Two of my biggest concerns since I started the Vanguard have been advocacy for racial justice in our community and advocacy for empowering students. The two aren’t unrelated, but, for the purpose of this column, I want to consider them briefly but separately.
Perhaps one of my biggest surprises in the 14 years I have been focused on Davis has been the treatment of people of color in this community. In 2006, I was very surprised at the extent to which a white upper middle class but very liberal community was tone-deaf when it came to issues involving people of color – specifically policing, racial profiling and the achievement gap.
At the time, I coined it the “dark underbelly of Davis” – this streak of indifference between the veneer of tolerance. Now I will say that over the last 15 years this community has improved and part of the reason for that is it has changed. In 2001, at the time of 9/11 when my wife and I delivered flowers to Muslim community residents, they had been mistreated and bullied in their community – the community was 70 percent white, now it’s 55 percent white and we have active groups like the Phoenix Coalition, YIIN, and People Power, among others, advocating for racial justice.
And while Davis has become transformed into a community that could elect women of color like Gloria Partida, Cindy Pickett and Melissa Moreno, as I looked at the district election numbers, continuing that legacy is far more likely with seven rather than five districts.
Likewise, I have often believed that, while students are the backbone of this community, they are treated more as nuisances and second-class citizens than full partners. Indeed, part of that is the transitory nature of their lives here – they live here for four or five years but then leave.
However, while students are transitory at the individual level, they are omnipresent as a subgroup. As long as UC Davis is here as a world class university, the community will have a sizable 
student presence.
And yet, from a power perspective, they have lacked leverage into our system. It is stunning that, since 2002, there have been no market rate multifamily homes that have opened. When Sterling opens its doors in 2020, it will be the first in 18 years.
We have seen a glimpse of the power of students. It was in 2015 or 2016 that they started coming in larger numbers to council discussions about housing. That has produced a sea change, not only in terms of council policy but in terms of community awareness of the plight of students facing housing shortages.
They have not only helped push through projects like Sterling, Lincoln40 and Davis Live Housing, but they got the community to back Nishi by an overwhelming margin in 2018, and the community as a whole has become transformed around the need for affordable rental housing and affordable housing in general (I would argue small “a” affordable housing, not necessarily large “A” subsidized housing).
Looking at the maps, looking at the demographics, with seven districts we have districts where you have 70 percent renters in a given district. That will not automatically translate into more students on council, but it will given them opportunity if they organize and vote – as they are likely to do in 2020 when many will go to vote against President Trump.
Moreover, as we have noted, the more heavily student districts are more likely to be people of color, as UC Davis as a whole is nearly 3 to 1 in terms of enrollment in favor of people of color.
There are those who will argue that we are making a major change already with district elections – why go to seven districts? I understand that perspective. But I have a different perspective and that, is in my 30 years of being involved in politics, the status quo is the most powerful position in politics.
The American political system was designed to create stability and make change difficult. All things being equal, if you want to know what things will look like in five years institutionally, look at them today. It takes a lot to change things.
Let’s look at district elections. We have been talking about district elections ever since I started this in 2006. And of course, as Bill will rightly pull out, we were probably talking about it 20 years before that.
But as we reported in September, in January 1996 a governance committee appointed by the city council recommended, by a 14-5 vote, that the city go to district elections. Some interesting people served on that committee, including Jerry Adler, Isao Fujimoto, Dick Holdstock, and Kevin Wolf, among others, who were part of 14 to vote for the bill. Among those opposing it were Vigfus Asmundson, Bob Black and Joan Poulos.
This is a powerful group of people from the Davis of the past, they overwhelming voted to support district elections, and it did not happen. Not for 23 years.
What changed? A state law in 2003 and a letter from Matt Rexroad 16 years after the state law that, coupled with demographic change, forced the hand.
Bottom line: inertia is the strongest force in politics – bodies at rest tend to stay at rest until and unless an unstoppable force changes it.
If you want seven districts, this is the time to go to seven districts.
Otherwise, mark my words, it will be at least another quarter century before we consider a change.
For me the reasons to go to seven are that if we are going to go to district elections out of concern about racially polarized voting, and out of concern that people of color have been marginalized, and, for some, in hopes of empowering groups like students and even South Davis residents, the best way to do that is go to seven districts.
Is there a risk? Of course. I have seen seven-member bodies – in San Luis Obispo the school board was seven people and, honestly, it didn’t function that much differently from five. I don’t think there is a lot to worry about.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
As long as the maps the demographer has produced to date are the only choices we will likely end up with seven but not for the reasons you cite. It will likely be that with seven the next council will be more status quo than changed.
Well, it’s readily apparent where one CC member, strongest in favor of 7, sees his bread buttered. It may be couched in terms of “more representation for under-represented groups”, but that appears just to be a ‘cover story’. IOW, I agree.
Ron G.: yep. The status quo wins again!
And didn’t the Vanguard run an article heavily criticizing Bob Dunning for saying that we wouldn’t get any majority-minority districts? And then the maps came out, and that turns out to be the case after all.
What you’ve missed here is that maps are not written in stone, they can be drawn differently. In addition, there are majority minority districts. I’m not sure what your point is here other than to just take unfounded potshots every single day. You realize you’ve ruined your reputation in the community.
Wow, just wow . . . and may I add: wow.
” [studehts] got the community to back Nishi by an overwhelming margin in 2018,“
That is a bizarre retelling of history. What we actually we saw with Nishi was the developer pumping thousands of $ into free food events at student apartment complexes to try to buy the student vote. The total campaign spending in the hundreds of thousands of $ was so massive that the hotdog budget alone outweighed the entire budget of the opposition campaign. as I recall, the final tally was about $25 spent per “yes” vote.
As far students “getting” the community to support the project, what really happened was that the campaign consulting firm Spafford & Lincoln used student interns and payouts to a selected group of student leaders to campaign for the project. These were at bargain basement rates—$100 here, $300 there. This was simply a classic “astroturf” strategy: create the appearance of organic grassroots support by buying people off behind the scenes. It seems to have fooled some.
And the notion that “the community as a whole has become transformed around the need for affordable rental housing and affordable housing in general” is a similarly bizarre retelling of history. This City Council has been largely asleep at the wheel in addressing affordable housing. While in the dozen years up to 2018, about 25% of all housing in Davis was being built as affordable—including permanent restrictions— this Council has presided over a massive reduction in affordability requirements and has not been proactive in addressing changing State regulations.
Furthermore, developers have taken advantage of misinformation campaigns to push projects with tiny affordable housing components. With Nishi for example, the by-the-bed leasing arrangement means that only about 10% of the actual units will be “affordable”, and many of those “affordable” beds will actually end up renting for more per-bedroom than the market rate units.
With WDAAC, we saw the developer use sleight-of-hand to claim an affordable housing percentage using affordable studio units counting the same as the 2- to 3-bedroom market rate units. This fake accounting flies in the face of both City and Stare policy regarding equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) calculations, but allowed the developer to get away with providing a very small affordable housing component while claiming much higher for campaign purposes.
If we look at what side the Vanguard has been on, it has been supporting (and being supported by) those pushing these false narratives that are leading to further erosion of affordable housing policy.
On the topic of the other “dark underbelly” of Davis: massive flows of developer cash, let’s not forget the direct payment to the UC Davis College Democrats by Nishi reported in the campaign expenditure disclosures.
And then that same student club lined up last week clutching color glossy fliers straight from the developer to urge the Council to pass ARC before a single public hearing of any kind could be held on the new proposal.
On persons dark underbelly is another person’s terrorist.
Ssssh . . . they’ll learn to stop cluthing glossy color fliers.
I still believe the matter of 5 vs 7 is worthy of a vote of the people. 5 should be the default.
An analogy might be a manual transmission… you shift thru the gears, incrementally… you don’t go from 1st to top gear… not good for the gearbox.
Bill, one of the strongest arguments for the passage of the CVRA was (and still is) that a voting majority can impose its will on a voting minority, with the result being the detrimental under-representation of the minority.
With that said, what makes you comfortable that a vote on 5 versus 7 wouldn’t end up with the result being the perpetuation of detrimental under-representation of the minority? The Founding Fathers built the “balance of power” in the US government with three legs Executive – Legislative – Judicial with the express intent that they prevent one another from exercising abuse of power. In this case, if you can gather enough signatures on an initiative to mandate a 5 versus 7 vote, then you will be acting on the Founding Fathers’ intent of checks and balances.
Ok… will count you as a strong advocate for 7, and will presume that if anyone feels 5 is appropriate, they oppose CVRA and favor under-representation. Untrue in my case, but whatever.
If the CC votes for 7, might well take you up on the referendum thing. Particularly when the particulars of the Districts is adopted…
Yet, one of the arguments for J/R is that change should be up for a vote. Interesting dichotomy. Going from 5 to 7 CC members has to be reversed by referendum, but a change in City boundaries, up-zoning, has to have full vote of the people, without the referendum process… guess one can hold contradictory positions at the same time, but I’m not wired that way… much…
Think I could get 5% of voters (# from previous general election) to sign a referendum petition. Particularly when the CC adopts boundaries… one could also (as I have) point out that if the CC chooses 5 districts, they could bring it up as a referendum, to go to 7… exact same logic.
Time will tell, but I’m not buying the pallid arguments, assumptions, speculation where 7 would be better… if 7, why not 9? More of a ‘good thing’, right?
Oh… and for those who might think this is a ‘personal attack’, it is far from… unless Matt has recently changed, we do not necessarily see eye-to-eye on issues (often), but are fairly good friends… Matt, feel free to differ with that statement…
We respect the person, even when we disagree (sometimes strongly) on views…
But then, we’ve only known each other for ~ 15 years…
I agree we are fairly good friends. The differences add texture to the friendship.
9 is a bridge too far for me. Any gains in representation would (in my opinion) be offset by operational cumbersomeness.
I was in a discussion on Thursday where the other person pointed out that there is a significant operational advantage/efficiency that will come with 7 over 5. That is specifically in the area of the representation that each Council member executes on behalf of the City in conjunction with both internal Commissions/Committees/Task Forces, and external bodies such as the City/Chamber of Commerce 2×2, City/Davis Downtown 2×2, City/Davis Joint Unified School District 2×2,City/Yolo County 2×2,City/Yolo County/UC Davis 2x2x2,City/Yolo County Visitors Bureau 2×2, SACOG, WDCWA, VCEA, etc. Right now there are many such meetings where the assigned Council member doesn’t show up. Having seven members to spread what is now covered by five should mean fewer absences and more engagement.
Less whites! Less whites! Less whites! Less whites!
Surprised you didn’t pick up on David’s equating Muslims to those from the mid-east… the ones not Jewish (or Druze, or Catholic, etc.)… the families I knew of who experienced bigotry after 9/11 were Persian, non-Muslim (but I guess they all look the same to certain ‘progressive’ folk)… inherent bias? Stereo-typing?
Any . . . um . . . particular “color” . . . hmmm, um, tweedle-de-dee?
Might make a good musical, “David and his amazing politi-colored cloak”… people of color are not monolithic, nor are people of faith/spirituality, nor people of gender identification, nor people of political affiliation, nor people of rental/HO status… sounds like “profiling” to me…
Meeee toooo . . . but they say that it is necessary to gather statistics — statistics for . . . ??? I’ll take a guess: money. Me, I am one uncounted person on the race tally, as a ‘decline-to-state/Jew’.
Actually, Alan, think I’ll go to ‘decline to state’, or ‘other’ as to “race”… arguably, from family stories, the latter is fully justified… part Native American… like @ the 1/256th level… maybe 1/2 that… might help my new district (and family) get more representation… if it “works” for Liz Warren…
Perhaps everyone should think about how they’ll answer the 2020 Census questions… not like they require DNA or anything…
This could be “fun”… as to race, is “decline to state”, or “other”, a minority? [not a question to you, Alan, just positing]
The article states “…my biggest concerns since I started the Vanguard have been advocacy for racial justice in our community…”
But when the chips were down and there was a lawsuit against the WDAAC project based on the “disparate impacts” theory in the Fair Housing Act that claimed discrimination in the local preferences/restrictions program arising out of the historic discrimination and exclusion of the “dark underbelly” of Davis, the Vanguard vigorously defended the status quo and decried the “dangerous playing of the race card.”
Interestingly, the project developers were also the biggest advertiser and one of the biggest donors to the Vanguard at the time, snd were even awarded the title “Social Justice Champion” by the Vanguard for a large donation.
All of the self-congratulation for providing flowers can’t change this sordid history.
Maybe the chips weren’t really down on WDAAC. Fact: the only people complaining about WDAAC were white people.
Untrue… the complaining party in the lawsuit was not “white people”… watch out for words like “only”… friendly suggestion…
I ditto that, but my suggestion is unfriendly…
Clarification… for David or anyone…
Is ‘racial equality’, equality of opportunity, or equality of outcomes?
Does ‘racial equality’ assume “paybacks” (reverse discrimination, profiling/stereotyping ‘whites’) or “reparations” are essential elements to achieve ‘racial equality’?
How does one measure when/if ‘racial equality’ is achieved?
Important to note I used the term “racial justice” not racial equality.
Noted. Many use the terms interchangeably. You apparently are among many who do not.
One of the reasons I don’t use the term racial equality – is that it’s nebulous. I see this as about eliminating bias which I think is a lot more insidious than we think. I don’t believe you can simply remove barriers to entry and if we do, we will still be left with a vastly unequal system. And that means that there was never an equality of opportunity in the first place. What the question doesn’t account for is institutional racism – consequences of racist policies that become baked into the process in ways that are both invisible and inextricable.
If both invisible, and inextricable, how solvable? Meant as honest question…
I think that is part of why it has proven so intractable
Nice word play.
Perhaps no reason to deal with something invisible, inextricable, and intractable. Just is… why bother to seek change? Good fodder for sniping at things, tho’, eh?
Talk about nebulous…
“Racial equality” is sounding more concrete than “racial justice”… at least to a non-polisci person…
Deep.
Now there is an argument! I’m convinced.
“What, me worry?” — Alfred E. Neuman
Now there’s a Humble Brag for ya — a dictionary, money-shot example.
Two restricted (discriminatory?) flavors of what is generally called “social justice” [which I favor, but across the spectrums]? Interesting…