Commission Recommends Free Speech Ordinance for Renters

Last Wednesday, the City-UC Davis Student Liaison Commission, which serves as an advisory body to the Davis City Council and examines a variety of issues that relate student affairs within the city of Davis, voted to to recommend passage of an ordinance protecting the right of Davis renters to display political signs in their windows or yards.

The issue came to the commission’s attention after the ASUCD Senate passed a resolution, authored by Sen. Michael Lay, calling for an ordinance ensuring the right of Davis renters to post political signs. Several renters had complained to City and ASUCD officials that landlords were not allowing them to put up signs in support of certain candidates for public office.

ASUCD Sen. Andrew Peake:

“The right to free speech is a right guaranteed to everyone, not just to those who own property. When it comes to political participation, it shouldn’t matter whether you own your home or not. When certain members of the community aren’t allowed to participate in the democratic process in this way, it’s a form of disenfranchisement.”

City staff circulated a legal memorandum stating that landlords who prohibited their tenants from posting political signs were most likely out of step with the law.

The meeting itself was marked by harsh dialogue and contentious debate between students and property owners and business interests coming primarily from the property owners and business interests.

The most remarkable was an exchange between ASUCD Senator Andrew Peake and Davis Chamber of Commerce CEO Sherry Puntillo. There seemed to be concern on the part of Ms. Puntillo and also Brenda Little who is the manager for Tandem Properties (owned by John Whitcombe), that the allowance of signs on rental property would lead to disputes and hostility.

It was pointed out that neighbors have similar problems potentially and it does not seem limited to just rental problems. Sen. Peake suggested that this is not a huge issue and that neighbors would be able to resolve such conflicts on their own.

Sherry Puntillo then suggested that Mr. Peake was “naive” to believe that this would occur and rudely asked “what color is the sky where you are.” Ms. Puntillo did not respond to emails inquiring into the incident.

In the end however, Sherry Puntillo voted with the majority to recommend the city council pass this ordinance. Only three members ended up voting against it, Brenda Little, Steven Worker who chairs the commission, and Christine Bonilla.

The issue of disputes–while clearly a concern–seems like a non-issue. It is not clear that there is any more danger about such disputes between apartment or rental unit neighbors than the rest of the population. And in fact, the sheer number of signs is likely to be significantly lower on such property.

I think the real issue is that apartment owners such as Tandem’s John Whitcombe, have traditionally supported pro-development candidates and placed a multitude of signs on their property. Now by allowing renters to place their own signs there will be competition.

According to several who participated and witnessed it, the disdain showed to the viewpoint of students by Brenda Little and the Chamber of Commerce CEO was alarming.

There was the belief that the comments were patronizing and they lacked a modicum of respect for students. This commission was set up to give students a voice in Davis City Government, but the students at this meeting came away somewhat believing that they were viewed as second class citizens, and not treated as equals with respect.

Nevertheless, this incident should not overshadow what was viewed as a huge step toward victory for students to be able to gain a voice in politics even from their rental units. It is the hope that with the support of the City-UCD Liaison Commission that the council will approve an ordinance that allows renters to post signs in and around their rental units.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

116 Comments

  1. Karl

    Good for Michael Lay, Andrew Peake, and the folks who voted for this. It’s preposterous that someone wouldn’t be allowed to display a sign on a rented property.

    In response to Ms. Puntillo’s “naive” comment, if a business/property owner feels so strongly about what is displayed on a property, they shouldn’t be renting it.

  2. Karl

    Good for Michael Lay, Andrew Peake, and the folks who voted for this. It’s preposterous that someone wouldn’t be allowed to display a sign on a rented property.

    In response to Ms. Puntillo’s “naive” comment, if a business/property owner feels so strongly about what is displayed on a property, they shouldn’t be renting it.

  3. Karl

    Good for Michael Lay, Andrew Peake, and the folks who voted for this. It’s preposterous that someone wouldn’t be allowed to display a sign on a rented property.

    In response to Ms. Puntillo’s “naive” comment, if a business/property owner feels so strongly about what is displayed on a property, they shouldn’t be renting it.

  4. Karl

    Good for Michael Lay, Andrew Peake, and the folks who voted for this. It’s preposterous that someone wouldn’t be allowed to display a sign on a rented property.

    In response to Ms. Puntillo’s “naive” comment, if a business/property owner feels so strongly about what is displayed on a property, they shouldn’t be renting it.

  5. campaign watcher

    Perhaps the ordinance should state that only the renters should be able to place signs in front of their residence. Why should landlords be able to place signs on property they have rented out to others at all?

    It is my understanding – I know that this was at least discussed by previous City Councils – that lawn signs cannot be placed by landlords unless they get written permission from the tenants. For apartments, they could have a mini-vote to decide which signs should be displayed – the winners of the mini-vote get their signs posted on the property. At least this would better reflect the preferences of the people actually living there. Mr. Whitcome and others can show who he supports by placing a lawn sign in front of his own home.

    Regarding Sherri Puntillo’s comments – She is there at that meeting to represent the Chamber of Commerce. Why on earth would the Chamber of Commerce care enough about this issue to bicker about it?

  6. campaign watcher

    Perhaps the ordinance should state that only the renters should be able to place signs in front of their residence. Why should landlords be able to place signs on property they have rented out to others at all?

    It is my understanding – I know that this was at least discussed by previous City Councils – that lawn signs cannot be placed by landlords unless they get written permission from the tenants. For apartments, they could have a mini-vote to decide which signs should be displayed – the winners of the mini-vote get their signs posted on the property. At least this would better reflect the preferences of the people actually living there. Mr. Whitcome and others can show who he supports by placing a lawn sign in front of his own home.

    Regarding Sherri Puntillo’s comments – She is there at that meeting to represent the Chamber of Commerce. Why on earth would the Chamber of Commerce care enough about this issue to bicker about it?

  7. campaign watcher

    Perhaps the ordinance should state that only the renters should be able to place signs in front of their residence. Why should landlords be able to place signs on property they have rented out to others at all?

    It is my understanding – I know that this was at least discussed by previous City Councils – that lawn signs cannot be placed by landlords unless they get written permission from the tenants. For apartments, they could have a mini-vote to decide which signs should be displayed – the winners of the mini-vote get their signs posted on the property. At least this would better reflect the preferences of the people actually living there. Mr. Whitcome and others can show who he supports by placing a lawn sign in front of his own home.

    Regarding Sherri Puntillo’s comments – She is there at that meeting to represent the Chamber of Commerce. Why on earth would the Chamber of Commerce care enough about this issue to bicker about it?

  8. campaign watcher

    Perhaps the ordinance should state that only the renters should be able to place signs in front of their residence. Why should landlords be able to place signs on property they have rented out to others at all?

    It is my understanding – I know that this was at least discussed by previous City Councils – that lawn signs cannot be placed by landlords unless they get written permission from the tenants. For apartments, they could have a mini-vote to decide which signs should be displayed – the winners of the mini-vote get their signs posted on the property. At least this would better reflect the preferences of the people actually living there. Mr. Whitcome and others can show who he supports by placing a lawn sign in front of his own home.

    Regarding Sherri Puntillo’s comments – She is there at that meeting to represent the Chamber of Commerce. Why on earth would the Chamber of Commerce care enough about this issue to bicker about it?

  9. Anonymous

    Sherry Puntillo “had to stay neutral” in the public power fight in order to be fair to her membership (read: suckle at the teet of PG&E).

    Seems like her political neutrality standard waivers from one issue to the next.

    As for the issue overall, I’d say that it’s not political signage that keeps the students disenfranchised in this city – it’s their near universal disinterest in local politics (and who can blame them??)

    To Tandem’s credit, they have particpated wholeheartedly in the past in voter registration drives, often keeping their renters informed of local politics through their newsletters. Many of the efforts have been lead by Brenda Little, and for that she should be commended.

    The signage issue, is undoubtedly more of an astetic one from Tandem’s pont of view. Does hanging a bedsheet from your balcony with a spray painted message on it equate free speech or just an eyesore to your neighbors?

    At the bottom of it, renters just don’t have the same rights on their rented property as owners do and to circumvent this rule a no-sign clause could just be made part of the lease agreement.

  10. Anonymous

    Sherry Puntillo “had to stay neutral” in the public power fight in order to be fair to her membership (read: suckle at the teet of PG&E).

    Seems like her political neutrality standard waivers from one issue to the next.

    As for the issue overall, I’d say that it’s not political signage that keeps the students disenfranchised in this city – it’s their near universal disinterest in local politics (and who can blame them??)

    To Tandem’s credit, they have particpated wholeheartedly in the past in voter registration drives, often keeping their renters informed of local politics through their newsletters. Many of the efforts have been lead by Brenda Little, and for that she should be commended.

    The signage issue, is undoubtedly more of an astetic one from Tandem’s pont of view. Does hanging a bedsheet from your balcony with a spray painted message on it equate free speech or just an eyesore to your neighbors?

    At the bottom of it, renters just don’t have the same rights on their rented property as owners do and to circumvent this rule a no-sign clause could just be made part of the lease agreement.

  11. Anonymous

    Sherry Puntillo “had to stay neutral” in the public power fight in order to be fair to her membership (read: suckle at the teet of PG&E).

    Seems like her political neutrality standard waivers from one issue to the next.

    As for the issue overall, I’d say that it’s not political signage that keeps the students disenfranchised in this city – it’s their near universal disinterest in local politics (and who can blame them??)

    To Tandem’s credit, they have particpated wholeheartedly in the past in voter registration drives, often keeping their renters informed of local politics through their newsletters. Many of the efforts have been lead by Brenda Little, and for that she should be commended.

    The signage issue, is undoubtedly more of an astetic one from Tandem’s pont of view. Does hanging a bedsheet from your balcony with a spray painted message on it equate free speech or just an eyesore to your neighbors?

    At the bottom of it, renters just don’t have the same rights on their rented property as owners do and to circumvent this rule a no-sign clause could just be made part of the lease agreement.

  12. Anonymous

    Sherry Puntillo “had to stay neutral” in the public power fight in order to be fair to her membership (read: suckle at the teet of PG&E).

    Seems like her political neutrality standard waivers from one issue to the next.

    As for the issue overall, I’d say that it’s not political signage that keeps the students disenfranchised in this city – it’s their near universal disinterest in local politics (and who can blame them??)

    To Tandem’s credit, they have particpated wholeheartedly in the past in voter registration drives, often keeping their renters informed of local politics through their newsletters. Many of the efforts have been lead by Brenda Little, and for that she should be commended.

    The signage issue, is undoubtedly more of an astetic one from Tandem’s pont of view. Does hanging a bedsheet from your balcony with a spray painted message on it equate free speech or just an eyesore to your neighbors?

    At the bottom of it, renters just don’t have the same rights on their rented property as owners do and to circumvent this rule a no-sign clause could just be made part of the lease agreement.

  13. Anonymous

    If we are going to allow a renter to put signs on property he does not own, how do you limit it to political signs? You are saying that the renter has the right to put up any sign he wants on property he does not own without the approval of the owner.
    We should all show up at DPD’s house and put re-election posters for Saylor and Souza on his front lawn. His tune would change.
    Typical progressive, everyone else has to do it, but not in my backyard.

  14. Anonymous

    If we are going to allow a renter to put signs on property he does not own, how do you limit it to political signs? You are saying that the renter has the right to put up any sign he wants on property he does not own without the approval of the owner.
    We should all show up at DPD’s house and put re-election posters for Saylor and Souza on his front lawn. His tune would change.
    Typical progressive, everyone else has to do it, but not in my backyard.

  15. Anonymous

    If we are going to allow a renter to put signs on property he does not own, how do you limit it to political signs? You are saying that the renter has the right to put up any sign he wants on property he does not own without the approval of the owner.
    We should all show up at DPD’s house and put re-election posters for Saylor and Souza on his front lawn. His tune would change.
    Typical progressive, everyone else has to do it, but not in my backyard.

  16. Anonymous

    If we are going to allow a renter to put signs on property he does not own, how do you limit it to political signs? You are saying that the renter has the right to put up any sign he wants on property he does not own without the approval of the owner.
    We should all show up at DPD’s house and put re-election posters for Saylor and Souza on his front lawn. His tune would change.
    Typical progressive, everyone else has to do it, but not in my backyard.

  17. Great and Small

    Anon 9:33-

    The issue is not about bed sheets from windows but 2×3 political posters inside windows.

    Renter’s of property have the same rights as property owners. What renter’a don’t have control over is what happens outside the property they are paying rent for. So in an apartment situation, they do not have control over anything outside their apartment.

    This issue arose when someone put a poltical poster on the inside of their window facing out. The tenant was asked to remove it for aesthetic reasons, as you pointed out. However, the property had poltical signs all over their lawns.

    Force tenants to give up their free speech to rent an apartment in Davis? Gotta love Davis.

  18. Great and Small

    Anon 9:33-

    The issue is not about bed sheets from windows but 2×3 political posters inside windows.

    Renter’s of property have the same rights as property owners. What renter’a don’t have control over is what happens outside the property they are paying rent for. So in an apartment situation, they do not have control over anything outside their apartment.

    This issue arose when someone put a poltical poster on the inside of their window facing out. The tenant was asked to remove it for aesthetic reasons, as you pointed out. However, the property had poltical signs all over their lawns.

    Force tenants to give up their free speech to rent an apartment in Davis? Gotta love Davis.

  19. Great and Small

    Anon 9:33-

    The issue is not about bed sheets from windows but 2×3 political posters inside windows.

    Renter’s of property have the same rights as property owners. What renter’a don’t have control over is what happens outside the property they are paying rent for. So in an apartment situation, they do not have control over anything outside their apartment.

    This issue arose when someone put a poltical poster on the inside of their window facing out. The tenant was asked to remove it for aesthetic reasons, as you pointed out. However, the property had poltical signs all over their lawns.

    Force tenants to give up their free speech to rent an apartment in Davis? Gotta love Davis.

  20. Great and Small

    Anon 9:33-

    The issue is not about bed sheets from windows but 2×3 political posters inside windows.

    Renter’s of property have the same rights as property owners. What renter’a don’t have control over is what happens outside the property they are paying rent for. So in an apartment situation, they do not have control over anything outside their apartment.

    This issue arose when someone put a poltical poster on the inside of their window facing out. The tenant was asked to remove it for aesthetic reasons, as you pointed out. However, the property had poltical signs all over their lawns.

    Force tenants to give up their free speech to rent an apartment in Davis? Gotta love Davis.

  21. Great and Small

    I also love how people take the Vanguard’s article’s so personally and attack the author.

    If this is one of the most educated cities in America, people should attack the argument not the arguer. Attacking the arguer is a logical fallacy.

    Please read the ordinance and learn the history of the issue.

  22. Great and Small

    I also love how people take the Vanguard’s article’s so personally and attack the author.

    If this is one of the most educated cities in America, people should attack the argument not the arguer. Attacking the arguer is a logical fallacy.

    Please read the ordinance and learn the history of the issue.

  23. Great and Small

    I also love how people take the Vanguard’s article’s so personally and attack the author.

    If this is one of the most educated cities in America, people should attack the argument not the arguer. Attacking the arguer is a logical fallacy.

    Please read the ordinance and learn the history of the issue.

  24. Great and Small

    I also love how people take the Vanguard’s article’s so personally and attack the author.

    If this is one of the most educated cities in America, people should attack the argument not the arguer. Attacking the arguer is a logical fallacy.

    Please read the ordinance and learn the history of the issue.

  25. Doug Paul Davis

    “We should all show up at DPD’s house and put re-election posters for Saylor and Souza on his front lawn. His tune would change.”

    If I rented my property to you, you would have every right, imo, to put up Saylor and Souza signs.

  26. Doug Paul Davis

    “We should all show up at DPD’s house and put re-election posters for Saylor and Souza on his front lawn. His tune would change.”

    If I rented my property to you, you would have every right, imo, to put up Saylor and Souza signs.

  27. Doug Paul Davis

    “We should all show up at DPD’s house and put re-election posters for Saylor and Souza on his front lawn. His tune would change.”

    If I rented my property to you, you would have every right, imo, to put up Saylor and Souza signs.

  28. Doug Paul Davis

    “We should all show up at DPD’s house and put re-election posters for Saylor and Souza on his front lawn. His tune would change.”

    If I rented my property to you, you would have every right, imo, to put up Saylor and Souza signs.

  29. Rebecca

    I rent and if I want to put anything up in my window that should be legal.

    It does make some logical sense that people should not be alowed to put up political signs on apartment lawns or physical property but then the owner or owners should not be alowed either unless agreed to by ALL tenents.

    It would seem unconstitutional or wrong for a property owner to post a political sign on land that a tenent is living on that the tenent may not agree with, regardless IF some majority poll was conducted on the property.

    Because our rights to free speech is sacred any individual forced by a rental contract to live with the advertisement of someone or something that is against their belief or religous ideas is horrifying to me regardless if I agree with the owners opinion.

    For example, what if a pro environment candadite was also pro choice and his or her sign was on an apartment lawn. This might deeply effect a tenent that does not agree because they would feel they are supporting someone they disagree with.

  30. Rebecca

    I rent and if I want to put anything up in my window that should be legal.

    It does make some logical sense that people should not be alowed to put up political signs on apartment lawns or physical property but then the owner or owners should not be alowed either unless agreed to by ALL tenents.

    It would seem unconstitutional or wrong for a property owner to post a political sign on land that a tenent is living on that the tenent may not agree with, regardless IF some majority poll was conducted on the property.

    Because our rights to free speech is sacred any individual forced by a rental contract to live with the advertisement of someone or something that is against their belief or religous ideas is horrifying to me regardless if I agree with the owners opinion.

    For example, what if a pro environment candadite was also pro choice and his or her sign was on an apartment lawn. This might deeply effect a tenent that does not agree because they would feel they are supporting someone they disagree with.

  31. Rebecca

    I rent and if I want to put anything up in my window that should be legal.

    It does make some logical sense that people should not be alowed to put up political signs on apartment lawns or physical property but then the owner or owners should not be alowed either unless agreed to by ALL tenents.

    It would seem unconstitutional or wrong for a property owner to post a political sign on land that a tenent is living on that the tenent may not agree with, regardless IF some majority poll was conducted on the property.

    Because our rights to free speech is sacred any individual forced by a rental contract to live with the advertisement of someone or something that is against their belief or religous ideas is horrifying to me regardless if I agree with the owners opinion.

    For example, what if a pro environment candadite was also pro choice and his or her sign was on an apartment lawn. This might deeply effect a tenent that does not agree because they would feel they are supporting someone they disagree with.

  32. Rebecca

    I rent and if I want to put anything up in my window that should be legal.

    It does make some logical sense that people should not be alowed to put up political signs on apartment lawns or physical property but then the owner or owners should not be alowed either unless agreed to by ALL tenents.

    It would seem unconstitutional or wrong for a property owner to post a political sign on land that a tenent is living on that the tenent may not agree with, regardless IF some majority poll was conducted on the property.

    Because our rights to free speech is sacred any individual forced by a rental contract to live with the advertisement of someone or something that is against their belief or religous ideas is horrifying to me regardless if I agree with the owners opinion.

    For example, what if a pro environment candadite was also pro choice and his or her sign was on an apartment lawn. This might deeply effect a tenent that does not agree because they would feel they are supporting someone they disagree with.

  33. Rich Rifkin

    With tenants posting political signs, there ought to be a distinction between rental units which are a part of a larger complex with common areas and single-family rental houses or duplexes which have their own private yard space.

    In the former case, tenants ought to have complete rights to post political signs in their windows or on their doors or on any space which is their rented space. But such tenants ought not be allowed to post signs in common areas or on the yard space which is common to their complex.

    In the latter case, tenants ought to have the same rights to post political signs as any owner/occupier.

    As far as the rights of landlords go in posting signs on their properties, they should be able to post signs in common areas or common yards in multi-unit complexes.

    But in single family houses or duplexes they’ve rented out, the tenant ought to control all the space, in and out, when it comes to political expression.

    BTW, if we had a thousand different landlords in Davis, my opinion would be to let the market decide this question. That is, tenants and landlords could negotiate this in their lease agreements. But we seem to have just a handful of management companies which control a majority of the rentals, and that restricts the power of tenants to request this authority in their lease. (Besides, who would ever think of such a thing in their lease ahead of time?)

  34. Rich Rifkin

    With tenants posting political signs, there ought to be a distinction between rental units which are a part of a larger complex with common areas and single-family rental houses or duplexes which have their own private yard space.

    In the former case, tenants ought to have complete rights to post political signs in their windows or on their doors or on any space which is their rented space. But such tenants ought not be allowed to post signs in common areas or on the yard space which is common to their complex.

    In the latter case, tenants ought to have the same rights to post political signs as any owner/occupier.

    As far as the rights of landlords go in posting signs on their properties, they should be able to post signs in common areas or common yards in multi-unit complexes.

    But in single family houses or duplexes they’ve rented out, the tenant ought to control all the space, in and out, when it comes to political expression.

    BTW, if we had a thousand different landlords in Davis, my opinion would be to let the market decide this question. That is, tenants and landlords could negotiate this in their lease agreements. But we seem to have just a handful of management companies which control a majority of the rentals, and that restricts the power of tenants to request this authority in their lease. (Besides, who would ever think of such a thing in their lease ahead of time?)

  35. Rich Rifkin

    With tenants posting political signs, there ought to be a distinction between rental units which are a part of a larger complex with common areas and single-family rental houses or duplexes which have their own private yard space.

    In the former case, tenants ought to have complete rights to post political signs in their windows or on their doors or on any space which is their rented space. But such tenants ought not be allowed to post signs in common areas or on the yard space which is common to their complex.

    In the latter case, tenants ought to have the same rights to post political signs as any owner/occupier.

    As far as the rights of landlords go in posting signs on their properties, they should be able to post signs in common areas or common yards in multi-unit complexes.

    But in single family houses or duplexes they’ve rented out, the tenant ought to control all the space, in and out, when it comes to political expression.

    BTW, if we had a thousand different landlords in Davis, my opinion would be to let the market decide this question. That is, tenants and landlords could negotiate this in their lease agreements. But we seem to have just a handful of management companies which control a majority of the rentals, and that restricts the power of tenants to request this authority in their lease. (Besides, who would ever think of such a thing in their lease ahead of time?)

  36. Rich Rifkin

    With tenants posting political signs, there ought to be a distinction between rental units which are a part of a larger complex with common areas and single-family rental houses or duplexes which have their own private yard space.

    In the former case, tenants ought to have complete rights to post political signs in their windows or on their doors or on any space which is their rented space. But such tenants ought not be allowed to post signs in common areas or on the yard space which is common to their complex.

    In the latter case, tenants ought to have the same rights to post political signs as any owner/occupier.

    As far as the rights of landlords go in posting signs on their properties, they should be able to post signs in common areas or common yards in multi-unit complexes.

    But in single family houses or duplexes they’ve rented out, the tenant ought to control all the space, in and out, when it comes to political expression.

    BTW, if we had a thousand different landlords in Davis, my opinion would be to let the market decide this question. That is, tenants and landlords could negotiate this in their lease agreements. But we seem to have just a handful of management companies which control a majority of the rentals, and that restricts the power of tenants to request this authority in their lease. (Besides, who would ever think of such a thing in their lease ahead of time?)

  37. rebecca

    I agree with most of what Rich Rifkin said.

    However, If an owner or owners of a large complex property post political signs in Common areas like lawns then tenents should also have that right or they should have a no sign policy that aplies to all everyone, including the owners.

  38. rebecca

    I agree with most of what Rich Rifkin said.

    However, If an owner or owners of a large complex property post political signs in Common areas like lawns then tenents should also have that right or they should have a no sign policy that aplies to all everyone, including the owners.

  39. rebecca

    I agree with most of what Rich Rifkin said.

    However, If an owner or owners of a large complex property post political signs in Common areas like lawns then tenents should also have that right or they should have a no sign policy that aplies to all everyone, including the owners.

  40. rebecca

    I agree with most of what Rich Rifkin said.

    However, If an owner or owners of a large complex property post political signs in Common areas like lawns then tenents should also have that right or they should have a no sign policy that aplies to all everyone, including the owners.

  41. Anonymous

    Lamar Heystek, a renter himself, ran in part to focus the City Council’s attention on renters’ issues. Rental units make up 40 percent of all housing in Davis, so to neglect the rights of Davis renters is to neglect the rights of a huge chunk of the Davis population. Lamar’s election has undoubtedly inspired students to push for their rights as renters. This kind of student activism should be encouraged because the issue they’re championing isn’t just a “student issue” — non-student renters stand to benefit as well. Although Lamar is arguably in the Council minority, it’s safe to say his election has brought a whole new set of issues to light. That in itself is a validation of Lamar’s presence on the City Council.

  42. Anonymous

    Lamar Heystek, a renter himself, ran in part to focus the City Council’s attention on renters’ issues. Rental units make up 40 percent of all housing in Davis, so to neglect the rights of Davis renters is to neglect the rights of a huge chunk of the Davis population. Lamar’s election has undoubtedly inspired students to push for their rights as renters. This kind of student activism should be encouraged because the issue they’re championing isn’t just a “student issue” — non-student renters stand to benefit as well. Although Lamar is arguably in the Council minority, it’s safe to say his election has brought a whole new set of issues to light. That in itself is a validation of Lamar’s presence on the City Council.

  43. Anonymous

    Lamar Heystek, a renter himself, ran in part to focus the City Council’s attention on renters’ issues. Rental units make up 40 percent of all housing in Davis, so to neglect the rights of Davis renters is to neglect the rights of a huge chunk of the Davis population. Lamar’s election has undoubtedly inspired students to push for their rights as renters. This kind of student activism should be encouraged because the issue they’re championing isn’t just a “student issue” — non-student renters stand to benefit as well. Although Lamar is arguably in the Council minority, it’s safe to say his election has brought a whole new set of issues to light. That in itself is a validation of Lamar’s presence on the City Council.

  44. Anonymous

    Lamar Heystek, a renter himself, ran in part to focus the City Council’s attention on renters’ issues. Rental units make up 40 percent of all housing in Davis, so to neglect the rights of Davis renters is to neglect the rights of a huge chunk of the Davis population. Lamar’s election has undoubtedly inspired students to push for their rights as renters. This kind of student activism should be encouraged because the issue they’re championing isn’t just a “student issue” — non-student renters stand to benefit as well. Although Lamar is arguably in the Council minority, it’s safe to say his election has brought a whole new set of issues to light. That in itself is a validation of Lamar’s presence on the City Council.

  45. Anonymous

    The ordinance recommended by the City-UCD Student Liaison Commission calls for the same intent as SB 540, a bill supported by Democrats in the California state legislature and vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. So basically the commission is asking the Davis City Council to override the Governor’s veto.

  46. Anonymous

    The ordinance recommended by the City-UCD Student Liaison Commission calls for the same intent as SB 540, a bill supported by Democrats in the California state legislature and vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. So basically the commission is asking the Davis City Council to override the Governor’s veto.

  47. Anonymous

    The ordinance recommended by the City-UCD Student Liaison Commission calls for the same intent as SB 540, a bill supported by Democrats in the California state legislature and vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. So basically the commission is asking the Davis City Council to override the Governor’s veto.

  48. Anonymous

    The ordinance recommended by the City-UCD Student Liaison Commission calls for the same intent as SB 540, a bill supported by Democrats in the California state legislature and vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. So basically the commission is asking the Davis City Council to override the Governor’s veto.

  49. 無名 - wu ming

    why not just suggest restricting the franchise to property owners, while they’re at it?

    utterly absurd, to think that property ownership trumps the first amendment. puntillo should be ashamed of herself, even making the argument.

    as if disagreement and debate over political signs and support of candidates was a problem to be solved, and not one of the very core principles of democracy.

  50. 無名 - wu ming

    why not just suggest restricting the franchise to property owners, while they’re at it?

    utterly absurd, to think that property ownership trumps the first amendment. puntillo should be ashamed of herself, even making the argument.

    as if disagreement and debate over political signs and support of candidates was a problem to be solved, and not one of the very core principles of democracy.

  51. 無名 - wu ming

    why not just suggest restricting the franchise to property owners, while they’re at it?

    utterly absurd, to think that property ownership trumps the first amendment. puntillo should be ashamed of herself, even making the argument.

    as if disagreement and debate over political signs and support of candidates was a problem to be solved, and not one of the very core principles of democracy.

  52. 無名 - wu ming

    why not just suggest restricting the franchise to property owners, while they’re at it?

    utterly absurd, to think that property ownership trumps the first amendment. puntillo should be ashamed of herself, even making the argument.

    as if disagreement and debate over political signs and support of candidates was a problem to be solved, and not one of the very core principles of democracy.

  53. Anonymous

    “So basically the commission is asking the Davis City Council to override the Governor’s veto.”

    No, the governor has statewide jurisdiction, the city council only has jurisdiction over the city of Davis.

  54. Anonymous

    “So basically the commission is asking the Davis City Council to override the Governor’s veto.”

    No, the governor has statewide jurisdiction, the city council only has jurisdiction over the city of Davis.

  55. Anonymous

    “So basically the commission is asking the Davis City Council to override the Governor’s veto.”

    No, the governor has statewide jurisdiction, the city council only has jurisdiction over the city of Davis.

  56. Anonymous

    “So basically the commission is asking the Davis City Council to override the Governor’s veto.”

    No, the governor has statewide jurisdiction, the city council only has jurisdiction over the city of Davis.

  57. Anonymous

    anonymous 2:35 said…
    No, the governor has statewide jurisdiction, the city council only has jurisdiction over the city of Davis.

    If the Davis City Council passed an ordinance that implemented the intent of SB 540, it would be tantamount to overriding the Governor’s will in the city of Davis; the Governor certainly doesn’t have the power to veto a city ordinance. Cities across the United States are similarly “overriding” the president’s failure to support the Kyoto Protocol by implementing their own laws to fight global warming. If every city were to do this, the president’s “veto” would be rendered meaningless.

  58. Anonymous

    anonymous 2:35 said…
    No, the governor has statewide jurisdiction, the city council only has jurisdiction over the city of Davis.

    If the Davis City Council passed an ordinance that implemented the intent of SB 540, it would be tantamount to overriding the Governor’s will in the city of Davis; the Governor certainly doesn’t have the power to veto a city ordinance. Cities across the United States are similarly “overriding” the president’s failure to support the Kyoto Protocol by implementing their own laws to fight global warming. If every city were to do this, the president’s “veto” would be rendered meaningless.

  59. Anonymous

    anonymous 2:35 said…
    No, the governor has statewide jurisdiction, the city council only has jurisdiction over the city of Davis.

    If the Davis City Council passed an ordinance that implemented the intent of SB 540, it would be tantamount to overriding the Governor’s will in the city of Davis; the Governor certainly doesn’t have the power to veto a city ordinance. Cities across the United States are similarly “overriding” the president’s failure to support the Kyoto Protocol by implementing their own laws to fight global warming. If every city were to do this, the president’s “veto” would be rendered meaningless.

  60. Anonymous

    anonymous 2:35 said…
    No, the governor has statewide jurisdiction, the city council only has jurisdiction over the city of Davis.

    If the Davis City Council passed an ordinance that implemented the intent of SB 540, it would be tantamount to overriding the Governor’s will in the city of Davis; the Governor certainly doesn’t have the power to veto a city ordinance. Cities across the United States are similarly “overriding” the president’s failure to support the Kyoto Protocol by implementing their own laws to fight global warming. If every city were to do this, the president’s “veto” would be rendered meaningless.

  61. Rich Rifkin

    “If an owner or owners of a large complex property post political signs in Common areas like lawns then tenents should also have that right or they should have a no sign policy that aplies to all everyone, including the owners.”

    That’s a pretty reasonable idea.

    As far as our current election goes, I haven’t noticed any lawn signs out front of the common areas of apartment buildings. (Admittedly, I don’t live too near any apartments.) In fact, I’ve seen very few lawn signs this election. Probably the most have been “Yes on P” signs. There are a few red “McLovinburg” signs in my neighborhood. And I’ve seen some green “Harris” signs around town. I don’t recall seeing any Spector or Schelen signs, at all. This might be the most sign-free election in Davis in many years….

    Speaking of the school board election, I have a feeling that the two candidates with the most money are going to win, going away. (I am voting for one of those two.) …

    I was sorry to see in my Voter Information Pamphlet that Joe Spector was unable to publish his “STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE.” I realize that it is not inexpensive to produce those booklets. But charging money for those official declarations seems wrong to me. My feeling is that all candidates ought to be able to have their STATEMENT included, even if they were not able to raise enough money to pay the going fee…. By not having his STATEMENT in the official pamphlet, Spector’s candidacy is probably doomed. And for anyone who has heard Joe speak about school issues, that doomed-ness is a shame.

  62. Rich Rifkin

    “If an owner or owners of a large complex property post political signs in Common areas like lawns then tenents should also have that right or they should have a no sign policy that aplies to all everyone, including the owners.”

    That’s a pretty reasonable idea.

    As far as our current election goes, I haven’t noticed any lawn signs out front of the common areas of apartment buildings. (Admittedly, I don’t live too near any apartments.) In fact, I’ve seen very few lawn signs this election. Probably the most have been “Yes on P” signs. There are a few red “McLovinburg” signs in my neighborhood. And I’ve seen some green “Harris” signs around town. I don’t recall seeing any Spector or Schelen signs, at all. This might be the most sign-free election in Davis in many years….

    Speaking of the school board election, I have a feeling that the two candidates with the most money are going to win, going away. (I am voting for one of those two.) …

    I was sorry to see in my Voter Information Pamphlet that Joe Spector was unable to publish his “STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE.” I realize that it is not inexpensive to produce those booklets. But charging money for those official declarations seems wrong to me. My feeling is that all candidates ought to be able to have their STATEMENT included, even if they were not able to raise enough money to pay the going fee…. By not having his STATEMENT in the official pamphlet, Spector’s candidacy is probably doomed. And for anyone who has heard Joe speak about school issues, that doomed-ness is a shame.

  63. Rich Rifkin

    “If an owner or owners of a large complex property post political signs in Common areas like lawns then tenents should also have that right or they should have a no sign policy that aplies to all everyone, including the owners.”

    That’s a pretty reasonable idea.

    As far as our current election goes, I haven’t noticed any lawn signs out front of the common areas of apartment buildings. (Admittedly, I don’t live too near any apartments.) In fact, I’ve seen very few lawn signs this election. Probably the most have been “Yes on P” signs. There are a few red “McLovinburg” signs in my neighborhood. And I’ve seen some green “Harris” signs around town. I don’t recall seeing any Spector or Schelen signs, at all. This might be the most sign-free election in Davis in many years….

    Speaking of the school board election, I have a feeling that the two candidates with the most money are going to win, going away. (I am voting for one of those two.) …

    I was sorry to see in my Voter Information Pamphlet that Joe Spector was unable to publish his “STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE.” I realize that it is not inexpensive to produce those booklets. But charging money for those official declarations seems wrong to me. My feeling is that all candidates ought to be able to have their STATEMENT included, even if they were not able to raise enough money to pay the going fee…. By not having his STATEMENT in the official pamphlet, Spector’s candidacy is probably doomed. And for anyone who has heard Joe speak about school issues, that doomed-ness is a shame.

  64. Rich Rifkin

    “If an owner or owners of a large complex property post political signs in Common areas like lawns then tenents should also have that right or they should have a no sign policy that aplies to all everyone, including the owners.”

    That’s a pretty reasonable idea.

    As far as our current election goes, I haven’t noticed any lawn signs out front of the common areas of apartment buildings. (Admittedly, I don’t live too near any apartments.) In fact, I’ve seen very few lawn signs this election. Probably the most have been “Yes on P” signs. There are a few red “McLovinburg” signs in my neighborhood. And I’ve seen some green “Harris” signs around town. I don’t recall seeing any Spector or Schelen signs, at all. This might be the most sign-free election in Davis in many years….

    Speaking of the school board election, I have a feeling that the two candidates with the most money are going to win, going away. (I am voting for one of those two.) …

    I was sorry to see in my Voter Information Pamphlet that Joe Spector was unable to publish his “STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE.” I realize that it is not inexpensive to produce those booklets. But charging money for those official declarations seems wrong to me. My feeling is that all candidates ought to be able to have their STATEMENT included, even if they were not able to raise enough money to pay the going fee…. By not having his STATEMENT in the official pamphlet, Spector’s candidacy is probably doomed. And for anyone who has heard Joe speak about school issues, that doomed-ness is a shame.

  65. Great and Small

    Anon 1:55

    The intent of SB is not what the Governor vetoed, he vetoed the language of SB 540.

    If you read his veto message he criticizes specific aspects of the bill and its language; not the bills intent. The Governor specifically had issue with the size limitation of signs and that signs can only be posted close to an election.

  66. Great and Small

    Anon 1:55

    The intent of SB is not what the Governor vetoed, he vetoed the language of SB 540.

    If you read his veto message he criticizes specific aspects of the bill and its language; not the bills intent. The Governor specifically had issue with the size limitation of signs and that signs can only be posted close to an election.

  67. Great and Small

    Anon 1:55

    The intent of SB is not what the Governor vetoed, he vetoed the language of SB 540.

    If you read his veto message he criticizes specific aspects of the bill and its language; not the bills intent. The Governor specifically had issue with the size limitation of signs and that signs can only be posted close to an election.

  68. Great and Small

    Anon 1:55

    The intent of SB is not what the Governor vetoed, he vetoed the language of SB 540.

    If you read his veto message he criticizes specific aspects of the bill and its language; not the bills intent. The Governor specifically had issue with the size limitation of signs and that signs can only be posted close to an election.

  69. Anonymous

    When a person agrees to rent an apt or house they are renting the property and should not have to negotiate anything beyond that. This is a city and not a dictatorship.

    Isn’t it funny that a city that prides itself on being liberal, favoring free speech, and having a greater voice in elections (i.e. choice voting) is so willing and ready to give away or put limits on one of our basic rights in the U.S., such as freedom of speech?

    Wake up Davis. The city was Republican led under Vigfus Asmundson and it can happen again.

    True Blue Davis Liberal

  70. Anonymous

    When a person agrees to rent an apt or house they are renting the property and should not have to negotiate anything beyond that. This is a city and not a dictatorship.

    Isn’t it funny that a city that prides itself on being liberal, favoring free speech, and having a greater voice in elections (i.e. choice voting) is so willing and ready to give away or put limits on one of our basic rights in the U.S., such as freedom of speech?

    Wake up Davis. The city was Republican led under Vigfus Asmundson and it can happen again.

    True Blue Davis Liberal

  71. Anonymous

    When a person agrees to rent an apt or house they are renting the property and should not have to negotiate anything beyond that. This is a city and not a dictatorship.

    Isn’t it funny that a city that prides itself on being liberal, favoring free speech, and having a greater voice in elections (i.e. choice voting) is so willing and ready to give away or put limits on one of our basic rights in the U.S., such as freedom of speech?

    Wake up Davis. The city was Republican led under Vigfus Asmundson and it can happen again.

    True Blue Davis Liberal

  72. Anonymous

    When a person agrees to rent an apt or house they are renting the property and should not have to negotiate anything beyond that. This is a city and not a dictatorship.

    Isn’t it funny that a city that prides itself on being liberal, favoring free speech, and having a greater voice in elections (i.e. choice voting) is so willing and ready to give away or put limits on one of our basic rights in the U.S., such as freedom of speech?

    Wake up Davis. The city was Republican led under Vigfus Asmundson and it can happen again.

    True Blue Davis Liberal

  73. Anonymous

    9:33

    Maybe the disinterest in local politics by the students is due to this sort of bullying by the locals. Maybe they would be more interested if the city wasn’t so jerrymandered to disenfranchise students and they felt they had a chance to participate in the process. Just look at west village will it be annexed? Not if the Democrats in control of local politics have anything to say about it.

    Ron Glick

  74. Anonymous

    9:33

    Maybe the disinterest in local politics by the students is due to this sort of bullying by the locals. Maybe they would be more interested if the city wasn’t so jerrymandered to disenfranchise students and they felt they had a chance to participate in the process. Just look at west village will it be annexed? Not if the Democrats in control of local politics have anything to say about it.

    Ron Glick

  75. Anonymous

    9:33

    Maybe the disinterest in local politics by the students is due to this sort of bullying by the locals. Maybe they would be more interested if the city wasn’t so jerrymandered to disenfranchise students and they felt they had a chance to participate in the process. Just look at west village will it be annexed? Not if the Democrats in control of local politics have anything to say about it.

    Ron Glick

  76. Anonymous

    9:33

    Maybe the disinterest in local politics by the students is due to this sort of bullying by the locals. Maybe they would be more interested if the city wasn’t so jerrymandered to disenfranchise students and they felt they had a chance to participate in the process. Just look at west village will it be annexed? Not if the Democrats in control of local politics have anything to say about it.

    Ron Glick

  77. Karl

    Ron,

    Please explain how Davis is gerrymandered.

    Davis has open city council elections. People aren’t elected to represent some subsection of the city, that only occurs at the county level, which is very much not gerrymandered by any reasonable standard.

    I would agree that student disenfranchisement is a problem, but that is largely due to student apathy, and a lack of willingness to engage a transitory population with relatively few leaders who stick around. When those figures do emerge, I think they’ve been quite influential.

  78. Karl

    Ron,

    Please explain how Davis is gerrymandered.

    Davis has open city council elections. People aren’t elected to represent some subsection of the city, that only occurs at the county level, which is very much not gerrymandered by any reasonable standard.

    I would agree that student disenfranchisement is a problem, but that is largely due to student apathy, and a lack of willingness to engage a transitory population with relatively few leaders who stick around. When those figures do emerge, I think they’ve been quite influential.

  79. Karl

    Ron,

    Please explain how Davis is gerrymandered.

    Davis has open city council elections. People aren’t elected to represent some subsection of the city, that only occurs at the county level, which is very much not gerrymandered by any reasonable standard.

    I would agree that student disenfranchisement is a problem, but that is largely due to student apathy, and a lack of willingness to engage a transitory population with relatively few leaders who stick around. When those figures do emerge, I think they’ve been quite influential.

  80. Karl

    Ron,

    Please explain how Davis is gerrymandered.

    Davis has open city council elections. People aren’t elected to represent some subsection of the city, that only occurs at the county level, which is very much not gerrymandered by any reasonable standard.

    I would agree that student disenfranchisement is a problem, but that is largely due to student apathy, and a lack of willingness to engage a transitory population with relatively few leaders who stick around. When those figures do emerge, I think they’ve been quite influential.

  81. 無名 - wu ming

    gerrymandered in the sense that everyone who lives on-campus is not allowed to vote in city of davis elections, because the university is not in city limits.

  82. 無名 - wu ming

    gerrymandered in the sense that everyone who lives on-campus is not allowed to vote in city of davis elections, because the university is not in city limits.

  83. 無名 - wu ming

    gerrymandered in the sense that everyone who lives on-campus is not allowed to vote in city of davis elections, because the university is not in city limits.

  84. 無名 - wu ming

    gerrymandered in the sense that everyone who lives on-campus is not allowed to vote in city of davis elections, because the university is not in city limits.

  85. don shor

    gerrymandered in the sense that everyone who lives on-campus is not allowed to vote in city of davis elections, because the university is not in city limits.
    The overwhelming majority of students living on campus are freshmen. There are just barely enough housing units for the freshman class, and 90%+ of them are housed on campus according to the campus figures. It’s hard to call this a significant disenfranchisement, since they are still eligible to vote at their home districts and are probably better-informed about issues there.

  86. don shor

    gerrymandered in the sense that everyone who lives on-campus is not allowed to vote in city of davis elections, because the university is not in city limits.
    The overwhelming majority of students living on campus are freshmen. There are just barely enough housing units for the freshman class, and 90%+ of them are housed on campus according to the campus figures. It’s hard to call this a significant disenfranchisement, since they are still eligible to vote at their home districts and are probably better-informed about issues there.

  87. don shor

    gerrymandered in the sense that everyone who lives on-campus is not allowed to vote in city of davis elections, because the university is not in city limits.
    The overwhelming majority of students living on campus are freshmen. There are just barely enough housing units for the freshman class, and 90%+ of them are housed on campus according to the campus figures. It’s hard to call this a significant disenfranchisement, since they are still eligible to vote at their home districts and are probably better-informed about issues there.

  88. don shor

    gerrymandered in the sense that everyone who lives on-campus is not allowed to vote in city of davis elections, because the university is not in city limits.
    The overwhelming majority of students living on campus are freshmen. There are just barely enough housing units for the freshman class, and 90%+ of them are housed on campus according to the campus figures. It’s hard to call this a significant disenfranchisement, since they are still eligible to vote at their home districts and are probably better-informed about issues there.

  89. Anonymous

    Dear Don,

    Shouldn’t the students have the power to decide where they vote as the law allows? If the students on campus were allowed to vote in city elections they might learn the issues and participate. The question of West Village annexation is currently open. 3000 more potential votes. If you believe in democracy you should want these people to have the right to vote either in Davis or their hometowns to argue otherwise is to support disenfranchisement of a class of people, students, by deciding who gets to vote in the city and who doesn’t.I consider this gerrymandering.

    Ron Glick

  90. Anonymous

    Dear Don,

    Shouldn’t the students have the power to decide where they vote as the law allows? If the students on campus were allowed to vote in city elections they might learn the issues and participate. The question of West Village annexation is currently open. 3000 more potential votes. If you believe in democracy you should want these people to have the right to vote either in Davis or their hometowns to argue otherwise is to support disenfranchisement of a class of people, students, by deciding who gets to vote in the city and who doesn’t.I consider this gerrymandering.

    Ron Glick

  91. Anonymous

    Dear Don,

    Shouldn’t the students have the power to decide where they vote as the law allows? If the students on campus were allowed to vote in city elections they might learn the issues and participate. The question of West Village annexation is currently open. 3000 more potential votes. If you believe in democracy you should want these people to have the right to vote either in Davis or their hometowns to argue otherwise is to support disenfranchisement of a class of people, students, by deciding who gets to vote in the city and who doesn’t.I consider this gerrymandering.

    Ron Glick

  92. Anonymous

    Dear Don,

    Shouldn’t the students have the power to decide where they vote as the law allows? If the students on campus were allowed to vote in city elections they might learn the issues and participate. The question of West Village annexation is currently open. 3000 more potential votes. If you believe in democracy you should want these people to have the right to vote either in Davis or their hometowns to argue otherwise is to support disenfranchisement of a class of people, students, by deciding who gets to vote in the city and who doesn’t.I consider this gerrymandering.

    Ron Glick

  93. don shor

    Interesting question. I live in Solano county, so I can’t vote in Dixon elections even though I am affected by them on some issues. I chose my residence in full awareness of how it affected my voting. I don’t think incoming freshmen are required to live on campus, so they could choose to live in the city if they were sufficiently concerned about where they would cast their ballots. They can, of course, vote in county elections.
    But I think West Village should be annexed for a number of reasons.

  94. don shor

    Interesting question. I live in Solano county, so I can’t vote in Dixon elections even though I am affected by them on some issues. I chose my residence in full awareness of how it affected my voting. I don’t think incoming freshmen are required to live on campus, so they could choose to live in the city if they were sufficiently concerned about where they would cast their ballots. They can, of course, vote in county elections.
    But I think West Village should be annexed for a number of reasons.

  95. don shor

    Interesting question. I live in Solano county, so I can’t vote in Dixon elections even though I am affected by them on some issues. I chose my residence in full awareness of how it affected my voting. I don’t think incoming freshmen are required to live on campus, so they could choose to live in the city if they were sufficiently concerned about where they would cast their ballots. They can, of course, vote in county elections.
    But I think West Village should be annexed for a number of reasons.

  96. don shor

    Interesting question. I live in Solano county, so I can’t vote in Dixon elections even though I am affected by them on some issues. I chose my residence in full awareness of how it affected my voting. I don’t think incoming freshmen are required to live on campus, so they could choose to live in the city if they were sufficiently concerned about where they would cast their ballots. They can, of course, vote in county elections.
    But I think West Village should be annexed for a number of reasons.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for