Yesterday, Councilmember Heystek was joined by Councilmember Stephen Souza in the Davis Enterprise for their column on Measure N.
I have been critical of both their measure and the efforts to educate the public on this issue. However, I believe the public should gain all of the facts so that they can make an informed decision. For that reason I will give a full presentation of the points that the two current councilmembers make as well as the letter to the editor by former Mayor Jerry Adler.
Councilmembers Heystek and Souza argue that home rule allows for more local control and more efficient self-government.
They write:
“General law cities are bound by the state’s general law, even with respect to municipal affairs. Charter cities are not. This means that a charter city has more home rule authority than a general law city because the charter city has more authority over municipal affairs.”
This is the fundamental point that proponents of home rule, proponents of charter cities make–who should make the laws that govern a city–the city or the state legislature?
They argue that cities should make the laws that govern a city, stating:
“Now, as members of the Davis City Council, we believe the people of Davis should exercise their power and assert their municipal rights more fully under Measure N, the proposed city charter, which provides home rule for Davis.”
Now in principal that sounds good, but what about in practice? In other words, what do we gain by having home rule?
The obvious one is choice voting. We cannot enact choice voting without being a charter city.
“Unfortunately, the current governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has vetoed Davis-friendly legislation such as Assembly Bill 1294, a bill unanimously endorsed by the City Council, that would have allowed general law cities like ours to decide for themselves whether to adopt choice voting for council elections. Gov. Schwarzenegger’s ability to veto legislation that permits general law cities to govern themselves more fully stifles the city of Davis’ progressiveness and ability to be on the cutting edge.”
They move beyond choice voting as well. The next one is public electrical utilities.
“Several charter cities across the state provide for public electrical utilities, which Davis residents supported when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Measures H and I in 2006. The prospect of providing electricity through a community facilities district for solar infrastructure financing makes public power an exciting possibility under charter city status.”
They argue that choice voting would allow us the ability to be innovative without interference from the state legislature.
“Examples of our innovation to date include our agricultural mitigation, inclusionary housing and green building ordinances. However, the state may decide to legislate that general law cities like Davis cannot establish such high standards, rendering our own benchmarks meaningless. Measure N would allow Davis to codify and protect these laws in the charter if necessary.”
But then they come back to general:
“The issue really isn’t whether you support public electrical power (or choice voting or other ideas), but whether you support the notion that Davis shouldn’t have to ask the legislators in Sacramento for permission to adopt such ideas. The latter issue, not the former, is the question that Measure N poses.”
Actually, isn’t the issue exactly about whether we support choice voting? This charter would not be before the voters without the issue of choice voting? Jerry Adler below even argues that’s why this issue needs to come forth. So isn’t that exactly the point?
At this point, if you are like me, you are saying, I don’t mind the positive aspects of this program, but is there not a downside? Does not the City Council amass tremendous amount of power under this proposal–and does the charter as written provide the public in Davis with safeguards against such seizures of power by the city council?
Here is their response to this criticism:
“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. We understand people’s skepticism about what they consider the prospect of handing more powers to a City Council they may or may not agree with. However, just as the people of Davis have shown they possess the strength to override the council, they certainly have the strength to change the balance of power on the City Council at the ballot box every two years.”
This is where I am not sure they have hit the point home. Here is an example for me. We have Measure J that allows us to vote on land use changes for proposed development outside our current boundaries. That does not mean I want a city council that puts 10 measure J votes on the ballot every two years. It takes time, energy, and resources to fight that battle. So just as I want checks and balances in congress so that every time we change party control in government we don’t throw out our complete law books, the same applies for the city council. I want city council to have limited power to make major changes without voter approval and this seems to weaken those current protections by enabling the council to enact things by ordinance rather than by charter amendment. Now that is correctable in the charter proposal.
Their response to that is as follows:
“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 otherwise could be granted through a charter. An example of this is Measure N’s explicit ban on binding arbitration, a labor negotiation practice that has financially crippled city agencies such as that in San Luis Obispo.”
Now they are putting the onus on the voters to limit power of the council rather than putting the burden elsewhere to expand the power of council. Write the law in such a way that the people can choose what innovations we want and I am likely going to be all for it, but as written now, it is too much power to give any council, not just one that I disagree with.
They address the issue of taxation:
“Speaking of finances, don’t forget that any new tax measure under the charter would still be subject to the people, per Proposition 218. Our support for the charter does not come from a desire to impose taxes that we cannot levy now, considering the existence of current untapped mechanisms. 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 it hasn’t.”
I do not know if that is reassuring or not to the public. I will let some of the readers
The other sponsor of Measure N is former Davis Mayor Jerry Adler.
Here are a few key excerpts from his letter to the editor:
As a former City Council member signer of the ballot argument in favor of Measure N, the charter city proposal, I am especially interested in opposing opinions. Two such opinions recently appeared on this page.
One writer proclaimed that ‘Measure N was prematurely and hastily placed on the ballot,’ ignoring the facts that first in 1996 and again in 2005 two governance bodies strongly recommended in favor of a broad general language charter such as now proposed ‘which allows the greatest flexibility for full exercise over the municipal affairs of the city. This means the minimum amount of detail in the charter.’ Both reports have been discussed extensively by the council, the press and the community since 2005.
Both writers referenced choice voting, a matter not in the charter. The second writer opined that ‘it appears to be a solution in search of a problem ….’ Whether ‘it’ referenced choice voting, Measure N, or both is not clear.
He then cites the 2006 advisory vote on Measure L which without opposition polled about 55% and the fact that choice voting cannot be enacted without a charter.
“Ignored under any interpretation was the November 2006 majority advisory vote in favor of further consideration of a choice voting system. Any such system cannot be implemented or even seriously considered unless a broad general language charter is in place that allows enactment and any necessary amendments by ordinance.”
And while he is correct on this point, the question that continues to emerge for me is why not enact both the charter and choice voting with one vote. More and more I just do not see there being a strong reason not to do so. If the rationale for putting Measure N on the battle is still Measure L, then let’s keep them together.
Mr. Adler continues:
“Contrary to the first writer’s dark hint ‘about the wide implications of becoming a charter city,’ there is no down side to adoption of the proposed charter.”
That is a pretty sweeping statement by the former Mayor that ignores much of the discussion that has occurred on this blog laying out large concerns.
He lays out much like Councilmembers Souza and Heystek do, the upside, but his failure to consider even the possibility that there might be a downside, I think is a bit disingenuous. Reasonable people can disagree on these proposals, but there is always a downside to making changes, and that is true whether I agree or disagree with the proposals.
Later in the week, we will have some more guest commentary on this issue, for now this should be some good fodder for discussion.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
generally, given the choice between the state legislature and davis citizens/city council in terms of what sorts of things davis can do, i’d rather have the flexibility and local control. first a broad charter, then we can amend as desire, experiment a bit, respond to needs as they arise.
besides, as a proponent of district elections for city council, if not necessarily choice elections, i’m already going to be for it.
finally, the sheer entertainment factor alone seems worth it. the range of local activist battles and letters to the editor that this could unleash could keep us occupied for years on end.
generally, given the choice between the state legislature and davis citizens/city council in terms of what sorts of things davis can do, i’d rather have the flexibility and local control. first a broad charter, then we can amend as desire, experiment a bit, respond to needs as they arise.
besides, as a proponent of district elections for city council, if not necessarily choice elections, i’m already going to be for it.
finally, the sheer entertainment factor alone seems worth it. the range of local activist battles and letters to the editor that this could unleash could keep us occupied for years on end.
generally, given the choice between the state legislature and davis citizens/city council in terms of what sorts of things davis can do, i’d rather have the flexibility and local control. first a broad charter, then we can amend as desire, experiment a bit, respond to needs as they arise.
besides, as a proponent of district elections for city council, if not necessarily choice elections, i’m already going to be for it.
finally, the sheer entertainment factor alone seems worth it. the range of local activist battles and letters to the editor that this could unleash could keep us occupied for years on end.
generally, given the choice between the state legislature and davis citizens/city council in terms of what sorts of things davis can do, i’d rather have the flexibility and local control. first a broad charter, then we can amend as desire, experiment a bit, respond to needs as they arise.
besides, as a proponent of district elections for city council, if not necessarily choice elections, i’m already going to be for it.
finally, the sheer entertainment factor alone seems worth it. the range of local activist battles and letters to the editor that this could unleash could keep us occupied for years on end.
I dont want to give vastly more power to the CC and its 3/2 votes. I would say the same thing if it were a 3/2 Wagstaff CC.
I like choice voting, but don’t bring in charter city government just to get it.
I dont want to give vastly more power to the CC and its 3/2 votes. I would say the same thing if it were a 3/2 Wagstaff CC.
I like choice voting, but don’t bring in charter city government just to get it.
I dont want to give vastly more power to the CC and its 3/2 votes. I would say the same thing if it were a 3/2 Wagstaff CC.
I like choice voting, but don’t bring in charter city government just to get it.
I dont want to give vastly more power to the CC and its 3/2 votes. I would say the same thing if it were a 3/2 Wagstaff CC.
I like choice voting, but don’t bring in charter city government just to get it.
Jerry Adler has a long involvement in Davis local politics since the 70’s but he has long ago drifted into the status-quo Establishment camp as his populist credentials atrophied with the passing years.Strange political bedfellows these three, Heystek, Souza and Adler, which illustrates the uncertain future of giving the CC more power under N.
Jerry Adler has a long involvement in Davis local politics since the 70’s but he has long ago drifted into the status-quo Establishment camp as his populist credentials atrophied with the passing years.Strange political bedfellows these three, Heystek, Souza and Adler, which illustrates the uncertain future of giving the CC more power under N.
Jerry Adler has a long involvement in Davis local politics since the 70’s but he has long ago drifted into the status-quo Establishment camp as his populist credentials atrophied with the passing years.Strange political bedfellows these three, Heystek, Souza and Adler, which illustrates the uncertain future of giving the CC more power under N.
Jerry Adler has a long involvement in Davis local politics since the 70’s but he has long ago drifted into the status-quo Establishment camp as his populist credentials atrophied with the passing years.Strange political bedfellows these three, Heystek, Souza and Adler, which illustrates the uncertain future of giving the CC more power under N.
Someone last night made the comment that people were giving Lamar Heystek a pass on this.
First, he’s been aboard as long as anyone else on the issue of choice voting and the charter.
Second, he was either going to side with Saylor or he was going to side with Souza.
Third, I think all this demonstrates is that this is no a growth-no growth issue.
Someone last night made the comment that people were giving Lamar Heystek a pass on this.
First, he’s been aboard as long as anyone else on the issue of choice voting and the charter.
Second, he was either going to side with Saylor or he was going to side with Souza.
Third, I think all this demonstrates is that this is no a growth-no growth issue.
Someone last night made the comment that people were giving Lamar Heystek a pass on this.
First, he’s been aboard as long as anyone else on the issue of choice voting and the charter.
Second, he was either going to side with Saylor or he was going to side with Souza.
Third, I think all this demonstrates is that this is no a growth-no growth issue.
Someone last night made the comment that people were giving Lamar Heystek a pass on this.
First, he’s been aboard as long as anyone else on the issue of choice voting and the charter.
Second, he was either going to side with Saylor or he was going to side with Souza.
Third, I think all this demonstrates is that this is no a growth-no growth issue.
That should read “not a no-growth – growth issue”
In other words, there is not nearly as clear a divide on issues that do not involve land use directly.
That should read “not a no-growth – growth issue”
In other words, there is not nearly as clear a divide on issues that do not involve land use directly.
That should read “not a no-growth – growth issue”
In other words, there is not nearly as clear a divide on issues that do not involve land use directly.
That should read “not a no-growth – growth issue”
In other words, there is not nearly as clear a divide on issues that do not involve land use directly.
Was there a proposal to INCLUDE choice-voting as part of the Measure N charter ballot measure? Was it seconded and voted upon? How did Asmundsen’s position that choice-voting not be in Measure N prevail on the dais that evening? Did Greenwald join with Saylor and Asmundsen to formally defeat such a proposal to include choice-voting in Measure N or was it just never offered by Souza and/or Heystek? Between the two, they had a presenter and second to get a vote.
Was there a proposal to INCLUDE choice-voting as part of the Measure N charter ballot measure? Was it seconded and voted upon? How did Asmundsen’s position that choice-voting not be in Measure N prevail on the dais that evening? Did Greenwald join with Saylor and Asmundsen to formally defeat such a proposal to include choice-voting in Measure N or was it just never offered by Souza and/or Heystek? Between the two, they had a presenter and second to get a vote.
Was there a proposal to INCLUDE choice-voting as part of the Measure N charter ballot measure? Was it seconded and voted upon? How did Asmundsen’s position that choice-voting not be in Measure N prevail on the dais that evening? Did Greenwald join with Saylor and Asmundsen to formally defeat such a proposal to include choice-voting in Measure N or was it just never offered by Souza and/or Heystek? Between the two, they had a presenter and second to get a vote.
Was there a proposal to INCLUDE choice-voting as part of the Measure N charter ballot measure? Was it seconded and voted upon? How did Asmundsen’s position that choice-voting not be in Measure N prevail on the dais that evening? Did Greenwald join with Saylor and Asmundsen to formally defeat such a proposal to include choice-voting in Measure N or was it just never offered by Souza and/or Heystek? Between the two, they had a presenter and second to get a vote.
Wu Ming:
We do not need a Charter to have district elections. We do need one for choice voting, apparently, but this charter is too vague and non-specific in its purpose to take the risk of adopting it. We do not know what it could do down the road. We need to vote this one down, then come back and have an inclusive public process in deciding if we want a charter and what it should address. There was never any substantive public debate about a charter or choice voting.
Wu Ming:
We do not need a Charter to have district elections. We do need one for choice voting, apparently, but this charter is too vague and non-specific in its purpose to take the risk of adopting it. We do not know what it could do down the road. We need to vote this one down, then come back and have an inclusive public process in deciding if we want a charter and what it should address. There was never any substantive public debate about a charter or choice voting.
Wu Ming:
We do not need a Charter to have district elections. We do need one for choice voting, apparently, but this charter is too vague and non-specific in its purpose to take the risk of adopting it. We do not know what it could do down the road. We need to vote this one down, then come back and have an inclusive public process in deciding if we want a charter and what it should address. There was never any substantive public debate about a charter or choice voting.
Wu Ming:
We do not need a Charter to have district elections. We do need one for choice voting, apparently, but this charter is too vague and non-specific in its purpose to take the risk of adopting it. We do not know what it could do down the road. We need to vote this one down, then come back and have an inclusive public process in deciding if we want a charter and what it should address. There was never any substantive public debate about a charter or choice voting.
….tried to go to the July 15 streaming video but it seems that the city website now limits us to just the most recent videos(why?). Can someone describe the proposals and voting that occurred during the CC meeting where excluding choice voting from Measure N was decided?
….tried to go to the July 15 streaming video but it seems that the city website now limits us to just the most recent videos(why?). Can someone describe the proposals and voting that occurred during the CC meeting where excluding choice voting from Measure N was decided?
….tried to go to the July 15 streaming video but it seems that the city website now limits us to just the most recent videos(why?). Can someone describe the proposals and voting that occurred during the CC meeting where excluding choice voting from Measure N was decided?
….tried to go to the July 15 streaming video but it seems that the city website now limits us to just the most recent videos(why?). Can someone describe the proposals and voting that occurred during the CC meeting where excluding choice voting from Measure N was decided?
David,
I’m confused. I don’t really understand your objections to Measure N. They seem terribly vague and based on worst case scenarios which are completely unlikely. What do you think is most likely to happen which is negative if N passes?
As you know, there are 112 California cities with charters. I don’t know of any examples of those charters causing serious problems, other than the one case you cited in SLO*. However, there are two important caveats to the SLO case:
1. It was not the fault of the charter in SLO (or the SLO city council) which led to the binding arbitration fiasco. That was the fault of the voters who passed that measure; and
2. The language in our charter specifically prohibits the city council from adopting any binding arbitration agreements.
It is true that the voters in Davis might in the future do something as stupid as the voters in SLO did. But I seriously doubt, in light of the SLO experience, we will make that mistake. We might make other errors — but that’s democracy.
“I dont want to give vastly more power to the CC and its 3/2 votes.”
Mike, can you tell me one power that the charter will give the city council which it does not have today and which you find dangerous?
* I think it is noteworthy that after decades of experience as charter cities, none of the 112 have movements (AFAIK) to revoke their charters and revert to general law status. If charters were as dangerous as you imply, I think that revocation movements would be commonplace.
David,
I’m confused. I don’t really understand your objections to Measure N. They seem terribly vague and based on worst case scenarios which are completely unlikely. What do you think is most likely to happen which is negative if N passes?
As you know, there are 112 California cities with charters. I don’t know of any examples of those charters causing serious problems, other than the one case you cited in SLO*. However, there are two important caveats to the SLO case:
1. It was not the fault of the charter in SLO (or the SLO city council) which led to the binding arbitration fiasco. That was the fault of the voters who passed that measure; and
2. The language in our charter specifically prohibits the city council from adopting any binding arbitration agreements.
It is true that the voters in Davis might in the future do something as stupid as the voters in SLO did. But I seriously doubt, in light of the SLO experience, we will make that mistake. We might make other errors — but that’s democracy.
“I dont want to give vastly more power to the CC and its 3/2 votes.”
Mike, can you tell me one power that the charter will give the city council which it does not have today and which you find dangerous?
* I think it is noteworthy that after decades of experience as charter cities, none of the 112 have movements (AFAIK) to revoke their charters and revert to general law status. If charters were as dangerous as you imply, I think that revocation movements would be commonplace.
David,
I’m confused. I don’t really understand your objections to Measure N. They seem terribly vague and based on worst case scenarios which are completely unlikely. What do you think is most likely to happen which is negative if N passes?
As you know, there are 112 California cities with charters. I don’t know of any examples of those charters causing serious problems, other than the one case you cited in SLO*. However, there are two important caveats to the SLO case:
1. It was not the fault of the charter in SLO (or the SLO city council) which led to the binding arbitration fiasco. That was the fault of the voters who passed that measure; and
2. The language in our charter specifically prohibits the city council from adopting any binding arbitration agreements.
It is true that the voters in Davis might in the future do something as stupid as the voters in SLO did. But I seriously doubt, in light of the SLO experience, we will make that mistake. We might make other errors — but that’s democracy.
“I dont want to give vastly more power to the CC and its 3/2 votes.”
Mike, can you tell me one power that the charter will give the city council which it does not have today and which you find dangerous?
* I think it is noteworthy that after decades of experience as charter cities, none of the 112 have movements (AFAIK) to revoke their charters and revert to general law status. If charters were as dangerous as you imply, I think that revocation movements would be commonplace.
David,
I’m confused. I don’t really understand your objections to Measure N. They seem terribly vague and based on worst case scenarios which are completely unlikely. What do you think is most likely to happen which is negative if N passes?
As you know, there are 112 California cities with charters. I don’t know of any examples of those charters causing serious problems, other than the one case you cited in SLO*. However, there are two important caveats to the SLO case:
1. It was not the fault of the charter in SLO (or the SLO city council) which led to the binding arbitration fiasco. That was the fault of the voters who passed that measure; and
2. The language in our charter specifically prohibits the city council from adopting any binding arbitration agreements.
It is true that the voters in Davis might in the future do something as stupid as the voters in SLO did. But I seriously doubt, in light of the SLO experience, we will make that mistake. We might make other errors — but that’s democracy.
“I dont want to give vastly more power to the CC and its 3/2 votes.”
Mike, can you tell me one power that the charter will give the city council which it does not have today and which you find dangerous?
* I think it is noteworthy that after decades of experience as charter cities, none of the 112 have movements (AFAIK) to revoke their charters and revert to general law status. If charters were as dangerous as you imply, I think that revocation movements would be commonplace.
DG: “I want city council to have limited power to make major changes without voter approval and this seems to weaken those current protections by enabling the council to enact things by ordinance rather than by charter amendment.”
As vague as this complaint is, it seems wrong, too.
Here is the language from the ballot statement (by H. Steiner): “The charter does not include any changes to the current structure of the City’s government or to its ordinances and regulations…. Express provisions of the charter may only be changed by charter amendment. A charter may only be adopted or amended by a ballot measure approved by a majority vote of the City’s voters voting on the measure.”
As far as adopting ordinances goes, I cannot see how that is different under the charter than it is now. Can you be specific about an ordinance that you fear the city council might adopt under charter which it could not presently adopt?
DG: “I want city council to have limited power to make major changes without voter approval and this seems to weaken those current protections by enabling the council to enact things by ordinance rather than by charter amendment.”
As vague as this complaint is, it seems wrong, too.
Here is the language from the ballot statement (by H. Steiner): “The charter does not include any changes to the current structure of the City’s government or to its ordinances and regulations…. Express provisions of the charter may only be changed by charter amendment. A charter may only be adopted or amended by a ballot measure approved by a majority vote of the City’s voters voting on the measure.”
As far as adopting ordinances goes, I cannot see how that is different under the charter than it is now. Can you be specific about an ordinance that you fear the city council might adopt under charter which it could not presently adopt?
DG: “I want city council to have limited power to make major changes without voter approval and this seems to weaken those current protections by enabling the council to enact things by ordinance rather than by charter amendment.”
As vague as this complaint is, it seems wrong, too.
Here is the language from the ballot statement (by H. Steiner): “The charter does not include any changes to the current structure of the City’s government or to its ordinances and regulations…. Express provisions of the charter may only be changed by charter amendment. A charter may only be adopted or amended by a ballot measure approved by a majority vote of the City’s voters voting on the measure.”
As far as adopting ordinances goes, I cannot see how that is different under the charter than it is now. Can you be specific about an ordinance that you fear the city council might adopt under charter which it could not presently adopt?
DG: “I want city council to have limited power to make major changes without voter approval and this seems to weaken those current protections by enabling the council to enact things by ordinance rather than by charter amendment.”
As vague as this complaint is, it seems wrong, too.
Here is the language from the ballot statement (by H. Steiner): “The charter does not include any changes to the current structure of the City’s government or to its ordinances and regulations…. Express provisions of the charter may only be changed by charter amendment. A charter may only be adopted or amended by a ballot measure approved by a majority vote of the City’s voters voting on the measure.”
As far as adopting ordinances goes, I cannot see how that is different under the charter than it is now. Can you be specific about an ordinance that you fear the city council might adopt under charter which it could not presently adopt?
Davis operates now under the direction of its General Plan and while a Council majority can change the Plan by majority vote(3X/year?), it is recognized as politically dangerous as is/has been witnessed by the Asmundsen,Saylor, Souza Council Majority’s tortured history of attempting to ignore our General Plan without explicitly voting to change it. My understanding is that the Charter will have the effect of politically emasculating the General Plan as our city’s working “constitution” against which the CC is supposed to shape its agenda.
Davis operates now under the direction of its General Plan and while a Council majority can change the Plan by majority vote(3X/year?), it is recognized as politically dangerous as is/has been witnessed by the Asmundsen,Saylor, Souza Council Majority’s tortured history of attempting to ignore our General Plan without explicitly voting to change it. My understanding is that the Charter will have the effect of politically emasculating the General Plan as our city’s working “constitution” against which the CC is supposed to shape its agenda.
Davis operates now under the direction of its General Plan and while a Council majority can change the Plan by majority vote(3X/year?), it is recognized as politically dangerous as is/has been witnessed by the Asmundsen,Saylor, Souza Council Majority’s tortured history of attempting to ignore our General Plan without explicitly voting to change it. My understanding is that the Charter will have the effect of politically emasculating the General Plan as our city’s working “constitution” against which the CC is supposed to shape its agenda.
Davis operates now under the direction of its General Plan and while a Council majority can change the Plan by majority vote(3X/year?), it is recognized as politically dangerous as is/has been witnessed by the Asmundsen,Saylor, Souza Council Majority’s tortured history of attempting to ignore our General Plan without explicitly voting to change it. My understanding is that the Charter will have the effect of politically emasculating the General Plan as our city’s working “constitution” against which the CC is supposed to shape its agenda.
“…My understanding is that the Charter will have the effect of politically emasculating the General Plan…”
Unless that is specifically addressed in the charter proposal. It is not addressed in this proposal, but it could be after this one is sent back to the drawing board.
“…My understanding is that the Charter will have the effect of politically emasculating the General Plan…”
Unless that is specifically addressed in the charter proposal. It is not addressed in this proposal, but it could be after this one is sent back to the drawing board.
“…My understanding is that the Charter will have the effect of politically emasculating the General Plan…”
Unless that is specifically addressed in the charter proposal. It is not addressed in this proposal, but it could be after this one is sent back to the drawing board.
“…My understanding is that the Charter will have the effect of politically emasculating the General Plan…”
Unless that is specifically addressed in the charter proposal. It is not addressed in this proposal, but it could be after this one is sent back to the drawing board.
“My understanding is that the Charter will have the effect of politically emasculating the General Plan as our city’s working “constitution” against which the CC is supposed to shape its agenda.”
Your understanding?
There is simply no truth whatsoever to your charge as far as “emasculating” goes.
“it could be after this one is sent back to the drawing board.”
What?
When is it going “back to the drawing board?”
“My understanding is that the Charter will have the effect of politically emasculating the General Plan as our city’s working “constitution” against which the CC is supposed to shape its agenda.”
Your understanding?
There is simply no truth whatsoever to your charge as far as “emasculating” goes.
“it could be after this one is sent back to the drawing board.”
What?
When is it going “back to the drawing board?”
“My understanding is that the Charter will have the effect of politically emasculating the General Plan as our city’s working “constitution” against which the CC is supposed to shape its agenda.”
Your understanding?
There is simply no truth whatsoever to your charge as far as “emasculating” goes.
“it could be after this one is sent back to the drawing board.”
What?
When is it going “back to the drawing board?”
“My understanding is that the Charter will have the effect of politically emasculating the General Plan as our city’s working “constitution” against which the CC is supposed to shape its agenda.”
Your understanding?
There is simply no truth whatsoever to your charge as far as “emasculating” goes.
“it could be after this one is sent back to the drawing board.”
What?
When is it going “back to the drawing board?”
If the voters reject this charter proposal, a new one can be written based on community input, incorporating the choice voting, the primacy of the general plan, etc.
If the voters reject this charter proposal, a new one can be written based on community input, incorporating the choice voting, the primacy of the general plan, etc.
If the voters reject this charter proposal, a new one can be written based on community input, incorporating the choice voting, the primacy of the general plan, etc.
If the voters reject this charter proposal, a new one can be written based on community input, incorporating the choice voting, the primacy of the general plan, etc.
Here’s an example of a more detailed charter proposal:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/06/03/ca/sd/prop/D/
Here’s an example of a more detailed charter proposal:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/06/03/ca/sd/prop/D/
Here’s an example of a more detailed charter proposal:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/06/03/ca/sd/prop/D/
Here’s an example of a more detailed charter proposal:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/06/03/ca/sd/prop/D/
Ah, I see, this will go back to the drawing board if it fails. Fine. But that is not an argument which says adopting Measure N will make the city’s general plan less important, or will change in any way how the general plan is now modified or interpreted. In other words, the whole general plan argument is a red herring.
Ah, I see, this will go back to the drawing board if it fails. Fine. But that is not an argument which says adopting Measure N will make the city’s general plan less important, or will change in any way how the general plan is now modified or interpreted. In other words, the whole general plan argument is a red herring.
Ah, I see, this will go back to the drawing board if it fails. Fine. But that is not an argument which says adopting Measure N will make the city’s general plan less important, or will change in any way how the general plan is now modified or interpreted. In other words, the whole general plan argument is a red herring.
Ah, I see, this will go back to the drawing board if it fails. Fine. But that is not an argument which says adopting Measure N will make the city’s general plan less important, or will change in any way how the general plan is now modified or interpreted. In other words, the whole general plan argument is a red herring.
From the League of California Cities:
“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 the League of California Cities:
“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 the League of California Cities:
“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 the League of California Cities:
“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.”
Don, I read the Carlsbad charter you cite as being more detailed. What is so great about it? Does being “more detailed” equate with “better?” The Carlsbad charger has very few things we won’t have now, but most of those seem a bit silly.
For example: “Prohibit revenue reductions and unfunded mandates by the State.”
Don, do you think the city of Carlsbad, because it put that language in its charter, will be able to prohibit unfunded mandates by the State? Your too sensible to believe that nonsense will ever be enforced, let alone that it should be in a city’s charter.
Don, I read the Carlsbad charter you cite as being more detailed. What is so great about it? Does being “more detailed” equate with “better?” The Carlsbad charger has very few things we won’t have now, but most of those seem a bit silly.
For example: “Prohibit revenue reductions and unfunded mandates by the State.”
Don, do you think the city of Carlsbad, because it put that language in its charter, will be able to prohibit unfunded mandates by the State? Your too sensible to believe that nonsense will ever be enforced, let alone that it should be in a city’s charter.
Don, I read the Carlsbad charter you cite as being more detailed. What is so great about it? Does being “more detailed” equate with “better?” The Carlsbad charger has very few things we won’t have now, but most of those seem a bit silly.
For example: “Prohibit revenue reductions and unfunded mandates by the State.”
Don, do you think the city of Carlsbad, because it put that language in its charter, will be able to prohibit unfunded mandates by the State? Your too sensible to believe that nonsense will ever be enforced, let alone that it should be in a city’s charter.
Don, I read the Carlsbad charter you cite as being more detailed. What is so great about it? Does being “more detailed” equate with “better?” The Carlsbad charger has very few things we won’t have now, but most of those seem a bit silly.
For example: “Prohibit revenue reductions and unfunded mandates by the State.”
Don, do you think the city of Carlsbad, because it put that language in its charter, will be able to prohibit unfunded mandates by the State? Your too sensible to believe that nonsense will ever be enforced, let alone that it should be in a city’s charter.
“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.”
Keep in mind, with any 3-2 vote right now, the city council can modify the general plan or any specific neighborhood plan. Our city council has done that in both respects. As such, the zoning ordinances caveat of general law cities does not restrict the council in making these sorts of changes. To imply that it does is wrong.
“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.”
Keep in mind, with any 3-2 vote right now, the city council can modify the general plan or any specific neighborhood plan. Our city council has done that in both respects. As such, the zoning ordinances caveat of general law cities does not restrict the council in making these sorts of changes. To imply that it does is wrong.
“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.”
Keep in mind, with any 3-2 vote right now, the city council can modify the general plan or any specific neighborhood plan. Our city council has done that in both respects. As such, the zoning ordinances caveat of general law cities does not restrict the council in making these sorts of changes. To imply that it does is wrong.
“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.”
Keep in mind, with any 3-2 vote right now, the city council can modify the general plan or any specific neighborhood plan. Our city council has done that in both respects. As such, the zoning ordinances caveat of general law cities does not restrict the council in making these sorts of changes. To imply that it does is wrong.
oops:
“The Carlsbad charter has very few things…”
“You’re too sensible…”
oops:
“The Carlsbad charter has very few things…”
“You’re too sensible…”
oops:
“The Carlsbad charter has very few things…”
“You’re too sensible…”
oops:
“The Carlsbad charter has very few things…”
“You’re too sensible…”
They did, indeed, modify the general plan in the case of the Target vote. They also recognized the gravity of that decision by then putting it before the voters.
I don't know why the Carlsbad charter proposal included the wording about unfunded mandates. I thought those were addressed by Prop 1A a few years ago, when they were (sort of) abolished. But I do know unfunded mandates have been a big issue for local governments.
I didn't suggest Davis adopt the Carlsbad charter. That is what Carlsbad voters wanted. I simply suggest that Davis citizens have a full discussion about a charter, consider what local reasons may exist for adopting one, and make it specific to this city if there seems to be a consensus to write a charter.
As an example of a provision that voters elsewhere adopted to modify their charter, here is one that addresses zoning in which the voters (2:1) decided to use general law provisions:
"Shall the CHARTER of the City of San Marcos be amended to add the following new Section 501 to existing Article V General Laws? "Section 501. Land Use, Planning & Zoning Matters. Notwithstanding its Charter city status, the City shall be governed by State law as it applies to general law cities with respect to the application, interpretation and enforcement of land use, planning and zoning matters, including, but not limited to, the requirement of consistency between the General Plan of the City and the terms of its zoning ordinances."
They did, indeed, modify the general plan in the case of the Target vote. They also recognized the gravity of that decision by then putting it before the voters.
I don't know why the Carlsbad charter proposal included the wording about unfunded mandates. I thought those were addressed by Prop 1A a few years ago, when they were (sort of) abolished. But I do know unfunded mandates have been a big issue for local governments.
I didn't suggest Davis adopt the Carlsbad charter. That is what Carlsbad voters wanted. I simply suggest that Davis citizens have a full discussion about a charter, consider what local reasons may exist for adopting one, and make it specific to this city if there seems to be a consensus to write a charter.
As an example of a provision that voters elsewhere adopted to modify their charter, here is one that addresses zoning in which the voters (2:1) decided to use general law provisions:
"Shall the CHARTER of the City of San Marcos be amended to add the following new Section 501 to existing Article V General Laws? "Section 501. Land Use, Planning & Zoning Matters. Notwithstanding its Charter city status, the City shall be governed by State law as it applies to general law cities with respect to the application, interpretation and enforcement of land use, planning and zoning matters, including, but not limited to, the requirement of consistency between the General Plan of the City and the terms of its zoning ordinances."
They did, indeed, modify the general plan in the case of the Target vote. They also recognized the gravity of that decision by then putting it before the voters.
I don't know why the Carlsbad charter proposal included the wording about unfunded mandates. I thought those were addressed by Prop 1A a few years ago, when they were (sort of) abolished. But I do know unfunded mandates have been a big issue for local governments.
I didn't suggest Davis adopt the Carlsbad charter. That is what Carlsbad voters wanted. I simply suggest that Davis citizens have a full discussion about a charter, consider what local reasons may exist for adopting one, and make it specific to this city if there seems to be a consensus to write a charter.
As an example of a provision that voters elsewhere adopted to modify their charter, here is one that addresses zoning in which the voters (2:1) decided to use general law provisions:
"Shall the CHARTER of the City of San Marcos be amended to add the following new Section 501 to existing Article V General Laws? "Section 501. Land Use, Planning & Zoning Matters. Notwithstanding its Charter city status, the City shall be governed by State law as it applies to general law cities with respect to the application, interpretation and enforcement of land use, planning and zoning matters, including, but not limited to, the requirement of consistency between the General Plan of the City and the terms of its zoning ordinances."
They did, indeed, modify the general plan in the case of the Target vote. They also recognized the gravity of that decision by then putting it before the voters.
I don't know why the Carlsbad charter proposal included the wording about unfunded mandates. I thought those were addressed by Prop 1A a few years ago, when they were (sort of) abolished. But I do know unfunded mandates have been a big issue for local governments.
I didn't suggest Davis adopt the Carlsbad charter. That is what Carlsbad voters wanted. I simply suggest that Davis citizens have a full discussion about a charter, consider what local reasons may exist for adopting one, and make it specific to this city if there seems to be a consensus to write a charter.
As an example of a provision that voters elsewhere adopted to modify their charter, here is one that addresses zoning in which the voters (2:1) decided to use general law provisions:
"Shall the CHARTER of the City of San Marcos be amended to add the following new Section 501 to existing Article V General Laws? "Section 501. Land Use, Planning & Zoning Matters. Notwithstanding its Charter city status, the City shall be governed by State law as it applies to general law cities with respect to the application, interpretation and enforcement of land use, planning and zoning matters, including, but not limited to, the requirement of consistency between the General Plan of the City and the terms of its zoning ordinances."
Sue Greenwald joined Lamar Heystek in voting from the Council dais for Measure N. This demonstrates that the issue isn’t about progressives versus the Gang of 3. The vote was 4-1.
Sue Greenwald joined Lamar Heystek in voting from the Council dais for Measure N. This demonstrates that the issue isn’t about progressives versus the Gang of 3. The vote was 4-1.
Sue Greenwald joined Lamar Heystek in voting from the Council dais for Measure N. This demonstrates that the issue isn’t about progressives versus the Gang of 3. The vote was 4-1.
Sue Greenwald joined Lamar Heystek in voting from the Council dais for Measure N. This demonstrates that the issue isn’t about progressives versus the Gang of 3. The vote was 4-1.
For political reasons, Saylor is attempting to claim some moral high ground where there simply is no right or wrong answer. Why is he trying to kiss up to people who otherwise find his voting record unacceptable?
For political reasons, Saylor is attempting to claim some moral high ground where there simply is no right or wrong answer. Why is he trying to kiss up to people who otherwise find his voting record unacceptable?
For political reasons, Saylor is attempting to claim some moral high ground where there simply is no right or wrong answer. Why is he trying to kiss up to people who otherwise find his voting record unacceptable?
For political reasons, Saylor is attempting to claim some moral high ground where there simply is no right or wrong answer. Why is he trying to kiss up to people who otherwise find his voting record unacceptable?
“Sue Greenwald joined Lamar Heystek in voting from the Council dais for Measure N. “
I KNOW this. Will someone please tell me whether Heystek and/or Souza put forth a Measure N proposal that included choice-voting that perhaps would have garnered a 3-2 majority with Greenwald’s reluctant consent. What is this “red herring” about suddenly seeing the need for a 4-1 vote to get Measure N on the ballot when a 3-2 vote would suffice.
“Sue Greenwald joined Lamar Heystek in voting from the Council dais for Measure N. “
I KNOW this. Will someone please tell me whether Heystek and/or Souza put forth a Measure N proposal that included choice-voting that perhaps would have garnered a 3-2 majority with Greenwald’s reluctant consent. What is this “red herring” about suddenly seeing the need for a 4-1 vote to get Measure N on the ballot when a 3-2 vote would suffice.
“Sue Greenwald joined Lamar Heystek in voting from the Council dais for Measure N. “
I KNOW this. Will someone please tell me whether Heystek and/or Souza put forth a Measure N proposal that included choice-voting that perhaps would have garnered a 3-2 majority with Greenwald’s reluctant consent. What is this “red herring” about suddenly seeing the need for a 4-1 vote to get Measure N on the ballot when a 3-2 vote would suffice.
“Sue Greenwald joined Lamar Heystek in voting from the Council dais for Measure N. “
I KNOW this. Will someone please tell me whether Heystek and/or Souza put forth a Measure N proposal that included choice-voting that perhaps would have garnered a 3-2 majority with Greenwald’s reluctant consent. What is this “red herring” about suddenly seeing the need for a 4-1 vote to get Measure N on the ballot when a 3-2 vote would suffice.
During the council meeting, both Souza and Heystek asked Asmundson what she would support and then put forth the measure without the choice voting language to garner her vote. This was done in open council. Everyone involved acknowledged it.
During the council meeting, both Souza and Heystek asked Asmundson what she would support and then put forth the measure without the choice voting language to garner her vote. This was done in open council. Everyone involved acknowledged it.
During the council meeting, both Souza and Heystek asked Asmundson what she would support and then put forth the measure without the choice voting language to garner her vote. This was done in open council. Everyone involved acknowledged it.
During the council meeting, both Souza and Heystek asked Asmundson what she would support and then put forth the measure without the choice voting language to garner her vote. This was done in open council. Everyone involved acknowledged it.
Just read Wu Ming’s comments;
Wu Mingski appears to live for the local activist battle and has nothing else to do. I am envious of that situation.
P.S. Anything that Lamar supports must be socialistic……
Just read Wu Ming’s comments;
Wu Mingski appears to live for the local activist battle and has nothing else to do. I am envious of that situation.
P.S. Anything that Lamar supports must be socialistic……
Just read Wu Ming’s comments;
Wu Mingski appears to live for the local activist battle and has nothing else to do. I am envious of that situation.
P.S. Anything that Lamar supports must be socialistic……
Just read Wu Ming’s comments;
Wu Mingski appears to live for the local activist battle and has nothing else to do. I am envious of that situation.
P.S. Anything that Lamar supports must be socialistic……
Anything that Lamar supports must be socialistic……
Only to a fascist such as yourself.
Anything that Lamar supports must be socialistic……
Only to a fascist such as yourself.
Anything that Lamar supports must be socialistic……
Only to a fascist such as yourself.
Anything that Lamar supports must be socialistic……
Only to a fascist such as yourself.
“I simply suggest that Davis citizens have a full discussion about a charter, consider what local reasons may exist for adopting one, and make it specific to this city if there seems to be a consensus to write a charter.”
* “have a full discussion” — I don’t know what more needs to be discussed, particularly since the charter we are considering DOES NOT change too much at this point. The principal changes will come if and when the charter is amended, to allow for things such as choice voting, which (the best evidence we have) suggests is supported by a majority in Davis.
* “consider what local reasons may exist for adopting one” — reasons have been laid out: adopting a charter will allow us down the road to do things (such as forming a municipal utility district) which we cannot do without a charter.
Of course, if we want to change our voting system or if we want to establish a MUD (which also, in one form, was widely supported by Davis voters in a referendum), we will have to vote to put each change in the charter.
In my opinion, this is the best approach: adopt the charter as it is now, and then (if it passes) have very specific discussions, debates and a vote on each possible change (as with our voting system). If we do as some have suggested — put a variety of specific changes to our governance structure into the first charter — then it is possible that some of those provisions will not get a full and fair hearing: they will be lost by dint of consideration of other issues within the larger rubric.
The approach approved by the city council and put on the ballot is the best approach: it is the only way we can fully discuss all of the specific changes one at a time as they come up and consider those changes seperately. If someone favors a MUD but opposes district elections, for example, she could vote yes on the former and no on the latter. But if these changes were all lumped into the same vote, then how could that voter truly express her views at the polls? Vote no, despite her desire for a MUD? Vote yes, despite her opposition to district elections?
“I simply suggest that Davis citizens have a full discussion about a charter, consider what local reasons may exist for adopting one, and make it specific to this city if there seems to be a consensus to write a charter.”
* “have a full discussion” — I don’t know what more needs to be discussed, particularly since the charter we are considering DOES NOT change too much at this point. The principal changes will come if and when the charter is amended, to allow for things such as choice voting, which (the best evidence we have) suggests is supported by a majority in Davis.
* “consider what local reasons may exist for adopting one” — reasons have been laid out: adopting a charter will allow us down the road to do things (such as forming a municipal utility district) which we cannot do without a charter.
Of course, if we want to change our voting system or if we want to establish a MUD (which also, in one form, was widely supported by Davis voters in a referendum), we will have to vote to put each change in the charter.
In my opinion, this is the best approach: adopt the charter as it is now, and then (if it passes) have very specific discussions, debates and a vote on each possible change (as with our voting system). If we do as some have suggested — put a variety of specific changes to our governance structure into the first charter — then it is possible that some of those provisions will not get a full and fair hearing: they will be lost by dint of consideration of other issues within the larger rubric.
The approach approved by the city council and put on the ballot is the best approach: it is the only way we can fully discuss all of the specific changes one at a time as they come up and consider those changes seperately. If someone favors a MUD but opposes district elections, for example, she could vote yes on the former and no on the latter. But if these changes were all lumped into the same vote, then how could that voter truly express her views at the polls? Vote no, despite her desire for a MUD? Vote yes, despite her opposition to district elections?
“I simply suggest that Davis citizens have a full discussion about a charter, consider what local reasons may exist for adopting one, and make it specific to this city if there seems to be a consensus to write a charter.”
* “have a full discussion” — I don’t know what more needs to be discussed, particularly since the charter we are considering DOES NOT change too much at this point. The principal changes will come if and when the charter is amended, to allow for things such as choice voting, which (the best evidence we have) suggests is supported by a majority in Davis.
* “consider what local reasons may exist for adopting one” — reasons have been laid out: adopting a charter will allow us down the road to do things (such as forming a municipal utility district) which we cannot do without a charter.
Of course, if we want to change our voting system or if we want to establish a MUD (which also, in one form, was widely supported by Davis voters in a referendum), we will have to vote to put each change in the charter.
In my opinion, this is the best approach: adopt the charter as it is now, and then (if it passes) have very specific discussions, debates and a vote on each possible change (as with our voting system). If we do as some have suggested — put a variety of specific changes to our governance structure into the first charter — then it is possible that some of those provisions will not get a full and fair hearing: they will be lost by dint of consideration of other issues within the larger rubric.
The approach approved by the city council and put on the ballot is the best approach: it is the only way we can fully discuss all of the specific changes one at a time as they come up and consider those changes seperately. If someone favors a MUD but opposes district elections, for example, she could vote yes on the former and no on the latter. But if these changes were all lumped into the same vote, then how could that voter truly express her views at the polls? Vote no, despite her desire for a MUD? Vote yes, despite her opposition to district elections?
“I simply suggest that Davis citizens have a full discussion about a charter, consider what local reasons may exist for adopting one, and make it specific to this city if there seems to be a consensus to write a charter.”
* “have a full discussion” — I don’t know what more needs to be discussed, particularly since the charter we are considering DOES NOT change too much at this point. The principal changes will come if and when the charter is amended, to allow for things such as choice voting, which (the best evidence we have) suggests is supported by a majority in Davis.
* “consider what local reasons may exist for adopting one” — reasons have been laid out: adopting a charter will allow us down the road to do things (such as forming a municipal utility district) which we cannot do without a charter.
Of course, if we want to change our voting system or if we want to establish a MUD (which also, in one form, was widely supported by Davis voters in a referendum), we will have to vote to put each change in the charter.
In my opinion, this is the best approach: adopt the charter as it is now, and then (if it passes) have very specific discussions, debates and a vote on each possible change (as with our voting system). If we do as some have suggested — put a variety of specific changes to our governance structure into the first charter — then it is possible that some of those provisions will not get a full and fair hearing: they will be lost by dint of consideration of other issues within the larger rubric.
The approach approved by the city council and put on the ballot is the best approach: it is the only way we can fully discuss all of the specific changes one at a time as they come up and consider those changes seperately. If someone favors a MUD but opposes district elections, for example, she could vote yes on the former and no on the latter. But if these changes were all lumped into the same vote, then how could that voter truly express her views at the polls? Vote no, despite her desire for a MUD? Vote yes, despite her opposition to district elections?
anon 8:46 (c’mon guys, please pick a pseudonym, for clarity’s sake):
nice ad hom. if you read that a bit more carefully, however, you’ll discover that i was actually writing it, tongue firmly in cheek, as far more of a spectator to the ever-entertaining davis enterprise letters-to-editor battles (now migrated partially to the blogosphere) than as an activist by any measure.
i try to be a good citizen, but i’m pretty remiss about actual activism save for lawn signs or the occasional online soapbox standing. i respect those who have the time and temperment to do so, though.
that tangent aside, i still haven’t seen much evidence that adopting a pretty bland charter really has much downside, save perhaps for the argument that davisites just aren’t up to self-governance. personally, i think we are, or if not, that we’ll at least make some interesting mistakes in the process that we can learn from.
i’m pretty optimistic WRT the democratic process. i think we’ll do fine with a charter.
anon 8:46 (c’mon guys, please pick a pseudonym, for clarity’s sake):
nice ad hom. if you read that a bit more carefully, however, you’ll discover that i was actually writing it, tongue firmly in cheek, as far more of a spectator to the ever-entertaining davis enterprise letters-to-editor battles (now migrated partially to the blogosphere) than as an activist by any measure.
i try to be a good citizen, but i’m pretty remiss about actual activism save for lawn signs or the occasional online soapbox standing. i respect those who have the time and temperment to do so, though.
that tangent aside, i still haven’t seen much evidence that adopting a pretty bland charter really has much downside, save perhaps for the argument that davisites just aren’t up to self-governance. personally, i think we are, or if not, that we’ll at least make some interesting mistakes in the process that we can learn from.
i’m pretty optimistic WRT the democratic process. i think we’ll do fine with a charter.
anon 8:46 (c’mon guys, please pick a pseudonym, for clarity’s sake):
nice ad hom. if you read that a bit more carefully, however, you’ll discover that i was actually writing it, tongue firmly in cheek, as far more of a spectator to the ever-entertaining davis enterprise letters-to-editor battles (now migrated partially to the blogosphere) than as an activist by any measure.
i try to be a good citizen, but i’m pretty remiss about actual activism save for lawn signs or the occasional online soapbox standing. i respect those who have the time and temperment to do so, though.
that tangent aside, i still haven’t seen much evidence that adopting a pretty bland charter really has much downside, save perhaps for the argument that davisites just aren’t up to self-governance. personally, i think we are, or if not, that we’ll at least make some interesting mistakes in the process that we can learn from.
i’m pretty optimistic WRT the democratic process. i think we’ll do fine with a charter.
anon 8:46 (c’mon guys, please pick a pseudonym, for clarity’s sake):
nice ad hom. if you read that a bit more carefully, however, you’ll discover that i was actually writing it, tongue firmly in cheek, as far more of a spectator to the ever-entertaining davis enterprise letters-to-editor battles (now migrated partially to the blogosphere) than as an activist by any measure.
i try to be a good citizen, but i’m pretty remiss about actual activism save for lawn signs or the occasional online soapbox standing. i respect those who have the time and temperment to do so, though.
that tangent aside, i still haven’t seen much evidence that adopting a pretty bland charter really has much downside, save perhaps for the argument that davisites just aren’t up to self-governance. personally, i think we are, or if not, that we’ll at least make some interesting mistakes in the process that we can learn from.
i’m pretty optimistic WRT the democratic process. i think we’ll do fine with a charter.
29 posts 5 amed posters
29 posts 5 amed posters
29 posts 5 amed posters
29 posts 5 amed posters
Well, I learned one thing from reading Rifkin's comments on Maesure N in the Vanguard: tear up all of his printed garbage, wherever it might appear, and put it in the recycling bin.Although I recognize & appreciate the open Vanguard format, I do object to Enterprise plants such as Rifkin coming on this site and spewing such idiocy.To recap, the darling of the progressives (Heystek) signed a ballot argument, along with Asmundson,Souza & Adler, which would greatly expand the power of the Council over citizens.These are not opinions, but FACTS. Read the ballot statement: Heystek is side-by-side with Asmundson, Adler & Souza. And, Rifkin, ask yourself the same question that so so many "progressives" have been asking about that alignment.Why is Lamar joining with three highly-visible, vocal opponents of Measure J and proponents of Covell Center, in an attempt to pass a charter that would give even more power to a pro-growth Council?And,Rifkin, before you attack others who oppose Measure N, I suggest you go online and learn just how threatening such a loosely worded "charter" could be to our City. (And, please, take a hard look @ the expanded ability of a "Charter" Council to ignore it's own general plan.)Something is really wrong with Measure N. Such prominent supporters of Measure J (and opponents of Covell Center), including Pam Nieberg, Nancy Price, Don Shor & Rick Entrikin, oppose Measure N.Please, readers, read the proposed Charter to know exactly what you you are voting on with Measure N.I urge you: please send this ill-conceieved "charter" plan to yjrfrawing boars join me in voting "No on N.": Vote No on N."I say, vote NO on N.
Well, I learned one thing from reading Rifkin's comments on Maesure N in the Vanguard: tear up all of his printed garbage, wherever it might appear, and put it in the recycling bin.Although I recognize & appreciate the open Vanguard format, I do object to Enterprise plants such as Rifkin coming on this site and spewing such idiocy.To recap, the darling of the progressives (Heystek) signed a ballot argument, along with Asmundson,Souza & Adler, which would greatly expand the power of the Council over citizens.These are not opinions, but FACTS. Read the ballot statement: Heystek is side-by-side with Asmundson, Adler & Souza. And, Rifkin, ask yourself the same question that so so many "progressives" have been asking about that alignment.Why is Lamar joining with three highly-visible, vocal opponents of Measure J and proponents of Covell Center, in an attempt to pass a charter that would give even more power to a pro-growth Council?And,Rifkin, before you attack others who oppose Measure N, I suggest you go online and learn just how threatening such a loosely worded "charter" could be to our City. (And, please, take a hard look @ the expanded ability of a "Charter" Council to ignore it's own general plan.)Something is really wrong with Measure N. Such prominent supporters of Measure J (and opponents of Covell Center), including Pam Nieberg, Nancy Price, Don Shor & Rick Entrikin, oppose Measure N.Please, readers, read the proposed Charter to know exactly what you you are voting on with Measure N.I urge you: please send this ill-conceieved "charter" plan to yjrfrawing boars join me in voting "No on N.": Vote No on N."I say, vote NO on N.
Well, I learned one thing from reading Rifkin's comments on Maesure N in the Vanguard: tear up all of his printed garbage, wherever it might appear, and put it in the recycling bin.Although I recognize & appreciate the open Vanguard format, I do object to Enterprise plants such as Rifkin coming on this site and spewing such idiocy.To recap, the darling of the progressives (Heystek) signed a ballot argument, along with Asmundson,Souza & Adler, which would greatly expand the power of the Council over citizens.These are not opinions, but FACTS. Read the ballot statement: Heystek is side-by-side with Asmundson, Adler & Souza. And, Rifkin, ask yourself the same question that so so many "progressives" have been asking about that alignment.Why is Lamar joining with three highly-visible, vocal opponents of Measure J and proponents of Covell Center, in an attempt to pass a charter that would give even more power to a pro-growth Council?And,Rifkin, before you attack others who oppose Measure N, I suggest you go online and learn just how threatening such a loosely worded "charter" could be to our City. (And, please, take a hard look @ the expanded ability of a "Charter" Council to ignore it's own general plan.)Something is really wrong with Measure N. Such prominent supporters of Measure J (and opponents of Covell Center), including Pam Nieberg, Nancy Price, Don Shor & Rick Entrikin, oppose Measure N.Please, readers, read the proposed Charter to know exactly what you you are voting on with Measure N.I urge you: please send this ill-conceieved "charter" plan to yjrfrawing boars join me in voting "No on N.": Vote No on N."I say, vote NO on N.
Well, I learned one thing from reading Rifkin's comments on Maesure N in the Vanguard: tear up all of his printed garbage, wherever it might appear, and put it in the recycling bin.Although I recognize & appreciate the open Vanguard format, I do object to Enterprise plants such as Rifkin coming on this site and spewing such idiocy.To recap, the darling of the progressives (Heystek) signed a ballot argument, along with Asmundson,Souza & Adler, which would greatly expand the power of the Council over citizens.These are not opinions, but FACTS. Read the ballot statement: Heystek is side-by-side with Asmundson, Adler & Souza. And, Rifkin, ask yourself the same question that so so many "progressives" have been asking about that alignment.Why is Lamar joining with three highly-visible, vocal opponents of Measure J and proponents of Covell Center, in an attempt to pass a charter that would give even more power to a pro-growth Council?And,Rifkin, before you attack others who oppose Measure N, I suggest you go online and learn just how threatening such a loosely worded "charter" could be to our City. (And, please, take a hard look @ the expanded ability of a "Charter" Council to ignore it's own general plan.)Something is really wrong with Measure N. Such prominent supporters of Measure J (and opponents of Covell Center), including Pam Nieberg, Nancy Price, Don Shor & Rick Entrikin, oppose Measure N.Please, readers, read the proposed Charter to know exactly what you you are voting on with Measure N.I urge you: please send this ill-conceieved "charter" plan to yjrfrawing boars join me in voting "No on N.": Vote No on N."I say, vote NO on N.
While I agree with you on Measure, did you consider the possibility that they joined him rather than the other way around? And as much as has been made about Heystek aligning with Souza and Adler, the fact is that he could have joined Saylor on the other side. Is it possible that this issue just transcends ordinary lines in Davis?
While I agree with you on Measure, did you consider the possibility that they joined him rather than the other way around? And as much as has been made about Heystek aligning with Souza and Adler, the fact is that he could have joined Saylor on the other side. Is it possible that this issue just transcends ordinary lines in Davis?
While I agree with you on Measure, did you consider the possibility that they joined him rather than the other way around? And as much as has been made about Heystek aligning with Souza and Adler, the fact is that he could have joined Saylor on the other side. Is it possible that this issue just transcends ordinary lines in Davis?
While I agree with you on Measure, did you consider the possibility that they joined him rather than the other way around? And as much as has been made about Heystek aligning with Souza and Adler, the fact is that he could have joined Saylor on the other side. Is it possible that this issue just transcends ordinary lines in Davis?
Notice that the guy who’s hell-bent on lynching Lamar is totally giving Sue Greenwald a pass here. Why does he choose to attack one progressive and not the other? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
This issue clearly transcends the growth-no growth debate. Not everything in Davis has to be about growth, you know.
Notice that the guy who’s hell-bent on lynching Lamar is totally giving Sue Greenwald a pass here. Why does he choose to attack one progressive and not the other? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
This issue clearly transcends the growth-no growth debate. Not everything in Davis has to be about growth, you know.
Notice that the guy who’s hell-bent on lynching Lamar is totally giving Sue Greenwald a pass here. Why does he choose to attack one progressive and not the other? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
This issue clearly transcends the growth-no growth debate. Not everything in Davis has to be about growth, you know.
Notice that the guy who’s hell-bent on lynching Lamar is totally giving Sue Greenwald a pass here. Why does he choose to attack one progressive and not the other? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
This issue clearly transcends the growth-no growth debate. Not everything in Davis has to be about growth, you know.
NO ON N: “And,Rifkin, before you attack others who oppose Measure N, I suggest you go online and learn just how threatening such a loosely worded “charter” could be to our City.”
I have looked all over the Web to see what sort of “threat” this might be and have found nothing of substance.
So, please, I beg of you, you wise sage, tell me specifically what is wrong with this charter and specifically how that will threaten the best interests of the City of Davis.
My guess is that you cannot do that. The op-eds on this blog, written by DG and by the others, have nothing concrete in their objections. I have directly asked them for a specific threat, and they have told me nothing which materially makes Davis worse off.
And not that it matters in regard to the charter, because clearly it doesn’t, but I support Measure J, as do Lamar and Stephen.
“I learned one thing from reading Rifkin’s comments on Maesure N in the Vanguard: tear up all of his printed garbage, wherever it might appear, and put it in the recycling bin.”
It’s a shame when someone is so closed-minded as you appear to be. I am far from perfect and perhaps I am wrong most of the time in your opinion. But all of us would do well to read the ideas of people we generally don’t agree with. I realize that is harder. It’s easier if you are a right-winger to tune into Rush Limbaugh and hear him parrot your thoughts. Or if you are a leftist to only consider the words of people on your side of the aisle. But when you read and listen to divergent points of view, and try to keep an open mind, you might actually progress intellectually.
NO ON N: “And,Rifkin, before you attack others who oppose Measure N, I suggest you go online and learn just how threatening such a loosely worded “charter” could be to our City.”
I have looked all over the Web to see what sort of “threat” this might be and have found nothing of substance.
So, please, I beg of you, you wise sage, tell me specifically what is wrong with this charter and specifically how that will threaten the best interests of the City of Davis.
My guess is that you cannot do that. The op-eds on this blog, written by DG and by the others, have nothing concrete in their objections. I have directly asked them for a specific threat, and they have told me nothing which materially makes Davis worse off.
And not that it matters in regard to the charter, because clearly it doesn’t, but I support Measure J, as do Lamar and Stephen.
“I learned one thing from reading Rifkin’s comments on Maesure N in the Vanguard: tear up all of his printed garbage, wherever it might appear, and put it in the recycling bin.”
It’s a shame when someone is so closed-minded as you appear to be. I am far from perfect and perhaps I am wrong most of the time in your opinion. But all of us would do well to read the ideas of people we generally don’t agree with. I realize that is harder. It’s easier if you are a right-winger to tune into Rush Limbaugh and hear him parrot your thoughts. Or if you are a leftist to only consider the words of people on your side of the aisle. But when you read and listen to divergent points of view, and try to keep an open mind, you might actually progress intellectually.
NO ON N: “And,Rifkin, before you attack others who oppose Measure N, I suggest you go online and learn just how threatening such a loosely worded “charter” could be to our City.”
I have looked all over the Web to see what sort of “threat” this might be and have found nothing of substance.
So, please, I beg of you, you wise sage, tell me specifically what is wrong with this charter and specifically how that will threaten the best interests of the City of Davis.
My guess is that you cannot do that. The op-eds on this blog, written by DG and by the others, have nothing concrete in their objections. I have directly asked them for a specific threat, and they have told me nothing which materially makes Davis worse off.
And not that it matters in regard to the charter, because clearly it doesn’t, but I support Measure J, as do Lamar and Stephen.
“I learned one thing from reading Rifkin’s comments on Maesure N in the Vanguard: tear up all of his printed garbage, wherever it might appear, and put it in the recycling bin.”
It’s a shame when someone is so closed-minded as you appear to be. I am far from perfect and perhaps I am wrong most of the time in your opinion. But all of us would do well to read the ideas of people we generally don’t agree with. I realize that is harder. It’s easier if you are a right-winger to tune into Rush Limbaugh and hear him parrot your thoughts. Or if you are a leftist to only consider the words of people on your side of the aisle. But when you read and listen to divergent points of view, and try to keep an open mind, you might actually progress intellectually.
NO ON N: “And,Rifkin, before you attack others who oppose Measure N, I suggest you go online and learn just how threatening such a loosely worded “charter” could be to our City.”
I have looked all over the Web to see what sort of “threat” this might be and have found nothing of substance.
So, please, I beg of you, you wise sage, tell me specifically what is wrong with this charter and specifically how that will threaten the best interests of the City of Davis.
My guess is that you cannot do that. The op-eds on this blog, written by DG and by the others, have nothing concrete in their objections. I have directly asked them for a specific threat, and they have told me nothing which materially makes Davis worse off.
And not that it matters in regard to the charter, because clearly it doesn’t, but I support Measure J, as do Lamar and Stephen.
“I learned one thing from reading Rifkin’s comments on Maesure N in the Vanguard: tear up all of his printed garbage, wherever it might appear, and put it in the recycling bin.”
It’s a shame when someone is so closed-minded as you appear to be. I am far from perfect and perhaps I am wrong most of the time in your opinion. But all of us would do well to read the ideas of people we generally don’t agree with. I realize that is harder. It’s easier if you are a right-winger to tune into Rush Limbaugh and hear him parrot your thoughts. Or if you are a leftist to only consider the words of people on your side of the aisle. But when you read and listen to divergent points of view, and try to keep an open mind, you might actually progress intellectually.
“Is it possible that this issue just transcends ordinary lines in Davis?”
Yes, this is a real possibility and, not surprisingly, the transcendent issue may be what the current Council members perceive to be in their political self-interest. This is really the most likely explanation for what can only be described as “unlikely political bedfellows” in removing choice-voting from Measure N.
“Is it possible that this issue just transcends ordinary lines in Davis?”
Yes, this is a real possibility and, not surprisingly, the transcendent issue may be what the current Council members perceive to be in their political self-interest. This is really the most likely explanation for what can only be described as “unlikely political bedfellows” in removing choice-voting from Measure N.
“Is it possible that this issue just transcends ordinary lines in Davis?”
Yes, this is a real possibility and, not surprisingly, the transcendent issue may be what the current Council members perceive to be in their political self-interest. This is really the most likely explanation for what can only be described as “unlikely political bedfellows” in removing choice-voting from Measure N.
“Is it possible that this issue just transcends ordinary lines in Davis?”
Yes, this is a real possibility and, not surprisingly, the transcendent issue may be what the current Council members perceive to be in their political self-interest. This is really the most likely explanation for what can only be described as “unlikely political bedfellows” in removing choice-voting from Measure N.