Colin Walsh is running for Davis City Council in District 2 (see map). Walsh states he is motivated to run “out of a deep love for our community and from a sense of duty and service”. If Walsh had to sum up his campaign platform in two words they would be “transparency” and “inclusivity” he says.
As someone who grew up in Davis, but has lived in many cities, Walsh values the fact that Davis has become home for people from all over the world. He now lives on the same street he grew up on with his two children and his mother. Colin works as a litigation graphics and technology consultant and has led teams supporting civil trials in courts across the country.
For many years Walsh has been active in the local community and politics and has an intimate knowledge of the City’s planning issues and fiscal challenges. He currently is a member of the City’s Tree Commission and co-editor of the Davisite.org, an online forum that publishes articles on local topics and encourages positive dialog in the community.
Walsh’s focus is putting Davis on track for community-driven government. Paramount in achieving this goal is a fully transparent city decision-making process that includes timely outreach and follow-up. “There should be no surprises in city government,” he says. Also fundamental for Walsh is truly listening and responding to people’s concerns to make certain that Davis is a safe and welcoming place to everyone. Putting Davis on track for Colin further involves accountability to the future Davis in terms of protecting the environment and the City’s fiscal health.
Walsh is a believer in strong neighborhoods, the need for a more robust affordable housing ordinance, urgency in meeting Davis’ carbon neutrality goal, and locally owned businesses are vital for Davis’ economy. He also supports the general plan principle against urban sprawl and the need for sensitive infill to meet housing and business needs.
To learn more about Colin and his platform please visit the campaign website at Walsh4Davis.com.
Colin Walsh is the third announced candidate in District 2 following incumbent Will Arnold and challenger Dillan Horton. Brett Lee who also resides in this district has already announced he will not run. The deadline to file candidacy papers in District 2 is August 14th because that district has an incumbent candidate. have.
“Walsh values the fact that Davis has become home for people from all over the world.”
Okay my friend, but you support Measure R renewal, that doesn’t allow those same non-citizen people from all over the world, to vote on projects that effect the price of housing and rent in Davis.
Nor should they be allowed if they aren’t citizens of this country and the city of Davis.
Why not? San Francisco allows non-citizens to vote in school board elections. We could allow it if we wanted true direct democracy.
Still that is an argument I don’t wish to pursue too deeply. I’d rather point out the idea that Measure R is direct democracy is only true for those that can vote. Many people effected by Measure R, people who pay the high rents generated by the lack of supply kept in check by Measure R, don’t have a say in these elections.
My point was when Colin says he values people from all over the world that position is in conflict with the restrictive housing policies he pursues.
I believe Colin also has taken the position that student housing should be built on campus instead of in the city. Again this conflicts with his stated affinity for the people of the world.
Colin is my friend but that statement rubbed me the wrong way.
Not really. He values them, and he wants them to pay a lot of rent. Same reason UC Davis likes foreign students. MUUUU-UUUNEEEEE
Direct Democracy is a bad idea. It’s why the country was formed as a republic. Direct Democracy allows every half brained person with some sort of idea about the subject a chance to influence a decision on the subject. I’ve heard city council members in reference to Measure R say something like:…”it’s the will of the people so it’s their decision..” Really? then what the heck is the Council’s job? In the case of Measure R, in a properly run city there’s a 20 year plan that outlines the parameters for land annexation within the sphere of influence. Those parameters are put there by commision, staff and council. People vote in the council and these parameters they want implemented for future growth. After that annexation projects are determined if they fit the 20 year plan (and periodically those parameters are updated). Every project doesn’t go directly to the voters….so that every Tom, Dick and Harry with no background in real estate development or economic development have the right to vote on a project based on their sole focus on bicycle lanes or some magical idea of businesses choosing to locate at a project because of new housing development as part of the project.
Because S.F. allows it Davis should too? S.F. is hardly the model Davis should want to follow.
” S.F. is hardly the model Davis should want to follow.”
Depends on the model. It’s not like its a package deal – we can pick and choose the parts we like and ignore the parts we don’t. With respect to Democracy, SF may be precisely the model Davis should want to follow. Your reasoning here is bad.
How many other countries in the world can non citizens vote in their elections? I think New Zealand is one but that’s about it. Non citizens should not be making decisions for how a country is run. Voting rights are sacred and should be treated as so. So as you say, “Your reasoning here is bad.”.
In some EU countries, residents who are citizens of other EU countries can vote in local and regional (state, province etc.) elections.
Ron
This is intended as a genuine question. How far would you extend this right to vote? Would you limit it to local issues, state and national issues? Or would you include candidates? For example, should a noncitizen be able to vote for governor, senator, president?
I see no inherent conflict in a limitation on voting rights and affinity for the people of the world unless you would adopt a policy of no voting restrictions at all.
Its an interesting question and I’m not sure where to draw the line. The US Constitution talks about the rights of citizens to vote in Federal elections so that would definitely be out for non-citizens. I don’t know what the State Constitution says on the matter but I’d guess its the same for California State and legislative offices. Clearly there must be some way SF was able to allow non-citizens to vote for school board. I’m not an expert.
I think its no surprise to anyone that I don’t like Measure R. I raise the issue because people often cite direct democracy as a rationale for Measure R. However, we don’t really have direct democracy if an effected constituency is not enfranchised to participate.
There may not be an inherent conflict between voting restrictions and a welcoming position on immigration. Still the consequences of some of Colin’s positions seem to me to be in conflict with his stated affinity for people from all over the world to make a home here.
And, how many ballot types would be required? How monitored? At what cost? Who pays?
Ron
I am quite conflicted about this issue. Part of the problem for me is the phrase you used about people making a home here. Certainly, many people from all over the world come here, live here, make very valuable contributions here…but are not allowed to vote here. I can reasonably see this as an unfair form of exploitation of their contributions whether those are in science laboratories, in operating rooms, in our service industry or our fields. For me, ideally, if an individual is making a positive contribution, they should be able to vote on matters concerning their well being while making that contribution. That would of course imply that everyone who contributes should have the right to vote. I doubt many of you would join me in that thought.
How might a non-contributor be defined? Who would be a non-contributor and how would the city know that they are?
I think this topic is an important question. The actual solution might be really simple, but we are fighting against the fear to escape duopoly and republic.
Some vague principles about democracy:
1. Not all issues shall be decided based on voting. Direct democracy can happen by direct contributions to a cause (ie vote with your time and money)
2. Human right issues shall not be violated by democracy (democracy dies not include a right to oppress by majority rule)
3. Forcing people to select a representative is against democracy (people shall be allowed to represent themselves or change their representative at will. This concept basically destroys the legitimacy of most of US political system as a “true” democratic government. This concept also destroys dust rich election as a legitimate form of true democracy.)
Edgar
The simple ( or simplistic) answer to your last point is that the US is not now, and never has been a “democracy”. The US is a democratic republic and inherent in this is the principle of representation. There are very few local issues that we vote on directly. At city, county, state, and national level virtually all decision making is done by representatives that we change, not at will, but at specifically designated intervals.
Tia,
I think that a contributing person that wants to be a part of the community should be able to vote and influence the issues in the community. But where do you draw the line? Right now a person that is part of the community that wants to vote would have to become a citizen. Not an unfair requirement but maybe a too difficult one in terms of practicality at this point? Is there some sort of time served that could be considered? I do not want to give over too much influence to people passing through for a couple years (something that happens frequently with UCD students, faculty and employees). But on the other hand a person that’s been here for 10 years on a green card or at least intends to be here for the foreseeable future should IMO have the right to vote and influence the community. But how to determine these things, I don’t know.
You could set the rule at being domiciled in the City limits.
With the Trump administration not currently conducting naturalization ceremonies you could say anyone that has been here legally for five years. That would be the time to qualify to apply for citizenship. Still wouldn’t enfranchise Daca students but you could write it to include them too.
Just wondering:
What if everyone who lives in Davis may vote on Davis issues, but a person’s vote counts as many times as the number of years they have lived in Davis?
The intention is to balance inclusiveness and stability.
Just weird…
Everyone? No matter citizenship, no matter age?
Bill,
That would mean my 5 and 8 year olds would have the same weighted votes that I do. I mean…I could bribe their votes with candy and treats…so that’s cool. On the other hand my wife’s vote would carry 5 times the weight of my vote.
I couldn’t come up with a convincing reason why there shall be age or citizenship restriction for a local to vote on a local issue.
So let’s say there is no age or citizenship restrictions.
If a person who lives in Davis have agency to vote, they are allowed to vote. Each vote counts as the number of years they have lived in Davis.
A vote from a 7-yearold local child will worth more than an adult who has just moved to Davis, when the vote is about a Davis issue.
I can’t help but imagine that children will grow up a lot earlier if they can vote earlier, because they will start discussing issues much earlier.
Hard to tell… ‘tongue in cheek’? Or serious, Keith E?
Bill,
I would seriously bribe my kids to vote.
I’m thinking that Davis elections will suddenly be filled with Carnival rides and cotton candy (assuming no Covid). Or a platform based on Caprisun juice boxes over Honest Kids juice boxes served as snacks during soccer games (I’d go for that…those healthy Honest Kids juice boxes taste horrible IMO). Ice cream and cookie store development projects that get by measure R votes!
Wait for it . . . wait for it . . .
#GASP!#
” Frau Blucher! ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdIID_TGwhM
Of course, this being Davis, when the website that shall not mentioned is mentioned in the Davis Vanguard, the sound effect should be a herd of cows mooing.
I wonder if CW ran for office for the sole purpose of having his website mentioned in the DV?
Oh, Dang, Dillan’s in the same district?! Well, I’m a Dillan fan, so I’m voting for Dillan! Wait, wait? I can’t vote for any of them? OH THANKS MATT!!!!! REXROD OUR SAVIOR.
I live in the district but can’t vote for three either. That one person one vote thing is so troublesome for someone from Chicago. Vote early and often.
Something that got no mention here is that Santa Monica recently beat this in the 2nd District Appeals Court. The court ruled that you also had to show that at large voting led to discriminatory outcomes.
https://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2020/July/Court-of-Appeal-Upholds-At-Large-City-Council-Elec
In the meantime, it is what it is… c’est dommage…
Does that mean “Davis” could appeal this ? Then I guess it comes down to who’s ox is being gored . . . who will perceive that having won a district election, can they win in a general?
Double entendre?
In all of this, am thinking of an old Amish/Quaker quote:
“All the world is mad (crazy), except me and thee, and I often wonder about thee”…
Some of the comments feed in perfectly with POTUS dogma as to validity of elections…