(See the July 12 20007 article for the full discussion at that point.)
The idea behind mitigation is that any development along the periphery of Davis would require the developer to concurrently set aside twice as many acres to be protected and preserved as agricultural land. Crucial to the agricultural protection is the notion of adjacent mitigation, which means that there would be a quarter mile designated buffer zone along any development that would be designated as a protected land that would have a permanent designated land-use of agricultural. The idea here is that with that buffer zone, you reduce the possibility of developing the next parcel of land and therefore prevent leap frog development and urban sprawl.
In addition to the adjacent mitigation there would be another strip of land protected somewhere else that along with the adjacent strip would account for twice the acreage of that developed. So if you had a 100 acre parcel for development, you would have to mitigate for a total of 200 acres, part of that would be a quarter mile strip adjacent to your developed property and the rest could be wherever you could secure such mitigation within the planning zone.
The idea here is that as you develop outwards, you create a permanent urban limit line by setting aside specific land into permanent mitigation.
The council also directed staff to return with modifications to the minimum mitigation ratio.
At last week’s meeting, Don Saylor, who was originally a skeptic of this proposal back in July, asked a series of tough questions about the need for the quarter-mile adjacent mitigation. Suggesting that it was not viable for farming in the size allotted by the ordinance.
According to Mitch Sears, Davis City Staffer, the idea of adjacency is to address the outward expansion of the city so that larger tracts of farmland are protected.
Don Saylor: “What is this ordinance titled?”
Mitch Sears: “Farmland Protection.”
Don Saylor: “But it’s really something else is what you just said. It’s not agricultural mitigation from what you just said–it’s something else. What was the word you just used?”
Mitch Sears: “Farmland protection.”
Don Saylor: “Earlier when you were describing the reason for the quarter-mile boundary–you said it was something other than agricultural mitigation.”
Mitch Sears: “The primary threat to farmland in the central valley is urban expansion…”
Don Saylor: “So it’s the urban expansion prevention ordinance?”
Mitch Sears: “We’re taking language from the general plan…”
From the General Plan:
“In order to create an effective permanent agricultural and open space buffer on the perimeter of the City… peruse amendments of the Farmland Preservation Ordinance to assure as a baseline standard that new peripheral development projects provide a minimum of 2:1 mitigation along the entire non-urbanized perimeter of the project.
The proposed amendments shall allow for the alternative location of mitigations for such projects including but not limited to circumstances where the project is adjacent to land already protected.”
Don Saylor: “So a permanent agricultural and open space buffer ordinance is what we’re talking about? Because it doesn’t seem like we’re preserving agriculture.”
At this point City Manager Bill Emlen stepped in:
“Obviously it’s got multidimensions to it. There is an agricultural land preservation component to it. Once again I think it gets down to the question about the importance of maintaining urban encroachment to preserve viable farmland.”
Don Saylor: “We’re exempting affordable housing and public use, what’s the rationale for exempting those uses if we’re preserving agriculture and we’re creating this permanent buffer against urban expansion, then are we saying some urban expansion is okay?”
Mitch Sears: “I think it was in recognition of Measure J that has similar exemptions.”
Don Saylor: “So some urban expansion is okay?”
Mitch Sears: “Yeah. The way that the ordinance is constructed doesn’t say that you can’t grow, you grow and there’s a cap essentially put on that next step of urban expansion. That was one of the basis for the general plan action and also for the way the ordinance was envisioned, constructed and analyzed.”
Councilmember Lamar Heystek was one of the chief proponents of this measure.
“We are situated in an agricultural landscape. I think it [this ordinance] makes votes under Measure J more of a balanced presentation. I think that some citizens may subconsciously support a Measure J decision knowing that we’re going to preserve more agricultural land in perpetuity than is being taken away. I think the 2:1 proposal that was presented originally in July was by far the strongest preservation ordinance that had ever been seen by any municipal government in the state. But with council having taken action to say that 2:1 was the absolute minimum that was an even farther leap forward and I commend the council taking that step. We will have the strongest agricultural mitigation ordinance and farmland protection ordinance in the state.”
Councilmember Heystek had previously described this ordinance among his most proud accomplishments of his first year on the council:
“I’m proud that I proposed and successfully fought for the passage of the strictest agricultural mitigation ordinance in the state – one that requires the preservation of two acres of ag land for every acre developed.”
Don Saylor continued to express concerns about this ordinance in his closing comments–however in the end he voted with the majority to pass the agricultural mitigation and farmland protection ordinance.
However, for those with a strong commitment to preserve viable agricultural and farmland this is an innovative and forward looking initiative that will enable us to preserve our agricultural heritage in the face of growth and urbanization pressures.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
“Suggesting that it was not viable for farming in the size allotted by the ordinance…..”
Mich Sears responded clearly and directly to Councilman Saylor’s attack on Davis’ Agricultural Mitigation ordinance by stating that 1/4 mile is considered, by those who study the issue, as viable for agricultural activities.
The southern 1/3 of the previous Covell Village site for development(commercial and affordable residential) with the 2/3 to the north as adjacent permanent agricultural mitigation seems to fit quite nicely into this ordinance.
“Suggesting that it was not viable for farming in the size allotted by the ordinance…..”
Mich Sears responded clearly and directly to Councilman Saylor’s attack on Davis’ Agricultural Mitigation ordinance by stating that 1/4 mile is considered, by those who study the issue, as viable for agricultural activities.
The southern 1/3 of the previous Covell Village site for development(commercial and affordable residential) with the 2/3 to the north as adjacent permanent agricultural mitigation seems to fit quite nicely into this ordinance.
“Suggesting that it was not viable for farming in the size allotted by the ordinance…..”
Mich Sears responded clearly and directly to Councilman Saylor’s attack on Davis’ Agricultural Mitigation ordinance by stating that 1/4 mile is considered, by those who study the issue, as viable for agricultural activities.
The southern 1/3 of the previous Covell Village site for development(commercial and affordable residential) with the 2/3 to the north as adjacent permanent agricultural mitigation seems to fit quite nicely into this ordinance.
“Suggesting that it was not viable for farming in the size allotted by the ordinance…..”
Mich Sears responded clearly and directly to Councilman Saylor’s attack on Davis’ Agricultural Mitigation ordinance by stating that 1/4 mile is considered, by those who study the issue, as viable for agricultural activities.
The southern 1/3 of the previous Covell Village site for development(commercial and affordable residential) with the 2/3 to the north as adjacent permanent agricultural mitigation seems to fit quite nicely into this ordinance.
This is really an important achievement. The adjacency mitigation ordinance is the first of its kind in the nation.
The credit belongs to Mark Spencer, who introduced and developed this concept, and the activists who supported it. Mark and the citizen activists have been working tirelessly to get this proposal adopted for years.
Although the required ag buffer which will be required to be adjacent to the city might not be wide enough to preclude jumping over it some day, it is an important step toward establishing a permanent edge and ultimate size for the city.
During the Great Depression, the citizens of Berkeley and other East Bay cities voted to tax themselves to create a permanent open space buffer to define the edge of their cities. They realized that without it, Berkeley and Oakland would sprawl over the East Bay Hills into Contra Costa County. This permanent open space buffer is the East Bay Regional Park system.
It is hard to imagine what the East Bay would look like today if housing subdivisions covered what is now the East Bay Regional Parks.
This is really an important achievement. The adjacency mitigation ordinance is the first of its kind in the nation.
The credit belongs to Mark Spencer, who introduced and developed this concept, and the activists who supported it. Mark and the citizen activists have been working tirelessly to get this proposal adopted for years.
Although the required ag buffer which will be required to be adjacent to the city might not be wide enough to preclude jumping over it some day, it is an important step toward establishing a permanent edge and ultimate size for the city.
During the Great Depression, the citizens of Berkeley and other East Bay cities voted to tax themselves to create a permanent open space buffer to define the edge of their cities. They realized that without it, Berkeley and Oakland would sprawl over the East Bay Hills into Contra Costa County. This permanent open space buffer is the East Bay Regional Park system.
It is hard to imagine what the East Bay would look like today if housing subdivisions covered what is now the East Bay Regional Parks.
This is really an important achievement. The adjacency mitigation ordinance is the first of its kind in the nation.
The credit belongs to Mark Spencer, who introduced and developed this concept, and the activists who supported it. Mark and the citizen activists have been working tirelessly to get this proposal adopted for years.
Although the required ag buffer which will be required to be adjacent to the city might not be wide enough to preclude jumping over it some day, it is an important step toward establishing a permanent edge and ultimate size for the city.
During the Great Depression, the citizens of Berkeley and other East Bay cities voted to tax themselves to create a permanent open space buffer to define the edge of their cities. They realized that without it, Berkeley and Oakland would sprawl over the East Bay Hills into Contra Costa County. This permanent open space buffer is the East Bay Regional Park system.
It is hard to imagine what the East Bay would look like today if housing subdivisions covered what is now the East Bay Regional Parks.
This is really an important achievement. The adjacency mitigation ordinance is the first of its kind in the nation.
The credit belongs to Mark Spencer, who introduced and developed this concept, and the activists who supported it. Mark and the citizen activists have been working tirelessly to get this proposal adopted for years.
Although the required ag buffer which will be required to be adjacent to the city might not be wide enough to preclude jumping over it some day, it is an important step toward establishing a permanent edge and ultimate size for the city.
During the Great Depression, the citizens of Berkeley and other East Bay cities voted to tax themselves to create a permanent open space buffer to define the edge of their cities. They realized that without it, Berkeley and Oakland would sprawl over the East Bay Hills into Contra Costa County. This permanent open space buffer is the East Bay Regional Park system.
It is hard to imagine what the East Bay would look like today if housing subdivisions covered what is now the East Bay Regional Parks.
Sue: Why don’t you give Lamar credit on this one–he was part of the early process on the Open Space Commission and then helped sheppard it through council getting Souza and Asmundson to join you guys?
Sue: Why don’t you give Lamar credit on this one–he was part of the early process on the Open Space Commission and then helped sheppard it through council getting Souza and Asmundson to join you guys?
Sue: Why don’t you give Lamar credit on this one–he was part of the early process on the Open Space Commission and then helped sheppard it through council getting Souza and Asmundson to join you guys?
Sue: Why don’t you give Lamar credit on this one–he was part of the early process on the Open Space Commission and then helped sheppard it through council getting Souza and Asmundson to join you guys?
What is this? A progressive blog or a blog to support the political machine of Bill Ritter and David and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald? And how come these remarks that sound like they come from a particular political machine are never signed?
Lamar has been great, but on this issue he was one of many activists who was working hard on this issue. This effort was well underway before Lamar became involved in Davis land use issues.
In my opinion, this moment belongs to Mark Spencer.
What is this? A progressive blog or a blog to support the political machine of Bill Ritter and David and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald? And how come these remarks that sound like they come from a particular political machine are never signed?
Lamar has been great, but on this issue he was one of many activists who was working hard on this issue. This effort was well underway before Lamar became involved in Davis land use issues.
In my opinion, this moment belongs to Mark Spencer.
What is this? A progressive blog or a blog to support the political machine of Bill Ritter and David and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald? And how come these remarks that sound like they come from a particular political machine are never signed?
Lamar has been great, but on this issue he was one of many activists who was working hard on this issue. This effort was well underway before Lamar became involved in Davis land use issues.
In my opinion, this moment belongs to Mark Spencer.
What is this? A progressive blog or a blog to support the political machine of Bill Ritter and David and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald? And how come these remarks that sound like they come from a particular political machine are never signed?
Lamar has been great, but on this issue he was one of many activists who was working hard on this issue. This effort was well underway before Lamar became involved in Davis land use issues.
In my opinion, this moment belongs to Mark Spencer.
The political reality is that without Lamar Heystek on the city council this effort would not have passed. Beginning with his service on the Open Space Commission and most importantly with his election to the city council in 2006 Lamar was a forceful and effective advocate for a 2:1 agricultural mitigation for all development projects on the Davis periphery under all circumstances. Lamar’s leadership working to secure the support of both Ruth Asmundson and Stephen Souza gave the measure the additional votes needed for passage.
Surely, citizen activists such as Mark Spencer, Pam Nieberg, Eileen Samitz and many others deserve credit too, but again the political reality is without Lamar and his political skills this would not have been adopted.
The political reality is that without Lamar Heystek on the city council this effort would not have passed. Beginning with his service on the Open Space Commission and most importantly with his election to the city council in 2006 Lamar was a forceful and effective advocate for a 2:1 agricultural mitigation for all development projects on the Davis periphery under all circumstances. Lamar’s leadership working to secure the support of both Ruth Asmundson and Stephen Souza gave the measure the additional votes needed for passage.
Surely, citizen activists such as Mark Spencer, Pam Nieberg, Eileen Samitz and many others deserve credit too, but again the political reality is without Lamar and his political skills this would not have been adopted.
The political reality is that without Lamar Heystek on the city council this effort would not have passed. Beginning with his service on the Open Space Commission and most importantly with his election to the city council in 2006 Lamar was a forceful and effective advocate for a 2:1 agricultural mitigation for all development projects on the Davis periphery under all circumstances. Lamar’s leadership working to secure the support of both Ruth Asmundson and Stephen Souza gave the measure the additional votes needed for passage.
Surely, citizen activists such as Mark Spencer, Pam Nieberg, Eileen Samitz and many others deserve credit too, but again the political reality is without Lamar and his political skills this would not have been adopted.
The political reality is that without Lamar Heystek on the city council this effort would not have passed. Beginning with his service on the Open Space Commission and most importantly with his election to the city council in 2006 Lamar was a forceful and effective advocate for a 2:1 agricultural mitigation for all development projects on the Davis periphery under all circumstances. Lamar’s leadership working to secure the support of both Ruth Asmundson and Stephen Souza gave the measure the additional votes needed for passage.
Surely, citizen activists such as Mark Spencer, Pam Nieberg, Eileen Samitz and many others deserve credit too, but again the political reality is without Lamar and his political skills this would not have been adopted.
“What is this? A progressive blog or a blog to support the political machine of Bill Ritter and David and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald?”
If this is a progressive blog, do we now support Lamar Heystek, one of two progressives on the council?
“What is this? A progressive blog or a blog to support the political machine of Bill Ritter and David and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald?”
If this is a progressive blog, do we now support Lamar Heystek, one of two progressives on the council?
“What is this? A progressive blog or a blog to support the political machine of Bill Ritter and David and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald?”
If this is a progressive blog, do we now support Lamar Heystek, one of two progressives on the council?
“What is this? A progressive blog or a blog to support the political machine of Bill Ritter and David and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald?”
If this is a progressive blog, do we now support Lamar Heystek, one of two progressives on the council?
“now” = “not”
“now” = “not”
“now” = “not”
“now” = “not”
Another defeat for the middle class in davis. No growth =decling enrolment= higher taxes= less disposable income for the middle class= SUE and her rentals increase there rent= SUE taking a trip to France= the poor getting to enjoy the pollution from the trip
Another defeat for the middle class in davis. No growth =decling enrolment= higher taxes= less disposable income for the middle class= SUE and her rentals increase there rent= SUE taking a trip to France= the poor getting to enjoy the pollution from the trip
Another defeat for the middle class in davis. No growth =decling enrolment= higher taxes= less disposable income for the middle class= SUE and her rentals increase there rent= SUE taking a trip to France= the poor getting to enjoy the pollution from the trip
Another defeat for the middle class in davis. No growth =decling enrolment= higher taxes= less disposable income for the middle class= SUE and her rentals increase there rent= SUE taking a trip to France= the poor getting to enjoy the pollution from the trip
Very interesting, this post by the Mayor gives us a somewhat disturbing view into her mindset.
She apparently does not consider Lamar Heystek a progressive. She also has built up Ritter, Greenwald, and Escamilla Greenwald into some sort of a Leviathan.
They are obviously a powerful machine to be reckoned with if they can elect Lamar Heystek to the city council.
I’m not sure exactly what the mayor had hoped to achieve by posting as she did. I don’t understand the need to deprive Lamar of his praise for the good work he did on the issue.
That there are others who deserve credit is noted but this is not a zero-sum game.
Is Sue drawing a line in the sand? I sure hope not. We need to be united, not divided along petty grievances.
Very interesting, this post by the Mayor gives us a somewhat disturbing view into her mindset.
She apparently does not consider Lamar Heystek a progressive. She also has built up Ritter, Greenwald, and Escamilla Greenwald into some sort of a Leviathan.
They are obviously a powerful machine to be reckoned with if they can elect Lamar Heystek to the city council.
I’m not sure exactly what the mayor had hoped to achieve by posting as she did. I don’t understand the need to deprive Lamar of his praise for the good work he did on the issue.
That there are others who deserve credit is noted but this is not a zero-sum game.
Is Sue drawing a line in the sand? I sure hope not. We need to be united, not divided along petty grievances.
Very interesting, this post by the Mayor gives us a somewhat disturbing view into her mindset.
She apparently does not consider Lamar Heystek a progressive. She also has built up Ritter, Greenwald, and Escamilla Greenwald into some sort of a Leviathan.
They are obviously a powerful machine to be reckoned with if they can elect Lamar Heystek to the city council.
I’m not sure exactly what the mayor had hoped to achieve by posting as she did. I don’t understand the need to deprive Lamar of his praise for the good work he did on the issue.
That there are others who deserve credit is noted but this is not a zero-sum game.
Is Sue drawing a line in the sand? I sure hope not. We need to be united, not divided along petty grievances.
Very interesting, this post by the Mayor gives us a somewhat disturbing view into her mindset.
She apparently does not consider Lamar Heystek a progressive. She also has built up Ritter, Greenwald, and Escamilla Greenwald into some sort of a Leviathan.
They are obviously a powerful machine to be reckoned with if they can elect Lamar Heystek to the city council.
I’m not sure exactly what the mayor had hoped to achieve by posting as she did. I don’t understand the need to deprive Lamar of his praise for the good work he did on the issue.
That there are others who deserve credit is noted but this is not a zero-sum game.
Is Sue drawing a line in the sand? I sure hope not. We need to be united, not divided along petty grievances.
Sue – Your last comment is out of line. I truly do not understand how your mind works. One minute logical and insightful, the next minute paranoid and spiteful. Next time you post something, I suggest you write it down and then wait a day before you actually post it.
Sue – Your last comment is out of line. I truly do not understand how your mind works. One minute logical and insightful, the next minute paranoid and spiteful. Next time you post something, I suggest you write it down and then wait a day before you actually post it.
Sue – Your last comment is out of line. I truly do not understand how your mind works. One minute logical and insightful, the next minute paranoid and spiteful. Next time you post something, I suggest you write it down and then wait a day before you actually post it.
Sue – Your last comment is out of line. I truly do not understand how your mind works. One minute logical and insightful, the next minute paranoid and spiteful. Next time you post something, I suggest you write it down and then wait a day before you actually post it.
Stop shooting yourself in the foot Sue. Be more of a team player. It’s not about you. It’s about what is best for Davis.
Stop shooting yourself in the foot Sue. Be more of a team player. It’s not about you. It’s about what is best for Davis.
Stop shooting yourself in the foot Sue. Be more of a team player. It’s not about you. It’s about what is best for Davis.
Stop shooting yourself in the foot Sue. Be more of a team player. It’s not about you. It’s about what is best for Davis.
Bill Ritter and Sue Greenwald have been at each others throats for years to the delight of the developer-backed Council candidates; when Cecila Greenwald chose Bill as her campaign manager, it was throwing gasoline on the fire. All parties need to put aside their very mutual animosities for the duration of the 2008 Council election campaign and focus on their common enterprise for our city’s sake, namely winning a progressive Council majority in 2008.
Bill Ritter and Sue Greenwald have been at each others throats for years to the delight of the developer-backed Council candidates; when Cecila Greenwald chose Bill as her campaign manager, it was throwing gasoline on the fire. All parties need to put aside their very mutual animosities for the duration of the 2008 Council election campaign and focus on their common enterprise for our city’s sake, namely winning a progressive Council majority in 2008.
Bill Ritter and Sue Greenwald have been at each others throats for years to the delight of the developer-backed Council candidates; when Cecila Greenwald chose Bill as her campaign manager, it was throwing gasoline on the fire. All parties need to put aside their very mutual animosities for the duration of the 2008 Council election campaign and focus on their common enterprise for our city’s sake, namely winning a progressive Council majority in 2008.
Bill Ritter and Sue Greenwald have been at each others throats for years to the delight of the developer-backed Council candidates; when Cecila Greenwald chose Bill as her campaign manager, it was throwing gasoline on the fire. All parties need to put aside their very mutual animosities for the duration of the 2008 Council election campaign and focus on their common enterprise for our city’s sake, namely winning a progressive Council majority in 2008.
Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar? I think Sue does a great job, and is always well informed. Why all of the hate?
Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar? I think Sue does a great job, and is always well informed. Why all of the hate?
Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar? I think Sue does a great job, and is always well informed. Why all of the hate?
Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar? I think Sue does a great job, and is always well informed. Why all of the hate?
It’s noteworthy that Lamar Heystek let’s Bill Ritter, Dave Greenwald, Ceci Greenwald and all of the anonymous bloggers on the Vanguard to constantly criticize Sue Greenwald. He is ultimately responsible for all of this mean-spirited campaigning, if he won’t tell his acolytes to shut up.
Sue never said anything bad about Lamar. She simply praised Mark Spencer. But the Lamar-lovers took that as an attack on Lamar and spewed their venom on Sue. And now Lamar has stayed silent amidst all of these attacks. That’s sad. Lamar looks very bad in all of this meanness.
It’s noteworthy that Lamar Heystek let’s Bill Ritter, Dave Greenwald, Ceci Greenwald and all of the anonymous bloggers on the Vanguard to constantly criticize Sue Greenwald. He is ultimately responsible for all of this mean-spirited campaigning, if he won’t tell his acolytes to shut up.
Sue never said anything bad about Lamar. She simply praised Mark Spencer. But the Lamar-lovers took that as an attack on Lamar and spewed their venom on Sue. And now Lamar has stayed silent amidst all of these attacks. That’s sad. Lamar looks very bad in all of this meanness.
It’s noteworthy that Lamar Heystek let’s Bill Ritter, Dave Greenwald, Ceci Greenwald and all of the anonymous bloggers on the Vanguard to constantly criticize Sue Greenwald. He is ultimately responsible for all of this mean-spirited campaigning, if he won’t tell his acolytes to shut up.
Sue never said anything bad about Lamar. She simply praised Mark Spencer. But the Lamar-lovers took that as an attack on Lamar and spewed their venom on Sue. And now Lamar has stayed silent amidst all of these attacks. That’s sad. Lamar looks very bad in all of this meanness.
It’s noteworthy that Lamar Heystek let’s Bill Ritter, Dave Greenwald, Ceci Greenwald and all of the anonymous bloggers on the Vanguard to constantly criticize Sue Greenwald. He is ultimately responsible for all of this mean-spirited campaigning, if he won’t tell his acolytes to shut up.
Sue never said anything bad about Lamar. She simply praised Mark Spencer. But the Lamar-lovers took that as an attack on Lamar and spewed their venom on Sue. And now Lamar has stayed silent amidst all of these attacks. That’s sad. Lamar looks very bad in all of this meanness.
“when Cecila Greenwald chose Bill as her campaign manager, it was throwing gasoline on the fire.”
I think the name thing is the larger issue with Sue.
“Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar?”
No one is anti-Sue, but Sue’s statement was clearly anti-Lamar.
“Sue never said anything bad about Lamar.”
Someone asked Sue:
“Why don’t you give Lamar credit on this one–he was part of the early process on the Open Space Commission and then helped sheppard it through council getting Souza and Asmundson to join you guys?”
She responded:
“What is this? A progressive blog or a blog to support the political machine of Bill Ritter and David and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald?”
My response:
What the hell is that about? Anything that was started on this thread, was started by Sue. There was no reason for her to make that statement.
“All parties need to put aside their very mutual animosities for the duration of the 2008 Council election campaign and focus on their common enterprise for our city’s sake, namely winning a progressive Council majority in 2008.”
Amen.
“when Cecila Greenwald chose Bill as her campaign manager, it was throwing gasoline on the fire.”
I think the name thing is the larger issue with Sue.
“Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar?”
No one is anti-Sue, but Sue’s statement was clearly anti-Lamar.
“Sue never said anything bad about Lamar.”
Someone asked Sue:
“Why don’t you give Lamar credit on this one–he was part of the early process on the Open Space Commission and then helped sheppard it through council getting Souza and Asmundson to join you guys?”
She responded:
“What is this? A progressive blog or a blog to support the political machine of Bill Ritter and David and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald?”
My response:
What the hell is that about? Anything that was started on this thread, was started by Sue. There was no reason for her to make that statement.
“All parties need to put aside their very mutual animosities for the duration of the 2008 Council election campaign and focus on their common enterprise for our city’s sake, namely winning a progressive Council majority in 2008.”
Amen.
“when Cecila Greenwald chose Bill as her campaign manager, it was throwing gasoline on the fire.”
I think the name thing is the larger issue with Sue.
“Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar?”
No one is anti-Sue, but Sue’s statement was clearly anti-Lamar.
“Sue never said anything bad about Lamar.”
Someone asked Sue:
“Why don’t you give Lamar credit on this one–he was part of the early process on the Open Space Commission and then helped sheppard it through council getting Souza and Asmundson to join you guys?”
She responded:
“What is this? A progressive blog or a blog to support the political machine of Bill Ritter and David and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald?”
My response:
What the hell is that about? Anything that was started on this thread, was started by Sue. There was no reason for her to make that statement.
“All parties need to put aside their very mutual animosities for the duration of the 2008 Council election campaign and focus on their common enterprise for our city’s sake, namely winning a progressive Council majority in 2008.”
Amen.
“when Cecila Greenwald chose Bill as her campaign manager, it was throwing gasoline on the fire.”
I think the name thing is the larger issue with Sue.
“Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar?”
No one is anti-Sue, but Sue’s statement was clearly anti-Lamar.
“Sue never said anything bad about Lamar.”
Someone asked Sue:
“Why don’t you give Lamar credit on this one–he was part of the early process on the Open Space Commission and then helped sheppard it through council getting Souza and Asmundson to join you guys?”
She responded:
“What is this? A progressive blog or a blog to support the political machine of Bill Ritter and David and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald?”
My response:
What the hell is that about? Anything that was started on this thread, was started by Sue. There was no reason for her to make that statement.
“All parties need to put aside their very mutual animosities for the duration of the 2008 Council election campaign and focus on their common enterprise for our city’s sake, namely winning a progressive Council majority in 2008.”
Amen.
Oh and this:
“It’s noteworthy that Lamar Heystek let’s Bill Ritter, Dave Greenwald, Ceci Greenwald and all of the anonymous bloggers on the Vanguard to constantly criticize Sue Greenwald. He is ultimately responsible for all of this mean-spirited campaigning, if he won’t tell his acolytes to shut up.”
What has David Greenwald, Cecilia Greenwald, or Bill Ritter said in this thread?
Oh and this:
“It’s noteworthy that Lamar Heystek let’s Bill Ritter, Dave Greenwald, Ceci Greenwald and all of the anonymous bloggers on the Vanguard to constantly criticize Sue Greenwald. He is ultimately responsible for all of this mean-spirited campaigning, if he won’t tell his acolytes to shut up.”
What has David Greenwald, Cecilia Greenwald, or Bill Ritter said in this thread?
Oh and this:
“It’s noteworthy that Lamar Heystek let’s Bill Ritter, Dave Greenwald, Ceci Greenwald and all of the anonymous bloggers on the Vanguard to constantly criticize Sue Greenwald. He is ultimately responsible for all of this mean-spirited campaigning, if he won’t tell his acolytes to shut up.”
What has David Greenwald, Cecilia Greenwald, or Bill Ritter said in this thread?
Oh and this:
“It’s noteworthy that Lamar Heystek let’s Bill Ritter, Dave Greenwald, Ceci Greenwald and all of the anonymous bloggers on the Vanguard to constantly criticize Sue Greenwald. He is ultimately responsible for all of this mean-spirited campaigning, if he won’t tell his acolytes to shut up.”
What has David Greenwald, Cecilia Greenwald, or Bill Ritter said in this thread?
I would like to refer everyone back to my initial post. It was only — I repeat only — about putting our adjacency mitigation requirements in context, and about giving Mark Spencer the credit he is due.
Within minutes of my post, a pseudonymous reply came from “true progressive”. This pseudonym says it all. “True Progressive”.
It is similar in style and method to responses to previous posts that I have made when my posts have implied a difference of opinion with David, or implied that David has left out some important information.
I said nothing in my initial post about Lamar at all.
And, in fact, I thought it was very appropriate for David Greenwald, A.K.A. Doug Paul Davis, to quote Lamar and discuss his role in the passage of the ag mitigation ordinance.
Sometimes I agree with David Greenwald, and sometimes I don’t, and sometimes I feel that his commentary is subtly biased because his significant other is running for office.
So I call it as I see it. This is David’s blog, and I participate because he is offering a forum for community discussion. David has always allowed me to post freely, which allows me to express my views more fully than I can in the Enterprise.
I also think that David has a political goes beyond that of a generic progressive.
I appreciate the fact that David has offered me the opportunity to offer my own set of biases to the discussion.
I would like to refer everyone back to my initial post. It was only — I repeat only — about putting our adjacency mitigation requirements in context, and about giving Mark Spencer the credit he is due.
Within minutes of my post, a pseudonymous reply came from “true progressive”. This pseudonym says it all. “True Progressive”.
It is similar in style and method to responses to previous posts that I have made when my posts have implied a difference of opinion with David, or implied that David has left out some important information.
I said nothing in my initial post about Lamar at all.
And, in fact, I thought it was very appropriate for David Greenwald, A.K.A. Doug Paul Davis, to quote Lamar and discuss his role in the passage of the ag mitigation ordinance.
Sometimes I agree with David Greenwald, and sometimes I don’t, and sometimes I feel that his commentary is subtly biased because his significant other is running for office.
So I call it as I see it. This is David’s blog, and I participate because he is offering a forum for community discussion. David has always allowed me to post freely, which allows me to express my views more fully than I can in the Enterprise.
I also think that David has a political goes beyond that of a generic progressive.
I appreciate the fact that David has offered me the opportunity to offer my own set of biases to the discussion.
I would like to refer everyone back to my initial post. It was only — I repeat only — about putting our adjacency mitigation requirements in context, and about giving Mark Spencer the credit he is due.
Within minutes of my post, a pseudonymous reply came from “true progressive”. This pseudonym says it all. “True Progressive”.
It is similar in style and method to responses to previous posts that I have made when my posts have implied a difference of opinion with David, or implied that David has left out some important information.
I said nothing in my initial post about Lamar at all.
And, in fact, I thought it was very appropriate for David Greenwald, A.K.A. Doug Paul Davis, to quote Lamar and discuss his role in the passage of the ag mitigation ordinance.
Sometimes I agree with David Greenwald, and sometimes I don’t, and sometimes I feel that his commentary is subtly biased because his significant other is running for office.
So I call it as I see it. This is David’s blog, and I participate because he is offering a forum for community discussion. David has always allowed me to post freely, which allows me to express my views more fully than I can in the Enterprise.
I also think that David has a political goes beyond that of a generic progressive.
I appreciate the fact that David has offered me the opportunity to offer my own set of biases to the discussion.
I would like to refer everyone back to my initial post. It was only — I repeat only — about putting our adjacency mitigation requirements in context, and about giving Mark Spencer the credit he is due.
Within minutes of my post, a pseudonymous reply came from “true progressive”. This pseudonym says it all. “True Progressive”.
It is similar in style and method to responses to previous posts that I have made when my posts have implied a difference of opinion with David, or implied that David has left out some important information.
I said nothing in my initial post about Lamar at all.
And, in fact, I thought it was very appropriate for David Greenwald, A.K.A. Doug Paul Davis, to quote Lamar and discuss his role in the passage of the ag mitigation ordinance.
Sometimes I agree with David Greenwald, and sometimes I don’t, and sometimes I feel that his commentary is subtly biased because his significant other is running for office.
So I call it as I see it. This is David’s blog, and I participate because he is offering a forum for community discussion. David has always allowed me to post freely, which allows me to express my views more fully than I can in the Enterprise.
I also think that David has a political goes beyond that of a generic progressive.
I appreciate the fact that David has offered me the opportunity to offer my own set of biases to the discussion.
correction to above typo:
So I call it as I see it. This is David’s blog, and I participate because he is offering a forum for community discussion. David has always allowed me to post freely, which allows me to express my views more fully than I can in the Enterprise.
I also think that David has a political perspective that is sometimes more specific than that of a generic progressive.
I appreciate the fact that David has offered me the opportunity to offer my own set of biases to the discussion.
correction to above typo:
So I call it as I see it. This is David’s blog, and I participate because he is offering a forum for community discussion. David has always allowed me to post freely, which allows me to express my views more fully than I can in the Enterprise.
I also think that David has a political perspective that is sometimes more specific than that of a generic progressive.
I appreciate the fact that David has offered me the opportunity to offer my own set of biases to the discussion.
correction to above typo:
So I call it as I see it. This is David’s blog, and I participate because he is offering a forum for community discussion. David has always allowed me to post freely, which allows me to express my views more fully than I can in the Enterprise.
I also think that David has a political perspective that is sometimes more specific than that of a generic progressive.
I appreciate the fact that David has offered me the opportunity to offer my own set of biases to the discussion.
correction to above typo:
So I call it as I see it. This is David’s blog, and I participate because he is offering a forum for community discussion. David has always allowed me to post freely, which allows me to express my views more fully than I can in the Enterprise.
I also think that David has a political perspective that is sometimes more specific than that of a generic progressive.
I appreciate the fact that David has offered me the opportunity to offer my own set of biases to the discussion.
My reaction as I read the comments above was, “Children, children …” Re-reading the posts there is plenty of personal and spiteful commetary to splatter all parties.
With that said I totally disagree with the Blog Administrator’s comment just above this one. If grown people want to act childish, then that is their right. To close the thread, as you have threatened to do, is simply censorship. Somehow, I don’t think censorship is one of the guiding principles of this Blog.
JMHO
My reaction as I read the comments above was, “Children, children …” Re-reading the posts there is plenty of personal and spiteful commetary to splatter all parties.
With that said I totally disagree with the Blog Administrator’s comment just above this one. If grown people want to act childish, then that is their right. To close the thread, as you have threatened to do, is simply censorship. Somehow, I don’t think censorship is one of the guiding principles of this Blog.
JMHO
My reaction as I read the comments above was, “Children, children …” Re-reading the posts there is plenty of personal and spiteful commetary to splatter all parties.
With that said I totally disagree with the Blog Administrator’s comment just above this one. If grown people want to act childish, then that is their right. To close the thread, as you have threatened to do, is simply censorship. Somehow, I don’t think censorship is one of the guiding principles of this Blog.
JMHO
My reaction as I read the comments above was, “Children, children …” Re-reading the posts there is plenty of personal and spiteful commetary to splatter all parties.
With that said I totally disagree with the Blog Administrator’s comment just above this one. If grown people want to act childish, then that is their right. To close the thread, as you have threatened to do, is simply censorship. Somehow, I don’t think censorship is one of the guiding principles of this Blog.
JMHO
I also would like to compliment Mark Spencer, who deserves our thanks for years of volunteer public service to Davis. This is quite an accomplishment.
I also would like to compliment Mark Spencer, who deserves our thanks for years of volunteer public service to Davis. This is quite an accomplishment.
I also would like to compliment Mark Spencer, who deserves our thanks for years of volunteer public service to Davis. This is quite an accomplishment.
I also would like to compliment Mark Spencer, who deserves our thanks for years of volunteer public service to Davis. This is quite an accomplishment.
I agree that Mark Spencer has put an enormous amount of time and effort for the benefit of the community. For that the community should be grateful. It is helpful for our elected officials to have quality suggestions and proposals to work on and bring forward. This is what the commission structure in our local government is supposed to create. Good ideas, worked over and formulated, and, with the help of staff, brought forward to the City Council who then work together to implement it. This could be a very good example of local political structure actually working like it is supposed to.
I agree that Mark Spencer has put an enormous amount of time and effort for the benefit of the community. For that the community should be grateful. It is helpful for our elected officials to have quality suggestions and proposals to work on and bring forward. This is what the commission structure in our local government is supposed to create. Good ideas, worked over and formulated, and, with the help of staff, brought forward to the City Council who then work together to implement it. This could be a very good example of local political structure actually working like it is supposed to.
I agree that Mark Spencer has put an enormous amount of time and effort for the benefit of the community. For that the community should be grateful. It is helpful for our elected officials to have quality suggestions and proposals to work on and bring forward. This is what the commission structure in our local government is supposed to create. Good ideas, worked over and formulated, and, with the help of staff, brought forward to the City Council who then work together to implement it. This could be a very good example of local political structure actually working like it is supposed to.
I agree that Mark Spencer has put an enormous amount of time and effort for the benefit of the community. For that the community should be grateful. It is helpful for our elected officials to have quality suggestions and proposals to work on and bring forward. This is what the commission structure in our local government is supposed to create. Good ideas, worked over and formulated, and, with the help of staff, brought forward to the City Council who then work together to implement it. This could be a very good example of local political structure actually working like it is supposed to.
Lost in this conversation I think was the duplicity of Saylor on this issue. He was being a wise-ass in terms of his questions but then realizing he was the lone dissenter, quickly voted for it.
Lost in this conversation I think was the duplicity of Saylor on this issue. He was being a wise-ass in terms of his questions but then realizing he was the lone dissenter, quickly voted for it.
Lost in this conversation I think was the duplicity of Saylor on this issue. He was being a wise-ass in terms of his questions but then realizing he was the lone dissenter, quickly voted for it.
Lost in this conversation I think was the duplicity of Saylor on this issue. He was being a wise-ass in terms of his questions but then realizing he was the lone dissenter, quickly voted for it.
Is the Davis Progressive tent big enough for its supporters to join together in issue-based coalitions, putting aside personalities, past histories and different shades of the definition of “progressive”? If not, we will deservedly be marginalized.
Is the Davis Progressive tent big enough for its supporters to join together in issue-based coalitions, putting aside personalities, past histories and different shades of the definition of “progressive”? If not, we will deservedly be marginalized.
Is the Davis Progressive tent big enough for its supporters to join together in issue-based coalitions, putting aside personalities, past histories and different shades of the definition of “progressive”? If not, we will deservedly be marginalized.
Is the Davis Progressive tent big enough for its supporters to join together in issue-based coalitions, putting aside personalities, past histories and different shades of the definition of “progressive”? If not, we will deservedly be marginalized.
davisite said…
Is the Davis Progressive tent big enough for its supporters to join together in issue-based coalitions, putting aside personalities, past histories and different shades of the definition of “progressive”? If not, we will deservedly be marginalized.
Great question davisite!! Even though I don’t get the chance to vote in Davis elections, what happens at the City Council affects all of us in the Davis “sphere of influence.” If we think on an issue-based level agreement amongst all the different shades should be that the #1 goal of the election is the defeat of Saylor. Removing his vote from the Council would have positive ramifications on scores (if not hundreds) of important issues.
davisite said…
Is the Davis Progressive tent big enough for its supporters to join together in issue-based coalitions, putting aside personalities, past histories and different shades of the definition of “progressive”? If not, we will deservedly be marginalized.
Great question davisite!! Even though I don’t get the chance to vote in Davis elections, what happens at the City Council affects all of us in the Davis “sphere of influence.” If we think on an issue-based level agreement amongst all the different shades should be that the #1 goal of the election is the defeat of Saylor. Removing his vote from the Council would have positive ramifications on scores (if not hundreds) of important issues.
davisite said…
Is the Davis Progressive tent big enough for its supporters to join together in issue-based coalitions, putting aside personalities, past histories and different shades of the definition of “progressive”? If not, we will deservedly be marginalized.
Great question davisite!! Even though I don’t get the chance to vote in Davis elections, what happens at the City Council affects all of us in the Davis “sphere of influence.” If we think on an issue-based level agreement amongst all the different shades should be that the #1 goal of the election is the defeat of Saylor. Removing his vote from the Council would have positive ramifications on scores (if not hundreds) of important issues.
davisite said…
Is the Davis Progressive tent big enough for its supporters to join together in issue-based coalitions, putting aside personalities, past histories and different shades of the definition of “progressive”? If not, we will deservedly be marginalized.
Great question davisite!! Even though I don’t get the chance to vote in Davis elections, what happens at the City Council affects all of us in the Davis “sphere of influence.” If we think on an issue-based level agreement amongst all the different shades should be that the #1 goal of the election is the defeat of Saylor. Removing his vote from the Council would have positive ramifications on scores (if not hundreds) of important issues.
the #1 goal of the election is the defeat of Saylor.
Why?
the #1 goal of the election is the defeat of Saylor.
Why?
the #1 goal of the election is the defeat of Saylor.
Why?
the #1 goal of the election is the defeat of Saylor.
Why?
Bert, if you don’t know the answer to that question, then you clearly aren’t a Davis Progressive.
With that said, I would probably say that the died in the wool Davis Progressives would say that I am only a near-Progressive, but the following statements from Saylor’s reelection website are a good place to start.
We also need to get beyond the “growth wars” and take a hard look at our housing and job mix.
What does Saylor mean by take a hard look at our housing mix? I read those words as “build more houses.” The sad thing is that building more houses inb Davis is highly unlikely to change our housing mix. Saylor’s idea is a bad one.
The population of our country, our state, and, especially, our region is growing. New residents are not necessarily something to fear …
Saylor appears to be saying “growth is inevitable, so stop resisting and enjoy it.” The same thing has been espoused by as a possible strategy for dealing with rape.
We all want sustainable growth.
Bottom-line Saylor is the candidate for a bigger Davis, but not a better Davis.
For what it is worth, that is my $0.02.
Bert, if you don’t know the answer to that question, then you clearly aren’t a Davis Progressive.
With that said, I would probably say that the died in the wool Davis Progressives would say that I am only a near-Progressive, but the following statements from Saylor’s reelection website are a good place to start.
We also need to get beyond the “growth wars” and take a hard look at our housing and job mix.
What does Saylor mean by take a hard look at our housing mix? I read those words as “build more houses.” The sad thing is that building more houses inb Davis is highly unlikely to change our housing mix. Saylor’s idea is a bad one.
The population of our country, our state, and, especially, our region is growing. New residents are not necessarily something to fear …
Saylor appears to be saying “growth is inevitable, so stop resisting and enjoy it.” The same thing has been espoused by as a possible strategy for dealing with rape.
We all want sustainable growth.
Bottom-line Saylor is the candidate for a bigger Davis, but not a better Davis.
For what it is worth, that is my $0.02.
Bert, if you don’t know the answer to that question, then you clearly aren’t a Davis Progressive.
With that said, I would probably say that the died in the wool Davis Progressives would say that I am only a near-Progressive, but the following statements from Saylor’s reelection website are a good place to start.
We also need to get beyond the “growth wars” and take a hard look at our housing and job mix.
What does Saylor mean by take a hard look at our housing mix? I read those words as “build more houses.” The sad thing is that building more houses inb Davis is highly unlikely to change our housing mix. Saylor’s idea is a bad one.
The population of our country, our state, and, especially, our region is growing. New residents are not necessarily something to fear …
Saylor appears to be saying “growth is inevitable, so stop resisting and enjoy it.” The same thing has been espoused by as a possible strategy for dealing with rape.
We all want sustainable growth.
Bottom-line Saylor is the candidate for a bigger Davis, but not a better Davis.
For what it is worth, that is my $0.02.
Bert, if you don’t know the answer to that question, then you clearly aren’t a Davis Progressive.
With that said, I would probably say that the died in the wool Davis Progressives would say that I am only a near-Progressive, but the following statements from Saylor’s reelection website are a good place to start.
We also need to get beyond the “growth wars” and take a hard look at our housing and job mix.
What does Saylor mean by take a hard look at our housing mix? I read those words as “build more houses.” The sad thing is that building more houses inb Davis is highly unlikely to change our housing mix. Saylor’s idea is a bad one.
The population of our country, our state, and, especially, our region is growing. New residents are not necessarily something to fear …
Saylor appears to be saying “growth is inevitable, so stop resisting and enjoy it.” The same thing has been espoused by as a possible strategy for dealing with rape.
We all want sustainable growth.
Bottom-line Saylor is the candidate for a bigger Davis, but not a better Davis.
For what it is worth, that is my $0.02.
The “dangers” that Saylor presents:
1. He has been and continues to be a career apparachnik( a Soviet term to describe one whose career is administrating, defending and promoting the policies of the ruling Party)
2. His political skills have been honed in the California CYSA bureaucracy(his previous career)
3.He has made no secret that his goal is to further his personal political ambitions beyond our Council. When conflicts arise between the will of the Davis voters and those whom he believes will aid his political ambitions, his public record speaks for itself.
The “dangers” that Saylor presents:
1. He has been and continues to be a career apparachnik( a Soviet term to describe one whose career is administrating, defending and promoting the policies of the ruling Party)
2. His political skills have been honed in the California CYSA bureaucracy(his previous career)
3.He has made no secret that his goal is to further his personal political ambitions beyond our Council. When conflicts arise between the will of the Davis voters and those whom he believes will aid his political ambitions, his public record speaks for itself.
The “dangers” that Saylor presents:
1. He has been and continues to be a career apparachnik( a Soviet term to describe one whose career is administrating, defending and promoting the policies of the ruling Party)
2. His political skills have been honed in the California CYSA bureaucracy(his previous career)
3.He has made no secret that his goal is to further his personal political ambitions beyond our Council. When conflicts arise between the will of the Davis voters and those whom he believes will aid his political ambitions, his public record speaks for itself.
The “dangers” that Saylor presents:
1. He has been and continues to be a career apparachnik( a Soviet term to describe one whose career is administrating, defending and promoting the policies of the ruling Party)
2. His political skills have been honed in the California CYSA bureaucracy(his previous career)
3.He has made no secret that his goal is to further his personal political ambitions beyond our Council. When conflicts arise between the will of the Davis voters and those whom he believes will aid his political ambitions, his public record speaks for itself.
Anonymous said…
Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar? I think Sue does a great job, and is always well informed. Why all of the hate?
Then why anonymous???
Anonymous said…
Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar? I think Sue does a great job, and is always well informed. Why all of the hate?
Then why anonymous???
Anonymous said…
Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar? I think Sue does a great job, and is always well informed. Why all of the hate?
Then why anonymous???
Anonymous said…
Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar? I think Sue does a great job, and is always well informed. Why all of the hate?
Then why anonymous???
m3 said…
Anonymous said…
Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar? I think Sue does a great job, and is always well informed. Why all of the hate?
Then why anonymous???
m3, a better question is why is your pro-con axis measuring Sue-Lamar?
The real question is where do you want to place your cut-off in the Saylor – Sousa – Greenwald – Greenwald continuum? Lamar isn’t even running for office this election. Lets think “both/and” specifically, lets both celebrate lamar’s accomplishments and get the best three candidates elected in June. For me that means the pro-con decision that has meaning is Sousa-Saylor. Both Greenwalds clearly have my vote, then when choosing where my third vote goes, I’m adding Souza to Cecelia and Sue 10 times out of 10. A Heystek, Greenwald, Greenwald, Souza and Asmundsen Council would be a huge improvement.
m3 said…
Anonymous said…
Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar? I think Sue does a great job, and is always well informed. Why all of the hate?
Then why anonymous???
m3, a better question is why is your pro-con axis measuring Sue-Lamar?
The real question is where do you want to place your cut-off in the Saylor – Sousa – Greenwald – Greenwald continuum? Lamar isn’t even running for office this election. Lets think “both/and” specifically, lets both celebrate lamar’s accomplishments and get the best three candidates elected in June. For me that means the pro-con decision that has meaning is Sousa-Saylor. Both Greenwalds clearly have my vote, then when choosing where my third vote goes, I’m adding Souza to Cecelia and Sue 10 times out of 10. A Heystek, Greenwald, Greenwald, Souza and Asmundsen Council would be a huge improvement.
m3 said…
Anonymous said…
Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar? I think Sue does a great job, and is always well informed. Why all of the hate?
Then why anonymous???
m3, a better question is why is your pro-con axis measuring Sue-Lamar?
The real question is where do you want to place your cut-off in the Saylor – Sousa – Greenwald – Greenwald continuum? Lamar isn’t even running for office this election. Lets think “both/and” specifically, lets both celebrate lamar’s accomplishments and get the best three candidates elected in June. For me that means the pro-con decision that has meaning is Sousa-Saylor. Both Greenwalds clearly have my vote, then when choosing where my third vote goes, I’m adding Souza to Cecelia and Sue 10 times out of 10. A Heystek, Greenwald, Greenwald, Souza and Asmundsen Council would be a huge improvement.
m3 said…
Anonymous said…
Why is everyone so anti-Sue and pro-Lamar? I think Sue does a great job, and is always well informed. Why all of the hate?
Then why anonymous???
m3, a better question is why is your pro-con axis measuring Sue-Lamar?
The real question is where do you want to place your cut-off in the Saylor – Sousa – Greenwald – Greenwald continuum? Lamar isn’t even running for office this election. Lets think “both/and” specifically, lets both celebrate lamar’s accomplishments and get the best three candidates elected in June. For me that means the pro-con decision that has meaning is Sousa-Saylor. Both Greenwalds clearly have my vote, then when choosing where my third vote goes, I’m adding Souza to Cecelia and Sue 10 times out of 10. A Heystek, Greenwald, Greenwald, Souza and Asmundsen Council would be a huge improvement.
His political skills have been honed in the California CYSA bureaucracy(his previous career)
CORRECTION: The California Youth Authority, not CYSA(a youth soccer association).
His political skills have been honed in the California CYSA bureaucracy(his previous career)
CORRECTION: The California Youth Authority, not CYSA(a youth soccer association).
His political skills have been honed in the California CYSA bureaucracy(his previous career)
CORRECTION: The California Youth Authority, not CYSA(a youth soccer association).
His political skills have been honed in the California CYSA bureaucracy(his previous career)
CORRECTION: The California Youth Authority, not CYSA(a youth soccer association).
Matt Williams… I would suggest that unless there is an additional entry into the Council race, casting just two votes for the TWO GREENWALDS is the best option; Sue, Cecilia and Lamar would give us a Council majority and then let Saylor and Souza fight it out for the third slot. Progressive votes for Souza along with his Gang of Three backing could very well give him the Mayor pro tem spot in 2008.
Matt Williams… I would suggest that unless there is an additional entry into the Council race, casting just two votes for the TWO GREENWALDS is the best option; Sue, Cecilia and Lamar would give us a Council majority and then let Saylor and Souza fight it out for the third slot. Progressive votes for Souza along with his Gang of Three backing could very well give him the Mayor pro tem spot in 2008.
Matt Williams… I would suggest that unless there is an additional entry into the Council race, casting just two votes for the TWO GREENWALDS is the best option; Sue, Cecilia and Lamar would give us a Council majority and then let Saylor and Souza fight it out for the third slot. Progressive votes for Souza along with his Gang of Three backing could very well give him the Mayor pro tem spot in 2008.
Matt Williams… I would suggest that unless there is an additional entry into the Council race, casting just two votes for the TWO GREENWALDS is the best option; Sue, Cecilia and Lamar would give us a Council majority and then let Saylor and Souza fight it out for the third slot. Progressive votes for Souza along with his Gang of Three backing could very well give him the Mayor pro tem spot in 2008.
davisite said…
Matt Williams… I would suggest that unless there is an additional entry into the Council race, casting just two votes for the TWO GREENWALDS is the best option; Sue, Cecilia and Lamar would give us a Council majority and then let Saylor and Souza fight it out for the third slot. Progressive votes for Souza along with his Gang of Three backing could very well give him the Mayor pro tem spot in 2008.
That is a reasonable strategy, but only if the answers to the following two questions are “yes.”
The first question is, is there any real power associated with the Mayor pro tem spot? For me, the answer to that question is that Sue has shown us this year that there isn’t any real power associated with being Mayor, so why would there be any power being Mayor pro tem?
The second question is, are Saylor and Souza equally undesirable? For me, the answer to that question is “No, Souza is significantly more desireable than Saylor.”
davisite said…
Matt Williams… I would suggest that unless there is an additional entry into the Council race, casting just two votes for the TWO GREENWALDS is the best option; Sue, Cecilia and Lamar would give us a Council majority and then let Saylor and Souza fight it out for the third slot. Progressive votes for Souza along with his Gang of Three backing could very well give him the Mayor pro tem spot in 2008.
That is a reasonable strategy, but only if the answers to the following two questions are “yes.”
The first question is, is there any real power associated with the Mayor pro tem spot? For me, the answer to that question is that Sue has shown us this year that there isn’t any real power associated with being Mayor, so why would there be any power being Mayor pro tem?
The second question is, are Saylor and Souza equally undesirable? For me, the answer to that question is “No, Souza is significantly more desireable than Saylor.”
davisite said…
Matt Williams… I would suggest that unless there is an additional entry into the Council race, casting just two votes for the TWO GREENWALDS is the best option; Sue, Cecilia and Lamar would give us a Council majority and then let Saylor and Souza fight it out for the third slot. Progressive votes for Souza along with his Gang of Three backing could very well give him the Mayor pro tem spot in 2008.
That is a reasonable strategy, but only if the answers to the following two questions are “yes.”
The first question is, is there any real power associated with the Mayor pro tem spot? For me, the answer to that question is that Sue has shown us this year that there isn’t any real power associated with being Mayor, so why would there be any power being Mayor pro tem?
The second question is, are Saylor and Souza equally undesirable? For me, the answer to that question is “No, Souza is significantly more desireable than Saylor.”
davisite said…
Matt Williams… I would suggest that unless there is an additional entry into the Council race, casting just two votes for the TWO GREENWALDS is the best option; Sue, Cecilia and Lamar would give us a Council majority and then let Saylor and Souza fight it out for the third slot. Progressive votes for Souza along with his Gang of Three backing could very well give him the Mayor pro tem spot in 2008.
That is a reasonable strategy, but only if the answers to the following two questions are “yes.”
The first question is, is there any real power associated with the Mayor pro tem spot? For me, the answer to that question is that Sue has shown us this year that there isn’t any real power associated with being Mayor, so why would there be any power being Mayor pro tem?
The second question is, are Saylor and Souza equally undesirable? For me, the answer to that question is “No, Souza is significantly more desireable than Saylor.”