One of the issues that has arisen during the course of the Wildhorse Ranch debate is a very important question as to when commissions ought to weigh in on future housing developments. The issue was first raised by Councilmember Stephen Souza during the July 28 meeting when he asked why commissions such as the Open Space, Finance and Budget among others did not have the issue of Wildhorse Ranch come before them. City Staff at that time explained that staff did not feel the need for policy direction and did not have ambiguities about whether or not this project fell within city guidelines in these jurisdictions.
As a result the project came before only the Social Services and Planning Commissions prior to approval by council. As we now know there is at least considerable debate about the finances of the project and it clearly would have been helpful had the Finance and Budget Commission had a chance to evaluate the project, the model, and how it fit within the city’s budget and its impact on that budget.
On Tuesday night, the issue came up again. Bill Emlen, the City Manager, clearly raised the point we need a discussion on when commissions ought to weigh in and one of the clear questions seems to be that of streamlining the process. The issue has been put before the subcommittee on Commissions which is comprised of Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Councilmember Stephen Souza.
What is clear to me is that the process involving Wildhorse Ranch has rightly brought up a number of issues involving city policies that clearly need to be laid out more clearly. It is also equally clear to me that right now the Wildhorse Ranch project is a hot-buttoned topic that will likely elicit more heat than light any time it comes forward. As such, I think we need to find ways to address these problems outside of the charged political atmosphere. Some will argue that is impossible given the impact that these issues have had on the process. While I respect that view, I think that we need to take the time to get this right for the next project and the next Measure J vote and we cannot make a sound decision within the hot-buttoned atmosphere of an impending election.
The concern I have is a concern I have expressed before, those who believe that this process has been truncated to some extent are correct. I think the community would have benefit from a full discussion on a variety impacts of this project on the various jurisdictions. I fail to see how a process that would allow all relevant commissions to weigh in and make recommendations on a project is a harmful one. Indeed, the developers in this particular project attempted to do exactly that.
Moreover, I think it was telling on Monday that while the Finance and Budget Commission was grappling with the broader issues such as what it means for a project to be fiscally neutral, what model we ought to use, and when the item should be heard by the commission, they also recognized that the Wildhorse Ranch Project had been ensnared in these issues of no fault of their own and they apologized for that fact.
I am very concerned that a subcommittee in private will be weighing in on these important discussion items. I would like to see each of the commissions weigh in on what they think their role ought to be–they could do this in public. Then the subcommittee could compile their recommendations and then make a full presentation to the council based on this input and feedback. I’d like to see that occur after the current election and before the next one which could come as early as June–and also before the Measure J vote, so that we have the policy in place before the public decides on whether to renew the measure. The bottom is that we need to get this policy right and I think streamlining the process is probably not the best way to do that.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I think that the city’s financial model for large projects needs a fresh look. It was developed for the Covell Village Project in 2004-05, and we have all learned a lot since those days.
I don’t agree with Sue’s meltdown over the numbers, as the Parlin project is in the ballpark for more or less being cost neutral to the city, but her complaints about the numbers did one thing: we all really looked at the model, and the staff’s processing of the project.
“Indeed, the developers in this particular project attempted to do exactly that……”
The inescapable fact is that the WHR developer had as his paid consultant, a local “progressive leader” who certainly had the opportunity to explain to Parlin what the result of “steamlining”(aka “neutering”) the Measure J process would be,knowing the history of the measure X campaign and the unsuccessful attempt of that Council majority to neuter the process to their advantage concerning Covell Village. On that early Wednesday morning, Parlin COULD have publicly stated, when this question was raised from the dais, that he wanted to postpone the November election date TO ALLOW TIME for commissions to look at his proposal and the full Council to have their many questions fully explored prior to a Measure J vote.It was Parlin’s decision NOT to do this.
“I am very concerned that a subcommittee in private will be weighing in on these important discussion items. I would like to see each of the commissions weigh in on what they think their role ought to be–they could do this in public. Then the subcommittee could compile their recommendations and then make a full presentation to the council based on this input and feedback.”
I, too, am concerned that a subcommitte of two is meeting in secret, to decide when a commission is entitled to information about a project. In my opinion, if commissions are to work INDEPENDENTLY to ADVISE the City Council, it is not the purview of the City Council/City Staff to filter what information gets to a commission. All relevant commissions should be able to weigh in on a development project. City Staff should not be arbitrarily making the decision that “no policy issue is involved in thus and such a project because City Staff’s analysis is correct, so it isn’t necessary to send the information along to a commission”.
If City Staff truly believes there is no need to put a staff report before a certain commission, then what will it hurt to do it anyway? To not do so makes it look as if City Staff is just trying to cut down on citizen interference with their decisions/staff report conclusions.
Developers and city commissions alike are being emphatically told by City Staff “thou shalt not discuss development projects until City Staff says so”. This is in violation of the Brown Act and the city’s own rules. ANYONE from the public is allowed to speak during public comment at any commission meeting on any pertinent subject within the scope of that commission’s purview.
At the last City Council meeting, when the whole Budget and Finance Commission debacle came out, I vehemently made a formal request of the City Council during Public Comment. If a senior housing project is being proposed, I want the Davis Senior Citizens Commission to have the opportunity to weigh in on it WELL BEFORE it is coming up for a vote in the City Council chambers. As I pointed out, how else can a commission ADVISE City Council? I further noted, in a parting shot, what happened with the Budget and Finance Commission, where City Staff arbitrarily decided not to bother giving this commission a staff report about the financail neutrality of WHR until the night before the decision was to be made, was RIDICULOUS.
Proper process is being subverted in this city, and it needs to stop. The Brown Act is being violated with impunity, and citizens who may not fully understand all the legal niceties of this important law, get the gist of it enough to know they are being had.
I have to agree with ol’ timer; I was at the 7/28 meeting and was one of the few that stayed until 1:30am; if the developer was so eager to have his project reviewed by city commissions “nine months before” as David Greenwald reports, then why didn’t he agree to a June election; perhaps, it is because he was counseled by Mike Harrington (as he was seen whispering in his ear right before they “decided” for a Nov election) that a single-item ballot in November would fare better for his chances than a multi-item, candidates ballot (like Measure X)????
Councilman Souza,in the past, from the dais,has bellowed that he is a “DECIDER”(remind you of anyone??). Ruth Asmundson’s autocratic and paternalistic proclivities are well-known. This subcommittee is anti-populist to the core.
“City Staff at that time explained that staff did not feel the need for policy direction….”
That, I think, is the crux of the problem.
“City Staff at that time explained that staff did not feel the need for policy direction….”
Don Shor: “That, I think, is the crux of the problem.”
Exactly! City staff is controlling what information is disseminated and when. They do not have a right to do that, under the Brown Act and Davis’s own rules. City staff has become the “gatekeeper” of all things right and relevant in this town.
“City Staff at that time explained that staff did not feel the need for policy direction….”
Commissions cannot give “policy direction” as Emlen well understands. They can only make recommendations. What Emlen did not want to deal with was having to publicly defend the rationale for staff decisions when legitimate questions by citizen commissions are raised.
This is just another delay tactic.
“What Emlen did not want to deal with was having to publicly defend the rationale for staff decisions when legitimate questions by citizen commissions are raised”
I again agree with ol’ timer; we need a NEW City Manager! Look at this quote from Emlen (found on Davis Wiki) and it is quite emblematic of the current mess he has allowed to happen with the WHR project:
“During his stint as Director of the Community Development Department, he [Emlen] was quoted as saying: “We have a pretty good idea that the city’s not going to change that much by 2020”.
A “status quo” guy who is afraid to deal with the tough issues and developers, enough of him already!!!
How does the Council continue to ignore the Davis statute that our City Manager MUST reside in Davis? Doesn’t the statute have to be changed or followed for Emlen to be our City Manager.
I think it is important to discuss the substantive issues that were not addressed by the finance and budget commission, both because they did not have time to do it, and because the finance director, for some reason, is averse to discussing some of these issues in public.
(If you already understand this issue because you have read about it in my previous posts, you don’t have to waste your time reading the rest of this post).
One such issue is the introduction of a new creative accounting technique to our operations and maintenance long-term budget forecasts. This creative accounting technique is being added to a vast array of creative accounting techniques that will lead to a complete municipal fiscal meltdown in about 15 to 20 years, and it sets a very bad precedent for the fiscal analysis for all future development projects.
This creative accounting technique has to do with using one time revenues to pay for ongoing expenditures. In the past, our fiscal analyses have required a steady stream of revenue to plug into the revenue side of our fiscal analysis, such as property taxes or CFD’s. Now, for the first time, staff has allowed a project to provide a one-time payment that will be spent down in only about 15 years be used to plug a projects’ revenue shortfall.
We could have legitimately used a onetime revenue source to plug the shortfall in the model of the ongoing expenditures if the onetime revenue was large enough to provide a stream of income, at standard rates of return, without eating into the capitol. But this is not what is being done in the case of this development.
Had the developers been willing to provide a one-time payment of $5,900 per unit, a fund could have been established that would have produced a steady revenue stream at our standard rate of return, rather than one that will disappear in 15 years.
This $5,900 would have been a reasonable payment. By way of comparison, the recently approved Verona project, which had a much stronger fiscal balance to begin with, provided a one-time payment of $12,000 per market-rate unit, and $6,000 per affordable.
Given this, I made a motion to ask the developer to add a onetime payment of $5,900 a unit, rather than the mere $1,500 payment that he was required to make. The motion failed 4-1, thus setting a very dangerous new precedent for the fiscal analyses of new development.
During the development agreement item council meeting, Don Saylor tried to deflect the point I was making by asking the finance director, in his authoritative and definitive mode: “Have you used the same fiscal model that you have always used in the past?”. The finance director could answer “yes” to this question because of a technicality: Our fiscal models have only run out 15 years. In year 16 and thereafter, the fiscal shortfall reappears.
So I asked Bill Emlen (because, from long experience, I didn’t believe that Paul Navazio would give a straight answer to this question), : “Let me ask the question this way: Has any other development project been allowed to use a onetime revenue that would be spent down in 15 years to plug a revenue gap in the long range fiscal forecast?”
Bill Emlen answered: “No.”
Shortly thereafter, I received a weird e-mail from Bill Emlen berating me for leaning too heavily on staff.
Excuse me for the typos capitol instead of capital.
Sue, quit beating the budget commission and staff to death. You were on the CC. You were the liaison to the Budget Commission. You knew all about Parlin Wildhorse. You knew it was being processed. You NEVER said a word to the CC or staff about wanting to see this project before the Commission. You were …. negligent. And so by beating on others, you are merely showing the world how lazy and negligent you were for all these months this spring and summer with this project.
In fact, for months before 7/28 you refused to meet with Parlin.
For weeks before 7/28 you told everyone who gave you an ear that you were voting NO.
I was in the CC chambers on 7/28. I can tell when a CC member has read a complex staff report, and when not. You clearly had not, and you went into that meeting a hard NO. You did not waste your time reading ahead, and it showed.
Then Steve (who also refused to speak with Parlin and who told everyone he was voting NO) got on the process issue, and you jumped on that.
I was at the Budget Commission for most of its meeting, and your conduct grossly violated the rules. If I were on the CC, I would ask the Commission for a report. I would also consider the late motion for extension of time to be null and void, as it was a clear manipulation of the commision by an out of control CC member who wants to beat Parlin and Bill Ritter at all costs. You are desperate, and it shows.
During the No on X Campaign and the No on Target campaigns, you were the leader on the shrill public argument that certain CC members were acting like real estate agents due to the way that they pushed the projects. Well, here you are, equally misbehaving, but on the no project side.
Act with some dignity and make your supporters proud, instead of demeaning the office you hold.
Your conduct in mistreating Masud during the meeting was grossly rude. I think Ruth has been way too patient with your antics. Frankly, since being off the CC in 2004, I have heard about your gross abuses of people and process, but never saw it as I have not gone to many public functions. Well, with the three meetings that I have attended since this spring, I can see exactly what I have heard about, and it is worse than anything I could imagine.
How glad I am that I can proudly state that I have never voted for you, and I never, ever will.
City Manager Bill Emlen and Community Development Director Catherine Hess need to BOTH be fired or Davis will continue to go down the tubes. This pro-developer and anti-citizen team are selling out the citizens (and the city) and it will take a citizens initiative to dump them since we don’t have a Council majority to do it.
An initiative is a HUGE amount of work but with enough citizens to help it is do-able. I don’t see any other option since Emlen and Hess are clearly in the deep pockets of the developers. Hess has a long history of working AGAINST the citizens and FOR the best interests of the developers. She obviously leads Emlen around by the nose since he is more incompetent than she is. The real kicker is that we are paying Hess $125,000 and Emlen’s pay is even higher then hers and we get to pay them these high end salaries for working against us.
Let’s start working on cleaning house starting with these two losers before they destroy our city.
[quote]Your conduct in mistreating Masud during the meeting was grossly rude. I think Ruth has been way too patient with your antics.[/quote]Mike Harrington, you never cease to amaze me. You have completely exposed yourself. You were INFAMOUS on the council for abusive behavior. And now you are another developer apologist; but only for your OWN favorite developer.
Sue Greenwald was completely polite to Masud Monfered. She was completely polite with staff. She was being acting in the public interest.
Mike Harrington, you are a big bully, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
All of the above said, the budget numbers swing above and below the net neutral costs line, depending on assumptions. There are wild changes in the outcome if you change inflation, staff salaries, etc by even 1% over time. So the numbers are close enough to move my analysis on to the positive features of this project: 90% GHG reduction in operation of the homes; large affordable component; Parlin itself will build the affordable (check out the high quality of the small project on Russell across from UCD) (thank you Don Saylor for that change in the Dev Agreement); GHG mitigation will be ons-site (again, Don did this one); 100% accessibility for residents (thank you, Lamar!); play structure on site (Lamar); new homes pushed to the East with large orchard buffer (Masud did this, voluntarily); 15 extra acres for special habitat in an area staff located near the city (Masud did this, voluntarily).
What did Sue do to get any of these extras? Nothing. If I had been on the dais on 7/28, and saw that there were 3 votes to put it on the Nov ballot, I would have had my long list of “you want my vote, give me these items.” Masud really wanted her vote, but she acted like a small child on the playground who cannot bully others. She threw her toys down, sat down, and shrieked for attention. How sad. She flat was not ready for that meeting, and it showed.
Mr. Harrington…. so much for civility so let’s let it fly…. I wouldn’t trust you as far as I could throw you and the Davis voters have already registered the same opinion of your value and credibility when they refused to reelect you to the council. Your “progressive” agenda is in reality a self-aggrandizing and profiting-generating Mike Harrington agenda.
About Catherine Hess: I have had my ups and downs with her over the years.
She is a staff member, and when a CC majority says do or don’t do something, staff generally get it done. So if you want to fight about her programs and policies that she administers, then go run for CC next time and get 3 votes to tell her what to do.
On a personal basis, I see her riding her bike all over the town. (I have never even seen her drive a car.) You want to talk about greenhouse gas reductions, she rarely uses a car in her work environment.
Everyone remember that rainy night when the Housing Update Committee had a workshop at a school on the east side? Catherine showed up, in the rain, on her bike, and I think hers was the only bike I saw there. She road across town from her home in far west Davis.
She does not make a big deal out of her own sense of what is right for reducing GHG emissions in her personal and professional life, but I can testify that I have seen her do it, for years, and I am very impressed.
All of you should thank her for saving your clean air while she carries out the liberal policies of Davis.
All of you rabid Hess haters should tone it down.
Agian, after previously giving us the hope he would never blog again on WHR, Mike Parlington has returned with:
“Your conduct in mistreating Masud during the meeting was grossly rude.”
Since when is it “grossly rude” if a Councilmember asks tough questions of a developer who PROMISED he would build affordable units in his campaign pitch to citizens, only later to insist having the option of land dedications and non-profit developers at the city’s expense???
Also, before you talk about Sue’s behaviors, look at your own words you just posted about her: “…but she acted like a small child on the playground who cannot bully others. She threw her toys down, sat down, and shrieked for attention. How sad….”
You know what is really “sad”: you lost the last council election and haven’t stopped acting like a “cry baby” ever since, and now, with your relationships with Parlin, Talbott Solar, your true colors are coming out even more…SHAME ON YOU!!!
Mike Parlington wrote:”If I had been on the dais on 7/28″; IF is the key word; you will NEVER be on CC again, history lesson….
2004 City Council election results
Sue Greenwald 8,284
Mike Parlington 6,348
Harrington says……(thank you Don Saylor for that change in the Dev Agreement); GHG mitigation will be ons-site (again, Don did this one)
Is this dude sitting home smoking something illegal or just delusional?? It was Sue Greenwald who raised and pressed this issue. Don jumped in at the end to offer the motion but never raised the issue himself until Sue pressed the Council about making it on-site.
Mike Parlington vs. Sue Greenwald: I would add that those election results were BEFORE Harrington was exposed as just another pit bull working on behalf of a developer he has financial ties with.
The following is an excerpt from an interview Mike Parlington gave to DCN in February 2000 (right before the election):
“Mike Harrington on Measure J
Where do you stand on Measure J? How do you believe Davis should accommodate future growth, including growth at UC Davis?
Measure J is necessary. Since 1987 developers, not City government, have planned Davis.”
So Mike, would you agree the Parlin’s tactics with the City are an example of this again???
…just in case this is all a Harrington ploy to divert this thread’s attention from the facts that are sending measure P to defeat, let me suggest that all that needs to be said about Mike Harrington has been said and let’s return to an important subject, namely the Davis voter’s consideration of the WHR proposal Measure P vote that will take place less than 7 weeks from now.
Well, ol’ timer, the ballot arguments going out to the voters aren’t going to be changed, and I haven’t heard anything about anybody organizing any formal debates. So I guess the voters are just going to have to make up their minds based on
— factually incorrect arguments they receive with their official ballots;
— information disseminated door to door by paid campaign workers for WHR;
— whatever they may receive from any organized opposition to WHR, if there is one;
— what they read here, and what they read in the Davis Enterprise, and
— whatever they might be told by folks tabling at Farmers Market.
So, to summarize:
— WHR housing is not affordable by any generally accepted definition of that term. It meets the minimum requirements for affordability mandated by the city. To try to sell it as “affordable!” is like selling it on the basis that “all the units will meet city building code!”
— WHR probably doesn’t pencil out. To make it appear “cost-neutral” the staff had to revise their assumptions. In the long run, it will cost the city money.
— It has some cool environmental features, which unfortunately make the housing units even more expensive.
— City staff didn’t negotiate a very favorable development agreement from the taxpayer’s standpoint. That can be renegotiated if the project is rejected at this time.
— The way it was reviewed and approved by the city council violates the purposes and practices of citizen commissions that ordinarily review these projects. It is being rushed by this council for unclear reasons, and there is no need for the voters to ratify that breach of citizen review.
We have citizen commissions for a reason. They are a check on hasty council and staff decisions. That is also why we have Measure J, and that has become the last opportunity the voters have to tell the council and staff: this project agreement needs significant revision before it can be approved.
None of this, by the way, reflects poorly on the developer. I’m sure he is very frustrated. It is the council that has brought this about, and it is up to the voters to rectify it.
I found the following commentary from David Greenwald on the Vanguard dated July 15, 2007:
“Fourth, there is a misperception that housing developments and growth in general equals revenue. That is fundamentally false. Housing developments in particular are net losses for localities. The city of Davis pays the county of Yolo far more in pass-through money than they would get if they developed on the periphery of Davis. It is that simple.”
Would you PLEASE explain to us, how two years later, anything is different with the WHR project???
“Well, ol’ timer, the ballot arguments going out to the voters aren’t going to be changed, and I haven’t heard anything about anybody organizing any formal debates”
Hi Don,
Reminder, that Slide Hill Neighborhood Association will be sponsoring a town hall “debate” Monday night at Birch Lane Elementary auditorium at 7pm; DCN TV has agreed to televise; so hopefully you can make it and asks questions of both sides (or watch on TV)
More from the previously mentioned commentary by David Greenwald on Juky 15, 2007:
“…there is the notion that Davis has somehow not taken on its fair share of growth. In fact, Davis is in some ways “compelled” to grow at 1% per year by LAFCO. Davis is in fact in compliance with that growth rate. So to suggest that Davis has shirked its growth responsibilities is false.”
So, again I ask, what is different with WHR? Have we now not met our “growth responsibilities” and now REALLY need this project???
Don…. having worked long and hard for the NO on Measure X vote, I came to the conclusion that Davis is still small and cohesive enough for information and attitudes to apparently move through Davis, by word of mouth? or, dare I say, some more undefined narrative “air” that floats through this town. While I agree that grassroots door to door canvassing would be of great value,from what I have heard in the streets, there is already a critical mass of NO on P voters whose well-framed arguments will rapidly spread through the electorate. Paid door to door canvassers and mailers are impotent once this process takes off. The hysterical air of desperation of the Yes on P proponents is a recognition that the trajectory is against them. That’s not to say that we should be complaisant but I am optimistic about our chances at this point.
I said weeks and weeks ago that there should be two televised panel discussions: on the money, and on the project features, especially the sustainable aspects.
After reading and hearing all of the evidence on the money, I dont think that is very interesting as it was all described at the CC meeting in detail. But maybe others want to have it, so go ahead!
These panels should have been scheduled to occur the last week of September, first week of October, by the No and Yes factions. Instead of setting up a process, all I see is fighting on this Blog. Sells ad space, but does not move the debate ahead.
The Measure J election on CV: 60/40 against the project. That says that no matter how bad, 40% of the voters will vote for an exterior project.
Covell Village was in an entire bad actor class by itself, with really ugly environmental consequences.
Therefore, Parlin Wildhorse has a really good chance of prevailing. It is small, and reasonable, and quite sustainable.
I like having a small project for a J vote, as a bookend to the No on X vote. It should prove very helpful when renewing J next June.
So for the 90% GHG reduction (it sets a standard in Davis that is 100% better than the City’s already tough voluntary standard), plus the Measure J bookend vote, I am voting YES on Measure P.
Mike you wouldn’t be sucking up to Hess if she weren’t pushing this Parlin project so hard. Because she rides a bike does NOT make her green. She always does everything for the developers she possibly can and dumps on the Davis taxpayers that pay her salary.
Since Parlin is one of three tenants in your Davis office building who are also involved in the Parlin Wildhorse Ranch development, you obviously have a vested interest in this project. Mike, you just want guaranteed rent for years to come from these tenants. So, please, stop trying to wear the “green” hat. The only green you are interested in is the money coming in from these three tenants if this Parlin project manages gets through the Measure J vote. Please stop embarrassing yourself like this on the blog.
He’s baackkk!!! Just when you thought he told us no more blogging, he’s back in full force cheerleading for a “small and reasonable” project…191 units by itself may be “small”, but it is unnecessary!! We DON’T need more housing, and if we do, Mike please explain why….your best bud David Greenwald blogged just two years that we now that “Davis is in compliance with growth rates”, so two years later, we now are in a housing shortage???, please explain Mike, since you’re back in the pro-Parlin blogging business once again…
Sue, aka “Mike Parlington”: you are so accustomed to people sucking up to you and being afraid of you and your CC vote. It’s sad, really, to watch your conduct like what I have seen at the Finance and Budget Committe and two CC meetings that I have watched lately.
At the beginning of the Parlin item, you started a screaming match with Ruth at the last CC meeting. Finally, Steve pipes up with the obvious question: you were lecturing rudely during the time for CC member QUESTIONS to staff, not the motion practice and debate. What you did to Ruth, the rest of the CC, and all of us who had to sit there and listen and watch was abusive. You know the rules, yet you violate them with impunity. You were so caught up with your tirade that you failed to look around the room and see all the people laughing at you.
DPD: I wish you would out her and her Lewis Homes consultant buddy, and stop allowing anonymous comments. Those two are responsible for 75% of the abusive anonymous comments, and it turns a lot of people off. At least if they disagree with me, they know my number and can call to discuss, or email, or trash me on the Blog, or whatever.
Mike,
For you own sake, stop the compulsive attacks and focus on the issues.
Their silence certainly suggests that most of the Davis progressive leaders ,who allowed their names and reputations to be attached to the WHR proposal and ballot measure statement ,unfortunately knew little about it other than that Bill Ritter, who had accumulated and was now calling in political IOUs he had accumulated over the years, was making the ASK.
It is quite obvious that Mr. Harrington continues to try and provoke this thread into filling its time and space to vent personal outrage rather than focusing on the issues.I would suggest again that we just let him howl into the wind without responding.
Don Shor: “So, to summarize:
— WHR housing is not affordable by any generally accepted definition of that term. It meets the minimum requirements for affordability mandated by the city. To try to sell it as “affordable!” is like selling it on the basis that “all the units will meet city building code!”
— WHR probably doesn’t pencil out. To make it appear “cost-neutral” the staff had to revise their assumptions. In the long run, it will cost the city money.
— It has some cool environmental features, which unfortunately make the housing units even more expensive.
— City staff didn’t negotiate a very favorable development agreement from the taxpayer’s standpoint. That can be renegotiated if the project is rejected at this time.
— The way it was reviewed and approved by the city council violates the purposes and practices of citizen commissions that ordinarily review these projects. It is being rushed by this council for unclear reasons, and there is no need for the voters to ratify that breach of citizen review.
We have citizen commissions for a reason. They are a check on hasty council and staff decisions. That is also why we have Measure J, and that has become the last opportunity the voters have to tell the council and staff: this project agreement needs significant revision before it can be approved.”
Don, you summed it up nicely.
The lack of good process, unaffordable non work force housing, harm to most Davisite,s pocketbooks and a SACRAMENTO developer will all lead to a yes 48% no 52% defeat.
Believe it or not, this issue is not anywhere near the top of the list of concerns for the vast majority of people living in Davis.
“Believe it or not, this issue is not anywhere near the top of the list of concerns for the vast majority of people living in Davis.”
Ryan…. It doesn’t have to be at the top of your list of concerns to feel that since Measure J was fought long and hard for, one would want to be as fully informed and choose yes or no.. this is what Measure J is all about.. giving YOU the final say.
“Believe it or not, this issue is not anywhere near the top of the list of concerns for the vast majority of people living in Davis.”
Maybe it should be. After all, if this project pencils out to be a net fiscal negative to the city, it is the taxpayers who are going to have to foot the bill! They should be paying attention…
Mike Harrington says:
“I would have had my long list of “you want my vote, give me these items.” Masud really wanted her vote…”
….quite revealing and remarkable in his candor about how he governed while on the Council. Davis voters, in their wisdom, rejected his bid for reelection, something which rarely occurs in Davis Council elections. He doesn’t appear to even grasp that Sue Greenwald was representing the General Plan Measure L provision, voted in by a citizen-initiative, that directed their Council representatives to proceed with Davis residential growth as slowly as legally permissable. Mike Harrington apparently believes that a Council member can ignore the will of the Davis voters, as expressed in Measure L, with impunity.
Good job Ol Timer, we got Saylor and Souza instead of Harrington, who would you prefer?
I’m assuming your praise is in the sarcastic mode. Saylor has been around long enough for the Davis voters, in spite of his political “skills”, to have gotten his “number”. Souza’s style allows the voters to rather readily size him up As an unabashed populist, I come down on the side of transparency and full and fair process, then it is up to the Davis voters.
I don’t see any praise in my statement, I asked who you prefer Harrington or Souza/ Saylor. You failed to answer the question.
One of the special qualities of Vanguard threads is that posters,for the most part, try to focus their arguments, not on their personal feelings and choices, but rather on civic-oriented fact and process discussion; this accounts for my response.
What really matters always is what all voters think and this is how they thought who should represent us in the last two elections.
Mar 2, 2004 Davis City Council
Sue Greenwald 8,284 17.3%
Don Saylor 7,503 15.7%
Stephen Souza 6,997 14.6%
Donna Y. Lott 6,305 13.2%
Stan Forbes 6,384 13.3%
Mike Harrington 6,348 13.3%
Lamar Heystek 4,539 9.5%
JJ Charlesworth 1,349 2.8%
Jun 3, 2008 Davis City Council
Don Saylor 7,893 21.3%
Stephen Souza7,51220.3%
Sue Greenwald6,59817.8%
Sydney Vergis5,69815.4%
Cecilia
Escamilla-Greenwald 4,878 13.2%
Rob Roy 4,50412.1%
Actually the next to last CC election was June 2006.
Ruth Asmundson – – 6,751 24.52%
Lamar Richard Heystek – – 6,628 24.08%
Mike Levy – – 6,351 23.07%
Stan Forbes – – 6,283 22.82%
Rob Roy – – 1,517 5.51%
Skip, thanks now we have last 3 elections and the one Mr. Harrington lost and Sue Greenwald got the most votes.
After 30 years of voting and participating in local Davis politics, I have come to the conclusion that there are two things that Davis voters will not abide and will NEVER forgive. The first is a sense that they have been or are being politically betrayed by the candidate and the second is a belief that the candidate insultingly believes that the voters are not smart enough or paying close enough attention to catch him/her in their “misrepresentations”. Sue Greenwald’s continued electoral success can, in large part, be attributed to her not violating these two iron-fast rules of Davis electoral politics.