By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – It has been ten years since an incumbent was knocked off in a Davis City Council Election. But we enter a reelection cycle full of intrigue, questions and unknowns.
Four years ago, Gloria Partida and Dan Carson separated themselves from a crowded field of council candidates to finish first and second. A lot has happened since then, including the COVID pandemic. But perhaps just as consequentially for the council election, we now have district elections in November and both incumbents face questions after backing several Measure J projects.
Just how vulnerable are the incumbents? That remains to be seen. One of the points that we have noted consistently has been the disconnect between the community’s support for councilmembers who have supported peripheral development and the voters’ reluctance to approve those very projects.
In 2020, on the same ballot with DISC, the voters overwhelmingly reelected Will Arnold and Lucas Frerichs.
Could it be different this time? That’s one of the big questions.
Dan Carson is running for reelection on his record of four years. In his statement, he notes, “Four years ago we faced an $8 million annual funding gap and a substantial housing crisis—and we couldn’t have even imagined the devastation of COVID. It’s a testament to thoughtful planning and the strength of our community that we face the unpredictable times ahead standing on a much firmer foundation.”
But Carson has become a lightning rod after he became the face of the litigation against the No on H campaign. His involvement triggered letters of protest from former councilmembers, and his engagement during a council meeting earned a rare rebuke from his colleagues.
He has two big advantages going, however. First, he represents the western part of town, which actually supported DISC in 2020 and is far removed from the personal impacts of traffic this time around.
The bigger factor, however, may be that he faces two opponents, rather than just one.
On the one hand, is Kelsey Fortune who ran in the 5th District in 2020. On the other hand is Bapu Vaitla, a first-time candidate who has chaired the Social Services Commission and has worked hard to lead “the City’s groundbreaking public safety reform process and continue to fight for affordable housing for our workforce, low-income families, and the unhoused.”
On their own, either Fortune or Vaitla could be formidable candidates. Running against each other, they could split the more progressive and opposition vote.
Recognizing it, there was a Zoom meeting a month or so ago where supporters were asked to assess the race and thin the field. The tactic actually happened back in 2005 for the 2006 council election and it worked at that time, with Lamar Heystek and Stan Forbes emerging as the progressive backed candidates and Heystek ending up finishing a close second and winning a spot on the council.
However, the effort this time did not work and both candidates are now on the ballot to face Carson. It is difficult to knock off an incumbent. It is harder still when the opposition to the incumbent will split their vote.
That brings us to the other race where Gloria Partida faces Adam Morrill.
In his candidate statement, he notes, “Our roads and sidewalks are crumbling and our trees and parks are suffering from neglect. I will ensure there are fiscally responsible plans to fix and maintain them. I will work with local businesses to revitalize our downtown to make it a destination for our residents and visitors to Davis to prevent further sales tax loss to neighboring cities.”
He added, “I will not approve or campaign for unaffordable housing that permanently destroys prime farmland. I will push for strategic infill development and affordable housing. Our city has a homeless crisis and it is not solved by using taxpayer dollars to duplicate the efforts of others. I will work cooperatively with our local non-profits, faith-based organizations, and the county to work towards a solution.”
Morrill has two big advantages over the challengers in the first district. First, he is the only opposition. Second, Gloria Partida was one of the faces of the support for DISC both times. Morrill subtly has positioned himself in opposition to those campaigns. District Four was probably the district most impacted by the proposed project and potential traffic impacts.
However, Partida has some advantages over her colleague. While she supported the project, she does not carry the extra baggage that Carson does for filing the writ against the opposition campaign.
Second, her overall community background including her fight for social justice and founding of the Phoenix Coalition may mitigate some of the disagreement over land use.
Finally, she faces someone who, while he has been active in the community and is a city employee, is relatively unknown. On August 1, Morrill was one of the candidates that spoke to the Yolo GOP which, according to notes obtained by the Vanguard, is backing his candidacy.
All in all, it will be interesting to see if disagreements over land use policy finally translate to opposition to council incumbents. Moreover, it will be interesting to see if district elections changes the dynamic as well. Gloria Partida’s race in particular, in the heart of the probable traffic impact of DISC could be an interesting test case.
On the other hand, it could be that Measure J itself negates what otherwise could be a large disadvantage for Partida. Stay tuned.
I live in West Davis and will definitely not vote for Carson. His baseless attacks on the No in H campaign have earned him my wrath.
Although I live in a different district, I’m sparked by both candidates opposing Dan Carson in district one. I’m aware that, as “progressives”- however one conceives that term -both Fortune and Vaitla, under that ideological banner have referenced the importance of the good of the entire community as central to their campaigns and seem committed to doing what’s best for the community. And that being so, I’m hopeful that, should a split vote look likely, one of the two candidates will step down. It’s early yet. As my grandmother used to counsel us when my brother and sister would argue with me, “United we stand. Divided, we fall. “
One of the primary differences (perhaps the only main difference) between Kelsey and Bapu is that Bapu has publicly acknowledged his support for Measure H only saying he voted for it because it contained inclusionary affordable housing. Kelsey was otherwise an adamant opponent of Measure H and its predeccessor, Measure B, saying she opposed them both because of excessive traffic and associated greenhouse gas emissions, loss of prime farmland through sprawl, and inconsistency with the City’s existing General Plan, among other reasons.
There is another difference between the two challengers. Viatia has lived in Village Homes for many years while Fortune must have moved there within the last two years since she ran in 2020, receiving only 10% of the vote, albeit in another district.
Fortune came in behind Josh Chapman, Rochelle Swanson and Connor Gorman. Perhaps she learned something in that campaign and will fare better this time but it seems to me that if anyone is going to play the spoiler it would be Fortune and not Vaitia.
I don’t understand this type of reasoning, since adding a claimed 2,500 jobs (with only 460 housing units, including the “Affordable” housing) would have created a housing “shortage”.
Where do people like this think that “housing shortages” come from, in the first place?
This guy strikes me as another Partida (extreme “social justice” type, while also embracing most development). The worst combination there is – politically (not necessarily “personally”). The same type that aligns with the Vanguard, itself.
There’s your environmentalist of the two. Pretty clear choice. (Though I don’t believe that Kelsey is entirely “no growth”, so she can’t be labeled as a “banana” (or whatever other derogatory term is used these days).
I would say that it is up to the voters in that District to decide who they want to represent them on the City Council. I will say that this applies in the future for Lucas’s replacement in District 3 – my District – when we vote for a new representative for that District.
In District 1 the key issue appears to be a mirror of national politics … Autocracy vs. Democracy.
Dan Carson with his series of anti-democratic actions, statements, and votes has shown himself to be the local poster boy for Autocracy. It should not be hard for the voters of District 1 to imagine themselves on the receiving end of one of Carson’s anti-citizen lawsuits.
The question “Who’s next?!?” should be uppermost in the minds of District 1 voters.
Counterbalancing all that negativity is the fact that both of the candidates opposing Carson are extremely citizen-oriented. They both are very good choices and both would make good Councilmembers.
Autocracy Vs Democracy in West Davis? Oh come on!
I think the key issues in West Davis are the Russell Blvd. redesign of Cactus Corners, how fast a vegetation screen can be grown along Russell Blvd. and emergency access to West Village.
For the city in general the biggest issues, in my opinion, are housing affordability and homelessness.
Can we please have a serious conversation?
Ron… agree with much of what you opine, but you make two errors, which tend to negate your arguments/opinions:
It’s Cactus Corner (no ‘s’)…
Cactus Corner is @ intersection of CR 98 and Russell/CR 32… a mile from Lake Boulevard/CR 99… in the County… where the City has no jurisdiction, and only minor influence…
Not sure exactly what you’re referring to here, but Tree Davis has planted oaks all the way down that section of Russell to replace the black walnuts.
And, if Ron G is referring to the triangle formed @ Rusell/Arlington, the best traffic engineering solution would be a roundabout… which due to the “Druids” in town would require not only require the removal of trees, but also would be an “abomination!”
But technically, a RAB would be the best answer (possibly modified with a EV lane, which has been done elsewhere in the US), and ‘mitigation trees could be planted within and without… but the “Druids” would scream bloody murder, anyhow…
As for Partida I will be surprised if she does not win a second term. It seems to me she is popular and hasn’t brought any undue attention to herself.
Time will tell.
I cannot see any way in which district elections are an improvement in terms of representation, access, or outcomes.
Why should someone elected by maybe a few hundred votes in West Davis have such outsized influence over how the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods get developed, about where affordable housing is going to go, where homeless services will be provided, or where economic development is going to occur? All of those things end up creating near-neighbor concerns, and this council member would have no accountability to the voters in those neighborhoods.
I know that “it is what it is” and nobody’s going to challenge district voting. But it’s a travesty.
Yep… je d’accord… all points… particularly,
And, if challenged, would probably be a quixotic effort… too many folk of the belief that it increases ‘diversity of views’ (power?)… it (district voting) is a good example of a ‘two-edged sword’, when places like Davis does not have clear “communities of interest”, except for proximity… or “special interests”