In Davis, the power of the people is real, and anyone who seeks to tamper with it is playing with fire. The campaign to defeat Measure X, the 2005 Covell Village proposal, is the perfect example of that. In the face of a six-figure developer-driven effort, a grassroots campaign of dedicated Davisites managed to beat the odds and garner a resounding rejection of the largest development proposal in the history of Davis. I am proud to have been part of that campaign.
Now, as a member of the Davis City Council, I believe the people of Davis will be able to exercise their power and assert their municipal rights more fully under Measure N, the proposed city charter which provides home rule for Davis.
When the City Council unanimously passed a resolution last year supporting Assembly Bill 1294, which would have allowed general law cities like ours to decide for themselves whether to adopt choice voting for Council elections, I wrote to Governor Schwarzenegger on City letterhead asking for 10 minutes of his time to explain why the City of Davis deserved this right. Through an official letter of his own, my offer to meet with the Governor was curtly turned down.
As others, including Councilmember Greenwald, have pointed out, all other University of California host cities are charter cities. This reinforces the fact that home rule encourage cities to pursue innovation, not promote the status quo. For example, several charter cities across the state provide for public electrical utilities, which Davis citizens supported when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Measures H and I in 2006. The prospect of providing electricity through the financing of solar infrastructure makes public power an especially attractive possibility under charter city status.
Examples of our innovation to date include our agricultural mitigation, inclusionary housing and green building ordinances. However, as a general law city, the state may decide to legislate that general law cities like Davis cannot establish such high standards, rendering the benchmarks we have set for ourselves meaningless. Measure N would allow Davis, under the power to govern its own municipal affairs, to codify and protect these laws in the charter if necessary. This protection would also be afforded to Measure J, which establishes the right for the people to vote on the development of peripheral ag land. In fact, Measure N by design alludes to Measure J, stating that:
“[M]anaging and limiting growth… are essential elements of local control and therefore are municipal affairs. The intent of this Charter is to allow the City Council and the voters to exercise the maximum degree of control over land use matters within the city of Davis.”
However, the issue really isn’t whether you support public electrical power (or choice voting or other ideas), but whether you support the notion that the city of Davis shouldn’t have to ask a bunch of people in Sacramento (including Governor Schwarzenegger) permission to adopt such ideas. The latter issue, not the former, should be the primary focus of Measure N as much as possible.
Some argue that the true beneficiary of power under a broadly drafted Measure N is the City Council, not the people at large. After all, on a weekly basis, the City Council makes most of the decisions on behalf of the people. I certainly appreciate that argument because my election to the City Council, to some degree, resulted of people’s disenchantment with the decisions of a majority of the Council. Thus, I understand people’s skepticism about what they consider the prospect of handing more powers to a City Council they (or I, for that matter!) don’t agree with most of the time. However, just as the people of Davis have shown they possess the strength to override the Council and defeat a billion-dollar development, they definitely have the strength to change the balance of power on the City Council every two years (or more frequently, through the power of recall, which, along with the power of referendum, remains intact under a charter). Let’s not pretend that this is beyond the people’s reach.
In fact, nothing prevents the people of Davis, either through their elected representatives or through the power of initiative, from actually downsizing and restricting municipal powers that would otherwise be granted through a charter. Take the proposed charter, for instance: as a municipal agency, the City of Davis would still negotiate with its employees under meet-and-confer. Upon the suggestion of Councilmember Greenwald, Measure N bars the Council from adopting binding arbitration, which has financially crippled city agencies such as San Luis Obispo. This is a fine example of how the city can limit its own powers.
Speaking of finances, don’t forget that any new tax measure under the charter would still be subject to the people, per Proposition 218. Personally, my support for the charter does not come from a desire to impose taxes that we do not levy now. In fact, I am skeptical about renewing the taxes we currently levy in the absence of a more responsible fiscal policy. I have strongly questioned, and will continue to question, the presentation of new tax measures (including the extension of existing ones) unless we truly begin to exercise control of our skyrocketing personnel costs, for example. Under general law, the City of Davis already has the power to levy a utility user’s tax and increase its business license tax (but hasn’t), so for me, potential new revenue streams don’t play into my support for Measure N.
I am proud to join councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza and Mayor Ruth Asmundson in supporting a charter because the people of Davis clearly deserve home rule. Davisites have proven that they are willing and capable of governing their affairs. My hope is that the people will keep an open mind about Measure N in the coming weeks and months. I will do my part to gain more information and share it with as many Davisites as possible before Election Day. I hope the people of Davis continue the discussion by providing their insights, whether those insights support or oppose the charter. Ultimately, the power is in their hands.
Lamar Heystek is a Davis City Councilmember. He is Co-Chair of the Yes on Measure N Committee and a longtime supporter of Choice Voting.
…..”interesting” article on-line(nytimes.com)today headlined, In the Central Valley, the Ruins of the Housing Bust. It’s about Merced with only passing reference to Davis.
Ominous parallels are there,however, and are worth taking note of.
…..”interesting” article on-line(nytimes.com)today headlined, In the Central Valley, the Ruins of the Housing Bust. It’s about Merced with only passing reference to Davis.
Ominous parallels are there,however, and are worth taking note of.
…..”interesting” article on-line(nytimes.com)today headlined, In the Central Valley, the Ruins of the Housing Bust. It’s about Merced with only passing reference to Davis.
Ominous parallels are there,however, and are worth taking note of.
…..”interesting” article on-line(nytimes.com)today headlined, In the Central Valley, the Ruins of the Housing Bust. It’s about Merced with only passing reference to Davis.
Ominous parallels are there,however, and are worth taking note of.
I don’t see any need for a charter city in Davis.
The choice voting concept, which I support, is not enough to make the city embark on a fundamental change in the way the city governs itself.
Nothing is broken, so why fix it?
Charter City is a solution looking for a problem.
Vote NO.
I don’t see any need for a charter city in Davis.
The choice voting concept, which I support, is not enough to make the city embark on a fundamental change in the way the city governs itself.
Nothing is broken, so why fix it?
Charter City is a solution looking for a problem.
Vote NO.
I don’t see any need for a charter city in Davis.
The choice voting concept, which I support, is not enough to make the city embark on a fundamental change in the way the city governs itself.
Nothing is broken, so why fix it?
Charter City is a solution looking for a problem.
Vote NO.
I don’t see any need for a charter city in Davis.
The choice voting concept, which I support, is not enough to make the city embark on a fundamental change in the way the city governs itself.
Nothing is broken, so why fix it?
Charter City is a solution looking for a problem.
Vote NO.
I really like the idea of being a charter city. We are an innovative city and I would welcome the opportunity for us to become more visionary. Participatory democracy is is vibrant in Davis, let’s reward it. Good job, Lamar!
I really like the idea of being a charter city. We are an innovative city and I would welcome the opportunity for us to become more visionary. Participatory democracy is is vibrant in Davis, let’s reward it. Good job, Lamar!
I really like the idea of being a charter city. We are an innovative city and I would welcome the opportunity for us to become more visionary. Participatory democracy is is vibrant in Davis, let’s reward it. Good job, Lamar!
I really like the idea of being a charter city. We are an innovative city and I would welcome the opportunity for us to become more visionary. Participatory democracy is is vibrant in Davis, let’s reward it. Good job, Lamar!
In order for Davis to become a Charter City it needs to have intelligent and forward looking leadership.
In order for Davis to become a Charter City it needs to have intelligent and forward looking leadership.
In order for Davis to become a Charter City it needs to have intelligent and forward looking leadership.
In order for Davis to become a Charter City it needs to have intelligent and forward looking leadership.
Does Measure N establish the primacy of the General Plan in zoning changes?
Does Measure N establish the primacy of the General Plan in zoning changes?
Does Measure N establish the primacy of the General Plan in zoning changes?
Does Measure N establish the primacy of the General Plan in zoning changes?
Lamar, while I support your vision idealistically, I am not convinced it is a practical concept for our specific situation. It gives the City Council the ability to levy a transfer tax, as well as other powers, such as rezoning against the General Plan. I cringe to think of giving the current Council majority more power than they already have.
To naively say that citizens can vote out the current Council majority flies in the face of reality. That opportunity arose in this most recent election cycle and it DID NOT HAPPEN. Why? IMHO, because the opposition to the Council majority came w too much personal baggage/bias, so it was safer to stay w the status quo. Whatever the reason, the Council majority is still very much in power (pun intended).
To steadfastly insist the electorate can somehow oust the Council majority if they want to does not take into account the bigger picture. Viable candidates who have a sensible outlook are hard to come by; the antics of the current Council majority and long hours of City Council sessions w very little pay discourage good people from running for office; as does the extreme expense of running an election campaign, something you should well appreciate.
What that means in practical terms, is if the Council majority stays in power, and we become a charter city, voters must be hyper- vigilant about everything, and I mean everything the City Council does. If there is an attempt to rezone against the General Plan, for example, a special campaign against it must be mounted, in the face of fierce opposition the City Council majority will put forth, using underhanded tactics if necessary.
The electorate does not necessarily have that kind of staying power. They have better things to do w their time than constantly expending energy staving off Council majority proposals instigated by behind the scenes wheeler dealers.
Don’t let your animosity towards Gov. Schwarzeneggar get the better of common sense, just bc this man could not find the time to meet w you one-on-one. (I very much doubt any Gov. would have granted such a request, so you shouldn’t take it personally.) Don’t let the fact that you started the ball rolling on this idea cloud your judgment, bc you don’t want to admit maybe this wasn’t such a good idea after all.
In fact, I would strongly advise you to spend more time on figuring a way this city is going to afford to fund all the expenditures they have put in the “unmet needs” category as a sly maneuver to enable a bogus claim of a “balanced budget”, a tactic that most would call “creative bookkeeping”.
While you are wasting inordinate amounts of time tilting at “charter city” windmills, which is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem, you could be blasting the majority for its slight of hand w the budget and supporting Sue in her quest to figure out if we can safely put off the water project/how we can pay for both projects at the same time.
Too many times I have watched the City Council drift off onto tangents like this, only to ignore the more serious problems facing the city – such as ensuring smart growth, bringing more commercial business that generates tax revenue to town, keeping taxes and fees within reasonable limits, making sure our tax revenue is spent wisely, etc.
We have potholes developing that will ruin automobile tires and their undercarriages, city employee benefits the city cannot afford to pay in the future, developers breathing down our neck who want to create massive amounts of senior housing which will bring in outsiders rather than address internal needs, etc, etc, etc. Yet you’re more worried about a charter city status? Where is your sense of priorities! I strongly urge you to rethink this one more carefully.
Lamar, while I support your vision idealistically, I am not convinced it is a practical concept for our specific situation. It gives the City Council the ability to levy a transfer tax, as well as other powers, such as rezoning against the General Plan. I cringe to think of giving the current Council majority more power than they already have.
To naively say that citizens can vote out the current Council majority flies in the face of reality. That opportunity arose in this most recent election cycle and it DID NOT HAPPEN. Why? IMHO, because the opposition to the Council majority came w too much personal baggage/bias, so it was safer to stay w the status quo. Whatever the reason, the Council majority is still very much in power (pun intended).
To steadfastly insist the electorate can somehow oust the Council majority if they want to does not take into account the bigger picture. Viable candidates who have a sensible outlook are hard to come by; the antics of the current Council majority and long hours of City Council sessions w very little pay discourage good people from running for office; as does the extreme expense of running an election campaign, something you should well appreciate.
What that means in practical terms, is if the Council majority stays in power, and we become a charter city, voters must be hyper- vigilant about everything, and I mean everything the City Council does. If there is an attempt to rezone against the General Plan, for example, a special campaign against it must be mounted, in the face of fierce opposition the City Council majority will put forth, using underhanded tactics if necessary.
The electorate does not necessarily have that kind of staying power. They have better things to do w their time than constantly expending energy staving off Council majority proposals instigated by behind the scenes wheeler dealers.
Don’t let your animosity towards Gov. Schwarzeneggar get the better of common sense, just bc this man could not find the time to meet w you one-on-one. (I very much doubt any Gov. would have granted such a request, so you shouldn’t take it personally.) Don’t let the fact that you started the ball rolling on this idea cloud your judgment, bc you don’t want to admit maybe this wasn’t such a good idea after all.
In fact, I would strongly advise you to spend more time on figuring a way this city is going to afford to fund all the expenditures they have put in the “unmet needs” category as a sly maneuver to enable a bogus claim of a “balanced budget”, a tactic that most would call “creative bookkeeping”.
While you are wasting inordinate amounts of time tilting at “charter city” windmills, which is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem, you could be blasting the majority for its slight of hand w the budget and supporting Sue in her quest to figure out if we can safely put off the water project/how we can pay for both projects at the same time.
Too many times I have watched the City Council drift off onto tangents like this, only to ignore the more serious problems facing the city – such as ensuring smart growth, bringing more commercial business that generates tax revenue to town, keeping taxes and fees within reasonable limits, making sure our tax revenue is spent wisely, etc.
We have potholes developing that will ruin automobile tires and their undercarriages, city employee benefits the city cannot afford to pay in the future, developers breathing down our neck who want to create massive amounts of senior housing which will bring in outsiders rather than address internal needs, etc, etc, etc. Yet you’re more worried about a charter city status? Where is your sense of priorities! I strongly urge you to rethink this one more carefully.
Lamar, while I support your vision idealistically, I am not convinced it is a practical concept for our specific situation. It gives the City Council the ability to levy a transfer tax, as well as other powers, such as rezoning against the General Plan. I cringe to think of giving the current Council majority more power than they already have.
To naively say that citizens can vote out the current Council majority flies in the face of reality. That opportunity arose in this most recent election cycle and it DID NOT HAPPEN. Why? IMHO, because the opposition to the Council majority came w too much personal baggage/bias, so it was safer to stay w the status quo. Whatever the reason, the Council majority is still very much in power (pun intended).
To steadfastly insist the electorate can somehow oust the Council majority if they want to does not take into account the bigger picture. Viable candidates who have a sensible outlook are hard to come by; the antics of the current Council majority and long hours of City Council sessions w very little pay discourage good people from running for office; as does the extreme expense of running an election campaign, something you should well appreciate.
What that means in practical terms, is if the Council majority stays in power, and we become a charter city, voters must be hyper- vigilant about everything, and I mean everything the City Council does. If there is an attempt to rezone against the General Plan, for example, a special campaign against it must be mounted, in the face of fierce opposition the City Council majority will put forth, using underhanded tactics if necessary.
The electorate does not necessarily have that kind of staying power. They have better things to do w their time than constantly expending energy staving off Council majority proposals instigated by behind the scenes wheeler dealers.
Don’t let your animosity towards Gov. Schwarzeneggar get the better of common sense, just bc this man could not find the time to meet w you one-on-one. (I very much doubt any Gov. would have granted such a request, so you shouldn’t take it personally.) Don’t let the fact that you started the ball rolling on this idea cloud your judgment, bc you don’t want to admit maybe this wasn’t such a good idea after all.
In fact, I would strongly advise you to spend more time on figuring a way this city is going to afford to fund all the expenditures they have put in the “unmet needs” category as a sly maneuver to enable a bogus claim of a “balanced budget”, a tactic that most would call “creative bookkeeping”.
While you are wasting inordinate amounts of time tilting at “charter city” windmills, which is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem, you could be blasting the majority for its slight of hand w the budget and supporting Sue in her quest to figure out if we can safely put off the water project/how we can pay for both projects at the same time.
Too many times I have watched the City Council drift off onto tangents like this, only to ignore the more serious problems facing the city – such as ensuring smart growth, bringing more commercial business that generates tax revenue to town, keeping taxes and fees within reasonable limits, making sure our tax revenue is spent wisely, etc.
We have potholes developing that will ruin automobile tires and their undercarriages, city employee benefits the city cannot afford to pay in the future, developers breathing down our neck who want to create massive amounts of senior housing which will bring in outsiders rather than address internal needs, etc, etc, etc. Yet you’re more worried about a charter city status? Where is your sense of priorities! I strongly urge you to rethink this one more carefully.
Lamar, while I support your vision idealistically, I am not convinced it is a practical concept for our specific situation. It gives the City Council the ability to levy a transfer tax, as well as other powers, such as rezoning against the General Plan. I cringe to think of giving the current Council majority more power than they already have.
To naively say that citizens can vote out the current Council majority flies in the face of reality. That opportunity arose in this most recent election cycle and it DID NOT HAPPEN. Why? IMHO, because the opposition to the Council majority came w too much personal baggage/bias, so it was safer to stay w the status quo. Whatever the reason, the Council majority is still very much in power (pun intended).
To steadfastly insist the electorate can somehow oust the Council majority if they want to does not take into account the bigger picture. Viable candidates who have a sensible outlook are hard to come by; the antics of the current Council majority and long hours of City Council sessions w very little pay discourage good people from running for office; as does the extreme expense of running an election campaign, something you should well appreciate.
What that means in practical terms, is if the Council majority stays in power, and we become a charter city, voters must be hyper- vigilant about everything, and I mean everything the City Council does. If there is an attempt to rezone against the General Plan, for example, a special campaign against it must be mounted, in the face of fierce opposition the City Council majority will put forth, using underhanded tactics if necessary.
The electorate does not necessarily have that kind of staying power. They have better things to do w their time than constantly expending energy staving off Council majority proposals instigated by behind the scenes wheeler dealers.
Don’t let your animosity towards Gov. Schwarzeneggar get the better of common sense, just bc this man could not find the time to meet w you one-on-one. (I very much doubt any Gov. would have granted such a request, so you shouldn’t take it personally.) Don’t let the fact that you started the ball rolling on this idea cloud your judgment, bc you don’t want to admit maybe this wasn’t such a good idea after all.
In fact, I would strongly advise you to spend more time on figuring a way this city is going to afford to fund all the expenditures they have put in the “unmet needs” category as a sly maneuver to enable a bogus claim of a “balanced budget”, a tactic that most would call “creative bookkeeping”.
While you are wasting inordinate amounts of time tilting at “charter city” windmills, which is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem, you could be blasting the majority for its slight of hand w the budget and supporting Sue in her quest to figure out if we can safely put off the water project/how we can pay for both projects at the same time.
Too many times I have watched the City Council drift off onto tangents like this, only to ignore the more serious problems facing the city – such as ensuring smart growth, bringing more commercial business that generates tax revenue to town, keeping taxes and fees within reasonable limits, making sure our tax revenue is spent wisely, etc.
We have potholes developing that will ruin automobile tires and their undercarriages, city employee benefits the city cannot afford to pay in the future, developers breathing down our neck who want to create massive amounts of senior housing which will bring in outsiders rather than address internal needs, etc, etc, etc. Yet you’re more worried about a charter city status? Where is your sense of priorities! I strongly urge you to rethink this one more carefully.
“I really like the idea of being a charter city. We are an innovative city and I would welcome the opportunity for us to become more visionary.”
Being innovative is not always a good thing. Have you ever heard the expressions:
“The way to Hell is paved with good intentions” or
“Be careful what you wish for”?
“I really like the idea of being a charter city. We are an innovative city and I would welcome the opportunity for us to become more visionary.”
Being innovative is not always a good thing. Have you ever heard the expressions:
“The way to Hell is paved with good intentions” or
“Be careful what you wish for”?
“I really like the idea of being a charter city. We are an innovative city and I would welcome the opportunity for us to become more visionary.”
Being innovative is not always a good thing. Have you ever heard the expressions:
“The way to Hell is paved with good intentions” or
“Be careful what you wish for”?
“I really like the idea of being a charter city. We are an innovative city and I would welcome the opportunity for us to become more visionary.”
Being innovative is not always a good thing. Have you ever heard the expressions:
“The way to Hell is paved with good intentions” or
“Be careful what you wish for”?
Lamar, remember that Asmundson is grooming Sydney Vergis to be elected the next go ’round. (Note Sydney is meeting w the DDBA according to the Davis Enterprise.) She could be your undoing, and cement the Council majority’s majority, leaving Sue twisting in the wind all by herself – while you nattered around about forming a “charter city”.
Lamar, remember that Asmundson is grooming Sydney Vergis to be elected the next go ’round. (Note Sydney is meeting w the DDBA according to the Davis Enterprise.) She could be your undoing, and cement the Council majority’s majority, leaving Sue twisting in the wind all by herself – while you nattered around about forming a “charter city”.
Lamar, remember that Asmundson is grooming Sydney Vergis to be elected the next go ’round. (Note Sydney is meeting w the DDBA according to the Davis Enterprise.) She could be your undoing, and cement the Council majority’s majority, leaving Sue twisting in the wind all by herself – while you nattered around about forming a “charter city”.
Lamar, remember that Asmundson is grooming Sydney Vergis to be elected the next go ’round. (Note Sydney is meeting w the DDBA according to the Davis Enterprise.) She could be your undoing, and cement the Council majority’s majority, leaving Sue twisting in the wind all by herself – while you nattered around about forming a “charter city”.
Of course Sue is the master of leaving people twisting in the wind.
I don’t understand the threat to Lamar here–why are you making it?
It’s a gross exaggeration to suggest that a real estate transfer tax would be easy to implement–possible, but not easy.
Of course Sue is the master of leaving people twisting in the wind.
I don’t understand the threat to Lamar here–why are you making it?
It’s a gross exaggeration to suggest that a real estate transfer tax would be easy to implement–possible, but not easy.
Of course Sue is the master of leaving people twisting in the wind.
I don’t understand the threat to Lamar here–why are you making it?
It’s a gross exaggeration to suggest that a real estate transfer tax would be easy to implement–possible, but not easy.
Of course Sue is the master of leaving people twisting in the wind.
I don’t understand the threat to Lamar here–why are you making it?
It’s a gross exaggeration to suggest that a real estate transfer tax would be easy to implement–possible, but not easy.
“not enough to make the city embark on a fundamental change in the way the city governs itself.”
Mike,
I have no idea what you are talking about?
Please explain how converting from a general law city to a charter city will fundamentally change “the way the city governs itself.”
Thanks, your bud,
–Tammy X.
“not enough to make the city embark on a fundamental change in the way the city governs itself.”
Mike,
I have no idea what you are talking about?
Please explain how converting from a general law city to a charter city will fundamentally change “the way the city governs itself.”
Thanks, your bud,
–Tammy X.
“not enough to make the city embark on a fundamental change in the way the city governs itself.”
Mike,
I have no idea what you are talking about?
Please explain how converting from a general law city to a charter city will fundamentally change “the way the city governs itself.”
Thanks, your bud,
–Tammy X.
“not enough to make the city embark on a fundamental change in the way the city governs itself.”
Mike,
I have no idea what you are talking about?
Please explain how converting from a general law city to a charter city will fundamentally change “the way the city governs itself.”
Thanks, your bud,
–Tammy X.
To naively say that citizens can vote out the current Council majority flies in the face of reality. That opportunity arose in this most recent election cycle and it DID NOT HAPPEN. Why? IMHO, because the opposition to the Council majority came w too much personal baggage/bias, so it was safer to stay w the status quo. Whatever the reason, the Council majority is still very much in power (pun intended).
Maybe the reason why the current council majority got elected is because they’re the choice of the majority of voters in Davis? Oh, sorry, that’s too easy an answer. When your favorite candidates get elected, it’s “the will of the people” but if the opposition gets elected, there must be something underhanded at work.
I’m no fan of the current majority, but face the facts! Your “bigger picture” affects ALL of the candidates. And any “wheeling and dealing” that happens behind the scenes to get more housing built is counter-balanced by the inertia of the thousands of homeowners who want to keep the value of their homes inflated and thus oppose more supply (see “Covell Village”).
To naively say that citizens can vote out the current Council majority flies in the face of reality. That opportunity arose in this most recent election cycle and it DID NOT HAPPEN. Why? IMHO, because the opposition to the Council majority came w too much personal baggage/bias, so it was safer to stay w the status quo. Whatever the reason, the Council majority is still very much in power (pun intended).
Maybe the reason why the current council majority got elected is because they’re the choice of the majority of voters in Davis? Oh, sorry, that’s too easy an answer. When your favorite candidates get elected, it’s “the will of the people” but if the opposition gets elected, there must be something underhanded at work.
I’m no fan of the current majority, but face the facts! Your “bigger picture” affects ALL of the candidates. And any “wheeling and dealing” that happens behind the scenes to get more housing built is counter-balanced by the inertia of the thousands of homeowners who want to keep the value of their homes inflated and thus oppose more supply (see “Covell Village”).
To naively say that citizens can vote out the current Council majority flies in the face of reality. That opportunity arose in this most recent election cycle and it DID NOT HAPPEN. Why? IMHO, because the opposition to the Council majority came w too much personal baggage/bias, so it was safer to stay w the status quo. Whatever the reason, the Council majority is still very much in power (pun intended).
Maybe the reason why the current council majority got elected is because they’re the choice of the majority of voters in Davis? Oh, sorry, that’s too easy an answer. When your favorite candidates get elected, it’s “the will of the people” but if the opposition gets elected, there must be something underhanded at work.
I’m no fan of the current majority, but face the facts! Your “bigger picture” affects ALL of the candidates. And any “wheeling and dealing” that happens behind the scenes to get more housing built is counter-balanced by the inertia of the thousands of homeowners who want to keep the value of their homes inflated and thus oppose more supply (see “Covell Village”).
To naively say that citizens can vote out the current Council majority flies in the face of reality. That opportunity arose in this most recent election cycle and it DID NOT HAPPEN. Why? IMHO, because the opposition to the Council majority came w too much personal baggage/bias, so it was safer to stay w the status quo. Whatever the reason, the Council majority is still very much in power (pun intended).
Maybe the reason why the current council majority got elected is because they’re the choice of the majority of voters in Davis? Oh, sorry, that’s too easy an answer. When your favorite candidates get elected, it’s “the will of the people” but if the opposition gets elected, there must be something underhanded at work.
I’m no fan of the current majority, but face the facts! Your “bigger picture” affects ALL of the candidates. And any “wheeling and dealing” that happens behind the scenes to get more housing built is counter-balanced by the inertia of the thousands of homeowners who want to keep the value of their homes inflated and thus oppose more supply (see “Covell Village”).
Are these opinions mutually exclusive? Maybe it is true that most people in Davis have more in common with the council majority bloc and the challengers in the last election came with too much baggage.
Are these opinions mutually exclusive? Maybe it is true that most people in Davis have more in common with the council majority bloc and the challengers in the last election came with too much baggage.
Are these opinions mutually exclusive? Maybe it is true that most people in Davis have more in common with the council majority bloc and the challengers in the last election came with too much baggage.
Are these opinions mutually exclusive? Maybe it is true that most people in Davis have more in common with the council majority bloc and the challengers in the last election came with too much baggage.
“It gives the City Council the ability to levy a transfer tax, as well as other powers, such as rezoning against the General Plan.”
..doesn’t a Council majority now have the ability to change zoning with a majority vote? ….my understanding is that a Council majority can make changes in the General Plan at will.
“It gives the City Council the ability to levy a transfer tax, as well as other powers, such as rezoning against the General Plan.”
..doesn’t a Council majority now have the ability to change zoning with a majority vote? ….my understanding is that a Council majority can make changes in the General Plan at will.
“It gives the City Council the ability to levy a transfer tax, as well as other powers, such as rezoning against the General Plan.”
..doesn’t a Council majority now have the ability to change zoning with a majority vote? ….my understanding is that a Council majority can make changes in the General Plan at will.
“It gives the City Council the ability to levy a transfer tax, as well as other powers, such as rezoning against the General Plan.”
..doesn’t a Council majority now have the ability to change zoning with a majority vote? ….my understanding is that a Council majority can make changes in the General Plan at will.
From our previous discussion of this issue:
Some comparisons from the link provided earlier (http://www.cacities.org/)
General law city: May not impose real property transfer tax.
Charter city: May impose real property transfer tax.
General law city: May impose business license taxes for regulatory purposes, revenue purposes, or both.
Charter city: May impose business license taxes for any purpose unless limited by state or federal constitutions, or city charter.
General law: May impose fines, penalties and forfeitures, with a fine not exceeding $1,000.
Charter city: May enact ordinances providing for various penalties so long as such penalties do not exceed any maximum limits set by the charter.
General law: Zoning ordinances must be consistent with general plan.
Charter city: Zoning ordinances are not required to be consistent with general plan unless the city has adopted a consistency requirement by charter or ordinance.
From our previous discussion of this issue:
Some comparisons from the link provided earlier (http://www.cacities.org/)
General law city: May not impose real property transfer tax.
Charter city: May impose real property transfer tax.
General law city: May impose business license taxes for regulatory purposes, revenue purposes, or both.
Charter city: May impose business license taxes for any purpose unless limited by state or federal constitutions, or city charter.
General law: May impose fines, penalties and forfeitures, with a fine not exceeding $1,000.
Charter city: May enact ordinances providing for various penalties so long as such penalties do not exceed any maximum limits set by the charter.
General law: Zoning ordinances must be consistent with general plan.
Charter city: Zoning ordinances are not required to be consistent with general plan unless the city has adopted a consistency requirement by charter or ordinance.
From our previous discussion of this issue:
Some comparisons from the link provided earlier (http://www.cacities.org/)
General law city: May not impose real property transfer tax.
Charter city: May impose real property transfer tax.
General law city: May impose business license taxes for regulatory purposes, revenue purposes, or both.
Charter city: May impose business license taxes for any purpose unless limited by state or federal constitutions, or city charter.
General law: May impose fines, penalties and forfeitures, with a fine not exceeding $1,000.
Charter city: May enact ordinances providing for various penalties so long as such penalties do not exceed any maximum limits set by the charter.
General law: Zoning ordinances must be consistent with general plan.
Charter city: Zoning ordinances are not required to be consistent with general plan unless the city has adopted a consistency requirement by charter or ordinance.
From our previous discussion of this issue:
Some comparisons from the link provided earlier (http://www.cacities.org/)
General law city: May not impose real property transfer tax.
Charter city: May impose real property transfer tax.
General law city: May impose business license taxes for regulatory purposes, revenue purposes, or both.
Charter city: May impose business license taxes for any purpose unless limited by state or federal constitutions, or city charter.
General law: May impose fines, penalties and forfeitures, with a fine not exceeding $1,000.
Charter city: May enact ordinances providing for various penalties so long as such penalties do not exceed any maximum limits set by the charter.
General law: Zoning ordinances must be consistent with general plan.
Charter city: Zoning ordinances are not required to be consistent with general plan unless the city has adopted a consistency requirement by charter or ordinance.
…Zoning ordinances must be consistent with general plan.”
..but a Council majority can now vote to change the General Plan.
…Zoning ordinances must be consistent with general plan.”
..but a Council majority can now vote to change the General Plan.
…Zoning ordinances must be consistent with general plan.”
..but a Council majority can now vote to change the General Plan.
…Zoning ordinances must be consistent with general plan.”
..but a Council majority can now vote to change the General Plan.
Measure J I believe requires a vote in order for a land use designation (zoning) change. Measure N would leave Measure J in place. So I wonder if it actually changes anything?
Measure J I believe requires a vote in order for a land use designation (zoning) change. Measure N would leave Measure J in place. So I wonder if it actually changes anything?
Measure J I believe requires a vote in order for a land use designation (zoning) change. Measure N would leave Measure J in place. So I wonder if it actually changes anything?
Measure J I believe requires a vote in order for a land use designation (zoning) change. Measure N would leave Measure J in place. So I wonder if it actually changes anything?
This is an interesting issue in how it cuts across normal Davis dividing lines.
Souza and Heystek = strong supporters
Greenwald and Asmundson = went along with reservations; Ruth opposes choice voting; Greenwald may as well
Saylor = opponent
Some are suggesting that Heystek has sold out on this issue, but who exactly is he selling out to? The other side is clearly as divided as his own camp.
This is an interesting issue in how it cuts across normal Davis dividing lines.
Souza and Heystek = strong supporters
Greenwald and Asmundson = went along with reservations; Ruth opposes choice voting; Greenwald may as well
Saylor = opponent
Some are suggesting that Heystek has sold out on this issue, but who exactly is he selling out to? The other side is clearly as divided as his own camp.
This is an interesting issue in how it cuts across normal Davis dividing lines.
Souza and Heystek = strong supporters
Greenwald and Asmundson = went along with reservations; Ruth opposes choice voting; Greenwald may as well
Saylor = opponent
Some are suggesting that Heystek has sold out on this issue, but who exactly is he selling out to? The other side is clearly as divided as his own camp.
This is an interesting issue in how it cuts across normal Davis dividing lines.
Souza and Heystek = strong supporters
Greenwald and Asmundson = went along with reservations; Ruth opposes choice voting; Greenwald may as well
Saylor = opponent
Some are suggesting that Heystek has sold out on this issue, but who exactly is he selling out to? The other side is clearly as divided as his own camp.
Political argument in favor of choice voting:
Under the present system, the voting blocks are split with little cross-over. The trend over the years appears to be a shrinking minority progressive that are ridiculed during the campaign and then politically ignored by the elected Council majority. Under a choice voting system, all the candidates will be vying for support from the entire Davis electorate as choice voting places real value on being the 2nd or 3rd voter choice. This offers minority voting blocks real political influence in helping to shape Davis’ future political agenda.
Political argument in favor of choice voting:
Under the present system, the voting blocks are split with little cross-over. The trend over the years appears to be a shrinking minority progressive that are ridiculed during the campaign and then politically ignored by the elected Council majority. Under a choice voting system, all the candidates will be vying for support from the entire Davis electorate as choice voting places real value on being the 2nd or 3rd voter choice. This offers minority voting blocks real political influence in helping to shape Davis’ future political agenda.
Political argument in favor of choice voting:
Under the present system, the voting blocks are split with little cross-over. The trend over the years appears to be a shrinking minority progressive that are ridiculed during the campaign and then politically ignored by the elected Council majority. Under a choice voting system, all the candidates will be vying for support from the entire Davis electorate as choice voting places real value on being the 2nd or 3rd voter choice. This offers minority voting blocks real political influence in helping to shape Davis’ future political agenda.
Political argument in favor of choice voting:
Under the present system, the voting blocks are split with little cross-over. The trend over the years appears to be a shrinking minority progressive that are ridiculed during the campaign and then politically ignored by the elected Council majority. Under a choice voting system, all the candidates will be vying for support from the entire Davis electorate as choice voting places real value on being the 2nd or 3rd voter choice. This offers minority voting blocks real political influence in helping to shape Davis’ future political agenda.
“Measure J I believe requires a vote in order for a land use designation (zoning) change. Measure N would leave Measure J in place.”
Actually, I’ve been trying to figure this out. I would hope the charter proponents would have an answer on this.
Target (Second Street Crossing) was a zoning change. The council chose to put it before the voters. I don’t know if they were required to do so.
“Measure J I believe requires a vote in order for a land use designation (zoning) change. Measure N would leave Measure J in place.”
Actually, I’ve been trying to figure this out. I would hope the charter proponents would have an answer on this.
Target (Second Street Crossing) was a zoning change. The council chose to put it before the voters. I don’t know if they were required to do so.
“Measure J I believe requires a vote in order for a land use designation (zoning) change. Measure N would leave Measure J in place.”
Actually, I’ve been trying to figure this out. I would hope the charter proponents would have an answer on this.
Target (Second Street Crossing) was a zoning change. The council chose to put it before the voters. I don’t know if they were required to do so.
“Measure J I believe requires a vote in order for a land use designation (zoning) change. Measure N would leave Measure J in place.”
Actually, I’ve been trying to figure this out. I would hope the charter proponents would have an answer on this.
Target (Second Street Crossing) was a zoning change. The council chose to put it before the voters. I don’t know if they were required to do so.
Good point raised here, I think there is a difference between changing land use designation and changing zoning. The former requires a Measure J vote, the latter does not. Obviously that would not change under a charter.
I think the charter gives more flexibility to the council to enact different types of things; what it does not do though, is give more power, any change to the charter would require a vote of the people.
All of that is just a guess.
Good point raised here, I think there is a difference between changing land use designation and changing zoning. The former requires a Measure J vote, the latter does not. Obviously that would not change under a charter.
I think the charter gives more flexibility to the council to enact different types of things; what it does not do though, is give more power, any change to the charter would require a vote of the people.
All of that is just a guess.
Good point raised here, I think there is a difference between changing land use designation and changing zoning. The former requires a Measure J vote, the latter does not. Obviously that would not change under a charter.
I think the charter gives more flexibility to the council to enact different types of things; what it does not do though, is give more power, any change to the charter would require a vote of the people.
All of that is just a guess.
Good point raised here, I think there is a difference between changing land use designation and changing zoning. The former requires a Measure J vote, the latter does not. Obviously that would not change under a charter.
I think the charter gives more flexibility to the council to enact different types of things; what it does not do though, is give more power, any change to the charter would require a vote of the people.
All of that is just a guess.
Lamar has been quite outspoken on a number of our city’s priority issues, such as road infrastructure, the quality of our existing housing and the city’s unfair compensation policies. With regards to the water supply project, he has called on city staff (and gained Council support) to employ measures that would help defer the need for the project altogether. Lamar has been doing his job and then some, calling attention to issues that have been ignored by previous Councils. I believe the charter has the possibility of moving issues forward that we the people have cared a lot about and have wanted the City Council to act upon. Keep in mind that four of the five councilmembers (Saylor is the lone wolf here) actually supported the charter as presented. Let’s ask them why Greenwald, Asmundson and Souza voted for it. That would add quite a bit to this discussion.
By the way, I doubt that Heystek has much time to waste and “natter about” as someone wrote, as he’s the only 9-to-5 working stiff on the Council.
Lamar has been quite outspoken on a number of our city’s priority issues, such as road infrastructure, the quality of our existing housing and the city’s unfair compensation policies. With regards to the water supply project, he has called on city staff (and gained Council support) to employ measures that would help defer the need for the project altogether. Lamar has been doing his job and then some, calling attention to issues that have been ignored by previous Councils. I believe the charter has the possibility of moving issues forward that we the people have cared a lot about and have wanted the City Council to act upon. Keep in mind that four of the five councilmembers (Saylor is the lone wolf here) actually supported the charter as presented. Let’s ask them why Greenwald, Asmundson and Souza voted for it. That would add quite a bit to this discussion.
By the way, I doubt that Heystek has much time to waste and “natter about” as someone wrote, as he’s the only 9-to-5 working stiff on the Council.
Lamar has been quite outspoken on a number of our city’s priority issues, such as road infrastructure, the quality of our existing housing and the city’s unfair compensation policies. With regards to the water supply project, he has called on city staff (and gained Council support) to employ measures that would help defer the need for the project altogether. Lamar has been doing his job and then some, calling attention to issues that have been ignored by previous Councils. I believe the charter has the possibility of moving issues forward that we the people have cared a lot about and have wanted the City Council to act upon. Keep in mind that four of the five councilmembers (Saylor is the lone wolf here) actually supported the charter as presented. Let’s ask them why Greenwald, Asmundson and Souza voted for it. That would add quite a bit to this discussion.
By the way, I doubt that Heystek has much time to waste and “natter about” as someone wrote, as he’s the only 9-to-5 working stiff on the Council.
Lamar has been quite outspoken on a number of our city’s priority issues, such as road infrastructure, the quality of our existing housing and the city’s unfair compensation policies. With regards to the water supply project, he has called on city staff (and gained Council support) to employ measures that would help defer the need for the project altogether. Lamar has been doing his job and then some, calling attention to issues that have been ignored by previous Councils. I believe the charter has the possibility of moving issues forward that we the people have cared a lot about and have wanted the City Council to act upon. Keep in mind that four of the five councilmembers (Saylor is the lone wolf here) actually supported the charter as presented. Let’s ask them why Greenwald, Asmundson and Souza voted for it. That would add quite a bit to this discussion.
By the way, I doubt that Heystek has much time to waste and “natter about” as someone wrote, as he’s the only 9-to-5 working stiff on the Council.
my feelings exactly. a charter opens up a lot of possibilities for the city, lets us set our own rules as we see fit.
my feelings exactly. a charter opens up a lot of possibilities for the city, lets us set our own rules as we see fit.
my feelings exactly. a charter opens up a lot of possibilities for the city, lets us set our own rules as we see fit.
my feelings exactly. a charter opens up a lot of possibilities for the city, lets us set our own rules as we see fit.
Do any of you who are arguing for a Charter city really know what you are pushing for? If Davis becomes a Charter city, the citizens will be giving up their power to the City Council majority. That loss of power will enable the Council majority to set the rules on initiatives, referenda, and elections, without any recourse by regular citizens (except for a huge and expensive campaign). Why on earth is Lamar trying to defend this horrific "Charter" as home-rule? Read the Charter, folks. It gives "supreme" power to the Council. And, it would permit the Council majority to make zoning changes WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE CITIZENS, EVEN IF SUCH CHANGES WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. Furthermore, as a general law City, the Council cannot impose a property transfer tax. Under a Charter designation, the Council would be able to impose such a tax by a simple majority vote of the Council. And for those of you who think this Charter issue is about choice voting, you are WRONG, WRONG & WRONG. Ruth refused to sign the ballot argument unless all references to choice voting were REMOVED! And,they were removed! There is absolutely no mention of choice voting in either the Charter or the ballot argument. Which brings me full circle to Lamar. He is a pathetic (but all too true) example of why and how the "progressives" have NO chance of regaining a majority on the Council. He drones on with catch-phrases such as "home-rule," without mentioning or admitting that his vote to move forward on the Charter was not a vote for choice voting, but rather a vote to strip citizens of their power (as slight as it might be)by giving even more power to the Council majority. Lamar has sold out to the Asmundson/Souza/pro-development side – pure & simple. I supported him in many ways when he ran for Council, but now despise him for backing a plan that would strip power from regular citizens and give even more power to the Council majority. Is he a liar and cheat or just plain stupid?
Do any of you who are arguing for a Charter city really know what you are pushing for? If Davis becomes a Charter city, the citizens will be giving up their power to the City Council majority. That loss of power will enable the Council majority to set the rules on initiatives, referenda, and elections, without any recourse by regular citizens (except for a huge and expensive campaign). Why on earth is Lamar trying to defend this horrific "Charter" as home-rule? Read the Charter, folks. It gives "supreme" power to the Council. And, it would permit the Council majority to make zoning changes WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE CITIZENS, EVEN IF SUCH CHANGES WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. Furthermore, as a general law City, the Council cannot impose a property transfer tax. Under a Charter designation, the Council would be able to impose such a tax by a simple majority vote of the Council. And for those of you who think this Charter issue is about choice voting, you are WRONG, WRONG & WRONG. Ruth refused to sign the ballot argument unless all references to choice voting were REMOVED! And,they were removed! There is absolutely no mention of choice voting in either the Charter or the ballot argument. Which brings me full circle to Lamar. He is a pathetic (but all too true) example of why and how the "progressives" have NO chance of regaining a majority on the Council. He drones on with catch-phrases such as "home-rule," without mentioning or admitting that his vote to move forward on the Charter was not a vote for choice voting, but rather a vote to strip citizens of their power (as slight as it might be)by giving even more power to the Council majority. Lamar has sold out to the Asmundson/Souza/pro-development side – pure & simple. I supported him in many ways when he ran for Council, but now despise him for backing a plan that would strip power from regular citizens and give even more power to the Council majority. Is he a liar and cheat or just plain stupid?
Do any of you who are arguing for a Charter city really know what you are pushing for? If Davis becomes a Charter city, the citizens will be giving up their power to the City Council majority. That loss of power will enable the Council majority to set the rules on initiatives, referenda, and elections, without any recourse by regular citizens (except for a huge and expensive campaign). Why on earth is Lamar trying to defend this horrific "Charter" as home-rule? Read the Charter, folks. It gives "supreme" power to the Council. And, it would permit the Council majority to make zoning changes WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE CITIZENS, EVEN IF SUCH CHANGES WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. Furthermore, as a general law City, the Council cannot impose a property transfer tax. Under a Charter designation, the Council would be able to impose such a tax by a simple majority vote of the Council. And for those of you who think this Charter issue is about choice voting, you are WRONG, WRONG & WRONG. Ruth refused to sign the ballot argument unless all references to choice voting were REMOVED! And,they were removed! There is absolutely no mention of choice voting in either the Charter or the ballot argument. Which brings me full circle to Lamar. He is a pathetic (but all too true) example of why and how the "progressives" have NO chance of regaining a majority on the Council. He drones on with catch-phrases such as "home-rule," without mentioning or admitting that his vote to move forward on the Charter was not a vote for choice voting, but rather a vote to strip citizens of their power (as slight as it might be)by giving even more power to the Council majority. Lamar has sold out to the Asmundson/Souza/pro-development side – pure & simple. I supported him in many ways when he ran for Council, but now despise him for backing a plan that would strip power from regular citizens and give even more power to the Council majority. Is he a liar and cheat or just plain stupid?
Do any of you who are arguing for a Charter city really know what you are pushing for? If Davis becomes a Charter city, the citizens will be giving up their power to the City Council majority. That loss of power will enable the Council majority to set the rules on initiatives, referenda, and elections, without any recourse by regular citizens (except for a huge and expensive campaign). Why on earth is Lamar trying to defend this horrific "Charter" as home-rule? Read the Charter, folks. It gives "supreme" power to the Council. And, it would permit the Council majority to make zoning changes WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE CITIZENS, EVEN IF SUCH CHANGES WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. Furthermore, as a general law City, the Council cannot impose a property transfer tax. Under a Charter designation, the Council would be able to impose such a tax by a simple majority vote of the Council. And for those of you who think this Charter issue is about choice voting, you are WRONG, WRONG & WRONG. Ruth refused to sign the ballot argument unless all references to choice voting were REMOVED! And,they were removed! There is absolutely no mention of choice voting in either the Charter or the ballot argument. Which brings me full circle to Lamar. He is a pathetic (but all too true) example of why and how the "progressives" have NO chance of regaining a majority on the Council. He drones on with catch-phrases such as "home-rule," without mentioning or admitting that his vote to move forward on the Charter was not a vote for choice voting, but rather a vote to strip citizens of their power (as slight as it might be)by giving even more power to the Council majority. Lamar has sold out to the Asmundson/Souza/pro-development side – pure & simple. I supported him in many ways when he ran for Council, but now despise him for backing a plan that would strip power from regular citizens and give even more power to the Council majority. Is he a liar and cheat or just plain stupid?
As far as I can tell most of that is false. Any change would require changing the charter which would require a vote of the people. No one would support that. This is nothing more than fear mongering.
As far as I can tell most of that is false. Any change would require changing the charter which would require a vote of the people. No one would support that. This is nothing more than fear mongering.
As far as I can tell most of that is false. Any change would require changing the charter which would require a vote of the people. No one would support that. This is nothing more than fear mongering.
As far as I can tell most of that is false. Any change would require changing the charter which would require a vote of the people. No one would support that. This is nothing more than fear mongering.
Just read all the comments about the Charter and agree with those who oppose it. Why give more power to the Council without getting anything in return? I seem to recall that Lamar argued against Target (in part, because of employee wage and benefit issues)and was (is?) a Union rep., on campus, supposedly to protect the interests of the “little guys.”So, as a self-proclaimed champion of the little guys, why would Lamar vote for a Charter that would hand over even more power to the “powers that be?”If his union supporters on campus realize the paralell between his sell-out to the Council majority and a potential sell out to the University administration, they will never trust him again. Is there anything this guy won’t do to be a big shot? And, just what is his price?
Just read all the comments about the Charter and agree with those who oppose it. Why give more power to the Council without getting anything in return? I seem to recall that Lamar argued against Target (in part, because of employee wage and benefit issues)and was (is?) a Union rep., on campus, supposedly to protect the interests of the “little guys.”So, as a self-proclaimed champion of the little guys, why would Lamar vote for a Charter that would hand over even more power to the “powers that be?”If his union supporters on campus realize the paralell between his sell-out to the Council majority and a potential sell out to the University administration, they will never trust him again. Is there anything this guy won’t do to be a big shot? And, just what is his price?
Just read all the comments about the Charter and agree with those who oppose it. Why give more power to the Council without getting anything in return? I seem to recall that Lamar argued against Target (in part, because of employee wage and benefit issues)and was (is?) a Union rep., on campus, supposedly to protect the interests of the “little guys.”So, as a self-proclaimed champion of the little guys, why would Lamar vote for a Charter that would hand over even more power to the “powers that be?”If his union supporters on campus realize the paralell between his sell-out to the Council majority and a potential sell out to the University administration, they will never trust him again. Is there anything this guy won’t do to be a big shot? And, just what is his price?
Just read all the comments about the Charter and agree with those who oppose it. Why give more power to the Council without getting anything in return? I seem to recall that Lamar argued against Target (in part, because of employee wage and benefit issues)and was (is?) a Union rep., on campus, supposedly to protect the interests of the “little guys.”So, as a self-proclaimed champion of the little guys, why would Lamar vote for a Charter that would hand over even more power to the “powers that be?”If his union supporters on campus realize the paralell between his sell-out to the Council majority and a potential sell out to the University administration, they will never trust him again. Is there anything this guy won’t do to be a big shot? And, just what is his price?
Without Davis becoming a choice-voting charter city as part of the ballot measure, this ballot measure should fail. It is not surprising that the elected officials on the dais now are willing to delete this crucial choice-voting element that is really the sole driving issue for the Davis voters. After all, those who have found political success under the old voting block system plus those, out of office, whose political influence is mired in the old rigid voting block system would resist changing the rules of “the game”. To bypass the entrenched political interests on all sides of the spectrum, it will come down to a citizen-launched initiative for a charter city change that specifically calls for a change to a choice-voting system. I would like to hear Lamar’s reasoning for not rejecting this ballot measure without a choice-voting provision and then supporting a citizen-based initiative.
Without Davis becoming a choice-voting charter city as part of the ballot measure, this ballot measure should fail. It is not surprising that the elected officials on the dais now are willing to delete this crucial choice-voting element that is really the sole driving issue for the Davis voters. After all, those who have found political success under the old voting block system plus those, out of office, whose political influence is mired in the old rigid voting block system would resist changing the rules of “the game”. To bypass the entrenched political interests on all sides of the spectrum, it will come down to a citizen-launched initiative for a charter city change that specifically calls for a change to a choice-voting system. I would like to hear Lamar’s reasoning for not rejecting this ballot measure without a choice-voting provision and then supporting a citizen-based initiative.
Without Davis becoming a choice-voting charter city as part of the ballot measure, this ballot measure should fail. It is not surprising that the elected officials on the dais now are willing to delete this crucial choice-voting element that is really the sole driving issue for the Davis voters. After all, those who have found political success under the old voting block system plus those, out of office, whose political influence is mired in the old rigid voting block system would resist changing the rules of “the game”. To bypass the entrenched political interests on all sides of the spectrum, it will come down to a citizen-launched initiative for a charter city change that specifically calls for a change to a choice-voting system. I would like to hear Lamar’s reasoning for not rejecting this ballot measure without a choice-voting provision and then supporting a citizen-based initiative.
Without Davis becoming a choice-voting charter city as part of the ballot measure, this ballot measure should fail. It is not surprising that the elected officials on the dais now are willing to delete this crucial choice-voting element that is really the sole driving issue for the Davis voters. After all, those who have found political success under the old voting block system plus those, out of office, whose political influence is mired in the old rigid voting block system would resist changing the rules of “the game”. To bypass the entrenched political interests on all sides of the spectrum, it will come down to a citizen-launched initiative for a charter city change that specifically calls for a change to a choice-voting system. I would like to hear Lamar’s reasoning for not rejecting this ballot measure without a choice-voting provision and then supporting a citizen-based initiative.
If Sue also voted for the charter, does that make her a sell-out, too?
If Sue also voted for the charter, does that make her a sell-out, too?
If Sue also voted for the charter, does that make her a sell-out, too?
If Sue also voted for the charter, does that make her a sell-out, too?
How is support for the charter equal to selling your soul to the Council majority?
Here is how the Council voted on the charter:
Asmundson: YES
Greenwald: YES
Heystek: YES
Souza: YES
Saylor: NO
Two progressives, two moderates. That’s who supported the charter.
If we progressives don’t like the charter, that’s fine. Let’s not eat two of our own alive over it, though.
How is support for the charter equal to selling your soul to the Council majority?
Here is how the Council voted on the charter:
Asmundson: YES
Greenwald: YES
Heystek: YES
Souza: YES
Saylor: NO
Two progressives, two moderates. That’s who supported the charter.
If we progressives don’t like the charter, that’s fine. Let’s not eat two of our own alive over it, though.
How is support for the charter equal to selling your soul to the Council majority?
Here is how the Council voted on the charter:
Asmundson: YES
Greenwald: YES
Heystek: YES
Souza: YES
Saylor: NO
Two progressives, two moderates. That’s who supported the charter.
If we progressives don’t like the charter, that’s fine. Let’s not eat two of our own alive over it, though.
How is support for the charter equal to selling your soul to the Council majority?
Here is how the Council voted on the charter:
Asmundson: YES
Greenwald: YES
Heystek: YES
Souza: YES
Saylor: NO
Two progressives, two moderates. That’s who supported the charter.
If we progressives don’t like the charter, that’s fine. Let’s not eat two of our own alive over it, though.
Former Lamar Supporter responds:I have read the charter, ballot argument (signed by Lamar) and have studied the differences between general law and charter city laws in depth.I made a number of claims in my last blog to the Vanguard, based totally on factual information from the above-cited documents.The respondent who “despised” me said nearly everything I wrote was false. Great attack, despiser, but where is your ammunition? Just what did I state that was false?Have you read the documents? Have you done your homework? I have done both. So, if you want to sell our city down the river, and give even more power to the Council majority, just keep attacking those of us who have studied the issues. And, again, where are your “facts” to discredit my statements? I really look forward to your in-depth analysis. Sometimes I wish I were so simple-minded as to rip someone who has actually studied an issue by saying that their statements were false, even without any evidence to discredit their claims (come on now,which one of you actually wrote the despise response,Souza or Lamar?) Where are the facts, folks? I read and cited the documents; you say my claims are false I said was false
Former Lamar Supporter responds:I have read the charter, ballot argument (signed by Lamar) and have studied the differences between general law and charter city laws in depth.I made a number of claims in my last blog to the Vanguard, based totally on factual information from the above-cited documents.The respondent who “despised” me said nearly everything I wrote was false. Great attack, despiser, but where is your ammunition? Just what did I state that was false?Have you read the documents? Have you done your homework? I have done both. So, if you want to sell our city down the river, and give even more power to the Council majority, just keep attacking those of us who have studied the issues. And, again, where are your “facts” to discredit my statements? I really look forward to your in-depth analysis. Sometimes I wish I were so simple-minded as to rip someone who has actually studied an issue by saying that their statements were false, even without any evidence to discredit their claims (come on now,which one of you actually wrote the despise response,Souza or Lamar?) Where are the facts, folks? I read and cited the documents; you say my claims are false I said was false
Former Lamar Supporter responds:I have read the charter, ballot argument (signed by Lamar) and have studied the differences between general law and charter city laws in depth.I made a number of claims in my last blog to the Vanguard, based totally on factual information from the above-cited documents.The respondent who “despised” me said nearly everything I wrote was false. Great attack, despiser, but where is your ammunition? Just what did I state that was false?Have you read the documents? Have you done your homework? I have done both. So, if you want to sell our city down the river, and give even more power to the Council majority, just keep attacking those of us who have studied the issues. And, again, where are your “facts” to discredit my statements? I really look forward to your in-depth analysis. Sometimes I wish I were so simple-minded as to rip someone who has actually studied an issue by saying that their statements were false, even without any evidence to discredit their claims (come on now,which one of you actually wrote the despise response,Souza or Lamar?) Where are the facts, folks? I read and cited the documents; you say my claims are false I said was false
Former Lamar Supporter responds:I have read the charter, ballot argument (signed by Lamar) and have studied the differences between general law and charter city laws in depth.I made a number of claims in my last blog to the Vanguard, based totally on factual information from the above-cited documents.The respondent who “despised” me said nearly everything I wrote was false. Great attack, despiser, but where is your ammunition? Just what did I state that was false?Have you read the documents? Have you done your homework? I have done both. So, if you want to sell our city down the river, and give even more power to the Council majority, just keep attacking those of us who have studied the issues. And, again, where are your “facts” to discredit my statements? I really look forward to your in-depth analysis. Sometimes I wish I were so simple-minded as to rip someone who has actually studied an issue by saying that their statements were false, even without any evidence to discredit their claims (come on now,which one of you actually wrote the despise response,Souza or Lamar?) Where are the facts, folks? I read and cited the documents; you say my claims are false I said was false
Those of us who identify as "progressives" (Sue & Lamar, at best, currently) don't want to "eat our own." Rather, we want the best for our City and all of our residents. Unless Sue and Lamar can find a way to work together, they will "eat" one another. Sue is right on the Charter issue and Lamar is WRONG, WRONG & WRONG.If this isssue continues as is, without any capitulation by Lamar (admitting that he made a mistake, and people will readily forgive him for that), the progressives will not have any chance of gaining a Council majority (let alone even one seat in the next election). Folks, please, read the documents. I don't lie or play games.
Those of us who identify as "progressives" (Sue & Lamar, at best, currently) don't want to "eat our own." Rather, we want the best for our City and all of our residents. Unless Sue and Lamar can find a way to work together, they will "eat" one another. Sue is right on the Charter issue and Lamar is WRONG, WRONG & WRONG.If this isssue continues as is, without any capitulation by Lamar (admitting that he made a mistake, and people will readily forgive him for that), the progressives will not have any chance of gaining a Council majority (let alone even one seat in the next election). Folks, please, read the documents. I don't lie or play games.
Those of us who identify as "progressives" (Sue & Lamar, at best, currently) don't want to "eat our own." Rather, we want the best for our City and all of our residents. Unless Sue and Lamar can find a way to work together, they will "eat" one another. Sue is right on the Charter issue and Lamar is WRONG, WRONG & WRONG.If this isssue continues as is, without any capitulation by Lamar (admitting that he made a mistake, and people will readily forgive him for that), the progressives will not have any chance of gaining a Council majority (let alone even one seat in the next election). Folks, please, read the documents. I don't lie or play games.
Those of us who identify as "progressives" (Sue & Lamar, at best, currently) don't want to "eat our own." Rather, we want the best for our City and all of our residents. Unless Sue and Lamar can find a way to work together, they will "eat" one another. Sue is right on the Charter issue and Lamar is WRONG, WRONG & WRONG.If this isssue continues as is, without any capitulation by Lamar (admitting that he made a mistake, and people will readily forgive him for that), the progressives will not have any chance of gaining a Council majority (let alone even one seat in the next election). Folks, please, read the documents. I don't lie or play games.
concerned progressive said…
Sue is right on the Charter issue and Lamar is WRONG, WRONG & WRONG.
Didn’t Sue and Lamar vote the same way on the charter?
concerned progressive said…
Sue is right on the Charter issue and Lamar is WRONG, WRONG & WRONG.
Didn’t Sue and Lamar vote the same way on the charter?
concerned progressive said…
Sue is right on the Charter issue and Lamar is WRONG, WRONG & WRONG.
Didn’t Sue and Lamar vote the same way on the charter?
concerned progressive said…
Sue is right on the Charter issue and Lamar is WRONG, WRONG & WRONG.
Didn’t Sue and Lamar vote the same way on the charter?
I agree w Concerned Progressive above. When I made my original comments to Lamar, it was not to trash him, but to get him to rethink his position. Any politician can get it wrong, as can the electorate.
The problem here is I think both Sue and Lamar are wrong on the charter issue and should vote against it for all the reasons articulated above. Don Shor sums it up nicely. Added to that are the intelligent comments that the whole point of charter city status was to be able to institute choice voting, which is off the table thanks to Asmundson.
So why go forward with this idea? I don’t find Lamar’s reasoning compelling, just the opposite. I think he is being incredibly naive and hasn’t done his homework. However, this is not an attempt to trash the young man. Sue voted for charter city status too, and I think she is being wrongheaded. I want both to rethink this one.
I also would like to see the two of them concentrate on the more substantive issues of:
1) increase in water/sewer rates, and whether we should do both projects at the same time;
2) figure out how we are going to fund “unmet needs” not listed in the “balanced budget”.
Lamar hasn’t been particularly vocal on these issues, lukewarm at best, whereas Sue has been. He should be joining w Sue and they could present quite a tour de force against the Council majority. Even Bob Dunning is favoring Sue on the water issue; w Ruth Asmundson coming out looking like a fool by trying to control dissent in Council meetings.
My plea is to both Lamar and Sue to rethink the charter city idea and realize it will sent a dangerous precedent of ceding power for no good reason since choice voting is now off the table – the original reason for going down this path in the first place.
I agree w Concerned Progressive above. When I made my original comments to Lamar, it was not to trash him, but to get him to rethink his position. Any politician can get it wrong, as can the electorate.
The problem here is I think both Sue and Lamar are wrong on the charter issue and should vote against it for all the reasons articulated above. Don Shor sums it up nicely. Added to that are the intelligent comments that the whole point of charter city status was to be able to institute choice voting, which is off the table thanks to Asmundson.
So why go forward with this idea? I don’t find Lamar’s reasoning compelling, just the opposite. I think he is being incredibly naive and hasn’t done his homework. However, this is not an attempt to trash the young man. Sue voted for charter city status too, and I think she is being wrongheaded. I want both to rethink this one.
I also would like to see the two of them concentrate on the more substantive issues of:
1) increase in water/sewer rates, and whether we should do both projects at the same time;
2) figure out how we are going to fund “unmet needs” not listed in the “balanced budget”.
Lamar hasn’t been particularly vocal on these issues, lukewarm at best, whereas Sue has been. He should be joining w Sue and they could present quite a tour de force against the Council majority. Even Bob Dunning is favoring Sue on the water issue; w Ruth Asmundson coming out looking like a fool by trying to control dissent in Council meetings.
My plea is to both Lamar and Sue to rethink the charter city idea and realize it will sent a dangerous precedent of ceding power for no good reason since choice voting is now off the table – the original reason for going down this path in the first place.
I agree w Concerned Progressive above. When I made my original comments to Lamar, it was not to trash him, but to get him to rethink his position. Any politician can get it wrong, as can the electorate.
The problem here is I think both Sue and Lamar are wrong on the charter issue and should vote against it for all the reasons articulated above. Don Shor sums it up nicely. Added to that are the intelligent comments that the whole point of charter city status was to be able to institute choice voting, which is off the table thanks to Asmundson.
So why go forward with this idea? I don’t find Lamar’s reasoning compelling, just the opposite. I think he is being incredibly naive and hasn’t done his homework. However, this is not an attempt to trash the young man. Sue voted for charter city status too, and I think she is being wrongheaded. I want both to rethink this one.
I also would like to see the two of them concentrate on the more substantive issues of:
1) increase in water/sewer rates, and whether we should do both projects at the same time;
2) figure out how we are going to fund “unmet needs” not listed in the “balanced budget”.
Lamar hasn’t been particularly vocal on these issues, lukewarm at best, whereas Sue has been. He should be joining w Sue and they could present quite a tour de force against the Council majority. Even Bob Dunning is favoring Sue on the water issue; w Ruth Asmundson coming out looking like a fool by trying to control dissent in Council meetings.
My plea is to both Lamar and Sue to rethink the charter city idea and realize it will sent a dangerous precedent of ceding power for no good reason since choice voting is now off the table – the original reason for going down this path in the first place.
I agree w Concerned Progressive above. When I made my original comments to Lamar, it was not to trash him, but to get him to rethink his position. Any politician can get it wrong, as can the electorate.
The problem here is I think both Sue and Lamar are wrong on the charter issue and should vote against it for all the reasons articulated above. Don Shor sums it up nicely. Added to that are the intelligent comments that the whole point of charter city status was to be able to institute choice voting, which is off the table thanks to Asmundson.
So why go forward with this idea? I don’t find Lamar’s reasoning compelling, just the opposite. I think he is being incredibly naive and hasn’t done his homework. However, this is not an attempt to trash the young man. Sue voted for charter city status too, and I think she is being wrongheaded. I want both to rethink this one.
I also would like to see the two of them concentrate on the more substantive issues of:
1) increase in water/sewer rates, and whether we should do both projects at the same time;
2) figure out how we are going to fund “unmet needs” not listed in the “balanced budget”.
Lamar hasn’t been particularly vocal on these issues, lukewarm at best, whereas Sue has been. He should be joining w Sue and they could present quite a tour de force against the Council majority. Even Bob Dunning is favoring Sue on the water issue; w Ruth Asmundson coming out looking like a fool by trying to control dissent in Council meetings.
My plea is to both Lamar and Sue to rethink the charter city idea and realize it will sent a dangerous precedent of ceding power for no good reason since choice voting is now off the table – the original reason for going down this path in the first place.
I’m still on the fence about the charter, but I strongly disagree with the notion presented here that this enhances the power of the council. I don’t think it does.
They created a fairly broad charter than enables basically the laws currently on the books to stay on the books.
If the council wants to enact laws that are not presently allowed by general law cities and by current law, then they are required to amend the charter which requires a vote of the people. That means that the council cannot make these changes without approval of the voters. That’s a significant check on their power.
I think a lot of what is going on is people are projecting the worst case scenario, there are also some upsides that I think are worth exploring–we could create a much more open government for instance. We could have the capability of public power as Lamar described. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, I don’t think this is a disaster waiting to happen that will cede power to the council. It takes power from the state and I think gives it to the people. I think that’s potentially a very positive thing.
I like the tone of the above commenter. Notice the difference between this person’s comments (sticking to the issue) and the comments of others who have ascribed ulterior motives and cheap shots to a long-time progressive advocate who has done an admirable job for us.
I’m still on the fence about the charter, but I strongly disagree with the notion presented here that this enhances the power of the council. I don’t think it does.
They created a fairly broad charter than enables basically the laws currently on the books to stay on the books.
If the council wants to enact laws that are not presently allowed by general law cities and by current law, then they are required to amend the charter which requires a vote of the people. That means that the council cannot make these changes without approval of the voters. That’s a significant check on their power.
I think a lot of what is going on is people are projecting the worst case scenario, there are also some upsides that I think are worth exploring–we could create a much more open government for instance. We could have the capability of public power as Lamar described. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, I don’t think this is a disaster waiting to happen that will cede power to the council. It takes power from the state and I think gives it to the people. I think that’s potentially a very positive thing.
I like the tone of the above commenter. Notice the difference between this person’s comments (sticking to the issue) and the comments of others who have ascribed ulterior motives and cheap shots to a long-time progressive advocate who has done an admirable job for us.
I’m still on the fence about the charter, but I strongly disagree with the notion presented here that this enhances the power of the council. I don’t think it does.
They created a fairly broad charter than enables basically the laws currently on the books to stay on the books.
If the council wants to enact laws that are not presently allowed by general law cities and by current law, then they are required to amend the charter which requires a vote of the people. That means that the council cannot make these changes without approval of the voters. That’s a significant check on their power.
I think a lot of what is going on is people are projecting the worst case scenario, there are also some upsides that I think are worth exploring–we could create a much more open government for instance. We could have the capability of public power as Lamar described. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, I don’t think this is a disaster waiting to happen that will cede power to the council. It takes power from the state and I think gives it to the people. I think that’s potentially a very positive thing.
I like the tone of the above commenter. Notice the difference between this person’s comments (sticking to the issue) and the comments of others who have ascribed ulterior motives and cheap shots to a long-time progressive advocate who has done an admirable job for us.
I’m still on the fence about the charter, but I strongly disagree with the notion presented here that this enhances the power of the council. I don’t think it does.
They created a fairly broad charter than enables basically the laws currently on the books to stay on the books.
If the council wants to enact laws that are not presently allowed by general law cities and by current law, then they are required to amend the charter which requires a vote of the people. That means that the council cannot make these changes without approval of the voters. That’s a significant check on their power.
I think a lot of what is going on is people are projecting the worst case scenario, there are also some upsides that I think are worth exploring–we could create a much more open government for instance. We could have the capability of public power as Lamar described. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, I don’t think this is a disaster waiting to happen that will cede power to the council. It takes power from the state and I think gives it to the people. I think that’s potentially a very positive thing.
I like the tone of the above commenter. Notice the difference between this person’s comments (sticking to the issue) and the comments of others who have ascribed ulterior motives and cheap shots to a long-time progressive advocate who has done an admirable job for us.
It’s anonymous 11:36 AM again. I was referring to the comments of anonymous 11:29 AM. Your comments are constructive in tone as well, doug paul davis.
It’s anonymous 11:36 AM again. I was referring to the comments of anonymous 11:29 AM. Your comments are constructive in tone as well, doug paul davis.
It’s anonymous 11:36 AM again. I was referring to the comments of anonymous 11:29 AM. Your comments are constructive in tone as well, doug paul davis.
It’s anonymous 11:36 AM again. I was referring to the comments of anonymous 11:29 AM. Your comments are constructive in tone as well, doug paul davis.
I would support the well thought out arguments of Lamar over the impulsive declarations of Mike Harrington any day.
It seems the game many people are playing is to gain control of the Council and if something doesn’t clearly create an advantage, then it must be opposed. I’d wager that the vast majority of people in town are not engaged in that game (evidenced by the last council election vote.)
Considering that Mike Harrington was irresponsible during his campaign for City Council and failed to win his seat (which set up the loss of Council majority), why would he and others think that people will follow his direction now?
Instead of finding the worst case scenario based on a possibility of an evil council majority, why not look at the cities that currently have charter status and see if the sky has fallen in their neck of the woods.
I would support the well thought out arguments of Lamar over the impulsive declarations of Mike Harrington any day.
It seems the game many people are playing is to gain control of the Council and if something doesn’t clearly create an advantage, then it must be opposed. I’d wager that the vast majority of people in town are not engaged in that game (evidenced by the last council election vote.)
Considering that Mike Harrington was irresponsible during his campaign for City Council and failed to win his seat (which set up the loss of Council majority), why would he and others think that people will follow his direction now?
Instead of finding the worst case scenario based on a possibility of an evil council majority, why not look at the cities that currently have charter status and see if the sky has fallen in their neck of the woods.
I would support the well thought out arguments of Lamar over the impulsive declarations of Mike Harrington any day.
It seems the game many people are playing is to gain control of the Council and if something doesn’t clearly create an advantage, then it must be opposed. I’d wager that the vast majority of people in town are not engaged in that game (evidenced by the last council election vote.)
Considering that Mike Harrington was irresponsible during his campaign for City Council and failed to win his seat (which set up the loss of Council majority), why would he and others think that people will follow his direction now?
Instead of finding the worst case scenario based on a possibility of an evil council majority, why not look at the cities that currently have charter status and see if the sky has fallen in their neck of the woods.
I would support the well thought out arguments of Lamar over the impulsive declarations of Mike Harrington any day.
It seems the game many people are playing is to gain control of the Council and if something doesn’t clearly create an advantage, then it must be opposed. I’d wager that the vast majority of people in town are not engaged in that game (evidenced by the last council election vote.)
Considering that Mike Harrington was irresponsible during his campaign for City Council and failed to win his seat (which set up the loss of Council majority), why would he and others think that people will follow his direction now?
Instead of finding the worst case scenario based on a possibility of an evil council majority, why not look at the cities that currently have charter status and see if the sky has fallen in their neck of the woods.
DPD:
What you say here misses the point:
“If the council wants to enact laws that are not presently allowed by general law cities and by current law, then they are required to amend the charter which requires a vote of the people. That means that the council cannot make these changes without approval of the voters. That’s a significant check on their power.”
This might be a check on their power if we had a level playing field, but we do not. If the council wanted to establish a real estate transfer tax, or abolish Measure J, or make changes in other ordinances or laws, and we opposed the change, we would have to conduct a big, expensive campaign—every time! We have neither the money nor the energy to do that time and time again. That is what happened with Measure X (Covell Village). Yes, we defeated it, but we sapped the energies of the prograssives so much that we did not have the energy and people needed for other issues, such as Target. On the other hand, the special interests can pour money into the campaigns, hire help, and defeat us, despite our best efforts. This happened on Target and it happens repeatedly on council campaigns.
Lamar missed the point when he talked about how a Charter would help us when there are issues such as Covell Village and he uses the argument that if the council tries to do something the people don’t want, the people can take it to a vote and check the council. He is saying that this “power” to take it to a vote give the people more say, but that is not the case! The Charter gives the electeds more power, and if they do not do what the people choose, the people have to fight them with big, expensive, energy-sucking campaigns. We just do not have the staying power to do this, but it is what we would face with the current council and any subsequent council where the progressives are in the minority.
Lamar rushed into this with the best of intentions, but he is idealistic and naive, and he must see that this idea is a big mistake. I hope he has the courage to admit it.
DPD:
What you say here misses the point:
“If the council wants to enact laws that are not presently allowed by general law cities and by current law, then they are required to amend the charter which requires a vote of the people. That means that the council cannot make these changes without approval of the voters. That’s a significant check on their power.”
This might be a check on their power if we had a level playing field, but we do not. If the council wanted to establish a real estate transfer tax, or abolish Measure J, or make changes in other ordinances or laws, and we opposed the change, we would have to conduct a big, expensive campaign—every time! We have neither the money nor the energy to do that time and time again. That is what happened with Measure X (Covell Village). Yes, we defeated it, but we sapped the energies of the prograssives so much that we did not have the energy and people needed for other issues, such as Target. On the other hand, the special interests can pour money into the campaigns, hire help, and defeat us, despite our best efforts. This happened on Target and it happens repeatedly on council campaigns.
Lamar missed the point when he talked about how a Charter would help us when there are issues such as Covell Village and he uses the argument that if the council tries to do something the people don’t want, the people can take it to a vote and check the council. He is saying that this “power” to take it to a vote give the people more say, but that is not the case! The Charter gives the electeds more power, and if they do not do what the people choose, the people have to fight them with big, expensive, energy-sucking campaigns. We just do not have the staying power to do this, but it is what we would face with the current council and any subsequent council where the progressives are in the minority.
Lamar rushed into this with the best of intentions, but he is idealistic and naive, and he must see that this idea is a big mistake. I hope he has the courage to admit it.
DPD:
What you say here misses the point:
“If the council wants to enact laws that are not presently allowed by general law cities and by current law, then they are required to amend the charter which requires a vote of the people. That means that the council cannot make these changes without approval of the voters. That’s a significant check on their power.”
This might be a check on their power if we had a level playing field, but we do not. If the council wanted to establish a real estate transfer tax, or abolish Measure J, or make changes in other ordinances or laws, and we opposed the change, we would have to conduct a big, expensive campaign—every time! We have neither the money nor the energy to do that time and time again. That is what happened with Measure X (Covell Village). Yes, we defeated it, but we sapped the energies of the prograssives so much that we did not have the energy and people needed for other issues, such as Target. On the other hand, the special interests can pour money into the campaigns, hire help, and defeat us, despite our best efforts. This happened on Target and it happens repeatedly on council campaigns.
Lamar missed the point when he talked about how a Charter would help us when there are issues such as Covell Village and he uses the argument that if the council tries to do something the people don’t want, the people can take it to a vote and check the council. He is saying that this “power” to take it to a vote give the people more say, but that is not the case! The Charter gives the electeds more power, and if they do not do what the people choose, the people have to fight them with big, expensive, energy-sucking campaigns. We just do not have the staying power to do this, but it is what we would face with the current council and any subsequent council where the progressives are in the minority.
Lamar rushed into this with the best of intentions, but he is idealistic and naive, and he must see that this idea is a big mistake. I hope he has the courage to admit it.
DPD:
What you say here misses the point:
“If the council wants to enact laws that are not presently allowed by general law cities and by current law, then they are required to amend the charter which requires a vote of the people. That means that the council cannot make these changes without approval of the voters. That’s a significant check on their power.”
This might be a check on their power if we had a level playing field, but we do not. If the council wanted to establish a real estate transfer tax, or abolish Measure J, or make changes in other ordinances or laws, and we opposed the change, we would have to conduct a big, expensive campaign—every time! We have neither the money nor the energy to do that time and time again. That is what happened with Measure X (Covell Village). Yes, we defeated it, but we sapped the energies of the prograssives so much that we did not have the energy and people needed for other issues, such as Target. On the other hand, the special interests can pour money into the campaigns, hire help, and defeat us, despite our best efforts. This happened on Target and it happens repeatedly on council campaigns.
Lamar missed the point when he talked about how a Charter would help us when there are issues such as Covell Village and he uses the argument that if the council tries to do something the people don’t want, the people can take it to a vote and check the council. He is saying that this “power” to take it to a vote give the people more say, but that is not the case! The Charter gives the electeds more power, and if they do not do what the people choose, the people have to fight them with big, expensive, energy-sucking campaigns. We just do not have the staying power to do this, but it is what we would face with the current council and any subsequent council where the progressives are in the minority.
Lamar rushed into this with the best of intentions, but he is idealistic and naive, and he must see that this idea is a big mistake. I hope he has the courage to admit it.
Mike Harrington said, “Charter City is a solution looking for a problem. Vote NO.”
Geez Mike, you sound like Don Saylor. How frightening. I never thought I would say that.
Mike Harrington said, “Charter City is a solution looking for a problem. Vote NO.”
Geez Mike, you sound like Don Saylor. How frightening. I never thought I would say that.
Mike Harrington said, “Charter City is a solution looking for a problem. Vote NO.”
Geez Mike, you sound like Don Saylor. How frightening. I never thought I would say that.
Mike Harrington said, “Charter City is a solution looking for a problem. Vote NO.”
Geez Mike, you sound like Don Saylor. How frightening. I never thought I would say that.
“This might be a check on their power if we had a level playing field, but we do not. If the council wanted to establish a real estate transfer tax, or abolish Measure J, or make changes in other ordinances or laws, and we opposed the change, we would have to conduct a big, expensive campaign—every time!”
They could do that now with any other tax or fee that they proposed. In fact, the voters could put an initiative that changed the charter to forbid the real estate transfer tax from the city.
“This might be a check on their power if we had a level playing field, but we do not. If the council wanted to establish a real estate transfer tax, or abolish Measure J, or make changes in other ordinances or laws, and we opposed the change, we would have to conduct a big, expensive campaign—every time!”
They could do that now with any other tax or fee that they proposed. In fact, the voters could put an initiative that changed the charter to forbid the real estate transfer tax from the city.
“This might be a check on their power if we had a level playing field, but we do not. If the council wanted to establish a real estate transfer tax, or abolish Measure J, or make changes in other ordinances or laws, and we opposed the change, we would have to conduct a big, expensive campaign—every time!”
They could do that now with any other tax or fee that they proposed. In fact, the voters could put an initiative that changed the charter to forbid the real estate transfer tax from the city.
“This might be a check on their power if we had a level playing field, but we do not. If the council wanted to establish a real estate transfer tax, or abolish Measure J, or make changes in other ordinances or laws, and we opposed the change, we would have to conduct a big, expensive campaign—every time!”
They could do that now with any other tax or fee that they proposed. In fact, the voters could put an initiative that changed the charter to forbid the real estate transfer tax from the city.
No on Charter City – It is too naive to say that, “That opportunity arose in this most recent election cycle and it DID NOT HAPPEN. Why? IMHO, because the opposition to the Council majority came w too much personal baggage/bias, so it was safer to stay w the status quo. Whatever the reason, the Council majority is still very much in power (pun intended).”
When incumbents are running and there is a $100 limit per person it makes it difficult for anyone to run a good campaign. This limit means that they have to spend the majority of their time raising money.
Add to that camapgin contributions by local firefighters in the tens of thousands as DPD has showed us you then begin to realize the challenge.
I support this measure and I support district elections too. We need some serious overhauls in this city.
No on Charter City – It is too naive to say that, “That opportunity arose in this most recent election cycle and it DID NOT HAPPEN. Why? IMHO, because the opposition to the Council majority came w too much personal baggage/bias, so it was safer to stay w the status quo. Whatever the reason, the Council majority is still very much in power (pun intended).”
When incumbents are running and there is a $100 limit per person it makes it difficult for anyone to run a good campaign. This limit means that they have to spend the majority of their time raising money.
Add to that camapgin contributions by local firefighters in the tens of thousands as DPD has showed us you then begin to realize the challenge.
I support this measure and I support district elections too. We need some serious overhauls in this city.
No on Charter City – It is too naive to say that, “That opportunity arose in this most recent election cycle and it DID NOT HAPPEN. Why? IMHO, because the opposition to the Council majority came w too much personal baggage/bias, so it was safer to stay w the status quo. Whatever the reason, the Council majority is still very much in power (pun intended).”
When incumbents are running and there is a $100 limit per person it makes it difficult for anyone to run a good campaign. This limit means that they have to spend the majority of their time raising money.
Add to that camapgin contributions by local firefighters in the tens of thousands as DPD has showed us you then begin to realize the challenge.
I support this measure and I support district elections too. We need some serious overhauls in this city.
No on Charter City – It is too naive to say that, “That opportunity arose in this most recent election cycle and it DID NOT HAPPEN. Why? IMHO, because the opposition to the Council majority came w too much personal baggage/bias, so it was safer to stay w the status quo. Whatever the reason, the Council majority is still very much in power (pun intended).”
When incumbents are running and there is a $100 limit per person it makes it difficult for anyone to run a good campaign. This limit means that they have to spend the majority of their time raising money.
Add to that camapgin contributions by local firefighters in the tens of thousands as DPD has showed us you then begin to realize the challenge.
I support this measure and I support district elections too. We need some serious overhauls in this city.
Measure N does not establish primacy of the General Plan in zoning. It does not mention the GP. It is so broad and vague, that it could be interpreted in many ways to give much more power to the council majority in establishing or abolishing ordinances.
Measure J requires a vote of the people for any change in a land use designation (not the same as zoning) on the planning map from ag to urban uses. Zoning changes do not require a vote of the people. The council can make 4 amendments per year to the General Plan. The Target proposal did not require a vote, but the council agreed to put it on the ballot instead of having the people do a referendum. A referendum may actually have allowed us to defeat Target, as the signature gathering period would have allowed for education of the voters.
A charter most definitely fundamentally changes how we are governed. Under a charter, we are no longer subject to a host of state laws and regulations that have served us and all other cities in CA well for many years. We would instead be governed at the will of the council in all aspects that deal with municipal issues. Why would a council want to change our mode of government? A charter gives them more power.
The original driving force for this charter was to allow us to enact choice voting. But all mention of choice voting was removed from the charter and the ballot argument. Without the driving force, what is the point of changing how we are governed from an known to an unknown? I am still not sure why the huge push for choice voting either. I used the formulas for counting ballots in a choice voting election form the last 4 council elections. Choice voting would not have had any effect on the outcomes. The same people would have been elected. The only thing choice voting might have done is to require multiple re-counts of the ballots and added days to the counting process.
As has been stated previously on this blog, this is a solution in search of a problem.
Measure N does not establish primacy of the General Plan in zoning. It does not mention the GP. It is so broad and vague, that it could be interpreted in many ways to give much more power to the council majority in establishing or abolishing ordinances.
Measure J requires a vote of the people for any change in a land use designation (not the same as zoning) on the planning map from ag to urban uses. Zoning changes do not require a vote of the people. The council can make 4 amendments per year to the General Plan. The Target proposal did not require a vote, but the council agreed to put it on the ballot instead of having the people do a referendum. A referendum may actually have allowed us to defeat Target, as the signature gathering period would have allowed for education of the voters.
A charter most definitely fundamentally changes how we are governed. Under a charter, we are no longer subject to a host of state laws and regulations that have served us and all other cities in CA well for many years. We would instead be governed at the will of the council in all aspects that deal with municipal issues. Why would a council want to change our mode of government? A charter gives them more power.
The original driving force for this charter was to allow us to enact choice voting. But all mention of choice voting was removed from the charter and the ballot argument. Without the driving force, what is the point of changing how we are governed from an known to an unknown? I am still not sure why the huge push for choice voting either. I used the formulas for counting ballots in a choice voting election form the last 4 council elections. Choice voting would not have had any effect on the outcomes. The same people would have been elected. The only thing choice voting might have done is to require multiple re-counts of the ballots and added days to the counting process.
As has been stated previously on this blog, this is a solution in search of a problem.
Measure N does not establish primacy of the General Plan in zoning. It does not mention the GP. It is so broad and vague, that it could be interpreted in many ways to give much more power to the council majority in establishing or abolishing ordinances.
Measure J requires a vote of the people for any change in a land use designation (not the same as zoning) on the planning map from ag to urban uses. Zoning changes do not require a vote of the people. The council can make 4 amendments per year to the General Plan. The Target proposal did not require a vote, but the council agreed to put it on the ballot instead of having the people do a referendum. A referendum may actually have allowed us to defeat Target, as the signature gathering period would have allowed for education of the voters.
A charter most definitely fundamentally changes how we are governed. Under a charter, we are no longer subject to a host of state laws and regulations that have served us and all other cities in CA well for many years. We would instead be governed at the will of the council in all aspects that deal with municipal issues. Why would a council want to change our mode of government? A charter gives them more power.
The original driving force for this charter was to allow us to enact choice voting. But all mention of choice voting was removed from the charter and the ballot argument. Without the driving force, what is the point of changing how we are governed from an known to an unknown? I am still not sure why the huge push for choice voting either. I used the formulas for counting ballots in a choice voting election form the last 4 council elections. Choice voting would not have had any effect on the outcomes. The same people would have been elected. The only thing choice voting might have done is to require multiple re-counts of the ballots and added days to the counting process.
As has been stated previously on this blog, this is a solution in search of a problem.
Measure N does not establish primacy of the General Plan in zoning. It does not mention the GP. It is so broad and vague, that it could be interpreted in many ways to give much more power to the council majority in establishing or abolishing ordinances.
Measure J requires a vote of the people for any change in a land use designation (not the same as zoning) on the planning map from ag to urban uses. Zoning changes do not require a vote of the people. The council can make 4 amendments per year to the General Plan. The Target proposal did not require a vote, but the council agreed to put it on the ballot instead of having the people do a referendum. A referendum may actually have allowed us to defeat Target, as the signature gathering period would have allowed for education of the voters.
A charter most definitely fundamentally changes how we are governed. Under a charter, we are no longer subject to a host of state laws and regulations that have served us and all other cities in CA well for many years. We would instead be governed at the will of the council in all aspects that deal with municipal issues. Why would a council want to change our mode of government? A charter gives them more power.
The original driving force for this charter was to allow us to enact choice voting. But all mention of choice voting was removed from the charter and the ballot argument. Without the driving force, what is the point of changing how we are governed from an known to an unknown? I am still not sure why the huge push for choice voting either. I used the formulas for counting ballots in a choice voting election form the last 4 council elections. Choice voting would not have had any effect on the outcomes. The same people would have been elected. The only thing choice voting might have done is to require multiple re-counts of the ballots and added days to the counting process.
As has been stated previously on this blog, this is a solution in search of a problem.
DPD:
No, they could not under our current mode of government. Under current state law, a general law city cannot levie a real estate transfer tax. It can under a charter. There are many other differences too. Please go on line and look at them.
DPD:
No, they could not under our current mode of government. Under current state law, a general law city cannot levie a real estate transfer tax. It can under a charter. There are many other differences too. Please go on line and look at them.
DPD:
No, they could not under our current mode of government. Under current state law, a general law city cannot levie a real estate transfer tax. It can under a charter. There are many other differences too. Please go on line and look at them.
DPD:
No, they could not under our current mode of government. Under current state law, a general law city cannot levie a real estate transfer tax. It can under a charter. There are many other differences too. Please go on line and look at them.
Lamar:
Thank you for having the courage to speak up and support Choice Voting by supporting a Charter City.
Don’t worry about the less than ethical people who have attempted to slander your name and call themselves, “former Lamar supporters.” I am sure they never were your supporters and are just being pathetic whiners themselves instead of asking good questions.
Choic voting is a good thing and if we need to become a Charter City to get there then thank you for having the courage to speak up.
As far as I and others are concerned you are the only one with a brain on that council.
Lamar:
Thank you for having the courage to speak up and support Choice Voting by supporting a Charter City.
Don’t worry about the less than ethical people who have attempted to slander your name and call themselves, “former Lamar supporters.” I am sure they never were your supporters and are just being pathetic whiners themselves instead of asking good questions.
Choic voting is a good thing and if we need to become a Charter City to get there then thank you for having the courage to speak up.
As far as I and others are concerned you are the only one with a brain on that council.
Lamar:
Thank you for having the courage to speak up and support Choice Voting by supporting a Charter City.
Don’t worry about the less than ethical people who have attempted to slander your name and call themselves, “former Lamar supporters.” I am sure they never were your supporters and are just being pathetic whiners themselves instead of asking good questions.
Choic voting is a good thing and if we need to become a Charter City to get there then thank you for having the courage to speak up.
As far as I and others are concerned you are the only one with a brain on that council.
Lamar:
Thank you for having the courage to speak up and support Choice Voting by supporting a Charter City.
Don’t worry about the less than ethical people who have attempted to slander your name and call themselves, “former Lamar supporters.” I am sure they never were your supporters and are just being pathetic whiners themselves instead of asking good questions.
Choic voting is a good thing and if we need to become a Charter City to get there then thank you for having the courage to speak up.
As far as I and others are concerned you are the only one with a brain on that council.
Sue:
You complain incessantly when you are citisized on this blog, but you are not above leveling attacks on Mike and others. I, for one, would definitely follow Mike’s lead in just about anything. And, I take exception with your statement that he was irresponsible in his last election bid, setting up the current situation with the progressives in the minority.
One of the biggest road-blocks to the progressives getting a majority on the council is the great divide among the progressives here in Davis, and you are a major reason for that divide. You have publically put down every progressive running for council since you became politically active here, unlness it was someone you hand-picked. As long as this sort of devisive behavior continues, and I blame both “sides” of the progressive establishment here, then we will never re-claim a council majority.
Until the progressives here can put aside their petty personal differences and hold their noses and work together (as you will note is done successfully by the “other side”), we will never regain the council and we will continue to be laughing stocks to the establishment and the majority of people here in Davis. We continually defeat ourselves.
1:28:
That’s correct they cannot pass a real estate transfer tax under general law status, but there are many other taxes they can pass right now. Real estate transfer is only one of many taxes that are possible. The most insidious things are fees that do not require votes. Not to mention ratehikes for water. Again, not requiring a vote. The voters could actually pass more protection under the charter than they have now. You are focusing way too narrowly by looking at a single tax as a threat. There are many threats before you right now that you are powerless under the current system to prevent.
Sue:
You complain incessantly when you are citisized on this blog, but you are not above leveling attacks on Mike and others. I, for one, would definitely follow Mike’s lead in just about anything. And, I take exception with your statement that he was irresponsible in his last election bid, setting up the current situation with the progressives in the minority.
One of the biggest road-blocks to the progressives getting a majority on the council is the great divide among the progressives here in Davis, and you are a major reason for that divide. You have publically put down every progressive running for council since you became politically active here, unlness it was someone you hand-picked. As long as this sort of devisive behavior continues, and I blame both “sides” of the progressive establishment here, then we will never re-claim a council majority.
Until the progressives here can put aside their petty personal differences and hold their noses and work together (as you will note is done successfully by the “other side”), we will never regain the council and we will continue to be laughing stocks to the establishment and the majority of people here in Davis. We continually defeat ourselves.
1:28:
That’s correct they cannot pass a real estate transfer tax under general law status, but there are many other taxes they can pass right now. Real estate transfer is only one of many taxes that are possible. The most insidious things are fees that do not require votes. Not to mention ratehikes for water. Again, not requiring a vote. The voters could actually pass more protection under the charter than they have now. You are focusing way too narrowly by looking at a single tax as a threat. There are many threats before you right now that you are powerless under the current system to prevent.
Sue:
You complain incessantly when you are citisized on this blog, but you are not above leveling attacks on Mike and others. I, for one, would definitely follow Mike’s lead in just about anything. And, I take exception with your statement that he was irresponsible in his last election bid, setting up the current situation with the progressives in the minority.
One of the biggest road-blocks to the progressives getting a majority on the council is the great divide among the progressives here in Davis, and you are a major reason for that divide. You have publically put down every progressive running for council since you became politically active here, unlness it was someone you hand-picked. As long as this sort of devisive behavior continues, and I blame both “sides” of the progressive establishment here, then we will never re-claim a council majority.
Until the progressives here can put aside their petty personal differences and hold their noses and work together (as you will note is done successfully by the “other side”), we will never regain the council and we will continue to be laughing stocks to the establishment and the majority of people here in Davis. We continually defeat ourselves.
1:28:
That’s correct they cannot pass a real estate transfer tax under general law status, but there are many other taxes they can pass right now. Real estate transfer is only one of many taxes that are possible. The most insidious things are fees that do not require votes. Not to mention ratehikes for water. Again, not requiring a vote. The voters could actually pass more protection under the charter than they have now. You are focusing way too narrowly by looking at a single tax as a threat. There are many threats before you right now that you are powerless under the current system to prevent.
Sue:
You complain incessantly when you are citisized on this blog, but you are not above leveling attacks on Mike and others. I, for one, would definitely follow Mike’s lead in just about anything. And, I take exception with your statement that he was irresponsible in his last election bid, setting up the current situation with the progressives in the minority.
One of the biggest road-blocks to the progressives getting a majority on the council is the great divide among the progressives here in Davis, and you are a major reason for that divide. You have publically put down every progressive running for council since you became politically active here, unlness it was someone you hand-picked. As long as this sort of devisive behavior continues, and I blame both “sides” of the progressive establishment here, then we will never re-claim a council majority.
Until the progressives here can put aside their petty personal differences and hold their noses and work together (as you will note is done successfully by the “other side”), we will never regain the council and we will continue to be laughing stocks to the establishment and the majority of people here in Davis. We continually defeat ourselves.
1:28:
That’s correct they cannot pass a real estate transfer tax under general law status, but there are many other taxes they can pass right now. Real estate transfer is only one of many taxes that are possible. The most insidious things are fees that do not require votes. Not to mention ratehikes for water. Again, not requiring a vote. The voters could actually pass more protection under the charter than they have now. You are focusing way too narrowly by looking at a single tax as a threat. There are many threats before you right now that you are powerless under the current system to prevent.
1:39:
Sue Greenwald normally posts under her full name, please do not assume that the individual posting under “Sue” is in fact the councilmember.
1:39:
Sue Greenwald normally posts under her full name, please do not assume that the individual posting under “Sue” is in fact the councilmember.
1:39:
Sue Greenwald normally posts under her full name, please do not assume that the individual posting under “Sue” is in fact the councilmember.
1:39:
Sue Greenwald normally posts under her full name, please do not assume that the individual posting under “Sue” is in fact the councilmember.
I would like to have someone explain exactly how choice voting is such a good thing. As I said earlier, I used the choice voting formulas on the last four council elections, and choice voting did not change the outcomes. Please, someone, take the time to explain clearly and concisely, how choice voting works with multiple seats in a non-partisan race and how it could be an advantage to the progressives in Davis.
I would like to have someone explain exactly how choice voting is such a good thing. As I said earlier, I used the choice voting formulas on the last four council elections, and choice voting did not change the outcomes. Please, someone, take the time to explain clearly and concisely, how choice voting works with multiple seats in a non-partisan race and how it could be an advantage to the progressives in Davis.
I would like to have someone explain exactly how choice voting is such a good thing. As I said earlier, I used the choice voting formulas on the last four council elections, and choice voting did not change the outcomes. Please, someone, take the time to explain clearly and concisely, how choice voting works with multiple seats in a non-partisan race and how it could be an advantage to the progressives in Davis.
I would like to have someone explain exactly how choice voting is such a good thing. As I said earlier, I used the choice voting formulas on the last four council elections, and choice voting did not change the outcomes. Please, someone, take the time to explain clearly and concisely, how choice voting works with multiple seats in a non-partisan race and how it could be an advantage to the progressives in Davis.
People who say the results of city elections held under the current system would have been the same under choice voting obviously don’t even understand choice voting to begin with. How do you know how individual voters would have ranked the candidates? I am less leery of politicians who aren’t afraid to change the way elections are run if they’ve obviously been successful under the current system (Greenwald three times, Souza twice, Heystek once). I’m more suspicious of politicians who don’t see a need for electoral reform, e.g. Saylor.
People who say the results of city elections held under the current system would have been the same under choice voting obviously don’t even understand choice voting to begin with. How do you know how individual voters would have ranked the candidates? I am less leery of politicians who aren’t afraid to change the way elections are run if they’ve obviously been successful under the current system (Greenwald three times, Souza twice, Heystek once). I’m more suspicious of politicians who don’t see a need for electoral reform, e.g. Saylor.
People who say the results of city elections held under the current system would have been the same under choice voting obviously don’t even understand choice voting to begin with. How do you know how individual voters would have ranked the candidates? I am less leery of politicians who aren’t afraid to change the way elections are run if they’ve obviously been successful under the current system (Greenwald three times, Souza twice, Heystek once). I’m more suspicious of politicians who don’t see a need for electoral reform, e.g. Saylor.
People who say the results of city elections held under the current system would have been the same under choice voting obviously don’t even understand choice voting to begin with. How do you know how individual voters would have ranked the candidates? I am less leery of politicians who aren’t afraid to change the way elections are run if they’ve obviously been successful under the current system (Greenwald three times, Souza twice, Heystek once). I’m more suspicious of politicians who don’t see a need for electoral reform, e.g. Saylor.
On choice voting:
An example from 2006. I know a lot of people who voted for Lamar Heystek and Stan Forbes. Some of those people who voted for Stan, actually preferred Rob Roy. But they knew Rob could not win and preferred Stan to Levy or Asmundson. So they voted for Stan and Rob lost votes out of the electoral calculation. Under choice voting you could rank your true preferences without having to vote strategically. So you could have voted Lamar (1), Roy (2), Forbes (3). The way it would then work, is that the lowest vote getter would drop off in the second round and the third choices would be tabulated. And so on, until you find the top two vote getters.
On choice voting:
An example from 2006. I know a lot of people who voted for Lamar Heystek and Stan Forbes. Some of those people who voted for Stan, actually preferred Rob Roy. But they knew Rob could not win and preferred Stan to Levy or Asmundson. So they voted for Stan and Rob lost votes out of the electoral calculation. Under choice voting you could rank your true preferences without having to vote strategically. So you could have voted Lamar (1), Roy (2), Forbes (3). The way it would then work, is that the lowest vote getter would drop off in the second round and the third choices would be tabulated. And so on, until you find the top two vote getters.
On choice voting:
An example from 2006. I know a lot of people who voted for Lamar Heystek and Stan Forbes. Some of those people who voted for Stan, actually preferred Rob Roy. But they knew Rob could not win and preferred Stan to Levy or Asmundson. So they voted for Stan and Rob lost votes out of the electoral calculation. Under choice voting you could rank your true preferences without having to vote strategically. So you could have voted Lamar (1), Roy (2), Forbes (3). The way it would then work, is that the lowest vote getter would drop off in the second round and the third choices would be tabulated. And so on, until you find the top two vote getters.
On choice voting:
An example from 2006. I know a lot of people who voted for Lamar Heystek and Stan Forbes. Some of those people who voted for Stan, actually preferred Rob Roy. But they knew Rob could not win and preferred Stan to Levy or Asmundson. So they voted for Stan and Rob lost votes out of the electoral calculation. Under choice voting you could rank your true preferences without having to vote strategically. So you could have voted Lamar (1), Roy (2), Forbes (3). The way it would then work, is that the lowest vote getter would drop off in the second round and the third choices would be tabulated. And so on, until you find the top two vote getters.
Okay. San Francisco is a Charter City and look at it. Run-away growth, terrible traffic congestion, unaffordable housing for anyone in the middle classes, parks in disrepair and left to neighborhood groups to wrest back from junkies and drug dealers, terrible homeless population, many, many other ills, and even though the people complain, they are powerless to change anything.
Oakland is another charter city. Anyone argue there are not problems there?
Okay. San Francisco is a Charter City and look at it. Run-away growth, terrible traffic congestion, unaffordable housing for anyone in the middle classes, parks in disrepair and left to neighborhood groups to wrest back from junkies and drug dealers, terrible homeless population, many, many other ills, and even though the people complain, they are powerless to change anything.
Oakland is another charter city. Anyone argue there are not problems there?
Okay. San Francisco is a Charter City and look at it. Run-away growth, terrible traffic congestion, unaffordable housing for anyone in the middle classes, parks in disrepair and left to neighborhood groups to wrest back from junkies and drug dealers, terrible homeless population, many, many other ills, and even though the people complain, they are powerless to change anything.
Oakland is another charter city. Anyone argue there are not problems there?
Okay. San Francisco is a Charter City and look at it. Run-away growth, terrible traffic congestion, unaffordable housing for anyone in the middle classes, parks in disrepair and left to neighborhood groups to wrest back from junkies and drug dealers, terrible homeless population, many, many other ills, and even though the people complain, they are powerless to change anything.
Oakland is another charter city. Anyone argue there are not problems there?
Wow.
Vote for Measure N, and Davis turns into a city ridden with drugs, junkies and homeless people.
Wow.
Wow.
Vote for Measure N, and Davis turns into a city ridden with drugs, junkies and homeless people.
Wow.
Wow.
Vote for Measure N, and Davis turns into a city ridden with drugs, junkies and homeless people.
Wow.
Wow.
Vote for Measure N, and Davis turns into a city ridden with drugs, junkies and homeless people.
Wow.
good choice voting explanation, dpd.
good choice voting explanation, dpd.
good choice voting explanation, dpd.
good choice voting explanation, dpd.
Can a voter majority,by a citizen-launched initiative,legally change Davis to a charter city and simultaneously, in the same initiative, approve choice-voting for our Council reps(and mayor)??
Can a voter majority,by a citizen-launched initiative,legally change Davis to a charter city and simultaneously, in the same initiative, approve choice-voting for our Council reps(and mayor)??
Can a voter majority,by a citizen-launched initiative,legally change Davis to a charter city and simultaneously, in the same initiative, approve choice-voting for our Council reps(and mayor)??
Can a voter majority,by a citizen-launched initiative,legally change Davis to a charter city and simultaneously, in the same initiative, approve choice-voting for our Council reps(and mayor)??
Point of information:
As a general law city, Davis already levies a documentary (real estate) transfer tax. Charter city status would allow the city to levy a *higher* real estate transfer tax — but that could only happen if the charter were amended to allow the tax. The charter can only be amended by a vote of the people.
There are existing taxes that can be levied more easily without going to a charter. Also, people are ignoring that many rates and charges are more problematic than taxes because they can be raised without a public vote. The charter can be a platform for curbing these charges.
Point of information:
As a general law city, Davis already levies a documentary (real estate) transfer tax. Charter city status would allow the city to levy a *higher* real estate transfer tax — but that could only happen if the charter were amended to allow the tax. The charter can only be amended by a vote of the people.
There are existing taxes that can be levied more easily without going to a charter. Also, people are ignoring that many rates and charges are more problematic than taxes because they can be raised without a public vote. The charter can be a platform for curbing these charges.
Point of information:
As a general law city, Davis already levies a documentary (real estate) transfer tax. Charter city status would allow the city to levy a *higher* real estate transfer tax — but that could only happen if the charter were amended to allow the tax. The charter can only be amended by a vote of the people.
There are existing taxes that can be levied more easily without going to a charter. Also, people are ignoring that many rates and charges are more problematic than taxes because they can be raised without a public vote. The charter can be a platform for curbing these charges.
Point of information:
As a general law city, Davis already levies a documentary (real estate) transfer tax. Charter city status would allow the city to levy a *higher* real estate transfer tax — but that could only happen if the charter were amended to allow the tax. The charter can only be amended by a vote of the people.
There are existing taxes that can be levied more easily without going to a charter. Also, people are ignoring that many rates and charges are more problematic than taxes because they can be raised without a public vote. The charter can be a platform for curbing these charges.
DPD:
Thanks for the explanation of choice voting. I know I voted for Lamar and Stan. I would also have voted for Rob if we had been ranking. But, under the formula set up for choice voting, you first determine the number of votes necessary to win. That formula is X equals 1 vote + total votes divided by (total seats open +1). So, if there were 1000 total votes and three seats open, the number of votes needed in that election to be an automatic winner is 251. When I applied this to the last four elections, using the total number of votes cast in each election, and the total cast for each candidate– granted I do not know how people would have ranked, but they would most likely have voted for their favorite 2 first and second and then ranked the rest or just one of those–in those elections, all of the top vote-getters received far more votes than required to win, so they would automatically have been elected without going through the rest of the process. Did I mis-read something? According to what I found on-line, it is not necessary to go through the process of allocating excess votes to the next ranked candidate or dropping the loser and re-allocating those votes, if there are clear winners (more than the number of votes needed to win) right at the beginning. Is this not right?
DPD:
Thanks for the explanation of choice voting. I know I voted for Lamar and Stan. I would also have voted for Rob if we had been ranking. But, under the formula set up for choice voting, you first determine the number of votes necessary to win. That formula is X equals 1 vote + total votes divided by (total seats open +1). So, if there were 1000 total votes and three seats open, the number of votes needed in that election to be an automatic winner is 251. When I applied this to the last four elections, using the total number of votes cast in each election, and the total cast for each candidate– granted I do not know how people would have ranked, but they would most likely have voted for their favorite 2 first and second and then ranked the rest or just one of those–in those elections, all of the top vote-getters received far more votes than required to win, so they would automatically have been elected without going through the rest of the process. Did I mis-read something? According to what I found on-line, it is not necessary to go through the process of allocating excess votes to the next ranked candidate or dropping the loser and re-allocating those votes, if there are clear winners (more than the number of votes needed to win) right at the beginning. Is this not right?
DPD:
Thanks for the explanation of choice voting. I know I voted for Lamar and Stan. I would also have voted for Rob if we had been ranking. But, under the formula set up for choice voting, you first determine the number of votes necessary to win. That formula is X equals 1 vote + total votes divided by (total seats open +1). So, if there were 1000 total votes and three seats open, the number of votes needed in that election to be an automatic winner is 251. When I applied this to the last four elections, using the total number of votes cast in each election, and the total cast for each candidate– granted I do not know how people would have ranked, but they would most likely have voted for their favorite 2 first and second and then ranked the rest or just one of those–in those elections, all of the top vote-getters received far more votes than required to win, so they would automatically have been elected without going through the rest of the process. Did I mis-read something? According to what I found on-line, it is not necessary to go through the process of allocating excess votes to the next ranked candidate or dropping the loser and re-allocating those votes, if there are clear winners (more than the number of votes needed to win) right at the beginning. Is this not right?
DPD:
Thanks for the explanation of choice voting. I know I voted for Lamar and Stan. I would also have voted for Rob if we had been ranking. But, under the formula set up for choice voting, you first determine the number of votes necessary to win. That formula is X equals 1 vote + total votes divided by (total seats open +1). So, if there were 1000 total votes and three seats open, the number of votes needed in that election to be an automatic winner is 251. When I applied this to the last four elections, using the total number of votes cast in each election, and the total cast for each candidate– granted I do not know how people would have ranked, but they would most likely have voted for their favorite 2 first and second and then ranked the rest or just one of those–in those elections, all of the top vote-getters received far more votes than required to win, so they would automatically have been elected without going through the rest of the process. Did I mis-read something? According to what I found on-line, it is not necessary to go through the process of allocating excess votes to the next ranked candidate or dropping the loser and re-allocating those votes, if there are clear winners (more than the number of votes needed to win) right at the beginning. Is this not right?
Anonymous 1:55. I was not implying that those things would happen in Davis if we became a charter city. Sue asked us to check out other charter cities and see if the sky has fallen in their neck of the woods. I pointed out two that I am immediately aware of where the people sure as heck are not happy with a lot of the problems, yet even with a charter cannot change things, and I believe that is at least partly because of political will or lack thereof, on the part of the electeds. So, charters are not the ultimate answer, and I still believe that they do not give the power to the people, but to the electeds.
Anonymous 1:55. I was not implying that those things would happen in Davis if we became a charter city. Sue asked us to check out other charter cities and see if the sky has fallen in their neck of the woods. I pointed out two that I am immediately aware of where the people sure as heck are not happy with a lot of the problems, yet even with a charter cannot change things, and I believe that is at least partly because of political will or lack thereof, on the part of the electeds. So, charters are not the ultimate answer, and I still believe that they do not give the power to the people, but to the electeds.
Anonymous 1:55. I was not implying that those things would happen in Davis if we became a charter city. Sue asked us to check out other charter cities and see if the sky has fallen in their neck of the woods. I pointed out two that I am immediately aware of where the people sure as heck are not happy with a lot of the problems, yet even with a charter cannot change things, and I believe that is at least partly because of political will or lack thereof, on the part of the electeds. So, charters are not the ultimate answer, and I still believe that they do not give the power to the people, but to the electeds.
Anonymous 1:55. I was not implying that those things would happen in Davis if we became a charter city. Sue asked us to check out other charter cities and see if the sky has fallen in their neck of the woods. I pointed out two that I am immediately aware of where the people sure as heck are not happy with a lot of the problems, yet even with a charter cannot change things, and I believe that is at least partly because of political will or lack thereof, on the part of the electeds. So, charters are not the ultimate answer, and I still believe that they do not give the power to the people, but to the electeds.
“Can a voter majority,by a citizen-launched initiative,legally change Davis to a charter city and simultaneously, in the same initiative, approve choice-voting for our Council reps(and mayor)?? “
Yes, the council intentionally chose to separate the issues because they were able to get Ruth to support the charter, which she would not have had they included choice voting.
“Can a voter majority,by a citizen-launched initiative,legally change Davis to a charter city and simultaneously, in the same initiative, approve choice-voting for our Council reps(and mayor)?? “
Yes, the council intentionally chose to separate the issues because they were able to get Ruth to support the charter, which she would not have had they included choice voting.
“Can a voter majority,by a citizen-launched initiative,legally change Davis to a charter city and simultaneously, in the same initiative, approve choice-voting for our Council reps(and mayor)?? “
Yes, the council intentionally chose to separate the issues because they were able to get Ruth to support the charter, which she would not have had they included choice voting.
“Can a voter majority,by a citizen-launched initiative,legally change Davis to a charter city and simultaneously, in the same initiative, approve choice-voting for our Council reps(and mayor)?? “
Yes, the council intentionally chose to separate the issues because they were able to get Ruth to support the charter, which she would not have had they included choice voting.
Anonymous said…
Okay. San Francisco is a Charter City and look at it. Run-away growth, terrible traffic congestion, unaffordable housing for anyone in the middle classes, parks in disrepair and left to neighborhood groups to wrest back from junkies and drug dealers, terrible homeless population, many, many other ills, and even though the people complain, they are powerless to change anything.
Oakland is another charter city. Anyone argue there are not problems there?
8/25/08 1:53 PM
If someone agreed to finance my life, and allow me to live anywhere, I’d live in either SF or Oakland, not Davis. A lot of other people would, too. The idea of comparing Davis to two large urban cities is rather odd, but it does tend to confirm my belief that Davis has a disproportionate number of people who fear urban settings and the possibility that they will come into contact with people different than them.
–Richard Estes
Anonymous said…
Okay. San Francisco is a Charter City and look at it. Run-away growth, terrible traffic congestion, unaffordable housing for anyone in the middle classes, parks in disrepair and left to neighborhood groups to wrest back from junkies and drug dealers, terrible homeless population, many, many other ills, and even though the people complain, they are powerless to change anything.
Oakland is another charter city. Anyone argue there are not problems there?
8/25/08 1:53 PM
If someone agreed to finance my life, and allow me to live anywhere, I’d live in either SF or Oakland, not Davis. A lot of other people would, too. The idea of comparing Davis to two large urban cities is rather odd, but it does tend to confirm my belief that Davis has a disproportionate number of people who fear urban settings and the possibility that they will come into contact with people different than them.
–Richard Estes
Anonymous said…
Okay. San Francisco is a Charter City and look at it. Run-away growth, terrible traffic congestion, unaffordable housing for anyone in the middle classes, parks in disrepair and left to neighborhood groups to wrest back from junkies and drug dealers, terrible homeless population, many, many other ills, and even though the people complain, they are powerless to change anything.
Oakland is another charter city. Anyone argue there are not problems there?
8/25/08 1:53 PM
If someone agreed to finance my life, and allow me to live anywhere, I’d live in either SF or Oakland, not Davis. A lot of other people would, too. The idea of comparing Davis to two large urban cities is rather odd, but it does tend to confirm my belief that Davis has a disproportionate number of people who fear urban settings and the possibility that they will come into contact with people different than them.
–Richard Estes
Anonymous said…
Okay. San Francisco is a Charter City and look at it. Run-away growth, terrible traffic congestion, unaffordable housing for anyone in the middle classes, parks in disrepair and left to neighborhood groups to wrest back from junkies and drug dealers, terrible homeless population, many, many other ills, and even though the people complain, they are powerless to change anything.
Oakland is another charter city. Anyone argue there are not problems there?
8/25/08 1:53 PM
If someone agreed to finance my life, and allow me to live anywhere, I’d live in either SF or Oakland, not Davis. A lot of other people would, too. The idea of comparing Davis to two large urban cities is rather odd, but it does tend to confirm my belief that Davis has a disproportionate number of people who fear urban settings and the possibility that they will come into contact with people different than them.
–Richard Estes
Annonymous 1:39 – I hope you didn’t think that by signing my name Sue that I was Sue Greenwald. I’m not. I’ll pick an alias so people don’t confuse me with Sue Greenwald.
Annonymous 1:39 – I hope you didn’t think that by signing my name Sue that I was Sue Greenwald. I’m not. I’ll pick an alias so people don’t confuse me with Sue Greenwald.
Annonymous 1:39 – I hope you didn’t think that by signing my name Sue that I was Sue Greenwald. I’m not. I’ll pick an alias so people don’t confuse me with Sue Greenwald.
Annonymous 1:39 – I hope you didn’t think that by signing my name Sue that I was Sue Greenwald. I’m not. I’ll pick an alias so people don’t confuse me with Sue Greenwald.
I went to a public meeting of the subcommittee of Lamar and Steve.
The original idea was for the Charter City proposal to be limited to allowing choice voting. (I might have supported it with that specific, and strict, limitation.)
However, somehow it morphed into this broad charter that includes the kitchen sink.
I was a huge supporter of the Choice Voting Measure, and the campaign was mostly run out of my facility on D Street.
I told the choice voting proponents who were willing to go with charter city just to get the choice voting that they were being manipulated by some whose long time interest is to expand the powers of the City Council.
(There was a city governance task force years ago; read their report.)
I have no doubt, NONE, that instituting charter city as it is drafted will fundamentally change city governance in ways that are completely foreseeable (ie, the power to use a 3/2 vote to trump the zong in the General Plan), to many ways that will cause many of you supporters to look back and say “OMG, why did we do that??”
Other than choice voting, there is absolutely NO reason to go with Charter City. And choice voting, as desireable as it is, in my view is not nearly enough gain to overcome the huge, and unpredictable, changes to our little city government.
I dont view the contest over Chater City as an “us v. them” issue. I totally support Don Saylor’s conservative vote in favor of maintaining status quo in these uncertain times. Don votes as he sees the merits of issues, from his perspective.
Those of you who call Lamar a traitor, or worse, for his support of charter city are … disappointing.
Lamar has gotten nearly EVERY single vote right since he was elected (right, as meaning conforming to my views).
Here, I think Lamar means well, but I think the charter city proposal was not well thought out as it wended its way through changes from staff, and on the final vote, the substantive change of dropping choice voting was made, and at that point, the City Council should have stepped back, and tabled it til the fall-winter season so everyone can have another look at it, and maybe put something on a 2009 ballot.
Now, Ruth’s concerns about choice voting are valid. There simply has not been enough research or public outreach done, yet, for choice voting to be adopted this fall. The other 3 CC members (Lamar, Sue and Steve) should have listened to her, tabled the Charter City, and sent the choice voting issue back for more study and outreach.
Lamar deserves respect and support, even when he makes the occasional mistake.
I like trying new things, but here, in these troublesome times, with a ballot proposal that was rushed to the final night then changed again, I think it would be safest to just vote NO on Charter City. No one has shown me there is a problem that needs fixing.
I went to a public meeting of the subcommittee of Lamar and Steve.
The original idea was for the Charter City proposal to be limited to allowing choice voting. (I might have supported it with that specific, and strict, limitation.)
However, somehow it morphed into this broad charter that includes the kitchen sink.
I was a huge supporter of the Choice Voting Measure, and the campaign was mostly run out of my facility on D Street.
I told the choice voting proponents who were willing to go with charter city just to get the choice voting that they were being manipulated by some whose long time interest is to expand the powers of the City Council.
(There was a city governance task force years ago; read their report.)
I have no doubt, NONE, that instituting charter city as it is drafted will fundamentally change city governance in ways that are completely foreseeable (ie, the power to use a 3/2 vote to trump the zong in the General Plan), to many ways that will cause many of you supporters to look back and say “OMG, why did we do that??”
Other than choice voting, there is absolutely NO reason to go with Charter City. And choice voting, as desireable as it is, in my view is not nearly enough gain to overcome the huge, and unpredictable, changes to our little city government.
I dont view the contest over Chater City as an “us v. them” issue. I totally support Don Saylor’s conservative vote in favor of maintaining status quo in these uncertain times. Don votes as he sees the merits of issues, from his perspective.
Those of you who call Lamar a traitor, or worse, for his support of charter city are … disappointing.
Lamar has gotten nearly EVERY single vote right since he was elected (right, as meaning conforming to my views).
Here, I think Lamar means well, but I think the charter city proposal was not well thought out as it wended its way through changes from staff, and on the final vote, the substantive change of dropping choice voting was made, and at that point, the City Council should have stepped back, and tabled it til the fall-winter season so everyone can have another look at it, and maybe put something on a 2009 ballot.
Now, Ruth’s concerns about choice voting are valid. There simply has not been enough research or public outreach done, yet, for choice voting to be adopted this fall. The other 3 CC members (Lamar, Sue and Steve) should have listened to her, tabled the Charter City, and sent the choice voting issue back for more study and outreach.
Lamar deserves respect and support, even when he makes the occasional mistake.
I like trying new things, but here, in these troublesome times, with a ballot proposal that was rushed to the final night then changed again, I think it would be safest to just vote NO on Charter City. No one has shown me there is a problem that needs fixing.
I went to a public meeting of the subcommittee of Lamar and Steve.
The original idea was for the Charter City proposal to be limited to allowing choice voting. (I might have supported it with that specific, and strict, limitation.)
However, somehow it morphed into this broad charter that includes the kitchen sink.
I was a huge supporter of the Choice Voting Measure, and the campaign was mostly run out of my facility on D Street.
I told the choice voting proponents who were willing to go with charter city just to get the choice voting that they were being manipulated by some whose long time interest is to expand the powers of the City Council.
(There was a city governance task force years ago; read their report.)
I have no doubt, NONE, that instituting charter city as it is drafted will fundamentally change city governance in ways that are completely foreseeable (ie, the power to use a 3/2 vote to trump the zong in the General Plan), to many ways that will cause many of you supporters to look back and say “OMG, why did we do that??”
Other than choice voting, there is absolutely NO reason to go with Charter City. And choice voting, as desireable as it is, in my view is not nearly enough gain to overcome the huge, and unpredictable, changes to our little city government.
I dont view the contest over Chater City as an “us v. them” issue. I totally support Don Saylor’s conservative vote in favor of maintaining status quo in these uncertain times. Don votes as he sees the merits of issues, from his perspective.
Those of you who call Lamar a traitor, or worse, for his support of charter city are … disappointing.
Lamar has gotten nearly EVERY single vote right since he was elected (right, as meaning conforming to my views).
Here, I think Lamar means well, but I think the charter city proposal was not well thought out as it wended its way through changes from staff, and on the final vote, the substantive change of dropping choice voting was made, and at that point, the City Council should have stepped back, and tabled it til the fall-winter season so everyone can have another look at it, and maybe put something on a 2009 ballot.
Now, Ruth’s concerns about choice voting are valid. There simply has not been enough research or public outreach done, yet, for choice voting to be adopted this fall. The other 3 CC members (Lamar, Sue and Steve) should have listened to her, tabled the Charter City, and sent the choice voting issue back for more study and outreach.
Lamar deserves respect and support, even when he makes the occasional mistake.
I like trying new things, but here, in these troublesome times, with a ballot proposal that was rushed to the final night then changed again, I think it would be safest to just vote NO on Charter City. No one has shown me there is a problem that needs fixing.
I went to a public meeting of the subcommittee of Lamar and Steve.
The original idea was for the Charter City proposal to be limited to allowing choice voting. (I might have supported it with that specific, and strict, limitation.)
However, somehow it morphed into this broad charter that includes the kitchen sink.
I was a huge supporter of the Choice Voting Measure, and the campaign was mostly run out of my facility on D Street.
I told the choice voting proponents who were willing to go with charter city just to get the choice voting that they were being manipulated by some whose long time interest is to expand the powers of the City Council.
(There was a city governance task force years ago; read their report.)
I have no doubt, NONE, that instituting charter city as it is drafted will fundamentally change city governance in ways that are completely foreseeable (ie, the power to use a 3/2 vote to trump the zong in the General Plan), to many ways that will cause many of you supporters to look back and say “OMG, why did we do that??”
Other than choice voting, there is absolutely NO reason to go with Charter City. And choice voting, as desireable as it is, in my view is not nearly enough gain to overcome the huge, and unpredictable, changes to our little city government.
I dont view the contest over Chater City as an “us v. them” issue. I totally support Don Saylor’s conservative vote in favor of maintaining status quo in these uncertain times. Don votes as he sees the merits of issues, from his perspective.
Those of you who call Lamar a traitor, or worse, for his support of charter city are … disappointing.
Lamar has gotten nearly EVERY single vote right since he was elected (right, as meaning conforming to my views).
Here, I think Lamar means well, but I think the charter city proposal was not well thought out as it wended its way through changes from staff, and on the final vote, the substantive change of dropping choice voting was made, and at that point, the City Council should have stepped back, and tabled it til the fall-winter season so everyone can have another look at it, and maybe put something on a 2009 ballot.
Now, Ruth’s concerns about choice voting are valid. There simply has not been enough research or public outreach done, yet, for choice voting to be adopted this fall. The other 3 CC members (Lamar, Sue and Steve) should have listened to her, tabled the Charter City, and sent the choice voting issue back for more study and outreach.
Lamar deserves respect and support, even when he makes the occasional mistake.
I like trying new things, but here, in these troublesome times, with a ballot proposal that was rushed to the final night then changed again, I think it would be safest to just vote NO on Charter City. No one has shown me there is a problem that needs fixing.
Mike, maybe there IS no problem that needs fixing. Perhaps we could just do better. There were people who thought that having the usual way of doing land planning was working and there was no need for Measure J. When did you get old and conservative?
Mike, maybe there IS no problem that needs fixing. Perhaps we could just do better. There were people who thought that having the usual way of doing land planning was working and there was no need for Measure J. When did you get old and conservative?
Mike, maybe there IS no problem that needs fixing. Perhaps we could just do better. There were people who thought that having the usual way of doing land planning was working and there was no need for Measure J. When did you get old and conservative?
Mike, maybe there IS no problem that needs fixing. Perhaps we could just do better. There were people who thought that having the usual way of doing land planning was working and there was no need for Measure J. When did you get old and conservative?
the possibility of district elections alone are enough to sell me on a charter.
the possibility of district elections alone are enough to sell me on a charter.
the possibility of district elections alone are enough to sell me on a charter.
the possibility of district elections alone are enough to sell me on a charter.
Wu ming,
I disagree with District Elections for Davis, at this population level. Districts Balkanize cities, and the CC members focus on their little piece of geography, not the entire city. To win a general election in Davis, you have to know a lot about each precinct and what is important to that particular neighborhood. It makes for having five very responsive CC members as they attend meetings all over the city, issue by issue.
I know that it is expensive to run city-wide, but that is preferable to narrowing each CC member’s scope to a small part of an already small city.
(But you know, there is a certain appeal to just having to run in a downtown district, where I have lived and worked since 1995.)
Wu ming,
I disagree with District Elections for Davis, at this population level. Districts Balkanize cities, and the CC members focus on their little piece of geography, not the entire city. To win a general election in Davis, you have to know a lot about each precinct and what is important to that particular neighborhood. It makes for having five very responsive CC members as they attend meetings all over the city, issue by issue.
I know that it is expensive to run city-wide, but that is preferable to narrowing each CC member’s scope to a small part of an already small city.
(But you know, there is a certain appeal to just having to run in a downtown district, where I have lived and worked since 1995.)
Wu ming,
I disagree with District Elections for Davis, at this population level. Districts Balkanize cities, and the CC members focus on their little piece of geography, not the entire city. To win a general election in Davis, you have to know a lot about each precinct and what is important to that particular neighborhood. It makes for having five very responsive CC members as they attend meetings all over the city, issue by issue.
I know that it is expensive to run city-wide, but that is preferable to narrowing each CC member’s scope to a small part of an already small city.
(But you know, there is a certain appeal to just having to run in a downtown district, where I have lived and worked since 1995.)
Wu ming,
I disagree with District Elections for Davis, at this population level. Districts Balkanize cities, and the CC members focus on their little piece of geography, not the entire city. To win a general election in Davis, you have to know a lot about each precinct and what is important to that particular neighborhood. It makes for having five very responsive CC members as they attend meetings all over the city, issue by issue.
I know that it is expensive to run city-wide, but that is preferable to narrowing each CC member’s scope to a small part of an already small city.
(But you know, there is a certain appeal to just having to run in a downtown district, where I have lived and worked since 1995.)
It is my understanding that you do not have to be a charter city to have district elections. This has come up several times, and this is the answer I have been given.
It is my understanding that you do not have to be a charter city to have district elections. This has come up several times, and this is the answer I have been given.
It is my understanding that you do not have to be a charter city to have district elections. This has come up several times, and this is the answer I have been given.
It is my understanding that you do not have to be a charter city to have district elections. This has come up several times, and this is the answer I have been given.
Sacramento has district elections, and I doubt that anyone would describe the city as “Balkanized”. If anything, it is quite remarkable how the Democratic establishment has persisted in spite of them. Accordingly, proponents (and I do prefer them) need to be wary about assuming that district elections have a transformative quality that energizes community participation. It’s a little more complicated than that, SF has them, and the long time contentious politics of the city is filtered through them, Sacramento has them, and the city’s history of reformist, conciliatory politics is expressed through them. Basically, you can’t substitute process for community organizing and involvement.
–Richard Estes
Sacramento has district elections, and I doubt that anyone would describe the city as “Balkanized”. If anything, it is quite remarkable how the Democratic establishment has persisted in spite of them. Accordingly, proponents (and I do prefer them) need to be wary about assuming that district elections have a transformative quality that energizes community participation. It’s a little more complicated than that, SF has them, and the long time contentious politics of the city is filtered through them, Sacramento has them, and the city’s history of reformist, conciliatory politics is expressed through them. Basically, you can’t substitute process for community organizing and involvement.
–Richard Estes
Sacramento has district elections, and I doubt that anyone would describe the city as “Balkanized”. If anything, it is quite remarkable how the Democratic establishment has persisted in spite of them. Accordingly, proponents (and I do prefer them) need to be wary about assuming that district elections have a transformative quality that energizes community participation. It’s a little more complicated than that, SF has them, and the long time contentious politics of the city is filtered through them, Sacramento has them, and the city’s history of reformist, conciliatory politics is expressed through them. Basically, you can’t substitute process for community organizing and involvement.
–Richard Estes
Sacramento has district elections, and I doubt that anyone would describe the city as “Balkanized”. If anything, it is quite remarkable how the Democratic establishment has persisted in spite of them. Accordingly, proponents (and I do prefer them) need to be wary about assuming that district elections have a transformative quality that energizes community participation. It’s a little more complicated than that, SF has them, and the long time contentious politics of the city is filtered through them, Sacramento has them, and the city’s history of reformist, conciliatory politics is expressed through them. Basically, you can’t substitute process for community organizing and involvement.
–Richard Estes