Two weeks ago Mayor Pro Tem Gloria Partida indicated her support for seven districts, setting up Mayor Brett Lee as the deciding vote, as it was deadlocked with two councilmembers supporting five and two supporting seven. On Tuesday, she flipped, Brett Lee went for seven, and the council had a rare 3-2 split, even though they never actually took the vote.
Instead it was a 5-0 on Map 5-4, setting up a possible confrontation between Will Arnold and Brett Lee.
For those who had argued that this can be changed at any point – not so fast. We learned that in order to change from five to seven or to have changed back from seven to five, once it is set would require not only council action but a vote of the people.
“Once we vote to go to seven, we’re not going to change back,” Will Arnold stated.
Twenty people spoke during public comment – in stark contrast to previous sessions that seemed to lack intrigue and public interest. Twelve of them supported the seven-district option, while eight supported the five-district option.
There was an even more clear split – those who were students and people of color tended to support the seven-district option, while those who tended to be older or who leaned toward the slow growth side of the fence supported the five-district option.
In the end, it came down to Gloria Partida.
“This is a very unfortunate process,” she said. She said that they have said the council will represent the city regardless of districts, “but what we have heard so much from people 
coming forward is their concern for their neighborhoods.”
She said, “I understand where the renters and the students are coming from. I understand that you will get more representation in the smaller districts.
“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 noted that the seven districts would make it easier to enter the race for a candidate, but “that doesn’t really guard against well-resourced people throwing their resources behind someone in a district.”
Dan Carson remains the strongest advocate for five districts, citing the additional cost of $100,000 to go to seven.
“My main concern at the heart of it for me is our ability to work as a unified cohesive group,” he said. “I think that’s harder with seven.”
He said our natural tendency is “you tend to end up with teams and factions.”
He broke down the districts in the 5-4 option, and noted, “You can add a voice without fracturing our ability to do business.”
Lucas Frerichs remained a strong supporter of the seven-district option, conceding, “nobody is going to be fully happy with the decision.” He indicated that for next time, they will have the time to do a districting commission.
Meanwhile, Brett Lee came out for the first time and said, “I actually support the seven districts,” even as he could count and knew there were three votes against it.
He noted that they often reach out to encourage people to run for city council, and often they are reluctant to do so.
One factor in their reluctance is the cost, and he said that his campaigns have leaned toward the less expensive side, “but they’ve been about $20,000” with a higher end being $40,000 to $45,000.
“With five districts that will be cut down, but even more so with seven,” he said. Of seven districts, “It’s just a much more manageable size of a district.”
Another factor, he said, is the workload.
“In order to do a good job on the city council, you need to allocate a lot of time,” he said.
He said when he suggests that people consider running for city council, “If the cost doesn’t scare them off, then the fact that they will literally be away from their family four to five nights a week on a regular basis, this is concerning.
“With seven councilmembers, perhaps some of that workload is shared,” he said.
As a result, he argued, “We are missing the details. The thing that happened at Mace is because we are stretched thin. We don’t know the details.”
He added, “We don’t have that capacity to get into that level of details and I think that level of detail is actually an important thing.”
After deciding on five, Dan Carson pushed for Map 5-4. Will Arnold was more in favor of 5-3 arguing that “number two is too serpentine.”
In the end, Dan Carson moved for Map 5-4, Gloria Partida seconded it and it passed 5-0.
Will Arnold then moved for the sequencing to be Districts 2, 3, and 5 in 2020 and 1 and 4 in 2022. That also passed 5-0.
They aren’t done, as city staff must now create the ordinance that will be approved in two weeks.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“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”
I found this comment by Gloria to be very strange. In the current one district system according to the 2010 Census, Hispanic or Latino of any race were 8,172 persons (12.5%).
The 5 District option chosen last night and the 7 District option many of the renters/students supported both have Latino distributions that are consistent with that 12.5% figure.
I raised a similar point in today’s bonus column. Her point didn’t seem to make a lot of sense.
This is your second reference to a ‘bonus’ column. I thought that was a joke. Ok, I’ll bite. What the heck is that?
Our premium newsletter for paid subscribers has a column not available on the website each morning.
So . . . you want to influence the City of Davis with your words, but some of your most prized words only go to people who agree with you so much already that they are willing to pay for your words, the ones no one else will hear and therefore won’t influence any additional people. You might want to re-think that strategy.
Not exactly. Running the Vanguard costs money and we have to find ways to finance, one of them is to set up premium subscriptions where people donate a recurring amount each month that helps us meet our monthly costs. Kind of like a newspaper subscription.
Following up on both Matt and David’s comments…
I found Brett’s comments ‘very strange’, and ‘very disturbing’… more and more convinced as to the 5-district option:
Goes to divisiveness…
OK… but also see context… that was a “freebie” vote as he can position himself as a “I was trying to empower certain folk, but I was on the losing side”… nice… good politics,considering his former non-stance…
And, with districts, CC members don’t have to consider things, except within their districts? Not the community as a whole?
That is what staff is for, and reading/cognitive abilities of the electeds… or by “details” does he mean ‘votes’? Vox populi? On technical matters, rather than policy?
But, Brett is not in my proposed district, so he should not care about my views (?)… whatever… after all, I’m a “newbie” like Alan M… we’ve only been in town, contributing to the community, keeping track of things (pun sorta’ intended) for 40-45 years… newbies…
Brett appears to be an ultimate politician… I was lucky to have experienced civil servant, informed, decision makers over the years, at the local level… at least at a 50% level.
I believe the CC action is correct, until we have the new census, and go thru 2-3 election cycles to see what happens… Dan Carson got the costs issue right, but think he ‘lo-balled’ the costs…
Lucas got this one right, big time:
Likely, no one will be fully happy with that, either, but I posit it is better than the alternatives…
WM, Ditto on everything you said, big time. Can’t wait to refight all the same arguments with the upcoming Districting Commission. Yippie!
Straight face, or tongue in cheek? I’d understand either one… either would be fair feedback…
Okay, I’ll bite.
Or not to divisiveness. The issue of divisiveness exists in the current setup as well. Nothing prevents a Council member from pursing an agenda that is focused on specific interests of a specific segment of the citizens.
Your cynical/skeptical/untrusting nature got a “freebie” as well.
You have completely misheard what Brett was saying. Currently the “no-show” frequency by Council members at Commission/Committee/Task Force meetings in their Council Liaison role, as well as other “assignments” is substantial. The Utility Rate Advisory Commission (now the Utilities Commission) went for over 3 years without any Council Liaison ever attending. Open Space Commission has seen more participation recently, but for over a year almost all of the meetings were sans-Liaison. Brett was saying two things, that those “assignments” are both important and time-consuming.
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2018-07-20-CC-Item-07-2018-20-Council-Liaison-Appointments-Table.jpg
Staff goes to the WDCWA Board meetings and interacts face-to-face with the other Board members? Staff goes to the Valley Clean Energy Board meetings and interacts face-to-face with the other Board members? Staff goes to all the various SACOG meetings?
When was the last time that a Staff member from the Finance Department met with an elected to give that elected a briefing on the recent FBC meeting discussions? When was the last time that a Staff member from the Community Development Department met with an elected to give that elected a briefing on the recent OSHC meeting discussions? When was the last time during the 2013-2018 period that a Staff member from any Department met with any elected to give that elected a briefing on the design of the Mace Boulevard reconstruction?
I believe you have an unrealistic undervaluation of the value of face-to-facxe dialogue, and an unrealistic overassessment of how much educational interaction takes place between Staff and the electeds with respect to the liaison workload that Brett was referring to in his comments.
Time’s yours.
Pretty much said my piece, and we can agree to disagree… I see no reason to ‘back-pedal’ on anything I opined. Not one scintilla.
Understood, and expected. As I said in my reply your cynical/skeptical/untrusting nature got a free shot at Brett.
I will only say that you may need to make an appointment with your doctor to have your ears checked for an abundance of wax.
Regarding Bill’s concern that Brett chose to take a “non-stance” (Bill’s word) in the prior meeting and a stance in this meeting, one of the tried-and-true (but often ignored) conventions for the people who “chair” formal/official meetings is that the chair speaks last … after all the other members of the body have made their comments and asked their questions. Especially in situations where there will be no motions and/or votes, the chair may choose to hold his/her counsel if/when all the important issues/questions have been illuminated by the chair’s colleagues. I’ve personally done that as the chair of the Finance and Budget Commission.
The situations where the chair ignores that tried-and-true convention are often when he/she desires to use the dais as a Bully Pulpit to promote an agenda. I will go back anr re-listen to Brett’s comments in the video of the prior districting discussion. I suspect there will not be a bully to be found.
I agree with Matt. Council members are currently overextended. Lucas did show up for a few URAC meetings (but he might not have been the official liason.) No one has shown up for an NRC meeting this year so far. The staff does NOT represent the views of the Council–we already have the staff exerting too much of its own political will instead of listening to citizens, and there’s a distinct lack of accountability of the staff.
I don’t see how 5 or 7 districts will be much more divisive. Just moving to districts already sets that up. There’s been some discussion about whether 5 or 7 members might come to consensus more easily, buy I don’t know how the added geographic dimension will change this. I can see a dynamic where older vs new neighborhoods may become more salient, as well as west vs. east.
So my preference is for 7 districts because of the reduced workload and campaign costs. I think the increased productivity will easily make up the $100,000 in added admin costs. We may not be able to entirely “quantify” those benefits, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
Well said Richard.
meh . . . I don’t believe two more council members is going to solve the issues described, certainly not a convincing argument for more districts.
Alan, I don’t think anyone is hanging their whole argument on that one individual aspect. That is just a single thread, which when woven together with other threads makes cloth. For me, the argument for 7 is multi-faceted and very strong. As I have said before, I believe 5 is looking backwards with reverence for Davis’ history up to the year 2000 (and a bit beyond). I also believe 7 is looking forward with appropriate acknowledgement of the demographic changes that have happened in Davis since 2000. Bottom-line, we have a chance to live in the past, or live in the future.
With that said, I do think one point that Will Arnold made in his comments is very important. He said (and I paraphrase) that CVRA forces on us certain changes in the way we elect the five Council member positions that we have had for decades. However, the provisions of CVRA do not force us to change the way that we govern our city. A change from five to seven is a change in governing structure, and a change like that should only happen as a result of a vote of the people.
That argument of Will’s actually resonated with me. It will be very interesting to see whether in the coming weeks and months whether the people who strongly support seven districts over five begin an initiative process, and gather the signatures needed to put a “move to seven districts” question on the November 2020 ballot. Passage of such a question would eliminate the concern Will raised tonight and clearly establish the path for determining the number of districts that will be in the November 2020 election.
I ‘meh’ your argument as well. The above argument is just air as far as I’m concerned. Dan Carson’s arguments ran strong with me. As for citizens gathering enough steam to do the work to petition for an election to go from 5 to 7 council members, I’m betting on NO. I can’t imagine a less exciting goal, and less exciting doesn’t inspire petition drives. Many people are still barely aware there was even a change.
If the signatures were/are coming from citizens over the age of 30, I would agree with you, but my suspicion is that the vast majority of signatures on such an initiative would come from renters under the age of 30.
JMO
Interesting. I found Dan Carson’s arguments to be Libertarian/Conservative protection of the de facto privilege of existing homeowners that has been created and perpetuated by the existing system.
Interesting. I saw them as — let’s keep things simple, clear, save some money, and keep a individual dynamic on the council.
Re: headline…
One person’s “flip” is another person’s “coming to one’s senses”… eye of the beholder thingy…
The bias in the ‘comment’ is evident…
At least the apparent favored alternative is not salamander-like…
Disagree. Flip is not necessary derogatory – it is used in both sports and politics to denote a change. He flipped the state in his favor. The game flipped on a home run by Springer.
I think your reading of the headline is more reflective of your own bias then my use of it.
K… whatever… eye of beholder… but you were/are a strong advocate for 7 districts… on the record…
I keep asking the question with no coherent response: How does Yolo County government work with district elections? What is the real difference aside from everyone’s fears? Is one part of the county unfailingly getting screwed and how come we don’t hear about it?
It’s all about fears. The county will now be run on fear. Which district has the most fear. We’ll get grants to build more fear, and replace speed signs with digital fear indexes: “Your Fear: 53%”.
Duane Chamberlain might have an interesting perspective on this question.
Okay, he might and he might not. All of the Supervisors have rural areas as well as urban areas, so what is his big problem that we don’t hear about? And why should we care? These will be the same questions asked of city council district representatives and I wonder if the answers will curiously be the same. In the end, will the answer be “he gets some of what he wants, but not everything and it really chaps his hide!”
I believe Dave’s questions are really good ones. My observations over 20 years of dealing with the County and County Supervisor meetings is that professionalism and mutual respect guides their process. If an item before the Supervisors affects some parts of the County more than other parts of the County, then the Supervisors whose districts are less affected defer to the Supervisors whose districts are more affected. When the items before them affect all the districts then the Supervisors treat one-another pretty much the same way that our five Council members treat one-another in the current system.
Davis City Council Erupts with Councilmember Greenwald Calling Mayor Asmundson a Liar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKudm65Dhek
The switch-flip does not surprise me. At the previous meeting Gloria seemed to hesitatingly support 7 districts, and also asked for a change in how the districts interacted in the area north of Russel / Sycamore on a 5-district map. I concluded she was interested in that five-district map if it was ‘fixed’ a bit, which other councilmembers seemed to support.
I was slightly into supporting seven-districts, but Dan Carson’s speech at the previous meeting convinced me that five was better.
I believe we have naming issue here. Most districts clearly fall into conventional wisdom:
District 1 – “West Davis”
District 2 – ???
District 3 – “Central Davis” (though it extends to grab a chunk of North Davis)
District 4 – “East Davis” (though it is far east-er of what many call East Davis and way far east of Old East Davis)
District 5 – “South Davis” (maybe should include /Olive)
Without a clear “North Davis”, we are left with weird District 2.
Then it hit me “Anderson Corridor“.
The shape, even the curve to the east in the north, is clearly bisected end-to-end by Anderson Blvd. So my final entree for District names is:
District 1 – “West Davis”
District 2 – “Anderson Corridor”
District 3 – “Central Davis”
District 4 – “Far East Davis”
District 5 – “South Davis / Olive“
I don’t feel that my business is in Central Davis. It’s in east Davis. I don’t think the lower-income residents on our side of town will be well-served by this configuration overall. I’m just glad Lucas is running again.
Disagree – I’m looking for simple terms that will be used to describe the districts. As far east as Davis now goes, your business is not that far from downtown.
How do you feel the ‘lower income people in’ . . . #major ahem# “OUR” part of town, could have been better served?
You can’t vote for Lucas . . . unless you decide to park a trailer and live in your business, but you can cut him a check.
The tell is will William tell.
What do the tea leaves tell us about this decision? I have no inside information but it makes me wonder. Will Will run again? He would be running against Brett. The other three incumbents ended up with their own districts.
Notice also that the two seats not up for election this year are the two held by incumbents that would not have been on the ballot this year under the at-large system.
The last I heard was that Will had not decided if he would run again. If he doesn’t then this decision mirrors what a self interested CC might do, give all incumbents interested in re-election their own discrete district and schedule elections with the least disruption to the current system.
Almost all the proposed maps had both Brett and Lucas in the same district yet in the end they chose the map where these two don’t run against each other. Coincidence or self interested politics? You decide. We will know more when will announces. Will Will or won’t Will? That is the question.
The above analysis is why I mapped out possible conflicts . . . as I said I had no idea what I’d find going into it . . . except WM had implied there were such conflicts. I have no idea to what degree council members did this out of self interest. Other than south davis, they are pretty well spread out except for the exceptions noted that ‘pit’ Brett against either Lucas or Will. It’s really no one’s ‘fault’ they live where they live, as no one saw this coming. Will or Brett could always move to South Davis (yes, tongue is in cheek). So could Horton. Of course, I’d never wish such a fate on anyone (thought I’d volley the first inter-district animosity).
Also does anyone know the population of the backyard chickens in Lucas’ new district? Are chickens counted in the census? On the long form? Does anybody know? Lucas has long had a lock on the backyard chicken vote but with feathers flying in these new districts could it be that what was once an asset might now become a liability? Will the Tour de Cluck lay an egg?
Of course with Lucas now representing the least car centric district in town maybe he will advocate for turning garages into ADU’s for chickens. It would be the perfect green Davis campaign to run on turning garages into hen houses. Two chickens in every garage. Good cluck Lucas.
That was hilarious on several levels. Good cluckin’
Um . . . hey, guys? How do you vote for District 1 and 4 in 2022 when they won’t exist? After all, we are going to have the soon-to-be-famous and popular “Redistricting Committee” that will carve Davis into new shapes after the 2020 census (for which I will declare myself an Antartican and demand my own district due to under-representation).
That’s exactly accurate. Deistricts 1 and 4 will exist in 2022, they may not have the exact same boundaries as before.
I think you left out a word.
Anywhoo, that’s exactly my point. If something isn’t the same shape, it essentially doesn’t exist anymore. If you had Gloria Partida’s left arm and Will Arnold’s left ear, would you be David Greenwald?
Here’s the fact: some ‘borderline’ people will end up not being able to vote in 2020, and will be ‘re-districted’ into another district in 2022, and unable to vote again. That doesn’t even seem legal, certainly not right. I believe that whole voting sequence thing needs to be re-thought.
“Anywhoo, that’s exactly my point. If something isn’t the same shape, it essentially doesn’t exist anymore.”
I think we view this issue differently.
“That doesn’t even seem legal, certainly not right. ”
I don’t see how there is an issue of legality. The city wanted to do this for 2022, their hand was forced by the litigant and the nature of the current law.
Some people won’t be able to vote in 2020 or 2022. As we don’t know the shape of the districts yet, these people don’t know who they are yet, so they won’t complain yet. But some people who last voted in 2018 won’t be able to vote until 2024. Maybe it’s legal, but it is BS.
Also, if I’m thinking this out right, others may be able to vote in BOTH elections.
This may not be that minor. 2020 census will show the population of The Cannery. That will change the district shapes significantly.