It could have been a very different year in Davis. The council could have moved the ball forward on housing by pushing for one of the Measure J projects to be on the ballot in November.
That would have made a good deal of sense. The voters most likely to support housing projects—occasional voters who tend to be renters and of course students—are most likely to vote this November. That was even before the shift in the national landscape in the last week.
Instead, the council decided to put a tax measure on the ballot and they didn’t want to do anything controversial to interfere with that. Except of course they did.
The council made the decision—over the strong objections of many engaged voters in the city—to revamp the commission system. Why they chose that issue to fight it out with the voters is beyond me. Doing so in an election year is hard to fathom. Doing so in a year where they wanted to pass a revenue measure is political malpractice.
The result is that the council did everything they said they wanted to avoid by putting off the housing proposals until 2025—except worse. They did so on an issue that is at most secondary and at worst periphery.
But it’s actually a good deal worse than that, because what they did makes it a lot less likely that a Measure J project can pass a vote of the people. In both 2005 and 2009, the city council ran Measure J votes in special elections—both got blown out by the voters because it was mainly the engaged population voting and most of those tend to be anti-housing. Moreover, it is easier to motivate angry voters—voters angry about a project—than motivate people who have nominal support for a project.
After 2009, the council did not put another Measure J measure on the ballot until 2016 and they did them either in general elections or running in conjunction with council elections.
There was one exception to that—the 2022 DISC election which was a June election with the council in November. So between 2016 and 2020, two projects passed and two narrowly lost. In 2022, DISC got blown out. There are reasons for that, but one big one is that it was in a low turnout election.
The reality is that if you want a project to have a chance to pass, you put it on in an election where students are likely to vote and where people are motivated to vote for other measures and then check off the project down ballot.
Will Measure Q pass? I still think it will. It is a General Election where 80 percent of the voters are likely to cast their ballots. Most people are disconnected from the issues motivating opposition to the sales tax. I think they should have run it along side the Measure J election and would have had no choice.
But if you were trying to tank things, flubbing the commission issue was a good start.
It’s actually worse than this. Council also had a chance to put a Measure J amendment on the ballot. Hey—it would have been controversial. It might not have passed. But the council and city need to start this conversation.
As I have laid out many times, the city has a real problem on housing. The state is cracking down on Housing Elements and has at the same time cranked up the housing requirements.
The city has already acknowledged they will not be able to meet the 7th cycle RHNA requirements strictly with infill. (I keep pointing out that opposition to North Covell Creek wasn’t taking this into consideration). I still believe that at some point the state or a third party will take Measure J to court and get it invalidated—and that is particularly the case if the next housing project gets voted down.
The two best ways to ensure that this does not happen would have been to: (a) pass a Measure J project, and (b) pass a Measure J amendment which allows for some exemptions to Measure J projects.
The best time to have done either of those things: November 2024.
Will we get another shot for a Measure J amendment in November 2028—possibly. It might be too late. Hard to know. If we see Measure J projects voted down, someone might say enough and pull the trigger on a lawsuit.
But no, the council wanted to clear the lane for Measure Q and then fumbled the ball with the ill-advised commission fight.
So here we are—nothing on the ballot for the fall for housing, and a muddied prospect of the revenue measure passing—although given it only needs 50 percent of the vote, I still think it will. Stay tuned.
David, I wonder if you’re too close to the political action on some of these issues. What I mean is that who freakin cares about the Commissions???? Seriously, the average citizens doesn’t give a damn. Heck I interviewed for the Planning Commission and I don’t care about the Commissions structures that much. So I know the average citizen is barely aware of the Commissions. The only ones that care are the the usual highly vocal groups. It’s the same folks over most issues. You’re part of the media so you listen and report what the loud vocal and active people say about these issues. But don’t really represent the majority of Davis. The fact that most of the Council Members get re-elected fairly frequently despite vocal dissatisfaction from both sides of the housing issue is an indication of much of Davis’ indifference to heated debates by the loud and outspoken members of the community.
Here’s another example. Measure Q? It took me a while to remember what it was….and nothing in this article said what it was. You wrote this article speaking to your echo chamber of fellow politically active and vocal people/readers. Anyway, Measure Q pretty much represents what the Council is focusing on…..immediately fixing the fiscal problems in the city budget. It’s “balanced” but I’m guessing because of delayed or cut services by the city. So instead of a long term fix with a financial plan that includes significant growth (economic and residential) the Council goes with a sales tax increase because that’s an easier and ore immediate path to more city revenue than increasing business in the city.
The point isn’t who cares about commissions – the point is *who* cares about commissions? Part of my point in this article is that the issue itself was inconsequential. But now you have people who have generally supported things like revenue measures, actively working against them. As I pointed out, 50 percent is a low barrier, but in the meantime, the city is not addressing more consequential issues. They picked a needless fight. Meantime, they are not moving the ball at all on housing.
“The point isn’t who cares about commissions – the point is *who* cares about commissions? Part of my point in this article is that the issue itself was inconsequential.”
I thought your point was that the Commissions issue possibly interfered with the more important housing issue.
“But now you have people who have generally supported things like revenue measures, actively working against them.”
Again, these are the same loud vocal folks who are loud and vocal about every local issue.
“meantime, the city is not addressing more consequential issues. They picked a needless fight. Meantime, they are not moving the ball at all on housing.”
No, again the for the most part the Council members keep getting re-elected so they’re not worried about the loud vocal fringe in Davis. The Council has simply prioritized immediate fiscal matters over housing at the ballot box. I’ve criticized that the Council is taking the short term easy way out in fixing the fiscal problems. But that’s another (more important than housing) debate.
Website Note: This article came out just yesterday. Yet it was nowhere to be found (at least I couldn’t easily find it) on the front page. Nor could I find easily accessible recent comments to find your comment.
“I thought your point was that the Commissions issue possibly interfered with the more important housing issue. ”
That wasn’t my intentioned point. For me the issue of Commissions is incidental to the housing issue. It interferes with the stated preference of the council to clear the way for their revenue measure.
How does the Commission issue interfere??? Are you saying that the loud vocal fringe in Davis really matter that much? Again, most of Davis don’t know anything about the Commissions nor care about them. Most people care about getting stuff done in the city (roads, parks…rec services..etc…). That takes money. So the Council prioritized fiscal matters and not housing at the ballot box. It has nothing to do with the silly Commissions issue that only same loud vocal fringe care about.
I think having opposition to campaigns matter. It may or may not be decisive. The stated goal of the council was to clear the path for the revenue measure, therefore they didn’t want a land use issue to compete, but instead they created an unnecessary problem.
“I think having opposition to campaigns matter. It may or may not be decisive.”
When did the Commissions issue become a ballot campaign issue?
“The stated goal of the council was to clear the path for the revenue measure, therefore they didn’t want a land use issue to compete, but instead they created an unnecessary problem.”
Well, they did what the said they were going to do. I didn’t contest the housing issue being sidelined for fiscal issues. I contested the Commissions issue having anything to do with this.
Related but aside from our conversation: I will say that I would prefer that new taxes have a shelf life. To me they’re usually band-aids to fix fiscal problems. The long term solutions are further economic development. But granting new taxes with indefinite terms does not incentivize or even remind the leaders and people that long term fiscal and economic solutions need to be created and implemented. These taxes impact everybody; especially the lower socio-economic classes. Just off the top off my head the school parcel tax adds about $60 bucks a month to rent….cause Land Lords don’t just absorb that parcel tax expense themselves. That’s a huge addition to the cost of housing in Davis. I’m not saying that the schools don’t need that parcel tax. But I don’t think the schools should be resigned to the fact that they need that source of funding indefinitely. I’ve said before it’s like having an adult kid that is into world saving volunteer work but keeps asking you to pay their rent. After a while you want that kid to at least have a plan for how they’re going to pay their own rent.
Keith is on target when he says”who freakin cares about the Commissions.” That is true even for the people like myself who have historically served on one or more of the Commissions.
I believe the reasons and evidence for that are very simple:
(1) The current Council, and Councils before this one, have established a pattern of not listening to the advice the Commissions have given them. The most glaring example being the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation on the renovation of University Mall. That has resulted in the current situation where …
(2) No one (almost) is currently applying for positions on the Commissions. That is especially true for the people who have actually served in the past.
(3) If you look at what the City Council has actually accomplished over the recent years, the list is so small it is close to nothing at all.
(4) The voters in Davis really don’t have any burning desire for the Council to actually do anything beyond providing basic services … such as maintaining the roads and providing public safety.
(5) The Council is out of touch with reality. For example, the arguments for the Tax Measure begin with a statement “Measure Q is critical for the health, safety, and financial stability of Davis. While our community has grown and costs have increased, revenue for city services haven’t kept pace.” When you look at the history of inflation and the history of City revenues the “out of touch with reality” is clear
Year . . . . . . Inflation . . . Increase in City Revenues
2014 . . . . . 0.8% . . . . . . . . 4.5%
2015 . . . . . 0.7% . . . . . . . . -1.1%
2016 . . . . . 2.1% . . . . . . . . 5.0%
2017 . . . . . 2.1% . . . . . . . . 6.3%
2018 . . . . . 1.9% . . . . . . . . 3.4%
2019 . . . . . 2.3% . . . . . . . . 14.5%
2020 . . . . . 1.4% . . . . . . . . -7.0%
2021 . . . . . 7.0% . . . . . . . . 10.2%
The comparison stops at 2021 because that is the last year where the City has published an audited financial statement. The compound annual rate of increase in City Revenues from 2014 through 2021 is 4.3%. The compound rate of Inflation for that same period is 2.4%. Only in the City Council’s reality is a City revenues increase of 4.3% not keeping pace with a costs increase of 2.4%.
Matt,
Help me out here with your analysis.
Are you saying that city revenues have gone up 4.5% since 2014?
How much has the city grown (and by extension incurred additional expenses) since then?
I’m surprised if city revenues are up. If you look around downtown; commercial retail is certainly down. In what areas has the city’s revenue grown? Is sales tax revenue up or down? Have their been new taxes since 2014?
I guess I’m asking is the revenue growth you describe due to economic development and growth or new taxes?
Keith, that is a compounded annual rate of 4.5%. The beginning to end increase from 2012 to 2021 is $30,167,000 on a starting annual revenue of $61,823,000 … a single step increase of just under 48.8%
During that 10 year period the beginning Census for the City was 65,622 and the ending Census was 66,850. That is a compounded annual population growth rate of 0.2%.
New tax revenues added came in 2014 with an increase of the Sales Tax rate from 0.5% to 1.0%, and in 2016 with the Cannabis Tax, and also in 2016 an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax from 10% to 12%.
It is worth noting that the City’s revenues from the Enterprise Fund Utilities Rates rose from $40,104,000 to $65,710,000, which is a compounded annual growth rate of over 5.6%.
The revenue growth definitely wasn’t due to expansion of economic development. During that time economic development was non-existent, if not negative.
So could the increase in revenue come reassessment of properties and property tax (of which the city gets a fraction)? So as property values continue to go up; city property tax revenue goes up?
Keith, there are a blend of reasons, but the bottom line is that the Ballot Argument For the Sales Tax Increase fails fact checking … fails it badly.
If you can’t trust the leaders of our government to write a factually accurate (honest?) ballot argument, can you trust them to spend the tax money wisely?
“but the bottom line is that the Ballot Argument For the Sales Tax Increase fails fact checking … fails it badly.”
Well, I’m going to assume your assessment about pay and everything is correct and there’s been some bad spending. Can you suggest any cuts to the budget? Because I don’t know enough about it; so I’m going to assume that lots of these raises in expenses (that shouldn’t have been added in the first place) like salary increases and fire trucks and such are already on going expenses…..so it’s like toothpaste that can’t be put back in the tube. So at least at this point; the expenses are the expenses (aside from new ones). I’m also assuming that the sales tax increase is the only IMMEDIATE way to address the expenses….to pay for things in the city. I’m not happy about it. But is it absolutely necessary to pay for things? What services are on the chopping block if we don’t approve the sales tax? Of course this is all a result of zero economic planning and 0 economic development. But at this point it doesn’t matter…I suspect the city has to pay it’s bills and IMMEDIATE tax revenue is the solution.