On Saturday, I wrote my column arguing that Measure Q is in fact a sideshow.
With respect to the issue of the city budget, I argue: “Measure Q will plug a temporary hole in the budget, but at the end of the day, it is really a temporary fix or a band-aid. So as far as I am concerned—take it or leave it.”
Then I add: “The sales tax is a symptom of a much larger problem anyway—the failure of the city council AND the community to plan.”
Critical here is that I put blame both on the council but also the community.
In a comment, Don Shor posted a very good response (in my view) which I paste in its entirety:
At this point, David, I don’t know what you think the city council is supposed to do. The voters have rejected business parks. The city doesn’t build retail. Zoning changes are fine, but unlikely to make much difference.
There is no site in the current city limits for a large retail store, except if someone wants to repurpose one of the moribund shopping centers. That won’t happen. No sane developer wants to run that gauntlet, especially after what happened with the U Mall. Nobody’s building large retail stores now anyway, nobody’s building malls.
The city doesn’t control or have any influence over the steady erosion of retail downtown and the changeover to food service there.
“It’s going to take leadership” is actually just a platitude.
Hardly anybody is “angry” with the city.
Very few people care about the commissions.
Two council members weren’t even challenged for re-election. And, for the record, I’m very happy with the one that represents the council district where my business is located. Great constituent service, thoughtful, does her homework.
Apparently, the residents of Davis prefer higher taxes to economic development. Evidently, they perceive the costs of economic development (traffic etc.) to be worse than having to do an occasional run up to Woodland. In fact, Davis residents apparently are fine doing some of their major shopping in Woodland, just as they’ve done for the 50 years that I’ve been here.
I would point out that in most of California, a ten-mile drive along an uncrowded county road to shop nearby would be considered perfectly normal. Actually, it would be considered quite pleasant.
So putting a revenue measure on the ballot is actually a responsible and reasonable thing to do. The city’s budget needs it, the residents likely have no stomach for the service cuts that would otherwise be required.
Tell you what: you write the speech that you think a council candidate should give with respect to all of this. Then we can evaluate why that speech isn’t being given.
I think there is a lot of truth in what Don Shor writes.
First, he asks “I don’t know what you think the city council is supposed to do.”
I agree with that point. The voters have rejected several alternatives to taxes. To be fair, my piece really puts as much on the community as the council here. I will come back to this point at the end.
Second, very few people are actually angry with the city.
This is what the opponents of Measure J are arguing:
The problem with their argument is that very few people are in fact likely to be angry enough with the city to vote no on the modest tax measure. The city polled about 70 percent support last fall for a tax measure in concept, and I have a hard time seeing it go down to be honest.
Third, Don Shor also notes, “Two council members weren’t even challenged for re-election.”
The Vanguard has made this point at least in two commentaries in the past few months. The only contested election is the one where there is a vacancy, and neither incumbent is being challenged. That generally means… people are not unhappy.
I think the question is: should they be?
The people that pay attention to this stuff, I think, are unhappy to some extent. There are those who are very angry with the council, who believe they do not represent the people (again even though the council is not being challenged on the ballot) and then there are those who are more frustrated with the community for failing to approve things like housing and innovation centers.
The large mass of people are largely disengaged. You can call it the bedroom community effect if you want, but basically they work in Sacramento or the Bay Area, they may have kids and you see them at soccer games and other sporting events, but they aren’t closely following things.
They may be frustrated at home prices, but most people who are most affected actually can’t afford to live in Davis to begin with, so they really aren’t players in all of this.
Are the people in the middle who are mostly content correct about things? I don’t think so.
So we get back to the initial point—what should the council do differently? My argument would that there is a disconnect between the perception of the majority in the community and reality. The most apt analogy is to the climate change problem—for so long, the climate crisis was mounting but people did not perceive it or could argue/explain it away.
The worst problems to have are a slow boiling crisis. It’s the frog in boiling water analogy. By the time you realize there is a problem in a slow moving crisis, it is too late to do anything about it. Whereas with the immediate crisis you instantly know there is a problem.
I don’t think the community is sustainable on its current trajectory. What the leaders in this community need to do—not just the council—is educate the public on the problem and how it will impact them.
Why won’t the council do it? Because it is not in the individual councilmember’s best interests to convince the public that there is a problem. Much better to get reelected with no opposition.
So that’s where we are.
David Greenwald said … “I don’t think the community is sustainable on its current trajectory.”
The problem with the above statement is that it is as “empty” as the RFK Jr. presidential campaign. “Sustainable” has largely become a Pillsbury Doughboy expression. It has an almost infinite variety of meanings to the the people who use it. So my question to David, and anyone else who chooses to reply, is “What does sustainable look like to you?”
David Greenwald said … “What the leaders in this community need to do – not just the council – is educate the public on the problem and how it will impact them.”
Here I agree with what David has said, but once again he uses a Pillsbury Doughboy expression … “the problem.” The challenge that exists when using that expression is that it is so context dependent. How a person sees “the problem” depends on what their Vision is for the City and/or the community. It would be helpful if the City had a Vision for what it wants to be in the coming years, but no such Vision exists … and if you stopped 1,000 people on the streets of Davis and asked them what they want Davis to be in the coming years you wouldn’t get any consistency, or even pattern in the answers.
Every time someone points out the results history of Council elections … and I personally ran for Council in 2016 on the campaign platform that “We have to pay our bills!” … the first thing that comes to mind is the question “What has City Council actually accomplished in the past 12 years?” I asked that of a colleague not too long ago and the response was “Nothing … all they do is fight fires.” If a voter expects the person they vote for to not actually accomplish anything, then why are they voting … or what are they voting for?
Don Shor’s description of his Councilmember “And, for the record, I’m very happy with the one that represents the council district where my business is located. Great constituent service, thoughtful, does her homework.” epitomizes what we expect from our Council. We expect them to react to individual situations, and for the most part, because they are good people stepping up to volunteer their time in public service, they fit Don’s description.
But having/establishing a Vision for the City/community is not reactive in nature. It is proactive.
Perhaps the first step in “educating the public on the problem and how it will impact them” should be for our leaders to clearly state what their Vision is for what they personally want Davis to be in the coming years. Right now, none of us know what each of our Councilmembers sees that Vision to be. But as David correctly points out, leadership doesn’t come solely from City Council. We all should take the time to personally assess and decide what we want Davis to be in the coming years. We should give that enough thought so that if stopped on the street and asked, we can share it easily and succinctly.
If we are going to have economic development in this community it should be in support of a Vision. Nishi 2016 had and clearly articulated just such an economic development vision. That is why I supported it. DiSC 2020 had no economic development vision. It had a real estate upzoning vision, but had lost its anchor tenant as they fiddled while Rome burned. DiSC 2022 was even worse. The developer conducted no educational sessions to let the voters (and possible future tenants) know what they had in mind other than garnering entitlements. The educational effort for DiSC 2022 was limited to Dan Carson’s pronouncements to the community, and that was reactive rather than proactive.
Measure Q, the sales tax increase, is simply a bailout for the poor governance of the past. I allows City Council to kick the can down the road for several more years. That does nobody any good.
The truth about revenues is that in 2012 the City’s Governmental Services revenues were $61.8 million and in 2021 they were $92.0 million. That is a $30.2 million (49%) increase, which amounts to a 4.5% increase each and every year between 2012 and 2021. How is it that our City government can’t pay its bills when it gets a 4.5% “raise” in its income each year? The 4.5% increase in the second year meant the increase was 9.0% over the starting year in year two, and reached a 49% increase over 2012 in 2021.
What makes that 4.5% revenue increase even more meaningful is that the average annual rate of Inflation over the same period was 2.3%. That costs were growing slower than revenues were growing. Unfortunately, that isn’t the story the City Council is telling the voters. A Fact Checking organization would call that “pants on fire.”
The annual State of the City report by the mayor and city manager shows what they spend much of their time on, other than “fighting fires.”
This is the minutiae of governance. When I see that someone wants a Vision, I just see more dollars going to consultants, more use of staff time, and more planning, and more delays.
2024:
Launching – General Plan Update
Adopted – Downtown Plan
Adopted – Climate Action & Adaptation Plan
Adopted – Urban Forest Master Plan
Adopted – Open Space Master Plan
Adopted – Housing Element (Certified)
Adopted – EV Charging and Fleet Plan
Adopted – Parks & Urban Forestry Water Management Plan
Adopted – Police Department Strategic Plan
In development –
Homelessness Strategic Plan
Parks Needs Assessment & Master Plan
Council approves $25 -30 million in capital improvement projects each year. They have reviewed development proposals to go on the ballot. And they do the ceremonial things that matter to certain civic groups.
It really doesn’t matter if you have a Vision for the city unless your Vision involves collaboration with the property owners, the development teams, and the local stakeholders. The first two groups are always conspicuously missing from these discussions. All they need to know is whether the Davis requirements derived from your Vision will render any development proposal unfeasible from a ROI and financing standpoint.
Don, the problem with your listed plans is that they are just words on paper. If you asked all the 65,000 Davis residents what is in those Plan documents, very very few of the 65,000 would be able to do so. During one of the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee meetings, the City’s Planning Consultant was asked how the Plan would be implemented. Her answer was that the \Plan’s binder would be put on a shelf and stay there never to be actually used/implemented.
Plans without Vision are like the following directions … (1) exit the Redwood Barn parking lot and turn left on 5th Street, (2) follow 5th Street to Alhambra and turn right, (3) follow Alhambra to Mace Blvd and turn right, (4) follow Mace Blvd to the I-80 on-ramp and follow the ramp until you merge onto I-80, (5) follow I-80 for 30 miles and take the exit.
With those directions (that plan) where are you when you exit I-80?
You are now driving into oncoming traffic. Your car will be totaled along with your metaphor.
Maybe it would be easier if you could explain how the city (staff? council?) or someone else (you? some citizens’ group?) are going to define and articulate this Vision-with-a-capital-V and somehow implement it.
You asked what the city council had done in the last twelve years. I said, a lot of planning. Not to mention, of course, spending a lot of money on infrastructure, as well as on employees. I don’t know how you achieve a vision and implement it without a lot of planning. The Brown Act and a gauntlet of commissions inevitably slows down any progress.
My point is that councils and interested citizens and commissions don’t actually build anything.
My suggestion would be to get out of the way of our new Economic Development Director and let her do her job. There are a lot of vacancies to fill. I really think most of what you seem to be proposing will lead to more talk and less action.
Don, I turn left out of your parking lot regularly … far more often than I turn right. The median barrier ends in the middle of the Davis Media Access building to the right of your driveway, so crossing the westbound lane of traffic and then turning left is very easy. There is even a protected center lane between the westbound and eastbound traffic lanes.
It sounds like your mind is having you go out the entrance against the flow of traffic rather than following the driveway around to its logical conclusion.
Regarding Vision you appear to be confusing “where do we want to go” with “how do we want to get there.” It would be interesting to ask the Economic Development Director where she thinks the Davis population of constituents wants Davis to go. The City Council hasn’t even articulated an answer for that question. They may have shared their thoughts with her privately, but they haven’t shown their constituents the courtesy of telling them where we are going. It is highly reminiscent of the Keystone Cops … and to circle back to my metaphor, no one knows whether we are headed east toward Roseville or west toward Fairfield.
The answer to the Where are you? question above is you are either on Douglas Blvd in Roseville or Travis Blvd in Fairfield.
Bottom-line, unless you start your trip by setting your vision about where you want to go you are very likely to end up lost.
I agree with Matt’s assessment of the situation (although I believe there is more coherence around what the community envisions for Davis–but they have cognitive dissonance about what it will take to accomplish it.)
As for Don’s list, the problem is that either these decisions took so long as to lose the momentum to carry them out effectively or they were so watered down as to be ineffective. I’m most familiar with the CAAP when each of the measures that would have large effects with effective enforcement mechanisms were turned into “voluntary” efforts, and many staff projects with little effect on emissions rose to the top of the pile. The tortuous Housing Element process has been well documented and is another example of kicking the can down the road. The EV Charging Plan was so delayed that the ripe opportunity slipped by and now it’s probably not appropriate. The Urban Forest Plan took years and the City lost the key staff needed to implement the plan. Meanwhile the Council (not there fault) has a draft Parking Lot Share ordinance that would formally add solar panels to the list of acceptable solutions that has been in the works for 7 (seven) years!. The Downtown Plan took too many years and it’s not clear what is now the feasible post pandemic. A General Plan Update is largely a waste of time and will be frustrating for citizens without first developing a vision of what we want Davis to do in the future.