This week, someone passed on a message that declared that Davis was really nuts. Actually I believe there was an expletive in front of the “nuts” but you get the idea. This led me to wonder if Davis really is nuts, or if it is simply misunderstood.
The reputation, while perhaps well-earned, is probably based on two rather isolated incidents from the early 1990s.
In his book chronicling the changing tides in Davis, Professor John Lofland described the transition of Davis as eco-city and a hero for progressives across the country to “weird Davis.” He writes, “By the early 1990s, Davis was receiving little media attention… But then something odd happened. In 1993, the media spotlight shone on Davis again. However, this time it was negative. Instead of being a hero, the town was treated as a weird and quirky fool. Other negative labels included goofy, odd, eccentric, and flaky.”
In June of 2007, the Sacramento Bee reported on one of those weird ideas – the idea of creating a tunnel under the Pole Line overpass to serve as a corridor by which toads could safely pass.
“No record occurs of the tunnel ever being used by a toad,” John McNerney, Davis wildlife resource specialist told the Bee. “It was well- intentioned but not successful.”
“The toad tunnel, installed a dozen years ago this summer under a new over-crossing ramp, was intended to prevent the amphibians from being squished by cars,” the Bee writes. “Apparently, the toads never used the tunnel enough, if at all, and the population of toads that once hopped around the area has died out.”
The other infamous incident occurred in 1995 when the police overzealously and without a good deal of common sense cited a woman for violating the noise ordinance as she snored in her own bed in her own duplex. The noise bothered her student neighbor, who would call the police.
Though the incident is now nearly 20 years old, Police Chief Landy Black once said that it is still an incident that the police are mindful of when enforcing ordinances, as an example of how the letter of the law might need to tempered with common sense.
Those things were a little strange, but they are also twenty years ago. The reputation they created seems to persist. But why?
Perhaps the most recent example was the vote on fluoridation where the Sacramento Bee accused the Davis City Council of taking “the easy way out.”
And while the “council members said they didn’t want to jeopardize support for a massive project, essential to the future of Davis, to draw 12 million gallons of water a day from the Sacramento River starting in 2016,” the Bee criticized the council for allowing politics to trump public health concerns.
Wrote the Bee, “The council’s politically expedient rationale may have sidestepped the shaky science behind some of the opposition to fluoridation. But now council members are obligated to follow through and find real alternatives to improve dental care, especially for poorer kids.”
Perhaps so, but Davis drew a lesson from what happened in Portland, where the city council ignored the concerns of the citizenry on the very same issue of fluoridation and the issue was placed on the ballot and the citizens overwhelming, in a bitterly divisive election, overturned that decision.
Given the likelihood of the same outcome, or at least the realistic possibility, people might suggest that the city council made a wise decision.
Is that really being weird?
The nearest I can tell is the complaint about Davis is that citizens are very involved, very active, and very concerned about local politics.
Bad us? Councilmembers have told me tales of getting texts from their Woodland counterparts about having very short city council meetings and being done within an hour or two, as Davis labors late into the night.
I see, so it’s a bad thing that our citizens care about issues like fluoridation? They care enough about the future of their city that they put ballot measures like Measure J forward to give the citizens a right to vote on land use decisions.
Would you rather live in a city where no one cares about what the council is doing or where they care perhaps a bit more than we would like?
I understand – these decisions and the need for public input are at times inconvenient. Democracy often is. But at the end of the day, I’d rather citizens care so much that they will spend hundreds of comments on minute details of policy decisions, than having empty chambers and no one holding those in power accountable for their actions.
To be honest, while Davis is an active community, it’s not clear it is more active than any number of other highly educated college towns. After all, Berkeley is notorious for their engaged citizenry and, when I grew up in San Luis Obispo, the town was very engaged on local policy as well – in fact, moving here, I didn’t find the engaged citizenry all that unusual or surprising.
Funny thing about that fluoridation vote is that Woodland, while making fun of Davis, may secretly be thankful that Davis rejected fluoridation.
Wrote Daily Democrat editor Jim Smith, “So, the debate over fluoridation in Davis boiled down to two basic complaints: Spending more money not initially agreed to on the water project, and adding a chemical to water supplies. That essentially united opposition between those who didn’t want the water project to begin with and didn’t want to pay more money with those who were against putting fluoride into public water systems no matter what.”
He writes, “That was an interesting collaboration which the Davis council had no hope of winning over.”
“For Woodland and the Water Agency itself, however, the decision by Davis councilmembers means less of a chance for the fluoride debate to creep north. Woodland has traditionally opposed fluoridation of its water supplies. And the Water Agency certainly doesn’t want to add any additional cost to the multi-million dollar project,” Mr. Smith continued.
“Woodlanders are also notoriously much tighter with their dollars — unless they can see a specific cost benefit, which includes stable water sources,” he concludes. “So, for now it appears that fluoridation in Davis and Woodland is a dead issue, and from a cost perspective that’s a good thing.”
Jim Smith nailed the issue on the head. There is nothing weird about this and there is nothing weird about citizen engagement. People care about our community – I see that as only a good thing, even if it means process issues are slow and cumbersome.
That’s the price of democracy.
Wendell Phillips, an American Abolitionist in 1852 speaking to members of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, said: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”
Perhaps he was thinking of Davis a few centuries later, or perhaps he was just being weird.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Woodlanders are also notoriously much tighter with their dollars — unless they can see a specific cost benefit, which includes stable water sources,” he concludes. “So, for now it appears that fluoridation in Davis and Woodland is a dead issue, and from a cost perspective that’s a good thing.”[/quote]
The irony here is that those who seem to think that they are being “much tighter with their dollars” do not seem to realize that because they are not personally receiving the Emergency Room bills delivered directly to their door, that they are not paying much, much more for these types of visits than they would be for preventive measures to begin with. If you are a fiscal conservative, perhaps the real question is why are you willing to foot the massive bill for emergency room care when you could be paying far, far less for preventative care ?
The problem isn’t our quirkiness its our selfishness and our willingness to impose our personal values on our fellow citizens. Opposition to growth and smoke ordinances are too good examples.
Or Toad, is a good example your selfiness of pushing growth on the rest of us?
I have to come to Toad’s rescue on that point GI. If we are talking about quirkiness, our anti-growth position makes as an outlier… especially in consideration of our fiscal situation contrasted with our opportunity to solve it with business growth. Other communities would think they had died and gone to heaven with these opportunities, yet we routinely reject them over concerns about every minor potential impact to our Davis lifestyle. I think we are very deserving of our “weird” label with respect to our lack of business in this town.
Davis’ resident artist/mayor Julie Partansky’s toad tunnel was the most interesting and potent community “artistic” statement concerning the need to focus attention(an artist’s role) on the effect of destroying the habitat of fellow-Davis resident creatures,in this case amphibians, who have no political voice and whose home was destroyed to be turned a dog park. The spontaneous involvement of the community(Post Office employees) in creating the frog hotel/beer joint structures at the end of the tunnel was/is quite special. Mayor Julie Partansky’s place in Davis’ history(her toad tunnel, nighttime sky ordinance, round-about project on Anderson) will be remembered long after more “powerful” local political actors have faded from memory.
i recently posted about two old friends, both oppose growth. In the first case the guy wants to sell his house in five years when he retires. He sees additional housing as impacting his ability to maximize his profit. The other doesn’t want to be stuck in traffic and thinks newcomers should move to Dixon or Woodland. These people seem selfish to me. What is strange is one thinks of himself as a big enviro and the other as a humanistic follower of liberation theology.
In my case, if more houses negatively impact the value of my home, I’m willing to make the sacrifice. As for traffic, making people live farther away probably increases their carbon footprints, so i feel congestion is a small price to pay especially if it means allowing more people to live where they can commute by bicycle if they choose and are able. Oh selfish me.
It’s a college town. College towns are quirky. Keep Davis Weird!
I have two friends who are pro growth. One says he wants new housing so it will bring down the real estate costs of the community so he can buy a house cheaper even though he can afford today’s prices. The other wants new developments becaue he owns a business in Davis and wants the extra customers. Selfish?
Dark Sky was clearly Julie’s greatest lasting accomplishment.
But what about you GI?
[quote]Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; [/quote]
Couldn’t have said it better.
JR: Agree
[quote]Is Davis Really Nuts or Just Misunderstood?[/quote]
It’s neither.
I would say that better labels are “conformist” and “predictable”.
And let’s not forget “smug”
Question:
Does anyone think that any city council members that own or profit from a Davis located business be allowed to vote on residential housing being that they’re likely to profit from any new surge of population (potential customers) to the city? Might that be considered a conflict of interest?
[quote]Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”[/quote]
Sounds like he was talking about Obama and the Tea Party.
At least that is a much better match that any of Davis’s politics.
A few comments… Toad and GI may be talking about two heads of the same coin regarding being selfish on either extreme side of the “growth” issue.
J.R. : “smug” or “self-righteous”? Or am I making a “distinction without a difference”?
GI: [quote]Does anyone think that any city council members that own or profit from a Davis located business be allowed to vote on residential housing being that they’re likely to profit from any new surge of population (potential customers) to the city? Might that be considered a conflict of interest? [/quote]Guess you are uninformed about the State’s conflict of interest laws and practices. Or perhaps GI thinks those laws are not rigid enough.
If a CC member owns a business (say a 7-11) in So Davis, and votes to approve a 100 unit residential subdivision in West Davis, I could argue it is ‘likely’ that one or two of those new residents would occasionally buy a sandwich, soft drink, etc. from the CC member’s store, hence adding to the profitability of the store.
I’m satisfied with state law and the City’s ordinances to guard against corruption.
[quote]I’m satisfied with state law and the City’s ordinances to guard against corruption. [/quote]
And those are?
Depending on the business I would argue that over time many more than one or two of 100 would use that business especially if it’s a food and/or hard beverage establishment with entertainment.
[quote]Toad and GI may be talking about two heads of the same coin regarding being selfish on either extreme side of the “growth” issue.
[/quote]
You’re completely right, I just don’t like a pro-growther saying that the anti-growthers are selfish when it could easily be apllied to the other side too.
Question, Does anyone think that any voter that owns a house in Davis should be allowed to vote on residential housing being that they’re likely to profit from restricting growth? Might that be considered a conflict of interest?
yeahmyam
[quote]Does anyone think that any voter that owns a house in Davis should be allowed to vote on residential housing being that they’re likely to profit from restricting growth? Might that be considered a conflict of interest?[/quote]
Truly two heads of the same coin. Could it not equally said that anyone who rents and aspires to buy in Davis should also not be allowed to vote since they will benefit from more construction driving down housing costs ? Could this also not be a “conflict of interest” ?
When are we going to stop calling each other selfish and greedy and admit that with very few exceptions, we are all acting to promote our own vision of the community we want whether that is for financial or sentimental reasons ? Is it really necessary to call names in order to express disagreement with someone’s position ?
Frankly
[quote]only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”[/quote]
And predictably enough it was Romney that came to mind for me with the words “smothered in material prosperity.”
“There is nothing weird about this and there is nothing weird about citizen engagement. People care about our community – I see that as only a good thing, [b][u]even if it means process issues are slow and cumbersome.[/u][/b]”
No matter what the cost.
The Davis of forty years ago was funky, quirky and weird. Today’s upper middle-class Davis is old, tired and stodgy. I think you mistake some people feathering their own nests and damning any improvement projects to failure for caring about the community. From this side of the causway:[img]http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/3043/smugsmall3ir.jpg[/img]
Davis is becoming ever less prepossessing and more sadly comic, all the time.
Biddlin ;>)/
I agree w/Medwoman. In my 8 years adjusting workers comp claims, the price of ER visits skyrocketed. Scenario repeated ad-nauseum: Non-insured employers dispute injury, no health coverage. Worker goes to ER. Claim ultimately accepted, or partially accepted. All ER bills paid. I have a gut certainty if business owners insured all workers, full or part-time, workers comp claims would plummet. And I don’t really care to read comments about malingerers, thank you just the same…well aware. 🙂 Happy Saturday, everyone. Back to baseball.
“When are we going to stop calling each other selfish and greedy and admit that with very few exceptions, we are all acting to promote our own vision of the community we want whether that is for financial or sentimental reasons ?”
What else is there to say about someone who wants to restrict new housing so they can get more for their own house but to call them greedy?
[quote]What else is there to say about someone who wants to restrict new housing so they can get more for their own house but to call them greedy?[/quote]
The exact same thing that I would say about someone who hopes for the drop in the price of others homes so that they can buy a more expensive home in the location that they want. Each is hoping that the market will be favorable for them.
I guess Toad would think one greedy if they don’t want their town to be another Elk Grove or Natomas.
I totally agree with Mr. Toad about Mayor Partansky’s greatest accomplishment, the Dark Sky Ordinance. I believe Davis was the first city in the US to enact such an ordinance that was NOT a city whose light pollution threatened a major astronomical observatory.
However, I’m shocked that Mr. Toad would not have ranked Julie’s toad tunnel #1. What kind of amphibian rights advocate is he!?
Tried to shrink this some with the formatting tags, but couldn’t get anywhere with it.
[img]http://daviswiki.org/Keep_Davis_Boring?sendfile=true&file=kdb-bumpersticker.JPG[/img]