Meeting Punctuated by Verbal Jousts between Assembly Seat Rivals: The meeting ended late Tuesday night – or early in the morning depending on your perspective. In the end, it was a split decision with Mayor Joe Krovoza wanting additional assurances on the connectivity aspect of the project, while Brett Lee felt, in the end, that the project did not offer enough in moderately-priced homes and zero net energy.
The question is now whether this will go to a vote. The Vanguard immediately reached out to one potential source for such an effort, Mike Hart. Mr. Hart, who is the CEO of Sierra Pacific and who spoke out against the project on Tuesday, indicated that they are currently looking into the costs associated with such an effort and the likelihood of success.
He also indicated frustration with the city council’s apparent lack of concern about the public’s distaste for such new housing projects. Tuesday night he once again made a passionate plea for using the Cannery site as a site for an Innovation Park, as opposed to additional housing.
He argued, “Housing doesn’t move the ball forward for the City financially.”
Mr. Hart’s comments are buoyed by the comments by Richard Livingston, who eight years ago led the No on Covell Village effort.
Mr. Livingston writes in the Enterprise this morning, “I urge that the current Cannery development be put to a vote of the public.”
“Transparency, the ability to see and understand what is happening, is obviously an important goal that we all appear to support when it comes to decisions in our community. Many office seekers include transparency as an important goal in their campaigns. I believe it should be,” he writes.
“However, do we all feel the same about transparency on the part of those with which we do business? Is ConAgra in favor of transparency?” he writes. “This corporation has benefited by the Supreme Court decision Citizens United and given large donations to stop transparency when it comes to listing GMOs on its products. They do not want the public to have the right to decide the merits of their productions.”
“For those elected to represent the public, who claim to believe in transparency, the support of a company that attempts to block transparency seems rather hypocritical,” he adds. “Should there be consistency in our values? The Cannery is not a simple case of what we now have offered is what is best for that location. It is a matter of what the interests involved want.”
He notes, “I believe Alan Hirsch said it well in his article on Sunday in The Davis Enterprise. The ‘Davis Brand’ is valuable legacy built by generations of Davis residents. It should not be devalued as some on the current City Council seem willing to do in their quest for growth.”
These comments add fuel to the fire. On the surface, while it was a 3-2 vote, it seems a 4-1 or 5-0 vote was in reach. Will the impatience of Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk, who appeared to usurp his authority as a councilmember by temporarily taking over the reins of the meeting – to the strong objections from the mayor – cause problems down the road?
The failure of the council to continue another fifteen minutes to address Joe Krovoza’s concerns now have created a 3-2 vote.
The tensions between Mayor Pro Tem Wolk and Mayor Krovoza, who are rivals for the open Assembly seat in June, are coming into the forefront and now beginning to impact public policy.
At the same time, it is important to note that the two no votes were on relatively narrow grounds.
Councilmember Lee said at the meeting on Tuesday night, “I don’t want to be a wet blanket, but because there are clearly three votes in support, I want my vote to say that I believe the project could be even better if there were more moderately priced homes (below $400,000) and if the project also was also a net zero energy community like West Village.”
“Unfortunately, right now it isn’t quite there. If it were, it would be a regional/national draw,” he added. “So I am voting NO to remind people ‘how close we were to the great.’ “
Mayor Joe Krovoza said from the dais, “I want to vote yes.” He noted his fixation with the issue of connectivity and pushed for the city to negotiate with the Crankbrook Apartments rather than the developer.
He went away frustrated that he was not given 15 minutes to try to shore up what he believed was a minor fix.
Do the modest concerns expressed by two councilmembers really impact whether the citizens of Davis are willing to accept Cannery or push it to a vote? Missing for the most part was the hardcore wing of Davis’ progressives, who have generally been against the development of housing on the property.
We did not see former Councilmember Michael Harrington or former Mayor Sue Greenwald, who was long a supporter of a business park at the Cannery site. Is that meaningful? Is that a prelude to acceptance or an indication of impending action?
The letter by Richard Livingston resonates because it comes from the core wing of the progressive movement that was not there in the chambers on Tuesday night, but clearly sees the project differently from the majority on council.
At the same time, while there was silence on Tuesday night, many of these community members were present and spoke out against the water issue.
How this plays out in the next few days will be critical. Time is short for a referendum. They have a month – a month filled with holidays and vacation to get together at least 4000 signatures. And even if they do, that does not mean that the project will be defeated.
There is never a dull moment in Davis and, between the possible referendum and the animosity building between Mayor Krovoza and Mayor Pro Tem Wolk, we will see drama on full display in the coming months.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Will the impatience of Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk, who appeared to usurp his authority as a councilmember by temporarily taking over the reins of the meeting – to the strong objections from the Mayor cause problems down the road?”
I think usurp is a little strong a word to use. Perhaps out of order would be appropriate. In context, at the last minute the mayor offered an amendment that nobody else supported and was only seconded by Lucas for discussion purposes. After discussion it was clear the mayor lacked any support but wouldn’t move on and continued to exhort his colleagues to follow his lead. Dan butted in and suggested they go back to the original motion and the Mayor invoked his privilege as chair. Dan said “Call the question.” They then voted 4-1 against the Mayor’s amendment and 3-2 in favor of the one Dan wanted to vote on.
I don’t think suggesting that they move on at such a late hour is usurpation. Maybe Dan was out of order and should have simply called the question. The mayor tends to drone on when he isn’t getting what he wants and needs to be prompted to move forward. I’ve seen Lucas prompt Joe in the past when he was doing something of less importance but with the same degree of standing alone and inability to move the meeting forward.
“Will the impatience of Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk, who appeared to usurp his authority as a councilmember by temporarily taking over the reins of the meeting – to the strong objections from the Mayor cause problems down the road?”
I think usurp is a little strong a word to use. Perhaps out of order would be appropriate. In context, at the last minute the mayor offered an amendment that nobody else supported and was only seconded by Lucas for discussion purposes. After discussion it was clear the mayor lacked any support but wouldn’t move on and continued to exhort his colleagues to follow his lead. Dan butted in and suggested they go back to the original motion and the Mayor invoked his privilege as chair. Dan said “Call the question.” They then voted 4-1 against the Mayor’s amendment and 3-2 in favor of the one Dan wanted to vote on.
I don’t think suggesting that they move on at such a late hour is usurpation. Maybe Dan was out of order and should have simply called the question. The mayor tends to drone on when he isn’t getting what he wants and needs to be prompted to move forward. I’ve seen Lucas prompt Joe in the past when he was doing something of less importance but with the same degree of standing alone and inability to move the meeting forward.
Calling the question is fine, though he was a little more equivocal. The objection and the exchange involved his comment to Harriet Steiner and then seeming to almost take control of the meeting. I’ll break down the actual quotes in a piece later in the week.
Calling the question is fine, though he was a little more equivocal. The objection and the exchange involved his comment to Harriet Steiner and then seeming to almost take control of the meeting. I’ll break down the actual quotes in a piece later in the week.
A few threads back, I had questioned the rationale of the Enterprise in making the curious comment that it was time to” end discussion” on the Cannery project. My question now for Rochelle Swanson, Dan Wolk, and Lucas Frerichs is ” why not take the extra 15 minutes or 1/2 hour to resolve a legitimate concern ?”. What would it have cost to potentially make the project that little bit better ?
I have been a member of my 70 + member department’s administrative team for the past 5 years. One aspect of consensus building that I learned fairly early in my time there is that if even one member of the 7 of us
has a strong objection to a proposal, we are not through and it is not time to “end discussion”. I believe that frequently people want to end debate for one of two reasons:
1) They are concerned about the possibility of “paralysis” associated with more discussion. As a group, we have not found this to be the case. The relatively small amount of time spent getting to a solution that everyone can buy into, even if it wouldn’t have been their first choice, is well worth it in terms of the good will
generated and ability to move the proposal forward into the larger group.
2) They are concerned that if there is more discussion, they may not prevail. This is short sighted at best since if they manage to win by cutting off full consideration of all ideas, there will be push back from those members of the group who do not feel their views were taken into account. This push back is often far more detrimental to moving forward than simply fully vetting all ideas would have been. It also means that a truly good idea may be overlooked in the desire to “just get it done.”
A few threads back, I had questioned the rationale of the Enterprise in making the curious comment that it was time to” end discussion” on the Cannery project. My question now for Rochelle Swanson, Dan Wolk, and Lucas Frerichs is ” why not take the extra 15 minutes or 1/2 hour to resolve a legitimate concern ?”. What would it have cost to potentially make the project that little bit better ?
I have been a member of my 70 + member department’s administrative team for the past 5 years. One aspect of consensus building that I learned fairly early in my time there is that if even one member of the 7 of us
has a strong objection to a proposal, we are not through and it is not time to “end discussion”. I believe that frequently people want to end debate for one of two reasons:
1) They are concerned about the possibility of “paralysis” associated with more discussion. As a group, we have not found this to be the case. The relatively small amount of time spent getting to a solution that everyone can buy into, even if it wouldn’t have been their first choice, is well worth it in terms of the good will
generated and ability to move the proposal forward into the larger group.
2) They are concerned that if there is more discussion, they may not prevail. This is short sighted at best since if they manage to win by cutting off full consideration of all ideas, there will be push back from those members of the group who do not feel their views were taken into account. This push back is often far more detrimental to moving forward than simply fully vetting all ideas would have been. It also means that a truly good idea may be overlooked in the desire to “just get it done.”
Parse it all you want and perhaps it was out of order but usurp is a word that when applied to elected leaders is a serious charge. You are aware as anyone how decorum can break down when everyone is tired. It was more of a snarl between two tired male alpha dogs. I bet if you asked them both would apologize for their demeanor at that late hour and smooth it over. Compared to what we have seen from previous counsels that resulted in physical restraint, 911 calls and insults to the City Manager that would make Lincoln turn the canons at Fort McHenry towards Baltimore this was a minor spat.
Parse it all you want and perhaps it was out of order but usurp is a word that when applied to elected leaders is a serious charge. You are aware as anyone how decorum can break down when everyone is tired. It was more of a snarl between two tired male alpha dogs. I bet if you asked them both would apologize for their demeanor at that late hour and smooth it over. Compared to what we have seen from previous counsels that resulted in physical restraint, 911 calls and insults to the City Manager that would make Lincoln turn the canons at Fort McHenry towards Baltimore this was a minor spat.
I just reviewed the video, and I didn’t see any unreasonable behavior. Joe clearly got irritated when Dan tried to move the original motion forward instead of continuing down the path Joe wanted to explore, but given the late hour and Joe’s belief that there were important matters yet to be resolved in the development agreement terms, it was an understandable — if a bit raw — reaction. I didn’t find anything unacceptable about the way Dan comported himself.
My personal answers to the questions posed thus far are:
1) to David — No, there will not be a successful Referendum signature gathering effort for three reasons. First, I don’t think Mike Hart will actually fund the effort he is talking about funding. Mike Harrington’s and Ernie Head’s referendum effort cost them $10,000 and was almost completely completed by volunteers who cost nothing. I believe a Cannery signature campaign will have few volunteers compared to the water campaign and as a result cost [u]at least[/u] twice the Harrington/head amount. Second, the Referendum signatures will need to be gathered during the Thanksgiving/Christmas/Hanukkah/New Years holiday period. People will have other things on their mind. Third, this issue doesn’t have the public trust and transparency flaws that water had, nor does it directly impact the personal finances of each individual voter.
2) to medwoman — No, the additional 15 minutes would not have raised the possibility of “paralysis” associated with more discussion, or the potential loss at the end of the discussion.
I expressed my reasons for that answer to medwoman in a post yesterday. I believe those reasons just as much today as I did yesterday:[quote][b]treeguy said . .
“City has set it self up as an insurance policy for construction cost risk for the Cannery-driven transportation project.
Reality is,
— The City is on the hook to built the SE bed-bike connector What every it costs…and city allowed the developer to cap his contribution.
— The City is on the hook to upgrade Covell Blvd to reduce congestion caused by the 50% traffic increase caused by the Cannery–what every it costs…city allowed the developer has cap his contribution.” [/b]
This is a very similar point to the one I noted in the article that was made by Al Hirsch. “Cannery needs to live up to its promises – Concerned that City is assuming risk – Has New Home Company made an iron clad contractual commitment?” The challenge that your question and Al’s comment poses is that the reasons those realities exist are due to delays that have really been out of the control of the Cannery. It isn’t their fault that the City process to evaluate the Covell Boulevard Corridor Plan is so far behind schedule, nor is it their fault that the owners of Cranbrook Apartments were unwilling to even meet to discuss an easement until the past two weeks. The reality is that the responsibility for the risk should be shared proportionally by all the parties responsible for the delay.
Further, Covell Boulevard needed/needs improvements and/or completion of basic infrastructure regardless of whether the Cannery proceeds or not.
Finally, as I understand the presentation on the CBCP from last Tuesday, the plan is specifically and purposefully working to create additional congestion along Covell by narrowing lanes, etc. because the existing traffic studies show that all too often cars are proceeding at too fast a speed in the current configuration.
[b]treeguy said . . .
“This puts needs of the Cannery residents for missing bike and road infrastructure in competition to EVERY OTHER school and road project in Davis connection.” [/b]
I’m not sure I follow why you believe this. Mike Webb was very clear that the developer’s contributions were explicit and contractually committed so that there was no risk to the City, but at the same time, the City was retaining flexible discretion on how the funds would be spent and not directly matching the payments into restricted expenditure accounts. That is a sleight of hand flexibility that the City wants. The developer is indifferent. So again, if this is a City-driven desire, what harm does that desire cause?
(continued)
[quote][b]treeguy said . . .
“Why should the City accept the cost-risk of any of the needed traffic improvement on Covell when they have not even been designed to get a reasonable cost estimate for the Developer to pay. Developer should have accepted this risk as part of he Development agreement, not city residents.
For Example: The underpass from Cannery to Nugget that is needed for Birch Lane/Emerson students- Neither the City or the Developer had as of last week not even contacted PGE to see what they are up to underground south of Covell near Nugget—and how it might effect the cost of this underpass. As a result the cost estimate on the Development agreement Schedule G on this project verges on fiction.” [/b]
That is a very interesting question, that I also asked myself about a month ago. The answer I was given when I asked it is that the Covell Boulevard Corridor Plan is being specifically designed with the necessary capacity to not only handle the current traffic load plus the projected Cannery traffic load, but also the projected future North Davis Land Company traffic load. The logic was that it is better to build it correctly once rather than to build it at a deficient level now and then upgrade it later. That made sense to me, but it injects a level of complexity into the fiscal equations that transcends the Cannery project’s individual incremental contribution to the load factors.[/quote]]
I actually offer kudos to both for self restraint in a situation that could have easily started as a difference over point of order and devolved rapidly into the kind of lack of civility that we have seen in the past.
I concur with medwoman again.
Matt Williams said . . .
[i]”First, I don’t think Mike Hart will actually fund the effort he is talking about funding. Mike Harrington’s and Ernie Head’s referendum effort cost them $10,000 and was almost completely completed by volunteers who cost nothing. I believe a Cannery signature campaign will have few volunteers compared to the water campaign and as a result cost at least twice the Harrington/head amount.”[/i]
One aspect of the above argument that I left out is that for Mike Hart spending the $20,000 or more on the signature gathering process only gets the process to “the starting line.” After the Referendum qualifies there will be a significant need for at least as much monetary expenditure on the ballot campaign itself.
I think it is very conservative to think that the absolute floor for Mike Hart (and any allies he recruits/attracts) is a $50,000 combined expenditure from the day the first signature is collected until the day the votes are officially cast. The obvious question for Mike Hart is, “Is it personally worth $50,000 to you?
Here’s a parallel question to Growth Izzue and others who have posted here in the Vanguard their support for putting this on the ballot. “How much of your own money are you willing to contribute to Mike Hart’s effort?”
I watched the entire meeting on Tuesday, and I take exception with the way it is being characterized in this article. If anyone was “out of order” it was Krovoza.
After it was clear Krovoza had zero support for his motion from his colleagues (even Frerichs implied he was willing to withdrawal his second), Wolk was trying to make a point of order and call the question (actually, at first it was a “point of clarification” he was requesting from the City Attorney, then a “point of order” to call the question). If he really thought Wolk was “out of order”, and he wanted to keep decorum, Krovoza’s response should have been something like “Dan, I believe you’re out of order.” Instead he said blurted one of the most petty quips I have heard from the dias since the days of Sue Greenwald, “Actually, I’m running the meeting, at it turns out.” My teenage daughter would blush at that level of cattiness.
Ultimately, of course, Krovoza realized it was Wolk’s right to call the question. But before he let the vote happen, Krovoza gave one more impassioned plea that his demands be heard, begging for the now infamous “just 15 more minutes”. Here’s my question: If Krovoza had, as he indicated, been making these same requests of the developer for months, and they had not been incorporated into the development agreement, what was he going to accomplish in these next 15 minutes? Perhaps he hoped the lateness of the hour was on his side? Everyone was tired and just wanted to go home, so they would acquiesce to his demands?
Actually, it is Brett Lee’s comments for why he was voting “NO,” that were most significant. This development does not incorporate the most forward thinking features for improved sustainability for water scarcity, (grey-water use through dual piping), and the best solar energy/hot water generation capacity, among other features that could have been added.
If city commissions had not worked so hard to improve this project, what would we have gotten. Even so, there had to be a lost minute deal over senior housing. Yet, still the bike connectivity and cost to the city for this have not been resolved, yet the project was approved. Why?
Why was the project approved now? Maybe just so it would be difficult for opponents to gather signatures over the holidays.
Traffic all over town is going to be seriously affected, not just on Covell.
Nancy, both Brett and Lucas invoked the phrase [i]”Don’t let the quest for the perfect become the enemy of the good or the great.”[/i] Brett also made the point very clearly that his vote was taking into consideration the fact that there were already three votes for the project. As a result, his “message vote” (which I wholeheartedly concur with) was never in the position to make the quest for the perfect become the enemy of the good or the great.
eagle eye said . . .
[i]”Traffic all over town is going to be seriously affected, not just on Covell.”[/i]
I call BS, eagle eye. For what it is worth, my own two cents are that in a City where the population is 65,000 (probably well over 80,000 during the day, the addition of 547 residential units at 2.8 residents per units is going to add approximately 1,500 residents to Davis. Some quick math tells me that that will add approximately one fiftieth to Davis’s current levels of both population and traffic.
The last time I checked on fiftieth of a dollar was two cents.
I rest my case.
This discussion is about public official behavior at a meeting. Really? We are reviewing the video. Really?
Unless someone pulls out a weapon, or it becomes a national soundbite for entertainment value, who was more out of line is of no matter. Sausage being made.
I “side” with Krovoza because I agree with what he was attempting to accomplish — bike connectivity is my issue. Too often in such decisions there is the lip service and maybe even the intent, but unless it’s A) Funded and B) Committed to; it may not happen, at least not for a long time.
That doesn’t mean I am siding with anyone as to their behavior as long as no one loses an eye. They can wear a tutu and sing “Hooga Saka Hooga Saka” to make their point if they think it works in chambers.
Those critiquing behavior are doing so based on who they side with. Cut the carp and stick to the issues.
Matt, I think you misunderstand substantially what occurred.
I noted that there were probably already three yes votes, so my vote would end up being symbolic. I did not know at the time I cast my vote what the tally would be.
I would have made the same vote even if I knew it was split 2-2.
As far as my reference to the quote “don’t let the great be the enemy of the good”, I referred to that because I was, in fact making great be the enemy of the good.
The project is good, it is not great. It could have been great. I believe we should demand great, especially when it is financially reasonable for both parties involved.
We were probably three million dollars away from great.