At the Davis City Council Meeting two weeks ago, Bill Ritter issued a complaint about the conduct of Councilmember Sue Greenwald at a Finance and Budget Commission (FBC) Meeting the night before. Until this past Tuesday evening Councilmember Greenwald served as liaison to the Commission. The complaint was referred to the subcommittee on commissions which is comprised of Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Councilmember Stephen Souza.
On Tuesday the subcommittee came back with their findings. The council has a Procedures Manual for Council Members. The fifth chapter defines the “Role of Commission Liaison” which reads as follows:
Each member of the Council is assigned to serve in a liaison capacity with one ore more city commissions. The purpose of the liaison assignment is to facilitate communication between the City Council and the advisory body. The liaison also helps to increase the Council’s familiarity with the membership, programs and issues of the advisory body. In fulfilling their liaison assignment, members may elect to attend commission meetings periodically to observe the activities of the advisory body or simply maintain communication with the commission chair on a regular basis.
Members should be sensitive to the fact that they are not participating members of the commission but are there rather to create linkage between the City Council and commission. In interacting with the commissions, Council members are to reflect the views of the Council as a body.
Typically, assignments to commission liaison positions are made at the beginning of a Council term. The Mayor will request liaison assignments which are desired by each member and will submit recommendations to the full Council of the various committees, boards and commissions which City Council members will represent as a liaison. In the rare instance of disagreements, a vote of the Council will be taken to confirm appointments.
The subcommittee apparently listened to the audio recording from that meeting and returned with the opinion that
“the Council Liaison did overstep the role of liaison at the September 14 FBC meeting by repeatedly attempting to direct and/or influence commission discussion and by voicing personal opinions rather than representing the Council position.”
The subcommittee argued that the process for removing the liaison is less clear. They argue that while
“Council requires no special policy to change a sitting Council liaison, the Subcommittee recommends adding verbiage to the Council Procedures Manual to make it clear when and how a Council member can be removed or reassigned from liaison duties.”
The council majority then proceeded to move to remove Councilmember Greenwald from her position as liaison to the commission. Before they could act on that motion, Councilmember Greenwald resigned (“quit”) her position. Councilmember Lamar Heystek was then put in as her replacement in order to make the decision look like it was not about policy but rather about conduct.
For her part, Councilmember Sue Greenwald argued that while she may have crossed the line, and she certainly got overly emotional on issues that she considered very important, she felt this was done under unusual conditions.
“The meeting that you’re talking about is a very unusual one. I’ve never done that before and I probably will never do that again.”
Councilmember Lamar Heystek found himself in a difficult position, and he first opposed the changes to the language, opposed the removal of Councilmember Greenwald, and then abstained from voting on himself as replacement while at the same time accepting the position.
My View of What Happened at the Finance and Budget Commission Meeting
For me this is an issue about process and conduct rather than policy. As I mentioned previously I most often agree very strongly with councilmember Greenwald. on issues going to the Finance and Budget Commission In fact, on many of the most important issues facing the city–the short-term budget, the longer term problems of unfunded liability and pensions, Councilmember Greenwald and I are in complete agreement. At the same time, I disagree with her on this particular issue, but agree with her probably 95% of the time if not more often.
On the night in question, the issue at the time was the Fiscal Analysis of the Wild Horse Ranch Development Project. As people who read this blog well know that is an issue of contention, and Councilmember Greenwald has been an outspoken critic of the project and the process. That is certainly her right and much of the time to her credit.
On this night in question, the Councilmember sat at the table with the commission acting in her role as liaison. During public comment, she announced that she would be speaking as a member of the public, she got down from the table, stepped up to the podium and spoke. She acted completely appropriately at this point in time.
However, as the discussion wore on, and became more heated lines became blurred. She vacillated between sitting at the table and sitting in the audience with a member of the public.
The lines were crossed at one point in the discussion however. A member of the commission had made a motion to ask the council to delay their actions so that the commission would have additional time to evaluate the fiscal impact of the project. The motion received no seconds and therefore died.
However, this was not the end of the discussion. It was at this point that Councilmember Greenwald got up from her seat in the audience and sat at the table. She then expressed the fact that she was appalled by the lack of a second and she berated the chair of the commission for failing to second the motion. She told the commission, at this point, completely blurring the lines, that they had to act.
The chair asked for the motion to be reentered, he then seconded the motion for the sake of discussion. After much further discussion, the body eventually voted for the motion.
As a matter of policy, it was not an unreasonable request. As a matter of proper procedure it was a rather egregious. To use Councilmember Souza’s words, it was a violation of the procedures manual.
There are some who are undoubtedly argue this is about policy. Councilmember Souza though agrees with Councilmember Greenwald on this issue, in fact, he derided Mr. Ritter two weeks ago when Mr. Ritter brought the issue forward. However, once he listened to the recording, his views of the matter clearly changed.
Should the council have removed her from her position? That’s an even tougher question that I am struggling with even now. There are those who would argue this was ex-post facto. However, the council has clearly always had the determination as to who would be the liaison to which commission and thus always the power to make changes. They added wording to strengthen the policy, but even the staff report suggests they probably already had the ability. Bottom line of course is that she clearly and disputably violated existing policy.
In the end, I would have preferred to not to have to write this column. There are many more important issues in this community than this one–some of them occurred at Tuesday’s meeting and will be addressed in subsequent columns. However, being at that meeting two weeks ago, and having the meeting NOT televised and sparsely attended, I felt the need to bear witness to what happened.
Let me finish with a question for people on this matter–I could probably obtain an audio recording from the meeting and post it on the Vanguard and then people can judge what happened for themselves. Is that something people are interested in or is it time to move on to other issues?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Your description is fine enough. Anyone who has paid attention realizes that Sue Greenwald’s position on development is completely off the charts and that her conduct is often beyond what one would consider appropriate. Her passion often trumps her reason and lacking the skills of persuasion needed to be a successful politician she often becomes a bully. She resigned from the commission rather than be further humiliated by her conduct. It is sad that someone so unreasonable has the support of so many in the community.
DPD: I would keep the audio in case she does it again, and move on. I agree, most of the time it is about process. Most of my comments that are adverse to her are about her process problems.
As to Parlin Wildhorse, for the life of me I cannot understand why, on substantive policy grounds, she would try so hard to knock down a small, reasonable little project that has so many benefits? For example, when is the last time that we can remember Sierra Club ENDORSING a border project????? But here, that is exactly what they did.
Seriously, all I can come up with as to her vapid opposition is some sort of power struggle she is in with project propopents. Because for reasons of merit, and political strategy, she should have voted for it, or at least voted her NO, then let it go.
Moving beyond the immediate issues concerned, to something mentioned in the Vanguard report, should city council members have a vote on a citizens committee and one on the city council too? One person:one vote seems a prudent policy and a leveling influence during debate.
Barry: Not sure if you are suggesting that they get a vote on the Commissions, because right now they do not have a vote, they are merely there to advise and inform.
As to Parlin Wildhorse, for the life of me I cannot understand why, on substantive policy grounds, she would try so hard to knock down a small, reasonable little project that has so many benefits?
There goes Mike Parlington with his “reasonable little project with so many benefots” mantra again!!!
Mike, how many the “false claims” that Parlin has made with this project, such as “REALLY AFFORDABLE” (REALLY???), and the whole notion of “4 million net benefits to the city” (which is in thier ballot statement, quite an overreaching claim that Sue has fought the validity of such claims, as she should if she is truly representing the interests of the City and its citizens and NOT developers’ rights)
Sue Greenwald is not the only CC member that has questioned aspects of this project; look at Souza’s comments from the 9/15 meeting, where he said some harsh things about the affordability claims and even publicly stated the project “will likely lose” (yet no one from the pro-Parlin/Vanguard crew is going after him).
Face it Mike Parlington, You are a Sue Greenwald hater and trying to make a Yes on P vote a No on Sue vote, and for that, you should be ashamed!
“yet no one from the pro-Parlin/Vanguard crew is going after him”
Huh? You somehow think David is likes Souza? Did you forget this article?
The Puzzle of Souza’s Vote ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2936:the-puzzle-of-souzas-wildhorse-vote&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url])
I would very much like to see the video of what happened. I would also point out that for any sitting City Council member, especially Asmundson, Souza or Saylor, to sit in judgment over Greenwald, is very much the pot calling the kettle black. All three (Asmundson, Souza, Saylor) flout process and overstep their bounds whenever it suits, but somehow don’t find themselves in any kind of trouble for it. Why? Because they are in the majority and have the “bully pulpit”. Shame on all three of them for doing this. It makes all three look like what they are – petty bullies. They have the power, so they used it to whip a fellow Council member that keeps showing them up.
Secondly, if the City Council claims it had the right to remove Greenwald anyway, then why the necessity for adding new language? Who is kidding who – they punished Greenwald retroactively. Add the language, that gives the warning. If she does it again, if she did do anything so terrible, then the means to remove are there in black and white for all to see ahead of time.
It would also seem to me the Chair of the Budget and Finance Commission should be able to control his own meeting. He is a grown man and doesn’t need the City Council majority to come to his rescue.
Well, Bill Ritter, are you happy now? Is this what you intended? I hope not. A public humiliation (public spanking by three) as was dished out to Greenwald seems over the top, especially in light of the repeated misconduct of the Council majority itself (and what they have done is far, far worse).
Is this what city government has stooped to – if you are in the political minority, beware, because the political majority will play “gotcha” whenever they get the chance? How absolutely petty, vindictive, and childish. Frankly, I am ashamed to live in a city that arrests people that snore, worries more about toads than its citizens, and engages in petty politics to neutralize the opposition.
Make no mistake – the City Council majority will do anything to neutralize anyone that opposes their views. Sue Greenwald should be satisfied in knowing she obviously is hitting them where it hurts, if they have to stoop to this sort of nonsense to silence her voice.
Watching this from home, it looked more like kids fighting in the sandbox than grown adults. The entire thing was disgusting.
“Should the council have removed her from her position? That’s an even tougher question that I am struggling with even now. There are those who would argue this was ex-post facto. However, the council has clearly always had the determination as to who would be the liaison to which commission and thus always the power to make changes. They added wording to strengthen the policy, but even the staff report suggests they probably already had the ability. Bottom line of course is that she clearly and disputably violated existing policy.”
City staff does whatever the City Council majority tells them to. Come off it!
“Make no mistake – the City Council majority will do anything to neutralize anyone that opposes their views. Sue Greenwald should be satisfied in knowing she obviously is hitting them where it hurts, if they have to stoop to this sort of nonsense to silence her voice.”
What really happened is Sue gave them an iron clan reason to remove her from the commission where her voice is most effective and most needed. If this report is accurate, Sue blatantly violated her charge, that’s not “hitting them where it hurts,” rather it is acting inappropriately. For as Smart as Sue is, she gave them a reason to remove her. She has to be smarter than that–they are gunning for her.
At the 7/28 CC meeting, both Ruth Asmundson and Don Saylor (who now are publicly admonishing Sue Greenwald) both stated they felt they “needed more time” to review the true fiscal impacts/analysis of the WHT project before they were ready to approve it for a Measure J vote (look at the archive video for evidence), yet they both shortly later agreed to vote for Lamar’s motion for a Nov election!
Why can Ruth and Don have momentary objections to the fiscal “fuzzy math”, and yet if Sue wants to continue to question and fight the issue as far as she can for the voters’ truth, she is labeled as “inappropriate”
BB Rebozo: That is why Sue has the “support of so many in the community”: she may do things unorthodox, but unlike the rest of our CC, she clearly puts citizens’ concerns over developers!
“Is this what city government has stooped to – if you are in the political minority, beware, because the political majority will play “gotcha” whenever they get the chance?”
Are you excusing Sue’s behavior? Did you witness it? You admitted you did not hear the tape. So shouldn’t you listen to the tape before you judge them? Isn’t that reasonable?
The City Council liaison is supposed to reflect the views of the City Council? How does that work? The City Council itself does not have “one view”. This makes absolutely no sense.
You seem to be trying to change the subject here. So let me ask you point blank–were you are the meeting in question in this article and if so, do you defend Sue’s conduct? Thanks.
As a liaison to council, yes. As an individual, no. It’s just like a commissioner, there are reasons why commissioners are requested to make it clear they speak for themselves rather than for the commission. Why would you expect the council liaison to do otherwise?
Wake up “progressives.” Sue Greenwald’s resignation as liasion to a key council commission left the progressive movement “waving in the breeze.”
By opposing the best “green” project ever proposed for Davis, without any substantive argument, Sue destroyed the credibility of progressives who supported her position and endangered the progressive movement as a whole.
I do not support development on peripheral ag lands, but consider the WHR proposal(Measure P)a small, well-designed infill project, pure & simple.
So the bottom line is this: progressives sold Measure J as a tool to encourage environmentally-sound, small infill projects. Now we have the prototype of just such a project on the table, and Greenwald opposes it.
Opponents of Measure J claimed it was a no-growth measure, while proponents claimed it was a tool for progressive, green infill. And now we have just such a project (WHR: a small, truly-green, infill project) on the ballot (as Measure P) and Sue & her supporters oppose even that.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if we use Measure J to stop all development, no matter how small, green or innovative, there will be a community backlash that will jeopardize the renewal of Measure J.
I say Yes on Measure P (& thanks to Sue for resigning).
You seem to be trying to change the subject here. So let me ask you point blank–were you are the meeting in question in this article and if so, do you defend Sue’s conduct? Thanks.
No, I was NOT at that meeting, but I defend Sue as does Elaine Roberts Musser who wrote the following on the other Vanguard story posted today on Tues CC:
In an extremely ugly exchange, an attempt was made to remove minority Councilmember Sue Greenwald as liaison to the Budget and Finance Commission, ostensibly because she had previously overstepped her authority. The City Council majority conveniently passed a novel rule that night, giving authority for a City Council majority to remove a fellow member deemed to have violated standards laid out for improper liaison behavior. What followed was a concerted effort to humiliatingly subject Councilmember Greenwald to this new rule ex post facto, as the city attorney sat silent.
Sue HATERS out there, beware, you may barking up the wrong tree for Yes on P!
I actually like Sue, I’ve voted for her at least four times and I would vote for her again. But if she did this, then she crossed the line by quite a ways. This has nothing to do with Measure P and everything to do with process. The No on P side has been arguing over the process by which Measure P was adopted, this is also a process issue.
Truth-seeker:
How could any progressive be transformed into (as you put it) a “Sue-hater” without just cause? Seems to me that Sue has given us myriad reasons to lose faith in her.
First, she opposed the concept of Measure J from its inception. Second, even when she has been out-voted and appointed as a minority “liason” to council commissions, she has sought to impose her (individual) opinion over the will of the council majority.
So, who does Sue really represent? The Council majority who appointed her as a “representative? The “progressives” who believed she would support small, green infill projects (to help defuse the need for huge peripheral developments)or only herself, with a 100% record of opposing everything?
David, do we get to hear the tape?
The actions in question by Councilmember Greenwald at the F & B Commission was not the first time she has been acting as a member instead of a Councilmember. I have been there many times to see so with my own eyes.
David, in my opinion you are joining in the political bullying because you are now a developer advocate.
David knows full well that the real story is that the Finance and Budget Committee is not presented with the material they need in a fashion that allows them to ferret out problems. Paul Navazio does all the talking, and he rarely points out anything that doesn’t confirm the council majority mantra that everything is fine.
No one can fathom the amount of time and the number of staff members I have to talk with to put together what is actually happening fiscally. It is virtually detective work. I have to ask the exact right question of one staff, then ask the exact right follow-up question of a different staff member, that ask a third staff member why a discrepancy exists, then ask Paul how is model accounts for it, etc.
Paul is extremely intelligent, understands the issues, and he is great to talk with in private. He grapples with the issues on a very high level.
The problem is his reluctance in public to raise issues which would displease the council majority.
No commission member has the time or the familiarity with the issues to do the necessary detective work. Usually, I try to gently point out what I have learned on these technical issues. If I can’t do that, the meetings are just too frustrating.
David Greenwald, you wrote nothing about the technical information that I was trying to convey, i.e., the fact that the finance director had refused to acknowledge that that his fiscal analysis had taken a small onetime revenue that disappears in 15 years to pay for a recurring annual deficit, and then said the Wildhorse Ranch project pays for itself, without pointing out that it only pays for itself because the fiscal forecasts lasts only fifteen years.
There is no reason a councilmember should liaison should not be able to point out technical issues.
Further, you do not point out that Don Saylor frequently asserted his direction over that commission. I had one report of a former commissioner tell me that he was seriously bullied by Don Saylor for suggesting that a supplementary tax should not be a foregone conclusion.
The council has never suggested removing Ruth Asmundson for her frequent violations as Mayor, or Saylor for his interventions.
It is one thing to call in a councilmember in and quietly suggest that they play a less active role. It is another thing to selectively use the rule as the basis to launch a public political attack.
The criticism was not directed only at the meeting when I was frustrated by the Wildhorse Ranch onetime payment that lasted only the life of the 15 year model. I was criticized for “constantly bringing up the unfunded liabilities”, when I should have been praised for it.
But frankly, if I can’t play some role in pointing out technical problems that Paul has not pointed out, I really did want to resign, because the commission cannot be effective given the type of information they are currently provided.
And it is disgraceful for David to join in the political bullying, but was pretty much what I expected.
The reporting on this blog seems so one sided. Isn’t there another blog site that we can go to for a more balanced reporting of the issues that are happening in Davis??? Also, there seems to be only certain people who blog. This would suggest only a minority of residents (if they are) opions. Where is the bigger blog site for Davis??
Rick R. you can’t really go to the other side again. Just stay on the fence on Measure P until you have looked at the whole picture. Or spoken with the No on P people again.
First lets have a debate on the merits of the project. The opposition seems to want to change the subject.
I find it interesting that folks who overlook the many false and misleading statements made by Parlin (e.g., the project will be fiscally positive when in fact it loses money after 15 years and is on a parcel that pays 2/3 of the average property tax)are quick to jump on Sue.
The $450,000 town homes are not affordable and only 15/40 apartments are substantially below market rate and are for very low income folks.
THe project paves over Ag land on the periphery of town in an area where most folks commute to Sac or elsewhere. (I know; I live there.) You cannot really walk anywhere from this site–how is that green?
We can have green projects; we don’t need to approve this one which is not really infill, not really affordable and will ultimatley cost the City money–we can do better folks.
All of us make mistakes at times with our conduct our words or our approaches with other people in life. Screwing up with good intentions is part of being human. Allowing others to get past their mistakes to not hold a grudge and to move on is also part of civil conduct.
But the key especially for an adult is to learn from those mistakes he inevitably will make. Impossibly difficult people tend to be folks who have no humility because they never learn from their own foibles. They continually find fault in friends and acquaintances and have a facility for making enemies of people who they want and need to be on their side.
When a person is elected to public office, almost no character trait is more important than the ability to be courteous. An elected official in a legislative body needs to listen respectfully to experts and to his colleagues. He needs at times to win them over with his charm, to make alliances of convenience and to forge friendships with people who have very different ideas and personalities. A politician with no future is one who lacks charm.
The question for Sue Greenwald who made a mistake with her behavior at the commission meeting and has made similar mistakes at city council meetings is will she learn from her errors?
Mrs. Greenwald is an adult. She has to expect more from herself. She shouldn’t approach these questions by looking to find fault in her colleagues on the council or to find fault with bloggers or to find fault with commissioners. She needs to realize that her approach is not working. She is not winning any arguments by attacking the motives of other people or their competence.
When Sue Greenwald accepts in her heart that she needs to be more courteous at all times and to apologize for her mistakes she will become a much more successful politician. It’s never too late to get better and to learn. It’s time Mrs. Greenwald tries a new approach with her colleagues on the council with city employees with commissioners and with the public. She and Davis will win for that change.
Sue Greenwald has never hid the fact that she is not skillful in diplomatic political verbiage.With this knowledge, the Davis voters have voted her into office and made her our mayor because they see that she is AUTHENTIC, without guile and deception, and sincerely dedicated to city policy issues that they consider to be their INTEREST. On the other hand, the trio of Saylor, Asmundson and Souza have clearly demonstrated in the past that they do NOT represent the desires of the majority of Davis voters.
I believe that the audio that reveals her chastising the Commission for not seconding a motion that ANY Davis voter would think was their DUTY, i.e., to ask to be allowed to examine and report on the fiscal analysis of the WHR proposal, clearly sent Sue “over the top” as she is want to do on occasion when goaded by Souza and his cohorts and extremely frustrated.
Bill Ritter, professional political operative in Davis, has long been trying to run Sue Greenwald out of Davis Council politics for both personal and “professional” reasons. For the paid employees of Parlin and/or those having their own ego/financial/political self- interests invested in the WHR proposal, the clear downhill trajectory of the Yes on P campaign is prompting this last- ditch attempt to raise the rhetoric to fever-pitch and drown out the irrefutable arguments for a NO on P vote.
It is transparent that the Yes on P campaign, facing defeat , has decided to change the subject and make the measure P vote a referendum on Councilperson Greenwald. If rick entirkin’s sudden shifting from a very probable NO on P,based upon fact, to a rabid anti-Greenwald, Yes on P position, they appear to have succeeded in his case. I am optimistic that rick’s civic thought processes are not representative of the Davis voter.
Kasemtanakul:
Well said regarding learning from errors/mistakes. Problem for Davis “progressives” is that Sue Greenwald neither admits to or corrects “mistakes.” In fact, she is so intransigent that she has alienated many of the very people who put her into elected office.
If there is any hope for a “progressive” city council majority, the first step should be to abandon Sue Greenwald (no need to trash her; just ignore her and do not contribute to her campaign.
Step #2. All progressives join together and make a major effort to identify two viable candidates to run for council next year.
Hey ol’ timer who got the majority of votes in the last City Council election? Is that not representative of majority rule?
I’ve made a request to get a hold of the audio. I will see how to post it when it is available.
Unskilled verbiage is one thing unskilled behavoir is another. Its tough being on the wrong side of a majority but it is not reason to lose one’s dignity and composure.
Hey Tricky Ricky one persons progressive is another persons regressive. Oh and remind me of who is on the Yolano Sierra Club board.
I’m going to say this to Sue. If there is one commission above all others that you should be on it is the Finance and Budget commission. When few others were speaking up on fiscal issues, you were the voice pointing out where this city was headed. And you were correct.
Unfortunately your conduct on the night September 14 was completely out of line and appalling. It is remarkable that there are many here defending you, not one of them was there that night.
It is most appalling that you gave these people, to use the words someone else posted earlier, an iron clad reason to kick you off the commission.
Moreover, you made that decision easy by failing to show contrition at your mistakes. They’ve been gunning for you since as long as I have followed the council, they tried to find an excuse to deny you Mayor, and you let this issue give them an excuse to kick you off this commission.
You want to blame me for that? I was there. I couldn’t believe you did what you did. If you were anyone else, I would have called you out from the dais the next day.
For me you had legitimate points to raise but you raised them by illegitimate means.
truth seeker;
Truth seeker…..I was referring to the 60/40 NO on Measure X vote. Sue was the ONLY Counncil member who fought for the NO on Measure X. Souza, Asmundson and Saylor did all in their power with half-truths, outright false “facts” or at best unacceptable ignorance, trying to ram through the Measure J process( Measure P is a repeat performance) to persuade the voters to vote Yes on Meausre X,the first outing of our Measure J. Since this was an up or down vote on a single issue, it is much more a reflection of Davis voters’ desires than who wins the most votes(never near a majority) in a multiple candidate Council election.
I have to admit that Sue is a loose cannon and makes trouble for herself and the council with her behavior at times. On the other hand, she is perceptive and bright, and often brings up things other council members don’t. I’m thinking of her attack on the developer about making a firm commitment to build the low income housing. She was rude and aggressive, but then Saylor picked up her argument, and it prevailed. I think it is fine to be assertive, maybe a bit aggressive, but I think she would be more effective if she could chill out just a little.
David — In answer to your question, let’s move on. Tragically for our city, we’ve come to expect political vindictiveness and petty small-mindedness from our local electeds in lieu of civil, reasoned debate over the many significant issues facing Davis. There was a time (not too many years ago!) when city council members would conclude their Tuesday nights with a cup of cheer, a laugh or two at a local watering hole, and a promise to work harder — together — for the people of Davis. Is it too much too ask to expect that people of good will can disagree without being disagreeable, or are my glasses hopelessly rose-colored? Keep up the good work, David, but this horse is dead!
Truthseeker:
What does the composition of the Sierra Club have to do with Sue’s behavior (or my opinions for that matter?)
The Sierra Club analyzed the WHR in depth and endorsed the project. So what is your point? Are you now going to denigrate the Sierra Club?
And that takes me to the next question: how many innuendoes will it take for you to denigrate the WHR project?
Anyone who was around during the public Council deliberations on the Covell Village project in preparation for the Measure X vote recognizes that without Sue Greenwald’s stubborn, unrelenting and ,yes, often times what could be characterized as aggressive and confrontational conduct on the dais, Davis voters would have heard ONLY what the Council majority and Emlen wanted them to hear whether it was true or not.
The final straw( for their NO decision on Covell Village) came when the Planning Commission asked for more information on a crucial issue they were deliberating on and Emlen, then Planning Director, now City Manager, told them that they must vote a decision that evening without the information that they legitimately requested.
“without Sue Greenwald’s stubborn, unrelenting and ,yes, often times what could be characterized as aggressive and confrontational conduct on the dais, Davis voters would have heard ONLY what the Council majority and Emlen wanted them to hear”
It’s fine some times to be stubborn unrelenting aggressive or confrontational. However it is ineffective boorish and unwise to be discourteous. More talented politicians who win votes and win arguments learn to confront in a way which does not repel make enemies and drive off friends, and then blame those on the other side for not listening or understanding the person without manners.
No one who voted against the Covell project did so because Mrs. Greenwald berated them.
This is a classic case of “if you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger.” I was Chair of the Finance and Budget Commission for four years, and I attended the meeting in question. I strongly disagree with David Greenwald’s characterization of the meeting, and I encourage him to post the audio so that people can judge things for themselves.
In fact, I, too, was singled out by Mayor Asmundson for inappropriate behavior. Apparently, it’s inappropriate to inform the Finance and Budget Commission that the City is using one-time fees to paper over a long-term deficit that magically appears in the year after the fiscal model ends. It’s also apparently out of bounds to inform the Commission that the Yes on P side is claiming $3.2 million in fiscal benefits that do not exist. That money is not there if this project is built and it’s not there if this project isn’t built.
For the record, I was also a member of the Business and Economic Development Commission for several years, and I can give you many instances of Mayor Asmundson giving the BEDC her own personal views about what the Commission should do. If Council liaisons can only give the views of the Council majority at a commission meeting, then there is no point of any Council member, who is not part of the majority, in ever attending any commission meeting.
The fact of the matter is that the Council majority doesn’t want any commission to carefully and independently review any policy or project. In the case when a commission or committee does something independently, like the Housing Element Steering Committee ranking Wildhorse Ranch 27 of 36, the Council majority just simply ignores the recommendation.
I always found Sue Greenwald to be an invaluable asset to the FBC, and the citizens of Davis should be grateful for the hard work she’s done day in and day out for years on end grappling with some very challenging and difficult long-term fiscal issues.
Let’s focus on the issues. If we want to talk personalities and petty politics, there’s plenty of ammunition to fire at multiple Council members.
Kasemtanakul is correct. In the US Senate the more you disagree with your opponent the more you praise them personally while disagreeing with them vigorously on the substance.
“You want to blame me for that? I was there. I couldn’t believe you did what you did. If you were anyone else, I would have called you out from the dais the next day.
For me you had legitimate points to raise but you raised them by illegitimate means.”
To DPD: Let’s assume Sue overstepped her bounds. Are you telling me other City Council members haven’t done so just as much, if not more eggregiously? Let’s assume yes. Then where does all this lead? To the conclusion that the CC majority has passed a rule that now allows them to run roughshod over anyone that disagrees with them. Dissent has been effectively stifled – so your outrage rings somewhat hollow. Would you have been as outraged had you been against Measure P?
To Sue – we love ya’ – but you did give the CC majority the ammuniton they needed to cut you to ribbons. You need to change your game a little. It might be wise for you to start asking the right friends how to better strategize…
To the CC majority – you’re toast in the next two election cycles…this does not reflect well on you at all. If you think it does, you are living in la la land.
To Voters: Who of the City Council members has YOUR INTERESTS AT HEART?
Kasmtanakul: Your argument places style over substance. Mine is that substance ALWAYS trumps style. Could Sue be more effective if she wasn’t “Sue Greenwald”? Probably. Sue Greenwald, as herself, has been critical in resisting the Council majority’s agenda to ignore the “slow growth” citizen initiative directive of our Measure L. I’ll take her as she is over Saylor/Asmundson(I use a typed slash to represent functionally “joined at the hip”) and Souza.
Truth Seeker 8:20:
Actually, the city has conceded and this was in the Enterprise a couple of weeks ago, that there is indeed an approximately $4 million net benefit to the city from the Parlin development. So that rebuttal claim is no longer in doubt by anyone but Sue, apparently.
“Would you have been as outraged had you been against Measure P? “
Yes because now Sue is not on the Finance and Budget Committee as liaison and I care far more about the issues before that commission in general than the issue of Measure P.
No friend to Covell Village:
The FACT is that the $4 million dollars is actually a “social value asset”, based upon the social value of building the minimum very low affordable housing requirement in WHR. Davis has already met its required housing start numbers, including the very low affordable housing numbers mandated by SACOG. Without building WHR, no “social value” asset exists, certainly no real $$$. Go online at davismedia.org to hear exactly what Sue Greenwald says about this. Her outrage is the ballot statement’s claim that there will be $4 million dollars available to be spent through our General Fund, This is totally FALSE. It remains on the ballot as the YES on P’s authorized statement; they could have removed it. A court order would have been necessary to force them and the Council majority was ,reportedly, not willing to take this action.Duh!
Unfortunately your conduct on the night September 14 was completely out of line and appalling. It is remarkable that there are many here defending you, not one of them was there that night.
David, we support and defend Sue because that is what she has precisely done for the citizens of Davis for the last ten years: she has defended and supported neighbors’ interests over the interests of developers (and their paid operatives, like Bill Ritter, who launced his attack on Sue on 9/17 and was told by both Ruth and Souza to stop, yet he kept his rant going beyond the 3 minute limit)
By the way, Ritter and Associates was paid $15,000 last month by Parlin Development! This is found at the public campaign finance records for Yes on P, available for public review at the City Clerk’s office; find out much Sue Greenwald has been paid by No on P ($ 0)!!!
Remember the audio tape issue connected with the Davis police taking a 16 yo Davis girl into custody one evening from her home, while she was still in her pajamas? This was totally “hyped” by the Council Majority of Saylor, Souza and Asmundson, occuring and The Enterprise right before a Council election.
It set off a furor of heated rhetoric that totally drowned out the many legitimate candidate policy positions on Davis’ future.
On 9 /16/09 Rich Entrikin blogged the following:
“..Something just doesn’t sit right about Measure P (including the claim that the developer is having to pay people to campaign for the project). If I’m missing something, hopefully a more astute blogger will educate me.
Meanwhile, I’m leaning (~ 90%) towards a “No on P” vote.”
Then this morning, he wrote:
“I say Yes on Measure P”
Rick, why such the sudden “flip-flop” on Measure P?
Are you now less convinced or bothered by the fact the developer is having to pay people to campaign for the project…if so, please consider the following numbers (which can all be verified by going to the City Clerk’s office and reviewing the campaign finance records for both campaings)
Parlin has $90,000 to date in campaign funding ($50,000 in monetary contributions and $40,000 in non-monetary contributions); No on P has a little over $1,100 (ratio of 90:1!)
Parlin’s campaign expenses so far have included the following:
$15,000 to Ritter & Associates
$11,990 to William Berry (campaign consultant in Sacramento)
$8,768.75 in ads for Davis Enterprise
$500 in ads for Vanguard (probably for that ad I am lookin right now on the bottom of the page!)
About $2200 to seven “salaried” employees (likely the college kids)…..
So Rick, if your previous “90 % leaning towards No on P” was based on the fact that you were “bothered by the fact the developer is having to pay people to campaign for the project”, what is different now?
OR is that you really dislike Sue Greenwald, and you are making your Yes on P vote a No on Sue vote now???
Ol Timer:
Roughly $3.2 million is from the “social benefit” of building the affordable units. And yes, it is a benefit. If this project goes forward, the city will not have to subsidize its affordable units, so that is a savings that can be used in the city’s affordable housing program later on that it otherwise would not have had.
The rest of the roughly $4 million is from fees paid to the city that will provide the city with a reliable source of income for services, etc. The statement was not removed because the city verified it. What Sue continues to say about this is not relevant any more, but she will not let it go.
“David, we support and defend Sue because that is what she has precisely done for the citizens of Davis for the last ten years: she has defended and supported neighbors’ interests over the interests of developers”
Did she Greg, or did she just get herself canned off a key commission? I don’t have any problem with her defending the citizens of Davis as she sees fit.
I find a few things very interesting that have happened in the last month while people have been engaging in cat fight to use other people’s words.
As I understand it, Sue and Peter King are claiming this project comes up about a million shy, which would put it in a deficit running about $70,000 per year, maybe slightly less.
It looks like we’ll be spending twice that if the council gets its way on the Batallion chief model they are implementing and now Sue is no longer going to be on Finance and Budget commission. Of course when I reported that, a lot of you that raise all heck when P comes up were nowhere to be seen.
Speaking of $4 million, did you see the article on DACHA?
Speaking of 2000 houses, do you guys care at all that the council majority is clearing the way for an 800 unit senior project on Covell Village. You guys think we have enough resources and energy to defeat every Measure J project, if there even is a Measure J to defend come June and a feuding progressive base? This is 191 unit project. At least I’ll give credit to Sue, she fights all the battles.
Worse news to come as soon as I can confirm it. But while we’re all fighting over this small 191 unit project, the council majority is solidifying their position for the next fight. How convenient.
“Roughly $3.2 million is from the “social benefit” of building the affordable units. And yes, it is a benefit. If this project goes forward, the city will not have to subsidize its affordable units, so that is a savings that can be used in the city’s affordable housing program later on that it otherwise would not have had.”
And as Mark Siegler has astutely pointed out: “It’s also apparently out of bounds to inform the Commission that the Yes on P side is claiming $3.2 million in fiscal benefits that do not exist. That money is not there if this project is built and it’s not there if this project isn’t built.”
What was out of bounds what the when and how she chose to do it, not that she chose to do it.
David Greenwald:
Just admit it. You know Bill Ritter was going around telling people to telling people that “We have go get rid of Sue Greenwald” before the last election.
Just admit it, Maynard and Bill Ritter knew that running a woman with the same last name would seriously hurt Sue Greenwald’s campaign, and that it was part of the strategy. Cecilia didn’t run in the previous election cycle when no “Greenwald” was on the ballot, and she isn’t going to run in this election cycle, when we are short one progressive.
Admit it, Bill Ritter has pressured good progressive candidates from running for city council if they aren’t beholden to him.
Admit it, David, you and Bill Ritter were methodically trying to build up another political machine, replete with its own developer patron and hardball politics.
It is all becoming clear now. Now more pretense.
to NO friend of Covell Village:
Strange but Parlin appears to have hired the same Sacramento campaign consulting firm as Whitcombe.. the strategies are the same and your argument is very much the same. Remember when they tried to conn us into believing that Covell Village would bring an extra $60 million into the DJUSD coffers.. well.. they didn’t ACTUALLY say Whitcombe would pay that but they did know that not one dollar EXTRA would be coming from Whitcombe or the STATE to us,the $60 million being what it would cost for the new CV students and what the STATE would be contributing. Now we are being told that Sue’s outrage at the ballot statement is unwarranted although the ballot statement clearly states that the $4 million would go into the general fund for services. It is now revealed that 3.2 million is not real money and, in any event, cannot be used for General Fund services . The remaining . 8 million left would be for services TO the project.
“Parlin appears to have hired the same Sacramento campaign consulting firm as Whitcombe..”
I think your mistaken. Whitcombe hired Capitol Campaigns.
“But while we are fighting about this small 191 unit project, the Council majority is solidifying their position for the next fight”
So DPD and Pro Measure P “progressives”…Join the NO on P voters. Do not sacrifice our unity to this “tiny” project(proponent’s description) as we attempt to defend the critical principles of not exceeding SACOG’s mandated housing numbers, the citizen’s directive Measure L and the the unequivocal rejection of the Measure J process being gutted for Measure P. WE are not the ones who have abandoned these principles and are fracturing Davis’ progressive coalition.
Or perhaps the No on P should let this one go and save their bullets for the real fight?
“Speaking of 2000 houses, do you guys care at all that the council majority is clearing the way for an 800 unit senior project on Covell Village.”
Yes David I care (as many other No on P supporters do); we will fight WHR first, then work on Covell Village II, and any attempts to kill Measure J; like Sue Greenwald, we are consistent in our slow-growth views, are you?
The saddest part of Sue’s behavior is that the finances are a red herring. She would be against this project anyway and she is using the costs to the city because it is her best chance of rallying opposition to P. What Sue refuses to answer that I have posted many times is that if new housing has got to be a net gain for the city the only thing that will ever be built in the future will be million dollar homes, the very last type of housing that we need to build. It is a conveinient tool for her to challenge the finances and if people buy into her idea that housing must pay for its own services as a net positive for the city forever nothing and I mean nothing will ever be built again. I saw Don make the same argument about something he didn’t like that housing must pay for its services. Afterward Lamar told me if that is the case nothing will ever be built again. So if Lamar know this so must know it too so for her to behave so badly over such a red herring is completely over the top.
By the way David, I heard from someone you has on their Facebook list, that you posted on Tues night around 7pm that you had some “juicy gossip”; did you have inside information that the Council would be doing this to Sue? Did you get that information from Bill Ritter, and how would he know that before the Council meeting had even started??
Meant to say at the end: Sue must know it to.
“…small 191 unit project..”
I’m tired of people calling this a “small” project; if it was the ONLY housing project that was to be approved, then maybe it would be small, but when you add it to the exisitng 500 units approved for building and including the West Village project, it is 191 added to 2000+ units; hardly a small number!
I am tired of folks blaming the No on P folks for splitting the progressives. Why is it OK for some progressives to support a developer and some even to be paid $15,000, but when others expose the lies that Parlin makes they are “splitting the progressives?”
I say the burden is on those supporting this project to explain how they can stomach the lies that Parlin has spewed out. Yes there are some nice green features but many think that does not balance out the dishonesty here.
I also don’t see why it matters that there are 191 units. If its a bad project its a bad project. If Parlin is trying to buy an election that is bad for the City.
Don’t be fooled by the bait and switch tactics (a standard developer ploy).
Parlin and Ritter now want to turn this into a referendum on Sue. It isn’t. Parlin claims $450,000 houses are affordable and claims a fiscal benefit where one does not exist. It claims building on Ag land on the periphery is green, which is certainly debatable.
Why are so many of our City Council folks apparently in bed with developers? How much money do they get from developers? Don’t be fooled.
Parlin is paying Bill Ritter 15,000 a month! For what; to tell us how “really green” and “really affordable” this project is? If it was so green and so affordable, why not just let the voters decide, why so much money to Ritter, to influence the Council…makes one wonder???
To: To “no friend of Covell Village:
If this project is not built, nothing happens to the city fiscally relative to this project. If it is built, and the developer did not agree to build the affordable units, then the city would have to spend that $3.2 million to subsicize them, and that is what happens with every other affordable housing project in Davis. That is our policy currently. But since the developer in this case is going to build the affordable units, the city keeps the $3.2 million and can use it for something else. So, it is a fiscal benefit, as the city itself conceded.
Sue, I think you should apologize to the F & B Commission, then apologize to the CC, then ask to be re-instated as CC liaison to the Commission. I would like you to be there. If you want to do these things, I will come down to CC and speak in favor of your reinstatement.
Also, in the future, you should inform your Commissions that the CC is working on specific issues or projects and ask them if they want to weigh in. And you should inform the CC when you think specific issues should be referred to specific Commissions. From what I can see here, you let down F & B, and Open Space. Then you sucked your friends into the bad proces that you assisted in creating, and blamed everyone else.
I just heard that your insistance to debate on the panel has now caused the League of Women Voters to cancel the planned debates. Of course you cannot sit up on the dais as a member of the No on P Campaign: you are a sitting CC member. The Yes on P lacks someone of that rank who will do it. The L 0f W Voters has had this rule since before most of us were born: the panels are of roughly balanced rank in the community. So yet again, you create the bad process, suck your friends into it (otherwise, you attack them as being disloyal to you), and throw mud in all directions but the mirror.
Open letter to Councilperson Sue Greenwald:
Councilperson Greenwald: Hang in there and keep fighting for us!
Your Council seat is yours if you want it when your current term ends.
Regardless of the outcome of Measure P or the upcoming Covell Village reincarnation,you are going to be amazed at the support, both monetary and feet-on-the-ground that you will have in gratitude for what you have been subjected to and still remain undaunted. All things pass… Saylor will be relegated to the political wilderness if his run for Supervisor is defeated. If he is able to continue to fool most of the people most of the time and win a Supervisor seat, he will at least be out of our local political hair. His support for the Davis voter’s interests(lack thereof) will not be much different than the Supervisor he would replace. Mercifully, Ruth Asmundson will come to realize that the cognitive challenges of late evening Council meetings have become too problematic and she will retire to non-elected volunteer public service. Souza may still be around but his antics have never been a serious threat. So.. thank you from the Davis voters who can recognize and appreciate your courage, steadfastness, knowledge, intelligence and experience in Davis Council workings while still recognizing some of your all too human flaws.
I am disgusted by this vilification of Sue Greenwald for not being “smart enough” to keep herself on the budget and finance commission because her passion got the better of her for a little minute and she failed to comport herself in a “professional” manner. That’s what you’re claiming, right? And some of you are also dismissing her ideas outright because she’s “always against development” so therefore what she has to say here can be disregarded without further thought? COME ON PEOPLE!!! Look at this development proposal for what it is. Then look at what Sue has consistently done to try to uncover the issues associated with the project so that when we vote, at least our votes have some integrity because we’re adequately informed of the issues! And look at the roadblocks thrown in her path again and again so that we STILL don’t have clear answers to some of the questions she is asking about this development proposal!
As to the way Sue “comports” herself, she puts herself in the line of fire each time she says what she thinks, she IS consistent about what that is, and she believes what she says and she’s smart and does her homework and she gets treated horribly much of the time by other council members. Honestly, I haven’t seen her behaving impolitely at council meetings- – -but I certainly have seen other council members behave impolitely (to say the least!) towards her. Being mean, and/or condescending, is not “polite” but Sue bears the brunt of that over and over. She takes her job to heart advocating for neighbors (and she is doing just that here, listen to her words on the DCTV tape of the Birch Lane Forum) and she takes on developers, and that’s worthy of vilification? I think if all of you who are going after her are perfect and have never made a mistake in your life, keep on keeping on. Go after her, you have the right, never having let your passions override your professionalism! Otherwise, as Mark Siegler so persuasively puts it, turn your focus to the message here rather than the messenger. Sue tells us we have enough units already so the “pretty little project” is unnecessary; that the process in this WHR situation has been badly flawed which reflects on the integrity- – or lack thereof- – of the “pretty little project” and that the financial numbers of the “pretty little project” don’t make sense. Do you want to keep pushing a “pretty little project” (god that feels so sleazy somehow, doesn’t it?) that comes to us without integrity? Without proper vetting? We should just vote “yes” on this pretty little project because Sue Greenwald doesn’t comport herself properly, or because otherwise Son of Covell Village is right around the corner, or because otherwise some people will say “Measure J doesn’t work”????
Strip this project of all the swirling rhetoric about Sue’s behavior, about the effectiveness of Measure J, and about the possibility/probability of other developments coming on line, and look at the issues surrounding this development. Instead of vilifying her, thank Sue for having the fortitude to go after the issues, no matter how pretty the projects, no matter how “home-grown” the developer, no matter how unpopular her position with “progressives” (God, I don’t even know what that means anymore). Give her some credit for bringing some integrity to the process by looking at all the angles of any project, including this one. It’s time we stopped this infighting, it’s so destructive!!! And it feels very misogynistic to me!
Kasemtanekul says”No one who voted against the Covell project did so because Mrs. Greenwald berated them.”
I have no idea what this means with regard to Sue Greenwald’s invaluable contribution in forcing exposure,from the dais, of information about the CV project that Emelen and/or the Council majority did not wanted to be aired.
Stop claimig the $3.2 million fiscal benefit–it doesn’t generate money so its not a fiscal benefit.
Further, THE CITY HAS ALREADY SUBSTANTIALLY EXCEEDED ITS AFFORDABLE HOUSING TARGET. So how is creating more homes that don’t pay taxes a benefit? If the City wants to exceed its target that is a debate we can have. But stop lying.
“If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.”
Stop whining about Sue, P-people. If you cannot win the arguments on the merits give up. Stop following Bill Ritter’s playbook. He is being paid big bucks to trash Sue and win regardless of the cost to the City, fiscally or morally.
Sue has been re-elected again and again which is more than you can say for many folks blogging here.
Greg:
What I posted was:
“Everyone living in Davis should watch public comment tonight somewhere between 6:45 and 7.”
I presented to council my findings on DACHA and the city staff’s role in possibly misusing $4.15 million in city funds and putting affordable housing residents in legal peril. Seriously, do you pay attention to anything other than this issue?
I’m so grateful for Nora Oldwin’s clear and hearfelt words in support of Sue Greenwald, and Sue’s unashamed and unabashed efforts to fight for the Davis we love. And many thanks to the other bloggers who’ve agreed!Though I respect Kasemtanakul’s thoughts about the proper conduct of politicians, Sue would be the first to admit that she’s no politician, and thank goodness for that! It’s clear what politicians are in office for–just check their donor lists. Sue in in office for US! Yes, she can get pretty rough around the edges, and perhaps she could be more effective at times if she softened her words a bit, but I’ll take integrity and consistency over politeness any day of the week.
I may not agree with Sue on every issue, but I always know where she’s coming from. That’s why I’ve always voted for her and will continue to do so as long as she’s willing to stand on the front lines for Davis.
Councilman Heystek probably has blown any chance of winning the mayoralty this June. To retain his Council seat, he’ll need to cut his political losses and disassociate himself from Bill Ritter, paid employee of Parlin.
David wrote:
“Seriously, do you pay attention to anything other than this issue?”
Well David, between now and Nov 3rd, SERIOUSLY I don’t pay attention to any other issue, because this is the only issue that is before Davis voters on the ballot, and when Covell Village II (with it’s proposed “Sun City” senior-housing scheme) and referendums to kill Measure J come before us in an election, then I will oppose those issues with as much as energy and fervor as I am dedicating to the No on P campaign.
I would also point to readers to the recent posts by “Davis Voter” and Nora Oldwin, who so eloquently and heart felt have defended Sue Greenwald against the vicious attacks against her political convictions; Nora is a long time true “activist” in Davis, and I damn glad she is on our side! Beware of you, Bill Ritter, and Mike Harrington trying to make the Yes on P vote a smear campaign against Sue Greenwald, it will only hurt you all in the future!
[i]Seriously, do you pay attention to anything other than this issue?[/i]
I might wish he paid attention to his last name. 🙂
Sorry Greg, I mean no confusion with you; my name is Greg Sokolov and I oppose this project!
Greg: Let me suggest that you sign with your full name, to avoid confusion. You have tenure and I have tenure and there is no reason for us to be anonymous.
Also, I don’t want to say necessarily that you are wrong about Measure P. I can see why you might not like it and I’m not here to lecture you on how to vote. But let me suggest chilling out. Because, how much difference can it really make to you? I point to two things in support of that argument.
First, after we moved to Davis, Evergreen was built more-or-less behind our house. It made very little difference to our quality of life. In fact, some things got better. Without Evergreen, they might have dragged their feet even longer before building Arroyo Pool. Bicycle access to the city center also improved a lot because of Evergreen.
Second, Wildhorse itself was still under construction when we moved to Davis. The public debate over Wildhorse was quite acrimonious; with a different turn of events, the measure for it might well not have passed. Was Davis wrong to build your house?
Greg S: One of my concerns is that a lot is happening right now that will shape other issues while you and others are transfixed on the present. I suspect that is by design.
Ammended version:
Disclaimer: The following are only my opinions, gathered from observation and from second and third hand reports of specific overheard conversations. It is not the way I wish things were. It is all very sad.
David Greenwald:
Just admit it. You know Bill Ritter was going around telling people to telling people that “We have go get rid of Sue Greenwald” before the last election.
Just admit it, Maynard and Bill Ritter knew that running a woman with the same last name would seriously hurt Sue Greenwald’s campaign, and that it was part of the strategy. Cecilia didn’t run in the previous election cycle when no “Greenwald” was on the ballot, and she isn’t going to run in this election cycle, when we are short one progressive.
Admit it, Bill Ritter has pressured good progressive candidates from running for city council if they aren’t beholden to him.
Admit it, David, you and Bill Ritter were methodically trying to build up another political machine, replete with its own developer patron and vicious hardball politics. This new machine seems to rely even more on slander and character assassination.
It is all becoming clear now. No more pretense.
[i]running a woman with the same last name would seriously hurt Sue Greenwald’s campaign[/i]
A dastardly strategy: Having the same last name.
It’s time to fight fire with fire. Find another Asmundson in town to run against Ruth.
Fortunately, I’m the only voting-age Kuperberg in Davis, so I’m no use for any of this.
Hi folks, Davis Media Access was at the Measure P debate at Birch Lane on September 21. You can watch the meeting online at http://www.davismedia.org or you can view it on DCTV cable channel 15 at the following times (note they are in reverse order):
+ Wed, 10/07/09, 04:30 PM, Channel 15
+ Tue, 10/06/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Mon, 10/05/09, 01:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Sun, 10/04/09, 04:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Thu, 10/01/09, 07:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Wed, 09/30/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Tue, 09/29/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15
“Just admit it, Maynard and Bill Ritter knew that running a woman with the same last name would seriously hurt Sue Greenwald’s campaign, and that it was part of the strategy.”
I never thought of that strategy before. Maybe I’ll change my last name to Sousa or Haystek to run for city council next time.
David:
Who is Peter King that you referred to yeaterday vis a vis the fiscal impacts? Did you mean me? I did blog that this project is not sound fiscally and I pointed out (as Mark Siegler, the other economist on our team did) that this project makes no sense fiscally, particularly in light of the fact that its on a parcel which gives the City of Davis only 2/3 of the property tax revenues most parcels get. That alone should give Davis voters pause. We can build a green project elsewhere but it will be virtually impossible to get our fair share of property tax revenues on this parcel which is yet another reason that it should stay Ag land. (And part of the reason the land has been run down is that Parlin owns the land and has always intended to put houses on it.)
This is an important issue for Davis voters to know. Instead you seem to want to trash Sue and link her to “Peter King.”
Lets get the facts (and names) straight here. I have not known Sue as long as some of you, but I have found her to be unusually knowledgable compared to other politicians I have known (in Davis and elsewhere) and fearless in the face of her critics. Don’t we want someone like that representing us–especially when developers are outspendinmg our campaign 90:1 and Parlin has the Vanguard in its camp. (I thought I wuld never say this but the Enterprise seems to be more fair and balanced on this issue, though they are hardly in our camp and generally favor development.)
If Sue was intelligent she wouldn’t tell renters if they want to buy they should move to another town. I too thought she was my friend until she told me this, then I realized her ideology trumped her friendships.
BB
If you are going to call out Sue, who has been brave enough to state who she is and face her critics, please use your real name. The real BeBe is dead. He was a close friend of Nixon and engaged in shady real estate transactions (hmm…interesting connection)
BB
I should add that your criticism of Sue involves a personal transaction which is difficult to verify so it is particularly important to say who you are.
In an ideal world we should all say who we are and kudos to those (on both sides)who do. But for issues that are not a matter of public record, anonymous blogging about a transaction which we have no idea about is really unfair.
Phil: My apologies on mistyping your name. And I certainly agree with her knowledge base, one of the reasons I am disappointed that this has resulted in her being removed from the F&B Commission. Again, my apologies on the name error.
I was thinking that an audio of the meeting wasn’t important. But since there has been so much said on both sides of it, yes, posting the audio could be interesting.
Moreover, on other occasions, you didn’t wait to ask before posting videos on the same theme, the conduct of city councilmembers in meetings.
Greg K: This is a little different because normally I DVR the council meetings and can just upload them to YouTube, here I have to actually request the audio and then convert it. So it may take some time.
I would definitely like to see it. I know it may take you some time and effort, DPD, but it really is important. Many of us who have been to commission meetings and have seen how City Councilmembers comport themselves, can best judge if Sue’s behavior was so out of line it deserved her elimination as liaison, or if this was just dirty politics. I suspect the latter, but I would like to judge for myself, especially in light of some of the previous comments from people who were there and saw it differently than you or Bill Ritter did.
Beware the Subcommittee on Commissions. It is a hit squad of two (Asmundson and Souza – 2/3 of A.S.S.), formed for the express purpose of silencing the views the City Council majority does not agree with.
[quote]It’s time to fight fire with fire. Find another Asmundson in town to run against Ruth. [/quote] I’ve been considering changing my name to Vigfus Asmundson III for years. Perhaps now is the time to take the plunge.
I keep telling myself not to bother, don’t log onto the latest Blog topic with scores of entries about a nasty, divisive subject that Sue created through her malfeasance and laziness.
But I guess it’s like a slow-motion accident: you turn to watch it, even though it’s painful.
I’m thinking about setting the Internet access to auto-block the Blog. Maybe I can break the habit of dialing in and watching psychos with nothing else to do, while I don’t get my own work done.
“I’ve been considering changing my name to Vigfus Asmundson III for years. Perhaps now is the time to take the plunge.”
Go for it, Rich! er… I mean, Vigfus.
But don’t limit yourself to currently active surnames. Why not resurrect Partansky, or (Bob) Black?
When you question someone else’s intelligence (especially when you hide behind a pseudonym to call a real person stupid), it’s important not to expose your own lack of education by making grammatical and punctuation mistakes.
[b][u]BB[/u] Rebozo:[/b] [i]”If Sue [u]was[/u] intelligent[u],[/u] she wouldn’t tell renters if they want to buy they should move to another town.”[/i]
You should know, Bebe, the conditional tense in your independent clause demands the subjunctive tense in your dependent. Thus the next time you try to slime Sue with your wrath, you won’t appear to be so inept. This is how an intelligent homeowner in Davis would correct your effort at a jab:
[i]”If Bebe Rebozo [u]were[/u] alive, he would leave Davis for Key Biscayne.”[/i]
[i]”Many of us who have been to commission meetings and have seen how City Councilmembers comport themselves, can best judge if Sue’s behavior was so out of line it deserved her elimination as liaison, or if this was just dirty politics.”[/i]
Do members of the city council commonly attend commission meetings? Don Saylor has been the liaison to the HRMC all the years I have been a commissioner, and I recall him in attendance only twice: Once for 10 minutes to let us know some information about the plans for the UCD Centennial Celebration* and once with all of the other members of the City Council for a joint meeting.
*Don was enthusiastic about the City of Davis’s role in the Centennial and the part the HRMC could play in it. However, as things played out, the event was not well thought out by city staff and (though not the fault of Mr. Saylor) the role of the HRMC was stifled. It was a lost opportunity to promote awareness of our city’s history. Other than the cake being served by members of the City Council and other bigwigs at the Farmer’s Market, the whole Centennial Celebration was, alas, a dud.
Harrington says: “For example, when is the last time that we can remember Sierra Club ENDORSING a border project???”
As usual, Mike Harrington attempt to put his lawyer’s spin on the facts. He was not in attendance, as I remember it, when the Sierra Club regional chapter was to decide if they would concur with our local chapter’s decision to come out against Covell Village. The regional chapter ruled that they would support our local chapter’s opposition to CV for the SOLE reason(they thought that it had adequate “smart growth” features) that the city of Davis( and Council) had not adequately fulfilled its citizen involvement mandate. It is sadly ironic that these same defects in process(actually much MORE egregious in the limited time given for the voters to be fully informed before the Measure P vote) that bring Measure P to a vote in a few weeks are not causing our local Sierra Club chapter to be in opposition.
[i]I’ve been considering changing my name to Vigfus Asmundson III for years.[/i]
If you change your name to Rich Asmundson, then you’ll really scramble the bourgeois vote.
[i]its on a parcel which gives the City of Davis only 2/3 of the property tax revenues most parcels get.[/i]
Phil, can you explain why this parcel would give the city of Davis less property tax revenue than that parcel? The statement has been made that, in general, new parcels in Davis are money losers compared to new parcels in Berkeley. But why? Is it the city’s own tax structure that causes this? Is it zoning agreements of some kind? Is it that Davis has been poorly represented in state agreements? What are the properties of “most” parcels, or any parcels, that affect these calculations?
………..it was the regional Sierra Club chapter’s decision whether to place the Sierra Club formally for or against the Covell Village project.
Of course why would I make it up?
Sue is a public person she isn’t afforded the same protections as private citizens.
[quote]If you change your name to Rich Asmundson, then you’ll really scramble the bourgeois vote.[/quote]True, but then I would not be a Viking! A friend of mine from Iceland — homeland of the great Magnús Ver Magnússon — tells me Vigfús means “Eager to fight!” But she added, in Icelandic, Rich unfortunately means, “eager to find fault with municipal labor contracts.”
[img]http://i40.tinypic.com/maapns.jpg[/img]
Rich – I thought that the Centennial Celebration (was it called “Celebrate UC Davis”?) was fantastic… all of those people on a pedestrian friendly Third Street, so many vendors and activities (there was a wine garden!)… it wasn’t a dud, it was surprisingly fun and amazingly well-attended…
as for the lost opportunity to showcase the history of Davis, that sounds like the fault of the HRC and other like minded organizations… can’t imagine that the organizers of the centennial event would’ve turned them away
[quote]all of those people on a pedestrian friendly Third Street, so many vendors and activities [/quote]Everyone has the right to his own opinion. I walked up and down 3rd Street that day looking for booths which featured local restaurants — there was none. I was looking for local crafts — none. I thought maybe some booths, in honor of it being the 100th anniversary of the opening of the school, would have some representation of life in 1908 — none. Instead, the booths on 3rd Street were mostly mundane where non-profits and political groups handed out literature. I liked learning about the Lutheran Church expanding its meeting hall, but was I excited to go downtown for that? No. I recall there was also some sort of runway fashion show. None of it really spoke to a centennial. [quote]the lost opportunity to showcase the history of Davis, that sounds like the fault of the HRC[/quote]It might sound like that. However, you’re wrong. The city staff along with the DDBA ran the event and, after telling the HRMC they wanted our participation, we were later told, “We’re going to downplay the historical angle.” I volunteered maybe 80-100 hours on a display. It went up, but the result was nothing like staff had said it would be. It was made very small, full of staff’s mistakes, and not on 3rd Street. It should have been much better; and would have been had the HRMC had any real say. For its own reasons, the city was trying to ignore its history in what ought to have been a historical celebration. (Keep in mind that this process was done around the time of the 3rd & B rezoning. As such, some members of the staff who were pushing that nonsense had decided that if we played up our history, it would be less popular to tear down historically significant buildings.)
[quote]Phil, can you explain why this parcel would give the city of Davis less property tax revenue than that parcel? The statement has been made that, in general, new parcels in Davis are money losers compared to new parcels in Berkeley. But why? Is it the city’s own tax structure that causes this? Is it zoning agreements of some kind? Is it that Davis has been poorly represented in state agreements? What are the properties of “most” parcels, or any parcels, that affect these calculations? [/quote]I asked these questions of Katherine Hess, the Community Development Director. Here is verbatim what she told me”
[i]”We have different property tax shares throughout the city. I think it had to do with the formulas that were applied when Prop 13 limitations were established, along with the agreements that were made upon subsequent annexations. I don’t know who gets the “marginal” money in lower-share areas. Likely candidates seem to be the county, the special districts (cemetery, mosquito abatement, flood control) and DJUSD/state.
“The Wildhorse share isn’t the lowest. If I recall correctly, we have some areas where our share is a single digit percentage. From the perspective of fiscalization of land use, that would be where we should put the churches, parks, and hospitals.”[/i]
David, how dare you attack Sue for being real and authentic. If there’s anyone who’s behavior is reprehensible in council meetings, it’s Ruth Asmundons’ behavior and how she singles people out and belittles them if they say something she doesn’t like. Vote out Asmundson and Davis STOP PILING ON!!!!
What are we going to do without people like Sue that truly has the rights of citizens in her mind. She is not a sellout and that’s why everyone is trying to get rid of her.
STOP NIT PICKING DAVID. I’m appalled at your behavior quite frankly and wonder how much you’re getting from these developers. Everyone’s got to pay the bills right?
To dpd turns: your comment is why DPD should out you, and reveal your ID. Sue completely failed to brief her two commissions (she was liaison) on the project. In fact, it was filed last AUGUST. None of us heard a word that she was unhappy with the process until 1 am, July 28. Then Sue plays the victim, and sucks in some of her friends/supporters into rallying the wagons, instead of telling her to apologize, and move on. What a bunch of enablers. The whole Sue meltdown process disgusts me. Glad I never voted for her.
Mike Harrington says: “What a bunch of enablers. The whole Sue meltdown process disgusts me. Glad I never voted for her.”
…. another Harrington “valuable” contribution to this Measure P debate. An appropriate retort would be “… and your mother wears army boots!!”
It seems there is a certain degree of synchophantic admiration of Sue Greenwald by her supporters. This lack of critical thinking is similar to what led to the destruction of the Republicans who lost their ideals in an all or nothing, with us or against us. support of Bush
Rebozo: [i]”… a certain degree of [u]synchophantic[/u] admiration.”[/i]
BB — I hope you don’t think I’m an obsequious, groveling bootlicker, but it’s sycophantic, not “synchophantic.”
Maybe not, Rich. Maybe he meant synchondrotic ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchondrosis[/url]) admiration: admiration that bends your nose out of joint.
[i]”Maybe he meant synchondrotic admiration: admiration that bends your nose out of joint.”[/i]
If so, Greg, I’m out of sync ([url]http://theithacan.org/blogs/bigspoon/files/2007/08/lance-bass-out-of-sync.jpg[/url]).
Oh I do think you are a obsequitious groweling bootlicker but I wasn’t going to bring it up.
The obfuscation, prevarication and the modus operandi of the Yes on P communication has induced me to vote No on P.
“The obfuscation, prevarication and the modus operandi of the Yes on P communication has induced me to vote No on P.”
Or maybe you are just falling pray to the equally deceptive nature of the No on P campaign.
“I’m thinking about setting the Internet access to auto-block the Blog. Maybe I can break the habit of dialing in and watching psychos with nothing else to do, while I don’t get my own work done.”
No one is twisting your arm to read this blog. Feel free to return to the comfortable Davis Enterprise, where the ugly underbelly of Davis is well hidden. Ignorance is bliss, they say…
“Do members of the city council commonly attend commission meetings? Don Saylor has been the liaison to the HRMC all the years I have been a commissioner, and I recall him in attendance only twice: Once for 10 minutes to let us know some information about the plans for the UCD Centennial Celebration* and once with all of the other members of the City Council for a joint meeting.”
Many commissions are well attended by their City Council liaisons. Depends on how interested the City Council liaison is in the commission. Obviously Don Saylor is not interested in yours. Perhaps he should be replaced for lack of attendance!
“It should have been much better; and would have been had the HRMC had any real say. For its own reasons, the city was trying to ignore its history in what ought to have been a historical celebration. (Keep in mind that this process was done around the time of the 3rd & B rezoning. As such, some members of the staff who were pushing that nonsense had decided that if we played up our history, it would be less popular to tear down historically significant buildings.)”
Rich, you have hit on an extremely important point. City staff is too tightly controlling what information gets out from commissions. Commissions are being defanged by city staff, and it goes right to the top – Bill Emlen. Commissions need to get more vocal, and citizens need to help voice their disgust at the lack of proper process. Commissioners are becoming extremely frustrated at being cut off at the knees by city staff. There should be much more of a collaborative spirit, rather than adversarial. Your example is a case in point. Why should city staff be able to cut off efforts of the HRC to present historic info, bc it might interfere with city staff’s (or the City Council majority’s) preconceived agenda on the 3d and B rezoning?
“David, how dare you attack Sue for being real and authentic. If there’s anyone who’s behavior is reprehensible in council meetings, it’s Ruth Asmundons’ behavior and how she singles people out and belittles them if they say something she doesn’t like. Vote out Asmundson and Davis STOP PILING ON!!!!
What are we going to do without people like Sue that truly has the rights of citizens in her mind. She is not a sellout and that’s why everyone is trying to get rid of her.
STOP NIT PICKING DAVID. I’m appalled at your behavior quite frankly and wonder how much you’re getting from these developers. Everyone’s got to pay the bills right?”
Hey, I’m a so called “right winger”, and I agree with you that what happened to Sue was wrong. I’m still waiting to see the tape of the F&B meeting where Sue supposedly “overstepped her bounds”.
“It seems there is a certain degree of synchophantic admiration of Sue Greenwald by her supporters. This lack of critical thinking is similar to what led to the destruction of the Republicans who lost their ideals in an all or nothing, with us or against us. support of Bush”
Actually, I don’t always agree with Sue, but I admire her willingness to challenge the fiscal analyses of city staff, who are noted for cooking the books to suit their agenda. I would suggest you are probably a sycophant of A, S and/or S!
“Or maybe you are just falling pray to the equally deceptive nature of the No on P campaign.”
Pray tell us how the No on P campaign is being more deceptive, compared to the Yes on P campaign? I want to hear this…
Yes on P
1) no affordable workforce housing as claimed (townhomes $450,000)
2) the affordable component is ridiculously unaffordable (rent for most at $1200)
3) after 15 years, there will be a net fiscal negative wrt city services
4) GHG reduction does not take into account car emissions
5) solar panels are making the townhomes too expensive (see above)
6) no yards for kids – they have to go to park to play
7) proper process was not followed
8) false ballot statements
No on P
please fill in the blanks…
Yes on P – add the following
9) we already have plenty of housing development approved, e.g. West Village