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, 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 the immediate crisis you instantly 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.
