The title of this article could be the failure of technology. The plan for this article was to have a full transcript of the first part of the candidate’s forum and then have a separate commentary piece, much as we did this fall with the Governor’s Debate and the Attorney General’s Debate. Unfortunately, technology intervened and the recording apparently did not come out clean enough to transcribe. So we are left with my thoughts without a lot of detail – at least for now.
The third problem is that the questions are okay, but not great. The first question asked about our general plan and the approach to updating the General Plan is the absence of a funding source. And that is the critical point, the absence of a funding source.
It is an interesting topic, but really it has been put on the backburner, in part due to the lack of a funding source and in part due to the current real estate market. Dan Wolk seemed to be the one to recognize perhaps the true problem with the current document is to incorporate the city’s Climate Action Plan.
Few candidates seemed to hit on the point about the lack of a real estate market means that this was not the most pressing issue. Several candidates, including Robert Smith and Paul Boylan, argued that the primary focus should be on finance rather the general plan update.
I think Kari Fry, not to single her out, was a little naive in suggesting that we could put together a group of citizens to update the plan over a year period of time in an inexpensive manner. That last general plan took multiple years. However, she is correct that the last plan was citizen-based rather than staff-driven, as Steve Williams had recommended for a process.
Bottom line, I think, is that whoever is on the council will quickly realize that while the General Plan is in need up of an update and adding a section on the Climate Action Plan, the document could be tweaked rather than completely redone at this point and we ought to wait until we have more certainty in finances and the future of real estate and growth before moving forward at this point.
The second question is a good one, which is the ban on plastic bags. The issue came up at the council meeting on Tuesday night and we will have more on that later this week.
For political insiders the intrigue would be how Dan Wolk would respond, given his mother, Senator Wolk’s opposition to the legislative ban. To his credit, he did not shy from the issue, he said this is an issue he differs with his mother on, he likes the idea in principle, he is concerned about the environmental impact, but does caution that we ought to study the legal and economic consequences.
Other applicants tried to forge out some relatively safe position.
Linda Parfitt recognized the problem, acknowledged that it could be reduced but probably not go to zero waste, and she thinks any ban should be carefully worded and would encourage reusable bags.
Walt Bunter suggested a phase-in, Sherelene Harrison talked about a cultural shift, Kerry Loux says she is supportive of it as a goal but is concerned that it might not be attainable, and argued that people’s attitudes need to change.
Robert Smith said he reuses his own plastic bags. Paul Boylan argued it was more important to have an admirable goal than to worry about feasibility.
Kari Fry was supportive of the argument but was cautious about the process. Steve Williams wants to work with retailers and ensure that the community is on board. And Vincent Wyatt has concerns about the environment but wants to ensure the public supports such a ban.
Bottom line here, all of the candidates were trying hard to nuance a position. They all seemed to think the idea had merit, they were concerned about the potential blowback from the community, obviously, and have no idea if the community is ready to back this effort. It is a good approach, and to use an example of the wood-burning ban, there is a clear environmental problem that the public is not yet behind. What this ought to tell the public is that this is a cautious group of candidates.
The third question moved on to Picnic Day. This is an issue that I think is largely resolved. I think again this does not tell us that much about the candidates. Everyone basically talks about the need to balance tradition, with business concerns and then public safety.
The better questions really came from the public, although I am not a fan of the first question, strategies for working effectively with their council colleagues. Obviously, this is a question that everyone is going to talk about, the need to play nice and be respective. At least Dan Wolk recognized that the current council has really improved on the civility aspect, as Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson have left the council.
The second question from the public dealt with fiscal stability and bringing in new businesses. This was really the first time that the candidates got a chance to address the key issue that they will grapple with. And I think it is good that the question was multifaceted, talking about fiscal stability and economic growth because it gave them a chance to really scope out the priority.
Kerry Loux talked about the fact that the paradigm has shifted from growth to economic development while Robert Smith talked about the need to encourage new businesses other than Wal-Mart to come to Davis.
Paul Boylan really nailed the point on the need to deal with unfunded liabilities as a means to protect the Davis lifestyle, while Kari Fry used it as an opportunity to agree with Mr. Boylan’s statement on unfunded liabilities while at the same time be proactive about development.
Steve Williams hammered on the point that the uncertainty of revenue is troubling and the need to cut back on services and our budget.
Dan Wolk talked about the need to bring businesses like Mori Seiki. Vincent Wyatt came out in support of housing at the Cannery. Linda Parfitt also talked about developing a business park in conjunction with UC Davis. Walt Bunter wants to create a new pension system for city employees while Sherelene Harrison argued that the city should investigate our relationship with CalPERS.
What does this all mean? It means it is difficult to address two key issues in one question, but the focus was pretty divided in terms of fiscal stability versus economic development.
There was a question on Anderson Road traffic, especially in terms of Chavez Elementary School. This is the question I think most of the candidates did poorly on. First, few recognized the problems with the traffic in the morning. I sat out in that area and frankly it is a disaster waiting to happen.
Second, the candidates were right to think in terms of finances, but they were thinking too uni-dimensionally and not enough on finding grant funding for transportation and alternative road design. There are a lot of grants out there that would help fund such a project.
Bottom line, most were not familiar enough with the issue to really nail it. It is a concerning situation that could prove disastrous if left unattended.
Finally, I did not like the last question about whether someone would listen to public comments and advice. What are they going to say? No? Come on. That said, I think Steve Williams really nailed the answer here when he said that the problem is not so much listening but how to deal with comments, especially when they are in conflict.
The problem is that just because a lot of people show up and say something does not mean they are reflective of the general community. It is a difficult problem for councilmembers to handle, but given the magnitude of the problems facing the community, this really was not the most critical issue.
For the first time, we got a sense of the candidates. Who speaks well, who is quick on their feet, who has interesting ideas.
However, this is nothing compared to what they will face next week when they get grilled by the four members of the city council.
My closing thoughts are this. First, I think the candidates have a very steep learning curve and I hope whoever wins meets with people in the community as well as city staff to get a real sense of the issues out there. I do not see a lot of experts on City of Davis policy, even as there are experts on various areas of general public policy.
Second, it is hard to tell, but there is no one personality that I see as likely to be grating and divisive. I will nuance that by suggesting that one might come to the same conclusion about people like Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson, who as people can be very congenial, however, as members of the council they proved to be divisive and mean-spirited at times.
Third and finally, that, regardless of which side of the fence you are on, there are good choices out there. I would say based on this, Sherelene Harrison, Kari Fry and Kerry Loux were strong representatives from the business and chamber community. Linda Parfitt brings unique experiences as someone who has worked in the public sector with the Department of Education. Paul Boylan is on the management side of labor relations. Steve Williams brings some very interesting perspectives to the table. Dan Wolk had some intriguing things to say as well.
Now the question is, which of these ten is the best fit for the council. The council discussed approaches they would take, but I think one of the most critical is that they want someone who will continue and bolster the climate that they have right now, which is by far the best that I have seen on a council in my five years of observing council meetings. And that, perhaps more than ideology and even the budget, may play a huge role in who gets picked.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Vincent Wyatt came out in support of housing at Cannery.[/quote]
I am quite disturbed that some candidates see housing as a way to solve our fiscal problems. The cannery project will likely at best be fiscally neutral, and if CV or WHR are any guide it may very well lose money (though the developers will not admit to it).
Bringing more retail would help a little, though I didn’t hear anything new here, but the biggest issue is that we s[u]pend to much on labor and benefits.[/u] Did any candidate address this issue? Perhaps its unfair to ask since its controversial, but unless our Council grapples with that issue, our City will face mounting fiscal troubles.
Once again the LWV showed they don’t get it either.
but the biggest issue is that we spend to much on labor and benefits.Did any candidate address this issue?
Yes. I did and so did a few others. To me “unfunded mandates” subsumes labor and benefits.
unless our Council grapples with that issue, our City will face mounting fiscal troubles.
I argued exactly that, adding that it is the priority that eclipses all others, including traffic calming studies and efforts on Anderson Road.
I am quite disturbed that some candidates see housing as a way to solve our fiscal problems.
I agree about the potential down side to housing development. I am not a development hawk. As for those linking housing to a fiscal fix, I was tired and I could be wrong, but I recall only Vincent Wyatt saying that. And, to be fair, he is passionate about affordable housing, especially for students. He has made that clear from the beginning. When someone feels that passionate about a topic, it is only natural that they readily link the issue you are passionate about with an issue others are passionate about. For example, those who are passionate about green technologies for purely environmental reasons attempt to gain the support of non environmentalists by arguing that green technology will create good jobs. I don’t mind that Vincent attempted the same sort of thing in support of an issue he feels strongly about. But I do disagree that housing in and of itself provides any economic benefit. Too many times it results in a drain on public resources and not a boon.
dmg: “The second question is a good one, which is the ban on plastic bags.”
But is it really all that important an issue, in light of other more pressing problems? I am no seeing it…
In my attempt to anticipate questions from the public, I was prepared to answer the question: “If you could be any animal, any animal at all, what would it be?” But that question didn’t get answered. Instead the applicants were asked about banning plastic bags.
Is the LWV forum video available online? Sadly, I was busy… and missed the event on TV.
Gambling, like alcohol consumption, is an evil vice and quasi-mortal sin. But just quasi, so at least you have that going for you.
Please keep the comments on the topic which is the forum from last night and issues surrounding the council appointment.
“But is it really all that important an issue, in light of other more pressing problems? I am no seeing it… “
I can’t really think of a more pressing problem than global warming, but I’m sure you and I diverge there.
[i]”I can’t really think of a more pressing problem than global warming”[/i]
Off topic! Off topic! Off topic! Off topic!
It is not off-topic. The topic of this thread is the candidates forum, one of the questions dealt with the issue of plastic bags, one of reasons that plastic bags is a pressing issue is the waste of manufacturing billions a year and thus a global warning concern. On the other hand, your gambling and discussions thereof are completely off topic. In the future, if you have a moderation concern email Don or myself.
[i]”Off topic! Off topic! Off topic! Off topic!”[/i]
[b]It is not off-topic.[/b]
I meant to say “off-tropic.” My sincerest apologies to your sincerity.
Actually, the plastic bag issue gives good insight into the candidates’ values. An orthodox liberal approach is “ban them” (San Francisco). A Third Way Democrat would urge disincentives to use, such as taxing them (Ireland did this with good results). Conservatives these days would dismiss the whole issue of global warming and consider restrictions on plastic bags to be an affront to their freedoms.
I agree that compared to fiscal issues it doesn’t seem as pressing, and given the time constraints I would have preferred to hear more about the candidates’ attitudes about employment contracts, pension reform, and municipal bankruptcy.
Plastic bags……………………………………………city solvency
My city went broke but alls not bad, we banned plastic bags.
I consider myself conservative but I don’t dismiss the issue of global warming (better termed “global climate change”). I don’t consider restrictions on plastic bags an affront to my freedoms. I accept the science behind global climate change, am in favor of banning plastic bags in Davis (a worthy, noble gesture) and believe Darwin came up with a rather decent and enlightening theory of how life evolves.
Being conservative doesn’t equate to being brain dead. Being conservative doesn’t foreclose the recognition that there are limits to “freedom.” Being a conservative doesn’t necessarily mean I champion the freedom to be stupid. I don’t.
Your statement above is an expression of a wide-spread prejudice that confuses conservatives with a bunch of troglodytes who co-opted the term “conservative” but are not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
Sorry, Paul, but my statement is an accurate reflection of the opinions of Republicans, who (I think most agree) consider themselves conservatives.
“Among Republicans, only 38% agree the earth is warming and just 16% say warming is caused by humans. Roughly half of Republicans (53%) say there is no solid evidence of warming.”
— Pew Research [url]http://people-press.org/report/669/[/url]
“Paul Boyland argued it was more important to have an admirable goal than to worry about feasibility.”
Assuming David paraphrased you correctly, and together with your comments here, I take this to mean that you favor banning plastic bags even if it isn’t feasible.
Sorry, Paul, but my statement is an accurate reflection of the opinions of Republicans, who (I think most agree) consider themselves conservatives.
Your statement is not accurate. They may think they are conservatives, but what they think doesn’t matter. I can consider myself the Crown Prince of Norway. It has no bearing on the objective fact that I’m not. And the fact – if true (I constantly question Rich’s use of statistics) proves nothing more than the dumbing down of those who identify themselves as Republicans.
However, that being said, I think that the whole “evidence of warming” thing was a PR mistake made a long time ago by people with good intentions attempting to make a complex subject easy to understand. The issue is not warming. It is climate change. Some places are getting hotter. Some are getting colder. Some drier and some wetter. The problem is that the climate shifts risk devastating the carrying capacity of the globe, with the least of our concerns being a shift in agricultural growing patterns/seasons that are already disrupting global food supply.
I take this to mean that you favor banning plastic bags even if it isn’t feasible.
Don, you are again confusing me with one of those morons who call themselves Republicans but don’t know now to spell it, not to mention a growing inability to spell “moron:”
[url]http://paulboylan.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/moran-sign1.jpg?w=274&h=350[/url]
It all depends on how you define “feasible.” If banning plastic bags would result in an increase in infant mortality in Yolo County, I would be against banning plastic bags. But if it is merely inconvenient and difficult to enforce – if that is what you mean by “isn’t feasible” then I would support it nevertheless. To paraphrase Emerson, enforceability is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Rats. That didn’t work. This is what the photo looks like (one of my favorites):
[img]http://paulboylan.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/moran-sign1.jpg?w=274&h=350[/img]
That guy with the bandana on is a Democrat.
Yes, but he considers himself a conservative.
No, Rusty, he is not a Democrat – he’s a proud teabagger.
PNB: “However, that being said, I think that the whole “evidence of warming” thing was a PR mistake made a long time ago by people with good intentions attempting to make a complex subject easy to understand.”
LOL In my day, the “theory of global warming” was couched as “let’s not pollute”! It never ceases to amaze me how generations think they have a lock on ideas, and were the first to think of it. Need for clean energy was known as far back as 1976 when we were faced w long gas lines where standing in line w your car required being there by 4 am! My daughter insists the jeans she wears are “flares”, but in my day it was called “bell bottoms”. “Low-rise” jeans in my day were called “hip huggers”! We wore platform shoes too!
Here’s an idea – how about garbage being sorted at destination (the dump)? Now there’s an idea!
To those who constantly trash Republican, trash conservatives, trash Democrats, trash liberals, one size does not fit all… so don’t lump us all together in one group or another – you don’t know us!
There wasn’t what one could call a standing-room-only crowd at the Public Forum held at city hall last night. Also, we wish it to be known that we enjoy Mr. Boylan’s comments on this web blog very much. His observations are as insightful as they are entertaining.
My daughter insists the jeans she wears are “flares”, but in my day it was called “bell bottoms”.
In my day they were called “britches” and that was that.
Now, if you will excuse me, I must retire to my front window to yell at some kids to get their dog off my lawn.
“we wish it to be known that we enjoy Mr. Boylan’s comments on this web blog very much.”
I find him very entertaining too. However entertainment value is not the most important criterion for a member of the council. Paul;s name calling tendencies would not help bring the more civil atmosphere we say we need.
For example
“confusing me with one of those morons who call themselves Republicans but don’t know now to spell it, not to mention a growing inability to spell “moron:”
And by the way Paul, the word “how” is spelled with an h.
I think climate change is a serious problem–indeed an existential threat. However I fail to see how a question on plastic bags helps. First, plastic bags are a huge problem for marine life and should be discouraged. However, Davis is a city of 60,000 in a State with over 30 million people. If we ban plastic bags will it make a difference or will it be environmental tokenism?
More importantly, if our City government cannot get its fiscal house in order, how can it be expected to deal with other challenges like global warming. people are becoming more skeptical of government because it can’t do the basic things it is supposed to do.
AS long as governments (at all levels) fail in these basic ways it will not be able to deal with climate change.
Lets get Davis’ fiscal health in order.
That’s also the argument against having a climate action plan and carbon reduction plan locally. Which is fine. It just depends on what you think the local role should be. Personally I would like to see every community adopt these kinds of regulations – as such – Davis needs to lead the way. I don’t see how you can’t restore fiscal health and address climate/ environmental needs.
[quote]… the current council has really improved on the civility aspect, as Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson have left the council.[/quote]
[quote]… the current council has really improved on the civility aspect, as Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson have left the council.[/quote]Is this to suggest that neither Sue, nor Stephen, had ANY role in the ‘lack of civility’ we all saw? They were innocent “victims” of Don & Ruth? I think, NOT! I do believe that with the combination of egos, ‘agendas’, etc., what we saw was adding the third (&/or fourth) ‘nitro’ groups onto toluene.
[quote]… one might come to the same conclusion about people like Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson, who as people can be very congenial, however, as members of the council they proved to be divisive and mean-spirited at times.[/quote]My “bad”… this should have been my second quote…
No to me what it suggests is that there was a toxic brew before and that changing the composition has altered the dynamics.
[quote]… there was a toxic brew…[/quote]Agreed. Hence my reference to tri-nitro toluene…
And by the way Paul, the word “how” is spelled with an h.
Paul;s name calling tendencies would not help bring the more civil atmosphere we say we need.
Okay, so you misuse punctuation and then correct my spelling? Please note that I am not calling you a name by pointing this out. Instead, I invite you – in the spirit of consensus and cooperation – to join me in a relaxed view of Internet blog spelling and grammar.
But I digress, and I know how dangerous digression is here. More to the point, I agree that entertainment value is not enough to justify choosing me to fill the vacancy – even though I firmly believe the electorate is always looking for politicians who can really sing and dance. I’ve tried to demonstrate that I offer more than that. My best guess is that the various City Council members are weighing the candidates to determine which has the skills and experience that will assist the City Council address difficult problems. If they agree that unfunded mandates are the most pressing problem, I have a fair shot at the appointment. If they don’t think that land use planning is more important then other candidates are better qualified than me. As I’ve said here, it is simple math.
Dr. Wu: “I think climate change is a serious problem–indeed an existential threat. However I fail to see how a question on plastic bags helps. First, plastic bags are a huge problem for marine life and should be discouraged. However, Davis is a city of 60,000 in a State with over 30 million people. If we ban plastic bags will it make a difference or will it be environmental tokenism?
More importantly, if our City government cannot get its fiscal house in order, how can it be expected to deal with other challenges like global warming. people are becoming more skeptical of government because it can’t do the basic things it is supposed to do.
AS long as governments (at all levels) fail in these basic ways it will not be able to deal with climate change.
Lets get Davis’ fiscal health in order.”
I could not have said it any better. Well done!
dmg: “That’s also the argument against having a climate action plan and carbon reduction plan locally. Which is fine. It just depends on what you think the local role should be. Personally I would like to see every community adopt these kinds of regulations – as such – Davis needs to lead the way. I don’t see how you can’t restore fiscal health and address climate/ environmental needs.”
Why does Davis need to “lead the way”? Who gets to decide what “way” is taken? Stopping pollution is a laudable goal. But there is something called the “law of increasing relative cost”… and the “hierarchical effect”…
“Why does Davis need to “lead the way”? Who gets to decide what “way” is taken? “
The answer is that there are people in this community that believe that Davis should lead the way because they view Davis as a special place that places environmental stewardship as high on their list of priorities and they wish for Davis to be a leader in this regard.
Who gets to decide? Ultimately the voters and through them their elected leaders on the city council.
“Stopping pollution is a laudable goal. But there is something called the “law of increasing relative cost”… and the “hierarchical effect”… “
The problem is that our economic model never functions in the true cost of environmental decay into prices. When we have to clean up the environment as the result of a commercial practice, that is cost that we have to bear but it is never factored into the cost of the product or the cost of the industry.