Supporters of Measure J often retreat to a familiar and seemingly unassailable defense: let the voters decide. On its face, the argument sounds democratic, even virtuous. What could be more legitimate than requiring large housing developments to receive direct approval from the electorate?
The key point is that the vote itself offers only the illusion of representation.
That point turns on who is able to vote, who consistently does vote, and who is systematically excluded before the process even begins.
When examined honestly, Measure J functions less as grassroots democracy and more as a gatekeeping device that empowers the privileged while excluding marginalized and disadvantaged people.
Recent political science research and national reporting underscore a difficult but necessary truth:
America’s democratic dysfunction is not primarily a failure of civic virtue, but a failure of institutional design.
Voters are not disengaged because they are lazy or immoral; they are disengaged because the system demands far more civic labor than ordinary life can reasonably sustain.
As journalist Jerusalem Demsas has documented, Americans are asked to vote too often, on too many offices, on too many highly technical issues, frequently in off-cycle elections with minimal information and little media coverage.
Disinterest, she argues, is not a moral failing but “the predictable, even rational response” to a system that “has turned the role of citizen into a full-time, unpaid job.”
This insight reconceptualizes local ballot measures like Measure J.
One of the points that Demsas makes in her essay is that local elections routinely produce electorates that are small, skewed, and unrepresentative.
Turnout is disproportionately older, wealthier, more settled, and more likely to be composed of homeowners.
In city elections across the country, voters over 65 participate at two to five times the rate of younger adults.
Renters, lower-income residents, working families, and students are consistently underrepresented.
Demsas explicitly rejects the idea that this imbalance can be fixed through better messaging or civic scolding.
Quoting political scientist Robert Dahl, she notes that “like other performers (including teachers, ministers, and actors), politicians and political activists are prone to overestimate the interest of the audience in their performance.”
Contrary to what advocates of maximal participation may wish, she writes that “few Americans want to be full-time political animals.”
Most people do not want to spend their evenings poring over zoning codes, development agreements, environmental impact reports, and financing structures—nor should they have to.
“Effective representational government,” Demsas explains, “must empower voters to hold their elected officials accountable without sucking the life out of its citizens.”
Measure J fails that test.
By taking one of the most complex policy areas—land use and housing production—and forcing it into repeated, low-turnout elections, Measure J ensures that participation is limited to a narrow slice of the population: those with the time, resources, and personal incentives to monitor every ballot and mobilize in every campaign.
The result is not broad democratic input, but selective engagement by those already well positioned within the housing market.
Even among those who do participate, Demsas cautions against romanticizing local civic engagement.
“Even the most dedicated participants in local politics aren’t experts in everything,” she writes, “just in the parts of local government that provide them with benefits they find meaningful.”
When ordinary residents do show up, they are not entering an even playing field but a policy terrain already shaped by organized interests and procedural complexity.
That reality alone should give pause to anyone claiming Measure J reflects democratic will.
But the problem runs deeper.
Measure J does not merely rely on a distorted electorate. It excludes entire populations outright—particularly those most harmed by the housing shortage.
Many of the people who need housing most cannot vote in these elections at all.
Unhoused residents are often effectively excluded because many have fallen out of regular civic participation, while overcrowded or informally housed residents frequently lack stable registration, and students and transitory renters face logistical and administrative barriers.
Non-citizen residents—who live in the city, work in the city, pay taxes in the city, and contribute to its social and economic life—are categorically barred.
Displaced workers who have already been priced out but commute long distances into the community have no voice whatsoever.
In other words, the electorate empowered by Measure J is not just unrepresentative—it omits the population the policy most directly affects.
This creates a democratic absurdity.
Housing policy is decided primarily by those least exposed to housing insecurity, while those bearing the highest costs of scarcity have little or no formal say.
Measure J assigns veto power to those insulated from harm and treats their preferences as synonymous with “the community.”
Demsas’s analysis makes clear that this outcome is not accidental.
“America’s voting problem is primarily a local one,” she writes. While national elections attract relatively high turnout by international standards, “not so in local elections, where the electorate is remarkably unrepresentative.”
In one analysis, turnout in local elections across 50 major U.S. cities often failed to exceed 15 percent, with some cities dipping into the single digits.
When turnout collapses to those levels, the minority who do vote acquire disproportionate power.
As Demsas bluntly observes, “the side that wins is often the one that has a vested interest in the passage of the issue up for consideration. This isn’t how democracy is supposed to work.”
Measure J depends precisely on this imbalance.
Defenders of the measure often insist that anyone who cares can show up, learn the issues, and vote, but this argument ignores the structural reality of modern life.
People with inflexible jobs, caregiving responsibilities, language barriers, housing instability, or precarious legal status are not equally positioned to participate.
Nor should a healthy democracy require extraordinary effort simply to avoid exclusion.
Demsas is explicit on this point.
Giving people more opportunities to vote or attend meetings does not necessarily increase democracy if participation remains limited to a narrow group.
“If only a small, unrepresentative group of people are willing to be full-time democrats,” she writes, “then that extra ballot measure, election, or public meeting isn’t more democracy; it’s less.”
Measure J embodies this mistake by treating referenda as evidence of democratic virtue, while ignoring how those referenda systematically filter out the very voices housing policy should center.
None of this is an indictment of individual voters or local officials.
Many residents who oppose development under Measure J act in good faith.
Many local officials are, as Demsas acknowledges, “kind, hardworking, and genuinely committed citizens” doing their best within a constrained system.
But democracy should not depend on benevolence; she argues that instead it should depend on accountability.
In a healthy representative system, voters elect officials, set broad priorities, and hold leaders accountable at regular intervals.
Complex policy decisions are then made through professional planning processes, subject to oversight, transparency, and electoral consequences.
What democracy cannot do well—what it has never done well—is adjudicate technical policy tradeoffs through sporadic, low-information plebiscites.
Housing policy is especially ill-suited to that model.
Housing shortages are not abstract planning disputes; they determine who gets to live near their work, their school, and their support networks.
They shape homelessness, commuting patterns, climate emissions, economic mobility, and social stability.
When those decisions are repeatedly filtered through an electorate that excludes renters, workers, displaced residents, and unhoused people, the outcomes are not neutral but are instead biased.
Measure J did not emerge from democratic abundance.
It emerged from democratic scarcity—low turnout, fragmented accountability, and institutional overload.
Over time, it has hardened into a permanent veto mechanism that freezes land-use decisions in place while claiming the mantle of popular consent.
This is not an argument against democracy but rather an argument for a democracy that actually represents the public it governs.
A genuinely democratic housing system would rely on general elections with broad turnout, clear lines of accountability through elected councils, and professional planning guided by public need rather than episodic fear campaigns.
More importantly, it would not require those most harmed by housing scarcity to overcome structural barriers just to have their interests acknowledged.
Measure J asks Davis to accept a permanent mismatch between power and impact—and to call that mismatch democracy.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Prediction: The next comment you hear will be the voice of RG, telling you to get on board and call for the end of Measure J already.
Wrong Alan.
“Over time, it has hardened into a permanent veto mechanism that freezes land-use decisions in place while claiming the mantle of popular consent.”
Over time?
“This is not an argument against democracy but rather an argument for a democracy that actually represents the public it governs.”
Or, hardy har har, this reminds me of when a City Councilmember pointed out that those who aren’t living in Davis yet didn’t have a say in a proposed housing project. So maybe everyone who *could* live in Davis, or really really really wants to live in Davis, should get a chance to vote on Measure J/R/D projects. Because Davis should be responsible for the regions problems, and lower rents and increase supply so everyone can live here in our small college town.
“A genuinely democratic housing system would rely on general elections with broad turnout, clear lines of accountability through elected councils, and professional planning guided by public need”
Jeek biddly bok chor nugle more
” . . . rather than episodic fear campaigns.”
Kind of like what presidential elections should be — in perfecto world.
“More importantly, it would not require those most harmed by housing scarcity to overcome structural barriers just to have their interests acknowledged.”
“it” ???
“Measure J asks Davis to accept a permanent mismatch between power and impact—and to call that mismatch democracy.”
Ah yes, democracy: when the people who live with the consequences are told their votes are the problem, or, circling back, the lack of the votes of those not yet here are the problem.
I would say 25 years is “over time” – no?
Just saying, the fail started long ago.
While true, it became more evident over the course of 25 years
“Or, hardy har har, this reminds me of when a City Councilmember pointed out that those who aren’t living in Davis yet didn’t have a say in a proposed housing project. So maybe everyone who *could* live in Davis, or really really really wants to live in Davis, should get a chance to vote on Measure J/R/D projects.”
I know of someone who likes Davis and thinks they might want to move there someday. So what do they need to do to get a ballot mailed to them?
That’s not the argument. The point isn’t that people who live outside Davis should be voting. It’s that the electorate Measure J relies on systematically excludes many people who are already affected by housing scarcity while overrepresenting those insulated from its consequences.
You treat Measure J as a human being when you say, “the electorate Measure J relies on systematically excludes many people who are already affected by housing scarcity while overrepresenting those insulated from its consequences.” Measure J isn’t a human, nor does it have the ability to rely. It is a legal construct. Nothing more, nothing less.
With the above said, the fatal flaw of this article is that it spends all its time describing what it sees as a problem, but absolutely no time describing an alternative that has any reasonable chance of remedying the described problem.
It is worth repeating Winston Churchill’s often-quoted remark, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” We know from the condition of the streets in Davis and from the timeliness of the filing of its legally-required Audited Financial Statements (just to name two examples) that our local government is close to totally inept. Trusting that government to make wiser decisions without any measure of accountability is a fools errand.
So David, and anyone else who wants to weigh in, what do you propose as a better process with an appropriate level of accountability and transparency?
Alan
You focused only on the second part of David’s article (which needs subheadings to show the distinction.) The first part highlights the biggest problem–that citizen voters cannot devote the attention needed to make informed decisions about detailed issues. So they are tuning out votes on critical matters because they don’t have the time or information to filter out and prioritize those issues. That’s why we have a representative democracy, not a direct one. That’s why most of the statewide initiatives have been bad ideas (starting with Prop 13) and why voters are skeptical of most. We need to rely on our representatives, but also have focused transparent processes that give representatives direct feedback on those detailed issues from people who are more interested in those issues.
What we need to replace the current Measure J/R/D with is a set of planning guidelines, e.g., density, boundaries, transit choices that are acceptable and to which developers can adhere. Then use Measure J/R/D as a backstop for projects that want to still go forward without adhering to those principles. If we want some type of voter input, we could add that the proposal can be rejected if two-thirds of voters say no to it, along the lines with rejecting rate increases under Prop 218.
Richard, I agree with what you say we need, but it is a further evidence of the ineptitude of our local Davis government that our current existing representative democracy has not, and apparently can not, conduct a community process and dialogue to create that set of planning guidelines, e.g., density, boundaries, transit choices that are acceptable and to which developers can adhere.
Pogo said it best, “We have met the enemy and they are us.”
“Voters are not disengaged because they are lazy or immoral; they are disengaged because the system demands far more civic labor than ordinary life can reasonably sustain.”
True. Solution: don’t lead an ordinary life.
“Americans are asked to vote too often, on too many offices, on too many highly technical issues, frequently in off-cycle elections with minimal information and little media coverage.”
And those who do the analysis and do show up are mocked as ‘the usual suspects’, and told the real voters aren’t there.
“Disinterest, she argues, is not a moral failing but “the predictable, even rational response” to a system that “has turned the role of citizen into a full-time, unpaid job.””
But those that take on the unpaid job are mocked and told they are the privileged, unpaid usual suspects.
“local elections routinely produce electorates that are small, skewed, and unrepresentative.”
Australia has mandatory voting. Look how that democracy is going, at least for Jews.
“Turnout is disproportionately older, wealthier, more settled, and more likely to be composed of homeowners.”
Mandatory voting — make the ignorant vote!
“In city elections across the country, voters over 65 participate at two to five times the rate of younger adults.”
But the young sure do like to march around and make a lot of noise on social media. Maybe we should come up with a system that channels online noise into votes.
“Renters, lower-income residents, working families, and students are consistently underrepresented.”
And it’s not their fault, they have lives! Dictatorship is sounding more and more like the solution.
“Demsas explicitly rejects the idea that this imbalance can be fixed through better messaging or civic scolding.”
I’m a great believer is civic scolding.
“like other performers (including teachers, ministers, and actors), politicians and political activists are prone to overestimate the interest of the audience in their performance.”
That’s also true of performers who break into song during city council meetings.
“Contrary to what advocates of maximal participation may wish, she writes that “few Americans want to be full-time political animals.””
I advocate for minimum participation, to make it “fair” !
“Most people do not want to spend their evenings poring over zoning codes, development agreements, environmental impact reports, and financing structures—nor should they have to.”
Says you, or them.
“Effective representational government,” Demsas explains, “must empower voters to hold their elected officials accountable without sucking the life out of its citizens.”
Don’t participate, but hold your elected officials accountable, by not participating in holding your local officials accountable!
“Measure J fails that test.”
There’s a TEST ???!!! How much of our class grade does it account for? Especially since we have taken the class but aren’t willing to show up, but need to hold the teacher accountable, but have been given a pass on showing up to class to do so.
Alan
Research shows that increased initiatives and referendums have allowed elected officials to avoid accountability. Instead, they pass off decisions to voters and voters have no record to see if the officials actually represent them. Prop 13 came about because the Legislature knew that it didn’t have to come up with a solution to rising property taxes. Without making it so easy to amend the state’s constitution (How can a 51% vote lead to imposing a two-thirds vote requirement?) the Legislature could come up with a solution that could be modified as we learned more. SB 8 which was the response in 1979 that shared state and local tax revenues has been modified several times since. So why not force these decisions on elected officials and then hold them accountable in a single vote instead of having dozens of votes every two years?
“America’s voting problem is primarily a local one,” she writes. While national elections attract relatively high turnout by international standards, “not so in local elections, where the electorate is remarkably unrepresentative.”
In one analysis, turnout in local elections across 50 major U.S. cities often failed to exceed 15 percent, with some cities dipping into the single digits.
When turnout collapses to those levels, the minority who do vote acquire disproportionate power.”
So is the answer to this conundrum to move the Measure J election from a local to a general election vote?
No
Why not, there would be more representation and less disproportionate power?
The point isn’t that low turnout is inherently bad, but rather it’s that Measure J treats housing as a plebiscite while excluding affected populations by design. Higher turnout doesn’t solve that.
“The point isn’t that low turnout is inherently bad”
My head is spinning.
I believe that’s your fault, you’ve attempted to play games and throw out absurd solutions rather than attempting to meet the issue head-on. You’ve engaged absurdity in an effort to avoid the more obvious and straightforward conclusion
“You’ve engaged absurdity in an effort to avoid the more obvious and straightforward conclusion”
Which is? I’m all ears…
I’m still waiting for the more obvious and straightforward conclusion.
“I believe that’s your fault, you’ve attempted to play games and throw out absurd solutions rather than attempting to meet the issue head-on.”
Having non-voters vote is pretty absurd, too.
And I do agree it’s ‘by design’. I don’t think anyone was saying, ‘let’s exclude people’ when they came up with Measure JaRReD. It could be at best an unintended consequence.
“Having non-voters vote is pretty absurd, too.”
Which is why I never suggested it
To be clear, this piece is not an argument for extending the vote to non-citizens or non-residents in local elections. It is an argument about structural fairness. A system that places decisive power over housing policy in low-turnout, episodic elections predictably empowers those with the time, stability, and resources to participate, while excluding those most directly affected by housing scarcity. The problem is not who is legally permitted to vote, but how the system itself filters participation and whose voices it reliably amplifies.
The “problem” is that voters don’t consistently vote in the manner that you’d prefer (though they have done so twice in regard to Measure J).
Trump also didn’t like the result when he lost to Biden (and tried to change/bypass the system instead of accepting the “L”).
Interestingly-enough, voters actually now have a “second chance” (just like Trump did) – without even changing anything.
And despite what you say on here (and what they said about Trump), maybe it does have a chance. (Apparently, the developer thinks so.)
Structural change is always pushed by those disadvantaged by the status quo
So moving the Measure J election from June to November’s general election seems like a possible solution in order to get more participation. This article made some good points that special local elections cause the minority who do vote to acquire disproportionate power.
“Structural change is always pushed by those disadvantaged by the status quo”
Structural change is always pushed by those seeking to cite/leverage the disadvantaged in a political manner, for their own purposes. (See the YIMBYs, the developers who want more market-rate development but oppose rent control, the business interests who don’t care about a community in regard to their expansion plans, the real estate industry that wants more turnover and supply, etc.).
Basically, the politically-connected. The type of interests that are in the background, and hire others to do their fighting for them – and ensure that the voters don’t actually have any real choice in the first place.
Keith O
Your ignoring the other major point that David made. See my response to Alan above that focuses on how voters, even more of them vote, do not have the resources or time to delve into complicated issues that are better left to those we elected to spend time on the topic.
Richard M, so you say the voters don’t have the time or resources to delve into voting on issues but they somehow have have the time and resources to vet politicians that will make these decisions?
You can’t have it both ways…
I’m going to guess that the vast majority of voters don’t make decisions based upon the technical information in an EIR.
Instead, they’re deciding if they want 400 acres of sprawl adjacent to the Costco Highway.
Though some may look at things like Affordable housing, grade-separated crossings, etc.
And some will vote for it, so that they don’t have to experience a slight inconvenience for themselves in regard to the last couple of years’ of their own kids’ attendance at some local school that the district is threatening to close, if the voters don’t approve sprawl.
Which would mean that (gasp) they’d have to drive their kids from a school that’s 1/2 mile away, to another highly-rated school that’s a full mile away – that everyone else is paying for (regardless of whether or not they have kids in the system). These are also probably the same people who probably don’t care if the particular development in question has a fully funded grade-separated crossing (for “future” kids trying to get to school).
Those people are on a mission from God, and they WILL let you know that. (Never mind the impact that has on other “poached” districts.)
We tried managing major land use policy decisions via representative democracy, and we got crappy major land use policy decisions. Measure J ain’t perfect, but it’s better than what we had before.
I would argue that we’ve had 25 years of failed land use decisions under the current system, so that suggests we should not continue a failed system – and perhaps points to the need to find a third way.
One man’s ‘didn’t pave the farmland’ is another man’s ‘failed to house the masses in subsidized housing’.
Alan
You know that when Davis doesn’t compact housing that can be served by transit, that it’s being built as farmland consuming sprawl in another community.
David, what do you believe that third way might be? And how do you see it being agreed upon by the community and then implemented?
Better than what we had before? No, better for those who already have property, who are unconcerned about those who don’t.
Property for everyone! That’s the “Davis Way”
Jim
As the saying goes “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. We now know after 25 years that we’re not getting the result we prefer. (And it’s a fantasy that we can keep Davis in a snow globe, unfettered by the outside world and maintaining the dream of what it was like when residents were undergrads at UCD.) This process needs to be modified to open the doors to the new blood the community needs.
“As the saying goes “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. We now know after 25 years that we’re not getting the result we prefer.”
I see no reason to believe that the voters of Davis are unhappy with the results that they are getting from Measure J.
“We now know after 25 years that we’re not getting the result we prefer. ”
Very true. But for 25 years we’ve gotten much, much less of the result that we don’t prefer.
For the benefit of those who might not be familiar with my position, I’m not dead-set against altering Measure J. However, I would vigorously oppose any change that allows the City Council to approve peripheral developments that don’t prioritize meeting the Very Low-, Low- and Moderate-income RHNA requirements, or that exceed the Above-Moderate RHNA target, without a Measure J vote.
What about non-citizens? As an example people who work at UCD and who live in Davis get no say in Measure J elections if they aren’t citizens. It is a clear example of people who are excluded from having a voice in our “direct democratic” decisions.
I addressed that in the piece
Isn’t that more a matter of immigration reform or doing one’s best to become a citizen, rather than a ‘Davis exception’? Or is that another “Davis Way”.
Interestingly-enough, I’m excluded – but involved anyway.
And yet some on here haven’t liked that (and tell me to mind my own business).
Seems like they also never complain about out-of-town developer involvement (or involvement from a local, non-resident plant seller, who is also directly involved in one already-approved development).
And truth be told, there may be some involvement (e.g., input) from some of those who work for or attend the oversized school district, who aren’t residents.
You are excluded from voting, but you are not excluded from the burden that comes with property ownership within the community. So you are subject to “taxation without representation.”
Many of the people that David is characterizing as under represented can be described as having “representation without taxation.” Unfortunately our voter turnout statistics tell us that they do not avail themselves of the representation that they have.
“plebiscite”
Do not make me look up words, especially in the morning. :-)
Plebiscite (I looked it up, because I’m dumber than DG too): a direct vote by the electorate on a specific question, usually a major public issue; usually goes directly to voters; often advisory.
Can’t help but think of the situation regarding megadorms (and/or those increasingly living in apartment buildings), who can “stick it to” single-family homeowners in regard to parcel tax ballot measures.
(Don’t know if school district employees are also exempt from taxes they can foist upon others with their vote.)
Then there’s UCD itself – no contribution at all to the school district (despite attendance at DJUSD being one of the “perks” of working there – regardless of personal residence of its own employees).
Same thing with seniors (who may own and live in single-family housing), but are exempt from the tax that they foist upon those who aren’t exempt.
Ron O
Your off base yet again, all but a tiny number of UCD employees live off campus. The 4500 who live in Davis pay taxes that go to the district. The 6500 who commute in live elsewhere at pay taxes to those districts, plus they bring the state allocation which is the vast majority of district revenues with them if their children attend school here.
Richard, those 4,500 you refer to only pay taxes if they own a home. What proportion of the 4,500 do you think meet that threshold? It would also be interesting to know what proportion of the 4,500 plus 6,500 are currently enrolled at UCD as well as being part of the 11,000 employees.
“America’s democratic dysfunction is not primarily a failure of civic virtue, but a failure of institutional design.”
“Voters are not disengaged because they are lazy or immoral; they are disengaged because the system demands far more civic labor than ordinary life can reasonably sustain.”
The first sentence above is correct, but the second sentence (the conclusion) is not.
The “failure of the institutional design” is what limits the choice/direction that the electorate has in the first place. It’s a corrupt system, which ensures that there is no actual choice.
That’s how you get YIMBY-supported politicians as the only Democratic party choice. That’s how you get a council that unanimously supports every single peripheral development that arises. That’s how you get Natomas (and taxpayers who are forced to pay for levee improvements that make developers fabulously wealthy). That’s how you get Lagoon Valley. (Too many examples to list, but you get the idea.)
“Institutional failure” is the reason that Measure J is needed in the first place. The politicians and choices that are presented to voters are disconnected from the electorate.
Something like Village Farms is not a difficult or complex issue to decide, and the folks on councils aren’t experts in the first place.
You either want to pave over a massive amount of prime farmland outside of city limits for suburban sprawl, or you don’t. How hard is that to decide? I can tell you what my answer would be without even being able to participate, without reading any EIRs, etc.
It’s what some might call a “no-brainer”.
Paving over ag land is not the definition of sprawl. We’ve already settled the fact that your definition is incorrect (and my sister worked for Smart Growth America that first promoted the definition.) And if we have compact development in Davis, that means we won’t pave over farmland in other towns that allow for true sprawl.
Without getting into that again (I don’t make up my own definitions), I’ll take it as a “win” that you don’t like Village Farms.
For what it’s worth, I’ve gained some respect for your 4-person group, since they actually do seem to have some kind of integrity in regard to their own vision. No one tries that hard unless they’re “true believers” (or have something to gain that would justify their effort).
That’s me, as well. Nothing I say or do regarding this issue is going to personally “pay off” (e.g., financially). If one wants to make money, there’s easier (and way more effective) ways to do so than to comment on here.
To additional things.
1) The fact that developers are the only ones with the resources / motive to wage any campaigns limits our options by default and surrenders the planning process to them. As the corrupt Boss tweed reportedly said: “I dont care who does the voting so long as I get to do the nominating”. This skews our options towards only considering housing proposals that make developers the most money – which is also the kind of housing we least need in our mix… because developers have been doing this for a while.
2) The “no” voters who are more motivated to try to kill project have the ability to wield online disinformation to an effective extent – and less critically driven “yes” voters have little at stake to try to combat / argue these false claims in online. This is of course present in our national elections as well. complaints of forever chemicals, or burrowing owls, or “where will we get the water” – all things that there ARE rational answers to… just resonate in the echochambers online and reinforce a “no” bias.
“I don’t care who does the voting so long as I get to do the nominating”.
Couldn’t have said it better myself regarding our political system (but arrived at a different conclusion).
George Carlin basically said that same thing in a brutal takedown of our system.
Ron O
So what’s your proposed alternative? That we all do what Ron says?
That fact is that Prop 13 was enacted to ensure that a minority of voters could keep control of tax revenues (and again voters weren’t sophisticated enough to understand the implications of ceding that power). And the MAGA movement is based o the premise that a minority of voters want to maintain control in the face of decreasing relevance.
“My” solution would be to ensure that Measure J stays in place, if I was qualified to vote on it myself. (As just one local example.)
I don’t have much influence compared to the moneyed interests which restrict the choices that are presented to voters. I might not even have any influence on here – I’m just stating how I see things.
So far, I’m not aware of anyone’s mind I’ve changed (or influenced) regarding any issue whatsoever. Especially among the people already familiar with issues.
For that matter, I might even be pushing people in the opposite direction, for all I know. Again, just stating how I see things in response to what the Vanguard presents.
If you really want to “stir the pot”, try talking about gender issues.
Truth be told, housing in Davis has been left to the know littles and the know nothings. Our City Government asked us to vote to double our “local” sales tax, and we meekly capitulated. Now we have seen higher wages for public employees, but no improvements to Parks, Roads or other Civic infrastructure. We did manage to ruin a downtown commercial artery on G street and let it become a nightmare for Davis Police to control. And as far as housing?
1. The developers are writing the proposals, and our City Council is giving a rubber stamp to any civic proposals they are presented with.
2. The current development on the City’s table (Covell Farms) involves a comically inaccurate Environmental Impact Report , but it was certified by (and I’ll be careful of defamation here) an uninformed and inattentive City Council.
3. Not sure if the Council is misguided, but the Measure J/R/D vote on CV will occur on an expensive off cycle vote in early June. Just as UCD Students, Staff and Faculty are headed into Spring Finals and Summer Break. Davis Unified is off soon after.
So! The Vanguard article drones on and on that measure J/R/D might be Democracy gone awry.
Could Davis use affordable housing? Sure.
Is a vote on a development on an off- cycle election legitimate? NO!
We are lucky to have a silver spike (J/R/D) to kill environmentally destructive sprawling developments and hope the better Angels of civic improvement might come out way. Love ❤️ Davis.
Bottom line: The same people who vote on Measure J are the same people who elect council members.
Do they put in any more time and research on electing their leaders than they do in voting on Measure J projects?
I doubt it.
Keith, my suspicion is that they put in even less time and research when voting on Council/Supervisor/DJUSD Board. Those elections are popularity contests where there are no real issues in play by which the candidates can distinguish themselves. According to the two polls conducted by the City in recent years, the one issue that motivates Davis voters is housing affordability, and with Measure J/R/D in place, each voter knows that they have veto power over any proposed decision in that arena, so that issue doesn’t play much of a (if any) role in Council elections.
So, bottom-line there isn’t really any meat to sink one’s teeth into in a Council election, but for a Measure J/R/D election there is plenty of meat.
“According to the two polls conducted by the City in recent years, the one issue that motivates Davis voters is housing affordability, and with Measure J/R/D in place, each voter knows that they have veto power over any proposed decision in that arena, so that issue doesn’t play much of a (if any) role in Council elections.”
With all due respect, I somewhat disagree.
Most voters have to be convinced to vote for sprawl (which is both harmful to the environment, and themselves on a personal level).
As far as the people they elect, it may end up making a difference if the city council has to defend Measure J, when perhaps the majority of them are opposed to it.
But this is where I suspect that voters aren’t paying attention (e.g., when someone like Bapu campaigns on a message of “infill”, but actually supports sprawl.
Also, truth be told – the only “actual” people who are concerned with “affordability” are students who make the choice to leave home (and expect their newly-adopted cities to give them cheap housing so that their resulting studetnt loan debt isn’t as severe).
Yes, that’s a simplification. (But there is also a significant number of religious “do-gooders” whose actions are resulting in an increase in the local homeless population, and are also under the delusion that “affordable” housing can be built. Then again, that particular population would never sell their own homes below market value, nor would their heirs.) I think there’s a word for those type of people – starts with an “h”, and ends in “crite”.
For that matter, these are the same people (and institutions) who engage in “land acknowledgements”, but would never “give back” their own property. And that goes for the school district that named one of their campuses “Patwin” – and who are now threatening to close it (without “giving it back”).