By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – If pictures speak 1000 words, this one might speak millions… The image of former Mayor Robb Davis with current Mayor Lucas Frerichs, Councilmember Josh Chapman and candidate Bapu Vaitla. Vaitla is challenging incumbent Dan Carson and yesterday had a reported 80 to 100 people at his kickoff rally (campaign officials say they counted upwards of 120).
Neither Frerichs nor Chapman immediately responded to my Saturday evening texts, but reports had them urging people to support Vaitla. Given that Vaitla is challenging their colleague on the council, that’s kind of big news.
Everything of course is speculative in Davis. But Dan Carson,as most readers are aware, got himself in rather hot water not only by filing a writ to challenge ballot language of the Measure H opposition, but then seeking attorney fees and of course getting into a 
back and forth from the virtual dais.
Carson’s actions touched a nerve—and not in a good way.
During the Measure H campaign’s last month or so, I had many people reach out to me, asking “what’s up with Dan Carson?” Signs popped up around town, proclaiming, “No on Dan Carson.”
Former mayors took the unusual step of admonishing Carson in a letter.
They write: “Just the possibility of another developer suing the citizen opponents of a project could scare Davis residents from standing up and speaking out. That’s not the Davis way. Winning a political debate shouldn’t depend on the size of your pocketbook. Instead, make your best case and then let the voters decide.”
They continue: “The problem with Carson’s conduct in the Measure H campaign is that he has blurred the line between his role as an elected representative of the people of Davis and his advocacy for a development project. This conflict of interest was on full display at the April 5 City Council meeting, when he took up a Measure H matter that was not on the agenda and gave a lengthy political speech. Even Mayor Gloria Partida admonished Carson this was improper.”
They add, “As past mayors of the city of Davis, we can assure Davis citizens that Dan Carson is charting new political ground and that it is not good. We would ask that Councilman Carson carefully reconsider what he is doing with respect to Measure H.”
Personally, while I think the language challenge by a sitting councilmember was a poor political choice, Carson’s decision to request attorney fees was worse, as was his decision in April to respond to public criticism during the council meeting rather than shrug it off.
“In light of some of the comments we all heard earlier during public comment, I do feel a need to respond.”
He continued, “We ordinarily don’t focus on politics in this chamber, um, but we live in a troubling world now of alternative facts that are spread and endlessly recycled on social media until folks end up believing things that just plain aren’t true.”
Carson continued for another minute or so, but his colleagues clearly were not comfortable with his responding to public comment on purely political matters.
Mayor Partida jumped in, “I appreciate that you want to defend yourself, I absolutely support you in the campaign for Measure H. If you can maybe keep…”
Carson assured her he was almost done.
Mayor Partida added, “It’s a little unusual I think…”
Following Carson’s comments, Lucas Frerichs, the Vice Mayor, said, “This council performed its role and obligation which is to vet a project and potentially place it on the ballot. And we’ve done that.”
He continued, “There’s an external political campaign occurring which also happens particularly for this Measure, but honestly I’m uncomfortable with… We can’t prohibit what was said in public comment, but I do think this sort of politicalization of this particular issue as it relates to… I think we’re getting far afield from our roles and responsibilities particularly in conducting the people’s business before us this evening.”
Frerichs was particularly outspoken at the time both publicly and in private. Now he appears at a campaign rally for Vaitla. That’s a really powerful message.
The big question would be whether a strong candidate could emerge to challenge Carson. Here’s the thing—this isn’t just a slow growther challenge to Dan Carson. We’ve seen that before and often it doesn’t work well.
But the fact that you have some strongly pro-growth leaders in this community backing a challenger makes this a different animal.
Can he knock off an incumbent? The last time incumbents went down was 2012 and it was a combination of factors. Sue Greenwald had already served three terms on council, Stephen Souza twice.
Sue Greenwald had a very high-profile confrontation with then Mayor Ruth Asmundson. She also got caught up in another controversy when her husband was caught on camera removing opposition signs.
Stephen Souza had finished strong in 2008, but between his support for Measure X in 2005 and his association with fiscal mismanagement and the vitriolic council from 2004 to 2010, perhaps voters were ready for a change.
The other key was the emergence of three strong challengers: future Mayors Dan Wolk, Brett Lee, and Lucas Frerichs, who all ran strong in that election—Brett Lee, relatively unknown, perhaps surprisingly so.
What Bapu Vaitla showed with his rally and the support he had yesterday is that he has a strong early candidacy. Now he has the opportunity to catalyze voter antipathy for Carson’s actions and also provide the voters with a new and viable path forward.
We know it’s hard to knock off incumbents in Davis, which is why just three sitting councilmembers have lost this century—but the early signs are there that this will be a tough road ahead for incumbent Dan Carson.
Never mind Carson – why aren’t these men campaigning for Kelsey Fortune?
Where and how did Bapu Vaitla suddenly arise from in the first place? (Seems to be from the same place that other non-environmentally minded, pro-growth and obsessively-woke type of candidates that Davis has seen a lot of, lately.)
I almost think Dan Carson is better then this guy. At least he doesn’t seem overly-woke.
Geez, can’t Davis attract any normal, somewhat environmentally-minded candidates anymore?
Your constituents don’t consist entirely of woke college college students, working for a development public relations firm.
Woke is a derogatory Republican term.
Vaitla is environmentally conscious.
Copied directly from his campaign homepage.
https://www.bapu4davis.org/
“I am running for City Council because I believe Davis can be a model for both social equity and climate action. I’m focused on expanding access to affordable housing, reducing carbon emissions, building climate resilience, and identifying ways for all Davis residents to participate in finding solutions for our City. I’ll bring my knowledge and heart to help lead Davis to a bright future.”
Not originally, but it is being used that way these days (rather effectively).
Not compared to Kelsey Fortune. Vaitla supported DiSC – which not only was environmentally irresponsible, it also would have created a housing shortage.
Vaitla was on the same page as Dan Carson, regarding DiSC.
I believe that Kelsey Fortune is as “socially conscious” as Vaitla, but is more environmentally-conscious. In addition, she also has some economic expertise.
https://www.davisite.org/2022/07/kelsey-fortune-announces.html
And for some people, the fact that she’s a woman (on a council that has been overwhelmingly-male) matters. (Not an argument I’d make, but apparently important to some.)
But what I’d really like to know is how the local political “machinery” is working, in regard to Vaitla’s “sudden / out of nowhere” support. (Clearly the Vanguard’s preference, as well. Is that a “coincidence”?)
Again, if he was actually concerned about local contributions to climate change, he would have opposed DiSC.
You can’t claim both simultaneously (although those behind the local political machinery keep trying to do so).
Maybe it’s time to send a message to the pro-growth council. Clearly, Kelsey Fortune is not a “no-growther”, but she’d likely make more reasoned decisions.
Wow Ron, an amazingly vituperative comment, even for you. And from someone who has no stake in the election as a Woodland resident with no meaningful ties to the Davis community. Both Kelsey Fortune and Bapu are very environmentally-minded, and much more so than you’ve demonstrated. They both realize that solving the existential crisis that we face requires a global approach and not just a Quixotian focus on local solutions that just push off the problems to elsewhere. They may have different proposals but neither is fortunately following your ill-gotten advice. Your true political colors come through in your comment, and “environmentally-minded” isn’t one of them.
Just to be clear, you (also) support dislodging an appointee for the school board, based upon skin color?
There’s a word for that.
This was literally acknowledged to be the reason, for some of those behind it. Including the person who actually left the position before her term ended.
Robb Davis is one of the people who was involved in that campaign.
What we have here are people who don’t live in the district, campaigning for (and essentially, against) those who do (and would represent the district, itself).
As far as “meaningful ties”, that (as far as you know) is a straight-out lie. This has been pointed out to you, repeatedly. It’s irrelevant, and none of your business. And yet, you persist. For what purpose?
Apparently, you have no effective arguments, and repeatedly resort to this, instead. This is exactly how political (and personal) losers operate, since they have nothing of substance to say.
All while YOU’RE the one who wants to disenfranchise Davis voters, in regard to Measure J – not me.
Anyone who supported DiSC while simultaneously claiming to be concerned about local contributions to greenhouse gasses and housing shortages is either not being honest, or is just plain ignorant. And that goes for you, as well.
Apparently like Bapu, you feel that any particular community (such as Davis) should just wait for world leaders to “solve” the problem. How’s that world-wide plan working out?
Might as well just get rid of the city’s climate action plan, as well as “Cool Davis” – which doesn’t seem to have any purpose, anyway.
Putting forth b.s. repeatedly is not an argument – it’s an ongoing personal attack, and doesn’t reflect well on you.
Excellent response Ron…
Carson should definitely be worried. If he has any interest in getting re-elected, I would highly advise him to immediately issue a public apology for his uncalled for suit against the opponents of Measure H. Otherwise he will be defeated. If doesn’t apologize, I will relish voting for Vaita as a resident of West Davis.
Woke is a derogatory Republican term.
Vaitla is environmentally conscious.
Copied directly from his campaign homepage.
https://www.bapu4davis.org/
“I am running for City Council because I believe Davis can be a model for both social equity and climate action. I’m focused on expanding access to affordable housing, reducing carbon emissions, building climate resilience, and identifying ways for all Davis residents to participate in finding solutions for our City. I’ll bring my knowledge and heart to help lead Davis to a bright future.”
I felt honored to introduce Bapu at this event yesterday. He did not “suddenly arise” in Davis. He attended University here and has been a member of and led the Social Services Commission over the past four years. In that time he has put forward practical proposals to replenish the City’s Housing Trust Fund (which is in need of resources due to the loss of RDA in 2011). The Trust Fund makes it possible to develop new affordable housing and maintain the stock of permanently affordable housing we have.
Bapu also led a three-Commission group to debate and put forth proposals (requested by the City Council) concerning public safety in Davis. We are now taking a public health approach to dealing with mental health crises, the challenges of those living without houses, and substance use disorders. I am currently working with Bapu, as part of the work we have done together on the Davis Homelessness Alliance to put forward proposals to develop a Community Health Worker “Navigators” program to extend support to the most vulnerable members of our society.
Bapu is also active on the Cool Davis Board—the group that played a key role in advancing the City’s climate action and adaptation plan for over a decade. He understands the ingredients necessary to build the social capital in our community to adapt to the many climate challenges ahead.
All this to say, for anyone paying attention to what is happening in Davis, Bapu is not a newcomer or a passive participant in local issues. He is providing leadership every day—and make no mistake, Bapu is a leader. He is a leader who focuses on the “ends” and builds collaboration among various community groups to develop practical solutions to the challenges we face. He has a proven track record in this regard.
Is Bapu “woke?” I have no idea since that concept is undefined—being tossed out blithely (and often) by those whose engagement in solving our national and local challenges amounts to sitting at a keyboard every day accusing others vaguely of creating harms for the community.
Bapu is not harming our community; he is offering policies and programs to improve our communities health and thriving.
His political support apparently did – after Kelsey Fortune entered the race.
I assume this doesn’t necessarily mean support for the police (and ultimately – victims of crime), and instead – refers to what some folks believe is “police brutality”.
That group (of which Kelsey was also a part of) is the city’s contractor. As such, they’re not going to “rock the boat” regarding harmful proposals such as DiSC. But to Kelsey’s credit, she opposed DiSC, regardless. If a group such as “Cool Davis” isn’t even going to oppose a freeway-oriented development which results in a housing shortage and encourages commuting (with massive amounts of parking), what exactly is their “purpose”?
Don’t know what that means, but apparently it included “DiSC” – in his view.
Assuming that’s directed at me (which it probably is), I’d define “woke” as someone who looks at all issues through a racial (or if you prefer, “social justice”) lens. I (often) find these people sanctimonious and misguided. Ultimately, “harmful” for society. They create division, rather than unity. And sometimes, they actually support blatantly racist and/or sexist policies (such as affirmative action – which would primarily harm Asians).
I’m still trying to figure out why they were “missing in action”, regarding the “Davis buyer’s program” at WDAAC.
In any case, where’s your support for Kelsey Fortune, and why do you think Bapu is more qualified??
This is a question I’d really like to see an answer to, in regard to the photo above and this article.
In a way, I’m reluctant to demonstrate support for Kelsey, lest they overlook her own socially-conscious platform. Given that others seem to view me negatively (on the “woke” Vanguard, at least), I hope that they’re nevertheless able to see that Kelsey would likely be a good fit for Davis. Again, not a “no-growther”, either.
She simply strikes me as more “balanced” vs. someone who is “nothing but” woke. (And again, my apologies to Kelsey in advance, as I see that her platform is as socially-conscious as Bapu’s.)
From Bapu’s website:
All great work, but I’d rather see someone in office who has been pursuing a Ph.D. in economics (with an undergraduate degree in economics and mathematics), given that much of what council members manage is the city’s budget.
Given his interest and background, Bapu might be a better fit for the Yolo Food Bank, instead.
And for some, actually being a woman might matter, vs. “studying” gender issues.
https://www.kelseyfortune.com/#:~:text=I%20am%20currently%20running%20for,an%20artist%20in%20many%20media.
(Check it out, “Black Lives Matter” tag, at the end of that – for those with any doubt. Apparently, a “requirement” for anyone running for council in Davis.) 🙂
You’d think that would be enough to get support from the Vanguard political machine and its allies.
I wonder how many of the 100+ people at the campaign rally actually live in the district that will be allowed to vote for him. Because of the change to District elections I cannot vote for any local candidates, so I feel disengaged. Since the school board races have only one candidate for each district, we don’t even vote for these positions either. Is Carson in trouble? Well, that is for the voters in far West Davis to decide who they think will represent their interests. I will get to vote for Lucas’ replacement and I hope the campaigns are not taken over by people from outside the District with their own agendas, or have biases against particular candidates.
“Never mind Carson – why aren’t these men campaigning for Kelsey Fortune?”
You need to ask? Two years ago Fortune ran in another district. Vaitla has lived in the district for many years. You might say his support is homegrown. Someone told me Bapu was thinking about running over a year ago. This indicates that he didn’t just appear on the scene it simply means you are only now becoming aware of his existence.
“I almost think Dan Carson is better then this guy. At least he doesn’t seem overly-woke.”
Based on what? Your own extreme anti-growth agenda? Without ever knowing anything about him or meeting him you decide that you don’t like him based solely on what you read in a Vanguard article. Its more likely that you don’t like him even more than you don’t like Carson because you favor Fortune based on positions taken on Measure H. I guess that is a litmus test for you but I doubt it is for most of the people in West Davis.
“Geez, can’t Davis attract any normal, somewhat environmentally-minded candidates anymore?”
How did you decide he isn’t normal. Whatever that means. How do you define normal? He seemed pretty normal to me when I recently met him. He was polite, rational, intelligent and had good social skills. We agreed to meet again to discuss and share ideas about the direction of the City. I came away impressed by his demeanor.
My guess is that Fortune comes in third. Whether Vaitla or Carson wins depends on how many votes Fortune siphons off from Vaitla. My guess is Vaitla wins based on the antipathy Carson has drawn regarding Measure H. But go ahead its your right to talk all the smack you want but beware what that might get you.
Irrelevant.
Says the guy on a one-man, years-long campaign to overturn Measure J.
I became aware of him prior to this.
Again, what we’re seeing here is a portion of the local political machine coming out in support of a candidate (against an incumbent, no less). (Personally, I’m not sure I’d campaign against my own colleague on the board, if I was in this position. Even if I didn’t like what he did.)
And by the way, one of these guys was heavily-involved in a school board recall primarily because some didn’t like the skin color of the appointee. Talk about “extremists”.
True, but I also don’t like most of what the racially-motivated social justice types advocate for. For that matter, they’re not consistent (e.g., see Davis Buyer’s program at WDAAC). They also claim to be concerned about local contributions to climate change and “housing shortages” – both of which would have been made worse by DiSC – which Bapu and some others like him supported, regardless.
Although the vote is limited by district, council members make decisions which impact the entire city (even non-voters). In fact, one might argue that each council member can have the ability to impact other districts, more than their own (since they sometimes have to recuse themselves, in regard to issues which impact their own districts). Just as they had to do with the decision regarding how to replace Lucas, I assume.
I don’t like to mispronounce the name of others…
It would be great if someone could provide the correct phonetic pronunciation of ‘Bapu Vaitla’…
I agree with Ron G that he is a viable candidate (and then some)… I do think I do not want to dishonor him my mispronunciating his name.
I have no ‘standing’ to ask, as I am not a resident of that district…
Josh Chapman just let me know he has endorsed both Dan and Bapu, fyi.
Interesting… might well mean Josh Chapman is a “stand-up guy” … seems like he believes he could work with others… strange that he didn’t endorse all three… either he is hedging his bets, or he has reservations re: the third candidate… one he ran against…
One who moved to where there would be a ‘position open’… might just be coincidence…
Also rings up the question… what is ‘diversity’? Just based on gender/racial background, or also views, such as to ‘development’/growth?
At least one poster has indicated that a ‘normal’ candidate would be one that shares their views… antithesis of ‘diversity’…
No one has ever said that on here, at any time. They haven’t even implied it.
I’ve yet to run into anyone who shares the same views on all issues, or even within a broader “same” issue.
But there are “extremists” on here, who somehow get “overlooked”. (Sometimes only “indirectly” related to growth and development.)
For example, I’d include anyone who advocates for the removal of a school board member (based upon skin color) as an “extremist” (or worse, in my view). I sincerely hope that we haven’t devolved to a point where this is considered acceptable. (Unfortunately, it appears that this is already the case.)
Strange, how you don’t seem to have a “problem” with this.
I’m curious, has the YCDIE endorsed any candidates for District 1?
Ron O: “Geez, can’t Davis attract any normal, somewhat environmentally-minded candidates anymore?”
Ron G: “How do you define normal?”
Ron O: “And by the way, one of these guys was heavily-involved in a school board recall primarily because some didn’t like the skin color of the appointee.”
Ron O: “True, but I also don’t like most of what the racially-motivated social justice types advocate for. ”
Ron G: Thanks for answering my question.
You’re welcome.
Do you along with others on here (also) advocate dislodging someone from their appointed position, based upon skin color?
This was literally the reason provided (as reported on here), including from the person who prematurely vacated that position (and successfully attempted to dictate the skin color requirements of her replacement).
Robb Davis was involved in that campaign.
There’s a word for this type of action, and it’s (supposedly) the opposite of what those same people claim to be working against.
Perhaps Bapu should clarify what he thinks of this type of thing, as well. For that matter, ask Kelsey and Dan about it, as well. (Though this type of thinking seems to primarily arise from the type of commission that Bapu served on.)
I dislike institutionalized “approved” racism about as much as I dislike sprawl. In fact, I have a more deeply disgusted reaction regarding the former.
You’re conflating “candidates” with “appointees”… typical strategy (for some)…
It’s not a “strategy”.
Another commenter (above) had asked me what I don’t like about “social justice” types. There’s several things, right off the bat:
Their advocacy is often based upon skin color. (See school board issue.)
They’ve embraced developers (and the “free market”) to provide housing for low income people. Which simply doesn’t work, and ultimately leads to sprawl (or gentrification). And in fact, the money from development interests is actually supporting some of the politicians, in regard to their own campaigns. (Not to mention some of the so-called “College Democrats” who actually work for local development interests (e.g., Spafford and Lincoln).
Their “reframing” of “public safety” in a way that does not reflect reality (and likely increases crime in the absence of a complete overhaul of society).
Their arguments are full of inconsistencies. For example:
Their “claimed concern” regarding local contributions to climate change, while advocating for developments such as DiSC,
Their purposeful “oversight” regarding the underlying reason for “housing shortages” (again, see – DiSC for an example of that).
For some undefined reason, their lack of concern regarding the discriminatory impacts of WDAAC’s “Davis buyer’s” program.
I view people like Bapu as part of this problem, though he’s not the only one. For that matter, Kelsey apparently embraces this to some degree, as does Dan Carson (to a lesser degree).
But at least Kelsey doesn’t embrace something like DiSC (and call it “green”).
I wonder how the people who live in District 1 feel about all this, and what they think the key issues are.
The people who live in District 1 have supervisors from other districts endorsing candidates. How do they feel about that?
Who cares?
Wouldn’t surprise me if even folk that don’t live in Davis will be advocating for those who share gender, race, and/or similar views as to ‘topics’…
I too read Vaitla’s background and statements as heavily bent on social justice reform. So I viewed his candidacy with a more critical eye. I’m good with social justice reform as long as theirs an economic plan to provide the engine to pay for the reforms (and other improvements) in the city. I liked Robb Davis’ comment that mentioned Vaitla’s background and accomplishments in affordable housing funding.