by Scott Steward
I hope District 1 voters agree that Dan Carson has not earned a second term on the City Council.
If you were for a Davis Innovation and Sustainability Center (Measure H), then you should know Dan Carson’s lawsuit, against fellow Davis residents opposed to Measure H, (a lawsuit which Carson technically lost), was such an obvious attack on Davis civil engagement that the lawsuit alone sunk Measure H.
If you were for Davis energy independence, then you should know that Dan Carson led the closed door effort to allow BrightNight to control Davis land rights for $50,000 dollars a year, when the solar project lifetime electricity value for the site was estimated to 
be $120 million. No one, including Dan Carson, Brett Lee or any city employee examining deal had commercial solar development experience.
The Davis Utility Commission voted (5 to 2) to have the City walk away from the BrightNight deal. Davis solar and energy experts condemned the decision. Public pleas to rescind were ignored and publicly rebuked by Dan Carson. (Davis Enterprise April 21, 2020)
The solar BrightNight fiasco and the Measure H lawsuit have caused much spilled ink, lawyer fees, and lost opportunity. Dan Carson’s actions invoked the unprecedented condemnation of seven former Mayors: Krovoza, Davis, Corbett, Greenwald, Wagstaff, Evans, and Kopper. (Davis Enterprise April 27, 2020 and May 18, 2022)
Carson continues to insist that his experience, as a former Budget Analyst for the State of California, should pave the way for all to accept his good judgment. Except the record shows, Dan Carson does not have good judgment and does not respect shared decision making.
It’s time for District 1 to have a different representative. Candidates Kelsey Fortune and Bapu Vaitla are excellent candidates. Please don’t vote for Carson.
I’m surprised that there have been no comments on this post.
I would agree that the lawsuit over the ballot statements was a “bad idea” especially in hindsight as the optics were terrible.
But I HAVE to step up to comment that the lawsuit itself was just, if not necessary.
With public referenda kind of elections we are asking the voters to make an objective decision based on the merits of the issue. They CANNOT make good decisions when the debate is flooded by dis-information. The nicest way to state it is that the NO campaign statement “took liberties with the truth” The court required a correction for some statements and allowed a lot of other statements to remain on the basis of free speech, even though the court noted they were ‘deliberately mis-leading’
We CANNOT have a system where campaigns can just make up the truth as they see fit. Thats bad for democracy and kills any ability for voters to make good decisions.
Even though the No side feels they prevailed in that lawsuit ( which is debatable) I hope that the lawsuit will cause them to be more careful about their claims and stick to the truth more closely in the future. To THAT extent, the lawsuit was a good thing. speaking truth NEEDS to matter.. else our system just doesn’t work.
The statement that the lawsuit was an attack on civil engagement is utter nonsense. If you want to get involved in politics, make your case, tell the truth, let the voters decide based on that truth.
I will agree that Dan shouldn’t have been the face of that lawsuit, but I have to admit. I have a soft spot for people who are willing to stick up for the truth – even when it is unpopular or might hurt them. Alexander Vindman and Liz Cheeney both come to mind.
The “No” side didn’t have the money needed to challenge the “Yes” side’s ballot statements.
Let alone the funds to subsequently “pay” the “Yes” side’s legal fees – had they lost (as the “Yes” side did).
I’d suggest that the development activists try the same thing again, next time. 🙂
Maybe they can recruit Bapu, by then. Or Gloria. Or both.
(Take your pick – they’re all the same.)
Eh, the politically stupid thing Carson did was sue for legal fees. Yeah, it was his right to do so. But that doesn’t make it the smart thing to do politically.
Ron,
“Don’t hate the player, hate the game”. If the only way to challenge statements in a voting document is through the courts; then that’s the game you have to play. If you don’t like it; change the rules (I dunno, maybe a free state assigned arbiter….maybe some local legal clerk intern).
I’ve got no complaints regarding the “result”, though I suspect it would have lost anyway.
But I wasn’t personally named in the lawsuit (or whatever it was officially called). I’m not sure I care enough about saving Davis to expose myself to that, even if I was qualified to sign.
Thanks to those who had the cajones to see it through. And that includes those with female cajones.
I was previously unaware of this controversy. This just adds more fuel to the fire to not vote for Carson.