Now that the election is over, I am finally allowed to discuss my personal choice to support Measure Q.
I definitely agree with the opposition on a number of issues.
An important acknowledgement came from Matt Williams on Friday, when he noted, “The current Council.. 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.”
That point is certainly true. Particularly with the election of a new councilmember (right now likely Linda Deos), three of the five council members have been in office since 2022 or later and only Gloria Partida was on the council pre-pandemic.
Matt Williams also believes that the campaign accomplished “most” of “what it set out to do” in raising “the awareness of the voters of just how dire the City’s financial situation is.”
I don’t know to what extent I think Matt Williams is correct. To some extent all campaigns that do not achieve their primary goal (defeat of a given measure) have to tell themselves self-justifications. Again, I think the campaign team was aware that their efforts were a longshot and that they were hoping to raise issues as much as defeat the measure.
At some level, however, the Theodore Roosevelt quote from his defeat as a third party candidate in 2012 resonates here: “We have fought a good fight; we have kept the faith; we have gone down in disaster.” (And not exclusively in this campaign this year).
As I have stated all along, I agree with key points that the opposition has made—the failure to prioritize economic development, concern about the roads (a long-standing Vanguard issue), and concern about the lack of retail and other commercial development.
On the other hand, let’s say we agree with the opposition that the city has been fiscally irresponsible—does voting no on Q change anything?
The more I thought about it, the more I think it did not.
As I mentioned previously, if you believe the council has acted irresponsibly over the years, the answer is to vote in a new council that will act more responsibly. This whole notion that you can change the culture of city hall seems unrealistic to me absent turnover of councilmembers making the policy decisions.
With two of the three council raises having no competition, and the voters in District 2 voting in a candidate that seems to be more status quo than change oriented, it’s hard to see the case that the voters really wanted change—either by opposing Measure Q or voting in councilmembers that will rock the boat.
I never saw a real impetus from the voters that there was a burning need for change. Clearly, in a 62-38 split, there is a segment of the electorate that wanted some form of change, and you might argue that looking at the council election, some portion of the electorate wanted change there as well. But we clearly don’t seem the same message sent in Davis that we saw in other communities, even in California that voted out key leadership—for example, San Francisco defeated its incumbent mayor while Oakland recalled theirs.
For me, I am not particularly happy with this council. I have expressed this before—I want to see more leadership on issues like housing, homelessness, and economic development. Frankly, I agree that the city is in a huge fiscal crisis as much as it is in a housing affordability crisis.
But would voting against Measure Q have made things better?
That’s where I think I disagreed with the opposition to Measure Q.
First of all, doing the math, the impact on people’s pocketbooks from this measure was small. I doubt I spent $10,000 in Davis on taxable goods a year, but, if I did, Measure Q would increase my costs by a mere $100—spread across all of my purchases. You have to spent a whole lot of money to make it impact your pocketbook, and, by the time you do so, you’ve spent so much money that the extra money you do spend is still negligible.
On the other hand, for that minimal pocketbook hit, the city is getting $11 million—that’s a sizable benefit to the city.
In short, while you can certainly argue that the sales tax is a regressive tax, it’s a tax whose small increase isn’t going to be felt by much of anyone.
Finally, the clincher for me is what happens if Measure Q fails?
The city council would be spending much of the next six months cutting costs—programs, things like that.
As one former council member pointed out to me, are they going to cut the things that Matt Williams believes are wasteful? Probably not. They are going to cut the things that are easiest to cut politically.
I watched this play out in 2010. How did they balance the budget? They didn’t lay people off, they allowed the staff to be reduced by attrition. They simply didn’t replace employees that left or retired.
Moreover, when the roads tax went down in 2018 because it failed to gain the two-thirds necessary, did that trigger a new era of fiscal responsibility? No.
But one thing is very clear to me—if the community had voted down Measure Q, program cuts would be the focus for much of the next two years.
That’s not what I want the council to be focused on. I want them focused on housing and economic development. A no vote on Measure Q would have at the very least distracted the community from things like the general plan update, housing, and a possible Measure J amendment.
Think about the irony—Matt Williams and others wanted an economic development plan. The city finally hired an economic development director. Had Measure Q failed, one of the costs likely would have been that position, which had effectively been vacant for some time. Talk about irony.
I agree that Measure Q doesn’t fix the problems with the city—what I am hoping is that, now that it has passed, the city will have the flexibility to focus on the longer-term problems rather than the immediate cash shortfall.
I’m not sure I would say I am optimistic about the prospects of accomplishing that—but I was fairly certain that had Measure Q failed, my priorities for the city would have been on the backburner.
Your reasons for supporting Measure Q are the same ones that 62% of us shared. Cutting off the nose to spite the face just makes matters worse, common sense. What needs to happen, and this is squarely in the council’s court, is a more open discussion of our income issues and why Davis has a unique challenge. I believe it is unique because of our economic base dominated by UC (no property tax income from them) and low commercial and industrial development. Falling support for taxes and trust in government to respond to voters’ concerns is amplified by social media. Know nothings get equal time and weight with balanced analysis and context. I do blame the council. They are not taking the time and spending the energy to bring us all on board. It’s a crisis of leadership.
I think you’re missing the point here. First, Roosevelt’s loss in 1912 (not 2012) further reinforced the Progressive movement against Taft’s backsliding and probably forced Wilson into domestic choices that he wouldn’t have made. Note that Q trailed T by 10%. That’s pretty significant.
Second, as with the Trump vote, our elected officials too often fail to listen clearly to certain voices in the community, especially if what they say is inconvenient. The No campaign was about more than just accounting. It was about trust and transparency. I think that the response by the Council members indicate that more transparency may be coming forth. But I’m not sure how the opposition would have gotten their attention through other means. Council members have been dismissive of some of this criticism up to now. Perhaps that will change.
And finally, I’ll point this out again. Baseball teams don’t change owners when they aren’t succeeding–they change managers and players. The Council members are in the role of owners. It may not take a change of the Council to decide how to move forward. (And with districts, making such a change is now much more difficult because it requires coordinated campaigns.) It’s going to take leadership from the Council. Look for more from Alan Hirsch and me on that topic.
“Note that Q trailed T by 10%. That’s pretty significant.”
Disagree. Measure T is more like a schools tax. The 72 percent support reflects about the level of support most school parcel taxes get without opposition. Measure Q is a city tax which have been getting in the high 50s for the most part. Measure O, for example, the half cent sales tax, got 58 percent in 2014. Measure Q has 62 percent. It outpolled Measure O by four points despite it being twice the size and there being strong opposition this time rather than token opposition in 2014.
David, as you know from our personal conversations, there is a huge difference in the City’s fiscal condition between 2014 and 2024. In 2014 the re was absolutely no information provided by the City about its unfunded liabilities in either infrastructure maintenance or employee retirement benefits. Compare the $450 million of unfunded liabilities that the City reports in the current Budget to the $0 they reported in 2014. Also compare the current condition of the City’s roads to the condition of those roads in 2014.
One of the strong criticisms that No on Measure Q got was that “a No vote was cutting off your nose top spite your face.” That was, in my opinion, a valid criticism, and the back and forth community dialogue about that criticism accomplished one of the key objectives of the No on Measure Q campaign … raising community awareness of just how dire the City’s finances are.
I got a call yesterday from a friend who shard his post-election thoughts with me. He indicated that a lot of the people he talked to felt both sides had good arguments, and they were much better informed as a result of the election back-and-forth dialogue. They also all voted “Yes” because the information shared by both the Yes and No sides did show very clearly that the City needed the money, and that the planning that the No side was pushing hard for might actually happen if the Council was listening.
One way that campaign efforts are analyzed is attempting to look at results with and without a given treatment. The problem in the real world, is that there are never truly apples to apples comparisons – which is the point you are making and acknowledged. That said, the first paragraph most people were not aware of in 2014 and if they were aware based on the No on Q campaign this time, it actually undercuts the point you are attempting make. That said, as I stated in my piece, I think there were realistic points made by the No side, however, as you noted, I came down on the side that the cure was worse than the disease.
The opponents lost by a 25 point margin. They apparently have learned nothing from this defeat and are now trying to spin it as some kind of a victory. They ran a campaign that offended the voters. They attacked the city council as being corrupt and incompetent and misleading the public. Overall they probably lost by a higher margin than they would have if they’d done nothing.
Attacking popular incumbents is not a winning strategy, as the last two campaign cycles have shown us.
Unhappy about housing? But you supported Renewal of Measure J for ten years.
Unhappy about economic development? But you supported renewal of Measure J for ten years.
On both of these issues the Councils hands are tied. You want to know who is to blame? Try looking in the mirror.
Ron, the Council’s hands are not tied at all … or if they are tied, it is their own doing. Their constituents in both of the City’s issues surveys have said “housing affordability” is the number one issue, but the proposals that have come forward to the City have made housing costs even less affordable.
— 85 unaffordable houses built as opposed to the promise/possibility of 15 affordable houses makes Davis less affordable
— New unaffordable homes built with high dollars per square foot prices empowers local real estate agents to price current resale homes at higher and higher dollars per square foot due to the new “comparables” on the market. That is not good for the young families with children that you have repeatedly said need help here in Davis.
Council could show real leadership and follow the advice of Rich Rifkin in his Enterprise OpEd Village Farms housing must meet our needs (see https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/rich-rifkin-village-farms-housing-must-meet-our-needs/article_52d4e9ae-324a-11ef-9ad3-3703a4b8194a.html). If they did that I believe an overwhelmingly positive Measure J vote would be the result.
The problem is not Measure J. it is that the proposals that have come forward make affordability worse, not better.
I don’t agree with pretty much any of that. I doubt most developers and builders agree. I don’t think any economists would agree.
You are stating highly controversial assertions as though they were fact and then citing Rich Rifkin, who is not an expert on this as your source.
David, we are dealing with opinion, not fact. It is all opinion … Rifkin’s, yours, mine, everyone’s.
I think the point is that you’re asserting things that run counter to current research and industry thought. You haven’t provided studies or data to back up that assertion.
Housing Availability and Housing Affordability are two separate but related matters. As I’ve said before; new home production isn’t going to really move the needle much in terms of housing affordability. In fact it may make it worse (as I’ve said before builders build where markets are growing; so they want to attract out of town buyers looking to upgrade and buy nicer units than what they already have. That is of course gentrification which would overcome any minimal effects on home prices due to increases in supply). But new homes are for attracting workers who hopefully work in Davis and spend their money here….hence the real priority should be retail first or concurrent with new housing growth.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again, IMO the only significant way to put a dent in housing affordability is the creation of public housing. Public market rate housing to subsidize affordable housing.
“The problem is not Measure J. it is that the proposals that have come forward make affordability worse, not better.”
I guess what I’m saying is that you’re not going to get a unicorn peripheral project (or pretty much any market rate project) that is going to help make housing more affordable. It just doesn’t pencil for developers. You gotta look at market rate housing as a way to attract new highly paid workers to Davis that can spend their money here (with previously established or at lease concurrent retail growth) to generate sales tax revenue for the city.
Keith, I will respond to both your comments above with this one reply. I agree with your observation about Housing Availability and Housing Affordability, as well as your bottom-line that “the only significant way to put a dent in housing affordability is the creation of public housing. Public market rate housing to subsidize affordable housing.”
I also agree that absent leadership from the public sector we are not going to get a unicorn peripheral project from developers. The only way such a project is going to pencil out for them is for the State to recognize that the unfunded mandate it has imposed for affordable units will only actually achieve those units if it is funded by the State. Housing affordability is a societal problem, and it needs society level solutions.
Regarding retail, if you put yourself in the shoes of retail companies that we would like to attract to Davis, using something like SWOT, do you see any Strengths for retail in Davis? How about Opportunities? How about Weaknesses? How about Threats? I personally see very few Strengths or Opportunities, and a lot of Weaknesses and Threats.
“I also agree that absent leadership from the public sector we are not going to get a unicorn peripheral project from developers. The only way such a project is going to pencil out for them is for the State to recognize that the unfunded mandate it has imposed for affordable units will only actually achieve those units if it is funded by the State. Housing affordability is a societal problem, and it needs society level solutions.”
But none of this is going to happen anytime soon if it all. So you can’t just hold out that solution. My solutions don’t require state funding. If local governments create MARKET RATE housing and use it to fund affordable housing then there’s no need or lesser of a need for government subsidies. In the meantime you have to allow for market rate housing to be built as the market dictates or else little to nothing gets built.
“Regarding retail, if you put yourself in the shoes of retail companies that we would like to attract to Davis, using something like SWOT, do you see any Strengths for retail in Davis? How about Opportunities? How about Weaknesses? How about Threats? I personally see very few Strengths or Opportunities, and a lot of Weaknesses and Threats.”
Davis is near the Sacramento market. It’s near the freeway. It’s in-between Sacramento and the Bay Area. There’s a giant university next to Davis (job generators plus lots of students with beer money to spend….I’m still advocating for a student market focused quarter). Retail development like housing development follows growth. Growth starts with jobs. Jobs directly in a region and around it. So attracting those businesses and business parks go a long way. Business parks with new housing and new retail. It’s all integrated. It’s a rough outline but these things never actually go as planned…the best you can do is have general guidelines of a plan.
You and I are very much on the same page. I agree that no new societal-level funding is going to come from the State soon … if ever. However, Governor Newsom has signed into law an “excess property” (or close to that name) law that encourages jurisdictions to identify publicly-owned excess property that can be devoted to housing. I believe the law also makes funding available for such projects. The City and School District could be pursuing immediately actionable housing opportunities under the provisions of that law.
Last time I checked, the City has over $125 million of cash agregately stashed in its various funds. Instead of investing that cash in CDs that are returning 1% interest plus or minus, they could use the cash to pursue your idea … with the market rate being for units that are purposely designed with modest square footage so that their market rate price is affordable for the people coming to work at the new jobs.
New jobs is really the starting point because all new housing is a net money loser to the City, with the costs of providing services exceeding the revenues the new housing generates.
Regarding the retail. I agree Davis is in the Sacramento market and near the freeway. Those are location plusses. However, timing is a serious negative. Most all of the companies Davis might want to attract already have stores within close proximity to Davis, and as such would see a Davis location as cannibalizing revenues from their existing stores. Lowes is in West Sac and Vacaville. Home Depot is in West Sac and Vacaville and Woodland. Further, absent the new jobs, the demographics of Davis are anything but DIY. That isn’t speculation on my part. As part of an economic development effort 10 years ago I contacted the national marketing department of Home Depot to explore their interest. They were very explicit that Davis was off their radar because of the stores they already had. GAP left Davis for a reason … not enough demand in their desired demographics to cover their costs and produce a sufficient profit to satisfy their shareholders.
So, that means having sufficient attraction to I-80 travelers to get them to get off I-80 and patronize Davis establishments. When you and your family travel, what freeway locations do you take the exit in order to patronize the businesses there … and what kind of businesses do you patronize? I know from my own experience that our summer travels to Colorado and back have freeway stops for only three reasons … to fill up with gas and to sleep in a hotel and to use the restrooms/pet walking areas.
In James and Deborah Fallows’ excellent book “Our Towns” they interviewed lots of communikty leaders who had faced the kind of challenge Davis faces currently. One of the very insightful quotes was that “To be viable as a destination, you need two hours of entertaining activities for every one hour of travel time needed to get to your destination community.” Looking at that statement, what entertaining activities does Davis have? Saturday and Wednesday Farmers Market. Seven days a week of The Artery. And the elephant in the room, UCD, which makes it clear by its actions that it doesn’t (currently) want to be a destination for freeway stopover visitors.
I don’t mean to be pessimistic, just realistic. I do believe these challenges can be dealt with … and it all starts with jobs.
The opponents are now in damage control mode. They are attempting to justify their opposition with bad arguments. Davis voters realized the No people were attempting to take the easy way out instead of the hard work necessary to actually replace council members. They would rather just burn the house down than properly fix it.
Walter, that is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
With that said, other than me, what other of “the opponents” have you read anything from? As is your typical approach, you are painting everything with the same brush … and not even doing your homework before you splash your paint. If you reached out to David Greenwald, you would hear that there was a very realistic expectation on the part of all the No team about the slim chances of defeating the Measure. So, nothing that is being said now that the election is over is inconsistent with what was being said during the weeks and months leading up to the election.
You, like others here on the Vanguard seem to look at elections as zero-sum contests, with only winners and losers. I have always thought of elections as community discussions/conversations … with education of the community as the clear winner regardless of the results.
Some interesting comments worth teasing out.
Elections are in fact zero sum games – you either win or lose. However, in game theory we should probably think of them more are iterative rather than one time games. It’s kind of the mistake that Obama made when he declared that elections have consequences when in fact it’s an iterative game and therefore consequences will have elections.
With that said, I think while I understand that there was a bit of realism on the part of the opposition to the tax, it remains to be seen whether there is an ongoing discussion that results in anything other than the perpetuation of the status quo.
My argument from the start has been – hey I get what you’re doing, it’s just not going to work.
That of course remains to be seem.
Election results are zero sum games. The Elections process is a conversation/dialogue.
With that said, I agree with the premise of your “argument from the start.” If the Council chooses not to listen then the status quo will continue and the unfunded financial liability hole will get deeper and deeper and the street conditions will get worse and worse.