These pages are not usually used to fawn over people, but rather to hit them over the head with a blunt object, usually the metaphorical two-by-four, until they behave themselves in a manner more befitting the second most-educated city in the world.
I remember meeting Joe Krovoza for the first time last November, when he insisted he was running for council. He was a nice guy, but I did not walk away from our meeting overly-impressed.
In short, he ran a clean, non-controversial race, and won going away in a race that was, at least for him, never in any doubt.
The guy is a nice guy and anyone who meets him cannot help but like the guy. He has a nice family. And he has a lot of people who were willing to put themselves out to get him elected – a lot of people who, quite frankly, had never been involved in Davis politics.
He had a team of amateurs who ran his largely-grassroots campaign, and even though he both raised and spent more money than anyone else in the race, he won with a handful of material and on the strength of the average person walking his own neighborhood in hopes that his neighbors would support Joe.
The question was going to be, how was he going to govern? Was he going to play it safe, attempting never to offend anyone, which is a recipe for going along with the flow and never standing up for what you believe?
Was he the guy who was beholden to no one, and therefore a completely free agent? Was he a guy who was going to stand up and make the kinds of changes that this city needs?
I do not know the answers to these questions. On the one issue that related to finances, he voted to pass the MOU.
But we have also learned something else about Joe in the first few months. He is not afraid to put himself on the line.
I get it, people do not like the thought of some of his new ideas. He was the driving force behind pushing for the staff to look into reverse-angle parking. Members of the community revolted. Council balked.
There are studies that show it may be a good idea, but the public was not ready for the idea. But hey, I say, at least Joe put himself out there. He stood for something that could be shot down.
However, the issue that Joe really earned his stripes on was the wood-burning issue. Forget about your particular position on wood burning, as for this discussion it is irrelevant.
The people of Davis, led by the venerable Bob Dunning, have revolted against doing what dozens of other less progressive and cutting-edge communities already have done, putting real limits on wood burning.
Joe knew he was going to lose on this night. He had to know it was not going to be popular. He also knew what, at least in his mind, what was the right thing to do.
Was the NRC recommendation perfect? No. But it was a one-year trial. And we have turned Dr. Thomas Cahill into the only expert on this subject. Dr. Cahill is indeed an expert, but it is on atmospheric science, not human health effects.
I spent a couple of columns going over the SCIENCE of the human health effects of wood burning, but unfortunately the local expert, Tony Wexler, was out of town on Tuesday. However, he was supportive of the NRC’s proposal.
Joe could have played it safe, he could have voted with the majority of the people. That is what we might have expected Joe the candidate to do. But he did not. Maybe you disagree with that. Maybe next time it comes time to vote for him, you will vote against him.
But this city would not have much in the way of leadership if we asked our councilmembers simply to put their finger in the wind and vote in the wind’s direction each time.
Joe would pay the price, of course, for bucking Bob Dunning, who had at one point been his champion. Now he laid into him.
Mr. Dunning wrote, "TWISTED LOGIC … Joe Krovoza, in arguing for mandatory rather than voluntary restrictions on wood burning, came up with a strange bit of illogic for a man who reminded everyone that he had spent considerable time studying law … ‘environmental law in particular,’ he noted … Krovoza claimed that mandatory restrictions would somehow encourage someone who wanted to have a fire to actually talk to his neighbors …"
He continued: "Said Joe Kro: "If we have a mandatory program, you can go to your neighbors and say ‘Hey, we’re going to have some friends over at 6 o’clock, we’re going to put a fire on and we’ll be done by 8:30. Is that cool with you?’…in other words, if I’m following his illogical progression here, if you want to have a fire on a mandatory no-burn day, all you need is the permission of your neighbors … and who knew your neighbors had the power to waive a citywide ordinance on a case-by-case basis? … "
This is a column on Joe Krovoza, not another column on wood burning.
There are a lot important issues that have to be accomplished in the next few years. That list starts with making real and lasting changes to the city’s compensation and pension system.
That is not the only issue that we will have to struggle with in the coming years. We are badly in need of new ideas, and frankly I have not seen many in the last few months.
That is not to say that some of the old ideas are bad, but we need to learn how to do things differently in this community, in this region, in this state and even this nation. We have to fundamentally change the way we have conducted our lives. That is a scary proposition.
I may not agree with Joe on everything, but I appreciate his willingness to put his neck on the block, especially when he knows that the public is against him.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
He has definitely lived up to the expectations I had when I voted for him.
I hope when he is mayor he will end the practice of councilmembers pontificating from the dais on why they are voting the way they are. It seems a ridiculous waste of time to go on and on about their votes they way they do.
I’ll bet the CC could get a lot more accomplished if they limited themselves to 3 minutes – the same way they limit the public.
Joe is indeed a nice guy, and that’s worth something. I think his heart is in the right place as well.
But I think he has focused on the wrong issues.
Zip cars, reverse parking and wood burning are not the key issues in Davis, though some may think so. What disturbs me more is that Joe supported a zip car contract which gives zip car far too much and leaves many questions open for the City. Maybe reverse angle parking is a good idea, but many, including me, remain to be convinced. At best though it is a small issue.
Wood burning has set off more controversy. Its an interestinmg issue since many “progressives” don’t agree with the unenforceable rules set forth and Dunning actually gets some sympathy on this blog (though not from David!).
I am concerned with Joe’s judgement and that so far has been more style than substance. The key votes involve labor contracts. In the future there maybe other key votes which involve development/growth issues.
I hope Joe will learn in the job and negotiate better deals for the City. I voted for him as well but I remain a skeptic.
Well, this is a most interesting Facebook feed to wake up to.
I believe I owe it to those who elected me to keep an open mind and use a fresh review of issues to search for possible ways to move forward.
On this one, I sided with the citizen panel that studied the wood smoke issue extensively, and heard from all sides. Whether it is a mere nuisance or a health hazard, wood smoke clearly impacts nearest neighbors. In my failed motion, I emphasized the NRC’s position that the winter of 2010-2011 would be a trial period with no teeth to the enforcement, and I asked for staff to recommend how investments in EPA stoves could be protected. I also endorsed taking a close look at how the trial ordinance performed this winter before making it mandatory for 2011-12. I wanted to replace one voluntary approach with another voluntary approach that held more promise of us finding a way forward.
As to my “illogic,” the proposed enforcement under the NRC plan was to be “complaint-based,” or “no complaint, no issue.” If no complaint is received, the City would not get involved. I think that this is a reasonable approach and it’s exactly how we handle a host of other neighbor/neighborhood-generated issues.
Sorry for turning this into a bit of a wood smoke piece. David did his best to try to stop that. I have been of little help.
@ Dr. Wu and all. I look forward to the (still) bigger issues. They are coming.
I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other on the wood burning issue, but one thing Joe said that really resonated with me. He indicated the City Council SHOULD NOT BE MICROMANAGING FROM THE DAIS. If you remember, other City Council members were making motions and substitute motions left and right, so that the end product was utterly confusing on the wood burning issue. As Joe pointed out, we have a Natural Resources Commission for a reason. If the rest of the City Council wasn’t quite satisfied with the resolution coming from the Natural Resources Commission, express their concerns, then “remand” it back to the commission for further consideration until the commission can come up with something the majority of the City Council can agree on/get on board with.
Joe made a few adjustments, but at least stuck to the basic premise put forth by the NRC. I’ve seen this sort of thing happen over and over again, where the City Council steps in, say on a housing project, and micromanages details as if they were architects, which they are not. I see this as a real problem and why the City Counsel makes so many bad decisions. Had the City Council raised some objections to the entire Zipcar idea, then turned it back to City Staff for further consideration, we might not have the horribly one-sided contract (almost an adhesion contract) we have now (overly in favor of Zipcar).
So much time would be saved if the City Council would stop micromanaging from the dais, as Joe has so astutely pointed out, and instead tell the originating party, be it City Staff or a commission, to go back to the drawing board and come up with something better in light of the City Council’s expressed concerns.
The irony is that is exactly what Joe Krovoza (with Sue Greenwald) forced the City Council to do on the tank art project, which was exactly the right thing to do. City staff had not given proper direction to the artists as to what was wanted, the City Council stood fast (except Don Saylor) that that is what they were going to demand, and forced the issue back to the Civics Art Commission and City Staff for further review and new ideas from the artists in line with what was asked for originally.
Joe’s logic concerning the complaint-based enforcement of the proposed wood burning was correct. If you have an ordinance that is explicitly enforced only through complaints, you should have nothing to worry about if you have your neighbors’ approval. (The ordinance would have to explicitly state that the complaint would have to come from a neighbor who lives within a certain number of feet of the burning).
In my limited experience, Joe works hard to be friendly and fair, and is intensely interested in the issues. He is independent and oriented to citizen interests. Joe does not think that reverse-angled parking and zipcar are the biggest issues facing the city.
While I thought that the zipcar contract was truly atrocious and I voted to reconsider the contract, the amount of money involved was very small indeed compared to the $9 million water tank, $100,000 million wastewater treatment plant, $200 million surface water project, water futures contracts, labor contracts and cafeteria cash-outs, etc. I did feel particularly bad that we did not give our local rental agency the right to bid on a similar service – something that Rochelle had brought up when she first saw the contract, I should add.
The staff work on zipcar, the Hanlee’s auto deal and the water tank art put the council in a difficult position and in a bad light. When poorly constructed deals come to us that have already been negotiated by staff, they are difficult to undo without incurring hostility of the business people who assume that they have a deal. Don Saylor was not helpful when he created an atmosphere that strongly discouraged rethinking staff recommendations.
Personally, I spent a lot of time pointing out to Bill Emlen and to Paul Navazio exactly where I thought these negotiations, reports and directions had gone awry, hoping they could make improvements in the future.
Concerning the wood-burning ordinance, staff could have explained the ordinances in effect in other California cities, and proposed a series of alternatives for us to consider in addition to the HRC ordinance. We were left with merely an up or down vote on one particular ordinance.
New council members are thrown into the middle of very complex job. They have already demonstrated an amazingly steep learning curve. They have four years ahead of them during which you can decide whether you agree with their decisions.
That said, it’s great to give us all feedback on each and every decision; there is no other way for us to gauge what the public wants.
Joe and Sue, thanks for your very helpful insights. I think everyone seems to be in agreement that:
1) What comes to the City Council for consideration needs to be well thought out and follow any prior directions from the City Council.
2) Issues involving larger amounts of taxpayer dollars should be given far more time and consideration from the public, City Staff and the City Council.
3) The process by which matters are brought to the City Council needs to be more transparent, fairminded, and straightforward, without all the back-room dealing that goes on behind closed doors.
Perhaps I was overly critical of Joe and my frustrations with our City’s process havce spilled over.
Many of us have had high hopes for this Council which have yet to be met. But so far I still have to give our Council (and Joe) an incomplete.
Dr. Wu: “Many of us have had high hopes for this Council which have yet to be met. But so far I still have to give our Council (and Joe) an incomplete.”
I don’t think many of us are in disagreement with this sentiment. But I think many of us realize there is a steep learning curve for new City Council members. It takes time to “get their feet wet”, and even more time to “negotiate the waves” figuratively speaking. It is very important, as Sue wisely reminds us, to give our City Council members feedback on how we feel the City Council is doing. I think this blog has been pretty explicit that the Zipcar fiasco and the reverse angle parking were controversial issues at best, and perhaps not the sort of thing the City Council should be dabbling in for various reasons as expressed.
But also, we don’t know what sort of comments City Council members are getting from other sources. Another blog is in play, Letters to the Editor in the Davis Enterprise, and emails sent directly to City Council members.
I think all citizens need to keep engaged in the process of watching their gov’t in action, and use outlets like this blog to let City Council members know exactly how they feel on issues. And if that means telling a City Council member that you don’t agree with a stance that they took, then be honest about it and say what you think (preferably without being nasty).
But one point you made, Dr. Wu, is certainly acute and very valid – “my frustrations with our City’s process”. Anyone with any integrity in this city cannot be satisfied with the unfairness of the city’s internal and external governmental processes. It needs vast improvement…