This week has been chaotic ever since that point in time. The reaction to this proposal has been justifiably angry, although I stop short of my friend Former Mayor Bill Kopper and current Mayor Sue Greenwald’s call for recall, I remain very concerned about what these proposals will do to the city of Davis.
However, this is not set in stone yet. As Supervisor Rexroad pointed out in his blog,
“We have not even voted on it yet.”
The County Board of Supervisors will meet on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 starting around 9 am. This figures to be another very long day. However, everyone with concerns about this proposal and this process are strongly encouraged to come and voice those concerns.
My fear is that Davis’ County Supervisors are unsympathetic to the concerns about large peripheral developments on the borders of Davis. After all, they are bringing forth another version of Covell Village which was defeated by a 60-40 margin just a year and a half ago. And the Covell Village property is the SMALLEST of the proposals by the county. People are angry because they feel that their own elected supervisors do not respect their vote or their desires.
Supervisor Mike McGowan who represents West Sacramento (not Davis) was quoted in yesterday’s outstanding Sacramento Bee article as saying:
“We need to improve our revenue side so we can continue to provide the same level of services.”
This continues to be a poor argument.
County staff, as I pointed out last Saturday, dispelled this myth:
“On the residential side, staff is recommending against the addition of 2,100 residences within the unincorporated area near the northwest quadrant of Davis, as these units are not likely to have fiscal benefits for the county that would justify the growth given concerns regarding inconsistency with long-standing growth policies, provision of infrastructure and services, and effects on the city/county pass-through agreement.”
The county is due roughly $72 million in the pass-through agreement over the course of the next 18 years. Developments may yield some in the way of one-time development fees, but the key phrase there is “one-time.” It is not a consistent stream of money. As the county of Sacramento and the city of Fresno have both learned you cannot develop yourself into prosperity, even if you create development policies that rely on repeated one-time development fees as the main source of revenues.
Moreover if Supervisor McGowan is so concerned about county revenues, perhaps he ought to propose massive new developments on the periphery of West Sacramento, I understand they like sprawl there.
The Bee yesterday quotes Supervisor Mariko Yamada saying,
“I would like everyone to take a deep breath. Calm down… There will be no decisions on specific projects that will be entertained in terms of action on Tuesday.”
But as Tsakopoulos understands, Yamada’s statement is simply untrue.
“If they decide not to study it, it’s all over.”
That is exactly right. Right now, as far as I can tell there are two firm no votes against the study areas. That means a no vote by either Supervisor Yamada or Supervisor Thomson can kill the plan. One must ask why certain Republican Supervisors who do not live here are more protective of Davis’ borders than Davis’ own supervisors.
At Tuesday’s Davis City Council meeting, the council unanimously supported taking a strong stance against these proposals. City staff drafted a letter by all five council members that will strongly oppose any plans by the county to study growth on Davis’ borders.
Despite the claims of one of Davis’ supervisors, the prognosis of this is clear–if the county votes against studying these three areas on Davis’ periphery, the proposal dies. If however, the county votes to study these three areas on Davis’ periphery, the fighting and war of words that we have seen this past week is just the beginning.
The Vanguard strongly urges Supervisors Yamada and Thomson to leave growth on Davis’ city edges to Davis. Moreover, all Davis residents with concerns about this process should go to the meeting on July 17, 2007 to voice those concerns.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
What is needed, and fast, is a ballot initiative in Yolo Co. that would recognize each city, town and hamlet’s right to a “zone of control”, outside pass through “agreements”. The idea being that any county development would be veto-able by the local community (those most impacted by the close development) voters in a “J”- like style.
Otherwise this Ramos/Buzz mace ranch development by extortion will become the rule for us here in Davis.
I think the voters county wide would pass such an initiative, easy (better than 60-40)
What is needed, and fast, is a ballot initiative in Yolo Co. that would recognize each city, town and hamlet’s right to a “zone of control”, outside pass through “agreements”. The idea being that any county development would be veto-able by the local community (those most impacted by the close development) voters in a “J”- like style.
Otherwise this Ramos/Buzz mace ranch development by extortion will become the rule for us here in Davis.
I think the voters county wide would pass such an initiative, easy (better than 60-40)
What is needed, and fast, is a ballot initiative in Yolo Co. that would recognize each city, town and hamlet’s right to a “zone of control”, outside pass through “agreements”. The idea being that any county development would be veto-able by the local community (those most impacted by the close development) voters in a “J”- like style.
Otherwise this Ramos/Buzz mace ranch development by extortion will become the rule for us here in Davis.
I think the voters county wide would pass such an initiative, easy (better than 60-40)
What is needed, and fast, is a ballot initiative in Yolo Co. that would recognize each city, town and hamlet’s right to a “zone of control”, outside pass through “agreements”. The idea being that any county development would be veto-able by the local community (those most impacted by the close development) voters in a “J”- like style.
Otherwise this Ramos/Buzz mace ranch development by extortion will become the rule for us here in Davis.
I think the voters county wide would pass such an initiative, easy (better than 60-40)
Davis, like that little boy in the novel by Gunter Grass, refuses to grow. I suggest the book as required reading to the cognoscenti of Davis. Life’s events compell the squealing little runt to grow, but he ends up a grotesque gnome of a man living out his life locked up in a sanitarium.
Davis too needs to grow or it too will end up small, ugly and a bit bonkers. I write this as someone who is fond of Davis, who lived and worked here from 1987-92, graduated from UCD and has returned to settle down with my fiancee’, a Davis native. Despite my feeling that we are often a bit too proud of ourselves, I have to admit that we have a darn nice little town. I love Davis. I like being able to walk to Farmers’ Market and ride my bike to the Doctor’s office.
I have a feeling many Davisites share my feelings. They like Davis the way it is. They don’t want it to change. The answer many feel is to not allow it to grow, or to severly limit its growth. Here we depart company.
One of the many things I learned at UCD, having taken many life science classes, is that things that don’t grow or change are not doing so well. From my seasonal observances of Putah Creek I can tell you that they also get rather smelly.
As someone who is again a resident of Davis after a hiatus of 15 years I can testify that Davis has changed in spite of its refusal to grow at a normal rate. It has become more car-dominated. It has more copy-cat beige stucco sub-divisions that are distinguisable from the next California town only by virtue of the name on the street signs and manhole covers. It has become more expensive. It has become more white and more wealthy.
Some things have not changed. Its leaders are pitching the same fit they did 15 years ago before eventually being forced to allow the development of the Mace ranch. Look how that ended up.
Being a “Tin Drum town” doesn’t just make us a side-show curiousity of a city, it impacts our residents. One of my Davis native fiancee’s siblings moved to Dixon to buy a home. One is doubled-up in an apartment with another family. The third managed to find a cheap rental house when her recent marriage made her over-income for her rent-restricted apartment – albeit with one with no air conditioning.
But enough of why Davis should grow for its own good or the good of its residents. Davis should grow for the good of the County and the region, especially for the good of the poor and working class for whom our hearts bleed so.
I’m a housing guy. I work for a small city in the region. Feel free to guess which one. No matter, I know a little bit about housing. There is this thing called the Regional Housing Needs Plan. Odd little inter-governmental agencies that mainly deal with transporation planning are mandated by the state to create these plans every 5-7 years. Our region’s planning agency is called SACOG (no its not a new treatment for acid reflux or depression).
These housing needs plans tell each jurisdiction in the region how much affordable housing each needs to plan to build in the coming years. If your city, town or county doesn’t come up with a General Plan that demonstrates that you are planning for this housing (to the satisfaction of the state) then you get a not-so-nice letter from the state to your CEO and governing board and several nice sources of state funds become off-limits. Its also rather embarrasing to us city planners.
One curious thing about this plan is that a town’s future “need” for affordable housing is largely determined by its growth in recent years. A town that does not grow (Davis) ends up not “needing” to produce a lot of affordable housing. A town whose population has recently taken off (West Sacramento) is told that it “needs” to produce more affordable housing even though it may historically be a less wealthy community with an abundance of less than posh accomodations. Yes, the tail of growth wags the affordable housing dog.
Oh, and before you take your pitchforks and torches to the next SACOG board meeting, its state law that dictates this bass-ackwards methodology. That would be the state law of un-intended long-term consequences.
So by Davis refusing to grow, its not pulling its weight on overall regional growth and as a result, not pulling its weight on meeting the regional need for affordable housing. Shame on us.
But that’s not all. There are parts of our region that face some fairly serious quality of life issues. These are issues that Yolo County has managed to avoid so far. Issues that it can avoid in perpetuity if it adheres to the wise philosophy of keeping growth concentrated in existing towns, limiting sprawl, and preserving agricultural and open space land uses as buffers between urban areas.
But it can’t do it if Davis doesn’t pull its weight in terms of County population growth. Which is precisely what our Supervisors are not-so-subtly telling us we should do.
So let’s build out north of Covell where it makes sense. Let’s do it in a way that creates vibrant unique neighborhoods. Refusing to grow will not preserve Davis’ quality of life any more than it did little Oskar’s. Growing in a way that makes sense and that meets the needs of our growing region will create new opportunities to expand, enhance, share and ultimately preserve our community’s cherished way of life.
Sign me “Rob the Returned”
Davis, like that little boy in the novel by Gunter Grass, refuses to grow. I suggest the book as required reading to the cognoscenti of Davis. Life’s events compell the squealing little runt to grow, but he ends up a grotesque gnome of a man living out his life locked up in a sanitarium.
Davis too needs to grow or it too will end up small, ugly and a bit bonkers. I write this as someone who is fond of Davis, who lived and worked here from 1987-92, graduated from UCD and has returned to settle down with my fiancee’, a Davis native. Despite my feeling that we are often a bit too proud of ourselves, I have to admit that we have a darn nice little town. I love Davis. I like being able to walk to Farmers’ Market and ride my bike to the Doctor’s office.
I have a feeling many Davisites share my feelings. They like Davis the way it is. They don’t want it to change. The answer many feel is to not allow it to grow, or to severly limit its growth. Here we depart company.
One of the many things I learned at UCD, having taken many life science classes, is that things that don’t grow or change are not doing so well. From my seasonal observances of Putah Creek I can tell you that they also get rather smelly.
As someone who is again a resident of Davis after a hiatus of 15 years I can testify that Davis has changed in spite of its refusal to grow at a normal rate. It has become more car-dominated. It has more copy-cat beige stucco sub-divisions that are distinguisable from the next California town only by virtue of the name on the street signs and manhole covers. It has become more expensive. It has become more white and more wealthy.
Some things have not changed. Its leaders are pitching the same fit they did 15 years ago before eventually being forced to allow the development of the Mace ranch. Look how that ended up.
Being a “Tin Drum town” doesn’t just make us a side-show curiousity of a city, it impacts our residents. One of my Davis native fiancee’s siblings moved to Dixon to buy a home. One is doubled-up in an apartment with another family. The third managed to find a cheap rental house when her recent marriage made her over-income for her rent-restricted apartment – albeit with one with no air conditioning.
But enough of why Davis should grow for its own good or the good of its residents. Davis should grow for the good of the County and the region, especially for the good of the poor and working class for whom our hearts bleed so.
I’m a housing guy. I work for a small city in the region. Feel free to guess which one. No matter, I know a little bit about housing. There is this thing called the Regional Housing Needs Plan. Odd little inter-governmental agencies that mainly deal with transporation planning are mandated by the state to create these plans every 5-7 years. Our region’s planning agency is called SACOG (no its not a new treatment for acid reflux or depression).
These housing needs plans tell each jurisdiction in the region how much affordable housing each needs to plan to build in the coming years. If your city, town or county doesn’t come up with a General Plan that demonstrates that you are planning for this housing (to the satisfaction of the state) then you get a not-so-nice letter from the state to your CEO and governing board and several nice sources of state funds become off-limits. Its also rather embarrasing to us city planners.
One curious thing about this plan is that a town’s future “need” for affordable housing is largely determined by its growth in recent years. A town that does not grow (Davis) ends up not “needing” to produce a lot of affordable housing. A town whose population has recently taken off (West Sacramento) is told that it “needs” to produce more affordable housing even though it may historically be a less wealthy community with an abundance of less than posh accomodations. Yes, the tail of growth wags the affordable housing dog.
Oh, and before you take your pitchforks and torches to the next SACOG board meeting, its state law that dictates this bass-ackwards methodology. That would be the state law of un-intended long-term consequences.
So by Davis refusing to grow, its not pulling its weight on overall regional growth and as a result, not pulling its weight on meeting the regional need for affordable housing. Shame on us.
But that’s not all. There are parts of our region that face some fairly serious quality of life issues. These are issues that Yolo County has managed to avoid so far. Issues that it can avoid in perpetuity if it adheres to the wise philosophy of keeping growth concentrated in existing towns, limiting sprawl, and preserving agricultural and open space land uses as buffers between urban areas.
But it can’t do it if Davis doesn’t pull its weight in terms of County population growth. Which is precisely what our Supervisors are not-so-subtly telling us we should do.
So let’s build out north of Covell where it makes sense. Let’s do it in a way that creates vibrant unique neighborhoods. Refusing to grow will not preserve Davis’ quality of life any more than it did little Oskar’s. Growing in a way that makes sense and that meets the needs of our growing region will create new opportunities to expand, enhance, share and ultimately preserve our community’s cherished way of life.
Sign me “Rob the Returned”
Davis, like that little boy in the novel by Gunter Grass, refuses to grow. I suggest the book as required reading to the cognoscenti of Davis. Life’s events compell the squealing little runt to grow, but he ends up a grotesque gnome of a man living out his life locked up in a sanitarium.
Davis too needs to grow or it too will end up small, ugly and a bit bonkers. I write this as someone who is fond of Davis, who lived and worked here from 1987-92, graduated from UCD and has returned to settle down with my fiancee’, a Davis native. Despite my feeling that we are often a bit too proud of ourselves, I have to admit that we have a darn nice little town. I love Davis. I like being able to walk to Farmers’ Market and ride my bike to the Doctor’s office.
I have a feeling many Davisites share my feelings. They like Davis the way it is. They don’t want it to change. The answer many feel is to not allow it to grow, or to severly limit its growth. Here we depart company.
One of the many things I learned at UCD, having taken many life science classes, is that things that don’t grow or change are not doing so well. From my seasonal observances of Putah Creek I can tell you that they also get rather smelly.
As someone who is again a resident of Davis after a hiatus of 15 years I can testify that Davis has changed in spite of its refusal to grow at a normal rate. It has become more car-dominated. It has more copy-cat beige stucco sub-divisions that are distinguisable from the next California town only by virtue of the name on the street signs and manhole covers. It has become more expensive. It has become more white and more wealthy.
Some things have not changed. Its leaders are pitching the same fit they did 15 years ago before eventually being forced to allow the development of the Mace ranch. Look how that ended up.
Being a “Tin Drum town” doesn’t just make us a side-show curiousity of a city, it impacts our residents. One of my Davis native fiancee’s siblings moved to Dixon to buy a home. One is doubled-up in an apartment with another family. The third managed to find a cheap rental house when her recent marriage made her over-income for her rent-restricted apartment – albeit with one with no air conditioning.
But enough of why Davis should grow for its own good or the good of its residents. Davis should grow for the good of the County and the region, especially for the good of the poor and working class for whom our hearts bleed so.
I’m a housing guy. I work for a small city in the region. Feel free to guess which one. No matter, I know a little bit about housing. There is this thing called the Regional Housing Needs Plan. Odd little inter-governmental agencies that mainly deal with transporation planning are mandated by the state to create these plans every 5-7 years. Our region’s planning agency is called SACOG (no its not a new treatment for acid reflux or depression).
These housing needs plans tell each jurisdiction in the region how much affordable housing each needs to plan to build in the coming years. If your city, town or county doesn’t come up with a General Plan that demonstrates that you are planning for this housing (to the satisfaction of the state) then you get a not-so-nice letter from the state to your CEO and governing board and several nice sources of state funds become off-limits. Its also rather embarrasing to us city planners.
One curious thing about this plan is that a town’s future “need” for affordable housing is largely determined by its growth in recent years. A town that does not grow (Davis) ends up not “needing” to produce a lot of affordable housing. A town whose population has recently taken off (West Sacramento) is told that it “needs” to produce more affordable housing even though it may historically be a less wealthy community with an abundance of less than posh accomodations. Yes, the tail of growth wags the affordable housing dog.
Oh, and before you take your pitchforks and torches to the next SACOG board meeting, its state law that dictates this bass-ackwards methodology. That would be the state law of un-intended long-term consequences.
So by Davis refusing to grow, its not pulling its weight on overall regional growth and as a result, not pulling its weight on meeting the regional need for affordable housing. Shame on us.
But that’s not all. There are parts of our region that face some fairly serious quality of life issues. These are issues that Yolo County has managed to avoid so far. Issues that it can avoid in perpetuity if it adheres to the wise philosophy of keeping growth concentrated in existing towns, limiting sprawl, and preserving agricultural and open space land uses as buffers between urban areas.
But it can’t do it if Davis doesn’t pull its weight in terms of County population growth. Which is precisely what our Supervisors are not-so-subtly telling us we should do.
So let’s build out north of Covell where it makes sense. Let’s do it in a way that creates vibrant unique neighborhoods. Refusing to grow will not preserve Davis’ quality of life any more than it did little Oskar’s. Growing in a way that makes sense and that meets the needs of our growing region will create new opportunities to expand, enhance, share and ultimately preserve our community’s cherished way of life.
Sign me “Rob the Returned”
Davis, like that little boy in the novel by Gunter Grass, refuses to grow. I suggest the book as required reading to the cognoscenti of Davis. Life’s events compell the squealing little runt to grow, but he ends up a grotesque gnome of a man living out his life locked up in a sanitarium.
Davis too needs to grow or it too will end up small, ugly and a bit bonkers. I write this as someone who is fond of Davis, who lived and worked here from 1987-92, graduated from UCD and has returned to settle down with my fiancee’, a Davis native. Despite my feeling that we are often a bit too proud of ourselves, I have to admit that we have a darn nice little town. I love Davis. I like being able to walk to Farmers’ Market and ride my bike to the Doctor’s office.
I have a feeling many Davisites share my feelings. They like Davis the way it is. They don’t want it to change. The answer many feel is to not allow it to grow, or to severly limit its growth. Here we depart company.
One of the many things I learned at UCD, having taken many life science classes, is that things that don’t grow or change are not doing so well. From my seasonal observances of Putah Creek I can tell you that they also get rather smelly.
As someone who is again a resident of Davis after a hiatus of 15 years I can testify that Davis has changed in spite of its refusal to grow at a normal rate. It has become more car-dominated. It has more copy-cat beige stucco sub-divisions that are distinguisable from the next California town only by virtue of the name on the street signs and manhole covers. It has become more expensive. It has become more white and more wealthy.
Some things have not changed. Its leaders are pitching the same fit they did 15 years ago before eventually being forced to allow the development of the Mace ranch. Look how that ended up.
Being a “Tin Drum town” doesn’t just make us a side-show curiousity of a city, it impacts our residents. One of my Davis native fiancee’s siblings moved to Dixon to buy a home. One is doubled-up in an apartment with another family. The third managed to find a cheap rental house when her recent marriage made her over-income for her rent-restricted apartment – albeit with one with no air conditioning.
But enough of why Davis should grow for its own good or the good of its residents. Davis should grow for the good of the County and the region, especially for the good of the poor and working class for whom our hearts bleed so.
I’m a housing guy. I work for a small city in the region. Feel free to guess which one. No matter, I know a little bit about housing. There is this thing called the Regional Housing Needs Plan. Odd little inter-governmental agencies that mainly deal with transporation planning are mandated by the state to create these plans every 5-7 years. Our region’s planning agency is called SACOG (no its not a new treatment for acid reflux or depression).
These housing needs plans tell each jurisdiction in the region how much affordable housing each needs to plan to build in the coming years. If your city, town or county doesn’t come up with a General Plan that demonstrates that you are planning for this housing (to the satisfaction of the state) then you get a not-so-nice letter from the state to your CEO and governing board and several nice sources of state funds become off-limits. Its also rather embarrasing to us city planners.
One curious thing about this plan is that a town’s future “need” for affordable housing is largely determined by its growth in recent years. A town that does not grow (Davis) ends up not “needing” to produce a lot of affordable housing. A town whose population has recently taken off (West Sacramento) is told that it “needs” to produce more affordable housing even though it may historically be a less wealthy community with an abundance of less than posh accomodations. Yes, the tail of growth wags the affordable housing dog.
Oh, and before you take your pitchforks and torches to the next SACOG board meeting, its state law that dictates this bass-ackwards methodology. That would be the state law of un-intended long-term consequences.
So by Davis refusing to grow, its not pulling its weight on overall regional growth and as a result, not pulling its weight on meeting the regional need for affordable housing. Shame on us.
But that’s not all. There are parts of our region that face some fairly serious quality of life issues. These are issues that Yolo County has managed to avoid so far. Issues that it can avoid in perpetuity if it adheres to the wise philosophy of keeping growth concentrated in existing towns, limiting sprawl, and preserving agricultural and open space land uses as buffers between urban areas.
But it can’t do it if Davis doesn’t pull its weight in terms of County population growth. Which is precisely what our Supervisors are not-so-subtly telling us we should do.
So let’s build out north of Covell where it makes sense. Let’s do it in a way that creates vibrant unique neighborhoods. Refusing to grow will not preserve Davis’ quality of life any more than it did little Oskar’s. Growing in a way that makes sense and that meets the needs of our growing region will create new opportunities to expand, enhance, share and ultimately preserve our community’s cherished way of life.
Sign me “Rob the Returned”
There is a perception that Davis refuses to grow, in fact, that is actually a false statement. Look at the population growth since the early fifties when Davis was a town of barely a few thousand people and you quickly realize that even during the progressive era of the 1970s and 1980s, Davis grew very rapidly.
So here are a couple of points that need to be made:
1. Growth is inevitable, everyone knows it, the question is who should control how we grow–the city or the county. That is what THIS issue is about. The COUNTY has no right to determine how Davis grows.
2. Growth is inevitable, that does not mean that every housing project should be approved. We need to control the manner in which we grow.
3. Everyone talks about affordable housing and housing costs. Well guess what, you do not control housing costs by building more 600,000 dollar homes as Covell Village would have done.
4. The affordable housing ordinance is a joke, it requires a small percentage of homes to affordable and by affordable that means limited equity, that does not help young families.
5. What we need are a series of smaller and more dense developments. Put in slowly over time.
6. The General Plan process needs to be revamped. You either end up with too much development or too little due to the nature of the system.
There is a perception that Davis refuses to grow, in fact, that is actually a false statement. Look at the population growth since the early fifties when Davis was a town of barely a few thousand people and you quickly realize that even during the progressive era of the 1970s and 1980s, Davis grew very rapidly.
So here are a couple of points that need to be made:
1. Growth is inevitable, everyone knows it, the question is who should control how we grow–the city or the county. That is what THIS issue is about. The COUNTY has no right to determine how Davis grows.
2. Growth is inevitable, that does not mean that every housing project should be approved. We need to control the manner in which we grow.
3. Everyone talks about affordable housing and housing costs. Well guess what, you do not control housing costs by building more 600,000 dollar homes as Covell Village would have done.
4. The affordable housing ordinance is a joke, it requires a small percentage of homes to affordable and by affordable that means limited equity, that does not help young families.
5. What we need are a series of smaller and more dense developments. Put in slowly over time.
6. The General Plan process needs to be revamped. You either end up with too much development or too little due to the nature of the system.
There is a perception that Davis refuses to grow, in fact, that is actually a false statement. Look at the population growth since the early fifties when Davis was a town of barely a few thousand people and you quickly realize that even during the progressive era of the 1970s and 1980s, Davis grew very rapidly.
So here are a couple of points that need to be made:
1. Growth is inevitable, everyone knows it, the question is who should control how we grow–the city or the county. That is what THIS issue is about. The COUNTY has no right to determine how Davis grows.
2. Growth is inevitable, that does not mean that every housing project should be approved. We need to control the manner in which we grow.
3. Everyone talks about affordable housing and housing costs. Well guess what, you do not control housing costs by building more 600,000 dollar homes as Covell Village would have done.
4. The affordable housing ordinance is a joke, it requires a small percentage of homes to affordable and by affordable that means limited equity, that does not help young families.
5. What we need are a series of smaller and more dense developments. Put in slowly over time.
6. The General Plan process needs to be revamped. You either end up with too much development or too little due to the nature of the system.
There is a perception that Davis refuses to grow, in fact, that is actually a false statement. Look at the population growth since the early fifties when Davis was a town of barely a few thousand people and you quickly realize that even during the progressive era of the 1970s and 1980s, Davis grew very rapidly.
So here are a couple of points that need to be made:
1. Growth is inevitable, everyone knows it, the question is who should control how we grow–the city or the county. That is what THIS issue is about. The COUNTY has no right to determine how Davis grows.
2. Growth is inevitable, that does not mean that every housing project should be approved. We need to control the manner in which we grow.
3. Everyone talks about affordable housing and housing costs. Well guess what, you do not control housing costs by building more 600,000 dollar homes as Covell Village would have done.
4. The affordable housing ordinance is a joke, it requires a small percentage of homes to affordable and by affordable that means limited equity, that does not help young families.
5. What we need are a series of smaller and more dense developments. Put in slowly over time.
6. The General Plan process needs to be revamped. You either end up with too much development or too little due to the nature of the system.
Rob the returned… The issue at hand is whether the citizens of Davis should be able to listen to your well-presented point of view and then DECIDE For THEMSELVES how and when they will expand their city without threats to the pass-through agreement and other not very subtle County pressure/scare tactics).
Rob the returned… The issue at hand is whether the citizens of Davis should be able to listen to your well-presented point of view and then DECIDE For THEMSELVES how and when they will expand their city without threats to the pass-through agreement and other not very subtle County pressure/scare tactics).
Rob the returned… The issue at hand is whether the citizens of Davis should be able to listen to your well-presented point of view and then DECIDE For THEMSELVES how and when they will expand their city without threats to the pass-through agreement and other not very subtle County pressure/scare tactics).
Rob the returned… The issue at hand is whether the citizens of Davis should be able to listen to your well-presented point of view and then DECIDE For THEMSELVES how and when they will expand their city without threats to the pass-through agreement and other not very subtle County pressure/scare tactics).
DPD said “….. And the Covell Village property is the SMALLEST of the proposals by the county.”
The return of the CV proposal comes to us now as an extortion squeeze play. Homie speaks for the Davis voter when he said,” Homie don’t play dat game !!!
DPD said “….. And the Covell Village property is the SMALLEST of the proposals by the county.”
The return of the CV proposal comes to us now as an extortion squeeze play. Homie speaks for the Davis voter when he said,” Homie don’t play dat game !!!
DPD said “….. And the Covell Village property is the SMALLEST of the proposals by the county.”
The return of the CV proposal comes to us now as an extortion squeeze play. Homie speaks for the Davis voter when he said,” Homie don’t play dat game !!!
DPD said “….. And the Covell Village property is the SMALLEST of the proposals by the county.”
The return of the CV proposal comes to us now as an extortion squeeze play. Homie speaks for the Davis voter when he said,” Homie don’t play dat game !!!
Rob the Returned has written the most well-reasoned and intelligent posting on this blog in quite some time. Cognoscenti? The stench of Putah?
I love it.
Rob the Returned has written the most well-reasoned and intelligent posting on this blog in quite some time. Cognoscenti? The stench of Putah?
I love it.
Rob the Returned has written the most well-reasoned and intelligent posting on this blog in quite some time. Cognoscenti? The stench of Putah?
I love it.
Rob the Returned has written the most well-reasoned and intelligent posting on this blog in quite some time. Cognoscenti? The stench of Putah?
I love it.
Mariko has posted commetary on her campaign blog, “Thoughts on the I-80 Corridor and the Recall”. It’s at http://www.marikoyamada.net, click on “Unnamed Blog”
Mariko has posted commetary on her campaign blog, “Thoughts on the I-80 Corridor and the Recall”. It’s at http://www.marikoyamada.net, click on “Unnamed Blog”
Mariko has posted commetary on her campaign blog, “Thoughts on the I-80 Corridor and the Recall”. It’s at http://www.marikoyamada.net, click on “Unnamed Blog”
Mariko has posted commetary on her campaign blog, “Thoughts on the I-80 Corridor and the Recall”. It’s at http://www.marikoyamada.net, click on “Unnamed Blog”
Direct link:
Yamada
Direct link:
Yamada
Direct link:
Yamada
Direct link:
Yamada
“Mariko has posted commetary on her campaign blog, “Thoughts on the I-80 Corridor and the Recall”. It’s at http://www.marikoyamada.net, click on “Unnamed Blog”
Am I missing something ? ..all I see is political obfuscation. There are answers that her Davis constituents demand from their Supervisor concerning her unwavering support for the pass-through agreement, the need and exactly what IS a Joint-Study and how the County changing the zoning on Davis periphery IS NOT an attempt to erode the pass-through agreement? The public statement, “I am not an attorney” doesn’t cut it.
“Mariko has posted commetary on her campaign blog, “Thoughts on the I-80 Corridor and the Recall”. It’s at http://www.marikoyamada.net, click on “Unnamed Blog”
Am I missing something ? ..all I see is political obfuscation. There are answers that her Davis constituents demand from their Supervisor concerning her unwavering support for the pass-through agreement, the need and exactly what IS a Joint-Study and how the County changing the zoning on Davis periphery IS NOT an attempt to erode the pass-through agreement? The public statement, “I am not an attorney” doesn’t cut it.
“Mariko has posted commetary on her campaign blog, “Thoughts on the I-80 Corridor and the Recall”. It’s at http://www.marikoyamada.net, click on “Unnamed Blog”
Am I missing something ? ..all I see is political obfuscation. There are answers that her Davis constituents demand from their Supervisor concerning her unwavering support for the pass-through agreement, the need and exactly what IS a Joint-Study and how the County changing the zoning on Davis periphery IS NOT an attempt to erode the pass-through agreement? The public statement, “I am not an attorney” doesn’t cut it.
“Mariko has posted commetary on her campaign blog, “Thoughts on the I-80 Corridor and the Recall”. It’s at http://www.marikoyamada.net, click on “Unnamed Blog”
Am I missing something ? ..all I see is political obfuscation. There are answers that her Davis constituents demand from their Supervisor concerning her unwavering support for the pass-through agreement, the need and exactly what IS a Joint-Study and how the County changing the zoning on Davis periphery IS NOT an attempt to erode the pass-through agreement? The public statement, “I am not an attorney” doesn’t cut it.
Rob the Returned can go somewhere else if he believes the “nice little town” he lives in would be better with a WalMart and other urban spawl stores.
Thanks but no thanks Rob. You can go to “grayer (more concrete) pastures.”
Rob the Returned can go somewhere else if he believes the “nice little town” he lives in would be better with a WalMart and other urban spawl stores.
Thanks but no thanks Rob. You can go to “grayer (more concrete) pastures.”
Rob the Returned can go somewhere else if he believes the “nice little town” he lives in would be better with a WalMart and other urban spawl stores.
Thanks but no thanks Rob. You can go to “grayer (more concrete) pastures.”
Rob the Returned can go somewhere else if he believes the “nice little town” he lives in would be better with a WalMart and other urban spawl stores.
Thanks but no thanks Rob. You can go to “grayer (more concrete) pastures.”
It has become more white and more wealthy.
More wealthy, probably, but Davis has become less white. See discussion post a few days ago that showed Census data from when you lived here before (1990) vs 2000.
It has become more white and more wealthy.
More wealthy, probably, but Davis has become less white. See discussion post a few days ago that showed Census data from when you lived here before (1990) vs 2000.
It has become more white and more wealthy.
More wealthy, probably, but Davis has become less white. See discussion post a few days ago that showed Census data from when you lived here before (1990) vs 2000.
It has become more white and more wealthy.
More wealthy, probably, but Davis has become less white. See discussion post a few days ago that showed Census data from when you lived here before (1990) vs 2000.
I have long suggested that the nimby’s of Davis would be republicans in any other place.
Maybe this is why the republicans are against this while the democrats are for it. No growth policies are exclusionary. As Rob points out Davis is a town where the no growth policies are excluding their own kids. Now how dumb is that?
Still the supes do seem rather heavy handed here especially with Covell Village after it was voted down. Wouldn’t it be better if the Roe family listened to the complaints about their project being too expensive, redesigned it and took another swing at measure J?
Then again you wonder if there would ever be anything acceptable to the people who already have homes so you can see why they might want to ram it through the county. One of the problems with measure J is its lack of dynamic flexability,its up or down, as the market changes the plan cannot.
By the way the market is changing, people are going to have a much harder time getting home financing for these giant mortgages. General Electric announced today that it was exiting the subprime mortgage market. This will not only make it harder to qualify for this type of loan but there will be much graeater scrutiny of all mortgage activity going forward. On top of all of this is the fact that this region has the highest foreclosure rate in the country at a time of unprecedented foreclosure activity. The bottom line here is that unless the homebuilders want to sit on more inventory they can’t sell they need to get real about what they are proposing and adapt. Measure J makes it harder to adapt.
I have long suggested that the nimby’s of Davis would be republicans in any other place.
Maybe this is why the republicans are against this while the democrats are for it. No growth policies are exclusionary. As Rob points out Davis is a town where the no growth policies are excluding their own kids. Now how dumb is that?
Still the supes do seem rather heavy handed here especially with Covell Village after it was voted down. Wouldn’t it be better if the Roe family listened to the complaints about their project being too expensive, redesigned it and took another swing at measure J?
Then again you wonder if there would ever be anything acceptable to the people who already have homes so you can see why they might want to ram it through the county. One of the problems with measure J is its lack of dynamic flexability,its up or down, as the market changes the plan cannot.
By the way the market is changing, people are going to have a much harder time getting home financing for these giant mortgages. General Electric announced today that it was exiting the subprime mortgage market. This will not only make it harder to qualify for this type of loan but there will be much graeater scrutiny of all mortgage activity going forward. On top of all of this is the fact that this region has the highest foreclosure rate in the country at a time of unprecedented foreclosure activity. The bottom line here is that unless the homebuilders want to sit on more inventory they can’t sell they need to get real about what they are proposing and adapt. Measure J makes it harder to adapt.
I have long suggested that the nimby’s of Davis would be republicans in any other place.
Maybe this is why the republicans are against this while the democrats are for it. No growth policies are exclusionary. As Rob points out Davis is a town where the no growth policies are excluding their own kids. Now how dumb is that?
Still the supes do seem rather heavy handed here especially with Covell Village after it was voted down. Wouldn’t it be better if the Roe family listened to the complaints about their project being too expensive, redesigned it and took another swing at measure J?
Then again you wonder if there would ever be anything acceptable to the people who already have homes so you can see why they might want to ram it through the county. One of the problems with measure J is its lack of dynamic flexability,its up or down, as the market changes the plan cannot.
By the way the market is changing, people are going to have a much harder time getting home financing for these giant mortgages. General Electric announced today that it was exiting the subprime mortgage market. This will not only make it harder to qualify for this type of loan but there will be much graeater scrutiny of all mortgage activity going forward. On top of all of this is the fact that this region has the highest foreclosure rate in the country at a time of unprecedented foreclosure activity. The bottom line here is that unless the homebuilders want to sit on more inventory they can’t sell they need to get real about what they are proposing and adapt. Measure J makes it harder to adapt.
I have long suggested that the nimby’s of Davis would be republicans in any other place.
Maybe this is why the republicans are against this while the democrats are for it. No growth policies are exclusionary. As Rob points out Davis is a town where the no growth policies are excluding their own kids. Now how dumb is that?
Still the supes do seem rather heavy handed here especially with Covell Village after it was voted down. Wouldn’t it be better if the Roe family listened to the complaints about their project being too expensive, redesigned it and took another swing at measure J?
Then again you wonder if there would ever be anything acceptable to the people who already have homes so you can see why they might want to ram it through the county. One of the problems with measure J is its lack of dynamic flexability,its up or down, as the market changes the plan cannot.
By the way the market is changing, people are going to have a much harder time getting home financing for these giant mortgages. General Electric announced today that it was exiting the subprime mortgage market. This will not only make it harder to qualify for this type of loan but there will be much graeater scrutiny of all mortgage activity going forward. On top of all of this is the fact that this region has the highest foreclosure rate in the country at a time of unprecedented foreclosure activity. The bottom line here is that unless the homebuilders want to sit on more inventory they can’t sell they need to get real about what they are proposing and adapt. Measure J makes it harder to adapt.
Thank you Rob the Returned. Maybe we do have a chance of forming a group of people focused on reasonable growth that will allow Davis to avoid having the county void the pass through agreement.
For those of you now claiming to be in favor of smaller denser projects, you should really become vocal and supportive of projects that accomplish goal and allow Davis to grow reasonably on it’s periphery. There is far too little support for any projects on this blog and at planning discussions.
Finally, the expensive housing in Covell Village and other projects is primarily driven by the endless list of requirements and give- backs that planning commissions require of developers, and in the case of Davis, whose citizens claim – why didn’t you extract more from them. If you want affordable housing, it will need to be dense, and it can’t require that the developers have really significant mitigations, land donations to the city and over development of the area. All of those things cost money, which of course, finds its way back into the cost of housing.
Thank you Rob the Returned. Maybe we do have a chance of forming a group of people focused on reasonable growth that will allow Davis to avoid having the county void the pass through agreement.
For those of you now claiming to be in favor of smaller denser projects, you should really become vocal and supportive of projects that accomplish goal and allow Davis to grow reasonably on it’s periphery. There is far too little support for any projects on this blog and at planning discussions.
Finally, the expensive housing in Covell Village and other projects is primarily driven by the endless list of requirements and give- backs that planning commissions require of developers, and in the case of Davis, whose citizens claim – why didn’t you extract more from them. If you want affordable housing, it will need to be dense, and it can’t require that the developers have really significant mitigations, land donations to the city and over development of the area. All of those things cost money, which of course, finds its way back into the cost of housing.
Thank you Rob the Returned. Maybe we do have a chance of forming a group of people focused on reasonable growth that will allow Davis to avoid having the county void the pass through agreement.
For those of you now claiming to be in favor of smaller denser projects, you should really become vocal and supportive of projects that accomplish goal and allow Davis to grow reasonably on it’s periphery. There is far too little support for any projects on this blog and at planning discussions.
Finally, the expensive housing in Covell Village and other projects is primarily driven by the endless list of requirements and give- backs that planning commissions require of developers, and in the case of Davis, whose citizens claim – why didn’t you extract more from them. If you want affordable housing, it will need to be dense, and it can’t require that the developers have really significant mitigations, land donations to the city and over development of the area. All of those things cost money, which of course, finds its way back into the cost of housing.
Thank you Rob the Returned. Maybe we do have a chance of forming a group of people focused on reasonable growth that will allow Davis to avoid having the county void the pass through agreement.
For those of you now claiming to be in favor of smaller denser projects, you should really become vocal and supportive of projects that accomplish goal and allow Davis to grow reasonably on it’s periphery. There is far too little support for any projects on this blog and at planning discussions.
Finally, the expensive housing in Covell Village and other projects is primarily driven by the endless list of requirements and give- backs that planning commissions require of developers, and in the case of Davis, whose citizens claim – why didn’t you extract more from them. If you want affordable housing, it will need to be dense, and it can’t require that the developers have really significant mitigations, land donations to the city and over development of the area. All of those things cost money, which of course, finds its way back into the cost of housing.
I have a LOT of problems with the last two comments…
First: “Maybe this is why the republicans are against this while the democrats are for it. No growth policies are exclusionary. As Rob points out Davis is a town where the no growth policies are excluding their own kids. Now how dumb is that?”
That’s very interesting, how do you suppose we solve that problem–by turning Davis from a town of roughly 70,000 into a town of 120,000? That’s what these proposals would do. Would that solve the problem? Or would it just kill what it is everyone likes about Davis?
“For those of you now claiming to be in favor of smaller denser projects, you should really become vocal and supportive of projects that accomplish goal and allow Davis to grow reasonably on it’s periphery. There is far too little support for any projects on this blog and at planning discussions.”
The projects that I have seen get to the council level are unacceptable such as the B and Third Street project that basically demolishes the character of the neighborhood.
You want support???
Give me something I can support, it’s not going to be square four story condos. It’s just not. Somehow I think someone with some creativity can find denser projects that do not destroy the essence of what we are.
That’s what this is a fight over–preserving what we are. That doesn’t mean zero growth. That does mean that we don’t create sprawling cookie cutter and boring-azz projects as we have for the last decade.
Again, you want support–give us something that we can support.
“Maybe we do have a chance of forming a group of people focused on reasonable growth that will allow Davis to avoid having the county void the pass through agreement.”
I’m sorry but this is a pattently naive statement. Let me explain this to you very slowly so you understand. The county wants to void the pass through agreement because THEY need the revenue. If Davis, approves projects, the revenue doesn’t go to the county. Therefore there is no growth that Davis the city can do that can avoid this problem. The problem isn’t that Davis isn’t growing, it is that the county doesn’t make enough revenue to offset their expenditures.
Do you understand this concept, because people don’t seem to get it.
Again, the county is not imposing growth because Davis has not grown, they are imposing growth because they think it will generate them revenue. City growth won’t do that, county growth will.
This is what you people don’t get. You fundamentally do not understand the process and then you spout off about it.
I have a LOT of problems with the last two comments…
First: “Maybe this is why the republicans are against this while the democrats are for it. No growth policies are exclusionary. As Rob points out Davis is a town where the no growth policies are excluding their own kids. Now how dumb is that?”
That’s very interesting, how do you suppose we solve that problem–by turning Davis from a town of roughly 70,000 into a town of 120,000? That’s what these proposals would do. Would that solve the problem? Or would it just kill what it is everyone likes about Davis?
“For those of you now claiming to be in favor of smaller denser projects, you should really become vocal and supportive of projects that accomplish goal and allow Davis to grow reasonably on it’s periphery. There is far too little support for any projects on this blog and at planning discussions.”
The projects that I have seen get to the council level are unacceptable such as the B and Third Street project that basically demolishes the character of the neighborhood.
You want support???
Give me something I can support, it’s not going to be square four story condos. It’s just not. Somehow I think someone with some creativity can find denser projects that do not destroy the essence of what we are.
That’s what this is a fight over–preserving what we are. That doesn’t mean zero growth. That does mean that we don’t create sprawling cookie cutter and boring-azz projects as we have for the last decade.
Again, you want support–give us something that we can support.
“Maybe we do have a chance of forming a group of people focused on reasonable growth that will allow Davis to avoid having the county void the pass through agreement.”
I’m sorry but this is a pattently naive statement. Let me explain this to you very slowly so you understand. The county wants to void the pass through agreement because THEY need the revenue. If Davis, approves projects, the revenue doesn’t go to the county. Therefore there is no growth that Davis the city can do that can avoid this problem. The problem isn’t that Davis isn’t growing, it is that the county doesn’t make enough revenue to offset their expenditures.
Do you understand this concept, because people don’t seem to get it.
Again, the county is not imposing growth because Davis has not grown, they are imposing growth because they think it will generate them revenue. City growth won’t do that, county growth will.
This is what you people don’t get. You fundamentally do not understand the process and then you spout off about it.
I have a LOT of problems with the last two comments…
First: “Maybe this is why the republicans are against this while the democrats are for it. No growth policies are exclusionary. As Rob points out Davis is a town where the no growth policies are excluding their own kids. Now how dumb is that?”
That’s very interesting, how do you suppose we solve that problem–by turning Davis from a town of roughly 70,000 into a town of 120,000? That’s what these proposals would do. Would that solve the problem? Or would it just kill what it is everyone likes about Davis?
“For those of you now claiming to be in favor of smaller denser projects, you should really become vocal and supportive of projects that accomplish goal and allow Davis to grow reasonably on it’s periphery. There is far too little support for any projects on this blog and at planning discussions.”
The projects that I have seen get to the council level are unacceptable such as the B and Third Street project that basically demolishes the character of the neighborhood.
You want support???
Give me something I can support, it’s not going to be square four story condos. It’s just not. Somehow I think someone with some creativity can find denser projects that do not destroy the essence of what we are.
That’s what this is a fight over–preserving what we are. That doesn’t mean zero growth. That does mean that we don’t create sprawling cookie cutter and boring-azz projects as we have for the last decade.
Again, you want support–give us something that we can support.
“Maybe we do have a chance of forming a group of people focused on reasonable growth that will allow Davis to avoid having the county void the pass through agreement.”
I’m sorry but this is a pattently naive statement. Let me explain this to you very slowly so you understand. The county wants to void the pass through agreement because THEY need the revenue. If Davis, approves projects, the revenue doesn’t go to the county. Therefore there is no growth that Davis the city can do that can avoid this problem. The problem isn’t that Davis isn’t growing, it is that the county doesn’t make enough revenue to offset their expenditures.
Do you understand this concept, because people don’t seem to get it.
Again, the county is not imposing growth because Davis has not grown, they are imposing growth because they think it will generate them revenue. City growth won’t do that, county growth will.
This is what you people don’t get. You fundamentally do not understand the process and then you spout off about it.
I have a LOT of problems with the last two comments…
First: “Maybe this is why the republicans are against this while the democrats are for it. No growth policies are exclusionary. As Rob points out Davis is a town where the no growth policies are excluding their own kids. Now how dumb is that?”
That’s very interesting, how do you suppose we solve that problem–by turning Davis from a town of roughly 70,000 into a town of 120,000? That’s what these proposals would do. Would that solve the problem? Or would it just kill what it is everyone likes about Davis?
“For those of you now claiming to be in favor of smaller denser projects, you should really become vocal and supportive of projects that accomplish goal and allow Davis to grow reasonably on it’s periphery. There is far too little support for any projects on this blog and at planning discussions.”
The projects that I have seen get to the council level are unacceptable such as the B and Third Street project that basically demolishes the character of the neighborhood.
You want support???
Give me something I can support, it’s not going to be square four story condos. It’s just not. Somehow I think someone with some creativity can find denser projects that do not destroy the essence of what we are.
That’s what this is a fight over–preserving what we are. That doesn’t mean zero growth. That does mean that we don’t create sprawling cookie cutter and boring-azz projects as we have for the last decade.
Again, you want support–give us something that we can support.
“Maybe we do have a chance of forming a group of people focused on reasonable growth that will allow Davis to avoid having the county void the pass through agreement.”
I’m sorry but this is a pattently naive statement. Let me explain this to you very slowly so you understand. The county wants to void the pass through agreement because THEY need the revenue. If Davis, approves projects, the revenue doesn’t go to the county. Therefore there is no growth that Davis the city can do that can avoid this problem. The problem isn’t that Davis isn’t growing, it is that the county doesn’t make enough revenue to offset their expenditures.
Do you understand this concept, because people don’t seem to get it.
Again, the county is not imposing growth because Davis has not grown, they are imposing growth because they think it will generate them revenue. City growth won’t do that, county growth will.
This is what you people don’t get. You fundamentally do not understand the process and then you spout off about it.
“One must ask why certain Republican Supervisors who do not live here are more protective of Davis’ borders than Davis’ own supervisors.”
I think there are three components to this answer. And at least two of them have to do with political party.
First, Rexroad, unlike Yamada and Thomson, was a city councilmember/mayor in his city (Woodland). He comes from the perspective of understanding the importance of city politics and city control within its sphere of influence. Rexroad has been very consistent in wanting each of the incorporated cities in Yolo County, and not the county itself, to retain authority in land-use decisions on the cities’ borders. If Yamada or Thomson had ever served on a city council, they would likely share this perspective, too. (That partly explains why you get similar answers on these land-use matters from people as divergent as Mayor Greenwald and Matt Rexroad.)
Second, Chamberlain and Rexroad obviously care about the agricultural character of Yolo County more than the other three members of the Board of Supervisors. As Republicans, they get a lot of support from farmers and farm interests. Insofar as we pave over farms in Yolo County, we destroy the agricultural character of our landscape, and we make it harder for the remaining farmers, many of whom rent their land, to stay in business.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the other supervisors don’t care about the rural character of the county. The probably do. But they don’t generally get as much support from farmers. They care about green space, more than crop space. They support water subsidies for rice farming because flooding fields enhances the flyway for bird migration (the kind of thing Davis liberals care about). The concerns of the urban supervisors tend to be the concerns of urbanites: open space means parks and wildlife, not combines and pesticides.
When Conaway Ranch was threatened with eminent domain, the farmers who actually work that land were unanimous in opposing the county takeover. They fully understood that if the county took the land, they would be the losers for it. The urban supervisors were focused on creating some kind of nature preserve (which already exists on the land, but is not publicly accessible for the most part). Nature preserves are the kind of places citydwellers dream about. The urban supervisors were less concerned about keeping the farmers in business. And because of the terrible financing of the takeover, the urban supervisors were going to have to pave over a signficant part of the Conaway farm land, in order to pay for their financial recklessness.
Finally, the Democrats on the board are willing to sell out to property developers like Tsakopolous — it has little to do with him being a major Democratic donor — because they want the county to take on an endless array of welfare projects for the needy and not so needy. The Republicans are far less interested in those types of government programs. Yamada and Thomson have personal backgrounds in social welfare and public health. In order to pay for their welfare programs, the Democratics supervisors are willing to ignore the farmers’ interests, which really are not their primary concern. They see a big project which brings in money to the county as a win-win.
“One must ask why certain Republican Supervisors who do not live here are more protective of Davis’ borders than Davis’ own supervisors.”
I think there are three components to this answer. And at least two of them have to do with political party.
First, Rexroad, unlike Yamada and Thomson, was a city councilmember/mayor in his city (Woodland). He comes from the perspective of understanding the importance of city politics and city control within its sphere of influence. Rexroad has been very consistent in wanting each of the incorporated cities in Yolo County, and not the county itself, to retain authority in land-use decisions on the cities’ borders. If Yamada or Thomson had ever served on a city council, they would likely share this perspective, too. (That partly explains why you get similar answers on these land-use matters from people as divergent as Mayor Greenwald and Matt Rexroad.)
Second, Chamberlain and Rexroad obviously care about the agricultural character of Yolo County more than the other three members of the Board of Supervisors. As Republicans, they get a lot of support from farmers and farm interests. Insofar as we pave over farms in Yolo County, we destroy the agricultural character of our landscape, and we make it harder for the remaining farmers, many of whom rent their land, to stay in business.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the other supervisors don’t care about the rural character of the county. The probably do. But they don’t generally get as much support from farmers. They care about green space, more than crop space. They support water subsidies for rice farming because flooding fields enhances the flyway for bird migration (the kind of thing Davis liberals care about). The concerns of the urban supervisors tend to be the concerns of urbanites: open space means parks and wildlife, not combines and pesticides.
When Conaway Ranch was threatened with eminent domain, the farmers who actually work that land were unanimous in opposing the county takeover. They fully understood that if the county took the land, they would be the losers for it. The urban supervisors were focused on creating some kind of nature preserve (which already exists on the land, but is not publicly accessible for the most part). Nature preserves are the kind of places citydwellers dream about. The urban supervisors were less concerned about keeping the farmers in business. And because of the terrible financing of the takeover, the urban supervisors were going to have to pave over a signficant part of the Conaway farm land, in order to pay for their financial recklessness.
Finally, the Democrats on the board are willing to sell out to property developers like Tsakopolous — it has little to do with him being a major Democratic donor — because they want the county to take on an endless array of welfare projects for the needy and not so needy. The Republicans are far less interested in those types of government programs. Yamada and Thomson have personal backgrounds in social welfare and public health. In order to pay for their welfare programs, the Democratics supervisors are willing to ignore the farmers’ interests, which really are not their primary concern. They see a big project which brings in money to the county as a win-win.
“One must ask why certain Republican Supervisors who do not live here are more protective of Davis’ borders than Davis’ own supervisors.”
I think there are three components to this answer. And at least two of them have to do with political party.
First, Rexroad, unlike Yamada and Thomson, was a city councilmember/mayor in his city (Woodland). He comes from the perspective of understanding the importance of city politics and city control within its sphere of influence. Rexroad has been very consistent in wanting each of the incorporated cities in Yolo County, and not the county itself, to retain authority in land-use decisions on the cities’ borders. If Yamada or Thomson had ever served on a city council, they would likely share this perspective, too. (That partly explains why you get similar answers on these land-use matters from people as divergent as Mayor Greenwald and Matt Rexroad.)
Second, Chamberlain and Rexroad obviously care about the agricultural character of Yolo County more than the other three members of the Board of Supervisors. As Republicans, they get a lot of support from farmers and farm interests. Insofar as we pave over farms in Yolo County, we destroy the agricultural character of our landscape, and we make it harder for the remaining farmers, many of whom rent their land, to stay in business.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the other supervisors don’t care about the rural character of the county. The probably do. But they don’t generally get as much support from farmers. They care about green space, more than crop space. They support water subsidies for rice farming because flooding fields enhances the flyway for bird migration (the kind of thing Davis liberals care about). The concerns of the urban supervisors tend to be the concerns of urbanites: open space means parks and wildlife, not combines and pesticides.
When Conaway Ranch was threatened with eminent domain, the farmers who actually work that land were unanimous in opposing the county takeover. They fully understood that if the county took the land, they would be the losers for it. The urban supervisors were focused on creating some kind of nature preserve (which already exists on the land, but is not publicly accessible for the most part). Nature preserves are the kind of places citydwellers dream about. The urban supervisors were less concerned about keeping the farmers in business. And because of the terrible financing of the takeover, the urban supervisors were going to have to pave over a signficant part of the Conaway farm land, in order to pay for their financial recklessness.
Finally, the Democrats on the board are willing to sell out to property developers like Tsakopolous — it has little to do with him being a major Democratic donor — because they want the county to take on an endless array of welfare projects for the needy and not so needy. The Republicans are far less interested in those types of government programs. Yamada and Thomson have personal backgrounds in social welfare and public health. In order to pay for their welfare programs, the Democratics supervisors are willing to ignore the farmers’ interests, which really are not their primary concern. They see a big project which brings in money to the county as a win-win.
“One must ask why certain Republican Supervisors who do not live here are more protective of Davis’ borders than Davis’ own supervisors.”
I think there are three components to this answer. And at least two of them have to do with political party.
First, Rexroad, unlike Yamada and Thomson, was a city councilmember/mayor in his city (Woodland). He comes from the perspective of understanding the importance of city politics and city control within its sphere of influence. Rexroad has been very consistent in wanting each of the incorporated cities in Yolo County, and not the county itself, to retain authority in land-use decisions on the cities’ borders. If Yamada or Thomson had ever served on a city council, they would likely share this perspective, too. (That partly explains why you get similar answers on these land-use matters from people as divergent as Mayor Greenwald and Matt Rexroad.)
Second, Chamberlain and Rexroad obviously care about the agricultural character of Yolo County more than the other three members of the Board of Supervisors. As Republicans, they get a lot of support from farmers and farm interests. Insofar as we pave over farms in Yolo County, we destroy the agricultural character of our landscape, and we make it harder for the remaining farmers, many of whom rent their land, to stay in business.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the other supervisors don’t care about the rural character of the county. The probably do. But they don’t generally get as much support from farmers. They care about green space, more than crop space. They support water subsidies for rice farming because flooding fields enhances the flyway for bird migration (the kind of thing Davis liberals care about). The concerns of the urban supervisors tend to be the concerns of urbanites: open space means parks and wildlife, not combines and pesticides.
When Conaway Ranch was threatened with eminent domain, the farmers who actually work that land were unanimous in opposing the county takeover. They fully understood that if the county took the land, they would be the losers for it. The urban supervisors were focused on creating some kind of nature preserve (which already exists on the land, but is not publicly accessible for the most part). Nature preserves are the kind of places citydwellers dream about. The urban supervisors were less concerned about keeping the farmers in business. And because of the terrible financing of the takeover, the urban supervisors were going to have to pave over a signficant part of the Conaway farm land, in order to pay for their financial recklessness.
Finally, the Democrats on the board are willing to sell out to property developers like Tsakopolous — it has little to do with him being a major Democratic donor — because they want the county to take on an endless array of welfare projects for the needy and not so needy. The Republicans are far less interested in those types of government programs. Yamada and Thomson have personal backgrounds in social welfare and public health. In order to pay for their welfare programs, the Democratics supervisors are willing to ignore the farmers’ interests, which really are not their primary concern. They see a big project which brings in money to the county as a win-win.
That’s an interesting point Rich, but it does go against most other counties in terms of developers/ preservationists. For instance, in San Luis Obispo County, even the supervisors who live in the rural parts are pro-development. The developers there are Republicans. The Democrats there are slower growth.
That’s an interesting point Rich, but it does go against most other counties in terms of developers/ preservationists. For instance, in San Luis Obispo County, even the supervisors who live in the rural parts are pro-development. The developers there are Republicans. The Democrats there are slower growth.
That’s an interesting point Rich, but it does go against most other counties in terms of developers/ preservationists. For instance, in San Luis Obispo County, even the supervisors who live in the rural parts are pro-development. The developers there are Republicans. The Democrats there are slower growth.
That’s an interesting point Rich, but it does go against most other counties in terms of developers/ preservationists. For instance, in San Luis Obispo County, even the supervisors who live in the rural parts are pro-development. The developers there are Republicans. The Democrats there are slower growth.
Anonymous 10:19 said:
“Again, the county is not imposing growth because Davis has not grown, they are imposing growth because they think it will generate them revenue. City growth won’t do that, county growth will.
This is what you people don’t get. You fundamentally do not understand the process and then you spout off about it. “
Here is what you don’t understand -There are two ways for the county to get more money from this – increase the pass thru payment or develop the land themselves – either will do it. Since it appears that Davis residents would strongly prefer to have their city wither and die rather than grow, and are willing to pay exoribtant sums to ensure that the county can’t make good reasonable use of the land, the county is going to give us an option — watch them develop the land and earn fees or pay more in pass thru fees. Either way works for them.
Anonymous 10:19 said:
“Again, the county is not imposing growth because Davis has not grown, they are imposing growth because they think it will generate them revenue. City growth won’t do that, county growth will.
This is what you people don’t get. You fundamentally do not understand the process and then you spout off about it. “
Here is what you don’t understand -There are two ways for the county to get more money from this – increase the pass thru payment or develop the land themselves – either will do it. Since it appears that Davis residents would strongly prefer to have their city wither and die rather than grow, and are willing to pay exoribtant sums to ensure that the county can’t make good reasonable use of the land, the county is going to give us an option — watch them develop the land and earn fees or pay more in pass thru fees. Either way works for them.
Anonymous 10:19 said:
“Again, the county is not imposing growth because Davis has not grown, they are imposing growth because they think it will generate them revenue. City growth won’t do that, county growth will.
This is what you people don’t get. You fundamentally do not understand the process and then you spout off about it. “
Here is what you don’t understand -There are two ways for the county to get more money from this – increase the pass thru payment or develop the land themselves – either will do it. Since it appears that Davis residents would strongly prefer to have their city wither and die rather than grow, and are willing to pay exoribtant sums to ensure that the county can’t make good reasonable use of the land, the county is going to give us an option — watch them develop the land and earn fees or pay more in pass thru fees. Either way works for them.
Anonymous 10:19 said:
“Again, the county is not imposing growth because Davis has not grown, they are imposing growth because they think it will generate them revenue. City growth won’t do that, county growth will.
This is what you people don’t get. You fundamentally do not understand the process and then you spout off about it. “
Here is what you don’t understand -There are two ways for the county to get more money from this – increase the pass thru payment or develop the land themselves – either will do it. Since it appears that Davis residents would strongly prefer to have their city wither and die rather than grow, and are willing to pay exoribtant sums to ensure that the county can’t make good reasonable use of the land, the county is going to give us an option — watch them develop the land and earn fees or pay more in pass thru fees. Either way works for them.
The county is already getting far more than would get if they developed the land. They also get far more from Davis than they get from any other city. Davis is COMPLIANT with LAFCO growth requirements. Why is the county on Davis’ case here? Your argument is nonsense.
The county is already getting far more than would get if they developed the land. They also get far more from Davis than they get from any other city. Davis is COMPLIANT with LAFCO growth requirements. Why is the county on Davis’ case here? Your argument is nonsense.
The county is already getting far more than would get if they developed the land. They also get far more from Davis than they get from any other city. Davis is COMPLIANT with LAFCO growth requirements. Why is the county on Davis’ case here? Your argument is nonsense.
The county is already getting far more than would get if they developed the land. They also get far more from Davis than they get from any other city. Davis is COMPLIANT with LAFCO growth requirements. Why is the county on Davis’ case here? Your argument is nonsense.
“Rob the Returned has written the most well-reasoned and intelligent posting on this blog in quite some time.”
Thangu. Thanguveruhmush.
(I made a literary reference to a seminal post-war novel, too!)
BTW, telling me to “love it or leave it” (another post) tells me you are not listening to anything but opinions and ideas that conform to your own. So why even bother to post? It also speaks to a certain dangerous and ultimately un-productive brew of chauvanism, fear and nostalgia.
“Rob the Returned has written the most well-reasoned and intelligent posting on this blog in quite some time.”
Thangu. Thanguveruhmush.
(I made a literary reference to a seminal post-war novel, too!)
BTW, telling me to “love it or leave it” (another post) tells me you are not listening to anything but opinions and ideas that conform to your own. So why even bother to post? It also speaks to a certain dangerous and ultimately un-productive brew of chauvanism, fear and nostalgia.
“Rob the Returned has written the most well-reasoned and intelligent posting on this blog in quite some time.”
Thangu. Thanguveruhmush.
(I made a literary reference to a seminal post-war novel, too!)
BTW, telling me to “love it or leave it” (another post) tells me you are not listening to anything but opinions and ideas that conform to your own. So why even bother to post? It also speaks to a certain dangerous and ultimately un-productive brew of chauvanism, fear and nostalgia.
“Rob the Returned has written the most well-reasoned and intelligent posting on this blog in quite some time.”
Thangu. Thanguveruhmush.
(I made a literary reference to a seminal post-war novel, too!)
BTW, telling me to “love it or leave it” (another post) tells me you are not listening to anything but opinions and ideas that conform to your own. So why even bother to post? It also speaks to a certain dangerous and ultimately un-productive brew of chauvanism, fear and nostalgia.
ok, lets try this one more time.
The one time developer fees on a 100 acre parcel of land that will be developed would be considerably greater than the 2MM the county would get from Davis.
Then there are RE tax revenues – the development parcel land would easily sell from exisitng owner to developer at 300K per acre, and then once developed be worth more than 1.5 MM per acre or 150MM in total – with first year taxes being 1.80MM, at a minimum. Finally, if the county were to develop a parcel on the periphery, then all land in the surrounding area would increase substantially in value, sales would occur and the county tax base would increase commensurately. Soon, they would approve a second parcel, and in a pretty short time frame, the 2MM that the county receives from Davis would be only a faint memory.
This result would seem rather obvious — is there something wrong with the logic path?
ok, lets try this one more time.
The one time developer fees on a 100 acre parcel of land that will be developed would be considerably greater than the 2MM the county would get from Davis.
Then there are RE tax revenues – the development parcel land would easily sell from exisitng owner to developer at 300K per acre, and then once developed be worth more than 1.5 MM per acre or 150MM in total – with first year taxes being 1.80MM, at a minimum. Finally, if the county were to develop a parcel on the periphery, then all land in the surrounding area would increase substantially in value, sales would occur and the county tax base would increase commensurately. Soon, they would approve a second parcel, and in a pretty short time frame, the 2MM that the county receives from Davis would be only a faint memory.
This result would seem rather obvious — is there something wrong with the logic path?
ok, lets try this one more time.
The one time developer fees on a 100 acre parcel of land that will be developed would be considerably greater than the 2MM the county would get from Davis.
Then there are RE tax revenues – the development parcel land would easily sell from exisitng owner to developer at 300K per acre, and then once developed be worth more than 1.5 MM per acre or 150MM in total – with first year taxes being 1.80MM, at a minimum. Finally, if the county were to develop a parcel on the periphery, then all land in the surrounding area would increase substantially in value, sales would occur and the county tax base would increase commensurately. Soon, they would approve a second parcel, and in a pretty short time frame, the 2MM that the county receives from Davis would be only a faint memory.
This result would seem rather obvious — is there something wrong with the logic path?
ok, lets try this one more time.
The one time developer fees on a 100 acre parcel of land that will be developed would be considerably greater than the 2MM the county would get from Davis.
Then there are RE tax revenues – the development parcel land would easily sell from exisitng owner to developer at 300K per acre, and then once developed be worth more than 1.5 MM per acre or 150MM in total – with first year taxes being 1.80MM, at a minimum. Finally, if the county were to develop a parcel on the periphery, then all land in the surrounding area would increase substantially in value, sales would occur and the county tax base would increase commensurately. Soon, they would approve a second parcel, and in a pretty short time frame, the 2MM that the county receives from Davis would be only a faint memory.
This result would seem rather obvious — is there something wrong with the logic path?
Ohmygod not a town of 120,000? Actually with California growing to 60 million that sounds about right.
Yes the Dems and Tsaukopoulas analogy makes sense.
Finally the developer can pay more not less. One of the major promoters told me off the record that he agreed with me on this point, that the developers of Covell Village could have given more. It was a Billion dollar project. The developers’ package was less then 10%. What this shows is that the supporters on the city council didn’t demand enough and the promoters thought they could get it through on the cheap.
Yes ammenities effect the margins but the margins that the developers have been shooting for as a return on their investment have been extra ordinary in magnitude and the elected decision makers have been weak negotiators for the community and that is the heart of the problem.
Ohmygod not a town of 120,000? Actually with California growing to 60 million that sounds about right.
Yes the Dems and Tsaukopoulas analogy makes sense.
Finally the developer can pay more not less. One of the major promoters told me off the record that he agreed with me on this point, that the developers of Covell Village could have given more. It was a Billion dollar project. The developers’ package was less then 10%. What this shows is that the supporters on the city council didn’t demand enough and the promoters thought they could get it through on the cheap.
Yes ammenities effect the margins but the margins that the developers have been shooting for as a return on their investment have been extra ordinary in magnitude and the elected decision makers have been weak negotiators for the community and that is the heart of the problem.
Ohmygod not a town of 120,000? Actually with California growing to 60 million that sounds about right.
Yes the Dems and Tsaukopoulas analogy makes sense.
Finally the developer can pay more not less. One of the major promoters told me off the record that he agreed with me on this point, that the developers of Covell Village could have given more. It was a Billion dollar project. The developers’ package was less then 10%. What this shows is that the supporters on the city council didn’t demand enough and the promoters thought they could get it through on the cheap.
Yes ammenities effect the margins but the margins that the developers have been shooting for as a return on their investment have been extra ordinary in magnitude and the elected decision makers have been weak negotiators for the community and that is the heart of the problem.
Ohmygod not a town of 120,000? Actually with California growing to 60 million that sounds about right.
Yes the Dems and Tsaukopoulas analogy makes sense.
Finally the developer can pay more not less. One of the major promoters told me off the record that he agreed with me on this point, that the developers of Covell Village could have given more. It was a Billion dollar project. The developers’ package was less then 10%. What this shows is that the supporters on the city council didn’t demand enough and the promoters thought they could get it through on the cheap.
Yes ammenities effect the margins but the margins that the developers have been shooting for as a return on their investment have been extra ordinary in magnitude and the elected decision makers have been weak negotiators for the community and that is the heart of the problem.
Please come to this Tuesday’s July 17 morning meeting (9am the meeting opens but who knows when the cruical item time on the 3 parcels “study” vote will be listed …Why doesn’t the county just come out and say when the item will come up?
Oh well, anyway:
If it was not bad enough that we had a pro-developer
Council majority, now our two County, Supervisors, Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada, are also revealed pro-developer. These two Davis reps have been
brazen enough to consider including in the Yolo County General Plan for
a “study” for development of the 383-acre Covell Village site (AFTER a 60:40 NO vote from Davis citizens just 2 years ago) AND 650 acre of Davis’ Northwest quadrant AND the recent Tsakopoulos 1,500 acre
monstrosity proposal on the south side of I-80 just west of El Macero.
THIS IS BEYOND OUTRAGEOUS AND CLEARLY IN THE BEST INTEREST’S OF THE
DEVELOPERS RATHER THAN THE CITIZEN’S OF DAVIS!!!
To their credit, Supervisor’s Duane Chamberlain and Matt Rexroad oppose development of ag land but Supervisor Mike McGowan has been
pro-developer hisorically, so the outcome of this critical vote by the 5 Yolo County Supervisor’s, is at stake. Your presence is so important to
make clear to Thomson and Yamada that the citizens of Davis DO NOT
support the County doing our city planning for us.
Some points concerned citizens will wish to make at this all-important meeting…:
In fact, this action would violate the Pass-Through agreement that the County has had with Davis for over 20 years, committing the County to not grow on Davis’ borders if Davis fulfilled its fair share of growth. Davis has EXCEEDED
its fair share of growth and yet these politicians are going to test the
resolve of Davis citizens. Keep in mind that Mariko Yamada is running
for Assembly and this is clearly a test of if she is reaching into
developer pockets for campaign money. If she supports having the County consider violating the Pass Through Agreement then clearly, Yamada is a representative for the developers, not the citizens. Keep in mind that
this would mean that The County would legally need to forfeit the $2.4 million dollars per year that Davis currently “passes through” to the County, in exchange for the County honoring the Pass Through agreement (which was just renewed 5 years ago). The excuse being used is that the County needs money for services, yet massive growth would bring yet MORE
financial needs for services, especially since the County would need to forfeit the current $2.4 million/year that Davis currently pays the County.
Please understand that this is a critical meeting. We need you to let
these Supervisors understand that the County needs to let the cities do their own planning and that the County need to honor its agreements.
Please come and speak even if it is only a sentance or two oppose the County considering any of these “study zones” near Davis.
Please come and even if you do not wish to comment you can always say
that you support a previous speaker’s point’s but that we expect the County to honor its’ Pass Through Agreement with Davis and that these parcels should NOT be studied in the County’s General Plan process because Davis deserves the right to determine how and where it will grow
like other cities. More residential is NOT the way to cure financial
problems. The County will only exascerbate its financial problems and it can not “build its way” out of financial problems and in fact would make the financial problems worse by focusing on one-time developer fees! That’s a road to nowhere fast…
Please come to this Tuesday’s July 17 morning meeting (9am the meeting opens but who knows when the cruical item time on the 3 parcels “study” vote will be listed …Why doesn’t the county just come out and say when the item will come up?
Oh well, anyway:
If it was not bad enough that we had a pro-developer
Council majority, now our two County, Supervisors, Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada, are also revealed pro-developer. These two Davis reps have been
brazen enough to consider including in the Yolo County General Plan for
a “study” for development of the 383-acre Covell Village site (AFTER a 60:40 NO vote from Davis citizens just 2 years ago) AND 650 acre of Davis’ Northwest quadrant AND the recent Tsakopoulos 1,500 acre
monstrosity proposal on the south side of I-80 just west of El Macero.
THIS IS BEYOND OUTRAGEOUS AND CLEARLY IN THE BEST INTEREST’S OF THE
DEVELOPERS RATHER THAN THE CITIZEN’S OF DAVIS!!!
To their credit, Supervisor’s Duane Chamberlain and Matt Rexroad oppose development of ag land but Supervisor Mike McGowan has been
pro-developer hisorically, so the outcome of this critical vote by the 5 Yolo County Supervisor’s, is at stake. Your presence is so important to
make clear to Thomson and Yamada that the citizens of Davis DO NOT
support the County doing our city planning for us.
Some points concerned citizens will wish to make at this all-important meeting…:
In fact, this action would violate the Pass-Through agreement that the County has had with Davis for over 20 years, committing the County to not grow on Davis’ borders if Davis fulfilled its fair share of growth. Davis has EXCEEDED
its fair share of growth and yet these politicians are going to test the
resolve of Davis citizens. Keep in mind that Mariko Yamada is running
for Assembly and this is clearly a test of if she is reaching into
developer pockets for campaign money. If she supports having the County consider violating the Pass Through Agreement then clearly, Yamada is a representative for the developers, not the citizens. Keep in mind that
this would mean that The County would legally need to forfeit the $2.4 million dollars per year that Davis currently “passes through” to the County, in exchange for the County honoring the Pass Through agreement (which was just renewed 5 years ago). The excuse being used is that the County needs money for services, yet massive growth would bring yet MORE
financial needs for services, especially since the County would need to forfeit the current $2.4 million/year that Davis currently pays the County.
Please understand that this is a critical meeting. We need you to let
these Supervisors understand that the County needs to let the cities do their own planning and that the County need to honor its agreements.
Please come and speak even if it is only a sentance or two oppose the County considering any of these “study zones” near Davis.
Please come and even if you do not wish to comment you can always say
that you support a previous speaker’s point’s but that we expect the County to honor its’ Pass Through Agreement with Davis and that these parcels should NOT be studied in the County’s General Plan process because Davis deserves the right to determine how and where it will grow
like other cities. More residential is NOT the way to cure financial
problems. The County will only exascerbate its financial problems and it can not “build its way” out of financial problems and in fact would make the financial problems worse by focusing on one-time developer fees! That’s a road to nowhere fast…
Please come to this Tuesday’s July 17 morning meeting (9am the meeting opens but who knows when the cruical item time on the 3 parcels “study” vote will be listed …Why doesn’t the county just come out and say when the item will come up?
Oh well, anyway:
If it was not bad enough that we had a pro-developer
Council majority, now our two County, Supervisors, Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada, are also revealed pro-developer. These two Davis reps have been
brazen enough to consider including in the Yolo County General Plan for
a “study” for development of the 383-acre Covell Village site (AFTER a 60:40 NO vote from Davis citizens just 2 years ago) AND 650 acre of Davis’ Northwest quadrant AND the recent Tsakopoulos 1,500 acre
monstrosity proposal on the south side of I-80 just west of El Macero.
THIS IS BEYOND OUTRAGEOUS AND CLEARLY IN THE BEST INTEREST’S OF THE
DEVELOPERS RATHER THAN THE CITIZEN’S OF DAVIS!!!
To their credit, Supervisor’s Duane Chamberlain and Matt Rexroad oppose development of ag land but Supervisor Mike McGowan has been
pro-developer hisorically, so the outcome of this critical vote by the 5 Yolo County Supervisor’s, is at stake. Your presence is so important to
make clear to Thomson and Yamada that the citizens of Davis DO NOT
support the County doing our city planning for us.
Some points concerned citizens will wish to make at this all-important meeting…:
In fact, this action would violate the Pass-Through agreement that the County has had with Davis for over 20 years, committing the County to not grow on Davis’ borders if Davis fulfilled its fair share of growth. Davis has EXCEEDED
its fair share of growth and yet these politicians are going to test the
resolve of Davis citizens. Keep in mind that Mariko Yamada is running
for Assembly and this is clearly a test of if she is reaching into
developer pockets for campaign money. If she supports having the County consider violating the Pass Through Agreement then clearly, Yamada is a representative for the developers, not the citizens. Keep in mind that
this would mean that The County would legally need to forfeit the $2.4 million dollars per year that Davis currently “passes through” to the County, in exchange for the County honoring the Pass Through agreement (which was just renewed 5 years ago). The excuse being used is that the County needs money for services, yet massive growth would bring yet MORE
financial needs for services, especially since the County would need to forfeit the current $2.4 million/year that Davis currently pays the County.
Please understand that this is a critical meeting. We need you to let
these Supervisors understand that the County needs to let the cities do their own planning and that the County need to honor its agreements.
Please come and speak even if it is only a sentance or two oppose the County considering any of these “study zones” near Davis.
Please come and even if you do not wish to comment you can always say
that you support a previous speaker’s point’s but that we expect the County to honor its’ Pass Through Agreement with Davis and that these parcels should NOT be studied in the County’s General Plan process because Davis deserves the right to determine how and where it will grow
like other cities. More residential is NOT the way to cure financial
problems. The County will only exascerbate its financial problems and it can not “build its way” out of financial problems and in fact would make the financial problems worse by focusing on one-time developer fees! That’s a road to nowhere fast…
Please come to this Tuesday’s July 17 morning meeting (9am the meeting opens but who knows when the cruical item time on the 3 parcels “study” vote will be listed …Why doesn’t the county just come out and say when the item will come up?
Oh well, anyway:
If it was not bad enough that we had a pro-developer
Council majority, now our two County, Supervisors, Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada, are also revealed pro-developer. These two Davis reps have been
brazen enough to consider including in the Yolo County General Plan for
a “study” for development of the 383-acre Covell Village site (AFTER a 60:40 NO vote from Davis citizens just 2 years ago) AND 650 acre of Davis’ Northwest quadrant AND the recent Tsakopoulos 1,500 acre
monstrosity proposal on the south side of I-80 just west of El Macero.
THIS IS BEYOND OUTRAGEOUS AND CLEARLY IN THE BEST INTEREST’S OF THE
DEVELOPERS RATHER THAN THE CITIZEN’S OF DAVIS!!!
To their credit, Supervisor’s Duane Chamberlain and Matt Rexroad oppose development of ag land but Supervisor Mike McGowan has been
pro-developer hisorically, so the outcome of this critical vote by the 5 Yolo County Supervisor’s, is at stake. Your presence is so important to
make clear to Thomson and Yamada that the citizens of Davis DO NOT
support the County doing our city planning for us.
Some points concerned citizens will wish to make at this all-important meeting…:
In fact, this action would violate the Pass-Through agreement that the County has had with Davis for over 20 years, committing the County to not grow on Davis’ borders if Davis fulfilled its fair share of growth. Davis has EXCEEDED
its fair share of growth and yet these politicians are going to test the
resolve of Davis citizens. Keep in mind that Mariko Yamada is running
for Assembly and this is clearly a test of if she is reaching into
developer pockets for campaign money. If she supports having the County consider violating the Pass Through Agreement then clearly, Yamada is a representative for the developers, not the citizens. Keep in mind that
this would mean that The County would legally need to forfeit the $2.4 million dollars per year that Davis currently “passes through” to the County, in exchange for the County honoring the Pass Through agreement (which was just renewed 5 years ago). The excuse being used is that the County needs money for services, yet massive growth would bring yet MORE
financial needs for services, especially since the County would need to forfeit the current $2.4 million/year that Davis currently pays the County.
Please understand that this is a critical meeting. We need you to let
these Supervisors understand that the County needs to let the cities do their own planning and that the County need to honor its agreements.
Please come and speak even if it is only a sentance or two oppose the County considering any of these “study zones” near Davis.
Please come and even if you do not wish to comment you can always say
that you support a previous speaker’s point’s but that we expect the County to honor its’ Pass Through Agreement with Davis and that these parcels should NOT be studied in the County’s General Plan process because Davis deserves the right to determine how and where it will grow
like other cities. More residential is NOT the way to cure financial
problems. The County will only exascerbate its financial problems and it can not “build its way” out of financial problems and in fact would make the financial problems worse by focusing on one-time developer fees! That’s a road to nowhere fast…
“For instance, in San Luis Obispo County, even the supervisors who live in the rural parts are pro-development. The developers there are Republicans. The Democrats there are slower growth.”
David,
I think if you polled most Democrats in Yolo County, they would be less sympathetic to large peripheral developments (i.e., sprawl) than most similarly polled Republicans. In other words, I am not trying to say the split on the BOS explains a broader partisan divide on this issue.
However, for the reasons I laid out for our county’s supervisors, party or ideology does play a certain role in explaining the difference.
Regarding SLO, I would guess that the difference is that the farm economy is structured differently. I just don’t know enough about SLO to say how. But here, the farmers as a group 1) tend to be Republicans, 2) many of them lease a good portion of their land (even if they own other farm land) and
3) because so many do rent land, farmers here on the whole don’t have a stake in converting farm land into housing.
With regard to urban Democrats on the SLO county board, I don’t know. I would guess that city council people in SLO would be like most Davis Democrats. But if that county government is desperate for money, then it would not surprise me to find that Democratic SLO supes would be willing to make trade-offs to fund county welfare programs.
“For instance, in San Luis Obispo County, even the supervisors who live in the rural parts are pro-development. The developers there are Republicans. The Democrats there are slower growth.”
David,
I think if you polled most Democrats in Yolo County, they would be less sympathetic to large peripheral developments (i.e., sprawl) than most similarly polled Republicans. In other words, I am not trying to say the split on the BOS explains a broader partisan divide on this issue.
However, for the reasons I laid out for our county’s supervisors, party or ideology does play a certain role in explaining the difference.
Regarding SLO, I would guess that the difference is that the farm economy is structured differently. I just don’t know enough about SLO to say how. But here, the farmers as a group 1) tend to be Republicans, 2) many of them lease a good portion of their land (even if they own other farm land) and
3) because so many do rent land, farmers here on the whole don’t have a stake in converting farm land into housing.
With regard to urban Democrats on the SLO county board, I don’t know. I would guess that city council people in SLO would be like most Davis Democrats. But if that county government is desperate for money, then it would not surprise me to find that Democratic SLO supes would be willing to make trade-offs to fund county welfare programs.
“For instance, in San Luis Obispo County, even the supervisors who live in the rural parts are pro-development. The developers there are Republicans. The Democrats there are slower growth.”
David,
I think if you polled most Democrats in Yolo County, they would be less sympathetic to large peripheral developments (i.e., sprawl) than most similarly polled Republicans. In other words, I am not trying to say the split on the BOS explains a broader partisan divide on this issue.
However, for the reasons I laid out for our county’s supervisors, party or ideology does play a certain role in explaining the difference.
Regarding SLO, I would guess that the difference is that the farm economy is structured differently. I just don’t know enough about SLO to say how. But here, the farmers as a group 1) tend to be Republicans, 2) many of them lease a good portion of their land (even if they own other farm land) and
3) because so many do rent land, farmers here on the whole don’t have a stake in converting farm land into housing.
With regard to urban Democrats on the SLO county board, I don’t know. I would guess that city council people in SLO would be like most Davis Democrats. But if that county government is desperate for money, then it would not surprise me to find that Democratic SLO supes would be willing to make trade-offs to fund county welfare programs.
“For instance, in San Luis Obispo County, even the supervisors who live in the rural parts are pro-development. The developers there are Republicans. The Democrats there are slower growth.”
David,
I think if you polled most Democrats in Yolo County, they would be less sympathetic to large peripheral developments (i.e., sprawl) than most similarly polled Republicans. In other words, I am not trying to say the split on the BOS explains a broader partisan divide on this issue.
However, for the reasons I laid out for our county’s supervisors, party or ideology does play a certain role in explaining the difference.
Regarding SLO, I would guess that the difference is that the farm economy is structured differently. I just don’t know enough about SLO to say how. But here, the farmers as a group 1) tend to be Republicans, 2) many of them lease a good portion of their land (even if they own other farm land) and
3) because so many do rent land, farmers here on the whole don’t have a stake in converting farm land into housing.
With regard to urban Democrats on the SLO county board, I don’t know. I would guess that city council people in SLO would be like most Davis Democrats. But if that county government is desperate for money, then it would not surprise me to find that Democratic SLO supes would be willing to make trade-offs to fund county welfare programs.
“Moreover, all Davis residents with concerns about this process should go to the meeting on July 17, 2007 to voice those concerns.”
How are we supposed to do that? Don’t they usually meet in the evenings?
“Moreover, all Davis residents with concerns about this process should go to the meeting on July 17, 2007 to voice those concerns.”
How are we supposed to do that? Don’t they usually meet in the evenings?
“Moreover, all Davis residents with concerns about this process should go to the meeting on July 17, 2007 to voice those concerns.”
How are we supposed to do that? Don’t they usually meet in the evenings?
“Moreover, all Davis residents with concerns about this process should go to the meeting on July 17, 2007 to voice those concerns.”
How are we supposed to do that? Don’t they usually meet in the evenings?
“The bottom line here is that unless the homebuilders want to sit on more inventory they can’t sell ….”
I think that we will see an attempt to lay the ground-work for an uncontrollable future development deluge. Our current Council majority no doubt has been given the “green light” by their developer patrons to play it cool as it is not profitable to be building houses now. This is a time to be especially vigilant …wolves in sheep’s clothing are still wolves,after all.
“The bottom line here is that unless the homebuilders want to sit on more inventory they can’t sell ….”
I think that we will see an attempt to lay the ground-work for an uncontrollable future development deluge. Our current Council majority no doubt has been given the “green light” by their developer patrons to play it cool as it is not profitable to be building houses now. This is a time to be especially vigilant …wolves in sheep’s clothing are still wolves,after all.
“The bottom line here is that unless the homebuilders want to sit on more inventory they can’t sell ….”
I think that we will see an attempt to lay the ground-work for an uncontrollable future development deluge. Our current Council majority no doubt has been given the “green light” by their developer patrons to play it cool as it is not profitable to be building houses now. This is a time to be especially vigilant …wolves in sheep’s clothing are still wolves,after all.
“The bottom line here is that unless the homebuilders want to sit on more inventory they can’t sell ….”
I think that we will see an attempt to lay the ground-work for an uncontrollable future development deluge. Our current Council majority no doubt has been given the “green light” by their developer patrons to play it cool as it is not profitable to be building houses now. This is a time to be especially vigilant …wolves in sheep’s clothing are still wolves,after all.
Don’t they usually meet in the evenings?
Nope.. they meet during normal working hours. Your willing to give up a days pay for this right !!.
Don’t they usually meet in the evenings?
Nope.. they meet during normal working hours. Your willing to give up a days pay for this right !!.
Don’t they usually meet in the evenings?
Nope.. they meet during normal working hours. Your willing to give up a days pay for this right !!.
Don’t they usually meet in the evenings?
Nope.. they meet during normal working hours. Your willing to give up a days pay for this right !!.
Saylor balked at going “nuclear” as he put it and clearly stating in the letter to the BOS that Davis will consider the pass-through agreement violated and stop payment of the 2.4 million dollars to the County. I would add going “thermonuclear” and demanding that our current and candidate Council members take a clear position on Davis withholding hook-up to any County development on our periphery that is not approved for annexation by the voters of Davis.
Saylor balked at going “nuclear” as he put it and clearly stating in the letter to the BOS that Davis will consider the pass-through agreement violated and stop payment of the 2.4 million dollars to the County. I would add going “thermonuclear” and demanding that our current and candidate Council members take a clear position on Davis withholding hook-up to any County development on our periphery that is not approved for annexation by the voters of Davis.
Saylor balked at going “nuclear” as he put it and clearly stating in the letter to the BOS that Davis will consider the pass-through agreement violated and stop payment of the 2.4 million dollars to the County. I would add going “thermonuclear” and demanding that our current and candidate Council members take a clear position on Davis withholding hook-up to any County development on our periphery that is not approved for annexation by the voters of Davis.
Saylor balked at going “nuclear” as he put it and clearly stating in the letter to the BOS that Davis will consider the pass-through agreement violated and stop payment of the 2.4 million dollars to the County. I would add going “thermonuclear” and demanding that our current and candidate Council members take a clear position on Davis withholding hook-up to any County development on our periphery that is not approved for annexation by the voters of Davis.
“Rob The (Loquaciously) Returned” wrote:
“BTW, telling me to “love it or leave it” (another post) tells me you are not listening to anything but opinions and ideas that conform to your own. So why even bother to post? It also speaks to a certain dangerous and ultimately un-productive brew of chauvanism, fear and nostalgia.”
Rob, don’t see the particular post you cite, “love it or leave it,” on this thread. But, since you graced us with its resurrection re: a small Central Valley town, wasn’t that the slogan of hard-hearted Nixon supporters, circa 1969? Dating yourself, dude. I saw it on a frayed bumper-sticker about 1974, just after Nixon rode his helicopter off in the sunset…
As for “why bother to post” hm,
reads sorta like you advocate censorship of opinions that don’t fit with your own…you oughta get up to date here as far as being “clear on the concept” of what this blog is about: the free expression of ideas.
Reread your Bill of Rights, Rob
“Rob The (Loquaciously) Returned” wrote:
“BTW, telling me to “love it or leave it” (another post) tells me you are not listening to anything but opinions and ideas that conform to your own. So why even bother to post? It also speaks to a certain dangerous and ultimately un-productive brew of chauvanism, fear and nostalgia.”
Rob, don’t see the particular post you cite, “love it or leave it,” on this thread. But, since you graced us with its resurrection re: a small Central Valley town, wasn’t that the slogan of hard-hearted Nixon supporters, circa 1969? Dating yourself, dude. I saw it on a frayed bumper-sticker about 1974, just after Nixon rode his helicopter off in the sunset…
As for “why bother to post” hm,
reads sorta like you advocate censorship of opinions that don’t fit with your own…you oughta get up to date here as far as being “clear on the concept” of what this blog is about: the free expression of ideas.
Reread your Bill of Rights, Rob
“Rob The (Loquaciously) Returned” wrote:
“BTW, telling me to “love it or leave it” (another post) tells me you are not listening to anything but opinions and ideas that conform to your own. So why even bother to post? It also speaks to a certain dangerous and ultimately un-productive brew of chauvanism, fear and nostalgia.”
Rob, don’t see the particular post you cite, “love it or leave it,” on this thread. But, since you graced us with its resurrection re: a small Central Valley town, wasn’t that the slogan of hard-hearted Nixon supporters, circa 1969? Dating yourself, dude. I saw it on a frayed bumper-sticker about 1974, just after Nixon rode his helicopter off in the sunset…
As for “why bother to post” hm,
reads sorta like you advocate censorship of opinions that don’t fit with your own…you oughta get up to date here as far as being “clear on the concept” of what this blog is about: the free expression of ideas.
Reread your Bill of Rights, Rob
“Rob The (Loquaciously) Returned” wrote:
“BTW, telling me to “love it or leave it” (another post) tells me you are not listening to anything but opinions and ideas that conform to your own. So why even bother to post? It also speaks to a certain dangerous and ultimately un-productive brew of chauvanism, fear and nostalgia.”
Rob, don’t see the particular post you cite, “love it or leave it,” on this thread. But, since you graced us with its resurrection re: a small Central Valley town, wasn’t that the slogan of hard-hearted Nixon supporters, circa 1969? Dating yourself, dude. I saw it on a frayed bumper-sticker about 1974, just after Nixon rode his helicopter off in the sunset…
As for “why bother to post” hm,
reads sorta like you advocate censorship of opinions that don’t fit with your own…you oughta get up to date here as far as being “clear on the concept” of what this blog is about: the free expression of ideas.
Reread your Bill of Rights, Rob
Hypocrisy abounds on this one. I recall Sue Greenwald supported a Research Park development on I-80 at essentially the same place as Tskapolous is pushing now. It was then owned by PG&E Properties and Jeanne Jones was the lead person selling the PG&E project and now Jones is working for Tsakopolous trying to sell essentially the same deal to the county.
Now Sue Greenwald wants to recall Mariko Yamada for supporting a study of the very same idea Sue backed before! Completely hypocritical and nuts! Is it because it’s not Sue’s idea this time? Sue never likes any ideas unless they’re her own. And she never listens to anyone else. That’s the heart of the problem. This should be worked out between the city and county. Mariko is a reasonable and rationale person. Sue is not. Thus the crisis. This is Mariko’s district and Helen Thomson wouldn’t support a study if Mariko didn’t. It’s up to Mariko to work it out with the Council, but that’s a tall order considering the childish poisonous atmsophere and lack of collegiality on the council. At least the Supervisors are grown-ups and get along with each other, even when they disagree.
Hypocrisy abounds on this one. I recall Sue Greenwald supported a Research Park development on I-80 at essentially the same place as Tskapolous is pushing now. It was then owned by PG&E Properties and Jeanne Jones was the lead person selling the PG&E project and now Jones is working for Tsakopolous trying to sell essentially the same deal to the county.
Now Sue Greenwald wants to recall Mariko Yamada for supporting a study of the very same idea Sue backed before! Completely hypocritical and nuts! Is it because it’s not Sue’s idea this time? Sue never likes any ideas unless they’re her own. And she never listens to anyone else. That’s the heart of the problem. This should be worked out between the city and county. Mariko is a reasonable and rationale person. Sue is not. Thus the crisis. This is Mariko’s district and Helen Thomson wouldn’t support a study if Mariko didn’t. It’s up to Mariko to work it out with the Council, but that’s a tall order considering the childish poisonous atmsophere and lack of collegiality on the council. At least the Supervisors are grown-ups and get along with each other, even when they disagree.
Hypocrisy abounds on this one. I recall Sue Greenwald supported a Research Park development on I-80 at essentially the same place as Tskapolous is pushing now. It was then owned by PG&E Properties and Jeanne Jones was the lead person selling the PG&E project and now Jones is working for Tsakopolous trying to sell essentially the same deal to the county.
Now Sue Greenwald wants to recall Mariko Yamada for supporting a study of the very same idea Sue backed before! Completely hypocritical and nuts! Is it because it’s not Sue’s idea this time? Sue never likes any ideas unless they’re her own. And she never listens to anyone else. That’s the heart of the problem. This should be worked out between the city and county. Mariko is a reasonable and rationale person. Sue is not. Thus the crisis. This is Mariko’s district and Helen Thomson wouldn’t support a study if Mariko didn’t. It’s up to Mariko to work it out with the Council, but that’s a tall order considering the childish poisonous atmsophere and lack of collegiality on the council. At least the Supervisors are grown-ups and get along with each other, even when they disagree.
Hypocrisy abounds on this one. I recall Sue Greenwald supported a Research Park development on I-80 at essentially the same place as Tskapolous is pushing now. It was then owned by PG&E Properties and Jeanne Jones was the lead person selling the PG&E project and now Jones is working for Tsakopolous trying to sell essentially the same deal to the county.
Now Sue Greenwald wants to recall Mariko Yamada for supporting a study of the very same idea Sue backed before! Completely hypocritical and nuts! Is it because it’s not Sue’s idea this time? Sue never likes any ideas unless they’re her own. And she never listens to anyone else. That’s the heart of the problem. This should be worked out between the city and county. Mariko is a reasonable and rationale person. Sue is not. Thus the crisis. This is Mariko’s district and Helen Thomson wouldn’t support a study if Mariko didn’t. It’s up to Mariko to work it out with the Council, but that’s a tall order considering the childish poisonous atmsophere and lack of collegiality on the council. At least the Supervisors are grown-ups and get along with each other, even when they disagree.
In fairness (mild) to Sue, you have to throw in Oeste and Covell too and assume her actions are in least in part due to the totality of the development proposal, not that I support the recall.
In fairness (mild) to Sue, you have to throw in Oeste and Covell too and assume her actions are in least in part due to the totality of the development proposal, not that I support the recall.
In fairness (mild) to Sue, you have to throw in Oeste and Covell too and assume her actions are in least in part due to the totality of the development proposal, not that I support the recall.
In fairness (mild) to Sue, you have to throw in Oeste and Covell too and assume her actions are in least in part due to the totality of the development proposal, not that I support the recall.
There is no hypocricy here. Sue Greenwald has been a consistent and tireless defender of Davis’ RIGHT to chart its own course into the future. Mayor Greenwald claims that Mariko Yamada and Helen Thomson strongly intimated if not clearly stated that it is their intension to neuter our pass-through agreement with the County. This seems to be supported by their Joint-Study plan(purposefully left undefined?) and changing the County’s zoning of the 3 Davis peripheral areas to residential development.
There is no hypocricy here. Sue Greenwald has been a consistent and tireless defender of Davis’ RIGHT to chart its own course into the future. Mayor Greenwald claims that Mariko Yamada and Helen Thomson strongly intimated if not clearly stated that it is their intension to neuter our pass-through agreement with the County. This seems to be supported by their Joint-Study plan(purposefully left undefined?) and changing the County’s zoning of the 3 Davis peripheral areas to residential development.
There is no hypocricy here. Sue Greenwald has been a consistent and tireless defender of Davis’ RIGHT to chart its own course into the future. Mayor Greenwald claims that Mariko Yamada and Helen Thomson strongly intimated if not clearly stated that it is their intension to neuter our pass-through agreement with the County. This seems to be supported by their Joint-Study plan(purposefully left undefined?) and changing the County’s zoning of the 3 Davis peripheral areas to residential development.
There is no hypocricy here. Sue Greenwald has been a consistent and tireless defender of Davis’ RIGHT to chart its own course into the future. Mayor Greenwald claims that Mariko Yamada and Helen Thomson strongly intimated if not clearly stated that it is their intension to neuter our pass-through agreement with the County. This seems to be supported by their Joint-Study plan(purposefully left undefined?) and changing the County’s zoning of the 3 Davis peripheral areas to residential development.
in reference to the above, development is a net revenue loss due to costs of services, look no further than the west village dicussio.
in reference to the above, development is a net revenue loss due to costs of services, look no further than the west village dicussio.
in reference to the above, development is a net revenue loss due to costs of services, look no further than the west village dicussio.
in reference to the above, development is a net revenue loss due to costs of services, look no further than the west village dicussio.
Yamada and Thomson have NEVER expressed any desire to “neuter” the pass-through agreement. They have talked about renegotiating a better deal, one that would get the county more revenue to provide social services – health care for children, mental health, etc. That’s what any responsible person in their shoes should do. Sue Greenwald is simply incapable of sitting down and having a rational discussion about these things. The city should appoint Lamar Heystek and Steve Souza to represent the council and work something out with Yamada and Thomosn. I’m sure they could do it.
Yamada and Thomson have NEVER expressed any desire to “neuter” the pass-through agreement. They have talked about renegotiating a better deal, one that would get the county more revenue to provide social services – health care for children, mental health, etc. That’s what any responsible person in their shoes should do. Sue Greenwald is simply incapable of sitting down and having a rational discussion about these things. The city should appoint Lamar Heystek and Steve Souza to represent the council and work something out with Yamada and Thomosn. I’m sure they could do it.
Yamada and Thomson have NEVER expressed any desire to “neuter” the pass-through agreement. They have talked about renegotiating a better deal, one that would get the county more revenue to provide social services – health care for children, mental health, etc. That’s what any responsible person in their shoes should do. Sue Greenwald is simply incapable of sitting down and having a rational discussion about these things. The city should appoint Lamar Heystek and Steve Souza to represent the council and work something out with Yamada and Thomosn. I’m sure they could do it.
Yamada and Thomson have NEVER expressed any desire to “neuter” the pass-through agreement. They have talked about renegotiating a better deal, one that would get the county more revenue to provide social services – health care for children, mental health, etc. That’s what any responsible person in their shoes should do. Sue Greenwald is simply incapable of sitting down and having a rational discussion about these things. The city should appoint Lamar Heystek and Steve Souza to represent the council and work something out with Yamada and Thomosn. I’m sure they could do it.
I’ll stick with Sue Greenwald to defend Davis’ right to chart its future. I think that she recognizes that her political career and legacy rest here in Davis.
I’ll stick with Sue Greenwald to defend Davis’ right to chart its future. I think that she recognizes that her political career and legacy rest here in Davis.
I’ll stick with Sue Greenwald to defend Davis’ right to chart its future. I think that she recognizes that her political career and legacy rest here in Davis.
I’ll stick with Sue Greenwald to defend Davis’ right to chart its future. I think that she recognizes that her political career and legacy rest here in Davis.
“The city should appoint Lamar Heystek and Steve Souza to represent the council and work something out with Yamada and Thomosn. I’m sure they could do it..”
Souza??… talk about putting the fox in the henhouse.
“The city should appoint Lamar Heystek and Steve Souza to represent the council and work something out with Yamada and Thomosn. I’m sure they could do it..”
Souza??… talk about putting the fox in the henhouse.
“The city should appoint Lamar Heystek and Steve Souza to represent the council and work something out with Yamada and Thomosn. I’m sure they could do it..”
Souza??… talk about putting the fox in the henhouse.
“The city should appoint Lamar Heystek and Steve Souza to represent the council and work something out with Yamada and Thomosn. I’m sure they could do it..”
Souza??… talk about putting the fox in the henhouse.
“They have talked about renegotiating a better deal, one that would get the county more revenue to provide social services – “
How about rezoning on West Sac, Woodland and Winters peripheries for residential development and then “suggesting” that these cities negotiate a pass-through agreement of their own with the County?… or are their representing Supervisors not lame-ducks?
“They have talked about renegotiating a better deal, one that would get the county more revenue to provide social services – “
How about rezoning on West Sac, Woodland and Winters peripheries for residential development and then “suggesting” that these cities negotiate a pass-through agreement of their own with the County?… or are their representing Supervisors not lame-ducks?
“They have talked about renegotiating a better deal, one that would get the county more revenue to provide social services – “
How about rezoning on West Sac, Woodland and Winters peripheries for residential development and then “suggesting” that these cities negotiate a pass-through agreement of their own with the County?… or are their representing Supervisors not lame-ducks?
“They have talked about renegotiating a better deal, one that would get the county more revenue to provide social services – “
How about rezoning on West Sac, Woodland and Winters peripheries for residential development and then “suggesting” that these cities negotiate a pass-through agreement of their own with the County?… or are their representing Supervisors not lame-ducks?
Dear Curious these other communities have annexed where appropriate. Only Davis has measure J and the level of nimbyism required to make anyone who wants a house or anyone wanting to build that house avoid dealing with the city.
Dear Curious these other communities have annexed where appropriate. Only Davis has measure J and the level of nimbyism required to make anyone who wants a house or anyone wanting to build that house avoid dealing with the city.
Dear Curious these other communities have annexed where appropriate. Only Davis has measure J and the level of nimbyism required to make anyone who wants a house or anyone wanting to build that house avoid dealing with the city.
Dear Curious these other communities have annexed where appropriate. Only Davis has measure J and the level of nimbyism required to make anyone who wants a house or anyone wanting to build that house avoid dealing with the city.
Fractured Franchise
Are the wrong people voting?
New York, July 9, 2007
Why should anyone bother to vote? The chance that one vote will change the outcome of an election is virtually nil, and going to the polls involves a significant cost in time and opportunity. Presidential elections, in which more than a hundred million people vote, never turn on a single ballot. The lesson of the 2000 Presidential election was not “Your vote can make the difference”; it was more like “If you’re taking the trouble to vote, at least fill in the ballot correctly.” Yet many people do bother to vote. We praise these people, and we encourage non-voting citizens to follow their example. We tend to feel that political participation is an unmixed good, a symptom of civic health and virtue.
Bryan Caplan, an economist who teaches at George Mason University, thinks that increasing voter participation is a bad thing. He thinks, in fact, that the present level of voter participation—about fifty per cent of the electorate votes in Presidential elections, a much lower percentage than in most democracies, as Americans are frequently reminded—is a bad thing.
Caplan is the sort of economist (are there other sorts? there must be) who engages with the views of non-economists in the way a bulldozer would engage with a picket fence if a bulldozer could express glee. The cover illustration of his new book, “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Politics” (Princeton; $29.95), shows a flock of sheep. This is meant to symbolize the voting public. It looks like a flock of cloned sheep, too.
The average voter is not held in much esteem by economists and political scientists, and Caplan rehearses some of the reasons for this. The argument of his book, though, is that economists and political scientists have misunderstood the problem. They think that most voters are ignorant about political issues; Caplan thinks that most voters are wrong about the issues, which is a different matter, and that their wrong ideas lead to policies that make society as a whole worse off. We tend to assume that if the government enacts bad policies, it’s because the system isn’t working properly—and it isn’t working properly because voters are poorly informed, or they’re subject to demagoguery, or special interests thwart the public’s interest. Caplan thinks that these conditions are endemic to democracy. They are not distortions of the process; they are what you would expect to find in a system designed to serve the wishes of the people. “Democracy fails,” he says, “because it does what voters want.” It is sometimes said that the best cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy. Caplan thinks that the best cure is less democracy. He doesn’t quite say that the world ought to be run by economists, but he comes pretty close.
The political knowledge of the average voter has been tested repeatedly, and the scores are impressively low. In polls taken since 1945, a majority of Americans have been unable to name a single branch of government, define the terms “liberal” and “conservative,” and explain what the Bill of Rights is. More than two-thirds have reported that they do not know the substance of Roe v. Wade and what the Food and Drug Administration does. Nearly half do not know that states have two senators and three-quarters do not know the length of a Senate term. More than fifty per cent of Americans cannot name their congressman; forty per cent cannot name either of their senators. Voters’ notions of government spending are wildly distorted: the public believes that foreign aid consumes twenty-four per cent of the federal budget, for example, though it actually consumes about one per cent.
Even apart from ignorance of the basic facts, most people simply do not think politically. They cannot see, for example, that the opinion that taxes should be lower is incompatible with the opinion that there should be more government programs. Their grasp of terms such as “affirmative action” and “welfare” is perilously uncertain: if you ask people whether they favor spending more on welfare, most say no; if you ask whether they favor spending more on assistance to the poor, most say yes. And, over time, individuals give different answers to the same questions about their political opinions. People simply do not spend much time learning about political issues or thinking through their own positions. They may have opinions—if asked whether they are in favor of capital punishment or free-trade agreements, most people will give an answer—but the opinions are not based on information or derived from a coherent political philosophy. They are largely attitudinal and ad hoc.
For fifty years, it has been standard to explain voter ignorance in economic terms. Caplan cites Anthony Downs’s “An Economic Theory of Democracy” (1957): “It is irrational to be politically well-informed because the low returns from data simply do not justify their cost in time and other resources.” In other words, it isn’t worth my while to spend time and energy acquiring information about candidates and issues, because my vote can’t change the outcome. I would not buy a car or a house without doing due diligence, because I pay a price if I make the wrong choice. But if I had voted for the candidate I did not prefer in every Presidential election since I began voting, it would have made no difference to me (or to anyone else). It would have made no difference if I had not voted at all. This doesn’t mean that I won’t vote, or that, when I do vote, I won’t care about the outcome. It only means that I have no incentive to learn more about the candidates or the issues, because the price of my ignorance is essentially zero. According to this economic model, people aren’t ignorant about politics because they’re stupid; they’re ignorant because they’re rational. If everyone doesn’t vote, then the system doesn’t work. But if I don’t vote, the system works just fine. So I find more productive ways to spend my time.
Political scientists have proposed various theories aimed at salvaging some dignity for the democratic process. One is that elections are decided by the ten per cent or so of the electorate who are informed and have coherent political views. In this theory, the votes of the uninformed cancel each other out, since their choices are effectively random: they are flipping a coin. So candidates pitch their appeals to the informed voters, who decide on the merits, and this makes the outcome of an election politically meaningful. Another argument is that the average voter uses “shortcuts” to reach a decision about which candidate to vote for. The political party is an obvious shortcut: if you have decided that you prefer Democrats, you don’t really need more information to cast your ballot. Shortcuts can take other forms as well: the comments of a co-worker or a relative with a reputation for political wisdom, or a news item or photograph (John Kerry windsurfing) that can be used to make a quick-and-dirty calculation about whether the candidate is someone you should support. (People argue about how valid these shortcuts are as substitutes for fuller information, of course.)
There is also the theory of what Caplan calls the Miracle of Aggregation. As James Surowiecki illustrates in “The Wisdom of Crowds” (2004), a large number of people with partial information and varying degrees of intelligence and expertise will collectively reach better or more accurate results than will a small number of like-minded, highly intelligent experts. Stock prices work this way, but so can many other things, such as determining the odds in sports gambling, guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar, and analyzing intelligence. An individual voter has limited amounts of information and political sense, but a hundred million voters, each with a different amount of information and political sense, will produce the “right” result. Then, there is the theory that people vote the same way that they act in the marketplace: they pursue their self-interest. In the market, selfish behavior conduces to the general good, and the same should be true for elections.
Caplan thinks that democracy as it is now practiced cannot be salvaged, and his position is based on a simple observation: “Democracy is a commons, not a market.” A commons is an unregulated public resource—in the classic example, in Garrett Hardin’s essay “The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968), it is literally a commons, a public pasture on which anyone may graze his cattle. It is in the interest of each herdsman to graze as many of his own cattle as he can, since the resource is free, but too many cattle will result in overgrazing and the destruction of the pasture. So the pursuit of individual self-interest leads to a loss for everyone. (The subject Hardin was addressing was population growth: someone may be concerned about overpopulation but still decide to have another child, since the cost to the individual of adding one more person to the planet is much less than the benefit of having the child.)
Caplan rejects the assumption that voters pay no attention to politics and have no real views. He thinks that voters do have views, and that they are, basically, prejudices. He calls these views “irrational,” because, once they are translated into policy, they make everyone worse off. People not only hold irrational views, he thinks; they like their irrational views. In the language of economics, they have “demand for irrationality” curves: they will give up y amount of wealth in order to consume x amount of irrationality. Since voting carries no cost, people are free to be as irrational as they like. They can ignore the consequences, just as the herdsman can ignore the consequences of putting one more cow on the public pasture. “Voting is not a slight variation on shopping,” as Caplan puts it. “Shoppers have incentives to be rational. Voters do not.”
Caplan suspects that voters cherish irrational views on many issues, but he discusses only views relevant to economic policy. The average person, he says, has four biases about economics—four main areas in which he or she differs from the economic expert. The typical noneconomist does not understand or appreciate the way markets work (and thus favors regulation and is suspicious of the profit motive), dislikes foreigners (and thus tends to be protectionist), equates prosperity with employment rather than with production (and thus overvalues the preservation of existing jobs), and usually thinks that economic conditions are getting worse (and thus favors government intervention in the economy). Economists know that these positions are irrational, because the average person actually benefits from market competition, which provides the best product at the lowest price; from free trade with other countries, which (for American consumers) usually lowers the cost of labor and thus the price of goods; and from technological change, which redistributes labor from less productive to more productive enterprises.
The economic biases of the non-economist form a secular world view that people cling to dogmatically, the way they once clung to their religious faith, Caplan thinks. People do not, he proposes, vote their self-interest: they are much more altruistic than the standard model, in which voters behave like shoppers, predicts. (This explains the phenomenon, puzzling to many social critics, of the auto worker who supports the elimination of the inheritance tax and the Hollywood producer who favors its retention.) “Precisely because people put personal interests aside when they enter the political arena,” Caplan says, “intellectual errors readily blossom into foolish policies.” People really believe that the country would be better off if profits were regulated, if foreign goods were taxed, and if companies were prevented from downsizing. Politicians who pander to these beliefs are more likely to be elected, and the special interests that lobby for protectionism and anticompetitive legislation are the beneficiaries—not the public. The result, over time, is a decline in the standard of living.
Caplan insists that he is not a market fundamentalist, but he does think that most economists peg the optimal level of government involvement in the economy too high, because they overestimate the virtues of democracy. He offers some suggestions for fixing the evils of universal democratic participation (though he does not spend much time elaborating on them, for reasons that may suggest themselves to you when you read them): require voters to pass a test for economic competence; give extra votes to people with greater economic literacy; reduce or eliminate efforts to increase voter turnout; require more economics courses in school, even if this means eliminating courses in other subjects, such as classics; teach people introductory economics without making the usual qualifications about the limits of market solutions. His general feeling is that if the country were run according to the beliefs of professional economists everyone would be better off. Short of that consummation, he favors whatever means are necessary to get everyone who votes to think like a professional economist. He wants to raise the price of voting.
It is not clear whether “The Myth of the Rational Voter” is intended merely to be provocative (a motive that has been known to get other economists in big trouble) or whether its recommendations for changing the rules for political participation are to be taken seriously (and by whom?). The book is, in part, a challenge to some of the assumptions made about voting behavior in the academic field known as public choice theory. Caplan has assembled a lot of data that reveal significant disparities between the average person’s views on economic questions and the views of professional economists: the public thinks that the price of gasoline is too high, for instance, but most economists think it is about right or too low; the public thinks that most new jobs being created in the United States are low-paying, but economists disagree; the public thinks that top executives are overpaid, and economists do not. Caplan’s point is that voters’ views on the economy are not random, the result of “rational ignorance”; they reflect systematic biases caused by an erroneous understanding of the way economies work.
But, as Caplan certainly knows, though he does not give sufficient weight to it, the problem, if it is a problem, is more deeply rooted. It’s not a matter of information, or the lack of it; it’s a matter of psychology. Most people do not think politically, and they do not think like economists, either. People exaggerate the risk of loss; they like the status quo and tend to regard it as a norm; they overreact to sensational but unrepresentative information (the shark-attack phenomenon); they will pay extravagantly to punish cheaters, even when there is no benefit to themselves; and they often rank fairness and reciprocity ahead of self-interest. Most people, even if you explained to them what the economically rational choice was, would be reluctant to make it, because they value other things—in particular, they want to protect themselves from the downside of change. They would rather feel good about themselves than maximize (even legitimately) their profit, and they would rather not have more of something than run the risk, even if the risk is small by actuarial standards, of having significantly less.
People are less modern than the times in which they live, in other words, and the failure to comprehend this is what can make economists seem like happy bulldozers. “After technology throws people out of work, they have an incentive to find a new use for their talents,” Caplan says, discussing the bias that non-economists have in favor of employment over productivity. “Downsizing superfluous workers leads them to search for more socially productive ways to apply their abilities.” This process, he explains, is known as “churn.” (Donald Trump: “You’re churned!” Doesn’t sound the same.) It’s not hard to understand why the average person might contemplate job loss with less equanimity.
Negotiating the tension between “rational” policy choices and “irrational” preferences and anxieties—between the desirability of more productivity and the desire to preserve a way of life—is what democratic politics is all about. It is a messy negotiation. Having the franchise be universal makes it even messier. If all policy decisions were straightforward economic calculations, it might be simpler and better for everyone if only people who had a grasp of economics participated in the political process. But many policy decisions don’t have an optimal answer. They involve values that are deeply contested: when life begins, whether liberty is more important than equality, how racial integration is best achieved (and what would count as genuine integration).
In the end, the group that loses these contests must abide by the outcome, must regard the wishes of the majority as legitimate. The only way it can be expected to do so is if it has been made to feel that it had a voice in the process, even if that voice is, in practical terms, symbolic. A great virtue of democratic polities is stability. The toleration of silly opinions is (to speak like an economist) a small price to pay for it.
Fractured Franchise
Are the wrong people voting?
New York, July 9, 2007
Why should anyone bother to vote? The chance that one vote will change the outcome of an election is virtually nil, and going to the polls involves a significant cost in time and opportunity. Presidential elections, in which more than a hundred million people vote, never turn on a single ballot. The lesson of the 2000 Presidential election was not “Your vote can make the difference”; it was more like “If you’re taking the trouble to vote, at least fill in the ballot correctly.” Yet many people do bother to vote. We praise these people, and we encourage non-voting citizens to follow their example. We tend to feel that political participation is an unmixed good, a symptom of civic health and virtue.
Bryan Caplan, an economist who teaches at George Mason University, thinks that increasing voter participation is a bad thing. He thinks, in fact, that the present level of voter participation—about fifty per cent of the electorate votes in Presidential elections, a much lower percentage than in most democracies, as Americans are frequently reminded—is a bad thing.
Caplan is the sort of economist (are there other sorts? there must be) who engages with the views of non-economists in the way a bulldozer would engage with a picket fence if a bulldozer could express glee. The cover illustration of his new book, “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Politics” (Princeton; $29.95), shows a flock of sheep. This is meant to symbolize the voting public. It looks like a flock of cloned sheep, too.
The average voter is not held in much esteem by economists and political scientists, and Caplan rehearses some of the reasons for this. The argument of his book, though, is that economists and political scientists have misunderstood the problem. They think that most voters are ignorant about political issues; Caplan thinks that most voters are wrong about the issues, which is a different matter, and that their wrong ideas lead to policies that make society as a whole worse off. We tend to assume that if the government enacts bad policies, it’s because the system isn’t working properly—and it isn’t working properly because voters are poorly informed, or they’re subject to demagoguery, or special interests thwart the public’s interest. Caplan thinks that these conditions are endemic to democracy. They are not distortions of the process; they are what you would expect to find in a system designed to serve the wishes of the people. “Democracy fails,” he says, “because it does what voters want.” It is sometimes said that the best cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy. Caplan thinks that the best cure is less democracy. He doesn’t quite say that the world ought to be run by economists, but he comes pretty close.
The political knowledge of the average voter has been tested repeatedly, and the scores are impressively low. In polls taken since 1945, a majority of Americans have been unable to name a single branch of government, define the terms “liberal” and “conservative,” and explain what the Bill of Rights is. More than two-thirds have reported that they do not know the substance of Roe v. Wade and what the Food and Drug Administration does. Nearly half do not know that states have two senators and three-quarters do not know the length of a Senate term. More than fifty per cent of Americans cannot name their congressman; forty per cent cannot name either of their senators. Voters’ notions of government spending are wildly distorted: the public believes that foreign aid consumes twenty-four per cent of the federal budget, for example, though it actually consumes about one per cent.
Even apart from ignorance of the basic facts, most people simply do not think politically. They cannot see, for example, that the opinion that taxes should be lower is incompatible with the opinion that there should be more government programs. Their grasp of terms such as “affirmative action” and “welfare” is perilously uncertain: if you ask people whether they favor spending more on welfare, most say no; if you ask whether they favor spending more on assistance to the poor, most say yes. And, over time, individuals give different answers to the same questions about their political opinions. People simply do not spend much time learning about political issues or thinking through their own positions. They may have opinions—if asked whether they are in favor of capital punishment or free-trade agreements, most people will give an answer—but the opinions are not based on information or derived from a coherent political philosophy. They are largely attitudinal and ad hoc.
For fifty years, it has been standard to explain voter ignorance in economic terms. Caplan cites Anthony Downs’s “An Economic Theory of Democracy” (1957): “It is irrational to be politically well-informed because the low returns from data simply do not justify their cost in time and other resources.” In other words, it isn’t worth my while to spend time and energy acquiring information about candidates and issues, because my vote can’t change the outcome. I would not buy a car or a house without doing due diligence, because I pay a price if I make the wrong choice. But if I had voted for the candidate I did not prefer in every Presidential election since I began voting, it would have made no difference to me (or to anyone else). It would have made no difference if I had not voted at all. This doesn’t mean that I won’t vote, or that, when I do vote, I won’t care about the outcome. It only means that I have no incentive to learn more about the candidates or the issues, because the price of my ignorance is essentially zero. According to this economic model, people aren’t ignorant about politics because they’re stupid; they’re ignorant because they’re rational. If everyone doesn’t vote, then the system doesn’t work. But if I don’t vote, the system works just fine. So I find more productive ways to spend my time.
Political scientists have proposed various theories aimed at salvaging some dignity for the democratic process. One is that elections are decided by the ten per cent or so of the electorate who are informed and have coherent political views. In this theory, the votes of the uninformed cancel each other out, since their choices are effectively random: they are flipping a coin. So candidates pitch their appeals to the informed voters, who decide on the merits, and this makes the outcome of an election politically meaningful. Another argument is that the average voter uses “shortcuts” to reach a decision about which candidate to vote for. The political party is an obvious shortcut: if you have decided that you prefer Democrats, you don’t really need more information to cast your ballot. Shortcuts can take other forms as well: the comments of a co-worker or a relative with a reputation for political wisdom, or a news item or photograph (John Kerry windsurfing) that can be used to make a quick-and-dirty calculation about whether the candidate is someone you should support. (People argue about how valid these shortcuts are as substitutes for fuller information, of course.)
There is also the theory of what Caplan calls the Miracle of Aggregation. As James Surowiecki illustrates in “The Wisdom of Crowds” (2004), a large number of people with partial information and varying degrees of intelligence and expertise will collectively reach better or more accurate results than will a small number of like-minded, highly intelligent experts. Stock prices work this way, but so can many other things, such as determining the odds in sports gambling, guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar, and analyzing intelligence. An individual voter has limited amounts of information and political sense, but a hundred million voters, each with a different amount of information and political sense, will produce the “right” result. Then, there is the theory that people vote the same way that they act in the marketplace: they pursue their self-interest. In the market, selfish behavior conduces to the general good, and the same should be true for elections.
Caplan thinks that democracy as it is now practiced cannot be salvaged, and his position is based on a simple observation: “Democracy is a commons, not a market.” A commons is an unregulated public resource—in the classic example, in Garrett Hardin’s essay “The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968), it is literally a commons, a public pasture on which anyone may graze his cattle. It is in the interest of each herdsman to graze as many of his own cattle as he can, since the resource is free, but too many cattle will result in overgrazing and the destruction of the pasture. So the pursuit of individual self-interest leads to a loss for everyone. (The subject Hardin was addressing was population growth: someone may be concerned about overpopulation but still decide to have another child, since the cost to the individual of adding one more person to the planet is much less than the benefit of having the child.)
Caplan rejects the assumption that voters pay no attention to politics and have no real views. He thinks that voters do have views, and that they are, basically, prejudices. He calls these views “irrational,” because, once they are translated into policy, they make everyone worse off. People not only hold irrational views, he thinks; they like their irrational views. In the language of economics, they have “demand for irrationality” curves: they will give up y amount of wealth in order to consume x amount of irrationality. Since voting carries no cost, people are free to be as irrational as they like. They can ignore the consequences, just as the herdsman can ignore the consequences of putting one more cow on the public pasture. “Voting is not a slight variation on shopping,” as Caplan puts it. “Shoppers have incentives to be rational. Voters do not.”
Caplan suspects that voters cherish irrational views on many issues, but he discusses only views relevant to economic policy. The average person, he says, has four biases about economics—four main areas in which he or she differs from the economic expert. The typical noneconomist does not understand or appreciate the way markets work (and thus favors regulation and is suspicious of the profit motive), dislikes foreigners (and thus tends to be protectionist), equates prosperity with employment rather than with production (and thus overvalues the preservation of existing jobs), and usually thinks that economic conditions are getting worse (and thus favors government intervention in the economy). Economists know that these positions are irrational, because the average person actually benefits from market competition, which provides the best product at the lowest price; from free trade with other countries, which (for American consumers) usually lowers the cost of labor and thus the price of goods; and from technological change, which redistributes labor from less productive to more productive enterprises.
The economic biases of the non-economist form a secular world view that people cling to dogmatically, the way they once clung to their religious faith, Caplan thinks. People do not, he proposes, vote their self-interest: they are much more altruistic than the standard model, in which voters behave like shoppers, predicts. (This explains the phenomenon, puzzling to many social critics, of the auto worker who supports the elimination of the inheritance tax and the Hollywood producer who favors its retention.) “Precisely because people put personal interests aside when they enter the political arena,” Caplan says, “intellectual errors readily blossom into foolish policies.” People really believe that the country would be better off if profits were regulated, if foreign goods were taxed, and if companies were prevented from downsizing. Politicians who pander to these beliefs are more likely to be elected, and the special interests that lobby for protectionism and anticompetitive legislation are the beneficiaries—not the public. The result, over time, is a decline in the standard of living.
Caplan insists that he is not a market fundamentalist, but he does think that most economists peg the optimal level of government involvement in the economy too high, because they overestimate the virtues of democracy. He offers some suggestions for fixing the evils of universal democratic participation (though he does not spend much time elaborating on them, for reasons that may suggest themselves to you when you read them): require voters to pass a test for economic competence; give extra votes to people with greater economic literacy; reduce or eliminate efforts to increase voter turnout; require more economics courses in school, even if this means eliminating courses in other subjects, such as classics; teach people introductory economics without making the usual qualifications about the limits of market solutions. His general feeling is that if the country were run according to the beliefs of professional economists everyone would be better off. Short of that consummation, he favors whatever means are necessary to get everyone who votes to think like a professional economist. He wants to raise the price of voting.
It is not clear whether “The Myth of the Rational Voter” is intended merely to be provocative (a motive that has been known to get other economists in big trouble) or whether its recommendations for changing the rules for political participation are to be taken seriously (and by whom?). The book is, in part, a challenge to some of the assumptions made about voting behavior in the academic field known as public choice theory. Caplan has assembled a lot of data that reveal significant disparities between the average person’s views on economic questions and the views of professional economists: the public thinks that the price of gasoline is too high, for instance, but most economists think it is about right or too low; the public thinks that most new jobs being created in the United States are low-paying, but economists disagree; the public thinks that top executives are overpaid, and economists do not. Caplan’s point is that voters’ views on the economy are not random, the result of “rational ignorance”; they reflect systematic biases caused by an erroneous understanding of the way economies work.
But, as Caplan certainly knows, though he does not give sufficient weight to it, the problem, if it is a problem, is more deeply rooted. It’s not a matter of information, or the lack of it; it’s a matter of psychology. Most people do not think politically, and they do not think like economists, either. People exaggerate the risk of loss; they like the status quo and tend to regard it as a norm; they overreact to sensational but unrepresentative information (the shark-attack phenomenon); they will pay extravagantly to punish cheaters, even when there is no benefit to themselves; and they often rank fairness and reciprocity ahead of self-interest. Most people, even if you explained to them what the economically rational choice was, would be reluctant to make it, because they value other things—in particular, they want to protect themselves from the downside of change. They would rather feel good about themselves than maximize (even legitimately) their profit, and they would rather not have more of something than run the risk, even if the risk is small by actuarial standards, of having significantly less.
People are less modern than the times in which they live, in other words, and the failure to comprehend this is what can make economists seem like happy bulldozers. “After technology throws people out of work, they have an incentive to find a new use for their talents,” Caplan says, discussing the bias that non-economists have in favor of employment over productivity. “Downsizing superfluous workers leads them to search for more socially productive ways to apply their abilities.” This process, he explains, is known as “churn.” (Donald Trump: “You’re churned!” Doesn’t sound the same.) It’s not hard to understand why the average person might contemplate job loss with less equanimity.
Negotiating the tension between “rational” policy choices and “irrational” preferences and anxieties—between the desirability of more productivity and the desire to preserve a way of life—is what democratic politics is all about. It is a messy negotiation. Having the franchise be universal makes it even messier. If all policy decisions were straightforward economic calculations, it might be simpler and better for everyone if only people who had a grasp of economics participated in the political process. But many policy decisions don’t have an optimal answer. They involve values that are deeply contested: when life begins, whether liberty is more important than equality, how racial integration is best achieved (and what would count as genuine integration).
In the end, the group that loses these contests must abide by the outcome, must regard the wishes of the majority as legitimate. The only way it can be expected to do so is if it has been made to feel that it had a voice in the process, even if that voice is, in practical terms, symbolic. A great virtue of democratic polities is stability. The toleration of silly opinions is (to speak like an economist) a small price to pay for it.
Fractured Franchise
Are the wrong people voting?
New York, July 9, 2007
Why should anyone bother to vote? The chance that one vote will change the outcome of an election is virtually nil, and going to the polls involves a significant cost in time and opportunity. Presidential elections, in which more than a hundred million people vote, never turn on a single ballot. The lesson of the 2000 Presidential election was not “Your vote can make the difference”; it was more like “If you’re taking the trouble to vote, at least fill in the ballot correctly.” Yet many people do bother to vote. We praise these people, and we encourage non-voting citizens to follow their example. We tend to feel that political participation is an unmixed good, a symptom of civic health and virtue.
Bryan Caplan, an economist who teaches at George Mason University, thinks that increasing voter participation is a bad thing. He thinks, in fact, that the present level of voter participation—about fifty per cent of the electorate votes in Presidential elections, a much lower percentage than in most democracies, as Americans are frequently reminded—is a bad thing.
Caplan is the sort of economist (are there other sorts? there must be) who engages with the views of non-economists in the way a bulldozer would engage with a picket fence if a bulldozer could express glee. The cover illustration of his new book, “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Politics” (Princeton; $29.95), shows a flock of sheep. This is meant to symbolize the voting public. It looks like a flock of cloned sheep, too.
The average voter is not held in much esteem by economists and political scientists, and Caplan rehearses some of the reasons for this. The argument of his book, though, is that economists and political scientists have misunderstood the problem. They think that most voters are ignorant about political issues; Caplan thinks that most voters are wrong about the issues, which is a different matter, and that their wrong ideas lead to policies that make society as a whole worse off. We tend to assume that if the government enacts bad policies, it’s because the system isn’t working properly—and it isn’t working properly because voters are poorly informed, or they’re subject to demagoguery, or special interests thwart the public’s interest. Caplan thinks that these conditions are endemic to democracy. They are not distortions of the process; they are what you would expect to find in a system designed to serve the wishes of the people. “Democracy fails,” he says, “because it does what voters want.” It is sometimes said that the best cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy. Caplan thinks that the best cure is less democracy. He doesn’t quite say that the world ought to be run by economists, but he comes pretty close.
The political knowledge of the average voter has been tested repeatedly, and the scores are impressively low. In polls taken since 1945, a majority of Americans have been unable to name a single branch of government, define the terms “liberal” and “conservative,” and explain what the Bill of Rights is. More than two-thirds have reported that they do not know the substance of Roe v. Wade and what the Food and Drug Administration does. Nearly half do not know that states have two senators and three-quarters do not know the length of a Senate term. More than fifty per cent of Americans cannot name their congressman; forty per cent cannot name either of their senators. Voters’ notions of government spending are wildly distorted: the public believes that foreign aid consumes twenty-four per cent of the federal budget, for example, though it actually consumes about one per cent.
Even apart from ignorance of the basic facts, most people simply do not think politically. They cannot see, for example, that the opinion that taxes should be lower is incompatible with the opinion that there should be more government programs. Their grasp of terms such as “affirmative action” and “welfare” is perilously uncertain: if you ask people whether they favor spending more on welfare, most say no; if you ask whether they favor spending more on assistance to the poor, most say yes. And, over time, individuals give different answers to the same questions about their political opinions. People simply do not spend much time learning about political issues or thinking through their own positions. They may have opinions—if asked whether they are in favor of capital punishment or free-trade agreements, most people will give an answer—but the opinions are not based on information or derived from a coherent political philosophy. They are largely attitudinal and ad hoc.
For fifty years, it has been standard to explain voter ignorance in economic terms. Caplan cites Anthony Downs’s “An Economic Theory of Democracy” (1957): “It is irrational to be politically well-informed because the low returns from data simply do not justify their cost in time and other resources.” In other words, it isn’t worth my while to spend time and energy acquiring information about candidates and issues, because my vote can’t change the outcome. I would not buy a car or a house without doing due diligence, because I pay a price if I make the wrong choice. But if I had voted for the candidate I did not prefer in every Presidential election since I began voting, it would have made no difference to me (or to anyone else). It would have made no difference if I had not voted at all. This doesn’t mean that I won’t vote, or that, when I do vote, I won’t care about the outcome. It only means that I have no incentive to learn more about the candidates or the issues, because the price of my ignorance is essentially zero. According to this economic model, people aren’t ignorant about politics because they’re stupid; they’re ignorant because they’re rational. If everyone doesn’t vote, then the system doesn’t work. But if I don’t vote, the system works just fine. So I find more productive ways to spend my time.
Political scientists have proposed various theories aimed at salvaging some dignity for the democratic process. One is that elections are decided by the ten per cent or so of the electorate who are informed and have coherent political views. In this theory, the votes of the uninformed cancel each other out, since their choices are effectively random: they are flipping a coin. So candidates pitch their appeals to the informed voters, who decide on the merits, and this makes the outcome of an election politically meaningful. Another argument is that the average voter uses “shortcuts” to reach a decision about which candidate to vote for. The political party is an obvious shortcut: if you have decided that you prefer Democrats, you don’t really need more information to cast your ballot. Shortcuts can take other forms as well: the comments of a co-worker or a relative with a reputation for political wisdom, or a news item or photograph (John Kerry windsurfing) that can be used to make a quick-and-dirty calculation about whether the candidate is someone you should support. (People argue about how valid these shortcuts are as substitutes for fuller information, of course.)
There is also the theory of what Caplan calls the Miracle of Aggregation. As James Surowiecki illustrates in “The Wisdom of Crowds” (2004), a large number of people with partial information and varying degrees of intelligence and expertise will collectively reach better or more accurate results than will a small number of like-minded, highly intelligent experts. Stock prices work this way, but so can many other things, such as determining the odds in sports gambling, guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar, and analyzing intelligence. An individual voter has limited amounts of information and political sense, but a hundred million voters, each with a different amount of information and political sense, will produce the “right” result. Then, there is the theory that people vote the same way that they act in the marketplace: they pursue their self-interest. In the market, selfish behavior conduces to the general good, and the same should be true for elections.
Caplan thinks that democracy as it is now practiced cannot be salvaged, and his position is based on a simple observation: “Democracy is a commons, not a market.” A commons is an unregulated public resource—in the classic example, in Garrett Hardin’s essay “The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968), it is literally a commons, a public pasture on which anyone may graze his cattle. It is in the interest of each herdsman to graze as many of his own cattle as he can, since the resource is free, but too many cattle will result in overgrazing and the destruction of the pasture. So the pursuit of individual self-interest leads to a loss for everyone. (The subject Hardin was addressing was population growth: someone may be concerned about overpopulation but still decide to have another child, since the cost to the individual of adding one more person to the planet is much less than the benefit of having the child.)
Caplan rejects the assumption that voters pay no attention to politics and have no real views. He thinks that voters do have views, and that they are, basically, prejudices. He calls these views “irrational,” because, once they are translated into policy, they make everyone worse off. People not only hold irrational views, he thinks; they like their irrational views. In the language of economics, they have “demand for irrationality” curves: they will give up y amount of wealth in order to consume x amount of irrationality. Since voting carries no cost, people are free to be as irrational as they like. They can ignore the consequences, just as the herdsman can ignore the consequences of putting one more cow on the public pasture. “Voting is not a slight variation on shopping,” as Caplan puts it. “Shoppers have incentives to be rational. Voters do not.”
Caplan suspects that voters cherish irrational views on many issues, but he discusses only views relevant to economic policy. The average person, he says, has four biases about economics—four main areas in which he or she differs from the economic expert. The typical noneconomist does not understand or appreciate the way markets work (and thus favors regulation and is suspicious of the profit motive), dislikes foreigners (and thus tends to be protectionist), equates prosperity with employment rather than with production (and thus overvalues the preservation of existing jobs), and usually thinks that economic conditions are getting worse (and thus favors government intervention in the economy). Economists know that these positions are irrational, because the average person actually benefits from market competition, which provides the best product at the lowest price; from free trade with other countries, which (for American consumers) usually lowers the cost of labor and thus the price of goods; and from technological change, which redistributes labor from less productive to more productive enterprises.
The economic biases of the non-economist form a secular world view that people cling to dogmatically, the way they once clung to their religious faith, Caplan thinks. People do not, he proposes, vote their self-interest: they are much more altruistic than the standard model, in which voters behave like shoppers, predicts. (This explains the phenomenon, puzzling to many social critics, of the auto worker who supports the elimination of the inheritance tax and the Hollywood producer who favors its retention.) “Precisely because people put personal interests aside when they enter the political arena,” Caplan says, “intellectual errors readily blossom into foolish policies.” People really believe that the country would be better off if profits were regulated, if foreign goods were taxed, and if companies were prevented from downsizing. Politicians who pander to these beliefs are more likely to be elected, and the special interests that lobby for protectionism and anticompetitive legislation are the beneficiaries—not the public. The result, over time, is a decline in the standard of living.
Caplan insists that he is not a market fundamentalist, but he does think that most economists peg the optimal level of government involvement in the economy too high, because they overestimate the virtues of democracy. He offers some suggestions for fixing the evils of universal democratic participation (though he does not spend much time elaborating on them, for reasons that may suggest themselves to you when you read them): require voters to pass a test for economic competence; give extra votes to people with greater economic literacy; reduce or eliminate efforts to increase voter turnout; require more economics courses in school, even if this means eliminating courses in other subjects, such as classics; teach people introductory economics without making the usual qualifications about the limits of market solutions. His general feeling is that if the country were run according to the beliefs of professional economists everyone would be better off. Short of that consummation, he favors whatever means are necessary to get everyone who votes to think like a professional economist. He wants to raise the price of voting.
It is not clear whether “The Myth of the Rational Voter” is intended merely to be provocative (a motive that has been known to get other economists in big trouble) or whether its recommendations for changing the rules for political participation are to be taken seriously (and by whom?). The book is, in part, a challenge to some of the assumptions made about voting behavior in the academic field known as public choice theory. Caplan has assembled a lot of data that reveal significant disparities between the average person’s views on economic questions and the views of professional economists: the public thinks that the price of gasoline is too high, for instance, but most economists think it is about right or too low; the public thinks that most new jobs being created in the United States are low-paying, but economists disagree; the public thinks that top executives are overpaid, and economists do not. Caplan’s point is that voters’ views on the economy are not random, the result of “rational ignorance”; they reflect systematic biases caused by an erroneous understanding of the way economies work.
But, as Caplan certainly knows, though he does not give sufficient weight to it, the problem, if it is a problem, is more deeply rooted. It’s not a matter of information, or the lack of it; it’s a matter of psychology. Most people do not think politically, and they do not think like economists, either. People exaggerate the risk of loss; they like the status quo and tend to regard it as a norm; they overreact to sensational but unrepresentative information (the shark-attack phenomenon); they will pay extravagantly to punish cheaters, even when there is no benefit to themselves; and they often rank fairness and reciprocity ahead of self-interest. Most people, even if you explained to them what the economically rational choice was, would be reluctant to make it, because they value other things—in particular, they want to protect themselves from the downside of change. They would rather feel good about themselves than maximize (even legitimately) their profit, and they would rather not have more of something than run the risk, even if the risk is small by actuarial standards, of having significantly less.
People are less modern than the times in which they live, in other words, and the failure to comprehend this is what can make economists seem like happy bulldozers. “After technology throws people out of work, they have an incentive to find a new use for their talents,” Caplan says, discussing the bias that non-economists have in favor of employment over productivity. “Downsizing superfluous workers leads them to search for more socially productive ways to apply their abilities.” This process, he explains, is known as “churn.” (Donald Trump: “You’re churned!” Doesn’t sound the same.) It’s not hard to understand why the average person might contemplate job loss with less equanimity.
Negotiating the tension between “rational” policy choices and “irrational” preferences and anxieties—between the desirability of more productivity and the desire to preserve a way of life—is what democratic politics is all about. It is a messy negotiation. Having the franchise be universal makes it even messier. If all policy decisions were straightforward economic calculations, it might be simpler and better for everyone if only people who had a grasp of economics participated in the political process. But many policy decisions don’t have an optimal answer. They involve values that are deeply contested: when life begins, whether liberty is more important than equality, how racial integration is best achieved (and what would count as genuine integration).
In the end, the group that loses these contests must abide by the outcome, must regard the wishes of the majority as legitimate. The only way it can be expected to do so is if it has been made to feel that it had a voice in the process, even if that voice is, in practical terms, symbolic. A great virtue of democratic polities is stability. The toleration of silly opinions is (to speak like an economist) a small price to pay for it.
Fractured Franchise
Are the wrong people voting?
New York, July 9, 2007
Why should anyone bother to vote? The chance that one vote will change the outcome of an election is virtually nil, and going to the polls involves a significant cost in time and opportunity. Presidential elections, in which more than a hundred million people vote, never turn on a single ballot. The lesson of the 2000 Presidential election was not “Your vote can make the difference”; it was more like “If you’re taking the trouble to vote, at least fill in the ballot correctly.” Yet many people do bother to vote. We praise these people, and we encourage non-voting citizens to follow their example. We tend to feel that political participation is an unmixed good, a symptom of civic health and virtue.
Bryan Caplan, an economist who teaches at George Mason University, thinks that increasing voter participation is a bad thing. He thinks, in fact, that the present level of voter participation—about fifty per cent of the electorate votes in Presidential elections, a much lower percentage than in most democracies, as Americans are frequently reminded—is a bad thing.
Caplan is the sort of economist (are there other sorts? there must be) who engages with the views of non-economists in the way a bulldozer would engage with a picket fence if a bulldozer could express glee. The cover illustration of his new book, “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Politics” (Princeton; $29.95), shows a flock of sheep. This is meant to symbolize the voting public. It looks like a flock of cloned sheep, too.
The average voter is not held in much esteem by economists and political scientists, and Caplan rehearses some of the reasons for this. The argument of his book, though, is that economists and political scientists have misunderstood the problem. They think that most voters are ignorant about political issues; Caplan thinks that most voters are wrong about the issues, which is a different matter, and that their wrong ideas lead to policies that make society as a whole worse off. We tend to assume that if the government enacts bad policies, it’s because the system isn’t working properly—and it isn’t working properly because voters are poorly informed, or they’re subject to demagoguery, or special interests thwart the public’s interest. Caplan thinks that these conditions are endemic to democracy. They are not distortions of the process; they are what you would expect to find in a system designed to serve the wishes of the people. “Democracy fails,” he says, “because it does what voters want.” It is sometimes said that the best cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy. Caplan thinks that the best cure is less democracy. He doesn’t quite say that the world ought to be run by economists, but he comes pretty close.
The political knowledge of the average voter has been tested repeatedly, and the scores are impressively low. In polls taken since 1945, a majority of Americans have been unable to name a single branch of government, define the terms “liberal” and “conservative,” and explain what the Bill of Rights is. More than two-thirds have reported that they do not know the substance of Roe v. Wade and what the Food and Drug Administration does. Nearly half do not know that states have two senators and three-quarters do not know the length of a Senate term. More than fifty per cent of Americans cannot name their congressman; forty per cent cannot name either of their senators. Voters’ notions of government spending are wildly distorted: the public believes that foreign aid consumes twenty-four per cent of the federal budget, for example, though it actually consumes about one per cent.
Even apart from ignorance of the basic facts, most people simply do not think politically. They cannot see, for example, that the opinion that taxes should be lower is incompatible with the opinion that there should be more government programs. Their grasp of terms such as “affirmative action” and “welfare” is perilously uncertain: if you ask people whether they favor spending more on welfare, most say no; if you ask whether they favor spending more on assistance to the poor, most say yes. And, over time, individuals give different answers to the same questions about their political opinions. People simply do not spend much time learning about political issues or thinking through their own positions. They may have opinions—if asked whether they are in favor of capital punishment or free-trade agreements, most people will give an answer—but the opinions are not based on information or derived from a coherent political philosophy. They are largely attitudinal and ad hoc.
For fifty years, it has been standard to explain voter ignorance in economic terms. Caplan cites Anthony Downs’s “An Economic Theory of Democracy” (1957): “It is irrational to be politically well-informed because the low returns from data simply do not justify their cost in time and other resources.” In other words, it isn’t worth my while to spend time and energy acquiring information about candidates and issues, because my vote can’t change the outcome. I would not buy a car or a house without doing due diligence, because I pay a price if I make the wrong choice. But if I had voted for the candidate I did not prefer in every Presidential election since I began voting, it would have made no difference to me (or to anyone else). It would have made no difference if I had not voted at all. This doesn’t mean that I won’t vote, or that, when I do vote, I won’t care about the outcome. It only means that I have no incentive to learn more about the candidates or the issues, because the price of my ignorance is essentially zero. According to this economic model, people aren’t ignorant about politics because they’re stupid; they’re ignorant because they’re rational. If everyone doesn’t vote, then the system doesn’t work. But if I don’t vote, the system works just fine. So I find more productive ways to spend my time.
Political scientists have proposed various theories aimed at salvaging some dignity for the democratic process. One is that elections are decided by the ten per cent or so of the electorate who are informed and have coherent political views. In this theory, the votes of the uninformed cancel each other out, since their choices are effectively random: they are flipping a coin. So candidates pitch their appeals to the informed voters, who decide on the merits, and this makes the outcome of an election politically meaningful. Another argument is that the average voter uses “shortcuts” to reach a decision about which candidate to vote for. The political party is an obvious shortcut: if you have decided that you prefer Democrats, you don’t really need more information to cast your ballot. Shortcuts can take other forms as well: the comments of a co-worker or a relative with a reputation for political wisdom, or a news item or photograph (John Kerry windsurfing) that can be used to make a quick-and-dirty calculation about whether the candidate is someone you should support. (People argue about how valid these shortcuts are as substitutes for fuller information, of course.)
There is also the theory of what Caplan calls the Miracle of Aggregation. As James Surowiecki illustrates in “The Wisdom of Crowds” (2004), a large number of people with partial information and varying degrees of intelligence and expertise will collectively reach better or more accurate results than will a small number of like-minded, highly intelligent experts. Stock prices work this way, but so can many other things, such as determining the odds in sports gambling, guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar, and analyzing intelligence. An individual voter has limited amounts of information and political sense, but a hundred million voters, each with a different amount of information and political sense, will produce the “right” result. Then, there is the theory that people vote the same way that they act in the marketplace: they pursue their self-interest. In the market, selfish behavior conduces to the general good, and the same should be true for elections.
Caplan thinks that democracy as it is now practiced cannot be salvaged, and his position is based on a simple observation: “Democracy is a commons, not a market.” A commons is an unregulated public resource—in the classic example, in Garrett Hardin’s essay “The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968), it is literally a commons, a public pasture on which anyone may graze his cattle. It is in the interest of each herdsman to graze as many of his own cattle as he can, since the resource is free, but too many cattle will result in overgrazing and the destruction of the pasture. So the pursuit of individual self-interest leads to a loss for everyone. (The subject Hardin was addressing was population growth: someone may be concerned about overpopulation but still decide to have another child, since the cost to the individual of adding one more person to the planet is much less than the benefit of having the child.)
Caplan rejects the assumption that voters pay no attention to politics and have no real views. He thinks that voters do have views, and that they are, basically, prejudices. He calls these views “irrational,” because, once they are translated into policy, they make everyone worse off. People not only hold irrational views, he thinks; they like their irrational views. In the language of economics, they have “demand for irrationality” curves: they will give up y amount of wealth in order to consume x amount of irrationality. Since voting carries no cost, people are free to be as irrational as they like. They can ignore the consequences, just as the herdsman can ignore the consequences of putting one more cow on the public pasture. “Voting is not a slight variation on shopping,” as Caplan puts it. “Shoppers have incentives to be rational. Voters do not.”
Caplan suspects that voters cherish irrational views on many issues, but he discusses only views relevant to economic policy. The average person, he says, has four biases about economics—four main areas in which he or she differs from the economic expert. The typical noneconomist does not understand or appreciate the way markets work (and thus favors regulation and is suspicious of the profit motive), dislikes foreigners (and thus tends to be protectionist), equates prosperity with employment rather than with production (and thus overvalues the preservation of existing jobs), and usually thinks that economic conditions are getting worse (and thus favors government intervention in the economy). Economists know that these positions are irrational, because the average person actually benefits from market competition, which provides the best product at the lowest price; from free trade with other countries, which (for American consumers) usually lowers the cost of labor and thus the price of goods; and from technological change, which redistributes labor from less productive to more productive enterprises.
The economic biases of the non-economist form a secular world view that people cling to dogmatically, the way they once clung to their religious faith, Caplan thinks. People do not, he proposes, vote their self-interest: they are much more altruistic than the standard model, in which voters behave like shoppers, predicts. (This explains the phenomenon, puzzling to many social critics, of the auto worker who supports the elimination of the inheritance tax and the Hollywood producer who favors its retention.) “Precisely because people put personal interests aside when they enter the political arena,” Caplan says, “intellectual errors readily blossom into foolish policies.” People really believe that the country would be better off if profits were regulated, if foreign goods were taxed, and if companies were prevented from downsizing. Politicians who pander to these beliefs are more likely to be elected, and the special interests that lobby for protectionism and anticompetitive legislation are the beneficiaries—not the public. The result, over time, is a decline in the standard of living.
Caplan insists that he is not a market fundamentalist, but he does think that most economists peg the optimal level of government involvement in the economy too high, because they overestimate the virtues of democracy. He offers some suggestions for fixing the evils of universal democratic participation (though he does not spend much time elaborating on them, for reasons that may suggest themselves to you when you read them): require voters to pass a test for economic competence; give extra votes to people with greater economic literacy; reduce or eliminate efforts to increase voter turnout; require more economics courses in school, even if this means eliminating courses in other subjects, such as classics; teach people introductory economics without making the usual qualifications about the limits of market solutions. His general feeling is that if the country were run according to the beliefs of professional economists everyone would be better off. Short of that consummation, he favors whatever means are necessary to get everyone who votes to think like a professional economist. He wants to raise the price of voting.
It is not clear whether “The Myth of the Rational Voter” is intended merely to be provocative (a motive that has been known to get other economists in big trouble) or whether its recommendations for changing the rules for political participation are to be taken seriously (and by whom?). The book is, in part, a challenge to some of the assumptions made about voting behavior in the academic field known as public choice theory. Caplan has assembled a lot of data that reveal significant disparities between the average person’s views on economic questions and the views of professional economists: the public thinks that the price of gasoline is too high, for instance, but most economists think it is about right or too low; the public thinks that most new jobs being created in the United States are low-paying, but economists disagree; the public thinks that top executives are overpaid, and economists do not. Caplan’s point is that voters’ views on the economy are not random, the result of “rational ignorance”; they reflect systematic biases caused by an erroneous understanding of the way economies work.
But, as Caplan certainly knows, though he does not give sufficient weight to it, the problem, if it is a problem, is more deeply rooted. It’s not a matter of information, or the lack of it; it’s a matter of psychology. Most people do not think politically, and they do not think like economists, either. People exaggerate the risk of loss; they like the status quo and tend to regard it as a norm; they overreact to sensational but unrepresentative information (the shark-attack phenomenon); they will pay extravagantly to punish cheaters, even when there is no benefit to themselves; and they often rank fairness and reciprocity ahead of self-interest. Most people, even if you explained to them what the economically rational choice was, would be reluctant to make it, because they value other things—in particular, they want to protect themselves from the downside of change. They would rather feel good about themselves than maximize (even legitimately) their profit, and they would rather not have more of something than run the risk, even if the risk is small by actuarial standards, of having significantly less.
People are less modern than the times in which they live, in other words, and the failure to comprehend this is what can make economists seem like happy bulldozers. “After technology throws people out of work, they have an incentive to find a new use for their talents,” Caplan says, discussing the bias that non-economists have in favor of employment over productivity. “Downsizing superfluous workers leads them to search for more socially productive ways to apply their abilities.” This process, he explains, is known as “churn.” (Donald Trump: “You’re churned!” Doesn’t sound the same.) It’s not hard to understand why the average person might contemplate job loss with less equanimity.
Negotiating the tension between “rational” policy choices and “irrational” preferences and anxieties—between the desirability of more productivity and the desire to preserve a way of life—is what democratic politics is all about. It is a messy negotiation. Having the franchise be universal makes it even messier. If all policy decisions were straightforward economic calculations, it might be simpler and better for everyone if only people who had a grasp of economics participated in the political process. But many policy decisions don’t have an optimal answer. They involve values that are deeply contested: when life begins, whether liberty is more important than equality, how racial integration is best achieved (and what would count as genuine integration).
In the end, the group that loses these contests must abide by the outcome, must regard the wishes of the majority as legitimate. The only way it can be expected to do so is if it has been made to feel that it had a voice in the process, even if that voice is, in practical terms, symbolic. A great virtue of democratic polities is stability. The toleration of silly opinions is (to speak like an economist) a small price to pay for it.
After such a lengthy treatise, I will just add a paraphrasing of that elderly old-timee Labor pol that speaks to us in “Sicko”. If you can somehow remove from the voter,fear and the demoralizing sense of impotency in the face of power, WATCH OUT..democracy will be on the march again.
After such a lengthy treatise, I will just add a paraphrasing of that elderly old-timee Labor pol that speaks to us in “Sicko”. If you can somehow remove from the voter,fear and the demoralizing sense of impotency in the face of power, WATCH OUT..democracy will be on the march again.
After such a lengthy treatise, I will just add a paraphrasing of that elderly old-timee Labor pol that speaks to us in “Sicko”. If you can somehow remove from the voter,fear and the demoralizing sense of impotency in the face of power, WATCH OUT..democracy will be on the march again.
After such a lengthy treatise, I will just add a paraphrasing of that elderly old-timee Labor pol that speaks to us in “Sicko”. If you can somehow remove from the voter,fear and the demoralizing sense of impotency in the face of power, WATCH OUT..democracy will be on the march again.
“One of the major promoters told me off the record that he agreed with me on this point, that the developers of Covell Village could have given more.”
The city of Santa Monica has had a progressive majority council for some years now and squeezes every last nickel out of developers who come before them with their proposals. While Santa Monica is not Davis, the same principle applies… A city council needs to be a relentles advocate for their city’s interests when negotiating to approve an opportunity for big buck developer profits.
“One of the major promoters told me off the record that he agreed with me on this point, that the developers of Covell Village could have given more.”
The city of Santa Monica has had a progressive majority council for some years now and squeezes every last nickel out of developers who come before them with their proposals. While Santa Monica is not Davis, the same principle applies… A city council needs to be a relentles advocate for their city’s interests when negotiating to approve an opportunity for big buck developer profits.
“One of the major promoters told me off the record that he agreed with me on this point, that the developers of Covell Village could have given more.”
The city of Santa Monica has had a progressive majority council for some years now and squeezes every last nickel out of developers who come before them with their proposals. While Santa Monica is not Davis, the same principle applies… A city council needs to be a relentles advocate for their city’s interests when negotiating to approve an opportunity for big buck developer profits.
“One of the major promoters told me off the record that he agreed with me on this point, that the developers of Covell Village could have given more.”
The city of Santa Monica has had a progressive majority council for some years now and squeezes every last nickel out of developers who come before them with their proposals. While Santa Monica is not Davis, the same principle applies… A city council needs to be a relentles advocate for their city’s interests when negotiating to approve an opportunity for big buck developer profits.
just curious — what right does Davis have to control land that it doesn’t provide services for? Shouldn’t the city simply annex the “sphere of influence” land so that it can determine what happens to it?
just curious — what right does Davis have to control land that it doesn’t provide services for? Shouldn’t the city simply annex the “sphere of influence” land so that it can determine what happens to it?
just curious — what right does Davis have to control land that it doesn’t provide services for? Shouldn’t the city simply annex the “sphere of influence” land so that it can determine what happens to it?
just curious — what right does Davis have to control land that it doesn’t provide services for? Shouldn’t the city simply annex the “sphere of influence” land so that it can determine what happens to it?
Anonymous said…
just curious — what right does Davis have to control land that it doesn’t provide services for? Shouldn’t the city simply annex the “sphere of influence” land so that it can determine what happens to it?
This “right” is exactly what Davis
purchases with the additional $2.4 million/year it pays the County as per the pass-through agreement. Your annexation concept is complicated and not on the table at this time as OUR Davis Supervisors are taking the lead in support of the County saying this agreement “doesn’t work any more” just 5 years after it was renegotiated.
This “smells” a lot like Bush’s call for free elections but when he doesn’t like the results, forget it! The Davis voters exercised their pass-through agreement rights when they said NO to the Covell Village project.. Evidently, our Davis reps on the BOS support the rights given in the pass-through agreement as long as we do not exercise them.
Anonymous said…
just curious — what right does Davis have to control land that it doesn’t provide services for? Shouldn’t the city simply annex the “sphere of influence” land so that it can determine what happens to it?
This “right” is exactly what Davis
purchases with the additional $2.4 million/year it pays the County as per the pass-through agreement. Your annexation concept is complicated and not on the table at this time as OUR Davis Supervisors are taking the lead in support of the County saying this agreement “doesn’t work any more” just 5 years after it was renegotiated.
This “smells” a lot like Bush’s call for free elections but when he doesn’t like the results, forget it! The Davis voters exercised their pass-through agreement rights when they said NO to the Covell Village project.. Evidently, our Davis reps on the BOS support the rights given in the pass-through agreement as long as we do not exercise them.
Anonymous said…
just curious — what right does Davis have to control land that it doesn’t provide services for? Shouldn’t the city simply annex the “sphere of influence” land so that it can determine what happens to it?
This “right” is exactly what Davis
purchases with the additional $2.4 million/year it pays the County as per the pass-through agreement. Your annexation concept is complicated and not on the table at this time as OUR Davis Supervisors are taking the lead in support of the County saying this agreement “doesn’t work any more” just 5 years after it was renegotiated.
This “smells” a lot like Bush’s call for free elections but when he doesn’t like the results, forget it! The Davis voters exercised their pass-through agreement rights when they said NO to the Covell Village project.. Evidently, our Davis reps on the BOS support the rights given in the pass-through agreement as long as we do not exercise them.
Anonymous said…
just curious — what right does Davis have to control land that it doesn’t provide services for? Shouldn’t the city simply annex the “sphere of influence” land so that it can determine what happens to it?
This “right” is exactly what Davis
purchases with the additional $2.4 million/year it pays the County as per the pass-through agreement. Your annexation concept is complicated and not on the table at this time as OUR Davis Supervisors are taking the lead in support of the County saying this agreement “doesn’t work any more” just 5 years after it was renegotiated.
This “smells” a lot like Bush’s call for free elections but when he doesn’t like the results, forget it! The Davis voters exercised their pass-through agreement rights when they said NO to the Covell Village project.. Evidently, our Davis reps on the BOS support the rights given in the pass-through agreement as long as we do not exercise them.
Watch for this pass-through agreement challenge to morph into an assault on our Measure J as it comes up for renewal in 2010.
Watch for this pass-through agreement challenge to morph into an assault on our Measure J as it comes up for renewal in 2010.
Watch for this pass-through agreement challenge to morph into an assault on our Measure J as it comes up for renewal in 2010.
Watch for this pass-through agreement challenge to morph into an assault on our Measure J as it comes up for renewal in 2010.
Measure J is DOA without a council majority in 2010.
Measure J is DOA without a council majority in 2010.
Measure J is DOA without a council majority in 2010.
Measure J is DOA without a council majority in 2010.