Vanguard Analysis: Davis City Council Early Reporting Shows Marked Contrast in Two Announced Candidates

“Ms. Vergis boasts support largely from developers, developer interests (such as property owners and investment companies that work in the development business), and chamber interests which are also largely pro-growth. In addition, the list reads like a who’s-who of the pro-growth community.”

We don’t need another “gang of three” type candidate.
I hope others step forward.

[i]I am very pleased with what I have heard from (and about) Joe Krovoza in the past week.[/i]

Yeah, I like him too.

[i]Having Krovoza add balanced, intelligence and thoughtfulness to the Council could make Lamar reconsider his decision not to run. Should he decide to run for reelection, I will give him all the support I possibly can.[/i]

To be honest, in the past month I have dramatically lost confidence in what Lamar and Sue are doing on the city council. In most situations, they are both nice people. If I were to talk to them about anything other than city politics, I would agree with them on many points. But the city council is not most situations. They have been so busy fighting for causes, that they aren’t cooperating with others to solve the city’s problems.

In particular, I don’t believe that their approach would save the city any money. When they want to save money, on issues such as labor contracts and waterworks, they seem like they are playing billiards with a sledgehammer. Yet at other times, they seem to dismiss financial liabilities. For example, DACHA and West Village annexation could both cost the city a lot of money, but these are taken as the wrong times to worry about “sustainability”.

[i]”Ms. Vergis boasts support largely from developers, developer interests (such as property owners and investment companies that work in the development business), and chamber interests which are also largely pro-growth.”[/i]

David, I think rather than just saying the above, you should identify which of those are developers and developer interests. (You could do that with a post in this thread.) Just because someone is, say, a real estate agent, doesn’t mean that person is a “developer interest” or favors the same policy changes that a specific developer wants.

Also, there are two types of developers in Davis, though they may overlap in some cases. A few are largely peripheral developers, whose principal policy interest is in getting land not zoned for housing or other urban uses changed to the uses which will help them make money. Others are principally property managers in the City limits who have never proposed a peripheral development, but may still want a zoning change for a project. (Because of Measure J, the latter type should be of more interest to voters.)

I also think it is inaccurate to conflate “Chamber interests” with developer interests. Sometimes they may be in line; sometimes they are opposed. If a peripheral development includes new retail business sites, some existing members of the Chamber of Commerce might be hurt by that.

I do believe that when local businesses of whatever type give money to candidates, it could present a conflict of interest for the candidate who takes the money.

I think a good question to ask the candidates is if they would recuse themselves from voting on an issue which [i]directly[/i] affects the financial interests of a campaign contributor of theirs? Also, would the candidate favor changing the ethics guidelines of the City Council so that recusal would be automatic in cases where a member took money from a party who directly stood to profit from a policy change?

(The key to me is the direct benefit: City employees are an obvious example of direct benefciaries of Council policies; so are land owners who want a zoning change on their properties. A restaurateur or retailer in Davis may benefit from growth in general and give money to candidates who favor more growth. However, that type of contribution should not force a recusal.)

[i]David, I think rather than just saying the above, you should identify which of those are developers and developer interests.[/i]

Yes, Rich, rather than putting forward an incorrect exaggeration, David could have accurately identified how much support Vergis has from developers and the chamber of commerce. “Largely” means mostly, as in a majority. However, when I tabulated the list posted today, I got the following:

1 vacaville professional
2 city commission
2 city service
3 sacramento professional
4 city council
4 medical
5 county/state service
5 local business
5 relative
7 misc resident
7 university
8 development
10 property
11 retired

I tried to use a fairly generous standard for “development” and “property”, including real estate brokers, property managers, etc. Even so, David’s statement that Vergis’ support is “largely” from development and commerce seems based on 23 contributors out of 74. Many of these 23 would not have any direct stake in new development in Davis. For instance, growth might be neither here nor there for an apartment owner who doesn’t want to expand.

It is clear that property owners, developers, and local businesses like Vergis. But that is not most of her campaign support as of this filing. There is a philosophy here that “a friend of my enemy is my enemy”. This is sometimes correct, I suppose, but it can also be foolish. Rather than searching for enemies, we might do better to identify a shared interest in economic stability.

Joe:
What is your position on the new Covell Village proposal? The developers want to bring on 1,500+ units in three phases.

I think I left out one of the most important reasons that I am endorsing Joe Krovoso. Joe is intelligent and analytical. These are very tough times fiscally, and we need elected officials who have experience and maturity, and can independently analyze staff reports, particularly when it comes to the fiscal analyses.

I think Joe has these attributes.

[i]Most of his contributions from UC Davis are not coming from upper administration, but rather professors and staffers.[/i]

This is another strange litmus test in today’s thread. I’m not sure what is meant by “upper” administration, but in any reasonable interpretation there are only a dozen or two “upper” administrators on the main campus. That is not counting the medical school, but they are in Sacramento and they have no reason to care about Davis city politics. Presumably a department chair wouldn’t count as so-called “upper” administration, and above them there are just not all that many people. For the most part, these 1-2 dozen administrators wouldn’t want to be entangled in city elections.

Yes, both of the Krovozas are administrators, but certainly not administrators with any great authority. The main thing is that they have a record on campus of cooperating with people.

[i]You seem to uncritically trust what Don Saylor and staff say based on who they are rather than the strength of their analysis.[/i]

To be honest, I have no idea whether the staff analysis is as sturdy as an I-beam or as flimsy as a wet noodle. What I do know is that there is no such thing as a budget without a budget agreement. I can believe you that there are theoretical budgets out there that would be profitable for the city. But what the staff said is that a likely agreement over West Village could cost the city a lot of money.

If people who would actually be responsible for a deal warn that it could cost money, then I’m inclined to believe them. If I were convinced that they are wrong, I would first wait for new people to take the reins and then ask the question again.

Two other aspects of the city council discussion made a big impression on me. First, that Stephen Souza described annexation as “representation without taxation”. That comment made a lot of sense! We wouldn’t want Reno to vote in California’s elections, if Nevada still provided its services. Representation without taxation is exactly how a theoretically fair goal can cost a lot of money.

Second, that no one in the room seemed prepared for negotiations with the university. If you’re in a standoff with your own quarterback, what yardage do you expect against the opposing team?

hpierce:

According to staff, there is some taxable property involved. The taxable property would bring the county $290,000, and it would bring the city+county almost twice that if annexed. What you forget is that the University is providing all of the services for the neighborhood. That is why it runs a surplus for the county and would run a bigger surplus for the city if annexed. Since the city wouldn’t be paying for services, and since there would be so much more revenue, the city could pay back the county all that they would have gotten, and rebate the University some money so that their residents would have carrying costs.

The city has already stated that we strive only for fiscal neutrality with this project. If the University is providing all the services, then there are no costs that we would have otherwise incurred under the non-annexation scenario.

[quote]But what the staff said is that a likely agreement over West Village could cost the city a lot of money.[/quote]“Likely agreement” has no meaning in the face of such a misleading fiscal analysis.

The University has already said that they don’t really care; it is up to the City and the County. What they have made clear is that they would prefer to have some of the revenue with which to lower the costs to their residents. This can only happen under the annexation scenario, because the county has made it clear that they want the $290,000 “profit” (for want of a better term, in order to use to help fund essential human services) from the property tax plus the sales tax from the West Village retail. The city is asking for no “profit”, and would have much more money coming in, as I described, so the city could rebate the county and the University.

The University has made it pretty clear that they would agree if the county and the city both wanted annexation. They would obviously prefer it if the city would rebate some of “profit”.

So the only sticking point is the county, and why would the county object if they understood that they would be able to retain as much property tax revenue as under the non-annexation scenario?

I know that at least one supervisor was not aware that there is this much additional revenue under the annexation scenario. I believe that supervisor has an open mind.

There is one big reason not to “wait” for a new council, and that is because the $240,000 a year vehicle license fee will be lost forever if we do not move to annex now.

In fact, I believe that it was grossly negligent of the council subcommittee to sit on it this long, risking losing $240,000 a year revenue for the region.

[i]”Likely agreement” has no meaning in the face of such a misleading fiscal analysis.[/i]

You really sound like you want to drag the city staff into something that they don’t want to do. That’s the whole problem with this story. You say that the city staff should be thinking X, the county should agree to Y, and the university already said Z. In order to be credible, it would need to be said by all of these other people.

Barbara: Send an email to friendsoflamar@yahoo.com.

Thanks, Rich.