Yesterday’s Vanguard analyzed the political climate that played a considerable role in the large victory for the opposition to the Wildhorse Ranch project. However, the subtext of the election is the huge discrepancy in the amount of money spent. Current estimates place the final campaign effort in support of P at around 375,000 dollars. While this is considerably less than the reported 600,000 dollars spent in 2005 by Measure X and estimated actual expenditures of one million dollars, it is far more than the few thousand reported by the No on P campaign.
How did they do it? A large part of that answer goes back to yesterday’s column which talks about the political climate, the housing market, the lack of pressing need for housing, the uncertainties facing the community with regards to home prices, and of course a number of mistakes and miscalculations.
In short, he argues that Davis is still a small enough community that the message can get out via means that do not cost money.
He writes:
Put simply, Davis is still a small enough town that word of mouth while standing on the sidelines of the soccer field is worth more than 10,000 glossy brochures in the mailbox – given the final result, a compelling argument can be made that Parlin Development could have done better at the ballot box if it hadn’t spent a single dime – we have a highly intelligent population that knows how to communicate without spending money to do so –
This newspaper had numerous front-page stories, op-eds and editorials, plus dozens and dozens of unedited letters to the editor – anyone who wanted to say something on the issue had every opportunity to do so – at least three Enterprise columnists offered their opinions (see one-third pictured above) – the excellent staff at The California Aggie weighed in on the issue – even The Bee fired off an editorial from across the river –
Not to mention the several lively blogs that debated the issue incessantly on an almost daily basis, again allowing all points of view equal access, no matter how heated their arguments – when you combine an aware and involved populace with so many sources of information, money becomes irrelevant to the final outcome –
The reference to blogs naturally captures my attention here because the most lively of those blogs is this particular one. The Vanguard has been criticized of course by the No on P side because the Vanguard was deemed biased in its coverage. At the same time, the Vanguard published op-eds from the No on P campaign, giving it prominent space, the Vanguard radio show gave equal time to both sides, but the biggest thing I learned this campaign is the power of the comments section.
The strength of the Vanguard has always been its community discussions in the comment section of articles. The No on P side dominated the comment section from the start and in fact that dominance only increased over time. In fact, I would argue that this was a crucial tactical error by the Yes on P campaign.
The No on P side was able to control the message in the comment section. There was a healthy contingent of people ranging from ordinary citizens to Councilmember Sue Greenwald who continuously challenged the message of the Yes on P campaign. The issue of affordability was discussed and discredited. The issue of the campaign ballot statement, the fiscal analysis, the process, etc.
There were charges early on that Parlin had paid shills posting on the Vanguard. In fact, there was never any organized effort to do that and that worked in fact to their detriment. There were simply a small number of citizens who supported the project who posted their comments and their numbers were fairly small, and at times their comments were not only ineffective but counterproductive.
How much of an impact did this make? That is hard to say. I would not argue that this was decisive. In fact, i would suggest this was but one free outlet for information among many. Critics suggest that a blog is not widely enough read by fence-sitters to have a large impact on the election. That is likely true. What I will say is that I watched people who had been on the fence swayed to the No side by the arguments presented by the Vanguard.
How many people read the Vanguard? It is hard to put an exact number on the actual readership but it is clearly in the thousands of people–perhaps 7000 to 10,000 different people read the Vanguard during the month of October alone as readership soared.
Others have suggested aside from it being a tactical error to cede the comment section of the Vanguard, it also reflected the fact that not many people seemed ready to take up the Yes side. One major hole in the Yes campaign was the lack of a few active, effective, and persistent voices making the Yes case. The few progressive supporters came on stage, did their cameos, and left. The No side had several people who continuous came onto the Vanguard and argued their case–forcefully and consistently.
From my standpoint it was a big mistake to “cede” the comment section of the Vanguard and to a lesser extent other free outlets of information. In the future, campaigns are going to need to recognize that in a town like Davis, free outlets for information are vital. The paid message of the P campaign was never able to rise above the steady stream of criticism that came from the Enterprise–Dunning, the letters to the editors, the Vanguard comment section, and the street.
Losing control of the message is fatal to any campaign and one can argue that that message was lost on the night of July 28. One can argue about the wisdom of holding the hearing on the last possible date for ballot inclusion. That was certainly the decision of city staff and not Parlin Development. However, the project was done no favors by the fact that the council pushed the item back (that was scheduled to be heard much earlier in the evening) and chose to hear it after a long presentation to Chancellor Vanderhoef and a three hour discussion on another item that was far less time-urgent. That decision was made by the Mayor and the Mayor alone. From that point on, the P campaign lost control of the message amid cries of outrage for process–cries that had a good deal of merit. And they were never able to regain control of the message.
For all of the complaints about the ballot statement and the money advantage, neither of the points ended up winning the day.
That said, we need to return to a couple of key points. First, with any ballot measure, the No-side has an inherent advantage in that people when in doubt are going to side with the status quo. It is therefore incumbent upon an proponent of a measure to sell that measure, to convince the public. That does take money, resources, and organization. Second, of course the climate plays a huge role. Had this campaign occurred in June of 2008 when the public was concerned about declining school enrollment, it may well have been a different story. But school enrollment has steadied and the housing market has collapsed.
Still the particularities of this campaign aside, there seems to be a changing force in terms of how campaigns need to be run. Campaigns need to adapt their methods to the new technologies the way that blogs, social media, and other new technologies have leveled the playing field so to speak. Campaigns that fail to recognize this new reality may be doomed to make similar mistakes as we have seen.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good comments David
I would only add from my household’s standpoint, the content of the brochures was a factor along with the frequency and gloss. I am sure we aren’t the only household who thought they were so off target for Davis. The barn ‘raising’, tree huggers, big planet, lots of white space and few words = waste. it was hard to believe the designers of these could have a clue about Davis.
When we got the one folded No on P packed with facts, not barns and trees, we remarked this defined the difference between the 2 campaignswere and gave some money to No.
Parlin’s obscene expenditures on the election were themselves enough to generate tons of opposition. Buying a special election rather than waiting for the normal cycle – arrogant. Sending tons of “too cute” and misleading mailers – not green.
The worst, I think, were the TV spots they bought on local channels. From the ad itself you wouldn’t even know that “Yes on P” means “build houses”. The TV spot implied that Yes on P would save the entire earth somehow. Stupid! Overdone!
Trying to buy Davis votes by absurd overspending? Not a good plan.
This is kind-of overanalyzing the issue. The developer tried to sell refrigerators to Eskimos and it didn’t work. Voters in Davis will never need more housing, given that everyone who can vote in Davis already has a place to live in Davis. That’s one difference between this and Target. Target gave Davis voters something that they don’t already have.
The other difference is that Target is tax favorable by a wide margin. Public policy folks have long said that California’s tax policies give cities too much incentive to build stores, and not enough incentive to build housing. So developers need to make a sweet deal to persuade a city government to approve more housing. (And prevailing in a referendum is even harder.) In this case, throwing in millions of dollars in solar panels assuaged environmentalists somewhat, but it also took away money that I think could have been offered to the city.
I agree with Greg K. that trying to convince Davis voters to approve any new housing (especially in these economic times) is an uphill climb for any developer and only made our opposition to Measure P easier; HOWEVER, our campaign (and large margin of victory; BTW, is anyone aware of a more lopsided victory in the history of Davis measure elections?)was aided by the follies and incredibly stupid moves made by Bill Ritter and the Yes on P campaign:
As the previous bloggers (and countless many others we talked to on the streets and at the Farmer’s Market) have stated, the constant barrage of Yes on P inane flyers and ads with everything from a “tree hugger” to fall foliage nowhere to be found in Davis, to the “barn-raising”, and lastly, the “planet depends on your vote” ad in this last Sunday’s Enterprise! I mean these were virtual gifts to our politically unexperienced and underfunded campaign; we didn’t need to get out a lot of our mailers or flyers, because we spent most of our time just listening to people’s criticism of the Yes on P campaign.
David Greenwald’s ongoing feuds with Bob Dunning (including the multiple pieces on the paid college women for Yes on P) only ignited Dunning’s outrage even more, and his attacks on Yes on P became more frequent and vociferous! Not to mention Mike Harrington’s caustic and hate-filled blogs, which only turned off more Vanguard readers and voters.
75% of an election victory (with every precinct, not just Wildhorse, in clear favor)means more than voters just rejecting more housing; in there, may have been quite a few votes against the Yes on P camapign!!
“Voters in Davis will never need more housing, given that everyone who can vote in Davis already has a place to live in Davis.”
That’s not quite true. Renters in Davis might be looking to buy a house one day. Problem is that minimum housing prices advertised by Yes on P didn’t exactly meet an attractive price for this target audience.
Also, it is typically easier to argue the negative position than it is to promote the affirmative. The negative only has to raise doubts.
I agree that the negative tone in the comments of the Vanguard on Measure P was a real turn off. After reading have a dozen negative personal comments on some articles, I quit following them.
[i]Renters in Davis might be looking to buy a house one day.[/i]
Some of them, but the voting structure will always work against them. Most of the renters are students. They have no personal reason to care whether Davis builds more housing, because by the time that it’s available, they will have graduated. They would be doing it to help other students down the road. Some of them might rise to that noble gesture, if they think of it, and that is why the Aggie endorsed Measure P. But there is no organized effort for that and they are busy with other things.
Really the university is the main actor on behalf of future students. That is what West Village is about. The university is building dorms there for 3,000 students. You can see how that relates to Measure J and Measure P. Half of the slogan “2000 homes are enough” is the student dorms in West Village. The message is that all residential growth in Davis takes away from the interests of Davis homeowners, even if it’s student dorms on university property.
you people are out of your minds. everyone is calling this campaign illicit and deceptive because they hired people to work for them. what about Obama’s election. People got paid to work on his campaign, does this make it unethical???? why are you so hypocritical in your attitudes and beliefs. Most of you people already have your high carbon outputting lots on land that was once designated for agriculture. it’s amazing to me how selfish and affluent and hypocritical this community. just filled with a bunch of champagne liberals who care nothing about the environment nor the working poor. they are republicans in democratic clothing and the failure of this campaign signified to me the biggest embarassment the democratic party has gone through.
these people are bitter, angry, vitriolic hateful people on a witch hunt..the way i was treated on tuesday sifnied this perfectly when i was holding on to a street sign on a street corner for the Yes on P campaign and an old rich white male in his gas guzzling black Acura SUV, drove by on his car and screamed out the window “you’re nothing but a prostitute becuause you work for them”
this verbal assault shook me up so completely, but then I’m not surprised since we are dealing with a bunch of rich affluent, mostly caucasian males, some women who are married to these males, but mostly affluent people who are desperately holding onto their position of power and money and will stop at nothing to keep it. it’s obvious they also hate the environment with a particular disdain and disgust that goes beyond their hatred for lowered property values. lowered property values they can stomach just as long as
you people belong to the wrong party. isn’t there a town hall meeting for health care somewhere that could use some disrupting???
ps, due to the inflated values of homes and the continued assault on wages for the working poor, they will never be able to afford to buy a home in Davis or anywhere else, unless it’s Detroit… so there fore they will always be renting and will always be forced to live in low income apartments because let’s face it. 1200 dollars for a 2 bedroom apartment which is market rent is more expensive than mortgages in some places. renters will always need low income housing made, otherwise they will be forced to commute in which is what you pseudo environmentalists were using as an excuse to vote No on P.. your claim that it would create more traffic runs counter to your approach and attitudes on the low income workforce which is huge..you davisites still need your cheap labor don’t you? guess what, they all pretty much have to waste gas to drive in and serve you superior beings.
ps, the way that I was treated by the rich white male in his gas guzzling suv, the way the women were treated by these disgusting people shows that money doesn’t buy class. you could have all the college degrees you want, but if any one is lowering your property values, it’s you, your selves and you…. not the low income people that need a place to live. i’ve seen the same amount of low class behavior in these high end homes as i’ve seen in these low income apartment dwellings.
MONEY DOESN”T BUY CLASS!!!
and oh yes, if someone is a whore for working for something they believe in, then you all are the worst kind of whores for working for something you don’t believe in. if someone’s a whore for working, then we are all whores…some worse than others, the hypocritical superior holier than thou ones are the worst kind… that would be you all that voted no on p because you wanted your property values to stay high..
ps. to bob dunning…..talk about whore, you work for the davis enterprise that whole heartedly endorsed the target construction, and once it was built, ran a full front page add, calling it “news” letting the good kindly people of Davis that TARGET WAS OPEN…
words have no meaning when it comes to describe the shock awe and disgust i feel when it comes to the good people of davis california… to think, i actually thought i had something in common with you people. ughhhhhhh…. reprehension, indignation, and disgust.
Also:
[i]I agree that the negative tone in the comments of the Vanguard on Measure P was a real turn off.[/i]
I don’t much believe in all of this talk about bad tone and stupid moves in the campaign. Davis is not a kindergarten; most voters in Davis won’t decide how to vote based on some small issue like phrases on some flyer. Some voters in Davis will talk that way, and they have an incentive to talk that way to sway undecided people. But in many cases, they actually made up their minds ages ago.
Public relations only matters in close contests. Good flyers or bad flyers will make a few percent difference, which could be very important if people expect to win or lose by a few percent. But both Measure X and Measure P lost by a lot, not by a few percent.
And there is no evidence that anyone voted on the basis of who ran a more honest campaign. Any campaign strategist can tell you that a perception of dishonesty is a liability in a campaign, but actual dishonesty is an asset.
TO Greg Sokolov,
of course you people won by a large victory….look at the town hall meetings on health care. history will prove that all you need is a few vicious, nasty hateful screaming bullies to compromise the entire integrity of a good campaign that truly is for the right thing… national health care is wanted by most, but yet a few people were able to change the debate entirely, just with a few loud screams, lies, and a whole lot of hate…
it’s called the TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY!!!!
that minority is still in power today and they are powered by money, much like the good people of davis california
“…the message was lost on the night of July 28, 2009. ….(when) the council pushed the item back (past midnight)…. From that point on, the P campaign lost …..amid cries of outrage (over) process–cries that had a good deal of merit.”
I think you have put your finger on the fatal flaw in the process, David. There is an old saying that.. “as it begins, so it ends*.” I think that this was certainly true for the Wildhorse Ranch approval process. The public resentment for the midnight maneuver (and the outrageous statement “..and when would you like the election, Mr. Developer”) was certainly palpable throughout the City.
___________
* I repeatedly experienced a much less dramatic version of this myself working in a restaurant as a student years ago. If the first customer was a “rose”, then the shift was a breeze (no takebacks, etc.), but if the first customer was an “onion”, then we couldn’t buy a break.
Dear Soda,
what kind of “facts” were in the no on p campaign. certainly not facts, facts for the home owners i’m sure, but not facts for everyone else that doesn’t own a home, or is part of the working poor that brings the good people of davis their precious low cost services they so desperately want.
the only facts in the no on p campaign, is that they were loud, boisterous, and large print propaganda, (not built on recycled paper and not endorsed by the sierra club.
all you people care about is money. you’re a bunch of greedy, high paid low class hypocrits.. i can’t wait to get out of this god forsaken town.
how is it possible that target won by such a low margin 51% and this project which is soooooo low impact lost by such a high margin?
i think it’s because davisites truly hate the environment with a certain kind of hatred. it’s stronger that rush limbaugh’s hate for liberal america. this has been a wonderful wakeup call for me.
davis used to be worth the expensive real estate values because of the ostensible prescense of liberals, but thank god this election has proved me wrong.
it’s worth the bloated real estate values for the bloated republicans in their bloated suv’s and their bloated yards and mc mansions… enjoy your pretty little town. everything is going down hill from here. i’m so glad that i’ll be able to get out now..thanks for shedding some light on this dirty little town and it’s dirty little secrets.
Ps. Bob dunning wrote that “we have a highly intelligent” population of people… highly intelligent? not… perhaps highly manipulatable…much like the town hall lynch mob.. perhaps highly intelligent because they know how to destabilize a good cause and a good argument.
bush won the election because of right wing republicans masquerading as liberals. he also won because of a few buzz words like “fuzzy math”
this is how the good people of davis got bamboozled into voting no on measure p…and als let’s not forget the huge amount of republican transplants that have come here to live the good life and enjoy over bloated property values.
a guest (wdf1): “I agree that the negative tone in the comments of the Vanguard on Measure P was a real turn off.”
Greg K: “I don’t much believe in all of this talk about bad tone and stupid moves in the campaign. Davis is not a kindergarten; most voters in Davis won’t decide how to vote based on some small issue like phrases on some flyer.”
I meant that original comment more as a personal reaction, not as a broader factor in the outcome of the election. I don’t think the tone affected the outcome, but it was inconvenient to have to tune out & filter out a lot of comments that didn’t have much relevance on the merits of the proposal.
[quote]when you combine an aware and involved populace with so many sources of information, money becomes irrelevant to the final outcome [/quote]I agree with Bob Dunning when it comes to campaigns that involve clear issues, such as whether to widen a road or build a new subdivision. I don’t think it is true when it comes to campaigns for public office.
Most people have some opinion about whether they want or don’t want more residential development, more big box retail, or a particular road widened, but most people don’t personally know a candidate, where the candidate stands on the issues, or what the candidate’s voting record is if the candidate is an incumbent.
Most people don’t read the Davis Enterprise carefully. Of those who subscribe, many don’t read the local news. Most people don’t read the blogs. Candidate campaigns are won or lost by only a few percentage points. Vast sums of money are the only way to reach that swing vote for a council or board of supervisor race.
Unless voters are highly issue-motivated, as they were after the massive growth approved in the 1987 general plan, money plays a very large role in most races for public office, as does such things like ballot name confusion when two same-sex people running share the same rare last name.
Melanie:
I wish you much better luck in the next campaign you are paid to work for!
Greg,
I talked with Melanie before the election. She is very sincere person. She told me that she is low-income, and would have liked to move into one of the low-income rentals. That is a very legitimate reason to have supported this project, and I think we should respect it.
Most of this post hoc analysis largely ignores the elephant in the room. WHR was a small, green project with “bipartisan” support that was initially viewed by many as a slam dunk. And instead of closing the deal with the voters, Bill Ritter and his “gang that couldn’t shoot straight” managed to get creamed 3-to-1. IMO this was a massive political failure – pure and simple.
[b]Melanie Kaye writes:[/b] [i]”let’s face it. 1200 dollars for a 2 bedroom apartment which is market rent is more expensive than mortgages in some places. renters will always need low income housing made, otherwise they will be forced to commute in which is what you pseudo environmentalists were using as an excuse to vote No on P.”[/i]
According to the City of Davis, the proposed 23 one-bedroom “low-income” unit at Wildhorse Ranch would have rented for almost $1,000 per month in 2008; and if there is an inflator, such a unit would rent for closer to $1,125/month in 2012, when presumably the WHR rentals would have become available.
[b]Sue Greenwald:[/b] [i]”I talked with Melanie before the election. She is very sincere person. She told me that she is low-income, and would have liked to move into one of the low-income rentals.”[/i]
The only problem with this belief is that it is based on the incorrect assumption that “low-income” units are better deals than market-rate rentals. They are not. Melanie’s comments above make me think that she was terribly misled by someone in the Yes on P campaign to believe that “low-income” rentals in Davis equate with “good deals for renters.” They don’t.
There is another, smaller category, called very-low income. Those fifteen apartments would have rented for about 2/3rds as much as the “low-income” and presumably would have been submarket rentals.
[quote]The only problem with this belief is that it is based on the incorrect assumption that “low-income” units are better deals than market-rate rentals.[/quote]You bring up an interesting point, Rich, and one that I will follow up on when we have our affordable housing workshop. We should definitely review the affordability of our affordable rentals.
Greg,
I wasn’t paid to work for the campaign. I volunteered for it. Anyway, even if I was paid, do you have the right to call me a whore? well then, if that’s the case, all those who “volunteered” for the no on P campaign and voted No on P are unintended whores, in that you voted “no” to keep youdr real estate values artificially high. You voted for money… same thing then right? If everyone has a job and gets paid to work then I guess EVERYONE THAT WORKS FOR MONEY IS A WHORE THEN RIGHT?
I didn’t support this campaign with the desire to live in low income housing, that would have been an added benefit, I supported it primarily because it’s an eco freindly village. Even if there were no low income units i would have voted YES because I believe in these types of communities and it’s about high time Davis had an ecofriendly communiy, in fill or no infill project, it says alot more than the environmental soundness of your house Greg and your Sue.
I voted no on target and no on covell village.
so those that voted yes on target, are probably the same people that voted no on project p…not surprisingly.
as to yo
Melanie, if you hate Davis and its citizens so much why don’t you just leave and find your Utopia somewhere else? Funny how you blame Republicans for the loss of Measure “P” when Davis is anything but Republican. Amazing, Obama has embedded the “blame Bush” attitude in his followers to where even in liberal Davis Republicans are blamed for the loss of an obscure measure. Davis is more expensive to live in because guess what, it’s a great place because its citizens haven’t let it get overbuilt to where it looks like any other town’s urban sprawl with shopping centers on every corner. Bye Melanie, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Rich RIfkin
as to your comment, unlike the rest of you I actually do the research before i rush to judgement. I called up the city of davis and found out just how much the rents were going to be for the allocated low income units. Some were close to market rate rents thanks to the overbloated prices of real estate in davis, (1200 for a 2 bedroom) and others were very low income (719. for a two bedroom apartment)
given the low utility bills these are priced even lower than the standard low income huge housing industrial complexes that we have sprouted up all over davis.
so… once again, unlike the rest of you high class, well educated, rich davisites, I did my research….you know research…it’s that thing you used to do in college? remember?
i’m sure most of you all hail to a time when homes were less than a hundred thousand dollars. if you were lucky enough to buy your homes then, well good for you. lucky for you. the rest of us are screwed. thanks.. and thanks for doggedly going after the one thing that may have been redeeming about Davis california.. you have unwittingly suppressed your real estate values in the end. good….
and sue, i don’t need you to stand up for me. i don’t need your sympathy and you have still lost my vote.
ps. how much did you pay for your home? if you care so much about low income people then perhaps you can rent to me your rental unit for about 719+ utilities.
god forbid if anyone puts their money where their mouth is.. you sound like a bunch of white male pro-lifers who refuse to pay for the actual cost of raising a child. they all jump up and down refusing a woman’s right to choose, but none want to pay women fair pay, and none want to pay for welfare, even if it means saving an unborn baby’s life.
like i said, hypocrits.
Melanie, what’s more green than a horse ranch? How much more carbon would’ve been spewed into the air by the approx. 400 extra cars, barbeques, gas powered tools and whatever else this new community would’ve brought in to our city? Yes, the horse ranch is very eco-friendly, you should be saying thank you that Davis residents kept it that way.
Your welcome, I voted no on “P”
even 1200 dollars for a two bedroom apartment with virtually no utility cost is affordable…. i live in a 2 bedroom duplex, i pay 1320 + utilities which comes out to between 40 and 80 dollars a month.
this seems to be the standard in davis. sad to say but it’s the truth.
as far as spin is concerned,
you are very quick to put an actual dollar value on the 80% units Rich. You say “$1,000 per month” in 2008. But when you talk about the very low income units you fail to mention the actual dollar amount and simply say “2/3rds as much as the “low income” units. It’s obvious why you do this. You do this for the sake of making the low income units seem extremely expensive and down play the very low income units by refusing to bring to light just how cheap they are. This obvious play on words is the perfect example of manipulation and lies. Emblazoning key points to elevate your argument and down playing other points that serve the other side.
sorry not falling for it!!!Richie Rich
Gadfly,
sorry sometimes money is more important than actual values. this failed because of the universally powerful allure of greed. it also failed because davis has a huge republican stronghold lurking in the subtext of davis politics.
trust me, don’t ever bring anything truly liberal to davis politics, it will get shot down faster than rush limbaugh shoots up oxycontin.
get it, got it, good!
[quote]Rich RIfkin, as to your comment, unlike the rest of you I actually do the research before i rush to judgement.[/quote] Well la-dee-da-da. [quote] I called up the city of davis and found out just how much the rents were going to be for the allocated low income units. Some were close to market rate rents thanks to the overbloated prices of real estate in davis, (1200 for a 2 bedroom) [/quote] In that they are no more “affordable” than a market rent, I’m unsure as to why you think your argument is advanced by this research. [quote]and others were very low income (719. for a two bedroom apartment) [/quote] You failed to mention that there are only 15 of these very low-income units. [quote] so… once again, unlike the rest of you high class, well educated, rich davisites, I did my research….you know research…it’s that thing you used to do in college? remember? [/quote] Your rhetoric would be aided if you actually pointed to anything I said which was incorrect or implied that I did not do my homework.
I would second Gadfly’s comments. We are now seeing a revisionist history here about this campaign. For the record, when Greg Sokolov and I started the campaign no one thought we could win, but we had help from many many people.
The revisionist history says that this campaign was a slam dunk from the beginning. Ask almost anyone involved in this last summer and they will tell you that no one thought No on P could win. Several people I will not name said it would be a slam dunk for the other side. Bill Ritter told me personally after a City Council meeting that we could not win this.
We benefited from the fact that Yes on P ran one of the worst campaigns I have ever seen. Yes on P had few backers other than folks who were paid–maybe that is because their message was never a good one. The homes were not affordable and the location was ranked very low by a City committee specifically tasked with examining future development. In addition, it is hard to claim that paving over Ag land on the periphery of town is green, especially when other sites exist in town that really are infill. Having said that, there were some good green aspects to the project that I hope will be incorporated into future projects.
Certainly some folks are concerned about property values, but most people I worked with, those active in our campaign, were far more upset by the process issues, the fact that the WHR project was ranked so low by a City committee, and, yes the propensity of the Yes on P side to say anything that worked.
So, what lessons should we learn:
1. Davis is still a great community where a true grass roots effort of people from all over town can win.
2. Running an honest, consistent campaign is always a good idea.
3. You can make a difference, but if we become complacent, they win
Thanks
Phil
David–no one seems to have caught your clever attempt to promote the Vanguard to all future campaign committees. Seems like you’re positioning yourself for a nice influx of both participants and advertising dollars! You say, “The strength of the Vanguard has always been its community discussions in the comment section of articles. The No on P side dominated the comment section from the start and in fact that dominance only increased over time. In fact, I would argue that this was a crucial tactical error by the Yes on P campaign.”
Though you somewhat downplay the Vanguard’s impact later by saying, “How much of an impact did this make? That is hard to say. I would not argue that this was decisive. In fact, i would suggest this was but one free outlet for information among many.” Yet in the very next paragraph you trumpet the rapidly increasing “thousands” who read the Vanguard every month and then say, “In the future, campaigns are going to need to recognize that in a town like Davis, free outlets for information are vital.”
Nice self-promotion! My comments are honestly not intended as criticism. As young as it is, the Vanguard is already a wonderful Davis institution. I’m just surprised no one mentioned this…
Phil,
Are you sure that No on “P” won because it ran a good honest campaign or was it those pesky, fat, SUV driving, Limbaugh loving, big carbon spewing house owning rich Republicans who won it?
Just asking.
I voted “no on p” and I am not fat, hate Rush Limbaugh and his Fox friends, not white, certainly not Republican, and drive a sedan. What I did not like was a developer thinking they could “buy” their way out of due process.
well congratulations…you just voted against something you proclaim to be in favor of….
do you have your own home? how much did you pay for it? how big is the lot? how much carbon do you emit into the atmosphere because of your energy use?
so you’re just about slow growth? why? what’s in it for you? there would be no other reason to vote no on p than for your own selfish gain. this is why you are no different to rush limbaugh. greedy, self serving, and adamantly disgusted and opposed to anything truly progressinve…so congratulations mr. slow growth, you got your way, and things will be the same as per usual..nothing changes if nothing changes.
if you’re disgusted with the developer, you should meet him. he’s not your typical developer. he’s a good guy.
so if your only argument is that he “bought” his way out of due process, then sorry that’s not a good enough reason to vote down an environmentally sustainable project. it’s certainly a good excuse to hide behind your real intentions and motivations..which is to keep your property values artificially inflated…bottom line… please people, stop trying to pretend to be idealistic.
in that way, you’re very much like rush limbaugh. so how does that face feel without it’s nose.
isn’t there a town hall meeting you should be at?
It always makes me laugh when someone thinks it’s their God-given right to have low cost housing made available to them. Instead of looking for hand-outs one might get a better education, job training, work two jobs (which I’ve had to do) or partake in the many opportunities this country offers. There are many places I’d love to live, but guess what I can’t afford them. If a community can offer low cost housing then great, but to EXPECT a community to provide it is beyond me.
Town hall meetings rock!!!
It’s people voicing their first ammendment rights which in alot of other countries you’d get shot for.
Phil,
“1. Davis is still a great community where a true grass roots effort of people from all over town can win.”
you know the “grass roots” efforts to stop a national health care plan from happening has also been great in “making a difference” and stopping something truly needed for society.
The teabaggers think exactly like you do..
I like your last comment…
“1. Davis is still a great community where a true grass roots effort of people from all over town can win.”
sounds ominously close to gwbush’s threatening, that if we don’t do what he says we should do, “the terrorists win”
ha ha ha very funny. your campaign phill was dishonest and ugly right from the very start. next time we want to win a campaign, we’ll be sure to use your lynch mob style tea bag tactics. if it’s winning for right america, i’m sure it will win for us.
David
this discussion is getting nasty.
Rusy 49,
like i said, i intend to leave, can’t wait. you can have your republican utopia in davis and you can eat it too. with regards to your horse ranch argument, that somehow in the big picture, leaving them out to pasture is somehow just fine and green, wellllll
please like i said don’t pretend to be idealistic and actually care about the environment. the people that care more about the environment voted YES on this project because they care more about the environment than they do about their property values.
like i said, pretty much only 25% the population it’s safe to say truly care about the environment. the amount carbon output would be relatively little in comparison to target. so you’ll build a bunch on environmentally unfriendly homes with in fill projects. how is that green?????
it might take some resources in the beginning to build these homes, but they would have lasted forever, and their carbon out put would have been amazingly inconsequential in relation to other projects and davis homes. so that’s the point. to start building green and building a green home community would have caused you greedy hypocrits to actually spend some money to retrofit your homes so they could live up to the values of wildhorse village..
let’s not try and code the real truth of the matter with your lies and deception… this is all about money and you desperately holding onto it. you don’t give a damn about the environment so please stop pretending. thank you very much.
like i said it’s obvious from your comments that you’re a republican. the majority of people are republican. this is obvious. they came to davis because the liberals made it a better place.
191 homes is not a huge impact, especially when they are green and sustainable. certainly, 10 times more sustainable than yours. call up pge, have them measure your carbon footprint… building your house was unsustainable, and maintaining your house is and will always be sustainable.
if you people care so much about the environment then why the hell have you not spent the money necessary to retrofit it? wild horse would have forced you to do that and there was no way you were going to spend money to save the environment. save yourselves first,, the rest is just minor details…
MR RICHIE RICH…
i like your la – dee da da comment was hilarious, it made me laugh. but really i’ve been laughing like crazy through this whole thing at the ignorance and stupidity..
Rich, the devil is in the details..ahh what the heck i’ll spell it out for you.
1200 dollars with 0 utility bill is very affordable in comparison to the rest of the rents in davis.
719 + 0 dollars for utility is affordable across the board. (of course you failed to acknowledge this small minor detail)
15 units in this price range is not the best, but certainly better than nothing, and given the fact that they have solar panels, this is even better.
in addition to this, i along with 40 other families would have had the opportunity to live in a house that matched my green ideals.
also,
350k – 450k for a house in davis with solar panels is cheaper than the going rate for a ratty torn up unsustainable home in Davis.
I wouldn’t be able to afford to buy a house there, but i’d be able to afford to rent there, and this is extremely important.
we lost this opportunity to serve as a new platform for building homes in davis and the rest of the world.
it’s truly a sad day for this world and the environment.
if we continue in this path, we’ll never be able to get back down to 350 ppm.
check it out…
http://www.350.org
ps. i just saw a house on a street sell for 750k last month… it had no solar panels… it continues to have a huge carbon foot print much like the rest of the davisite homes who voted no on p.
this was a great deal and you people passed it up for a few dollars on the value of your hyperinflated mortgage.
Yeah, paving over ag land is a really green concept. Excuse me if I missed something in that translation. You say only 191 homes, plus the 2000 already in the mix, then only 200 more next time, then another 150 and so on and so on and before you know it you have Elk Grove right here in Davis. A beautiful vision.
Phil,
you said..
“Certainly some folks are concerned about property values, but most people I worked with, those active in our campaign, were far more upset by the process issues, the fact that the WHR project was ranked so low by a City committee, and, yes the propensity of the Yes on P side to say anything that worked.”
sorry but the predominant issue was home values..they claimed to be concerned about these little nit picky issues that completely diverted away from the real issue at hand…if there was anyone who was willling to say anything that worked it was the No on P campaign.. and guess what..it worked. congratulations!
i’ll agree with rusty 49 in this case…
“Phil,
Are you sure that No on “P” won because it ran a good honest campaign or was it those pesky, fat, SUV driving, Limbaugh loving, big carbon spewing house owning rich Republicans who won it?”
Honest??? i don’t think so. pesky fat suv driving limbaugh loving big carbon spewing house owning rich republicans.. yes certainly… by and large.
democrats with sedans..who own homes..who claim to care for the environment who are willing to put aside their values for a rise in property values..sad to say but yes…
champagne liberals, lofty hippies who hold onto their environmental ideals like it’s a gucci bag?? yes… they don’t want anyone to be cooler than them.. so they voted NO.
get real people. stop being so fake… stop undermining CHANGE… remember we voted for it. Change we can believe in.
Melanie: why are you still here? You sound like you hate the town and 99% of the people.
Rusty: agree completely. When I moved here, I didn’t expect “affordable housing”. Also agree your comments re: town halls and cars. Do you have the time/energy/body armor to run for CC?
Right, Obama has changed alot.
Oh wait, we’re still in Guantanamo.
Still no healthcare.
Still in Iraq.
Still in Afganistan
Congress still attaches pork and earmarks to all the bills
But wait, Obama certainly lowered our public debt, no wait, he’s tripled it in 9 short months
Still renting out the Lincoln bedroom
Still no transparency
Has done more campaign dinners in 9 months then Bush did in years as President
Should I go on? Sounds like nothing has changed.
Soda,
the discussion has been nasty for quite a while…are you trying to silence the opposition?
Rusty 49 said
“Town hall meetings rock!!!
It’s people voicing their first ammendment rights which in alot of other countries you’d get shot for.”
i’m talking about the disruption caused by a few people who employed lynch mob like tactics in the health care debate to try and bully others and silence the debate…
in case you didn’t know this is what i’m referring to, when i talk about the town hall meetings…
no on p won because of tactics of no on p movement
which accepted money from the public, so they are prostitutes as well
Rusty 49.. so now you’re against low income housing? first you say you’re for it.. then you say you’re against it…if poor people who work hard in Davis California need to commute to Davis, isn’t this creating more traffic?
wasn’t more traffic part of your argument against measure P???
Crilly: Surprised no one else caught it either–promote it when you got.
Speaking of which since we discussing a bit of affordable housing, on Monday I have a big story on affordable housing in Davis including a lot of data I have gathered from the city and elsewhere. I think it will be an eye-opener for a lot of you–it was for me.
That argument was pushed by the Yes on “P” side which was subsequently squashed because many who eventually would buy in WHR could just as easily have to commute to other cities for their jobs. Just like any other community, some work here and some commute. Their wasn’t any mandate that units rented or sold had to go to those already working in Davis.
Jim Watson,
no just people like you that I really can’t stand.
with regards to low income housing…what’s your problem with giving poor people a place to live that’s affordable?
not all low income people are low class…yes there are problems associated with low income housing, and the management companies by and large ignore the problems associated with “low income issues because they need their occupancy.
many of the huge management companies of low income apartments ignore the crime, loud noises, smoking and drug use….i see why you would be against low income housing, but not everyone that’s poor is low class…
it’s about managing the problem properly and davis low income management companies have failed davis residents in their desire to stick with the bottom line….poor management needs to be fixed otherwise, davis residents will be stcuk with lower property values and such..
also, if someone works at sodexho at ucdavis and makes 12 bucks an hour and works hard, is this person’s worth somehow lower than your hard work.
your argument is obvious patriarchal….”women’s work” has always been devalued due to a pervasive sexist attitude that persists even to this day..
if a man of color does the same work, does he have to leave town and commute from woodland????
ridiculous
people who provide necessary services deserve an affordable place to live. not everyone can get their college education and quite frankly, workers should not be so devalued and put down..
it’s disgusting how hateful you are to the working class…we need another revolution. against the rich..this time around.. it’s time for another class revolution…
I don’t know how much you paid for your house Jim Watson, but I’ve come across people who voted no on P but they bought their house for 16k 40 years ago…well lucky for them.. what about the rest of us??????
Rusty 49, if anything hasn’t changed it’s because of people like YOU!!!!!!!
You see, people like rusty serve as a perfect example of the deep dark secrets of davis california…liberal? I don’t think so. not even close…it’s be overtaken by staunch libertarians like yourself.
hold onto your property values boys.. you voted against something that would have surely raised your property values, but you couldn’t see the forest for the trees
If everyone could tone this discussion down a notch, it would improve the dialogue here. Greg Sokolov, that comment was really uncalled for and it certainly turned things more ugly–especially since it wasn’t true.
“you voted against something that would have surely raised your property values”
Well Melanie, if this is how you believe then it looks like the no voters didn’t vote with their pocketbook. They must have had other reasons.
David,
no problem.
rusty 49,,, they voted inadvertently to keep their property values lower. they believed the hype..they believed that voting yes on p would lower their property values, and i’m saying they made a mistake..a huge mistake.
so their reasons i still assert were purely motivated by the bottom line.
ps. please boy cott target, they don’t have solar panels, they pay their employees minimum wage. their impact to davisites are huge, yet they still won. how so?
how could we approve target, yet disapprove this? it’s all about money. target brings in more taxes, homes don’t.
sorry but this is the truth.
Melanie just can’t believe that people can have their own opinions for how they voted, she chooses to frame their views to fit her argument. If you don’t see it like Melanie you must be a Republican, a Libertarian, you must own a big carbon spewing home, you probably own an SUV. Well Melanie, you can say all that but it would be just as easy for us to say it was all about you getting a place to live for cheaper rent. It sounds like maybe it was you who was in it for the money.
Rusty, I asked Melanie to tone it down, I’d appreciate if you did it a bit too. Thanks.
David, we’re just having a spirited conversation, please tell me what I’ve said that could be construed as over the top? Heck, I thought this was a blog, not girlfriend chit chat.
Melanie–I voted against Measure P too. You can come to your own conclusions, and conveniently lump me in with any group you want. I do live in a large, single-family home in a very nice part of Davis. I’m very proud of my home, since my wife and I designed it ourselves. However, I don’t drive an SUV, I commute to work on the bus, I have PV panels on my roof that generate most of my electricity, and I am about as liberal a person as they come. Though my home’s value has climbed quite a lot since I built it, that is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I want to happen. My wife and I hope to remain in our home for the rest of our lives because we love Davis. The higher our assessed value rises, the higher our property tax payments go. For that reason, it would be wonderful to us if the value of our house plummeted to only $100K!
The reason I voted against WHR is because I love Davis THE WAY IT IS. In the 26 years since I moved here, Davis has doubled in size, yet it’s managed to retain its small-town character and sense of community. Perhaps that’s why you’ve stayed. Peripheral sprawl can only lead to one thing, and that’s destroying our downtown and turning Davis into another Elk Grove. In my opinion, in order to remain “Davis,” it needs to grow as slowly as possible, and that’s what it’s doing. I certainly hope that when many of the current units in the pipeline are built, and Davis is ready to grow some again, a project much like WHR, only better, will come forward. At that time, it’d get my vote.
Hardly spirited.. please don’t euphemize your attacks. We need to really call things like they are. I still stand firm in my stance that this town doesn’t care about the environment.
We haven’t banned the use of plastic bags in stores like other countries, cities and towns. We don’t have a garbage recycling program that turns waste into usable gas..other cities have far surpassed the environmental ideals of Davis, and it’s because of the republican voters in this town and the liberals who have turned to money as their main god..
sad to say but true.. not vicious attacks intended…just the dirty little ugly truth about davis california.
David I can’t wait to read about your article on affordable housing.
even though I couldn’t afford a 450k home, I still wanted this project, not so much for me, but for the environment…oh well it looks like we’re going to have a repeat of the nineties.
David–I’m really looking forward to your upcoming blog on affordable housing in Davis. This city should be ashamed of itself for its past practices in this regard. I know that in my development, 2-3 small, odd-shaped lots were set aside as “affordable.” They were, as I understand it, quickly snatched up by friends and family of the developers, and then resold a couple years later at full-market value. People should have been sent to prison for this, as far as I’m concerned!
“I still wanted this project, not so much for me, but for the environment”
Yeah, cementing over ag land is oh so good for the environment.
1. first of all if you look at the plans, you will see that cement is hardly a major element in this plan..there was going to be 40% of the land set aside to plant trees. How many developers in Davis have set aside 40% of their land to trees? None.
The land is already owned by the developer. it’s not ag land, it’s just a few horses. 4 horses to be exact.
In terms of loss to ag land, this highly dense development is tiny and barely a cost to agricultural production. If you look at the surrounding undeveloped ag land, it’s nothing but hay, alfafa, and other environmentally unsustainable plants that use copious amounts of water, fertilizers, and pesticides that happen to be polluting our ground water.
Don’t forget, target was built on a superfund site that polluted the water with fertilizer waste (Frontier fertilizer is the name of the company that polluted our water) Hmmmm I wonder if there’s any relation to the surrounding ag land and the owners.
2. Second:
The initial carbon cost to building the actual homes are significantly lower than all the traditional homes built in Davis. They would have been using non VOC paints, the floors were going to be bamboo instead of hard wood floors which is what you all have in your homes. The homes were going to be significantly smaller than the traditional Davis homes and they were going to be built on smaller lots.
Platinum LEED certified.
3rd.
In terms of the actual carbon output in the long run, these homes are so much better than the alternative to the no growth solution of infilling Davis with unsustainable homes.
So there might have been a small initial loss to ag land that wasn’t even in production anyway…( if you take a look at the lot, it was once owned by a rich person who had set the land aside for his horses.)
THIS IS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND!!! It’s just a few horses that offered recreation for the rich owner of the land and house on the lot. Hardly a loss to the land.
It’s better off being converted to a dense housing project that not only offered low income housing, but truly green and sustainable housing that would save tons of carbon output per year per household over the traditional infill homes being built in Davis
The initial cost to the environment is nothing if you take into consideration the drastic reduction in greeh house gases over the lifetime of the home..can you say that for your house? could you say that for an infill project that didn’t have the same certifications? No.!!
sooooooooo… as you can see, your argument offers no real sound alternative, and doesn’t prove that this project is not green.
It’s greener than any single home that has been built in Davis and what do yo have to say for that?
OUTRAGEOUS to say the least.
So in short, yes, this project is better for the environment.
Phil: I agree with your revisionist history and honest campaign points, but not necessarily your conclusion about the preeminence of grass roots power. My bias is that the WHR project would have probably gotten through the hoop with competent political consultation. From my perspective R&A, Mike Harrington, Pam Nieberg, and the Vanguard all did massive damage … and the synergistic effect was what killed the Parlin project. There is obviously a major damage-control effort now underway, and we are likely to see a wide variety of weird frames as the parties involved try to restore some of their relevance in preparation for the next big controversy.
David. I too look forward to your blog on affordable housing.
Crilly if you would be willing to give me the details of the “affordable” lots in your neighborhood I would like to add it to the list I have developed over nearly ten years. I am 757-2233. I have blown the whistle to the city on about 65 homes that city staff forgot to put a community equity second on thus allowing $13 million to be lost to our affordable housing program. There were no income qualifications, no first time home buyer requirement, no lottery and the city staff let it happen and nothing was ever done. Who got these homes?
The city’s affordable housing program has no shepherds watching the flock!However, it has skeletons galore and millions of dollars of our community’s wealth have left town!
Melanie-
[quote]How many developers in Davis have set aside 40% of their land to trees? [/quote]
When the Wildhorse development was built the people of Davis were promised that the ranch property would remain a ranch. That was only 6% of the development. And yet- now, for your development you are willing to sacrifice the promise made earlier… Green or not, it seems we need to set some sort of precedent to developers. If a community is promised open space, then it needs to remain open… especially when there are plenty of other spaces to fill in.
[quote]The land is already owned by the developer. it’s not ag land, it’s just a few horses. 4 horses to be exact.[/quote]
You obviously have never spent any time on that land. Four horses?! There are at least 5 lesson ponies and a dozen other horses who are boarded there. Instead of putting a penny into actually enhancing his property the developer has let it go to rot. The families who live on the land (all lower-income renters, I might add)- as well as the horse-loving women who board there- do what they can to keep it up. The developer bought the land KNOWING what it was designated for!
So many of us who voted no on P are pro-infill housing- but prefer we develop those areas that sit ugly and empty— i.e. Cannery site- not land that animals and people currently enjoy. If the same project- just much larger- came up for that other site, I would have voted yes. Land that is inhabited and enjoyed by people (and I don’t mean once a year for a carnival put on by a jr. high) is not high on most people’s minds to develop… I don’t care if they are Republican, Democrat, fat or not.
I am sorry you were yelled at on the street, Melanie. It is inexcusable.
The political expunging of Bill Ritter’s follies begins!
Please read tonight’s Enterprise; in there, Ritter is quoted as saying that “Monfared decided it would be best not to complicate the Wildhorse Ranch campaign” by opting for a Nov election (instead of June 2010). Was this Monfared’s decision alone? Did not Mike Harrington whisper in his ear the night of the 7/28 election that a Nov election was more advantageous than a crowded June election. If this decision was made without Ritter’s consent, wny did he remain as campaign manager. And why the manic barrage of ads/flyers, when voters were clearly getting exhausted of them by early October?
I had FIVE Davis residents e-mail or call me just today to say they voted NO on P because they were just flat sick and tired of all the ridiculous ads, the “planet” ad on Sunday was the kicker for two of them…who was responsible for these ads? Masud Monfared or Bill Ritter?
David, will your wife hire Bill Ritter again in her next run for Council against Sue in the “Greenwald Name Game”?
Greg: My wife never hired Bill Ritter to begin with. You might consider checking your facts next time.
CZiser:
“When the Wildhorse development was built the people of Davis were promised that the ranch property would remain a ranch. That was only 6% of the development. And yet- now, for your development you are willing to sacrifice the promise made earlier… Green or not, it seems we need to set some sort of precedent to developers. If a community is promised open space, then it needs to remain open… especially when there are plenty of other spaces to fill in.”
I don’t believe this was true, though it has been stated. David Thompson if he’s still reading, may actually be able to address this point better than me.
“I don’t believe this was true”
The original Wildhorse agreement document was “entered in evidence” at the P measure debate(is it still available for viewing on davismedia.org?) The document states that this property “shall remain as open space”.
David, you are wrong. The 1994 Wildhorse Development Agreement clearly states, on page 4, “Approximately 26.1 net acres shall be retained as a horse farm.” The link is [url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/projects/wildhorse/pdfs/Historical-Reference/1994-Development-Agreement-for-Wildhorse-Project.pdf[/url].
mgziser, you are right that it states that (it’s on page 3, not 4). However, that is not in question. The question is whether the 26.1 acres retained as a horse farm was retained as a [i]mitigation measure[/i] of the development, and if you read the entire agreement, you can plainly see it was not, because it lays out just what the mitigation measures are, and retention of the 26.1 acres for a horse farm are not among those. (That said, the Exhibits are not included withing that document. So it remains possible that the retention of the 26.1 acres for use as a horse farm was deemed a mitigation measure in one of the Exhibits not shown.)
Rich: It’s called out as a project feature. As such, it could be constured as a “promise” to the voters that approved the proposal. Whether or not it was a mitigation measure seems immaterial from a voter expectation standpoint.
“I became incensed and outraged at Bob Dunning. This column is not about Measure P, it is about the insensitive, vile and depraved individual that is Bob Dunning. I do not use these terms lightly…”
“Rusty, I asked Melanie to tone it down, I’d appreciate if you did it a bit too. Thanks.”
David Greenwald? Are you SERIOUSLY asking people to tone it down? Your words are as ugly and as inflammatory as they come.
Someday it would be nice to know who made all of the decisions in this campaign. Obviously at this point everyone is running away from this one as fast as possible.
Bill Ritter was clearly the Captain of this sinking ship for most of the campaign and he should own up to running a Really Bad campaign. But there is plenty of blame to go around here. No need for just one person to hog the glory of going down by a 50 point margin after outspending your opposition by something like fifty to one.
This campaign really ought to be a case study–How NOT to run a campaign. The No on P people ran a good campaign, I thought, but they had a lot of help from the other side. Do these people really plan to run future campaigns in this town? Who would hire them or work with them?
Let’s not forget the collateral damage. They also ruined (at least temporarily) Lamar Heystek’s budding political career, and severely fractured (perhaps permanently) any remaining cohesiveness within the progressive community.
Ironically, the only “winner” here was Bill Ritter – who pocketed a ton of cash. I wonder how his friends and allies will feel about all the wasted effort and emotion they poured into this little exercise when Ritter’s final take is tallied for all to see. I also wonder if some of this money was “laundered” through R&A and spread around to other undisclosed individuals that “supported” the project.
[quote]Rich: It’s called out as a project feature. As such, it could be construed as a “promise” to the voters that approved the proposal.[/quote]Gadfly, we can both agree at this point that it’s largely meaningless, as WHR lost (overwhelmingly). However, if the intention of the retetnion was to mitigate against the loss of open space, then it would have been mentioned as such. It was not. However, there was a detailed list of other sites included as mitigations for loss of open space. It seems clear to me in reading the development agreement that the reason it was described as a 26.1 acre horse farm was to make clear that none of the new planned homes of the Wildhorse subdivision would be constructed on that site. Nowhere in the document does it state that the horse farm was a perk, benefit or other asset to its nearest neighbors. It was merely described as being there. [quote] Whether or not it was a mitigation measure seems immaterial from a voter expectation standpoint. [/quote] Mitigation measures are distinct from mere descriptions in these documents. One thing which the construction of all of the homes of Wildhorse did was it urbanized what had largely been open space. The horse farm, however, remained open space. So if the horse farm had been preserved as open space to mitigate against urbanization, the document would have said so. (It explicitly does that with regard to other sites on the erstwhile Duffel Ranch.) It also could have been described as some kind of permanent public benefit to the Caravaggio neighborhood, but no metnion of that sort of thing is in the development agreement.
What has thus far kept it “permanently” agricultural is its zoning. Under Measure J, that will remain in place forever, unless a majority of Davis voters want to change that. And given the outcome Tuesday, I cannot see any change in that zoning for the next 10-15 years.
“There were charges early on that Parlin had paid shills posting on the Vanguard. In fact, there was never any organized effort to do that and that worked in fact to their detriment.”
How would you know if they were using paid shills?
If it was to their detriment, are you suggesting that they made a tactical error? Are paid shills OK with you? How about if they work for Whitcombe?
[i]… the intention of the [s]retetnion[/s] retention …
… but no [s]metnion[/s] mention of that sort of thing … [/i]
No on P really didn’t win, Yes on P just flat out lost. No on P was scattered, showed immaturity with the league of women voters debacle, and just never really hit its stride. All it had to do was to point out facts and the Yes on P side pretty much never even responded. The Yes on P side put out horrible propaganda- totally obvious and uninspired stuff- and the No on P side watched from the sidelines.
It was the moderates: Bob Dunning, The Enterprise, Don Shor whose opinion swayed most people in the end. This because there was really never any answer to the most basic question: “why build in the first place?”
At least Covell Village bandied about the “this covers our 1% growth requirement” The best the Measure P folks could come up with is “this project has no net anything” which is more of a response than a vision.
“Ironically, the only “winner” here was Bill Ritter – who pocketed a ton of cash.”
This is an untrue statement, $5000 a month is hardly “a ton of cash.”
Civil:
“No on P was scattered, showing immaturity”
No on P was run by two people with full time jobs and small chilren who had never run a campaign before and won by 50 points. So your assessment seems rather harsh to me. Many other folks joined in as the campaign developed–it was a true grass roots campaign which means some scattering was inevitable,and all campaigns make mistakes, even the best ones, but their message was pretty consistent and effective. Perhaps we need more immature campaigns instead of campaigns run by seasoned political operators with too much money.
No argument that Yes on P ran a really bad campaign, but give some credit where it is due.
“At least Covell Village bandied about the “this covers our 1% growth requirement”
The 1% growth requirement gets tossed out there all the time when actually it’s worded as a “1% growth cap”. So if we had no growth at all we still stay within the mandate. Seems like the pro growth crowd likes to twist that 1% figure to their benefit.
David:
You are absolutely right. Ritter’s $5000 a month is not even enough to buy one of the “affordable” houses in WHR.
However it has been widely rumored by credible sources that Ritter would have received a six-figure bonus had Yes on P won.
I don’t believe that is true, but even if it was, it is hardly tantamount to him pocketing a lot of cash now, as someone suggested. I don’t really see what Bill Ritter did to any one here that would warrant the continued attacks against him. You won, he lost, you may well be on the same side next time, time to move on.
“This is an untrue statement, $5000 a month is hardly “a ton of cash.””
No. It’s a matter of opinion, not an untrue statement. I won’t quibble with your use of metaphors if you don’t quibble with mine.
Annualized compensation of $60,000 for “political consulting work” qualifies as a “ton of money” in my book. Also, slow growther raises an excellent point about bonuses. Along the same vein, I would also add deferred compensation to the list.
Your opinion of slow growther’s point about bonuses (“I don’t believe that is true”) carries about as much weight as your unwarranted dismissal of cziser’s point about inclusion of the horse ranch in the Wildhorse Development Agreement (“I don’t believe this was true”).
So let me now revise and extend my remarks …
Bill Ritter pocketed a ton of upfront cash for his work on behalf of the Parlin proposal, and his total compensation package may have included bonus(s) and/or deferred compensation triggered by progress of the proposal through the entitlement process.
“However, if the intention of the retetnion was to mitigate against the loss of open space, then it would have been mentioned as such.”
We experienced this same phenomenon with our Measure O where it was “sold” to the Davis voter as a self-tax to protect open space immediately adjacent to Davis’ periphery. Later, the Council majority, led by mayor Asmundson, claimed that they were not bound by this “promise” to the voters because it was not EXPLICITLY stated in the wording of Measure O. The same thing is now argued concerning the “promise” in the Wildhorse development agreement to retain this property as open space. The important lesson to be learned here… make sure that these “promises” are clearly spelled out in the language of the agreements!
“However it has been widely rumored by credible sources that Ritter would have received a six-figure bonus had Yes on P won.”
…certainly sounds credible as this appears to be SOP. Mike Corbett’s agreement with Whitcombe with regard to the Covell Village project, based upon then “inside” sources, was said to have included a significant number of Covell Village parcels of land for himself if Measure X passed.
davisite 2
I agree with your point that everything needs to be nailed down when these projects are developed. Indeed when someone pointed out at the debate that the Ranch was in the development agreement (please don’t quibble about the exact legal status) , John Tolman’s (of Parlin development) response was that development agreements can be changed by City Council votes. Other than attorneys or developers (or I guess frequent readers of this blog) most people do not know how easy it is to change these agreements.
Our City council is clearly pro-developer so that a development agreement which can be overturned by a City council vote isn’t worth much.
davisite2: Great point regarding “promises.”
This was also the basis for the skirmish over the Measure P baseline project features. At the end of the day (or more accurately, in the wee hours of the morning), the No on P camp was only successful in getting the on-site stipulation inserted into what was a remarkably weak document (and that almost didn’t happen). IMO, had Measure P passed, we would have had another demonstration that Development Agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on when it comes to fulfillment of voter expectations.
Gad: After 2 years of meetings, Sunrise Neighborhood Association (SNA) signed a formal written agreement with the developers of the now approved Chiles Ranch project (13 acres near the Davis Cemetery). It clearly spelled out the number of units (107), borders with existing neighbors, dedicated landscape details and more.
Several months later, the City Development Director (Katherine Hess) ignored this and recommended CC accept a one hundred twenty nine (129) unit project w/ reduced buffers and removal of all of the old growth trees. In addition, CC chose to downsize the green areas to reduce upkeep. CC immediately approved the revised plan. So much for voter expectations. If Chiles Ranch was a measure J project, it never would have passed. Zero green, tightly packed buildings.
Citizen/developer agreements are worthless. Developer agreements are worthless. Wildhorse is a (rough estimate) $67 million project. Check the re-election finances of Don Saylor’s CC campaign. Substantial contributions from developers. Running for County Supervisor takes at least $100k. Always good to have friends that help.
I agree, Gadfly. What we have seen with Measure P was a concerted effort by City Manager Emlen, former Davis Planning Director who witnessed the transfer of power from the Council and himself to the Davis voter with the Measure J/No on Measure X victory, to reset the process parameters of Measure J. 2 of the 3 Council members who voted for the Nov. date are ideologically anti-populist and anti-Measure J . The plan to reset the measure J process was: 1. maximizes the vagueness of the baseline agreement to be voted upon 2. minimize/eliminate pertinent citizen commission analysis and recommendations 3. minimize the ability of any opposition to organize by truncating the time between Council approval of a Measure J vote and the date of that vote. There is little question that Parlin was complicit in this because he believed erroneously that it would be to his advantage.
Jim…. sad tale. Measure J only offers citizen power to development that falls under the current Measure J parameters. A future citizen initiative that expands the Measure J concept to include all Davis development projects is the solution.
A helpful alternative to expanding the Measure J concept to include all Davis development would be to change our Council elections to a district-type. With Council members more closely relying on individual district constituencies, they would be more likely to hold the developer to the agreements negotiated by their district constituencies.
With regard to the question as to whether Measure P was defeated because of the poor decisions of the Yes side or the winning strategy of the No side, my take is that most of the answer lies almost entirely on the Yes side. I don’t say that to slam the No side. In fact, I think the No side did just about everything right. But the most important decision in this entire campaign was the timing of the election. Parlin should have known that holding a single-issue special election for a housing project was bad for a great number of reasons; and should have known that proposing a new housing development at a time when home values are plummeting was a bad idea.
What the No on P group did so smartly was to focus most of their campaign around the “2000 homes is enough” concept. (I think the concept itself is bogus, by the way.) That was a winning sales pitch, because homeowners in Davis (particularly people who bought a house in the last 5-10 years) are now very worried about losing the value of their investments. And so the No side effectively played up this fear: [i]”If we allow these evil developers to flood the market with hundreds more homes, your house will never be worth as much!!! Isn’t 2000 new homes enough already?”[/i]
Beside the timing of the vote, Parlin did itself no favor by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising trying to persuade Davis voters that its project was “green.” It was a very green project. But killing 75,000 trees to deliver that message, a message of [i]”these guys are just a bunch of greedy, big-spending, wasteful no-goodniks”[/i] came across to a lot of voters.
They should have saved their money on paying consultants and buying ads and making TV commercials and instead sent out one single 8.5″ by 11″ flier to all addresses in Davis with a rendering of the project on one side and its various features bulleted on the reverse side. And the message (literally) should have been: [i]”We are not trying to buy anyone’s vote. This is the only message you will get from us. We want to provide solar-powered homes for Davis residents which don’t exist now elsewhere in town. WHR will make Davis an even nicer city to live in.”[/i]
Rich:
[quote]They should have saved their money on paying consultants and buying ads and making TV commercials and instead sent out one single 8.5″ by 11″ flier to all addresses in Davis with a rendering of the project on one side and its various features bulleted on the reverse side. And the message (literally) should have been: “We are not trying to buy anyone’s vote. This is the only message you will get from us. We want to provide solar-powered homes for Davis residents which don’t exist now elsewhere in town. WHR will make Davis an even nicer city to live in.”[/quote]
In theory that sounds good. I’m certainly not arguing that their campaign was effective, it was not. However, a single message trying to sell a project probably would not have worked. A unified message that hit the same point over and over again might have worked depending on the climate. The problem that the Yes side had was that they could never get their message out above the din of everything else.
Here’s an example. I got a couple of brochures in my mail, but I don’t check my mail every day. And when I do, I quickly sort through and find the bills that need to be paid and everything else goes into the recycling or shred pile. The Yes on P campaign never even touched me. If I hadn’t read the newspaper, I never would have known anything and everything in the newspaper was negative. From that standpoint, the campaign was never able to control the message.
We can argue about the means to convey the message which probably wasn’t going to work in Davis.
BTW, I’m pretty sure it was all on recycled paper, so I’m not sure the tree killing analogy works, but I’m less and less convinced that a mail campaign is effective in Davis.
[quote]I’m pretty sure it was all on recycled paper, so I’m not sure the tree killing analogy works[/quote] I think the large number of ads [i]helped to give the impression[/i] that this was another big spending developer. Even if a single tree was not killed, even if using recycled paper is better for the environment than using paper made from tree farms, the impression helped to contradict the green message in a way that a single ad would not have.
Gadfly:
The energy conservation features were not only in the development agreement, but also part of the baseline features and were then part of the Measure J vote. As such, they could not be changed without another vote of the people.
Gadfly:
I might add this was another distortion on the part of the No on P campaign. They leaders knew that the conservation features were part of the baseline features and as such could not be changed at the will of the council but would require another vote for any deviation from what was stated in the Measure J vote.
No Friend of Covell Villa:
The only specific requirements in the baseline features were the 90% GHG reduction and a stipulation that the reductions were required to be on-site. Exactly how they were to be executed was left to the imagination. Authority to certify that the requirements had been met was delegated to Katherine Hess. The idea that the city and developer were constrained by these documents to deliver on the promises that were made is laughable.
technical issues …
My last comment was tagged as “a guest.”
I upgraded to IE 8 and now site looks like c**p (lot’s missing stuff). Still looks normal in Chrome.
Gadfly
“The energy conservation features were not only in the development agreement, but also part of the baseline features and were then part of the Measure J vote. As such, they could not be changed without another vote of the people.
As I indicated in a previous post, City Attorney Harriet Steiner’s legal analysis in the mailed ballot information stated that the baseline agreement would only have to SUBSTANTIALLY(open to subjective interpretation) be met to avoid another vote of the people. Does this refer to the baseline features taken in total or each individual element,ie the GHG reduction “promise”?). She also spoke only to this project and gave no legal opinion as to what would happen if this project was not built but rather the property sold to another developer, now with a changed zoning from agricultural to residential.
addendum: Harriet Steiner’s legal analysis also spoke to the “substantial”
baseline agreement provision at FULL BUILD-OUT. What is the realistic probability that the powers-that-be would fail the project and return it to the voters for approval or denial at full-build-out? Would the project then be torn down and the land returned to its original agricultural condition and zoning if the majority voted NO? What is the probability that the voters would even consider such a ridiculous result? This reveals the fantasy to the idea that the voters would get to have a realistic choice.
davisite2: Great point. I had forgotten about this. “Substantial” compliance at full build out – certified by Katherine Hess (rather than an independent authority) with no defined penalties for nonconformance. A sweetheart deal from top to bottom.
This in conjunction with the original plan that any shortfall could be made up off-site, the lack of specificity about exactly how they would execute the full 90% GHG reduction, the failure to get the LEED certifying body on-board until it became a political issue, the bizarre over-the-top hype about raising the bar in California, etc., etc., etc. made it pretty obvious that WHR GHG was more about “marketing” than sustainable development. Ironically, if you want to see an example of a serious project, involving credible people, that are really trying to push the envelope on energy … we have to look no further than West Village.
[quote]I might add this was another distortion on the part of the No on P campaign. They leaders knew that the conservation features were part of the baseline features and as such could not be changed at the will of the council[/quote][…name omitted…] the No on P campaign NEVER argued that the tough green building requirements could be violated. Maybe some unauthorized individuals claimed that, but the No on P campaign never made such a claim.
The No on P campaign was as accurate as a campaign gets. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Yes on P campaign.
“Maybe some [u]unauthorized[/u] individuals claimed that …”
That’s the great thing about the first amendment … nobody needs to run anything past you.
Very poor choice of words.
Gadfly: I meant unauthorized by the No on P campaign, obviously. There was an official, registered No on P campaign. If the people who wrote material or spoke publicly for that campaign made inaccurate statements, then the No on P campaign would have been responsible.
Sue: I understand how a campaign works and don’t need an explanation. Do you agree with Pam Nieberg that those of us that voiced concerns about the veracity of the energy claims were engaged in “distortions?” Are you implying that we were making “inaccurate statements?”
Jim: If you are still reading this thread, is the SNA agreement posted on the City of Davis web site? What date was the public hearing?
Gadfly: no the SNA agreement isn’t posted. Katherine Hess has stated it has no legal value. CC obviously agrees. Which public hearing? LOL we attended many over the past 2 years. One miserable part of the project is that all the many classic trees on the site will be cut down. Zero green aspects (well the units will have PV connections, just no solar panels). Minimal space between existing and new development. The City demanded a reduction of the green areas because the city costs would be too high. No bike lanes.
If the public had the chance to vote on Chiles Ranch, it NEVER would have passed. 129 units on 13 acres. No effort to be energy efficient. It’s a really low grade development. We do have a legal agreement and have contacted an attorney. No website yet. Thanks for asking. We wish more people knew about Chiles Ranch (near the Davis Cemetery which is on Poleline Road)
I don’t even know why we’re debating this issue. Yes on P won because they underestimated just how powerful greed can be. It lost because a few loud boisterous people (like Greg Sokolove and Aileen who live on their own HUGE LOTS – Greg included- your lot is urban sprawl and bad for the environment) these people managed to dismantle the debate and appeal to people’s greed and selfish interests….
it’s all about MONEY!!!
Ps. I can’t wait till they build those 2000 homes fast so your preccious real estate values will come down quickly…
also WHY R WE NOT GOING AFTER CHILES RANCH?????
Where’s the hateful lynch mob in this case? 129 units… 13 acres…sounds like urban unsustainable sprawl to me. Well still waiting for the lynch mob.. how come this project doesn’t have to go through a special election like parlin development had to? HUH???????
Gadfly,
I’m not Sue but i’ll agree with Pam in this instance.
“Do you agree with Pam Nieberg that those of us that voiced concerns about the veracity of the energy claims were engaged in “distortions?” Are you implying that we were making “inaccurate statements?”
ps. if you’re all so concerned with energy statements or energy use, look at the pge website to determine your energy use and carbon footprint….
i’d be willing to bet that your footprint is so much larger than a 1200-1600 sq foot home (platinum leed certified) with solar panels.
If you’re so concerned about the environment all you no on P people should go out and get your house retrofitted to keep up with wildhorse ranch.
of course, if it were built you would have had more pressure to do so and this is the crux of it all… why measure p lost..money money money..
a more sinister, less sustainable kind of green
Sue,
let’s not talk about honesty…you own a house do you not? how much is your carbon out put/consumtion/ footprint? how much do you charge your renter? you do care about affordable housing right?’
the no on p campaign was the most dishonest campaign…actually more dishonest than those tea baggers who try to claim that they aren’t being paid by corporate interests of the insurance companies.
or perhaps the hypocrisy of the senior citizens who are against health care reform because they don’t want anybody else to get health care. they like medicaid so much that they want it all to themselves.
lies, trickery, and deciet.. smoke and mirrors
to the attacking comments against bill ritter and his salary…
for davis california now adays, 5000k a month isn’t enough to pay the mortgage on ANY home in davis….especially the homes in chiles ranch..new home or otherwise, affordable or not, 5k a month isn’t a ton of cash in davis california
sooo
if it’s alot to you, it’s cause you bought your home decades ago and it’s bought and paid for..much like alot of you…except greg sokolove in his huge sprawling wasteful million dollar mansion in wildhorse..
Melanie-
You are so out of control… and wrong. My husband and I do not make 5k a month and somehow we manage to pay the mortgage on our 50 year old East Davis home that we bought in 2003 (prices were very high… I think they peaked in 2004). We definitely would not be able to pay for a Wildhorse Ranch home that is for sure(and gosh… we are both teachers in Davis… hmmm?!)
We probably count as “low income” in Davis (ironic of course since in most communities we would be middle-income), we paid for our house at the peak, and we were opposed to Measure P not because our house would lose more value, but because we thought it was a load of crap. I don’t know why you cannot see that the world is not as black and white as you would like to see it. I will say it again- Measure P was going to develop land that is not paved over yet. Some of us just don’t agree with that. Develop the Cannery Site, the PG and E site, other infill areas first.
We didn’t get to vote on the Pole Line/Chiles Ranch site because it is not PERIPHERAL development… the city council got to make their own decision on that one.
[quote]Where’s the hateful lynch mob in this case? [/quote] They are amassing their forces in here:
[img]http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicc/cfiles10857.jpg[/img]
Jim: I was asking about the date of the final cc hearing so that I could listen online to Steiner’s legal rationalization for disregarding the neighborhood agreement. Your neighborhood clearly got screwed on the basis of Steiner’s legal opinion, and I’m curious if she hedged her language in any way.
Gadfly: Meeting was 6/30. Publicly stated opinion of both Katherine Hess and Harriet Steiner was quite simple. “Agreement between the SNA and the developers has no legal value” No justification. Both point blank statements. The last minute of the additional units really was sleazy.
Katherine Hess managed the project. Michael Webb was the principal planner. Cathy Camacho was a planner.
When Ms. Hess met w/ us informally, we asked possible number of units. Casual response was “oh maybe 170”
I am of course biased but this project is really low rent. It’s ugly and expensive (more $450k townhouses). No bike lanes. So many carefully negotiated details got “rearranged”. We asked for a specific percentage of green space. CC cut it down and changed remaining to low maintain because of cost. I wish more people knew about Chiles. Hey if it’s going to be built, at least save the trees and give neighbors a minimum setback. This development would NEVER have been approved by voters. Thank the current CC for sliding it thru in the dark.
We have the signed SNA/developer agreement. Attorney says it has legal value.
Please excuse my whining here but the impact is important to everyone. Don Saylor specifically asked for citizen input in “this model program designed to recruit citizen input on the development”. We attended expensive local government (SACOG) sponsored “design charettes”. These were fancy events w/ lots of City, developer and citizen attendance. Slide shows, food, etc. We spent two (2) years meeting w/ the developers and signed a formal agreement w/ them in June. Result of all this? At the last minute, Katherine Hess and City Council make substantial changes. They ignore the citizens completely and quickly approve Chiles. Hey if it were innovative or even interesting (and didn’t cut down many old growth trees) it would be a little more understandable.
This is “our” Development Director and “our” City Council (the Gang of 3) changing and approving a badly done 129 unit project. Totally out of touch w/ preserving the small town character of Davis. No “wow”, no innovation and no commitment to doing development better.