The implication of this article was that Supervisor Yamada and Councilmember Souza were working jointly on a plan to bring the city and county into talks. This is in fact untrue.
The bulk of the article suggests that the idea put forth was by Souza.
However, the article fails to mention that this is not a new idea. In fact, Supervisor Yamada introduced this idea to the County Board of Supervisors in January of 2005, a full two years ago. However, it quickly became apparent that Yamada lacked the votes to win approval of her proposal and in fact was the only Supervisor to support the idea. So instead of putting it up for a vote, she asked that the memo she wrote to her colleagues setting forth her idea be submitted to the County file for the public record.
During the course of last week as Yamada learned of the article being written by Ms. Sherwin, Yamada sent both Ms. Sherwin and Councilmember Souza a copy of her two year old memo–however this was not mentioned in the Davis Enterprise Article. The basic idea was that the County and City Governments collaborate and cooperate on the drafting of a new general plan. “I believe that our current General Plan process provides an excellent initial opportunity for a “council of governments” to listen to each other about the future of Yolo County,” Yamada wrote.
Dated January 25, 2005 the memo contained a proposal for a Yolo County Council of Governments (YCCOG).
Yamada wrote:
“Recent events, including the Gateway Auto Mall issue, the issuance of the SMUD Annexation Feasibility Study, and the challenges in scheduling an Yolo County “all-electeds dinner”, have reinforced my observations over the past year that we may wish to consider a more structured communication mechanism between the County and our four city partners in Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, and Woodland on issues of mutual concern.”
Yamada concluded:
“Dialogue among Yolo County officials is not a new idea, but one that continues to reinvent itself. Should our Board agree in concept with going forward with a “Yolo County Council of Governments”, or YCCOG, I would request that this idea be explored with each of our City partners, and that our CAO and appropriate departments be asked to analyze further what staff impacts would result from the development of a more regularized discussion opportunity among the various governments in Yolo County.
It is not my intent to “add another meeting” to our already overflowing schedules, but to suggest that there may be a better way to communicate among ourselves—at least annually–on issues of countywide significance.”
Advocates of slow growth have been concerned that these talks would be used to force growth upon the cities on their periphery. However, what is ironic is that had this structure been in place two years ago and there was a joint body in existence, much of the concern about development on the northwest quadrant of Davis may have been alleviated because there would have been improved communication between the city and county bodies about their needs and concerns with regards to development and also county resources and services.
As we have discovered in the realm of foreign relations–talking is never a bad idea. It may not resolve differences and bring common understanding, but it is preferable to the alternatives.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Doug… here,perhaps I come to a
somewhat different assessment. The Pass-Through agreement gives Davis “control” over decisions about growth on its periphery. In that regard, our city council, representing the voters of Davis, should have the input, described in said Pass_Through agreement, into the County General Plan process. Any formal,institutionalized “collaboration and cooperate on the drafting of a new General Plan”
immediately erodes the perogatives that Davis voters have been paying for to the County with its extra contribution to the County coffers.
Since an open proposition by the County to withdraw from this agreement is a political “third-rail” as well as fraught with serious financial problems for the County,this is an obvious “stealth attack” on the Pass-Through agreement which gives our city Council control over our borders. At the last Council meeting, Souza was visibly chagrined when Mayor Greenwald had to publicly remind him that he WAS elected to his seat on the dais to represent the wishes of the voters of Davis.
Doug… here,perhaps I come to a
somewhat different assessment. The Pass-Through agreement gives Davis “control” over decisions about growth on its periphery. In that regard, our city council, representing the voters of Davis, should have the input, described in said Pass_Through agreement, into the County General Plan process. Any formal,institutionalized “collaboration and cooperate on the drafting of a new General Plan”
immediately erodes the perogatives that Davis voters have been paying for to the County with its extra contribution to the County coffers.
Since an open proposition by the County to withdraw from this agreement is a political “third-rail” as well as fraught with serious financial problems for the County,this is an obvious “stealth attack” on the Pass-Through agreement which gives our city Council control over our borders. At the last Council meeting, Souza was visibly chagrined when Mayor Greenwald had to publicly remind him that he WAS elected to his seat on the dais to represent the wishes of the voters of Davis.
Doug… here,perhaps I come to a
somewhat different assessment. The Pass-Through agreement gives Davis “control” over decisions about growth on its periphery. In that regard, our city council, representing the voters of Davis, should have the input, described in said Pass_Through agreement, into the County General Plan process. Any formal,institutionalized “collaboration and cooperate on the drafting of a new General Plan”
immediately erodes the perogatives that Davis voters have been paying for to the County with its extra contribution to the County coffers.
Since an open proposition by the County to withdraw from this agreement is a political “third-rail” as well as fraught with serious financial problems for the County,this is an obvious “stealth attack” on the Pass-Through agreement which gives our city Council control over our borders. At the last Council meeting, Souza was visibly chagrined when Mayor Greenwald had to publicly remind him that he WAS elected to his seat on the dais to represent the wishes of the voters of Davis.
Doug… here,perhaps I come to a
somewhat different assessment. The Pass-Through agreement gives Davis “control” over decisions about growth on its periphery. In that regard, our city council, representing the voters of Davis, should have the input, described in said Pass_Through agreement, into the County General Plan process. Any formal,institutionalized “collaboration and cooperate on the drafting of a new General Plan”
immediately erodes the perogatives that Davis voters have been paying for to the County with its extra contribution to the County coffers.
Since an open proposition by the County to withdraw from this agreement is a political “third-rail” as well as fraught with serious financial problems for the County,this is an obvious “stealth attack” on the Pass-Through agreement which gives our city Council control over our borders. At the last Council meeting, Souza was visibly chagrined when Mayor Greenwald had to publicly remind him that he WAS elected to his seat on the dais to represent the wishes of the voters of Davis.
Davisite: If you read the initial proposal, it was only a proposal for communication between the county and cities as they drafted their respective general plans. If enacted it in fact would prevent the type of scenarios that you are mentioning by clarifying the city’s vision for growth and incorporating it overall into the county’s. This initiative was not even about the pass-through agreement–the word never appeared in the memo, it was only a recognition of some formal communication as various governmental bodies (counties and cities) drafted their individual plans. That there be coordination. This seems very reasonable that they be in-sink with one another.
Davisite: If you read the initial proposal, it was only a proposal for communication between the county and cities as they drafted their respective general plans. If enacted it in fact would prevent the type of scenarios that you are mentioning by clarifying the city’s vision for growth and incorporating it overall into the county’s. This initiative was not even about the pass-through agreement–the word never appeared in the memo, it was only a recognition of some formal communication as various governmental bodies (counties and cities) drafted their individual plans. That there be coordination. This seems very reasonable that they be in-sink with one another.
Davisite: If you read the initial proposal, it was only a proposal for communication between the county and cities as they drafted their respective general plans. If enacted it in fact would prevent the type of scenarios that you are mentioning by clarifying the city’s vision for growth and incorporating it overall into the county’s. This initiative was not even about the pass-through agreement–the word never appeared in the memo, it was only a recognition of some formal communication as various governmental bodies (counties and cities) drafted their individual plans. That there be coordination. This seems very reasonable that they be in-sink with one another.
Davisite: If you read the initial proposal, it was only a proposal for communication between the county and cities as they drafted their respective general plans. If enacted it in fact would prevent the type of scenarios that you are mentioning by clarifying the city’s vision for growth and incorporating it overall into the county’s. This initiative was not even about the pass-through agreement–the word never appeared in the memo, it was only a recognition of some formal communication as various governmental bodies (counties and cities) drafted their individual plans. That there be coordination. This seems very reasonable that they be in-sink with one another.
Who can argue against the concept of “communication”? I believe that this is going on under the present structure but without the political perceptions that come with formally institutionalizing it. This was the idea that Souza put forth at the last council meeting.
Who can argue against the concept of “communication”? I believe that this is going on under the present structure but without the political perceptions that come with formally institutionalizing it. This was the idea that Souza put forth at the last council meeting.
Who can argue against the concept of “communication”? I believe that this is going on under the present structure but without the political perceptions that come with formally institutionalizing it. This was the idea that Souza put forth at the last council meeting.
Who can argue against the concept of “communication”? I believe that this is going on under the present structure but without the political perceptions that come with formally institutionalizing it. This was the idea that Souza put forth at the last council meeting.
Given that city and county officials are already discussing commercial development east of the new Target site, it might be useful for some political perceptions to be brought to bear on such ideas before they get any further than the 2 x 2 stage. Likewise the recent proposal for big box development south of Woodland. These are issues that should be discussed early and often at the decision-making level, not by staff. As we all know, staff can end up in an advocacy role when there is no oversight by the elected officials.
I applaud Mariko and Stephen for pursuing the idea of a formal communication process, and see no erosion of either the city or the county prerogatives. The strength of the city and county planning process is a function of who we elect, not how they meet.
Given that city and county officials are already discussing commercial development east of the new Target site, it might be useful for some political perceptions to be brought to bear on such ideas before they get any further than the 2 x 2 stage. Likewise the recent proposal for big box development south of Woodland. These are issues that should be discussed early and often at the decision-making level, not by staff. As we all know, staff can end up in an advocacy role when there is no oversight by the elected officials.
I applaud Mariko and Stephen for pursuing the idea of a formal communication process, and see no erosion of either the city or the county prerogatives. The strength of the city and county planning process is a function of who we elect, not how they meet.
Given that city and county officials are already discussing commercial development east of the new Target site, it might be useful for some political perceptions to be brought to bear on such ideas before they get any further than the 2 x 2 stage. Likewise the recent proposal for big box development south of Woodland. These are issues that should be discussed early and often at the decision-making level, not by staff. As we all know, staff can end up in an advocacy role when there is no oversight by the elected officials.
I applaud Mariko and Stephen for pursuing the idea of a formal communication process, and see no erosion of either the city or the county prerogatives. The strength of the city and county planning process is a function of who we elect, not how they meet.
Given that city and county officials are already discussing commercial development east of the new Target site, it might be useful for some political perceptions to be brought to bear on such ideas before they get any further than the 2 x 2 stage. Likewise the recent proposal for big box development south of Woodland. These are issues that should be discussed early and often at the decision-making level, not by staff. As we all know, staff can end up in an advocacy role when there is no oversight by the elected officials.
I applaud Mariko and Stephen for pursuing the idea of a formal communication process, and see no erosion of either the city or the county prerogatives. The strength of the city and county planning process is a function of who we elect, not how they meet.
To me,this discussion may have a subtext of whether Yamada’s position here should erode support for her if she decides to run for Assembly. Davisite’s political focus is on Davis’ interests and Yamada has been steadfast in her support of that, within the parameters of a County official. We all recognize that as our local representatives climb the political ladder, their responsibilites broaden. For me, PAST political decisions of our local reps are very important for my future support to higher office. Our local politicos, who have future political ambitions, need to recognize they will not be gettng our support for higher office unless they represent our interests when they were our local representatives.
To me,this discussion may have a subtext of whether Yamada’s position here should erode support for her if she decides to run for Assembly. Davisite’s political focus is on Davis’ interests and Yamada has been steadfast in her support of that, within the parameters of a County official. We all recognize that as our local representatives climb the political ladder, their responsibilites broaden. For me, PAST political decisions of our local reps are very important for my future support to higher office. Our local politicos, who have future political ambitions, need to recognize they will not be gettng our support for higher office unless they represent our interests when they were our local representatives.
To me,this discussion may have a subtext of whether Yamada’s position here should erode support for her if she decides to run for Assembly. Davisite’s political focus is on Davis’ interests and Yamada has been steadfast in her support of that, within the parameters of a County official. We all recognize that as our local representatives climb the political ladder, their responsibilites broaden. For me, PAST political decisions of our local reps are very important for my future support to higher office. Our local politicos, who have future political ambitions, need to recognize they will not be gettng our support for higher office unless they represent our interests when they were our local representatives.
To me,this discussion may have a subtext of whether Yamada’s position here should erode support for her if she decides to run for Assembly. Davisite’s political focus is on Davis’ interests and Yamada has been steadfast in her support of that, within the parameters of a County official. We all recognize that as our local representatives climb the political ladder, their responsibilites broaden. For me, PAST political decisions of our local reps are very important for my future support to higher office. Our local politicos, who have future political ambitions, need to recognize they will not be gettng our support for higher office unless they represent our interests when they were our local representatives.
“The bulk of the article suggests that the idea put forth was by Souza.”
David,
First, who the hell cares whose idea it was first? Mountain-molehill?
Second, I just re-read Elisabeth Sherwin’s article and nowhere in it does it say that the idea to meet was Souza’s alone. Rather, it says, “Davis Councilman Stephen Souza and Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada are eager to bring the city and county to the table to talk about a cooperative future.”
I thought the most interesting quote from that article is what Sue Greenwald is quoted as saying: “I’m not convinced it will do much,” she said Thursday. “I don’t see why we need to talk.”
My own view is that the county ought to completely defer to the incorporated cities when it comes to planning or development on their peripheries. Insofar as the county has financial problems, those should not be solved in ways that cause conflict with the needs and wishes of the incorporated cities.
What the county ought to be considering, however, is renegotiating its pass-through agreements, if they are not serving the county well.
“The bulk of the article suggests that the idea put forth was by Souza.”
David,
First, who the hell cares whose idea it was first? Mountain-molehill?
Second, I just re-read Elisabeth Sherwin’s article and nowhere in it does it say that the idea to meet was Souza’s alone. Rather, it says, “Davis Councilman Stephen Souza and Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada are eager to bring the city and county to the table to talk about a cooperative future.”
I thought the most interesting quote from that article is what Sue Greenwald is quoted as saying: “I’m not convinced it will do much,” she said Thursday. “I don’t see why we need to talk.”
My own view is that the county ought to completely defer to the incorporated cities when it comes to planning or development on their peripheries. Insofar as the county has financial problems, those should not be solved in ways that cause conflict with the needs and wishes of the incorporated cities.
What the county ought to be considering, however, is renegotiating its pass-through agreements, if they are not serving the county well.
“The bulk of the article suggests that the idea put forth was by Souza.”
David,
First, who the hell cares whose idea it was first? Mountain-molehill?
Second, I just re-read Elisabeth Sherwin’s article and nowhere in it does it say that the idea to meet was Souza’s alone. Rather, it says, “Davis Councilman Stephen Souza and Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada are eager to bring the city and county to the table to talk about a cooperative future.”
I thought the most interesting quote from that article is what Sue Greenwald is quoted as saying: “I’m not convinced it will do much,” she said Thursday. “I don’t see why we need to talk.”
My own view is that the county ought to completely defer to the incorporated cities when it comes to planning or development on their peripheries. Insofar as the county has financial problems, those should not be solved in ways that cause conflict with the needs and wishes of the incorporated cities.
What the county ought to be considering, however, is renegotiating its pass-through agreements, if they are not serving the county well.
“The bulk of the article suggests that the idea put forth was by Souza.”
David,
First, who the hell cares whose idea it was first? Mountain-molehill?
Second, I just re-read Elisabeth Sherwin’s article and nowhere in it does it say that the idea to meet was Souza’s alone. Rather, it says, “Davis Councilman Stephen Souza and Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada are eager to bring the city and county to the table to talk about a cooperative future.”
I thought the most interesting quote from that article is what Sue Greenwald is quoted as saying: “I’m not convinced it will do much,” she said Thursday. “I don’t see why we need to talk.”
My own view is that the county ought to completely defer to the incorporated cities when it comes to planning or development on their peripheries. Insofar as the county has financial problems, those should not be solved in ways that cause conflict with the needs and wishes of the incorporated cities.
What the county ought to be considering, however, is renegotiating its pass-through agreements, if they are not serving the county well.
“…..The strength of the city and county planning process is a function of who we elect….”
Don… an equally valid argument, in principle. I come down on the side that the formalization and institutionalization of the collaborative and cooperative process places Davis at a disadvantage in the current political climate of a “full-court press” to erode the Pass-Through agreement and, potentially,the renewal of Measure J.
When this political pressure abates along with a change in the direction of our city council, I would support your position.
“…..The strength of the city and county planning process is a function of who we elect….”
Don… an equally valid argument, in principle. I come down on the side that the formalization and institutionalization of the collaborative and cooperative process places Davis at a disadvantage in the current political climate of a “full-court press” to erode the Pass-Through agreement and, potentially,the renewal of Measure J.
When this political pressure abates along with a change in the direction of our city council, I would support your position.
“…..The strength of the city and county planning process is a function of who we elect….”
Don… an equally valid argument, in principle. I come down on the side that the formalization and institutionalization of the collaborative and cooperative process places Davis at a disadvantage in the current political climate of a “full-court press” to erode the Pass-Through agreement and, potentially,the renewal of Measure J.
When this political pressure abates along with a change in the direction of our city council, I would support your position.
“…..The strength of the city and county planning process is a function of who we elect….”
Don… an equally valid argument, in principle. I come down on the side that the formalization and institutionalization of the collaborative and cooperative process places Davis at a disadvantage in the current political climate of a “full-court press” to erode the Pass-Through agreement and, potentially,the renewal of Measure J.
When this political pressure abates along with a change in the direction of our city council, I would support your position.
The City/County pass-through agreement is intended to give Davis control over planning in our sphere of influence. The County has ceded some of their legal jurisdiction to the City, in return for a more favorable tax-sharing agreement. Now, it appears that Yamada and Souza (and of course, Helen Thomson) would like to re-empower the County to have its cake and eat it too – reap the extra tax revenue afforded by the pass-through agreement while still meddling in City-edge planning via the reasonable-sounding concept of “joint planning.”
Who really stands to gain from this? Why would Yamada and Souza support it? Well….
The combination of the pass-through agreement and Measure J has given Davis residents an effective toolkit for controlling our own growth. This is a great thing for Davis residents, but not so great for developers or local politicians who aspire to higher office.
Developers and home builders are big campaign contributors at all levels above Davis City Council (where their influence is reduced – but not nearly eliminated – by campaign contribution limitations). Land speculation and development is a hugely profitable business. For the developers, big campaign contributions are just a cost of doing business. They don’t just do it out of the goodness of their hearts – they expect something in return. No explicit deals need to be cut; politicians who don’t perform can be cut off at the pocketbook, with support going to their campaign opponents.
Developers need to take control of Davis growth back away from Davis voters (who, they have discovered, are not easily bought) and turn it back over to ambitious politicians who are necessarily susceptible to the developers’ financial carrot and stick. “Joint planning” would allow this, without overturning either Measure J or the pass-through agreement.
Sorry if this sounds cynical and harsh, but it is reality.
The City/County pass-through agreement is intended to give Davis control over planning in our sphere of influence. The County has ceded some of their legal jurisdiction to the City, in return for a more favorable tax-sharing agreement. Now, it appears that Yamada and Souza (and of course, Helen Thomson) would like to re-empower the County to have its cake and eat it too – reap the extra tax revenue afforded by the pass-through agreement while still meddling in City-edge planning via the reasonable-sounding concept of “joint planning.”
Who really stands to gain from this? Why would Yamada and Souza support it? Well….
The combination of the pass-through agreement and Measure J has given Davis residents an effective toolkit for controlling our own growth. This is a great thing for Davis residents, but not so great for developers or local politicians who aspire to higher office.
Developers and home builders are big campaign contributors at all levels above Davis City Council (where their influence is reduced – but not nearly eliminated – by campaign contribution limitations). Land speculation and development is a hugely profitable business. For the developers, big campaign contributions are just a cost of doing business. They don’t just do it out of the goodness of their hearts – they expect something in return. No explicit deals need to be cut; politicians who don’t perform can be cut off at the pocketbook, with support going to their campaign opponents.
Developers need to take control of Davis growth back away from Davis voters (who, they have discovered, are not easily bought) and turn it back over to ambitious politicians who are necessarily susceptible to the developers’ financial carrot and stick. “Joint planning” would allow this, without overturning either Measure J or the pass-through agreement.
Sorry if this sounds cynical and harsh, but it is reality.
The City/County pass-through agreement is intended to give Davis control over planning in our sphere of influence. The County has ceded some of their legal jurisdiction to the City, in return for a more favorable tax-sharing agreement. Now, it appears that Yamada and Souza (and of course, Helen Thomson) would like to re-empower the County to have its cake and eat it too – reap the extra tax revenue afforded by the pass-through agreement while still meddling in City-edge planning via the reasonable-sounding concept of “joint planning.”
Who really stands to gain from this? Why would Yamada and Souza support it? Well….
The combination of the pass-through agreement and Measure J has given Davis residents an effective toolkit for controlling our own growth. This is a great thing for Davis residents, but not so great for developers or local politicians who aspire to higher office.
Developers and home builders are big campaign contributors at all levels above Davis City Council (where their influence is reduced – but not nearly eliminated – by campaign contribution limitations). Land speculation and development is a hugely profitable business. For the developers, big campaign contributions are just a cost of doing business. They don’t just do it out of the goodness of their hearts – they expect something in return. No explicit deals need to be cut; politicians who don’t perform can be cut off at the pocketbook, with support going to their campaign opponents.
Developers need to take control of Davis growth back away from Davis voters (who, they have discovered, are not easily bought) and turn it back over to ambitious politicians who are necessarily susceptible to the developers’ financial carrot and stick. “Joint planning” would allow this, without overturning either Measure J or the pass-through agreement.
Sorry if this sounds cynical and harsh, but it is reality.
The City/County pass-through agreement is intended to give Davis control over planning in our sphere of influence. The County has ceded some of their legal jurisdiction to the City, in return for a more favorable tax-sharing agreement. Now, it appears that Yamada and Souza (and of course, Helen Thomson) would like to re-empower the County to have its cake and eat it too – reap the extra tax revenue afforded by the pass-through agreement while still meddling in City-edge planning via the reasonable-sounding concept of “joint planning.”
Who really stands to gain from this? Why would Yamada and Souza support it? Well….
The combination of the pass-through agreement and Measure J has given Davis residents an effective toolkit for controlling our own growth. This is a great thing for Davis residents, but not so great for developers or local politicians who aspire to higher office.
Developers and home builders are big campaign contributors at all levels above Davis City Council (where their influence is reduced – but not nearly eliminated – by campaign contribution limitations). Land speculation and development is a hugely profitable business. For the developers, big campaign contributions are just a cost of doing business. They don’t just do it out of the goodness of their hearts – they expect something in return. No explicit deals need to be cut; politicians who don’t perform can be cut off at the pocketbook, with support going to their campaign opponents.
Developers need to take control of Davis growth back away from Davis voters (who, they have discovered, are not easily bought) and turn it back over to ambitious politicians who are necessarily susceptible to the developers’ financial carrot and stick. “Joint planning” would allow this, without overturning either Measure J or the pass-through agreement.
Sorry if this sounds cynical and harsh, but it is reality.
anonymous said….
“….Developers need to take control of Davis growth back away from Davis voters (who, they have discovered, are not easily bought)….”
A tangential but, to me, quite optimistic observation: The recent Yes on Measure K vote won by only about 500 yotes after spending between 1/4-1/2 million dollars on their campaign compared to the grassroots No on K campaign with many of its people new to the Davis political game up against a highly paid, professional organization. The campaigns divided along simple lines.. one appealing to the sense of Davis community, Davis “values”, sense of fairness with regard to local business and neighborhoods,perhaps a willingness to make these values a priority over saving a few dollars/year.. The Yes on K argument appealed to what could be simply described as the opposite of these values.
My conclusion is that people of Davis with a long-term concern about the nature of their community actually voted in the majority to support Davis “values”.
This observation that the Davis voter was not won over by the simple strategy of catering to the their personal self-interest is not lost on those who need a strategy for a different agenda.
anonymous said….
“….Developers need to take control of Davis growth back away from Davis voters (who, they have discovered, are not easily bought)….”
A tangential but, to me, quite optimistic observation: The recent Yes on Measure K vote won by only about 500 yotes after spending between 1/4-1/2 million dollars on their campaign compared to the grassroots No on K campaign with many of its people new to the Davis political game up against a highly paid, professional organization. The campaigns divided along simple lines.. one appealing to the sense of Davis community, Davis “values”, sense of fairness with regard to local business and neighborhoods,perhaps a willingness to make these values a priority over saving a few dollars/year.. The Yes on K argument appealed to what could be simply described as the opposite of these values.
My conclusion is that people of Davis with a long-term concern about the nature of their community actually voted in the majority to support Davis “values”.
This observation that the Davis voter was not won over by the simple strategy of catering to the their personal self-interest is not lost on those who need a strategy for a different agenda.
anonymous said….
“….Developers need to take control of Davis growth back away from Davis voters (who, they have discovered, are not easily bought)….”
A tangential but, to me, quite optimistic observation: The recent Yes on Measure K vote won by only about 500 yotes after spending between 1/4-1/2 million dollars on their campaign compared to the grassroots No on K campaign with many of its people new to the Davis political game up against a highly paid, professional organization. The campaigns divided along simple lines.. one appealing to the sense of Davis community, Davis “values”, sense of fairness with regard to local business and neighborhoods,perhaps a willingness to make these values a priority over saving a few dollars/year.. The Yes on K argument appealed to what could be simply described as the opposite of these values.
My conclusion is that people of Davis with a long-term concern about the nature of their community actually voted in the majority to support Davis “values”.
This observation that the Davis voter was not won over by the simple strategy of catering to the their personal self-interest is not lost on those who need a strategy for a different agenda.
anonymous said….
“….Developers need to take control of Davis growth back away from Davis voters (who, they have discovered, are not easily bought)….”
A tangential but, to me, quite optimistic observation: The recent Yes on Measure K vote won by only about 500 yotes after spending between 1/4-1/2 million dollars on their campaign compared to the grassroots No on K campaign with many of its people new to the Davis political game up against a highly paid, professional organization. The campaigns divided along simple lines.. one appealing to the sense of Davis community, Davis “values”, sense of fairness with regard to local business and neighborhoods,perhaps a willingness to make these values a priority over saving a few dollars/year.. The Yes on K argument appealed to what could be simply described as the opposite of these values.
My conclusion is that people of Davis with a long-term concern about the nature of their community actually voted in the majority to support Davis “values”.
This observation that the Davis voter was not won over by the simple strategy of catering to the their personal self-interest is not lost on those who need a strategy for a different agenda.
“First, who the hell cares whose idea it was first?”
Rich: Are you new to politics?
The larger complaint of course is that Yamada made this proposal two years ago and in a very different context than the current debate that is taking shape.
Sherwin had access to memo but did not mention it. Nor is it clear she ever actually talked to Yamada in writing the story.
“First, who the hell cares whose idea it was first?”
Rich: Are you new to politics?
The larger complaint of course is that Yamada made this proposal two years ago and in a very different context than the current debate that is taking shape.
Sherwin had access to memo but did not mention it. Nor is it clear she ever actually talked to Yamada in writing the story.
“First, who the hell cares whose idea it was first?”
Rich: Are you new to politics?
The larger complaint of course is that Yamada made this proposal two years ago and in a very different context than the current debate that is taking shape.
Sherwin had access to memo but did not mention it. Nor is it clear she ever actually talked to Yamada in writing the story.
“First, who the hell cares whose idea it was first?”
Rich: Are you new to politics?
The larger complaint of course is that Yamada made this proposal two years ago and in a very different context than the current debate that is taking shape.
Sherwin had access to memo but did not mention it. Nor is it clear she ever actually talked to Yamada in writing the story.
“Rich: Are you new to politics?”
While I do care about public policy, I just don’t care about “politics” as such. Who first proposed a meeting is much ado about nothing.
An interesting linguistic aside: In English, we have two distinct concepts: policy and politics. However, most other languages don’t have this distinction — for them, politics and policy are the same thing.
“Rich: Are you new to politics?”
While I do care about public policy, I just don’t care about “politics” as such. Who first proposed a meeting is much ado about nothing.
An interesting linguistic aside: In English, we have two distinct concepts: policy and politics. However, most other languages don’t have this distinction — for them, politics and policy are the same thing.
“Rich: Are you new to politics?”
While I do care about public policy, I just don’t care about “politics” as such. Who first proposed a meeting is much ado about nothing.
An interesting linguistic aside: In English, we have two distinct concepts: policy and politics. However, most other languages don’t have this distinction — for them, politics and policy are the same thing.
“Rich: Are you new to politics?”
While I do care about public policy, I just don’t care about “politics” as such. Who first proposed a meeting is much ado about nothing.
An interesting linguistic aside: In English, we have two distinct concepts: policy and politics. However, most other languages don’t have this distinction — for them, politics and policy are the same thing.
The Enterprise is notorious for “spinning” stories to gain political points for its council players. Although I didn’t read the article, I am not surprised that Doug found that the article SUGGESTED that Yamada was in partnership with Souza’s current idea to have joint meetings with the County. Councilman Souza’s public gaff exposed the political cards in his hand and trying to tie him to the coattails of the popular, recently announced candidate for Assembly, Yamada sounds to me like damage-control.
The Enterprise is notorious for “spinning” stories to gain political points for its council players. Although I didn’t read the article, I am not surprised that Doug found that the article SUGGESTED that Yamada was in partnership with Souza’s current idea to have joint meetings with the County. Councilman Souza’s public gaff exposed the political cards in his hand and trying to tie him to the coattails of the popular, recently announced candidate for Assembly, Yamada sounds to me like damage-control.
The Enterprise is notorious for “spinning” stories to gain political points for its council players. Although I didn’t read the article, I am not surprised that Doug found that the article SUGGESTED that Yamada was in partnership with Souza’s current idea to have joint meetings with the County. Councilman Souza’s public gaff exposed the political cards in his hand and trying to tie him to the coattails of the popular, recently announced candidate for Assembly, Yamada sounds to me like damage-control.
The Enterprise is notorious for “spinning” stories to gain political points for its council players. Although I didn’t read the article, I am not surprised that Doug found that the article SUGGESTED that Yamada was in partnership with Souza’s current idea to have joint meetings with the County. Councilman Souza’s public gaff exposed the political cards in his hand and trying to tie him to the coattails of the popular, recently announced candidate for Assembly, Yamada sounds to me like damage-control.
Davisite,
Let me get this straight, you’re making an assumption about an article that you admit you didn’t read? Do some basic homework before you make your next predictible, knee-jerk response.
Davisite,
Let me get this straight, you’re making an assumption about an article that you admit you didn’t read? Do some basic homework before you make your next predictible, knee-jerk response.
Davisite,
Let me get this straight, you’re making an assumption about an article that you admit you didn’t read? Do some basic homework before you make your next predictible, knee-jerk response.
Davisite,
Let me get this straight, you’re making an assumption about an article that you admit you didn’t read? Do some basic homework before you make your next predictible, knee-jerk response.
Rifkin said……
“………for them, politics and policy are the same thing.”
This is called a political MATURITY.
Rifkin said……
“………for them, politics and policy are the same thing.”
This is called a political MATURITY.
Rifkin said……
“………for them, politics and policy are the same thing.”
This is called a political MATURITY.
Rifkin said……
“………for them, politics and policy are the same thing.”
This is called a political MATURITY.
*policy
There is another Spanish word, póliza, which is used for policy, when a policy is a contract, as in an insurance policy.
*policy
There is another Spanish word, póliza, which is used for policy, when a policy is a contract, as in an insurance policy.
*policy
There is another Spanish word, póliza, which is used for policy, when a policy is a contract, as in an insurance policy.
*policy
There is another Spanish word, póliza, which is used for policy, when a policy is a contract, as in an insurance policy.
Language does reveal much about the culture and state of mind. An example of this is the use of the passive tense in Spanish(at least in S. America) much more than in Nordic languages. One doesn’t know which is causal(I imagine that it is interactive), but it reflects a cultural reality that sees events more in the mode of… “it happens”
rather than an inflated sense of hubris and control which is the characteristic of the English language.
Language does reveal much about the culture and state of mind. An example of this is the use of the passive tense in Spanish(at least in S. America) much more than in Nordic languages. One doesn’t know which is causal(I imagine that it is interactive), but it reflects a cultural reality that sees events more in the mode of… “it happens”
rather than an inflated sense of hubris and control which is the characteristic of the English language.
Language does reveal much about the culture and state of mind. An example of this is the use of the passive tense in Spanish(at least in S. America) much more than in Nordic languages. One doesn’t know which is causal(I imagine that it is interactive), but it reflects a cultural reality that sees events more in the mode of… “it happens”
rather than an inflated sense of hubris and control which is the characteristic of the English language.
Language does reveal much about the culture and state of mind. An example of this is the use of the passive tense in Spanish(at least in S. America) much more than in Nordic languages. One doesn’t know which is causal(I imagine that it is interactive), but it reflects a cultural reality that sees events more in the mode of… “it happens”
rather than an inflated sense of hubris and control which is the characteristic of the English language.
…my guess is that it has something to do with aspects of the divergent world view of Protestantism and Catholicism.
…my guess is that it has something to do with aspects of the divergent world view of Protestantism and Catholicism.
…my guess is that it has something to do with aspects of the divergent world view of Protestantism and Catholicism.
…my guess is that it has something to do with aspects of the divergent world view of Protestantism and Catholicism.