, less than 3,000 voted in the last election.
Your group (which I referred to in my dialogue with David as numbering 200, not 2) gave every appearance of being even less easy to sway than the 17,000.
Of the 200, and even more-so of the 17,000 I suspect that more than 90% will not be residents of Davis in 5 years. So, yes, as a group you are going somewhere after your academic studies at UCD are complete.
It is funny that David says: “I have often argued that the influence of old school progressives is waning in contemporary Davis politics.” I said the same thing to my wife last weekend as we were driving through Davis and saw more Yes on A signs next to Carson signs in front of homes with (mostly) well maintained yards and clean cars than we saw No on A signs next to Beeman signs next to No on A signs in front of homes with (mostly) not that well maintained yards and beat up older cars.
Most of the younger GenXers and older Millennials we know are left leaning but have rejected the far left “Progressive” worldview that most of their Boomer professors have. We just met some new neighbors who are some of the first Millennials we know who have bought a home (without help from parents) in Davis. They both have advanced degrees and do very well and were joking that most “Progressive” people their age are still living at home paying off student loan debt for their “Progressive” “Social Justice” or “Gender Studies” degrees and they will never make enough money to ever buy a home in Davis (and tear out their lawn and plant a herb garden next to the driveway with their old first gen Prius)…
P.S. We did not see a single home with a Carson sign “and” No on A sign…
I think your comment conflates a lot of things here. My point is that the younger progressives are not necessarily rejecting housing because they view the housing crisis itself as a social justice issue.
I also think your comment: “Most of the younger GenXers and older Millennials we know are left leaning but have rejected the far left “Progressive” worldview that most of their Boomer professors have,” is misplaced. Granted you did couch it with “we know” but that makes me wonder who it is you know. For example, this from June 2016 shows that the vast majority of millenials voted for Sanders over Trump and Clinton (combined) – https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/more-young-people-voted-for-bernie-sanders-than-trump-and-clinton-combined-by-a-lot/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.00faf4412ee2
“In the 2016 campaign, Sanders won more votes among those under age 30 than the two presumptive major-party presidential nominees combined. And it wasn’t close.” Not sure what age you’re talking about, but from that it doesn’t appear that the younger vote is rejecting far left progressivism.
Off topic. Back to Davis politics.
David Greenwald said . . . “My point is that the younger progressives are not necessarily rejecting housing because they view the housing crisis itself as a social justice issue.”
Question #1 — Does David’s assessment apply to “the younger progressives” as a whole, or just to the sub-segment (something less than 200) who showed up at various community meetings to voice their concerns about housing?
Question #2 — What proportion of the 200 were concerned with the broader issue of “social justice” and what proportion were principally concerned with the more narrow issue of their own personal housing security?
The reason I put “we know” is that “we know” married parents in Davis who are working hard to pay the rent or mortgage on a home in Davis not the 30 something “Berniecrats” living with their parents and hoping for student loan forgiveness as they try to pay off their master’s degree in transgender studies with their part time job at the coffee shop.
I recently ran in to another guy my age with school age kids who grew up on the Peninsula and we were talking about how Menlo Park and Burlingame were a lot more “funky” in the early 70’s since the straight laced people wanted a home in an area with well maintained homes with good looking front yards without cars and bikes on the laws could just spend $100K and buy a nice home in Atherton or Hillsborough.
As the price of Atherton and Hillsborough homes kept getting more and more expensive it forced the more straight laced (but still left leaning) people in to Menlo Park and Burlingame. I see the same thing happening in Davis where the high (for the region) housing prices are resulting in more doctors, lawyers and CPAs moving to down and displacing the actors, baristas and community organizers who for years called Davis home.
The SF Peninsula is still left leaning and represented by three left leaning congresswomen, but most of the people that live around Pelosi (in her SF home that Zillow says is worth $9.0mm), Speier (in her Hillsborough home that Zillow is worth $5.8mm) or Eshoo (with a Atherton home that Zillow says is worth $6.8mm) are not what you would call “super progressive”.
P.S. I’m not sure if Eshoo is still in Atherton but I had the address where she lived in the 90’s (when a friend was renting her poolside guest house while in grad school at Stanford).
P.P.S. It is nice to see that our left leaning “public servants” are doing OK, Zillow says that Feinstein’s SF home (that she bought from Star Wars Director George Lucas) is worth $23.9 million (Feinstein is pushing $100 million in total home value when you add up the value of her SF home plus her in Georgetown Estate, Aspen Mansion, Tahoe Lakefront Compound, Kauai Estate, Seadrift home and Pajaro Dunes beach house and probably some more I have not heard about)…
At the risk of being “that guy”. There’s a whole lot of counting left to be done. Those votes will likely disproportionately be for Gudz and Nishi, as students seemed to vote late. While I don’t expect the results of the election to change, I do expect the percentages to change.
> students seemed to vote late.
Like before or after 8pm?
If they turned in their absentees on the day of election, they haven’t been counted yet. For clarification.
Here are some statistics that illustrate the schism that is going to develop over the next decade about housing growth.
The Sierra Club puts out a glossy publication to lure businesses to advertise in their publications. They want you to know that the average Sierra Club member is 52 years old and has a household income of $98,461/year.
Millennials, those born in the 1980’s, are officially the poorest generation:
“Families whose heads were born in the 1980s are different,” the [Federal Reserve Board] report states. Loaded down with student debt, auto loans, and credit card balances, less than half own homes and relatively few hold assets like stocks, meaning they’ve missed out on the runup in asset prices of the last few years, and it’s possible they’ll never be able to build wealth fast enough to match previous generations.”
So an older cohort of conservation-oriented, slow-growth elders has the time, money, and influence to block housing growth. Meanwhile, their children and grandchildren are priced out of markets that have very tight housing supply.
Millennials and Gen-X’ers and the student-age young adults see an older generation that has accumulated considerable wealth as the value of housing and investment portfolios have increased. They, meanwhile, have none of those things. They know people who have housing insecurity. They see little hope of ever buying a home where they presently live and work. They aren’t even buying cars, much less taking on mortgages. And the older rhetoric of the conservationists, that population growth has to stop, or immigration is to blame, or somehow we need to build houses differently – it all sounds a little fishy when they look at the houses those people live in, know how much those houses have appreciated in value, and learn what their annual incomes are.
Some politicians are recognizing this schism and playing to it. The greatest threat to slow-growth policies is going to come from urban Democrats who call themselves progressives, who will be increasingly at odds with the old-school Democrats who call themselves liberals. Unions have always been on the side of growth in housing and construction. A lot of older, wealthier voters are going to find themselves battling an ever-increasing series of initiatives to make it easier to annex land, easier to build housing, and reduce the layers of costs that have been added on to housing projects. And they’ll be facing a coalition of trade unions and younger progressives who are concerned about the social impact of restrictionist policies.
Smart growth, which was touted by environmentalists for decades as a way to preserve land, is going to increasingly be used against them. If you want smart growth, you have to accept density. Davis is just reflecting trends that are obvious all over coastal California. Given the ages of the different cohorts, I know which ones I expect will be ascendant on these issues over the next decade or so. The only thing those wealthier, older liberals have going for them is they have a higher rate of voter participation.
This is the stuff I could easily see from miles away and why I got more active in politics.
Talk to my two sons about it… the fact that each generation of parents has struggled (although less) and has worked hard to ensure that their kids did not have to struggle as much. But the last great struggle was really done by the Greatest Generation, and everything else since then has really been faux struggle (is there a therapist in the house!… or may be I just need to participate in a march or some angry protests!!!). My sons agree. Their opinion is that we are headed for either an implosion or an explosion. And that Sanders being a candidate (that was broken and paid off by the establishment old progressives and politicos in the Democrat party) and Trump being elected were both just symptomatic and reactionary of that trajectory that has been building… and that is a product of our country’s fantastic success.
They think we will all just blow the whole thing up as part of a macro biological control system governing the ongoing survival of the human species. Think Hunger Games. They say it is gonna happen and there is nothing we can do about it except maybe delay it a bit. I don’t think they are correct, but it chills me to note their acceptance.
Today the kids’ struggle but it is really a faux struggle. They don’t go hungry, they have their video games, smart phones, social networking and legalized pot. They have Title-IX and Me Too. There is generally nothing really hard about their lives compared to how we defined “hard” in successive previous generations. But the brain of a young person is biologically wired to be progressive. If they don’t have real struggle, they will invent it for the sake of their need to push change and make meaning in their life. That alternative is a Meursault-type existence… and we see more evidence of that type of thing happening. With kids turning to the absurd behavior of just killing a bunch of class mates and then after they are caught they are completely void of empathy and feeling.
It is my belief that our many social problems and destructive trajectory is the result of our shift away from expecting members of society to engage in productive work. I think the reason that the US has been able to become the greatest country on God’s green earth is that the interest in struggle, affiliation, progression and accomplishment had been satisfied by the employment and career opportunities supporting the hierarchy of human needs.
The Greatest Generation worked, but struggled and sacrificed greatly for their children so they did not have to. It worked, as their Baby Boomer did not really have to struggle comparatively, but yet adopted social causes as their faux struggle. They continue today… generally manufacturing their own purpose… taking the most de minimis existence of a previous problem and amplifying it as justification for their righteous cause. And they also invent new issues and memes to agitate against… that are irrational and absurd in consideration of what they really represent.
And the most irrational and absurd of those memes, in my opinion, is the moralization of economic pursuit.
The moralization of economic pursuit, a thing that was seized upon by the Democrats after the 2008 financial and real estate crisis, and continues as their party platform and political strategy (not paying your fair share, you didn’t build that, etc.). Anti-industrialism and slow growth memes in the name of environmentalism and some undefined vision of a greater good. Demonization of CEOs, bankers, builders, manufacturers, etc… and idolatrizion of professional class government employees and politicians as our social and economic heroes. Global trade agreements that mortgaged away decades of hard-earned US industry, industrial secrets and intellectual capital to the lowest-cost labor country. Unchecked immigration that exploded the population of poor and uneducated residents.
All of this together combined to destroy the system of work that previous generations of Americans relied on to fulfill their need for productive struggle and growth… to become economically self-sufficient.
If we don’t return to that system, the kids will create their own struggle and it will not be positive. They are showing us what that will look like and we should take note.
” Talk to my two sons about it… the fact that each generation of parents has struggled (although less) and has worked hard to ensure that their kids did not have to struggle as much. But the last great struggle was really done by the Greatest Generation, and (is there a therapist in the house!… or may be I just need to participate in a march or some angry protests!!!). My sons agree. Their opinion is that we are headed for either an implosion or an explosion. And that Sanders being a candidate (that was broken and paid off by the establishment old progressives and politicos in the Democrat party) and Trump being elected were both just symptomatic and reactionary of that trajectory that has been building… and that is a product of our country’s fantastic success.
They think we will all just blow the whole thing up as part of a macro biological control system governing the ongoing survival of the human species. Think Hunger Games. They say it is gonna happen and there is nothing we can do about it except maybe delay it a bit. I don’t think they are correct, but it chills me to note their acceptance.”
Hopefully your kids are playing on your native gullibility. My kids are very actively engaged in managing what we can do, which is considerable. Your off-key whine about the greatest generation being the last one to struggle is still bovine excrement, but then you happily ignore the multiple branches of civil rights movement, Vietnam War protests, the advent of the robot age and the end of privacy as we know the term. On a generational level, each has and will continue to have challenges and some of those will require struggle. “the system of work that previous generations of Americans relied on to fulfill their need for productive struggle and growth… to become economically self-sufficient.” is a fantasy. In a time when CEOs of major corporations make 300 times the salary of the average worker such a fairy tale concept is darkly cynical at best. Because we will not regulate their avarice the options for dealing with working people are either tax the rich and raise the living conditions for the other 99% or the masses will eat the rich. At one time I thought the ruling class was smart enough to know when they’d reached their limit.
You are the queen of off-key whining.Really, you would contrast that list to what the Greatest Generation had to struggle with and sacrafice? Talk about bovine excrenemt… self-serving bovine excrement.
Thanks for making my point though. Your list is all the self-inflicted struggle. Kind of like the kids that cut themselves to feel something and to get some recognition.
The civil rights movement was a self-inflicted struggle?
David mentions “those under age 30” as big Bernie supporters and I agree that almost everyone under 30 that I know (and know of) were big Bernie fans.
I’m wondering if anyone knows even a single person (or couple) under 30 that has bought a home in Davis in the last ten years (WITHOUT help from family).
When I was a kid going to (public) grammar school on the Peninsula in the late 60’s and early 70’s almost every kids parents had owned a home for years when their kids started school and most were still under 30 when their oldest was in Kindergarten.
P.S. To Don I agree 100% that “Unions have always been on the side of growth in housing and construction.” but I see more than just the trade Unions pushing for growth to keep their members building stuff. As communities like Davis keep getting older and the well educated keep having less (or no) kids many other unions like the teachers unions are going to push for growth to avoid layoffs…
There is a net exodus of Californians moving to other states, especially those stuck in lower-wage jobs. They’re essentially being partially “replaced” by those with higher incomes:
https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Californians-leaving-Texas-Arizona-Nevada-migrate-12640684.php
The same thing is occurring within California, as folks move from more expensive coastal areas to the Sacramento region (including Davis).
Nevertheless, the state’s population continues to grow.
http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/documents/E-1_2018PressRelease.pdf
And the construction of housing lags the need.
(source: https://calmatters.org/articles/commentary/california-sees-slowing-population-growth/)
It will grow even faster, if the state attempts to satisfy market demand. And, doing so still won’t address the disparity regarding income levels – especially in more expensive areas. There is no way to realistically drive down the cost of housing in such areas. And, attempting to do so will defeat all efforts to maintain livability and long-term stability.
The bottom line is that folks aren’t going to be able to make a living working at a retail nursery, for example. 🙂
The state doesn’t satisfy market demand. Builders do.
…
Young adults can make a reasonable living in retail if there is a sufficiency of rental housing in the area, or if there is reliable public transit, or both. Davis happens to have neither.
Some, including our probable next governor, have set tentative goals to build more housing state-wide.
Developers build if allowed/encouraged to do so, and if market conditions ensure a probable profit.
Young adults can make a reasonable living if they are paid a sufficient wage, or if housing and/or transportation costs are subsidized by others.
Let’s be clear again to reiterate Don’s point: The state does not BUILD new housing. In fact, the state has little influence on housing trends. It’s localities that permit, encourage or discourage developers from building new housing. Some local housing authorities can contract for constructing a small portion of the housing that meets low income demand.
Let’s be clear again to reiterate Don’s point: The state does not BUILD new housing. In fact, the state has little influence on housing trends. It’s localities that permit, encourage or discourage developers from building new housing. Some local housing authorities can contract for constructing a small portion of the housing that meets low income demand.
A topical article in the Atlantic Monthly about how the 10% protect their interests in today’s society. I think it depicts much of the root motivation in the “old” progressives. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/