As we wind down on 2009, the city of Davis has dealt with a few looming issues, but has also failed to deal with several looming issues that figure to escalate in 2010. This is our look ahead to 2010 to examine what issues we are likely to face, but as always we will not anticipate some of the biggest and most burning issues in this community.
2010 Elections: Here’s what we know so far, there is one vacancy on the Davis City Council as Lamar Heystek has announced he will not seek re-election. That means that for the first time since 2006, we will have a new councilmember. Ruth Asmundson is believed to be running for re-election and the Vanguard has heard through credible sources that Sydney Vergis who ran and finished fourth in 2008 will also run for election and do so on a “ticket” with the Mayor. Newcomer Joe Krovoza has announced he will run. But we figure that there will be more than three when the dance cards are punched.
Will District Attorney Jeff Reisig get opposition? We have heard a couple of possibilities, however, one is probably eliminated having been a co-author for the report on Luis Gutierrez that exonerated the three sheriff’s deputies.
School board has moved to the fall of 2010 instead the fall of 2009, that means that Gina Daleiden, Tim Taylor, and Sheila Allen will have served for five years. Rumors have suggested that one of them might not run. Who will emerge there?
It is not just candidate elections that will draw our interest of course. There is the Measure J vote. However, we believe that the run up to the Measure J vote is probably going to be more interesting than the actual election. Now that the measure is on the ballot virtually as is with only minor and technical revisions, we expect the measure to pass by a 75-25 margin if not wider.
The renewal of the tax measure figures to be more interesting, although in the end, we expect the sales tax measure which only requires a majority vote to pass easily, it may have some opposition as citizens upset with the fiscal climate of the city may oppose it.
That brings us to the big land use question. Last year, we saw the second Measure J vote defeated handily. The expectation is that the second Covell Village will have an application turned into the city in January. It is expected to be for an 800-unit Senior Housing facility. We have already spent several entries discussing this issue and the implications along with the astroturfing tactics of the developer. Will the developer be able to mobilize enough seniors to specifically support a development at this location or will the tendencies of the city voters to oppose peripheral projects win out?
Last year’s biggest disappointment was probably the inability of the city to take advantage of the expiration of the collective bargaining agreements to deal with the short-term deficit and long-term structural problems of the city in terms of unfunded liability and pensions. There are a host of issues stemming from that may play out in 2010 including the resolution of other collective bargaining agreements, the continuation of the city’s short-term deficit, the mounting pension crisis, among other aspects.
Speaking of fire department, we had the controversy at the beginning of the year of the failure of the city to reveal the findings of the independent investigation into the fire department, we had the citygate recommendations that have led to approval to explore a battalion chief command structure, we have the impending retirement of the chief, and now the new MOU. The battalion chief model and the retirement of the fire chief still need to play out with the hiring of a new chief a potential flashpoint issue. With council elections coming and a possible Vanguard brochure being mailed, this figures to be an interesting issue to follow.
Water is going to be an increasingly controversial issue. A huge step forward occurred last year with the creation of the joint authority between Woodland and Davis. That will make the water supply project basically fait accompli unless a new council majority halts it. Last year we had a consultant report who argued we should proceed with the water supply project but we can delay the wastewater treatment project.
Affordable housing is on the agenda for the first week in January. 2009 was an interesting on this front. The Vanguard had a couple of investigations, one into DACHA and one into the city’s affordable housing program. There is much more there. The city has refused to look into the dealings that resulted in lawsuits and potential foreclosures into DACHA and has begun foreclosure proceedings. In the meantime, the city of Davis, is fast becoming a community for those making more than $70,000 per year.
One of the big victories of 2009 was the approval of the fifth street redesign to get grant money. Now the city must follow through on the redesign that will eventually making one of the main thoroughfares in Davis far more safe.
These are simply a tip of the iceberg. 2009 was an amazing year that saw the launch of our new website, the expansion of the Vanguard to a much wider audience, mailings that became controversial, and hot breaking news and investigation. The Vanguard remains working on several investigative reports and we will be having new innovations with the website and several new projects that will be launched in the first month of 2010. It is will be the most exciting year ever and as usually, we will move forward with new issues and controversies in Davis, Yolo County.
Let me also extend this–what other issues would people like to see covered? What new features would you like to see? In addition to commenting on the above issues, we’d like some feedback.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
………another year under the Vanguard’s belt. David Greenwald has created something here that has been invaluable in giving Davisites a stronger voice in shaping their community. Thanks!
let me also add… my support contribution will be in the mail. Happy holidays to all.
[quote]several looming issues that figure to escalate in 2010. [/quote] I would like to see the Vanguard (as well as The Lexicon Artist) in 2010 make an issue out of council candidates who take money from individuals who do business directly or indirectly from the city and then procede to vote on matters which benefit the people they took money from. The public needs to know we are all paying a huge price for these contributions in our labor contracts.
Because there is a broad “progressive” group in Davis which dislikes most growth and by extension does not trust developers, attention is paid to contributions from them*. Candidates who take this money are painted as “developer candidates” (or sometimes “developer Democrats”). But with Measure J, it seems to me these [i]conflicts of interest[/i] are not the most important. Developers must still convince the broad public. And developers don’t directly do business with the city. (That is, they don’t take a paycheck from the taxpayers.)
Far less attention — and far less negative publicity — has been given to candidates taking money from the firefighters. (I would include other groups which directly do business with the city, but there are none. The DPOA does not try to buy candidates. As far as I know, companies like Davis Waste Removal and Coast Landscaping do not either.) I would like to see this inattention change in 2010.
As it happens, the candidates funded by developers have largely been the same candidates who are funded by the firefighters**. The firefighters, though, have give much more money and much more indirect help in their campaigns. And for the last 10 years, the firefighters have gotten much greater benefits in return for their contributions to campaigns.
At the very least, when voters go to the polls in 2010, I would hope all of them are aware that Candidate F was financed by Local 3494, while Candidate P was not. And the public should know that because Candidate F took that money, the chances are (next to) nill that he will work to reform our labor contracts. And the public should know that the longer we wait to reform our contracts, the greater the crisis will be when our retiree benefit expenses come due.
*Developers include all people in Davis who make money off of developments, including contractors and some real estate agents or brokers. I don’t know if many of these folks try to buy CC elections.
**Were it up to me, we would have public financing of campaigns, paid for by a small parcel tax. However, I’m told we can’t legally do that (and I doubt anyone else would vote in favor of such a tax). But we could have district elections (if we become a charter city). The great benefit of district elections is that candidates won’t have to raise nearly so much money. As things now stand, winning candidates tend to raise $25,000 or more to run citywide. If we divided the city into 5 parts, a winning candidate could likely get away with raising 20% as much.