The logic of this approach is simple and straight forward. Shouldn’t the governing bodies communicate as they update their respective general plans? It seems like such a basic and obvious concept.
As Yamada cited back in 2005, there is already an established county-city 2 by 2 process through which Supervisors meet with their respective District’s Mayors and City Council members. This would merely be an expansion into a large and broader Yolo County “council of governments.”
Davis City Councilmember Stephen Souza has latched onto this idea and placed it on the City Council agenda for this evening.
His proposal is for a joint meeting–just as the city has with its commission to “enhance a culture of cooperation and improve the ability of both our governmental bodies to serve our respective constituents.”
There seems to be a fear however that this type of joint meetings will be used to re-write the pass-through agreement to force the city to grow at a set rate on the periphery.
That is a legitimate concern. However, there are a couple of points that should be made in response to this legitimate concern.
First, if the council majority wants to impose a growth rate of one percent or even higher on the Davis periphery, they are going to need to get it through the Measure J vote. That gives Davis voters a strong mechanism by which to control peripheral growth.
Second, while it is true Measure J expires in 2010, it is also true that there will be two council elections between now and then. If peripheral growth becomes a threat from this council majority, it can be used as a weapon against them in the next two elections. The public will have to make a decision as to whether or not they want to grow on the periphery.
Third, if the current council majority wants to grow on the periphery, having talks or not having talks will not have any effect on that desire. The current council has the votes to do this with or without collaboration from the County Supervisors. The County Board of Supervisors is not going to give greater legitimacy at least for the majority of citizens of Davis who opposed peripheral development projects such as Covell Village.
Talks can never hurt–particularly if you are in a minority position. We need decisions that occur in the light where we can scrutinize them and take them to the public if need be. Talks place issues on the public record. If the County Supervisors and the Council Majority indeed attempt to use this process to force growth on Davis–that attempt will be on a public record at a public meeting and the progressives on the city council can then take this to the voters in 2008.
As I said, I understand completely the concern about forced peripheral growth on Davis. But if that is to happen–I want it to occur in an open and public process where statements are on the record and where we can then take it to the voters in 2008 to see if they indeed approve of such actions. If they do, there is nothing we can do to stop it. However, at least by having a public process, the public will be aware.
Moreover, there is another reason to have talks that has nothing to do with peripheral growth and everything to do with having a formal process whereby each group can meet and discuss concerns. Communication is the best way to resolve differences and work toward shared goals. Both the city and county take into this process their own concerns and objectives about the next 10 to 20 years of planning and it only makes sense to at least communicate about each other’s intentions.
In summary, if this becomes an issue about forced growth on Davis–I think a number of people would like to know about it and will fight against it. However, I see no reason to fear talks and I see many reasons to prefer that these talks occur in an open and public meeting with Brown act requirements that will force members to talk about it in the open.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Doug.. your points are well taken in the abstract but need to deal with the political realities” on the ground”. Couunciman Souza his expressed his political ambivalence as to whether his responsibility is to represent Davis’ interests or a “Yoloite”( his term, I believe, at the last council meeting).Saylor has his eyes on his political future beyond our city and Asmundson, more often than not, follows his lead. This will give Thomsen and McGowan a platform to heap on more of their PR “scare tactics” which I suspect will be, for show, half-heartedly opposed by our current council majority. The object here is to change the perception of the Davis voters and undermine their political will with regard to support for Measure J and resistance to peripheral sprawl. Meetings like these very quickly morph into “negotiations” and Davis
needs more vigorous advocates than this current council majority offers.
Doug.. your points are well taken in the abstract but need to deal with the political realities” on the ground”. Couunciman Souza his expressed his political ambivalence as to whether his responsibility is to represent Davis’ interests or a “Yoloite”( his term, I believe, at the last council meeting).Saylor has his eyes on his political future beyond our city and Asmundson, more often than not, follows his lead. This will give Thomsen and McGowan a platform to heap on more of their PR “scare tactics” which I suspect will be, for show, half-heartedly opposed by our current council majority. The object here is to change the perception of the Davis voters and undermine their political will with regard to support for Measure J and resistance to peripheral sprawl. Meetings like these very quickly morph into “negotiations” and Davis
needs more vigorous advocates than this current council majority offers.
Doug.. your points are well taken in the abstract but need to deal with the political realities” on the ground”. Couunciman Souza his expressed his political ambivalence as to whether his responsibility is to represent Davis’ interests or a “Yoloite”( his term, I believe, at the last council meeting).Saylor has his eyes on his political future beyond our city and Asmundson, more often than not, follows his lead. This will give Thomsen and McGowan a platform to heap on more of their PR “scare tactics” which I suspect will be, for show, half-heartedly opposed by our current council majority. The object here is to change the perception of the Davis voters and undermine their political will with regard to support for Measure J and resistance to peripheral sprawl. Meetings like these very quickly morph into “negotiations” and Davis
needs more vigorous advocates than this current council majority offers.
Doug.. your points are well taken in the abstract but need to deal with the political realities” on the ground”. Couunciman Souza his expressed his political ambivalence as to whether his responsibility is to represent Davis’ interests or a “Yoloite”( his term, I believe, at the last council meeting).Saylor has his eyes on his political future beyond our city and Asmundson, more often than not, follows his lead. This will give Thomsen and McGowan a platform to heap on more of their PR “scare tactics” which I suspect will be, for show, half-heartedly opposed by our current council majority. The object here is to change the perception of the Davis voters and undermine their political will with regard to support for Measure J and resistance to peripheral sprawl. Meetings like these very quickly morph into “negotiations” and Davis
needs more vigorous advocates than this current council majority offers.
I understand Davisite–but understand that the priorities of those people are the same whether they talk or not. If they have a public meeting then what gets said must get said in public. It puts them under Brown act rules. The air of public scrutiny is our friend. I don’t see three votes on the BOS to impose growth on Davis. I do see three votes on the council to do it whether they meet or not. Our only chance is to make the public aware of this and mobilize against it.
I understand Davisite–but understand that the priorities of those people are the same whether they talk or not. If they have a public meeting then what gets said must get said in public. It puts them under Brown act rules. The air of public scrutiny is our friend. I don’t see three votes on the BOS to impose growth on Davis. I do see three votes on the council to do it whether they meet or not. Our only chance is to make the public aware of this and mobilize against it.
I understand Davisite–but understand that the priorities of those people are the same whether they talk or not. If they have a public meeting then what gets said must get said in public. It puts them under Brown act rules. The air of public scrutiny is our friend. I don’t see three votes on the BOS to impose growth on Davis. I do see three votes on the council to do it whether they meet or not. Our only chance is to make the public aware of this and mobilize against it.
I understand Davisite–but understand that the priorities of those people are the same whether they talk or not. If they have a public meeting then what gets said must get said in public. It puts them under Brown act rules. The air of public scrutiny is our friend. I don’t see three votes on the BOS to impose growth on Davis. I do see three votes on the council to do it whether they meet or not. Our only chance is to make the public aware of this and mobilize against it.
I agree that the priorities of the current council majority will not change, however, they do not operate in a political vacuum. The bottom line, in Davis, is the political will of the voters which the anti-Measure J forces are desperately attempting to erode.
It is very telling that the idea of not relying solely on 2 by 2 meetings was not raised by this council majority until Sue Greenwald became mayor. This is an on-going gambit,on Souza’s(and council majority’s) part,to “dilute” the traditional perogatives of Davis’ current mayor ,i.e., being 50% of the Davis councilmembers who meet with the County Supervisors to” exchange information”.
I agree that the priorities of the current council majority will not change, however, they do not operate in a political vacuum. The bottom line, in Davis, is the political will of the voters which the anti-Measure J forces are desperately attempting to erode.
It is very telling that the idea of not relying solely on 2 by 2 meetings was not raised by this council majority until Sue Greenwald became mayor. This is an on-going gambit,on Souza’s(and council majority’s) part,to “dilute” the traditional perogatives of Davis’ current mayor ,i.e., being 50% of the Davis councilmembers who meet with the County Supervisors to” exchange information”.
I agree that the priorities of the current council majority will not change, however, they do not operate in a political vacuum. The bottom line, in Davis, is the political will of the voters which the anti-Measure J forces are desperately attempting to erode.
It is very telling that the idea of not relying solely on 2 by 2 meetings was not raised by this council majority until Sue Greenwald became mayor. This is an on-going gambit,on Souza’s(and council majority’s) part,to “dilute” the traditional perogatives of Davis’ current mayor ,i.e., being 50% of the Davis councilmembers who meet with the County Supervisors to” exchange information”.
I agree that the priorities of the current council majority will not change, however, they do not operate in a political vacuum. The bottom line, in Davis, is the political will of the voters which the anti-Measure J forces are desperately attempting to erode.
It is very telling that the idea of not relying solely on 2 by 2 meetings was not raised by this council majority until Sue Greenwald became mayor. This is an on-going gambit,on Souza’s(and council majority’s) part,to “dilute” the traditional perogatives of Davis’ current mayor ,i.e., being 50% of the Davis councilmembers who meet with the County Supervisors to” exchange information”.
What happened is that it was not raised until the issue came up during discussions for the county general plan update. Yamada had brought it up in 2005 and she didn’t even have a second member of her colleagues support the idea. I don’t think the county is going to force growth on Davis, I do see a way for us to bring this to public light where we can fight it rather than behind closed doors where we cannot.
What happened is that it was not raised until the issue came up during discussions for the county general plan update. Yamada had brought it up in 2005 and she didn’t even have a second member of her colleagues support the idea. I don’t think the county is going to force growth on Davis, I do see a way for us to bring this to public light where we can fight it rather than behind closed doors where we cannot.
What happened is that it was not raised until the issue came up during discussions for the county general plan update. Yamada had brought it up in 2005 and she didn’t even have a second member of her colleagues support the idea. I don’t think the county is going to force growth on Davis, I do see a way for us to bring this to public light where we can fight it rather than behind closed doors where we cannot.
What happened is that it was not raised until the issue came up during discussions for the county general plan update. Yamada had brought it up in 2005 and she didn’t even have a second member of her colleagues support the idea. I don’t think the county is going to force growth on Davis, I do see a way for us to bring this to public light where we can fight it rather than behind closed doors where we cannot.
Sure, let’s have talks with the County – right after we void the pass-through agreement. And after an identical process is implemented for all other Yolo cities.
After all, why would Davis want to continue making pass-through payments to the County when the benefit those payments are supposed to be buying (City sovreignity over our own planning) is diluted? The proposed “collaborative” process would seem to give us less autonomy than other Yolo cities.
Souza, still apparently desperate to be taken seriously, just wants to be a player – doesn’t matter what game.
Mariko, unfortunately, is not looking out for Davis’ interest on this issue. If her supporters would challenge her on this instead of serving as apologists, maybe her thinking could be turned around.
Sure, let’s have talks with the County – right after we void the pass-through agreement. And after an identical process is implemented for all other Yolo cities.
After all, why would Davis want to continue making pass-through payments to the County when the benefit those payments are supposed to be buying (City sovreignity over our own planning) is diluted? The proposed “collaborative” process would seem to give us less autonomy than other Yolo cities.
Souza, still apparently desperate to be taken seriously, just wants to be a player – doesn’t matter what game.
Mariko, unfortunately, is not looking out for Davis’ interest on this issue. If her supporters would challenge her on this instead of serving as apologists, maybe her thinking could be turned around.
Sure, let’s have talks with the County – right after we void the pass-through agreement. And after an identical process is implemented for all other Yolo cities.
After all, why would Davis want to continue making pass-through payments to the County when the benefit those payments are supposed to be buying (City sovreignity over our own planning) is diluted? The proposed “collaborative” process would seem to give us less autonomy than other Yolo cities.
Souza, still apparently desperate to be taken seriously, just wants to be a player – doesn’t matter what game.
Mariko, unfortunately, is not looking out for Davis’ interest on this issue. If her supporters would challenge her on this instead of serving as apologists, maybe her thinking could be turned around.
Sure, let’s have talks with the County – right after we void the pass-through agreement. And after an identical process is implemented for all other Yolo cities.
After all, why would Davis want to continue making pass-through payments to the County when the benefit those payments are supposed to be buying (City sovreignity over our own planning) is diluted? The proposed “collaborative” process would seem to give us less autonomy than other Yolo cities.
Souza, still apparently desperate to be taken seriously, just wants to be a player – doesn’t matter what game.
Mariko, unfortunately, is not looking out for Davis’ interest on this issue. If her supporters would challenge her on this instead of serving as apologists, maybe her thinking could be turned around.
This is hysteria–who is suggesting that we void the pass-through agreement?
This is hysteria–who is suggesting that we void the pass-through agreement?
This is hysteria–who is suggesting that we void the pass-through agreement?
This is hysteria–who is suggesting that we void the pass-through agreement?
Doug.. it will not stay behind “closed doors” in any event and will be presented as part of the political narrative. People’s Vanguard has made great strides in attempting to level the playing field in this regard but it still has a ways to go.
I do not see this issue as soley about County decisions but rather one directed at the Davis voter. I am also skeptical that a Supervisor majority in favor of “brinkmanship” in pressing Davis about peripheral growth is not a possibility -remember-not all current Supervisors may plan to put themselves before the voters again.
Doug.. it will not stay behind “closed doors” in any event and will be presented as part of the political narrative. People’s Vanguard has made great strides in attempting to level the playing field in this regard but it still has a ways to go.
I do not see this issue as soley about County decisions but rather one directed at the Davis voter. I am also skeptical that a Supervisor majority in favor of “brinkmanship” in pressing Davis about peripheral growth is not a possibility -remember-not all current Supervisors may plan to put themselves before the voters again.
Doug.. it will not stay behind “closed doors” in any event and will be presented as part of the political narrative. People’s Vanguard has made great strides in attempting to level the playing field in this regard but it still has a ways to go.
I do not see this issue as soley about County decisions but rather one directed at the Davis voter. I am also skeptical that a Supervisor majority in favor of “brinkmanship” in pressing Davis about peripheral growth is not a possibility -remember-not all current Supervisors may plan to put themselves before the voters again.
Doug.. it will not stay behind “closed doors” in any event and will be presented as part of the political narrative. People’s Vanguard has made great strides in attempting to level the playing field in this regard but it still has a ways to go.
I do not see this issue as soley about County decisions but rather one directed at the Davis voter. I am also skeptical that a Supervisor majority in favor of “brinkmanship” in pressing Davis about peripheral growth is not a possibility -remember-not all current Supervisors may plan to put themselves before the voters again.
“Second, while it is true Measure J expires in 2010, it is also true that there will be two council elections between now and then.”
When Measure J comes up for a re-vote in 3 years, it would be nice if it would again be called “Measure J” on the ballot. The odds are 26:1 that it will, unless that letter could permanently be reserved for this one concept.
“Second, while it is true Measure J expires in 2010, it is also true that there will be two council elections between now and then.”
When Measure J comes up for a re-vote in 3 years, it would be nice if it would again be called “Measure J” on the ballot. The odds are 26:1 that it will, unless that letter could permanently be reserved for this one concept.
“Second, while it is true Measure J expires in 2010, it is also true that there will be two council elections between now and then.”
When Measure J comes up for a re-vote in 3 years, it would be nice if it would again be called “Measure J” on the ballot. The odds are 26:1 that it will, unless that letter could permanently be reserved for this one concept.
“Second, while it is true Measure J expires in 2010, it is also true that there will be two council elections between now and then.”
When Measure J comes up for a re-vote in 3 years, it would be nice if it would again be called “Measure J” on the ballot. The odds are 26:1 that it will, unless that letter could permanently be reserved for this one concept.
I understand the concern about dilution of power. I’m not so sure that the Brown Act is inadvertantly violated by people talking about this important issue.
The meeting would improve if our Council (and citizens in Davis) knew what our position was and came with one voice or recommendation. Mariko is obligated to listen to all recommendations from the County’s advisory task force. She knows clearly that Davis voters are wary of growth and truely opposed to forced growth.
I understand the concern about dilution of power. I’m not so sure that the Brown Act is inadvertantly violated by people talking about this important issue.
The meeting would improve if our Council (and citizens in Davis) knew what our position was and came with one voice or recommendation. Mariko is obligated to listen to all recommendations from the County’s advisory task force. She knows clearly that Davis voters are wary of growth and truely opposed to forced growth.
I understand the concern about dilution of power. I’m not so sure that the Brown Act is inadvertantly violated by people talking about this important issue.
The meeting would improve if our Council (and citizens in Davis) knew what our position was and came with one voice or recommendation. Mariko is obligated to listen to all recommendations from the County’s advisory task force. She knows clearly that Davis voters are wary of growth and truely opposed to forced growth.
I understand the concern about dilution of power. I’m not so sure that the Brown Act is inadvertantly violated by people talking about this important issue.
The meeting would improve if our Council (and citizens in Davis) knew what our position was and came with one voice or recommendation. Mariko is obligated to listen to all recommendations from the County’s advisory task force. She knows clearly that Davis voters are wary of growth and truely opposed to forced growth.
Mr. Rifkin:
You refer to both Helen Thomson and Mike McGowan as “two minor players” in this discussion. Nothing could be further from the truth as both have championed peripheral growth on Davis’s borders for years and both are by far the senior members of the Board of Supervisors (each having served 15 years.) In 2005, both strongly supported Measure X, the Covell Village development. It is no surprise to find them openly discussing growth on Davis’ borders again.
During the Measure X campaign, Helen Thomson wrote the infamous “bogeyman letter” stating that if Davis citizens did not approve the Covell Village development, the county supervisors would approve development on Davis’ borders which would be far greater in scope and threat to Davis’ borders. That letter and threat was rejected publicly by both Supervisors Mariko Yamada and Duane Chamberlain.
Regarding any development in the Northwest Quadrant on the periphery of Davis; that area is entirely within Helen Thomson’s supervisorial district, so she has a direct interest and responsibility in what goes on there. Her appointed member to the county planning commission Don Winters voted to recommend a 2,100 unit development in the NWQ next to his home and advocated to his neighbors that this project would enhance their property values.
You refer to Mariko Yamada as “the Supervisors’ ring-leader” in promoting peripheral growth yet offer no evidence to support that conclusion. During Mariko’s entire time on the Board of Supervisors she has opposed urban sprawl and she did not support the Covell Village development, which was in her district
Mr. Rifkin:
You refer to both Helen Thomson and Mike McGowan as “two minor players” in this discussion. Nothing could be further from the truth as both have championed peripheral growth on Davis’s borders for years and both are by far the senior members of the Board of Supervisors (each having served 15 years.) In 2005, both strongly supported Measure X, the Covell Village development. It is no surprise to find them openly discussing growth on Davis’ borders again.
During the Measure X campaign, Helen Thomson wrote the infamous “bogeyman letter” stating that if Davis citizens did not approve the Covell Village development, the county supervisors would approve development on Davis’ borders which would be far greater in scope and threat to Davis’ borders. That letter and threat was rejected publicly by both Supervisors Mariko Yamada and Duane Chamberlain.
Regarding any development in the Northwest Quadrant on the periphery of Davis; that area is entirely within Helen Thomson’s supervisorial district, so she has a direct interest and responsibility in what goes on there. Her appointed member to the county planning commission Don Winters voted to recommend a 2,100 unit development in the NWQ next to his home and advocated to his neighbors that this project would enhance their property values.
You refer to Mariko Yamada as “the Supervisors’ ring-leader” in promoting peripheral growth yet offer no evidence to support that conclusion. During Mariko’s entire time on the Board of Supervisors she has opposed urban sprawl and she did not support the Covell Village development, which was in her district
Mr. Rifkin:
You refer to both Helen Thomson and Mike McGowan as “two minor players” in this discussion. Nothing could be further from the truth as both have championed peripheral growth on Davis’s borders for years and both are by far the senior members of the Board of Supervisors (each having served 15 years.) In 2005, both strongly supported Measure X, the Covell Village development. It is no surprise to find them openly discussing growth on Davis’ borders again.
During the Measure X campaign, Helen Thomson wrote the infamous “bogeyman letter” stating that if Davis citizens did not approve the Covell Village development, the county supervisors would approve development on Davis’ borders which would be far greater in scope and threat to Davis’ borders. That letter and threat was rejected publicly by both Supervisors Mariko Yamada and Duane Chamberlain.
Regarding any development in the Northwest Quadrant on the periphery of Davis; that area is entirely within Helen Thomson’s supervisorial district, so she has a direct interest and responsibility in what goes on there. Her appointed member to the county planning commission Don Winters voted to recommend a 2,100 unit development in the NWQ next to his home and advocated to his neighbors that this project would enhance their property values.
You refer to Mariko Yamada as “the Supervisors’ ring-leader” in promoting peripheral growth yet offer no evidence to support that conclusion. During Mariko’s entire time on the Board of Supervisors she has opposed urban sprawl and she did not support the Covell Village development, which was in her district
Mr. Rifkin:
You refer to both Helen Thomson and Mike McGowan as “two minor players” in this discussion. Nothing could be further from the truth as both have championed peripheral growth on Davis’s borders for years and both are by far the senior members of the Board of Supervisors (each having served 15 years.) In 2005, both strongly supported Measure X, the Covell Village development. It is no surprise to find them openly discussing growth on Davis’ borders again.
During the Measure X campaign, Helen Thomson wrote the infamous “bogeyman letter” stating that if Davis citizens did not approve the Covell Village development, the county supervisors would approve development on Davis’ borders which would be far greater in scope and threat to Davis’ borders. That letter and threat was rejected publicly by both Supervisors Mariko Yamada and Duane Chamberlain.
Regarding any development in the Northwest Quadrant on the periphery of Davis; that area is entirely within Helen Thomson’s supervisorial district, so she has a direct interest and responsibility in what goes on there. Her appointed member to the county planning commission Don Winters voted to recommend a 2,100 unit development in the NWQ next to his home and advocated to his neighbors that this project would enhance their property values.
You refer to Mariko Yamada as “the Supervisors’ ring-leader” in promoting peripheral growth yet offer no evidence to support that conclusion. During Mariko’s entire time on the Board of Supervisors she has opposed urban sprawl and she did not support the Covell Village development, which was in her district
anonymous… a slight correction in your narrative..As I remember it, Helen Thomsen did not say that the Supervisors would approve a “mushroom cloud” development if Measure X failed…the head count at that time suggested that she would have to have voted for it.. something that was not a GOOD argument when up for re-election. No.. it was that the sinister developer(his name escapes me for the moment) was going to “buy” the votes of the entire County in a referendum and bypass the Supervisors..so much for this “.. the sky is falling” scenerio.
anonymous… a slight correction in your narrative..As I remember it, Helen Thomsen did not say that the Supervisors would approve a “mushroom cloud” development if Measure X failed…the head count at that time suggested that she would have to have voted for it.. something that was not a GOOD argument when up for re-election. No.. it was that the sinister developer(his name escapes me for the moment) was going to “buy” the votes of the entire County in a referendum and bypass the Supervisors..so much for this “.. the sky is falling” scenerio.
anonymous… a slight correction in your narrative..As I remember it, Helen Thomsen did not say that the Supervisors would approve a “mushroom cloud” development if Measure X failed…the head count at that time suggested that she would have to have voted for it.. something that was not a GOOD argument when up for re-election. No.. it was that the sinister developer(his name escapes me for the moment) was going to “buy” the votes of the entire County in a referendum and bypass the Supervisors..so much for this “.. the sky is falling” scenerio.
anonymous… a slight correction in your narrative..As I remember it, Helen Thomsen did not say that the Supervisors would approve a “mushroom cloud” development if Measure X failed…the head count at that time suggested that she would have to have voted for it.. something that was not a GOOD argument when up for re-election. No.. it was that the sinister developer(his name escapes me for the moment) was going to “buy” the votes of the entire County in a referendum and bypass the Supervisors..so much for this “.. the sky is falling” scenerio.
Steve Gidaro?
Steve Gidaro?
Steve Gidaro?
Steve Gidaro?
“You refer to both Helen Thomson and Mike McGowan as “two minor players” in this discussion.”
Yes, minor players in the discusssion as to whether there ought to be a joint meeting of the city council and board of supes. I did not say either was a minor player in Yolo County government, or a minor player in issues affecting development, growth or the retention of ag land.
“You refer to both Helen Thomson and Mike McGowan as “two minor players” in this discussion.”
Yes, minor players in the discusssion as to whether there ought to be a joint meeting of the city council and board of supes. I did not say either was a minor player in Yolo County government, or a minor player in issues affecting development, growth or the retention of ag land.
“You refer to both Helen Thomson and Mike McGowan as “two minor players” in this discussion.”
Yes, minor players in the discusssion as to whether there ought to be a joint meeting of the city council and board of supes. I did not say either was a minor player in Yolo County government, or a minor player in issues affecting development, growth or the retention of ag land.
“You refer to both Helen Thomson and Mike McGowan as “two minor players” in this discussion.”
Yes, minor players in the discusssion as to whether there ought to be a joint meeting of the city council and board of supes. I did not say either was a minor player in Yolo County government, or a minor player in issues affecting development, growth or the retention of ag land.
“You refer to Mariko Yamada as “the Supervisors’ ring-leader” in promoting peripheral growth…”
No, I didn’t say that or mean to imply it. Sorry that you misunderstood me. I said simply that Mariko was the ringleader in bringing about this meeting. (At least, that is what David Greenwald reported a few days ago, when too much credit may have been assigned to Steve Souza for that idea.)
“You refer to Mariko Yamada as “the Supervisors’ ring-leader” in promoting peripheral growth…”
No, I didn’t say that or mean to imply it. Sorry that you misunderstood me. I said simply that Mariko was the ringleader in bringing about this meeting. (At least, that is what David Greenwald reported a few days ago, when too much credit may have been assigned to Steve Souza for that idea.)
“You refer to Mariko Yamada as “the Supervisors’ ring-leader” in promoting peripheral growth…”
No, I didn’t say that or mean to imply it. Sorry that you misunderstood me. I said simply that Mariko was the ringleader in bringing about this meeting. (At least, that is what David Greenwald reported a few days ago, when too much credit may have been assigned to Steve Souza for that idea.)
“You refer to Mariko Yamada as “the Supervisors’ ring-leader” in promoting peripheral growth…”
No, I didn’t say that or mean to imply it. Sorry that you misunderstood me. I said simply that Mariko was the ringleader in bringing about this meeting. (At least, that is what David Greenwald reported a few days ago, when too much credit may have been assigned to Steve Souza for that idea.)
The lobbyist/hero in “Thank You for Smoking” demonstrates to his son the secret to his career-success.. If you are losing an argument, respond by changing/creating a new argument which is valid..you win if you are right, as the original point of the argument often has become lost and irrelevant.
The lobbyist/hero in “Thank You for Smoking” demonstrates to his son the secret to his career-success.. If you are losing an argument, respond by changing/creating a new argument which is valid..you win if you are right, as the original point of the argument often has become lost and irrelevant.
The lobbyist/hero in “Thank You for Smoking” demonstrates to his son the secret to his career-success.. If you are losing an argument, respond by changing/creating a new argument which is valid..you win if you are right, as the original point of the argument often has become lost and irrelevant.
The lobbyist/hero in “Thank You for Smoking” demonstrates to his son the secret to his career-success.. If you are losing an argument, respond by changing/creating a new argument which is valid..you win if you are right, as the original point of the argument often has become lost and irrelevant.
Yes, let’s have a discussion. It is only through discussion that we can understand the priorities of both the city and county and work together to help reach those goals.
Yes, let’s have a discussion. It is only through discussion that we can understand the priorities of both the city and county and work together to help reach those goals.
Yes, let’s have a discussion. It is only through discussion that we can understand the priorities of both the city and county and work together to help reach those goals.
Yes, let’s have a discussion. It is only through discussion that we can understand the priorities of both the city and county and work together to help reach those goals.
Davisite,
Thank you for the further edification. You are correct, that developers would run a referendum or a recall campaign against members of the Board of Supervisors was one of several “bogeyman” scenarios being introduced by the Yes on X, Yes on Covell Village supporters including Helen Thomson. My recollection was Helen also implied, if not outright stated, that the supervisors might do the deed themselves too, causing both Yamada and Chamberlain to unequivocally dispute her assessment both through written statements and newspaper ads which they paid for with their own money. At the same time, Supervisor Frank Sieferman Jr. also disputed the claim of Helen Thomson.
Vincente,
You are correct, it was Steve Gidaro.
Davisite,
Thank you for the further edification. You are correct, that developers would run a referendum or a recall campaign against members of the Board of Supervisors was one of several “bogeyman” scenarios being introduced by the Yes on X, Yes on Covell Village supporters including Helen Thomson. My recollection was Helen also implied, if not outright stated, that the supervisors might do the deed themselves too, causing both Yamada and Chamberlain to unequivocally dispute her assessment both through written statements and newspaper ads which they paid for with their own money. At the same time, Supervisor Frank Sieferman Jr. also disputed the claim of Helen Thomson.
Vincente,
You are correct, it was Steve Gidaro.
Davisite,
Thank you for the further edification. You are correct, that developers would run a referendum or a recall campaign against members of the Board of Supervisors was one of several “bogeyman” scenarios being introduced by the Yes on X, Yes on Covell Village supporters including Helen Thomson. My recollection was Helen also implied, if not outright stated, that the supervisors might do the deed themselves too, causing both Yamada and Chamberlain to unequivocally dispute her assessment both through written statements and newspaper ads which they paid for with their own money. At the same time, Supervisor Frank Sieferman Jr. also disputed the claim of Helen Thomson.
Vincente,
You are correct, it was Steve Gidaro.
Davisite,
Thank you for the further edification. You are correct, that developers would run a referendum or a recall campaign against members of the Board of Supervisors was one of several “bogeyman” scenarios being introduced by the Yes on X, Yes on Covell Village supporters including Helen Thomson. My recollection was Helen also implied, if not outright stated, that the supervisors might do the deed themselves too, causing both Yamada and Chamberlain to unequivocally dispute her assessment both through written statements and newspaper ads which they paid for with their own money. At the same time, Supervisor Frank Sieferman Jr. also disputed the claim of Helen Thomson.
Vincente,
You are correct, it was Steve Gidaro.
anonymous.. your memory serves you well. I didn’t remember about the newspaper ads although I do remember that Mariko was somewhat incensed when the “gentlemen’s agreement” among the Supervisors not to become politically involved in the Measure X campaign was violated.
anonymous.. your memory serves you well. I didn’t remember about the newspaper ads although I do remember that Mariko was somewhat incensed when the “gentlemen’s agreement” among the Supervisors not to become politically involved in the Measure X campaign was violated.
anonymous.. your memory serves you well. I didn’t remember about the newspaper ads although I do remember that Mariko was somewhat incensed when the “gentlemen’s agreement” among the Supervisors not to become politically involved in the Measure X campaign was violated.
anonymous.. your memory serves you well. I didn’t remember about the newspaper ads although I do remember that Mariko was somewhat incensed when the “gentlemen’s agreement” among the Supervisors not to become politically involved in the Measure X campaign was violated.