Davis, CA – Barring something truly unexpected Measure Q is going to pass by a comfortable margin. That’s twice this year that community members have attempted to send a message by defeating a tax measure – but come up well short.
In the spring, it was a largely separate group or groups of folks, who attempted to send a message to the school district. Needing a two-thirds margin in order to pass the measure, the effort largely fell short and the parcel tax passed.
Because Measure Q only required a bare majority to pass, it always seemed like this was an uphill battle. You had to fight against tendencies in a community like Davis to pass tax measures. You had a tax measure that frankly wasn’t going to be a hard hit on most people’s pocket books. And in a presidential election there was going to be a huge turnout meaning that you had to convince people who don’t follow city issues that a one-percent sales tax increase was a bad idea.
On some levels, I suspect that the folks opposing the tax knew that this was a tough lift and they simply wanted to raise concerns they had about the leadership in the city.
In some ways they succeeded. There were long and contentious debates over Nextdoor. Measure Q seemed to push the council election in District 2 into the background.
At the end of the day, I’m not sure what they accomplished.
They started out with a core argument that the council is out of touch with the community.
But is it? Not only did 62 percent of the community back the tax measure, there really is no sign of discontentment in most of the public. After all, two of the three council districts the incumbent ran unopposed and in the third, probably the candidate considered most establishment is the one that prevailed – relatively easily.
That led one person I talked with yesterday to speculate maybe it’s not the council that is the one out of touch with the community.
Indeed I think there will be a tendency to write off the opposition as the portion of the community that is angry, locked out of power for the most part, therefore forced to wage these sort of proxy wars to undermine the county leadership.
That has occurred most notably on growth issues. It has been well over a decade since a truly slow growther has won a seat on council. That prospect is further diminished by the nature of district elections and it’s single member, winner-takes-all formula.
The opposition in this town seems to be able to block land use projects, but not much else. That fact could set up an epic battle next spring when one of the Measure J projects comes to a vote and opponents will be geared up to block it despite potential threats from the state if they succeed.
While it is tempting to write this off as a failed revolt of the vocal minority, I offer here another perspective that I don’t believe that the opponents of Measure Q were altogether wrong.
I’ve said it many times, but I question the wisdom of exclusively prioritizing a revenue measure when there were other serious issues that need to be tackled. They compounded that mistake with the ill-advised move on the commissions – and people can write that off all they want – the core of opposition to Measure Q was based on their anger over the commission decision and the process by which it took place.
I also remain very concerned about the state of the city’s finances. A decade and a half ago the Vanguard was leading the charge on this issue. Concerns about compensation increases that seemed out of whack, pensions, and unfunded infrastructure were of great concern. Those problems persist.
But part of the problem that the city faces is that it has to compete with other communities in the region for quality employees, and during a time of both inflation and the housing crisis driving up housing costs, that’s going to put a lot of pressure on the city’s finances.
Measure Q was never going solve this problem, but $11 million a year is a helluva band-aid.
As we have been arguing for over a decade now, the city’s retail base is below par for a community its size. Our analysis from 2015 showed the city lagging in per capita sales tax. The fact that a one-percent sales tax increase buys Daivs $11 million annually but buys the smaller West Sacramento $20 million is a sobering fact.
The city’s economic development plans have largely been thwarted by the loss of Rob White also well the failure of three economic development projects in 2016, 2020 and 2022.
The city will attempt to reboot that through the Downtown Plan and the hiring of a new economic development director, but the problems that led to the failures of the plans that emerged from 2010 to 2014, remain squarely in place.
So it’s not that I think the opposition to Measure Q was wrong, it’s simply in the end, I thought the defeat of Measure Q would make things worse rather than better.
But yes, at the end of the day, the criticism of lack of leadership on council continue to resonate with me and I remain concerned about the city’s long-term fiscal sustainability as well as issues of housing, affordable housing, and homelessness.
We have a lot of challenges and not one of them was solved at the last ballot box.
This was a resounding victory for the council and reflects their good judgment. Had they gone with a tax for a specified purpose, it would have failed.
Councilmembers such as Donna Neville were patient and polite as they argued on social media for the passage. The opposition was shrill and made the mistake, once again, of attacking popular incumbents.
The margin was higher than I expected, and that’s partly due to the very poorly conceived opposition campaign and the whole tone of their commentary. Basically there’s several people who have just guaranteed that they won’t have a place at the table going forward.
With this now behind them, the council can turn to other issues. I think it’s safe to say that housing, and hopefully economic development, will be their next focus.
“Basically there’s several people who have just guaranteed that they won’t have a place at the table going forward.”
Says you. I’ll bet there’s “several people” who beg to differ.
That’s just your personal opinion Keith with zero to back it up.
Walter, why didn’t you say the same thing to Don Shor?
I actually feel like you may have misread or misinterpreted Don’s point. I think he’s suggesting that the folks who opposed Q have burned some bridges and that may make it more difficult to be part of the process going forward. I’m not sure that’s a good idea but I’m also not sure Don’s wrong about that.
But is that not Don’s personal opinion?
Most of what is said here are people’s personal opinions, even if they are filtered through quotes.
Therefor my comment to Walter.
David, follow the thread. Why are you making this difficult?
You made the initial response to Don which is what I’m reacting to. You’re worried about Walter, but this started with your comment.
David, you confused this thread by replying to the wrong comment by Keith. Keith has a very good point there that Walter is being selective and holding 2 different standards, giving Don a pass, but not Keith. You need to go up 2 levels to reply to Keith’s initial comment.
I agree more with Keith than Don. The fact is that several of the “opponents” are already conversing with City staff and representatives about moving forward on certain issues. I think Don is misreading the supposedly “shrill” nature of the opposition. They stated their case strongly, and they did concede points simply because someone stated the opposite position. They demanded evidence which is part of pushing for transparency. Rather than being shut out, I think the more likely outcome is greater transparency thanks to the outcry.
The initial opposition was from people who did not live in Davis and belonged to a cohort in Yolo County that opposes all tax measures as a rule. People from Davis who jumped on the campaign seemed to be part of a group that opposes all efforts or ideas improve or making any change to Davis – mainly land planning issues, but opposition has spread beyond that. Their complaints of fiscal mismanagement reached back decades with no real ideas suggested on how to now improve services or how to repair or replace aging or deteriorating infrastructure. The arguments to withhold needed funding made no sense. It is my feeling that this practice of obstruction over decades by essentially the same people has harmed Davis and we are suffering the consequences with with housing too expensive for families or young working individuals or couples, declining enrollment in schools, struggling businesses, struggling families, deteriorating and/or unsafe physical infrastructure. I would like to see more parks/public works employees hired and a restoration of park maintenance practices (watering, fertilizing, reseeding, weed control, replanting, cleaning) that have been curtailed over many years. I would like to see regular and frequent cleaning of downtown sidewalks and streets. I would like to see the respite center re-located and change how it operates so that it doesn’t attract crime and unsafe conditions affecting neighbors. (I don’t want a community where it is too dangerous for children to play in their front yards.) I would like to see potholes and cracks at least filled as a temporary measure. None of this can happen by withholding funding. The arguments and complaints may be valid but didn’t provide a solution.
I want the things you want. Let’s hope our pennies are responsibly spent on actual roads, parks and public works. First step will be a transparent budget reported on a quarterly basis. Yes, hire more city
staff and fund public improvements. But don’t send our pennies down an opaque rabbit hole. I’d gladly give extra if I have confidence it will be well used.
Sharla
Apparently do not who led the opposition. The five who signed the ballot statement are all former City commissioners who reside inside Davis. And at least two of them have been the chairs of committees to raise taxes in Davis in the past. They clearly were not opposing this because they are knee jerk opponents to any tax increase. They are concerned citizens asking for transparency, responsibility and accountability. As a former City commissioner myself, I have found that these aspects have declined over the last decade and this is a problem that is heading us for fiscal and economic adversity. We’re already seeing it in how Davis generates half the sales tax revenue that West Sac does. That’s the result of a series of poor decisions over the last three decades. Focusing solely on the short run fiscal effects obscures the bigger problem that City leaders don’t seem to want to discuss frankly with citizens.
As I pointed out back in September –
“Jeff Boone came out in support of Moms for Liberty and Riley Gaines when she came to town and declared Davis as “the epicenter of darkness”
Mark Mezger lives in Woodland and is apparently a member of the Yolo Taxpayers Association (per his Facebook page) – an organization that has opposed every tax since forever.”
The rest seemed angry with the Council about the commission changes.
I couldn’t see why withholding needed funds would improve things in our community.
“As I pointed out back in September –
“Jeff Boone came out in support of Moms for Liberty and Riley Gaines when she came to town and declared Davis as “the epicenter of darkness”
I don’t understand what anyone’s support of M4L or Riley Gaines has anything to do with the tax measure.
Boone is anti-tax conservative.
“Boone is anti-tax conservative.”
So? Walter, are you a pro tax liberal?
Is Measure Q a tax measure or not Keith Olsen?
“Is Measure Q a tax measure or not Keith Olsen?”
What are you talking about Walter?
Notice the word “tax” in Measure Q and in David’s article.
Davis Measure Q was on the ballot as a referral in Davis on November 5, 2024. It was approved.
A “yes” vote supported adopting the City of Davis’s ordinance to establish a 1¢ sales tax generating $11 million annually for essential services, including public safety, infrastructure, and homelessness, with audits, public disclosure, and all funds staying local until repealed by voters.
A “no” vote opposed adopting the City of Davis’s ordinance to establish a 1¢ sales tax generating $11 million annually for essential services, including public safety, infrastructure, and homelessness, with audits, public disclosure, and all funds staying local until repealed by voters.
https://ballotpedia.org/Davis,_California,_Measure_Q,_Essential_Services_Measure_(November_2024)
Sheesh, I give up.
David Greenwald said … “They started out with a core argument that the council is out of touch with the community.”
As one of the people whom put together the “core argument” I couldn’t disagree with you more David. By seeing it that way you are expanding the No on Q opposition to include the kerfuffle about the Commission realignment, which was a separate issue. Jeff Boone and Mike Metzger couldn’t have cared less about the Commission realignment, and in assembling the Ballot statements the Issue of the Council being out of touch wasn’t an important message … in fact we all agreed that bringing that tangential conflict forward into the Measure Q arguments would only muddle the message, which was centered around accumulated fiscal liability, fiscal responsibility and fiscal planning.
Further, we all knew that the current Council (regardless of whether they were out of touch with the populace or not) was not solely responsible for the events that have resulted in (A) the over $450 million of unfunded liabilities, (B) the lack of a financial plan for addressing those unfunded liabilities, (C) the consistent and continual deterioration of the City’s streets and infrastructure, (D) the lack of any Economic Development Plan, (E) the fact that in the last 20 years the Davis job market has stagnated, (F) the fact that the current General Plan has been out of compliance with California State law for well over a decade. Those are issues that have deep roots in past City Councils. Yes, the current City Council did put forward a Measure that only addresses one third of the financial problems. Yes, the current Council has hidden from the citizens and taxpayers the fact that the City is close to three years behind on completing audited financial statements, but those, while clearly problematic, are only the current symptoms of a long standing problem.
There was really only one member of the No on Q core team who possibly wants to jump back into a seat at the table. For the rest, that isn’t a consideration. The campaign accomplished (most of) what it set out to do. It raised considerably the awareness of the voters of just how dire the City’s financial situation is. It also caused some important previously unknown information to surface as citizens began talking to one another. The very negative 2016 CalPERS Audit Report was one of those things, where CalPERS documented the following .
The Office of Audit Services (OAS) noted the following findings and observation during the review. Details are noted in the Results section beginning on page three of this report.
• Pay schedule did not meet all of the Government Code and CCR requirements.
• Special compensation was not reported in accordance with the Government Code and CCR.
• Reported payrate exceeded maximum listed on the pay schedule.
• Enrollment and compensation reporting was not in accordance with the Government Code.
• Council member was incorrectly enrolled.
• Retired annuitants’ employment did not comply with all Government Code requirements.
• Eligible employees were not enrolled as required.
• Scheduled work hours were incorrectly reported.
• Member reciprocal self-certification was not maintained.
• Observation: Agency records did not agree with my|CalPERS information.
OAS recommends the Agency comply with applicable sections of the Government Code, PEPRA, CCR and its contract with CalPERS. We also recommend the Agency work with the appropriate CalPERS divisions to resolve issues identified in
this report.
That is not an audit finding that inspires confidence, and the City shoukdn’t be hiding it.
Regarding the vote, I have heard three interesting observations since the results were posted. The first was that Measure T got over 72% “yes” votes and Measure Q got 62%. That says close to 2,000 people split their vote on those two Measures … someone was listening. The second was that Davis is a bedroom community where well over 50% of the residents who are registered to vote are either current government employees or retired government employees. That makes the default vote on taxes in Davis a “Yes” rather than a “No” By comparison, in Woodland where there is less government “connection” the default vote on taxes appears to be “No” It might be called a “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” situation. The third was that the voter turnout from the reported votes for both Measure QA and Measure T is thus far 47%. That exceeds the turnout percentage in the District 2 Council race, the West Sac and Woodland tax Measdures, and even the Presidential vote. Clearly people were paying attention.
Wait, you’re saying there’s a greater portion of voters that are city workers in Davis than in other cities? I’d assume that most that work in Davis for the government are either affiliated with UCD or the State government in Sacramento.
“The campaign accomplished (most of) what it set out to do. It raised considerably the awareness of the voters of just how dire the City’s financial situation is.”
Well that’s good. But I’d like to see this brought to the voters attention….and not in a “lets balance the budget cause it’s the right thing to do” sort of way.
Someone needs to convince the public that shopping centers, business parks and the housing on the periphery is what is needed to fund the city. How that is done, integrated, well planned…etc.. That’s up to the people and the city…..as long as it’s not a prohibitive process (that’s up to the city leaders).
No Keith that is not what I am saying. Not workers for the City of Davis government, but rather workers for any level of government.
Regarding your comment, Someone needs to convince the public that shopping centers, business parks and the housing on the periphery is what is needed to fund the city.” I believe you are putting the cart before the horse. Those actions are logical if what the community wants to be in 5 years, 10 years, and 20 years is something different than what Davis currently is … a bedroom community for current and retired government workers. If Davis decides it doesn’t want to embrace change, it doesn’t need the things you have described, because successful implementation of all those things would bring about change.
Davis has not had a conversation about what it wants to be … and even more importantly what the consequences are of the various alternative options. That community discussion is long overdue.
Keith, I grabbed the most recent US Census report for the residents of the City of Davis … it is for 2021. They report that Davis residents currently have 24,819 jobs, which fall into the following categories:
Government jobs = 12,018 (48.4%)
Management of Companies and Enterprises, Administration & Support, Utilities, and Other Services (excluding Public Administration) = 2,045 (8.2%)
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction, Manufacturing, and Transportation and Warehousing = 1,899 (7.7%)
Information Technology, Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services = 1,983 (8.0%)
Finance and Insurance, and Real Estate and Rental and Leasing = 970 (3.9%)
Construction = 915 (3.7%)
Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Accommodation and Food Services = 4,989 (20.1%)
My suspicion is, but there isn’t any corroborating data that the proportions of the jobs of retired residents of Davis is even more heavily weighted toward Government jobs.
The no on Q campaign was populated by people with almost no political capital; failed Council candidates, supporters of failed candidates and disgruntled former and current commissioners.
The only political power these people hold is to do the easiest thing in California politics get people to vote no on a ballot measure. In this instance they even failed at that.
Ron, it is clear that you look at elections as zero-sum competitions/contests/battles rather than opportunities for community dialogue/conversation. It is pretty clear from your comments over the years that you want all conversation to cease, and for the residents to simply get out of the way and let the Council do whatever it wants.
— Never mind that neither the Council nor you have a plan.
— Never mind that none of the City Council members have articulated what direction you believe the City should be going and/or what the destination is.
— Never mind that ever since CFO Paul Navasio’s financial analysis presented to the Housing Element Steering Committee and then again in analyzing the financial impact of Wildhorse Ranch, it is public record that new housing generates more costs for the City than it generates revenue.
[edited]
You can add the usual anti-tax zealots