Tonight marks the unofficial kickoff of the council campaign season. This is the time to begin evaluating council candidates on the issues.
But tonight marks a beginning period of intrigue, as the Chamber of Commerce has already rolled out its political action committee and is looking to expand its voice in the city, in hopes of changing council direction and promoting the emphasis of economic development.
The Chamber says, “In 1997, the Chamber created a Political Action Committee to “support (or oppose) local, county or state ballot measures which impact the business environment in Davis.” Formed and operated under the guidelines of the California Secretary of State, the Davis Chamber PAC is financially separated from the membership organization. The sole funding source for the PAC is voluntary contributions by individual members of the Davis Chamber of Commerce. No funds from the operating budget of the Chamber are used to support PAC activities.”
Over the years, the Chamber PAC has supported a variety of local measures, including “Yes for Our Students” in 1999, 2004, 2007 and 2008; “Yes on City Parks” in 1998 and 2002; and “Yes on the Davis Library Branch” in 2007.
The Chamber PAC’s guidelines have been recently modified to allow for the possible support of local candidates for elected office.
The Chamber writes, “Like communities across the globe dealing with the economic recession, our community has been through a very difficult period of adjustment in the past five years. Our schools and city are confronted with significant structural budget deficits. The Davis Joint Unified School District and City of Davis have cut a number of services affecting our quality of life, with talk of more service cuts still to come.”
They add: “Parcel tax measures and fee increases have been implemented with yet more proposals under consideration to fund remaining services. Deferred maintenance on streets, water, and other vital infrastructure continue to accrue with no clear strategy to address these deficits threatening to further degrade our quality of life. Yet many community opinion makers insist that we must maintain the status quo and abdicate our collective responsibility to effectively address these challenges to our quality of life. The Chamber PAC believes that our community and elected officials must take a more proactive role in this time of uncertainty.”
“The Davis Chamber of Commerce does not relish engaging in local politics; it would much rather focus on policy, projects, and job creation to improve our quality of life. However, it would be irresponsible not to act. ‘Business as usual’ is no longer a viable course of action. It is imperative that the Davis community has political leadership capable of fostering a community that is not only socially and environmentally sustainable, but also economically sustainable,” they continued.
“Our community deserves elected officials and government staff who are willing and able to work constructively with community organizations and private industry to find solutions for today’s problems,” they write. “We intend on mobilizing our resources to encourage our community to support or oppose ballot measures and elect a city council that will focus on already identified community challenges, craft effective strategies to meet them, and execute those strategies in a timely fashion.”
In our conversation with new Executive Director Kemble Pope, he indicated that he wishes to be more visible and bring business issues forth to the community. He certainly made waves a few weeks ago with his pointed comments toward the city’s economic development staff.
As we suggested last month, there seems to be developing a new frontier in Davis politics.
The chamber and business interests in Davis have grown more vocal.
At the city’s business roundtable, Mr. Pope lamented the loss of the redevelopment agency and threw down a proverbial gauntlet in hopes of prioritizing economic development, when he called for the ouster of the city’s economic development team.
Wrote Mr. Pope: “Let’s plan now for the loss of Redevelopment Agency funding. Failure to plan really is planning to fail. Please ask for help from the community now to make the necessary budget adjustments so that we can minimize services lost.”
He then added, “To that end, consider dissolving the City’s entire Economic Development department and eliminate all staff positions related to the department. Set a date certain in the month of March and these organizations will come back here and present a succession plan to take over those responsibilities.”
To us, this was a call to action, suggesting that the economic development folks had been too cautious and not aggressive enough in moving forward a plan.
Mr. Pope promised a pointed conversation in which candidates would be pressed on their views about economic development and he suggested some would be called to task for their policies that they have advocated on the dais.
What will that look like? Will that work as planned?
As I have written before, everyone supports economic development but there seem to be legitimate differences of opinion over what that should look like. We are never all going to agree, especially in a community where we know that every group of two people has three opinions on a given subject.
And so it will be intrigue and we need it. So far this has been a quiet campaign. But the fun is about to begin, and the Vanguard will be there to bring it to you.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]But tonight marks a beginning period of intrigue as the Chamber of Commerce has already rolled out its political action committee and is looking to expand its voice in the city in hopes of changing council direction and promoting the emphasis of economic development.[/quote]
Good for the Chamber of Commerce!!! This is how to work within the political system to bring about needed change…
For some reason I assumed that, since this was being held in the council chambers, it would be broadcast. Oh, well. Here’s hoping it will be available on video somewhere, sometime.
Unfortunately, I had a schedule conflict and missed the first half of the debate. I had 4 individuals come up to me afterwards before I had to skedaddle and all 4 said the same thing. They all said it was the best council candidate forum they had ever attended. I’d appreciate hearing from those Vanguardians that attended what they thought of the debate. Was it a service to the community? Should we be elevating the discussion of the local economy in our community affairs? Is that the kind of conversation that we should be having in the community? How did each of the candidates perform? Which of them understand the relevance of a robust economy for our community, and which don’t?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Don: The event was taped and will be rebroadcasted. Sorry you were not there.
Michael: I thought it was an excellent start to the campaign. K.Pope did a fantastic job moderating (‘herding cats’ as I would call it). I enjoyed the format and the directness of the questions. I wish the final ‘discussion’ section was longer, perhaps with additional ‘rebuttal’ time allowed.
“The Davis Chamber of Commerce does not relish engaging in local politics……HOWEVER..”
Classic!
[quote]They all said it was the best council candidate forum they had ever attended. I’d appreciate hearing from those Vanguardians that attended what they thought of the debate. Was it a service to the community? Should we be elevating the discussion of the local economy in our community affairs? Is that the kind of conversation that we should be having in the community? How did each of the candidates perform? Which of them understand the relevance of a robust economy for our community, and which don’t?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)[/quote]
I thought the debate went very well, a refreshing change. Kemble Pope did an excellent job as moderator, altho he needs to be careful not to interject his opinion when asking questions IMO. The questions were focused, and on point with economic development. I very much liked that the candidates were somewhat prepared for the questions, so that they had time to think through how they wanted to answer the questions. All in all, one of the better City Council debates I have seen in Davis.
There were some definite divides in vision. Generally I thought Council member Sue Greenwald’s vision is to keep the downtown pretty much the same. She clearly likes the “funky” look, and does not want to allow for much in the way of change. Whereas Brett Less seemed to indicate the need for some loosening of restrictions, to allow the downtown to flourish with some fresh ideas. This is clearly a difference in vision. Which vision one prefers depends on one’s own personal preferences.
There also seems to be a split on the vision for the Cannery, but it was not clear where all the candidates came down on that issue. Clearly Sue and Brett believe the Cannery would be better developed as a business park (and I tend to agree). I’m not sure if that aligns with the business community or not. I suspect there is a contingent of the business community that fears a business park at the Cannery might represent competition for the downtown.
I do wonder if the business community is completely unified itself. Don’t know. Would a member of the business community care to comment?
I don’t think the business community is unified because it has many different sectors with competing interests.
The Chamber of Commerce has very limited retail membership. I urge them to consider this move into partisan politics very carefully. Directors may remember the blowback they got when they endorsed Second Street Crossing (ultimately they changed to a neutral position). They probably don’t care much what I think, since I quit the Chamber years ago, but it can be disadvantageous to align your organization with a particular candidate or faction. I see that happening this year, and I think it will backfire. You don’t want “Chamber of Commerce” to become a brand associated with a particular political philosophy, as has happened in recent years with the national chamber.
DDBA, in particular, needs to tread very cautiously, because you can’t “quit” DDBA. It is an assessment district, and members who disagree with political positions of the leadership can’t leave.
Sue has made this point at various times: small business owners who are in the older buildings downtown benefit from somewhat lower rents than they would get elsewhere in town. Remember, rent rates in downtown are lower than in the neighborhood shopping centers. Redevelopment on any massive scale would likely lead to small businesses being forced out and rents increasing for existing businesses. So any redevelopment of downtown needs to occur carefully. It is likely that you would get somewhat different visions from small retailers than you would from commercial property owners and brokers.
There are likely projects and improvements nearly everyone can agree on. Upgrade E Street, move on Nishi, The business community probably is more united on the need for parking solutions than on most other topics; it isn’t the business community that is delaying or obstructing that.
ERM “I’m not sure if that aligns with the business community or not. I suspect there is a contingent of the business community that fears a business park at the Cannery might represent competition for the downtown.”
BINGO!!!
[quote]DDBA, in particular, needs to tread very cautiously, because you can’t “quit” DDBA. It is an assessment district, and members who disagree with political positions of the leadership can’t leave. [/quote]
Very valid point…
Don, keep in mind tenants have brokers too. The vast majority of my clients, for example, are small, local business owners. Furthermore, there are at least 3 variables pertaining to “affordable” rent: the rental amount, how conducive the space is to the tenant’s business model, and the amount of economic activity / purchasing power that the space is exposed to. Simply saying rent is too high or too low is simplistic. It’s all relative.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”I had 4 individuals come up to me afterwards before I had to skedaddle and all 4 said the same thing. They all said it was the best council candidate forum they had ever attended. I’d appreciate hearing from those Vanguardians that attended what they thought of the debate.”[/i]
Four years ago I moderated a candidates debate, and as good as I thought that one was, I thought last night’s was better. That was for a few reasons. 1) having only one candidate answer each question meant that more questions were able to be asked, and 2) the 30 second and 60 second cards were an outstanding idea. They meant you got virtually all of the good of the format I moderated (with multiple candidates answering the same question automatically) because if a question was important to a candidate they said so by their actions, and the follow-up comments were shorter and showed how a candidate could make a point quickly and directly.
Maybe the Council should adopt a similar system for Council meetings. That way instead of droning on (often repeating what has been said before), each Council member will go into the night knowing that they have only XX seconds of comments that they can use during the whole agenda. We would see a wholly different economy of words, and probably as a result, a whole lot more accomplished.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”Was it a service to the community? Should we be elevating the discussion of the local economy in our community affairs? Is that the kind of conversation that we should be having in the community? How did each of the candidates perform? Which of them understand the relevance of a robust economy for our community, and which don’t?”[/i]
Yes it was a service to the community. Yes we should be elevating the discussion of the local economy in our community affairs. However, I think the Chamber and DDBA should stop short of advocating for specific candidates, and focus more on the sponsorship of non-partisan events like last night’s that help educate the voters on where the candidates stand on key issues. Doing that will 1) put the candidates themselves in a position where they have no one to blame but themselves if they win or lose votes, and 2) mean a much more informed electorate and a much higher voter turnout. Democracy works much better with both an informed electorate and a high voter turnout.
“However, I think the Chamber and DDBA should stop short of advocating for specific candidates, and focus more on the sponsorship of non-partisan events like last night’s that help educate the voters on where the candidates stand on key issues.”
Matt, I would tend to agree with you had we candidates that all recoginized that a sustainable community requires economic, social, and economic sustainability. That not being the case, I disagree with your opinion.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”Matt, I would tend to agree with you had we candidates that all recognized that a sustainable community requires economic, social, and economic sustainability. That not being the case, I disagree with your opinion.”[/i]
I hear you Michael, but would argue that you are not giving the Davis voters enough credit. I believe that the vast majority of the Davis voters do indeed understand that a sustainable community requires economic, social, and economic sustainability. Further, I would say that they also are able to discern which of the candidates do recognize that reality and which don’t.
I will use myself as an example. The most noteworthy difference between this election cycle and the one two years ago is that Rochelle transformed herself from someone whom I knew nothing about to someone I actively supported, while Sue this cycle has transformed herself from someone whom I actively supported (and campaigned for) to someone who has completely lost my support.
In each of those cases the candidate was 100% responsible for the change. I would argue that the Chamber does not need to take an advocacy role, rather it simply needs to create opportunities (like last night’s debate) where the candidates speak for themselves. Unless something radically changes, the candidates will present themselves to the voters in stark relief, and the voters will see and respond and vote accordingly come June.
The following post explains how Sue “lost” my support.
Dr. Wu said . . .
[i]”On the issue of “we need new blood” consider that Joe and Rochelle are still in their first term, Dan Wolk was only recently appointed and the odds makers on this blog and in the Enterprise think that Frerichs will likely get a slot. That would mean four first term City Council people. If Wolk, Lee and Frerichs are elected you would have a City Council with all first term people. To me that is going to far.”[/i]
Dr. Wu, I actively supported both Sue Greenwald and Steve Souza in the 2008 election, as well as Cecilia Ecamilla-Greenwald. I took a lot of flak here in the Vanguard advocating that voters not give a “throw away vote” to Rob Roy but rather vote for Steve because he had (after lots of arm turning) [u]publicly[/u] come out with a platform position of the renewal of Measure J “as is.” Supporting Sue was easy. I agree with most of her positions . . . not all, but most. I also felt at that time (times of economic prosperity) that Sue propagated her message in a forceful, but respectful way.
A lot has changed since then. The economic times are no longer prosperous. The City’s budgetary woes are significant. This is a time when the Sue who propagated messages in a forceful manner needs to be even more respectful. We need our Council members to be ambassadors for the City. We need our Council members to be good “accountants” who understand that the City’s bottom-line is a blend of Expenses and Revenues, and that simply hammering on cost reductions isn’t the whole story. We need our Council members to be effective ambassadors to the people and companies that will bring new and expanded revenue opportunities to Davis. We need our Council members to be team players, seeking collaboration and building consensus.
In the 2008 election I would have argued that Sue could indeed be the kind of ambassador I’ve described above. Without belaboring the incidents of the past four years, lets say that even the most charitable assessment of Sue’s actions would question whether she can be an effective ambassador today.
I’ve held out hope that Sue would see the benefit to the citizens of Davis of beefing up her collaboration and consensus-building efforts. She certainly has been challenged frequently on that issue here in the Vanguard, and frequently she has come in and posted either 1) responses to the challenges, and/or 2) pleas for moving off what she sees as “personal attacks.” Yesterday at the Farmers Market as I approached Sue’s tent, she had an opportunity to demonstrate any commitment to collaboration and consensus that she may currently have. She could have reached out and engaged me and attempted to address the points where she and I have differed lately. Her commitment to collaboration and commitment was to wrinkle her nose as if a rancid smell had just hit her nostrils and make it clear that I was now firmly on her wastewater solids list.
So in this city of toads I’ve come to the decision that it would be foolish to try and ferry Sue across the river. She is out of step with the economic times we, as a city, are trying to deal with. I’m very sorry I feel that way about Sue, but a lot has happened between the last election and yesterday.
I don’t feel that way about any of the other four candidates. They all have their warts, but a commitment to collaboration and consensus-building is not one of their individual or collective warts. They are all good candidates for today and tomorrow.
Matt, there were perhaps 60 attendees at the debate last night. Maybe another 1,000 will watch the debate on the Davis Access Media delayed broadcasts, I wouldn’t know. Are there really enough voters paying attention? How many know that we don’t have a DDBA 2×2 anymore because Sue simply doesn’t acknowledge the legitimacy of the DDBA? How many recognize the implications of that? How many care? How many know or care that there is the same kind of broken relationship between Sue and the Chamber? How does one share this info with the community without someone complaining about Sue being picked on?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Good question Michael, and my answer is that those 1,060 will talk to other Davis voters who did not attend. If there is a perception that the playing field was not even for all the candidates, the viral message will have much less power than it will if the perception is that the playing field was indeed even, but the candidate messages were not.
The following post by concerned citizen focuses on a key missing component in last night’s event.
concernedcitizen said . . .
[i]”03/30/12 – 03:16 PM
…
Good question. I know we have two more debates coming down the road, but I wonder if an additional debate would be desire that:
1. Delves deeper into values, communication and leadership styles, understanding/vision of the community’s social ethic, etc
2. The vast majority of the questions for candidates are submitted by the public (online?) rather than developed by a specific group
Davis can’t afford to stay the course and continue in the direction it’s been going for the last several years. We don’t have that luxury anymore.”[/i]
I strongly believe the Chamber PAC would be wise to use its money to help make such a citizen driven debate happen. I don’t know who concerned citizen is, but if I were you I would certainly be reaching out to him/her to make that event happen.
I actually proposed a citizen-driven debate this morning and am still awaitin a reply. Stay tuned. But the Chamber PAC would not be involved because then it would be a nefarious Chamber PAC driven debate.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
I suggest then that it be a non-nefarious Chamber PAC sponsored event. Have the moderator, etc come from the citizens. Have the Chamber PAC help eliminate barriers to making it happen. That would be a good example of collaboration and consensus building . . . 8>)