It was a 3-2 vote that turned out not to be a vote at all because, once it became clear there were three votes for five districts, the council fell in line behind the Map 5-4 option. The key vote turned out to be Gloria Partida, who two weeks ago indicated that she was supporting the seven-district option and, even as late as the weekend, was apparently telling people she was supporting seven.
What precipitated that change?
“What this has done for the Latino population is that we’re at like 11 percent in these districts. This process has actually disenfranchised the Latino population,” she said.
She has a point here on a few levels. If you look at the Latino vote distribution for the five-district map selected, it ranges from 12 to 17 percent Latino. That is actually more concentrated than most of the seven-district maps.
Moreover, you could argue that in a two or three seat-at-large race, where the second or third place candidate can also be seated, that gives an advantage to a person of color.
On the other hand, what I saw was the potential of UC Davis students in small districts to put forward a candidate that could win – and, while the Davis demographics have shifted by a lot over the last 20 years, UC Davis is off the charts in terms of diversity, with just one-third of the student body white at this point.
Further, the barrier to entry matters. Five districts reduces the size to about 13,000 voters, but seven goes as low as 9000. Instead of needing at least $20,000 and as much as $40,000 to run and win a council seat, now you could mobilize with just $5000 to $10,000 and walk the district with about 10 volunteers, and hit it twice.
We saw that Latina Melissa Moreno was able to mobilize and win in the relatively small county board of education district last year.
In the end, I suspect the barrier to entry is going to be the most important variable here, and we will see a lot more different kinds of candidates now than we did under an at-large system.
The most interesting part of the discussion, other than Gloria Partida’s change, was watching the public commenters. We got a nice sample size, with 20 people speaking and 12 supporting seven, while eight 
supported five.
The first thing is that students were mobilized and present. Even beyond the students speaking during public comment, they clearly saw this as their chance to gain representation and they tried to make their presence felt. For them, seven clearly would have been a huge advantage because, while everyone was looking at renter numbers, you have to consider location and mobilization.
With seven, with a November 2020 election, with Trump on the ballot bringing potentially record numbers of students out, next fall could have been this generation’s 1972 when Bob Black, riding a wave of student mobilization against Vietnam, swept into power.
The downside is looking at the June 2018 election, when it seemed to point toward a big student vote on the wave of student housing – but that never materialized. Getting students registered to vote for November has always been tricky, although the increase of same-day voter registration could change that.
If students saw a clear advantage at seven districts, older voters seemed to see an advantage at five. You can argue that fewer districts, larger districts, favors the establishment as it increases the barrier to entry and the number of voters, and requires more money and more organization.
Along these lines the most surprising stance was perhaps that Colin Walsh and Eileen Samitz and some others who are identified in the slow-growth movement in Davis favored five districts. In fairness, Colin Walsh didn’t seem to have that strong a preference, but even that seems a statement against interests.
The power of the slow-growth movement has definitely waned in the last few years. In 2000, the movement was actually resurgent with a majority – with Ken Wagstaff, Sue Greenwald and Michael Harrington supporting slow-growth policies and ushering in Measure J. That seemed a reaction against years of faster growth in Davis.
But it has been since 2008 – the last time a purely slow-growth candidate won a seat on council. You can argue since the 2000 election, only Sue Greenwald in 2004 and 2008 and Lamar Heystek in 2006 won as purely slow-growth candidates.
Moreover, the ability to stop projects, which was still clearly present in 2009 with the huge defeat for Measure P followed in 2010 by the landslide reelection of Measure R, has also declined. Nishi was narrowly defeated in 2016 and two projects easily won in 2018.
The two slow-growth candidates in the nine-person 2018 council race finished in the middle tier. I would argue that, given the trends and electoral strength, a seven-district race is perhaps the best chance to get a purely slow-growth person on council.
If your goal is to disrupt the process, having the lowest possible barrier to entry should be your goal. One of those student districts where turnout is likely to be low would be fertile ground to mount an insurgent campaign.
Along those lines I think they missed their opportunity, going for five rather than seven – not that I think the council ultimately was swayed by the public comment.
The council came down largely to what we might perceive their own electoral interests to be – with the small exception of Will Arnold, who was probably personally better off in a seven-district configuration, now being placed in a district where he could have to face off with Brett Lee.
My final point is that one myth was blown out of the water – once the council locks in the five city districts, it is not going to change any time soon. The barrier to change is a good deal higher than I think most realized, because it would actually require a vote by the people to change it – and that’s highly unlikely to happen without a concerted movement and a real need.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“But it has been since 2008, the last time a purely slow growth candidate won a seat on council. You can argue since the 2000 election, only Sue Greenwald in 2004 and 2008 and Lamar Heystek in 2006 won as purely slow growth candidates.”
Purely is a loaded word in that paragraph. Although he has a mixed record of supporting Nishi but voting against Cannery Brett was certainly the no growth choice in 2012.
I used the word intentionally because at this point I would not consider Brett Lee a slow-growth candidate – he voted for far more housing projects than he opposed. Remember even Robb Davis was against the Cannery as developed.
Less White!
More filling!
I saw Gloria Partida win as mayor-to-be in an at large election. So what’s your POINT?
As was Julie Partansky with a barely shoestring budget.
Good point, particularly given that Gloria was elected with most votes, even in a 2-person contest. In an ‘at-large’ venue.
I have re-read the above paragraph three times, and I still don’t understand it.
It seemed pretty clear to me Alan. See my comment below. 7 districts means the likelihood of one, or even two, student/renter members of the Council is increased. 5 districts decreases that likelihood.
Still don’t get the paragraph. I get your point, the paragraph is worded such that the meaning is lost.
Fair enough.
I am interested in the arguments that Dan Carson put forward that you felt had traction. I don’t always agree with you, but I do respect the time effort and thought you put into coming to your bottom-line on issues.
That it would cost more, that the map he liked (I agree, also one that was chosen) was simple and clear to voters, the he liked the dynamic of five on the council, and more would be a more complex dynamic that could lead to ‘factions’.
Thanks. The cost argument gets no traction with me. What is the cost to the City, taxpayers and ratepayers of having no Council member liaison attending the Utility Rate Commission meetings for over 3 years? During that 3-year span Council approved the borrowing by the solid waste fund from the wastewater fund, sweeping under the carpet the fact that the solid waste enterprise fund was bankrupt. The cost of that far exceeded the small amount that Dan talked about costs of doing business rising. What about the cost of Council liaison non-attendance at their other “assignments.” It is likely that the Mace 391 debacle would have been avoided if the Council liaison to the Open Space Commission (OSHC) had actually attended the OSHC meetings. The Mace Mess, which looks like its cost is going to approach $3 million when all the dust settles, could have been avoided with more Council member attention to the items coming before the BTSSC and the County-City 2×2. I also suspect that the Trackside proposal debacle could have been avoided with better attendance (fewer absences) by the Council liaisons to the various commissions that “touched” that application.
I agree that the map chosen is simple. Are you saying that Davisites are unable to understand anything but “simple”? With that asked, what does having “simple” accomplish? What value does it bring to the table? How often will voters actually give any consideration to the physical shape of their district? If there ever was a “meh” argument, the physical shape of the districts is the front runner for most “meh.” I appear to give the voters a whole lot more credit for intelligence than you appear to give them.
The “dynamic of five” … what is that? We have factions now with five. They play out in the “get to three” mindset. If the Council members want to play the factions game they will do it, just ask Don, Steve, Ruth, Sue and Lamar. The only difference in the dynamic will be the change in the mindset to one of “get to four.”
G, MW, seriously? All these problems would have been solved/smoothed by the attendance of two more council members. I can’t believe you could even imply that. I call BS.
No, not the point.
Simple, as in it doesn’t do much division of neighborhoods, people know easily who else is choosing the same candidates, and the map doesn’t look like five or seven pregnant serpents.
17 times per year, 23 if you include dreams.
meh
I say this about preferring five as someone who has attended and spoken in front of the Sacramento City Council on numerous occasions. NO, thank you! . . . to anything resembling that cluster-F.
You appear to not understand the existing dynamic. Right now there are very frequent occasions where there are zero Council members attending. The goal would not be to get to two members attending, it would be to get to one attending. Let me draw a transportation parallel, since I know you have considerable transportation experience and expertise. Imagine the impact on the community if Capitol Corridor or RTA eliminated all the currently scheduled trains between 4:30pm and 6:30pm. Or alternatively if each Capitol Corridor and/or RTA train began skipping stopping at every other station. That is the situation many of the Commissions, Committees, Task Forces and outside agencies currently have. According to the information posted on the City website there are 60 “assignments” that the 5 Council members cover … an average of 12 apiece. If you spread those 60 assignments over 7 Council members they would have a bit over 8 apiece. That would mean significantly fewer “no shows.”
This isn’t simply my opinion, at the multiple public meetings on the Mace Mess, both Council members and staff have been refreshingly honest that the City’s own internal communications amongst themselves and their external communications with the public were grossly inadequate. Further, even in the middle of the Mace Mess, the project to redo 14th Street between F Street and Anderson was continuing to go forward with the same grossly inadequate internal and external communications systems. Because of the participation of mayor Lee and Council member Frerichs and Police Chief Pytel, the word “STOP” was said and the project paused so that the Mace problems were not duplicated on 14th Street. If the Council member attendance had been zero, there would have been a good chance that the debacle of the Mace Mess would have been repeated on 14th Street.
The key is to eliminate (or reduce the frequency of) the “no shows.” That is no BS.
I say this about preferring five as someone who has attended and spoken in front of the Sacramento City Council on numerous occasions. NO, thank you! . . . to anything resembling that cluster-F.
That helps me better understand your perspective. Thanks for sharing.
I will say that if the number of Sacramento Council members were reduced to 5 from 7, I believe. the cluster-F there would continue without any diminished vigor. It is not a 5 versus 7 issue. It is a self-discipline issue on the part of those who are on that Sacramento City Council.
You will have the same result if you reduce the total number of assignments/meetings. What value does the community receive from having commissions that the CC does not have the time, or perhaps even the interest, to listen to? Instead of expanding the number of CC members, perhaps it is time to reprioritize and consolidate the commissions and their associated responsibilities.
I have experienced this on many occasions.
I don’t understand your transportation metaphor.
I have spoken with some transportation insiders on the Mace Mess. It goes much deeper than you describe, but it’s transportation nerd stuff.
As for the nature of Sacramento Council even if downsized . . . true.
As to MaWe on councilmembers at commission meetings . . . certainly true in some cases . . . and a reminder that the transportation functions were consolidated into a single committee.
Alan – not sure why you don’t understand the paragraph – the next paragraph explains why it is surprising.
Brain fog, I’m sure.
The position of slow-growthers on this really isn’t a surprise. It is not a leap of faith to surmise that any student representatives on the Council will be strong advocates for more housing, whether on-campus or off-campus.
Matt – while true, it also increases the chance of one or two slow-growthers on the council.
. . . it also increases the chance of one or two Republicans on the council.
. . . . . which might be the WHOLE POINT.
David, there have to be slow-growthers who are willing to run. The last actual slow-growth candidate was in 2012 when both Sue and Brett ran, and instead of working together for a common purpose based on common principles/beliefs, they did the opposite.
The other thing that all candidates need to consider is whether their platform is too narrow. Larry Guenther’s and Mary Jo Bryan’s candidacies in the last election were both highly resonant with their core supporters, but they did not expand that core to any appreciable number of supporters beyond that core. The slow-growth portion of the Davis community has not shown a substantial amount of collaboration (some would say it has shown substantial fracturing), and as a result, arguably, it is shrinking in size.
All true Matt – but, district elections make it more likely that you can mobilize and focus your campaign on a small portion of the city that might be receptive to a smaller group of messages.
It appears that “the fix” is on… for those, who for whatever purposes (and they are varied) are locked into 7 rather than 5 districts…
Author points to Bob Black… student, elected in an at-large election…
Author plays “no growth” card to justify 7.
A poster questions Carson’s logic for 5, while ignoring Lee’s weak, patronizing logic, for 7 (most recent).
Nobody notes that there seems to be an assumption renters = UCD students… true, to an extent, but there are many families, forced/choosing to rent, who are biding their time/finances to be homeowners… and some further argue renters = students = POC’s… wish I was that limber.
Do we want folk representing only/primarily “their people”? I want CC members who can represent all the community: regardless of ethnicity, ownership status (who represents the homeless?), student/service employees/professional employee status… think Robb Davis did a good job on that, based on my discussions with him (we often disagreed on specifics, but agreed a lot on concepts), and his actions. I mistrust those who wet their finger, to ‘test the wind’ and act on what benefits their elected positions/power… no principles, no ethics. If you doubt electeds do that, just call the folk @ 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, DC.
Have attended or watched many CC meetings on streaming video… on one hand, good for ‘transparency’… yet there many who have been, are, “playing to the camera”, for political purposes, who take 5 minutes (or more) to share a 20 second thought. With 7, that increases, statistically, ~ 22 percent. Meanwhile, City staff has to sit around… but no worries, most are ‘salaried’ and get no “overtime”.
But “the fix” is on, where some will do a ‘full court press’ to go to seven districts, using any arguments/spaghetti they can. The clues are in the article, and some posters responding… they want seven, say if we do 5, it’ll never go to 7, and they may have different motivations for that…
One of the classics, is we need a ~70% rental district, as renters are less likely to vote… whose fault is THAT, given SB 72?
WM, mostly agree — and not only are renters less likely to vote, so are students. At least DG admits that, but again — that isn’t exactly anyone’s problem to fix, it just is. Should we just give two votes to renters, two votes to students, and three votes to students who are renters? That’ll solve the problem in a hurry. One person, three votes!
What I don’t get is the passion for seven, and the belief it’s some Fix-All. I’m not that passionate about five, except now seeing what people believe about seven, I’m getting more passionate for five, to counter the seven-ers. I can see the T-Shirt now: “Fix Everything Wrong with Davis – Go to Seven Districts!”
And as an aside, if I’m Dillan Horton, I’m moving from North Davis to South Davis (or Olive Drive) right quick!
AM… pretty much agree…
Oh… and if I and many other UCD students of like mind voted in the City in the early ’70’s, the “Richards bottleneck” would be 4 (not 2) lanes, and CalTRANS would have paid ~83% of that… my bad… didn’t realize I’d still be in town ~ 45 years later…
I love The Keyhole. And as many have pointed out, widening just moves the choke point a block in. The Davis Gateway plan expands the lanes on both sides which essentially adds capacity. The four lanes is an expensive non-solution. What really would have helped with extending Olive as per Nishi I. But ALAS!!!
I personally believe that the incentive for “playing to the camera” will be (is) significantly reduced in a district election system. The reason is simple. Right now the “audience” is 65,000 people. With districts the audience is only 20% of that. Pandering to voters is a whole lot harder when the number of voters is 5 times as large. Further, with a 10 square mile “stage,” getting into far more productive face-to-face dialogue is much harder and more time-consuming than with a 2 square mile “stage.” The expression Less Is More comes to mind. Less talk and more impact on the voters.
All yoiu have to do is attend some of the County Supervisors meetings to see that on many items all five Supes do not claim “air time.” In simple numbers if in every two items only 11 of the 14 air time slots are used by nthe seven Council members, then your 22% evaporates.
The size of the audience will have no impact on the verbosity of those who ‘play to the camera.’ There are numerous examples of those who acted that way back before cameras were introduced to the meetings. Some people just like the sound of their own voice.
I resemble that remark. Although it always sounds better in my own head then it does when I listen to it played back.
And you base that math on . . . ? (And please, don’t multiple and subtract, that wasn’t my point)
I base it on my observations of the Board of Supervisors meetings over the past 15 years. The number of times that less than five Supervisors speak on an item is quite frequent. One divided by five is 20%.
Based on your observations of the 9 members of the Sacramento City Council how often do less than all 9 of the members speak?
I believe a lot less publics are involved at the County level, which is why there is less posing. I wouldn’t know from experience, because the b*st*rds hold their meetings on weekdays, when I am otherwise occupied, as with most working folk, which is probably a huge reason why there are less people there, and less posing. Who the heck does go to those? The same people that serve on juries?
Not germane to the Davis situation… different audience, different dynamics, including an elected Mayor…
BOS much different, as well… you have to sign in (request card) to make a public comment… more items (fairly high %-age) are consent calendar… different audiences, different rules, different dynamics.