Unfortunately, the Mayor Ruth Asmundson, only scheduled a short period of time for the workshop. It went from 5:00 PM to 6:30, with only a fifteen minute time period for public input. By the time the staff presentation finished, the council had only about five to seven minutes each to speak.
One has to question the usefulness of such a brief discussion on such an important issue. Nevertheless, even the brief time, sharp policies differences erupted between members on the council over the amount and direction of growth.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald questioned why we need these specified new sites. “We have dramatically decreasing home prices right now.” Median home sales prices since 2005 between first quarter of 2006 and first quarter of 2008, we have a 26% decline in home prices according to the Sacramento Bee home sales database. According to the San Francisco Chronicle—“Bay Area home prices plunge 27% in the last year.” She said these numbers are consistent with Davis. “These are areas that are considered higher end and immune to decrease.” Furthermore, she continued with the argument that there is no correlation between new housing permits and housing prices in Davis. Other trends are what are driving the market. She believes that this trend will continue for the next few years. So given the fact that we have already completed our regional fair-share of growth, she does not see the need to grow before 2013.
Councilmember Greenwald also discussed senior housing briefly. “In terms of senior housing, I think we need to separate out housing that is desirable for seniors from senior only housing complexes.” She suggests that a condo-complex downtown would be much more appealing to seniors, than a senior-only complex on the periphery of town.
Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor on the other hand, argued that we need more growth.
“I think that we do have needs for housing.”
He continued,
“I think there is several categories of need, and when I see the page in the report that you’ve just shared with us, I am concerned that we are not providing virtually any supply or addition. However, you cut it, building 44 in one year and 14 the next year, doesn’t get at the need that I believe that our community has.”
“As we work through this process, from my perspective, I am interested in balancing how we address those community needs for additional housing supply with a careful respect for the character of the community as we change.”
Mayor Ruth Asmundson:
“I also agree with Don, we need to have some housing. We can’t stay at zero housing. There has to be some growth to stay healthy.”
She wants to determine what our housing needs are and she wants them to determine how we grow and how much.
“There has to be growth in Davis to keep us healthy. I always have an analogy you know it’s like a baby. The baby is so cute, so adorable, that you wish that this baby wouldn’t grow. But if this baby doesn’t grow, then this baby will become retarded. And so it’s the same thing with the city.”
Sue Greenwald briefly said that we do not need to grow to be healthy. She cited the example of Pittsburgh, PA, which has declined in population but is now thriving as a city more so than several decades ago. She said we have to be realistic about growth and sustainability. She argued that more growth does not lend itself to sustainability.
A number of members of the public came to speak. Due to the abbreviated speaking period, some only spoke for one minute. Others spoke for two minutes.
Matt Williams made some interesting observations during this time.
“I was taken Mayor Asmundson about your comment about nurturing a child. One of the things that we do when we nurture a child is that we feed it. But we also take it to the doctor and we rid it of parasites. We treat the things that are eating up the city from the inside. One of the biggest effects on our city is UCD—in both positive and negative ways. Growth can happen by adding additional houses. What I’m hearing from Councilman Saylor and you, is that what would seem to be the only way to growth would be to add houses. It would seem to me that if UCD steps up and does what it needs to do. If it helps us rid the city of the negative effect of the university, by skewing the supply and demand curve. Using up all the supply of rental housing for students. Instead accommodates the students on the campus, the way other UCD’s do, we would indeed be able to grow. We would grow with our existing amount of housing. And we would see the people who would be added to the city, be close to the core, contribute to the businesses downtown by being more demand for their services, and their products. And we would end up with a more vibrant Davis.”
A numbers members of the public then came up during the public session of the regularly scheduled meeting to complain both about the timing of the meeting and the very short length of the public comment period for such an important issue.
One of those people was Eileen Samitz who made the point:
“Also the scheduling of these issues… to have a controversial issue like the general plan update, which was affecting the entire community, to schedule it at 5:00, when people like myself have to take off from work to get here… This is not what our city is about. Davis is supposed to be a model of democracy.”
Mayor Ruth Asmundson responded to these complaints from the public.
“Let me just talk a little about the public comment… At first this was supposed to be just a workshop. But we decided to put 15 minutes for those to speak that couldn’t make it to public comment at the regular meeting. If there are needs to have more discussion we’ll have it at the end. What I’m trying to do here is trying to juggle conflicting demands. Some council members don’t want to have too long meetings. Some council members don’t want to have that many meetings. But we are trying to make sure that we are having a healthy public engagement. And we’re going to be looking into how we can do that. The fifteen minute rule, if we have to go on, we have business to take care of. The council met at five o’clock, we have other business to do. I wanted to make sure council had an opportunity to have dinner before too long. And so that’s why the fifteen minutes.”
Councilmember Lamar Heystek asked for a future meeting to discuss some of the operating procedures. He is concerned about council communications being so late in the hour under the new policies.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald also disagreed with the new policy limiting public comment to fifteen minutes.
“I share the concerns that a number of the members of the public had. For example, when you said that initially you were going to have a workshop without any public comment, we always, when we discuss any item, have always had public comment. It’s been understood that it is not something that is at the discretion of the mayor.”
She continued:
“I personally feel that limiting public comment is a huge mistake in terms of time. There’s been very few times when public comment really is very long. And when it does, it’s usually because there is a room full of young children who want to keep a hockey rink open or something. And you’re not going to want to cut them off. I guarantee you. And it’s going to look very bad when you let them talk for a half an hour but you haven’t let other citizens talk for over fifteen minutes. It will look arbitrary and capricious.”
It is unclear what will come of the discussion of process. From a personal standpoint, I have always had much more grave concerns about process issues than policy issues.
From a policy standpoint, there will be future discussion in September on the Housing Element. There is a clear disagreement in the direction that the city needs to go. I think there is some opportunity however, even within that disagreement for consensus building.
There seems to be a joint desire for development in the core. I think the ideas that Matt Williams brought up about the university taking a larger share of the responsibility to house students, faculty, and staff, make a lot of sense. This came up during the campaign. I do not see disagreement on that particularly issue by the council. Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor, while suggesting that was not enough, did seem to support the idea of more housing on campus. If we begin where there is agreement, we can see a less rancorous council.
On the other hand, if we begin with some of the more controversial proposals, if we push Measure J projects like Covell and Nishe first, then we will see more discord on the council and a stronger divide between those who favor a more measured approach to growth taking into account current housing needs within the city, regional trends, and those who would like to see closer to the 1% growth cap.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
The University caught hell on West Village. Now people want to use UCD as a no-growth straw man. Damned if they do damned if they don’t.
Pittsburgh! Now there’s a city we should model.
Wasn’t Sue recently arguing that supply and demand don’t work but now that the bubble has burst she is arguing that lack of demand makes this a bad time to build because it would add supply depressing prices further.
What she doesn’t recognize but I know from going to play group and talking to other young parents is that there is a huge amount of pent-up demand for housing young families can afford. This demand exists because of the reputation of the Davis schools and dearth of new construction during this decade.
This provides a floor for the Davis real estate market. Not that median prices can’t decline further. Its just that when discounted homes reach a level that is affordable in the $300,000 to $400,000 range they get snapped up. This is the type of housing the city should build not senior housing. Senior housing is what you build when you want to value to your property but can’t get anything else approved. What this town needs is housing at the low end for young families that can bring children into the schools. Children and young people that is what makes a community vibrant.
Who on the council is arguing for homes in the 300,000 to 400,000 price range? How can the deals be structured to meet this demand. This is where the council should have its focus.
The University caught hell on West Village. Now people want to use UCD as a no-growth straw man. Damned if they do damned if they don’t.
Pittsburgh! Now there’s a city we should model.
Wasn’t Sue recently arguing that supply and demand don’t work but now that the bubble has burst she is arguing that lack of demand makes this a bad time to build because it would add supply depressing prices further.
What she doesn’t recognize but I know from going to play group and talking to other young parents is that there is a huge amount of pent-up demand for housing young families can afford. This demand exists because of the reputation of the Davis schools and dearth of new construction during this decade.
This provides a floor for the Davis real estate market. Not that median prices can’t decline further. Its just that when discounted homes reach a level that is affordable in the $300,000 to $400,000 range they get snapped up. This is the type of housing the city should build not senior housing. Senior housing is what you build when you want to value to your property but can’t get anything else approved. What this town needs is housing at the low end for young families that can bring children into the schools. Children and young people that is what makes a community vibrant.
Who on the council is arguing for homes in the 300,000 to 400,000 price range? How can the deals be structured to meet this demand. This is where the council should have its focus.
The University caught hell on West Village. Now people want to use UCD as a no-growth straw man. Damned if they do damned if they don’t.
Pittsburgh! Now there’s a city we should model.
Wasn’t Sue recently arguing that supply and demand don’t work but now that the bubble has burst she is arguing that lack of demand makes this a bad time to build because it would add supply depressing prices further.
What she doesn’t recognize but I know from going to play group and talking to other young parents is that there is a huge amount of pent-up demand for housing young families can afford. This demand exists because of the reputation of the Davis schools and dearth of new construction during this decade.
This provides a floor for the Davis real estate market. Not that median prices can’t decline further. Its just that when discounted homes reach a level that is affordable in the $300,000 to $400,000 range they get snapped up. This is the type of housing the city should build not senior housing. Senior housing is what you build when you want to value to your property but can’t get anything else approved. What this town needs is housing at the low end for young families that can bring children into the schools. Children and young people that is what makes a community vibrant.
Who on the council is arguing for homes in the 300,000 to 400,000 price range? How can the deals be structured to meet this demand. This is where the council should have its focus.
The University caught hell on West Village. Now people want to use UCD as a no-growth straw man. Damned if they do damned if they don’t.
Pittsburgh! Now there’s a city we should model.
Wasn’t Sue recently arguing that supply and demand don’t work but now that the bubble has burst she is arguing that lack of demand makes this a bad time to build because it would add supply depressing prices further.
What she doesn’t recognize but I know from going to play group and talking to other young parents is that there is a huge amount of pent-up demand for housing young families can afford. This demand exists because of the reputation of the Davis schools and dearth of new construction during this decade.
This provides a floor for the Davis real estate market. Not that median prices can’t decline further. Its just that when discounted homes reach a level that is affordable in the $300,000 to $400,000 range they get snapped up. This is the type of housing the city should build not senior housing. Senior housing is what you build when you want to value to your property but can’t get anything else approved. What this town needs is housing at the low end for young families that can bring children into the schools. Children and young people that is what makes a community vibrant.
Who on the council is arguing for homes in the 300,000 to 400,000 price range? How can the deals be structured to meet this demand. This is where the council should have its focus.
“there is a huge amount of pent-up demand for housing young families can afford.”
Build apartments. That will free up the lower-priced homes for young families. Although with an oversupply of those homes right now in Woodland and West Sac, they may move pretty slowly here for a couple of years. But the place to focus on supply, both on campus and off, is in housing the students. The rental vacancy rate is very low, and that is one of the major factors in squeezing out young families.
Even with West Village fully built out, there will still be more students coming into town than the campus will be providing housing for.
Any project coming before the council that doesn’t provide apartments should be relegated to lower priority. And the actual local demand for senior housing needs to be quantified.
“there is a huge amount of pent-up demand for housing young families can afford.”
Build apartments. That will free up the lower-priced homes for young families. Although with an oversupply of those homes right now in Woodland and West Sac, they may move pretty slowly here for a couple of years. But the place to focus on supply, both on campus and off, is in housing the students. The rental vacancy rate is very low, and that is one of the major factors in squeezing out young families.
Even with West Village fully built out, there will still be more students coming into town than the campus will be providing housing for.
Any project coming before the council that doesn’t provide apartments should be relegated to lower priority. And the actual local demand for senior housing needs to be quantified.
“there is a huge amount of pent-up demand for housing young families can afford.”
Build apartments. That will free up the lower-priced homes for young families. Although with an oversupply of those homes right now in Woodland and West Sac, they may move pretty slowly here for a couple of years. But the place to focus on supply, both on campus and off, is in housing the students. The rental vacancy rate is very low, and that is one of the major factors in squeezing out young families.
Even with West Village fully built out, there will still be more students coming into town than the campus will be providing housing for.
Any project coming before the council that doesn’t provide apartments should be relegated to lower priority. And the actual local demand for senior housing needs to be quantified.
“there is a huge amount of pent-up demand for housing young families can afford.”
Build apartments. That will free up the lower-priced homes for young families. Although with an oversupply of those homes right now in Woodland and West Sac, they may move pretty slowly here for a couple of years. But the place to focus on supply, both on campus and off, is in housing the students. The rental vacancy rate is very low, and that is one of the major factors in squeezing out young families.
Even with West Village fully built out, there will still be more students coming into town than the campus will be providing housing for.
Any project coming before the council that doesn’t provide apartments should be relegated to lower priority. And the actual local demand for senior housing needs to be quantified.
I went to Pittsburgh about 10 years ago when I lived in DC to watch some ball games. I was stunned by how nice it was. They did a good job with redevelopment and cleaning it up. It was quite striking. That said, I don’t think the point was that anyone wanted to model Davis after Pittsburgh, PA.
I went to Pittsburgh about 10 years ago when I lived in DC to watch some ball games. I was stunned by how nice it was. They did a good job with redevelopment and cleaning it up. It was quite striking. That said, I don’t think the point was that anyone wanted to model Davis after Pittsburgh, PA.
I went to Pittsburgh about 10 years ago when I lived in DC to watch some ball games. I was stunned by how nice it was. They did a good job with redevelopment and cleaning it up. It was quite striking. That said, I don’t think the point was that anyone wanted to model Davis after Pittsburgh, PA.
I went to Pittsburgh about 10 years ago when I lived in DC to watch some ball games. I was stunned by how nice it was. They did a good job with redevelopment and cleaning it up. It was quite striking. That said, I don’t think the point was that anyone wanted to model Davis after Pittsburgh, PA.
What was the point then? I agree that Pittsburgh is irrelevent to conditions in Davis but then you have got to wonder why of all the gin joints in all the world Sue brought it up. Is that the best argument she has? No wonder she is in the minority.
What was the point then? I agree that Pittsburgh is irrelevent to conditions in Davis but then you have got to wonder why of all the gin joints in all the world Sue brought it up. Is that the best argument she has? No wonder she is in the minority.
What was the point then? I agree that Pittsburgh is irrelevent to conditions in Davis but then you have got to wonder why of all the gin joints in all the world Sue brought it up. Is that the best argument she has? No wonder she is in the minority.
What was the point then? I agree that Pittsburgh is irrelevent to conditions in Davis but then you have got to wonder why of all the gin joints in all the world Sue brought it up. Is that the best argument she has? No wonder she is in the minority.
The context of the argument was the assertion by the council majority that we need to grow in order to prosper as a city. Sue’s point was not necessarily. She cited Pittsburgh as an example of a city that did better as it lost population. As an analogy it was not a great one. As an example, it was a good one in the sense that she’s right, growth is not necessarily the answer to what people perceive the problems to be.
The context of the argument was the assertion by the council majority that we need to grow in order to prosper as a city. Sue’s point was not necessarily. She cited Pittsburgh as an example of a city that did better as it lost population. As an analogy it was not a great one. As an example, it was a good one in the sense that she’s right, growth is not necessarily the answer to what people perceive the problems to be.
The context of the argument was the assertion by the council majority that we need to grow in order to prosper as a city. Sue’s point was not necessarily. She cited Pittsburgh as an example of a city that did better as it lost population. As an analogy it was not a great one. As an example, it was a good one in the sense that she’s right, growth is not necessarily the answer to what people perceive the problems to be.
The context of the argument was the assertion by the council majority that we need to grow in order to prosper as a city. Sue’s point was not necessarily. She cited Pittsburgh as an example of a city that did better as it lost population. As an analogy it was not a great one. As an example, it was a good one in the sense that she’s right, growth is not necessarily the answer to what people perceive the problems to be.
But our growth has lagged behind what is needed especially in the young family catagory so the analogy fails again on relevance. If Sue was talking about our schools the analogy might work.
I wanted to add a point on process. How much imput is needed at this point. The task force studied this in detail, it was a major election issue and there have been measure J votes limiting annexation. While all this talking goes on no decisions are being made and little if any housing is getting built. Ms. Samitz served on the task force so aren’t her concerns already included? I agree with the new mayor, move the process forward. The tough conditions in the real estate market will help mitigate the developers trying to build too much expensive housing. They will want to meet the demand. Measure X losing was the best thing that ever happened to the developers. If they were being candid they would probably tell you that they are glad they are not stuck with a project that is not affordable.
As Lyndon Johnson once said “When you have a majority you don’t need a debate.” Less talk, more housing now!
But our growth has lagged behind what is needed especially in the young family catagory so the analogy fails again on relevance. If Sue was talking about our schools the analogy might work.
I wanted to add a point on process. How much imput is needed at this point. The task force studied this in detail, it was a major election issue and there have been measure J votes limiting annexation. While all this talking goes on no decisions are being made and little if any housing is getting built. Ms. Samitz served on the task force so aren’t her concerns already included? I agree with the new mayor, move the process forward. The tough conditions in the real estate market will help mitigate the developers trying to build too much expensive housing. They will want to meet the demand. Measure X losing was the best thing that ever happened to the developers. If they were being candid they would probably tell you that they are glad they are not stuck with a project that is not affordable.
As Lyndon Johnson once said “When you have a majority you don’t need a debate.” Less talk, more housing now!
But our growth has lagged behind what is needed especially in the young family catagory so the analogy fails again on relevance. If Sue was talking about our schools the analogy might work.
I wanted to add a point on process. How much imput is needed at this point. The task force studied this in detail, it was a major election issue and there have been measure J votes limiting annexation. While all this talking goes on no decisions are being made and little if any housing is getting built. Ms. Samitz served on the task force so aren’t her concerns already included? I agree with the new mayor, move the process forward. The tough conditions in the real estate market will help mitigate the developers trying to build too much expensive housing. They will want to meet the demand. Measure X losing was the best thing that ever happened to the developers. If they were being candid they would probably tell you that they are glad they are not stuck with a project that is not affordable.
As Lyndon Johnson once said “When you have a majority you don’t need a debate.” Less talk, more housing now!
But our growth has lagged behind what is needed especially in the young family catagory so the analogy fails again on relevance. If Sue was talking about our schools the analogy might work.
I wanted to add a point on process. How much imput is needed at this point. The task force studied this in detail, it was a major election issue and there have been measure J votes limiting annexation. While all this talking goes on no decisions are being made and little if any housing is getting built. Ms. Samitz served on the task force so aren’t her concerns already included? I agree with the new mayor, move the process forward. The tough conditions in the real estate market will help mitigate the developers trying to build too much expensive housing. They will want to meet the demand. Measure X losing was the best thing that ever happened to the developers. If they were being candid they would probably tell you that they are glad they are not stuck with a project that is not affordable.
As Lyndon Johnson once said “When you have a majority you don’t need a debate.” Less talk, more housing now!
BB:
On your first point, I think that is the place at which reasonable people reach different conclusion. I understand and respect that.
I want to get at the process issue.
“How much imput is needed at this point.”
I think this is the wrong question. I view it as the public has the right to voice their concerns to their elected representatives in government. There has been a good deal of public input to date into this process, but that should not preclude further public input nor should it serve to cut off debate. I have a big problem cutting off public debate for the sake of time.
BB:
On your first point, I think that is the place at which reasonable people reach different conclusion. I understand and respect that.
I want to get at the process issue.
“How much imput is needed at this point.”
I think this is the wrong question. I view it as the public has the right to voice their concerns to their elected representatives in government. There has been a good deal of public input to date into this process, but that should not preclude further public input nor should it serve to cut off debate. I have a big problem cutting off public debate for the sake of time.
BB:
On your first point, I think that is the place at which reasonable people reach different conclusion. I understand and respect that.
I want to get at the process issue.
“How much imput is needed at this point.”
I think this is the wrong question. I view it as the public has the right to voice their concerns to their elected representatives in government. There has been a good deal of public input to date into this process, but that should not preclude further public input nor should it serve to cut off debate. I have a big problem cutting off public debate for the sake of time.
BB:
On your first point, I think that is the place at which reasonable people reach different conclusion. I understand and respect that.
I want to get at the process issue.
“How much imput is needed at this point.”
I think this is the wrong question. I view it as the public has the right to voice their concerns to their elected representatives in government. There has been a good deal of public input to date into this process, but that should not preclude further public input nor should it serve to cut off debate. I have a big problem cutting off public debate for the sake of time.
But the mayor indicated she will entertain comment as the process moves forward so she didn’t close the door. She is just trying to streamline things to make the meetings managable. I’m sure at the end of the day the people in Davis will have their say. No decisions were made so nobody can say they were not allowed to have their say.
But the mayor indicated she will entertain comment as the process moves forward so she didn’t close the door. She is just trying to streamline things to make the meetings managable. I’m sure at the end of the day the people in Davis will have their say. No decisions were made so nobody can say they were not allowed to have their say.
But the mayor indicated she will entertain comment as the process moves forward so she didn’t close the door. She is just trying to streamline things to make the meetings managable. I’m sure at the end of the day the people in Davis will have their say. No decisions were made so nobody can say they were not allowed to have their say.
But the mayor indicated she will entertain comment as the process moves forward so she didn’t close the door. She is just trying to streamline things to make the meetings managable. I’m sure at the end of the day the people in Davis will have their say. No decisions were made so nobody can say they were not allowed to have their say.
Additionally I think the question should be: Do you have any new information?
Can you blame them for not wanting to hear from the same people over and over again everytime this comes up?
Additionally I think the question should be: Do you have any new information?
Can you blame them for not wanting to hear from the same people over and over again everytime this comes up?
Additionally I think the question should be: Do you have any new information?
Can you blame them for not wanting to hear from the same people over and over again everytime this comes up?
Additionally I think the question should be: Do you have any new information?
Can you blame them for not wanting to hear from the same people over and over again everytime this comes up?
BB:
You and I are coming about this from a different perspective. You see public comment as a means by which the council can gain information and insight. From that standpoint, you are absolutely correct, there is very little new information that the council will gain at this point from the same people getting up and speaking.
On the other hand, I view public comment not as a means but as an end unto itself. The process is vital regardless of the factors you list. Just as the process being followed in the court of law is vital regardless of whether or not it alters the outcome. Thus to use the example of the Topete case, the man is entitled to his due process even though he most likely is guilty as charged.
BB:
You and I are coming about this from a different perspective. You see public comment as a means by which the council can gain information and insight. From that standpoint, you are absolutely correct, there is very little new information that the council will gain at this point from the same people getting up and speaking.
On the other hand, I view public comment not as a means but as an end unto itself. The process is vital regardless of the factors you list. Just as the process being followed in the court of law is vital regardless of whether or not it alters the outcome. Thus to use the example of the Topete case, the man is entitled to his due process even though he most likely is guilty as charged.
BB:
You and I are coming about this from a different perspective. You see public comment as a means by which the council can gain information and insight. From that standpoint, you are absolutely correct, there is very little new information that the council will gain at this point from the same people getting up and speaking.
On the other hand, I view public comment not as a means but as an end unto itself. The process is vital regardless of the factors you list. Just as the process being followed in the court of law is vital regardless of whether or not it alters the outcome. Thus to use the example of the Topete case, the man is entitled to his due process even though he most likely is guilty as charged.
BB:
You and I are coming about this from a different perspective. You see public comment as a means by which the council can gain information and insight. From that standpoint, you are absolutely correct, there is very little new information that the council will gain at this point from the same people getting up and speaking.
On the other hand, I view public comment not as a means but as an end unto itself. The process is vital regardless of the factors you list. Just as the process being followed in the court of law is vital regardless of whether or not it alters the outcome. Thus to use the example of the Topete case, the man is entitled to his due process even though he most likely is guilty as charged.
Why can’t all these people make an appointment to talk to the council members at length and then just summarize their concerns during the short public comment periods.
Ruth is starting to win me over on the idea that City Council meetings would be more productive if they weren’t merely public comment meetings with a council meeting wrapped around it. When I see 30 kids lined up to tell the Council that they like their gym, ball field, gymnastics class, hockey rink, theater group, etc., I turn the TV off. It is a complete waste of everyone’s time and just stretches the meeting into the wee hours.
I propose that agenda items be scheduled appropriately so that the constituents most affected will be able to comfortably attend.
For example, anything that affects kids should be scheduled at 3:45 pm so that they can come over to the meetings directly after school.
Anything that affects seniors should be scheduled at 4:30 pm so they can get home in time for dinner and before it gets dark.
Anything affecting college students should be scheduled at midnight or even later so the meetings don’t interrupt studies or parties.
Anything regarding Covell Village should be scheduled at 7:00 pm so Eileen Samitz and others can get off of work and eat dinner before coming down.
Why can’t all these people make an appointment to talk to the council members at length and then just summarize their concerns during the short public comment periods.
Ruth is starting to win me over on the idea that City Council meetings would be more productive if they weren’t merely public comment meetings with a council meeting wrapped around it. When I see 30 kids lined up to tell the Council that they like their gym, ball field, gymnastics class, hockey rink, theater group, etc., I turn the TV off. It is a complete waste of everyone’s time and just stretches the meeting into the wee hours.
I propose that agenda items be scheduled appropriately so that the constituents most affected will be able to comfortably attend.
For example, anything that affects kids should be scheduled at 3:45 pm so that they can come over to the meetings directly after school.
Anything that affects seniors should be scheduled at 4:30 pm so they can get home in time for dinner and before it gets dark.
Anything affecting college students should be scheduled at midnight or even later so the meetings don’t interrupt studies or parties.
Anything regarding Covell Village should be scheduled at 7:00 pm so Eileen Samitz and others can get off of work and eat dinner before coming down.
Why can’t all these people make an appointment to talk to the council members at length and then just summarize their concerns during the short public comment periods.
Ruth is starting to win me over on the idea that City Council meetings would be more productive if they weren’t merely public comment meetings with a council meeting wrapped around it. When I see 30 kids lined up to tell the Council that they like their gym, ball field, gymnastics class, hockey rink, theater group, etc., I turn the TV off. It is a complete waste of everyone’s time and just stretches the meeting into the wee hours.
I propose that agenda items be scheduled appropriately so that the constituents most affected will be able to comfortably attend.
For example, anything that affects kids should be scheduled at 3:45 pm so that they can come over to the meetings directly after school.
Anything that affects seniors should be scheduled at 4:30 pm so they can get home in time for dinner and before it gets dark.
Anything affecting college students should be scheduled at midnight or even later so the meetings don’t interrupt studies or parties.
Anything regarding Covell Village should be scheduled at 7:00 pm so Eileen Samitz and others can get off of work and eat dinner before coming down.
Why can’t all these people make an appointment to talk to the council members at length and then just summarize their concerns during the short public comment periods.
Ruth is starting to win me over on the idea that City Council meetings would be more productive if they weren’t merely public comment meetings with a council meeting wrapped around it. When I see 30 kids lined up to tell the Council that they like their gym, ball field, gymnastics class, hockey rink, theater group, etc., I turn the TV off. It is a complete waste of everyone’s time and just stretches the meeting into the wee hours.
I propose that agenda items be scheduled appropriately so that the constituents most affected will be able to comfortably attend.
For example, anything that affects kids should be scheduled at 3:45 pm so that they can come over to the meetings directly after school.
Anything that affects seniors should be scheduled at 4:30 pm so they can get home in time for dinner and before it gets dark.
Anything affecting college students should be scheduled at midnight or even later so the meetings don’t interrupt studies or parties.
Anything regarding Covell Village should be scheduled at 7:00 pm so Eileen Samitz and others can get off of work and eat dinner before coming down.
“Why can’t all these people make an appointment to talk to the council members at length and then just summarize their concerns during the short public comment periods.”
Because the public comment act itself is meaningful. We have a participatory democracy. We have open government laws and rules that allow for public comment, in fact require it.
“Why can’t all these people make an appointment to talk to the council members at length and then just summarize their concerns during the short public comment periods.”
Because the public comment act itself is meaningful. We have a participatory democracy. We have open government laws and rules that allow for public comment, in fact require it.
“Why can’t all these people make an appointment to talk to the council members at length and then just summarize their concerns during the short public comment periods.”
Because the public comment act itself is meaningful. We have a participatory democracy. We have open government laws and rules that allow for public comment, in fact require it.
“Why can’t all these people make an appointment to talk to the council members at length and then just summarize their concerns during the short public comment periods.”
Because the public comment act itself is meaningful. We have a participatory democracy. We have open government laws and rules that allow for public comment, in fact require it.
Topete is a criminal case city council meetings are not criminal although many think they are. Yes the Brown act needs to be obeyed but decisions need to be made as well.
Topete is a criminal case city council meetings are not criminal although many think they are. Yes the Brown act needs to be obeyed but decisions need to be made as well.
Topete is a criminal case city council meetings are not criminal although many think they are. Yes the Brown act needs to be obeyed but decisions need to be made as well.
Topete is a criminal case city council meetings are not criminal although many think they are. Yes the Brown act needs to be obeyed but decisions need to be made as well.
Public exchange of ideas also has been limited by the Davis City Council’s agenda’s not including written communications any more. This change happened several years ago. I always read that part of the packet first as a way of finding out what other citizens were thinking about issues, and I would like to see written communications included in the agenda and packet again.
Public exchange of ideas also has been limited by the Davis City Council’s agenda’s not including written communications any more. This change happened several years ago. I always read that part of the packet first as a way of finding out what other citizens were thinking about issues, and I would like to see written communications included in the agenda and packet again.
Public exchange of ideas also has been limited by the Davis City Council’s agenda’s not including written communications any more. This change happened several years ago. I always read that part of the packet first as a way of finding out what other citizens were thinking about issues, and I would like to see written communications included in the agenda and packet again.
Public exchange of ideas also has been limited by the Davis City Council’s agenda’s not including written communications any more. This change happened several years ago. I always read that part of the packet first as a way of finding out what other citizens were thinking about issues, and I would like to see written communications included in the agenda and packet again.
I am thoroughly outraged at the notion that somehow public comment at the beginning of each Council meeting takes up too much time. Balderdash. In most cases, it takes not more than 15 minutes anyway, UNLESS THERE IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. Why the time limit on public comment, which is usually fairly circumspect, as each speaker is only allowed two measly minutes – yet no time limits on the blathering of City Council members, who often electioneer from the dais (Don Saylor) or talk about trips abroad (Ruth Asmundson). I cannot understand why citizens are not more outraged. Council meetings are not lasting until the wee hours of the morning because of public comment, contrary to what the Mayor insultingly stated.
Seems more like the Mayor, in concert with Saylor, are trying to stifle dissent – especially on housing issues. Why? Because the two are in favor of Covell Village reconstituted. Didn’t you hear those two? They want to move yellow light sites up to green light sites. Gee, I wonder why? Perhaps because Covell Village by any other name is a yellow sight, and not green? Color me disgusted. If they can’t have their way the honest route, they’ll cheat.
I am thoroughly outraged at the notion that somehow public comment at the beginning of each Council meeting takes up too much time. Balderdash. In most cases, it takes not more than 15 minutes anyway, UNLESS THERE IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. Why the time limit on public comment, which is usually fairly circumspect, as each speaker is only allowed two measly minutes – yet no time limits on the blathering of City Council members, who often electioneer from the dais (Don Saylor) or talk about trips abroad (Ruth Asmundson). I cannot understand why citizens are not more outraged. Council meetings are not lasting until the wee hours of the morning because of public comment, contrary to what the Mayor insultingly stated.
Seems more like the Mayor, in concert with Saylor, are trying to stifle dissent – especially on housing issues. Why? Because the two are in favor of Covell Village reconstituted. Didn’t you hear those two? They want to move yellow light sites up to green light sites. Gee, I wonder why? Perhaps because Covell Village by any other name is a yellow sight, and not green? Color me disgusted. If they can’t have their way the honest route, they’ll cheat.
I am thoroughly outraged at the notion that somehow public comment at the beginning of each Council meeting takes up too much time. Balderdash. In most cases, it takes not more than 15 minutes anyway, UNLESS THERE IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. Why the time limit on public comment, which is usually fairly circumspect, as each speaker is only allowed two measly minutes – yet no time limits on the blathering of City Council members, who often electioneer from the dais (Don Saylor) or talk about trips abroad (Ruth Asmundson). I cannot understand why citizens are not more outraged. Council meetings are not lasting until the wee hours of the morning because of public comment, contrary to what the Mayor insultingly stated.
Seems more like the Mayor, in concert with Saylor, are trying to stifle dissent – especially on housing issues. Why? Because the two are in favor of Covell Village reconstituted. Didn’t you hear those two? They want to move yellow light sites up to green light sites. Gee, I wonder why? Perhaps because Covell Village by any other name is a yellow sight, and not green? Color me disgusted. If they can’t have their way the honest route, they’ll cheat.
I am thoroughly outraged at the notion that somehow public comment at the beginning of each Council meeting takes up too much time. Balderdash. In most cases, it takes not more than 15 minutes anyway, UNLESS THERE IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. Why the time limit on public comment, which is usually fairly circumspect, as each speaker is only allowed two measly minutes – yet no time limits on the blathering of City Council members, who often electioneer from the dais (Don Saylor) or talk about trips abroad (Ruth Asmundson). I cannot understand why citizens are not more outraged. Council meetings are not lasting until the wee hours of the morning because of public comment, contrary to what the Mayor insultingly stated.
Seems more like the Mayor, in concert with Saylor, are trying to stifle dissent – especially on housing issues. Why? Because the two are in favor of Covell Village reconstituted. Didn’t you hear those two? They want to move yellow light sites up to green light sites. Gee, I wonder why? Perhaps because Covell Village by any other name is a yellow sight, and not green? Color me disgusted. If they can’t have their way the honest route, they’ll cheat.
Davisperson, Thank goodness you are not on the city council.
First, they should be meeting weekly.
Second, Ruth should not limit public input. This is a democracy not a dictatorship.
Third, This is a council run by mostly retired non-working people. Souza has his own business and makes his own hours. Lamar is the only one reflecting a “real” working person.
All of this “we don’t have enough families and kids in Davis” is just BS. Davis has many. It will fluctuate. This is just the message being put out there by developers, just like the need for senior developments, to give reason for sprawl.
Davisperson, Thank goodness you are not on the city council.
First, they should be meeting weekly.
Second, Ruth should not limit public input. This is a democracy not a dictatorship.
Third, This is a council run by mostly retired non-working people. Souza has his own business and makes his own hours. Lamar is the only one reflecting a “real” working person.
All of this “we don’t have enough families and kids in Davis” is just BS. Davis has many. It will fluctuate. This is just the message being put out there by developers, just like the need for senior developments, to give reason for sprawl.
Davisperson, Thank goodness you are not on the city council.
First, they should be meeting weekly.
Second, Ruth should not limit public input. This is a democracy not a dictatorship.
Third, This is a council run by mostly retired non-working people. Souza has his own business and makes his own hours. Lamar is the only one reflecting a “real” working person.
All of this “we don’t have enough families and kids in Davis” is just BS. Davis has many. It will fluctuate. This is just the message being put out there by developers, just like the need for senior developments, to give reason for sprawl.
Davisperson, Thank goodness you are not on the city council.
First, they should be meeting weekly.
Second, Ruth should not limit public input. This is a democracy not a dictatorship.
Third, This is a council run by mostly retired non-working people. Souza has his own business and makes his own hours. Lamar is the only one reflecting a “real” working person.
All of this “we don’t have enough families and kids in Davis” is just BS. Davis has many. It will fluctuate. This is just the message being put out there by developers, just like the need for senior developments, to give reason for sprawl.
Remember it was Ruth, Souza and Saylo who said that the voters didn’t understand Measure X. They insulted voters then and they are doing it now.
Isn’t it ironic that meetings would not be so long if they would stop talking so much. They are full of themselved.
Remember it was Ruth, Souza and Saylo who said that the voters didn’t understand Measure X. They insulted voters then and they are doing it now.
Isn’t it ironic that meetings would not be so long if they would stop talking so much. They are full of themselved.
Remember it was Ruth, Souza and Saylo who said that the voters didn’t understand Measure X. They insulted voters then and they are doing it now.
Isn’t it ironic that meetings would not be so long if they would stop talking so much. They are full of themselved.
Remember it was Ruth, Souza and Saylo who said that the voters didn’t understand Measure X. They insulted voters then and they are doing it now.
Isn’t it ironic that meetings would not be so long if they would stop talking so much. They are full of themselved.
Black Bart: actually, councilmembers have to hear from the public, even the same people, again and again, if that’s the case, because that’s the law, they have to have public comment every time the subject is agendized.
A funny thing about this sort of political system. Aggravating, I know, to have to allow people you disagree with to be allowed to speak publicly on an issue whenever it’s agendized, but most of us have found a way to accept it.
On the broader issue, you have hit the nail on the head, who supports the construction of housing in Davis in the $300,000 to $400,000 range for the middle class? Right now, the number of councilmembers that support such an approach would appear to be zero. Indeed, I would go farther and say that we need construction of units with square footages down to 750 to 900 square foot to permit lower middle income people who work here to remain.
It seems that no concept is more consistently abused now that the notion of sustainability. For me, it necessarily includes providing housing for people of all classes who work in the city, for the university and the nearby surrounding area. After all, your city isn’t really sustainable, is it, if your service workers, your teachers, your cops, your contractors and small business owners have to live elsewhere.
And then, of course, there are the obvious environmental consequences. For some reason, these aspects of sustainability are abandoned whenever development issues are addressed. Meanwhile, the notion of importing wealthy seniors from elsewhere to support profitable future developments is rising to the surface.
–Richard Estes
Black Bart: actually, councilmembers have to hear from the public, even the same people, again and again, if that’s the case, because that’s the law, they have to have public comment every time the subject is agendized.
A funny thing about this sort of political system. Aggravating, I know, to have to allow people you disagree with to be allowed to speak publicly on an issue whenever it’s agendized, but most of us have found a way to accept it.
On the broader issue, you have hit the nail on the head, who supports the construction of housing in Davis in the $300,000 to $400,000 range for the middle class? Right now, the number of councilmembers that support such an approach would appear to be zero. Indeed, I would go farther and say that we need construction of units with square footages down to 750 to 900 square foot to permit lower middle income people who work here to remain.
It seems that no concept is more consistently abused now that the notion of sustainability. For me, it necessarily includes providing housing for people of all classes who work in the city, for the university and the nearby surrounding area. After all, your city isn’t really sustainable, is it, if your service workers, your teachers, your cops, your contractors and small business owners have to live elsewhere.
And then, of course, there are the obvious environmental consequences. For some reason, these aspects of sustainability are abandoned whenever development issues are addressed. Meanwhile, the notion of importing wealthy seniors from elsewhere to support profitable future developments is rising to the surface.
–Richard Estes
Black Bart: actually, councilmembers have to hear from the public, even the same people, again and again, if that’s the case, because that’s the law, they have to have public comment every time the subject is agendized.
A funny thing about this sort of political system. Aggravating, I know, to have to allow people you disagree with to be allowed to speak publicly on an issue whenever it’s agendized, but most of us have found a way to accept it.
On the broader issue, you have hit the nail on the head, who supports the construction of housing in Davis in the $300,000 to $400,000 range for the middle class? Right now, the number of councilmembers that support such an approach would appear to be zero. Indeed, I would go farther and say that we need construction of units with square footages down to 750 to 900 square foot to permit lower middle income people who work here to remain.
It seems that no concept is more consistently abused now that the notion of sustainability. For me, it necessarily includes providing housing for people of all classes who work in the city, for the university and the nearby surrounding area. After all, your city isn’t really sustainable, is it, if your service workers, your teachers, your cops, your contractors and small business owners have to live elsewhere.
And then, of course, there are the obvious environmental consequences. For some reason, these aspects of sustainability are abandoned whenever development issues are addressed. Meanwhile, the notion of importing wealthy seniors from elsewhere to support profitable future developments is rising to the surface.
–Richard Estes
Black Bart: actually, councilmembers have to hear from the public, even the same people, again and again, if that’s the case, because that’s the law, they have to have public comment every time the subject is agendized.
A funny thing about this sort of political system. Aggravating, I know, to have to allow people you disagree with to be allowed to speak publicly on an issue whenever it’s agendized, but most of us have found a way to accept it.
On the broader issue, you have hit the nail on the head, who supports the construction of housing in Davis in the $300,000 to $400,000 range for the middle class? Right now, the number of councilmembers that support such an approach would appear to be zero. Indeed, I would go farther and say that we need construction of units with square footages down to 750 to 900 square foot to permit lower middle income people who work here to remain.
It seems that no concept is more consistently abused now that the notion of sustainability. For me, it necessarily includes providing housing for people of all classes who work in the city, for the university and the nearby surrounding area. After all, your city isn’t really sustainable, is it, if your service workers, your teachers, your cops, your contractors and small business owners have to live elsewhere.
And then, of course, there are the obvious environmental consequences. For some reason, these aspects of sustainability are abandoned whenever development issues are addressed. Meanwhile, the notion of importing wealthy seniors from elsewhere to support profitable future developments is rising to the surface.
–Richard Estes
I brought up the Pittsburg example not to say that Davis should stop growing, but in order to try to put a little perspective on the developer-spawned rhetoric that a city has to “grow or die”.
Pittsburg is an interesting city; its population decreased from 680,000 in 1950 to 330,000 in 2000, and it is now considered a vibrant city with a very high quality of life.
There is no reason to grow every year, or by a certain amount. In the past, I have lived in cities that have been built out, with no new construction, and prices have been similar to those in Davis, and have fluctuated the way our prices do.
Besides the fact that data are showing an enormous decline in Davis housing prices at the current time (I think this is a needed correction, but very painful for the mostly younger families who bought at the peak), I also pointed out that a second wave crisis is expected to come as the adjustable rate mortgage resets come due, and that, because of this, the housing slump is expected to deepen, and many think it won’t begin to recover in terms of excess inventory for another 4 or 5 years.
Hence, I think it makes no sense to process a lot of housing proposals during this period; I would keep new projects to great infill projects near downtown—mainly the PG&E project or other large underused parcels.
Finally, staff presented data showing a dramatic fall -off in building permits between 2005 and 2006 to this year. Yet, Davis housing prices were highest in the first quarter of 2006, when the number of permits were high, and are 26% lower in the latest fully reported quarter, when the number of permits were negligible.
Earlier data analysis showed no correlation between number of permits issued and the price of houses.
This latest data show a strong negative correlation between number of Davis houses built and the price of houses.
I pointed out that this again shows that regional, state, national and international economic forces are vastly overwhelming the effects of moderate increases in local housing supply on housing prices.
I brought up the Pittsburg example not to say that Davis should stop growing, but in order to try to put a little perspective on the developer-spawned rhetoric that a city has to “grow or die”.
Pittsburg is an interesting city; its population decreased from 680,000 in 1950 to 330,000 in 2000, and it is now considered a vibrant city with a very high quality of life.
There is no reason to grow every year, or by a certain amount. In the past, I have lived in cities that have been built out, with no new construction, and prices have been similar to those in Davis, and have fluctuated the way our prices do.
Besides the fact that data are showing an enormous decline in Davis housing prices at the current time (I think this is a needed correction, but very painful for the mostly younger families who bought at the peak), I also pointed out that a second wave crisis is expected to come as the adjustable rate mortgage resets come due, and that, because of this, the housing slump is expected to deepen, and many think it won’t begin to recover in terms of excess inventory for another 4 or 5 years.
Hence, I think it makes no sense to process a lot of housing proposals during this period; I would keep new projects to great infill projects near downtown—mainly the PG&E project or other large underused parcels.
Finally, staff presented data showing a dramatic fall -off in building permits between 2005 and 2006 to this year. Yet, Davis housing prices were highest in the first quarter of 2006, when the number of permits were high, and are 26% lower in the latest fully reported quarter, when the number of permits were negligible.
Earlier data analysis showed no correlation between number of permits issued and the price of houses.
This latest data show a strong negative correlation between number of Davis houses built and the price of houses.
I pointed out that this again shows that regional, state, national and international economic forces are vastly overwhelming the effects of moderate increases in local housing supply on housing prices.
I brought up the Pittsburg example not to say that Davis should stop growing, but in order to try to put a little perspective on the developer-spawned rhetoric that a city has to “grow or die”.
Pittsburg is an interesting city; its population decreased from 680,000 in 1950 to 330,000 in 2000, and it is now considered a vibrant city with a very high quality of life.
There is no reason to grow every year, or by a certain amount. In the past, I have lived in cities that have been built out, with no new construction, and prices have been similar to those in Davis, and have fluctuated the way our prices do.
Besides the fact that data are showing an enormous decline in Davis housing prices at the current time (I think this is a needed correction, but very painful for the mostly younger families who bought at the peak), I also pointed out that a second wave crisis is expected to come as the adjustable rate mortgage resets come due, and that, because of this, the housing slump is expected to deepen, and many think it won’t begin to recover in terms of excess inventory for another 4 or 5 years.
Hence, I think it makes no sense to process a lot of housing proposals during this period; I would keep new projects to great infill projects near downtown—mainly the PG&E project or other large underused parcels.
Finally, staff presented data showing a dramatic fall -off in building permits between 2005 and 2006 to this year. Yet, Davis housing prices were highest in the first quarter of 2006, when the number of permits were high, and are 26% lower in the latest fully reported quarter, when the number of permits were negligible.
Earlier data analysis showed no correlation between number of permits issued and the price of houses.
This latest data show a strong negative correlation between number of Davis houses built and the price of houses.
I pointed out that this again shows that regional, state, national and international economic forces are vastly overwhelming the effects of moderate increases in local housing supply on housing prices.
I brought up the Pittsburg example not to say that Davis should stop growing, but in order to try to put a little perspective on the developer-spawned rhetoric that a city has to “grow or die”.
Pittsburg is an interesting city; its population decreased from 680,000 in 1950 to 330,000 in 2000, and it is now considered a vibrant city with a very high quality of life.
There is no reason to grow every year, or by a certain amount. In the past, I have lived in cities that have been built out, with no new construction, and prices have been similar to those in Davis, and have fluctuated the way our prices do.
Besides the fact that data are showing an enormous decline in Davis housing prices at the current time (I think this is a needed correction, but very painful for the mostly younger families who bought at the peak), I also pointed out that a second wave crisis is expected to come as the adjustable rate mortgage resets come due, and that, because of this, the housing slump is expected to deepen, and many think it won’t begin to recover in terms of excess inventory for another 4 or 5 years.
Hence, I think it makes no sense to process a lot of housing proposals during this period; I would keep new projects to great infill projects near downtown—mainly the PG&E project or other large underused parcels.
Finally, staff presented data showing a dramatic fall -off in building permits between 2005 and 2006 to this year. Yet, Davis housing prices were highest in the first quarter of 2006, when the number of permits were high, and are 26% lower in the latest fully reported quarter, when the number of permits were negligible.
Earlier data analysis showed no correlation between number of permits issued and the price of houses.
This latest data show a strong negative correlation between number of Davis houses built and the price of houses.
I pointed out that this again shows that regional, state, national and international economic forces are vastly overwhelming the effects of moderate increases in local housing supply on housing prices.
Of course I think they should follow the law as they have sworn an oath to do so. Still you can debate this forever and it won’t change where the council majority is at in regards to growth so it seems all this outrage is a waste of time. Agendize the proposals, listen to the report, then the public, move the questions and get on with the vote but let’s stop wasting so much time debating the same material over and over again.
Of course I think they should follow the law as they have sworn an oath to do so. Still you can debate this forever and it won’t change where the council majority is at in regards to growth so it seems all this outrage is a waste of time. Agendize the proposals, listen to the report, then the public, move the questions and get on with the vote but let’s stop wasting so much time debating the same material over and over again.
Of course I think they should follow the law as they have sworn an oath to do so. Still you can debate this forever and it won’t change where the council majority is at in regards to growth so it seems all this outrage is a waste of time. Agendize the proposals, listen to the report, then the public, move the questions and get on with the vote but let’s stop wasting so much time debating the same material over and over again.
Of course I think they should follow the law as they have sworn an oath to do so. Still you can debate this forever and it won’t change where the council majority is at in regards to growth so it seems all this outrage is a waste of time. Agendize the proposals, listen to the report, then the public, move the questions and get on with the vote but let’s stop wasting so much time debating the same material over and over again.
Thank you, Sue, for your clarification. I don’t think that the people who speak at public comment could stand up to the public scrutiny and dissecting of every comment that they make each time like you have to do after each meeting.
DPD wrote: “One has to question the usefulness of such a brief discussion on such an important issue.”
Maybe the Council and staff are trying to avoid the allegation that the community hasn’t been informed or allowed to participate when it comes time for that big meeting where decisions are made. Perhaps a few hundred little briefings will help people feel that they have been kept abreast of the direction the staff are going in with Council direction each step of the way.
However, they may have to just double the time allowed for each little briefing – 50% for staff and Council and 50% for public comment.
Thank you, Sue, for your clarification. I don’t think that the people who speak at public comment could stand up to the public scrutiny and dissecting of every comment that they make each time like you have to do after each meeting.
DPD wrote: “One has to question the usefulness of such a brief discussion on such an important issue.”
Maybe the Council and staff are trying to avoid the allegation that the community hasn’t been informed or allowed to participate when it comes time for that big meeting where decisions are made. Perhaps a few hundred little briefings will help people feel that they have been kept abreast of the direction the staff are going in with Council direction each step of the way.
However, they may have to just double the time allowed for each little briefing – 50% for staff and Council and 50% for public comment.
Thank you, Sue, for your clarification. I don’t think that the people who speak at public comment could stand up to the public scrutiny and dissecting of every comment that they make each time like you have to do after each meeting.
DPD wrote: “One has to question the usefulness of such a brief discussion on such an important issue.”
Maybe the Council and staff are trying to avoid the allegation that the community hasn’t been informed or allowed to participate when it comes time for that big meeting where decisions are made. Perhaps a few hundred little briefings will help people feel that they have been kept abreast of the direction the staff are going in with Council direction each step of the way.
However, they may have to just double the time allowed for each little briefing – 50% for staff and Council and 50% for public comment.
Thank you, Sue, for your clarification. I don’t think that the people who speak at public comment could stand up to the public scrutiny and dissecting of every comment that they make each time like you have to do after each meeting.
DPD wrote: “One has to question the usefulness of such a brief discussion on such an important issue.”
Maybe the Council and staff are trying to avoid the allegation that the community hasn’t been informed or allowed to participate when it comes time for that big meeting where decisions are made. Perhaps a few hundred little briefings will help people feel that they have been kept abreast of the direction the staff are going in with Council direction each step of the way.
However, they may have to just double the time allowed for each little briefing – 50% for staff and Council and 50% for public comment.
“and there have been measure J votes limiting annexation.”
Only one Measure J vote so far, 60-40 against Covell Village. Democracy works when the voice of the people is heard.
“and there have been measure J votes limiting annexation.”
Only one Measure J vote so far, 60-40 against Covell Village. Democracy works when the voice of the people is heard.
“and there have been measure J votes limiting annexation.”
Only one Measure J vote so far, 60-40 against Covell Village. Democracy works when the voice of the people is heard.
“and there have been measure J votes limiting annexation.”
Only one Measure J vote so far, 60-40 against Covell Village. Democracy works when the voice of the people is heard.
Sue you seem to be all over the map here. First local supply and demand don’t effect prices and then we should not build because increased supply will hurt and already weak market.
You sound like Bush on taxes back in 01. Remember when he argued we need taxes to return the surplus to the tax payers and then later we need tax cuts because of the weak economy.
You argue building in a strong economy won’t lower prices and then not building in a weak economy will keep them up. But the funniest part is about how you are looking out for those who bought at the top. Of course you are helping out those like yourself who bpught before the top as well.
Sue you seem to be all over the map here. First local supply and demand don’t effect prices and then we should not build because increased supply will hurt and already weak market.
You sound like Bush on taxes back in 01. Remember when he argued we need taxes to return the surplus to the tax payers and then later we need tax cuts because of the weak economy.
You argue building in a strong economy won’t lower prices and then not building in a weak economy will keep them up. But the funniest part is about how you are looking out for those who bought at the top. Of course you are helping out those like yourself who bpught before the top as well.
Sue you seem to be all over the map here. First local supply and demand don’t effect prices and then we should not build because increased supply will hurt and already weak market.
You sound like Bush on taxes back in 01. Remember when he argued we need taxes to return the surplus to the tax payers and then later we need tax cuts because of the weak economy.
You argue building in a strong economy won’t lower prices and then not building in a weak economy will keep them up. But the funniest part is about how you are looking out for those who bought at the top. Of course you are helping out those like yourself who bpught before the top as well.
Sue you seem to be all over the map here. First local supply and demand don’t effect prices and then we should not build because increased supply will hurt and already weak market.
You sound like Bush on taxes back in 01. Remember when he argued we need taxes to return the surplus to the tax payers and then later we need tax cuts because of the weak economy.
You argue building in a strong economy won’t lower prices and then not building in a weak economy will keep them up. But the funniest part is about how you are looking out for those who bought at the top. Of course you are helping out those like yourself who bpught before the top as well.
“You sound like Bush on taxes back in 01.”
Ancient history. Bush has lost all credibility…Sue is still valid, despite you moving the goal posts on her…
I can’t wait for her to challenge Ruth on making proper time for public comments, as is the precedent for ages in Davis. You watch, she’ll be Ruthless on that point, with plenty of public support.
When did Bush ever open up at a press conference? When could he possibly be capable of going off-script, the silly Yale cheerleader,legend in his mind?
Sue is all for an open process…
“You sound like Bush on taxes back in 01.”
Ancient history. Bush has lost all credibility…Sue is still valid, despite you moving the goal posts on her…
I can’t wait for her to challenge Ruth on making proper time for public comments, as is the precedent for ages in Davis. You watch, she’ll be Ruthless on that point, with plenty of public support.
When did Bush ever open up at a press conference? When could he possibly be capable of going off-script, the silly Yale cheerleader,legend in his mind?
Sue is all for an open process…
“You sound like Bush on taxes back in 01.”
Ancient history. Bush has lost all credibility…Sue is still valid, despite you moving the goal posts on her…
I can’t wait for her to challenge Ruth on making proper time for public comments, as is the precedent for ages in Davis. You watch, she’ll be Ruthless on that point, with plenty of public support.
When did Bush ever open up at a press conference? When could he possibly be capable of going off-script, the silly Yale cheerleader,legend in his mind?
Sue is all for an open process…
“You sound like Bush on taxes back in 01.”
Ancient history. Bush has lost all credibility…Sue is still valid, despite you moving the goal posts on her…
I can’t wait for her to challenge Ruth on making proper time for public comments, as is the precedent for ages in Davis. You watch, she’ll be Ruthless on that point, with plenty of public support.
When did Bush ever open up at a press conference? When could he possibly be capable of going off-script, the silly Yale cheerleader,legend in his mind?
Sue is all for an open process…
No one has commented on Rude Ruth’s scheduling this meeting at 5 P.M. while Lamar was still at work.
Lamar was forced to be 1/2 hour late to an important meeting. Did she clear this with Lamar?
I don’t think so.
No one has commented on Rude Ruth’s scheduling this meeting at 5 P.M. while Lamar was still at work.
Lamar was forced to be 1/2 hour late to an important meeting. Did she clear this with Lamar?
I don’t think so.
No one has commented on Rude Ruth’s scheduling this meeting at 5 P.M. while Lamar was still at work.
Lamar was forced to be 1/2 hour late to an important meeting. Did she clear this with Lamar?
I don’t think so.
No one has commented on Rude Ruth’s scheduling this meeting at 5 P.M. while Lamar was still at work.
Lamar was forced to be 1/2 hour late to an important meeting. Did she clear this with Lamar?
I don’t think so.
I felt bad for Lamar. He barely had a chance to eat dinner. He kept trying to nibble at a sandwich during the regular Council meeting.
I felt bad for Lamar. He barely had a chance to eat dinner. He kept trying to nibble at a sandwich during the regular Council meeting.
I felt bad for Lamar. He barely had a chance to eat dinner. He kept trying to nibble at a sandwich during the regular Council meeting.
I felt bad for Lamar. He barely had a chance to eat dinner. He kept trying to nibble at a sandwich during the regular Council meeting.
Has anyone ever stopped to think about this: The No on X forces stopped Covell Village, just as the real estate downturn was starting. The 60/40 vote probably saved the CV partnership from bankruptcy.
Query: come on, CV partners if you are reading this, why havent you thanked the No on X Committe for saving your financial backside?? I mean, a bottle of wine at Christmas would be a classy thank you, no?
Has anyone ever stopped to think about this: The No on X forces stopped Covell Village, just as the real estate downturn was starting. The 60/40 vote probably saved the CV partnership from bankruptcy.
Query: come on, CV partners if you are reading this, why havent you thanked the No on X Committe for saving your financial backside?? I mean, a bottle of wine at Christmas would be a classy thank you, no?
Has anyone ever stopped to think about this: The No on X forces stopped Covell Village, just as the real estate downturn was starting. The 60/40 vote probably saved the CV partnership from bankruptcy.
Query: come on, CV partners if you are reading this, why havent you thanked the No on X Committe for saving your financial backside?? I mean, a bottle of wine at Christmas would be a classy thank you, no?
Has anyone ever stopped to think about this: The No on X forces stopped Covell Village, just as the real estate downturn was starting. The 60/40 vote probably saved the CV partnership from bankruptcy.
Query: come on, CV partners if you are reading this, why havent you thanked the No on X Committe for saving your financial backside?? I mean, a bottle of wine at Christmas would be a classy thank you, no?