I have been thinking about how to characterize the latest council, as they are now a year into at least Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson’s portion of the regime. If you look at things on an issue-by-issue basis, you realize that things are not going quite as well as you might have hoped.
What I have learned in the last five years of writing the Vanguard is that what inspires the passion is not mere disagreement, but gamesmanship. I always felt like the previous council played games with other people. A game of hide the ball, gotcha, and gotcha again.
A wise observer as recently as last fall argued for how powerful single players can become if they are the only ones playing the sophisticated game, when rather than simply voting their preference, they are trying to game the system to their own advantage.
I do not feel that way anymore. I feel like, if the council votes a way that I do not like, that it is at least an honest disagreement rather than a political game to destroy the opposition.
In addition to that, I feel like respect has returned to city hall. I feel like the council respects the citizens and even those that they do not agree with. We heard a lot of talk about civility on previous councils, but the nature of true civility is not the façade of pleasantries, but the real respect for diversity, and especially dissenting views.
So, in looking at the past year and in particular the first eight months of this one, that is the biggest change.
When it comes down to the issues, not so much. A lot of people will look at ZipCars as the embodiment for all that was wrong with this council, and certainly it embodied a fundamental dishonesty and gamesmanship of the past councils. That is certainly more than fair, as I was as appalled as anyone that the city staff would lie to the public about the content of the contract signed versus the rhetoric which apparently was based on oral agreement.
On the other hand, I think that the railroad fence issue embodies a different mindset in City Hall. Here, council forcefully stood up for those without a huge voice in municipal government and who never had a tremendous amount of power. Perhaps this will end up as a study of good intentions gone bad, because it is clear that Union Pacific will build their fence.
On the other hand, they will be forced to do so with their own money, and the council will continue to push staff to find funding sources for some sort of crossing.
In short, this council was willing to fight for the little guy, and that certainly should offset the ZipCar fiasco, which was passed at their first meeting.
We can talk about these little issues all we would like, but to me the bigger issues best emphasize the strengths and weaknesses of this council.
For that, we start with the budget, the biggest issue we have to face. Council was elected for one reason and one reason only, to fix the budget. Previous councils lived in a state of denial – they denied the economic crisis until the markets collapsed, they denied their role in creating the problem through the expansion of generous salaries and benefits, they denied the extent of the economic downturn, and they agreed to quarter-measures in the last round of MOUs that needed to do far more and far more quickly.
Leading the way for the land of denial were overly-rosy revenue projections put forth by the finance director at the behest of the city manager and the council majority.
This council put that right. When Paul Navazio tried to put forward business as usual, they put a stop to it. They did it in the face of intense public scrutiny and a surprising defection. At the end of the day, they took a bold step. And now the rest of their term will be committed to making this budget work.
Once we move away from the budget, however, things look dim. The biggest task the council had, other than putting Davis on the path to fiscal stability, was to hire a city manager who could guide the city on that course to putting Davis on the path to fiscal stability.
Did the council get the right man? I think so. But as is typical, they have blundered along the way. Hiring a city manager at $188,000 puts all claims to fiscal stability to rest. Guess what? The entire region is watching this move. I talked to someone last night who scoffed at the notion that this council was setting the city in the right direction, simply based on this hire.
The biggest problem, how do you now convince the employees that we need shared sacrifice when they see their boss getting a raise? I had the same problem with the UC Davis Chancellor. Here, students are having their fees jacked up, employees are being furloughed, and they hire a new chancellor at over $400,000 – are they mad?
Mr. Pinkerton better be everything the council says he is, otherwise this move is going to backfire in the worst way.
Moving on, another huge blunder was the reaction to the redevelopment crisis. Now, I understand full well that the city felt it had to encumber as many funds as it possibly could, in advance of the decision by the state on whether to end redevelopment as we know it.
I simply, in the end, believe that we took up a project – a parking project in the heart of downtown that we do not need. We have enough parking spaces. I would prefer not to encourage more vehicular traffic in our downtown and so any new parking structure should be on the periphery with the hopes of inducing people to park and walk.
And, though the scope of structure is not as big as I previously thought, I still think you are losing opportunities to build a huge retail or commercial center on that block.
Finally, the worst move is the continued desire to put housing at Cannery. Those who argue it is not well-suited for a business park are not wrong, but it is not particularly well-suited for housing either, as it has limited access and will wholly encourage more driving and less multimodal forms of transportation.
But the most ironic aspect of it, quite simply, is the fact that the city is fighting against its own stated policy goals on this. At the same time that the council originally pushed to move this forward, they also talked about the need for business park land. The two are not unrelated and that gets us to the ConAgra Dilemma.
The dilemma is simple. The property is not well-suited to housing or a business park. But if you take out 100 acres zoned for industrial uses, you end up without any large parcels for attracting the type of high-tech spinoffs from the university that everyone claims to want.
Three areas were recommended, and none works well or reliably. All require Measure J/R votes. You have Nishi with its limited access and need for below-grade crossing beneath train tracks. You have the Northwest Quadrant, which is an area that has been long disputed in terms of development, and then you have East of Mace along I-80, which is considered sprawl-inducing.
None of these appears likely to be an area approved for development. And so the council, by moving forward with Cannery, paints itself into a dilemma that it cannot escape.
That leads us to a brief look at the newest Councilmember, Dan Wolk, appointed in February. The jury is probably still out on him. On the one hand he showed initiative and resolve by sticking with the council majority to cast the deciding vote for the budget and the reduction of $2.5 million in personnel costs.
He is exactly correct that the days of business as usual are over, and that we have entered the area of shared sacrifice.
On the other hand, he showed little fortitude on the land use issues, trying to tow a meek line in the center on both the parking structure and Cannery. Not liking the projects in particular, but not wanting to kill them either. This is clearly an area of concern that he must shore up if he wishes to become the next mayor and appeal across lines.
In short, the council gets mixed reviews so far. They stood strong on the budget, the most important issue, but fell short in other areas.
And we did not even talk about the next chapter, which is the water war that is brewing in the city. We will wait until September to evaluate that issue, along with the resolution of the personnel cuts by the end of the month.
When we started the year, we wrote of the importance of January. Now September becomes the crucial month.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]In addition to that, I feel like respect has returned to city hall. I feel like the council respects the citizens… [/quote]You are probably right, as stated… there is, however, very little respect for city staff… city council and many contributors to the Vanguard have this in common, IMHO.
I know off subject but what are the latest Zipcar stats?
[quote][i]”A lot of people will look at ZipCars as the embodiment for all that was wrong with this council and certainly it embodied a fundamental dishonesty and gamesmanship of the past councils.
That is certainly more than fair as I was as appalled as anyone that the city staff would lie to the public about the content of the contract signed versus the rhetoric which apparently was based on oral agreement.”[/i][/quote]I’m not sure whether to pin this on both the council and the staff or just the latter. True, some council members actively lobbied the public (via op-eds, [u]Vanguard[/u] articles) with false information about what was in the contract, but my feeling is that they did it in good faith.
Is it possible councilors were bystanders, relying on staff/commission proponents for their info., maybe even for ghostwriting their articles? I also figure the staff’s oral agreements w/Zipcar continued for weeks, as public criticism mounted, until the final contract was completed and the start date “postponed.”
A bigger problem, I’d say, is the rushed, last-minute presentation of staff work to the council and the public. Lots of decisions are getting made with only minutes of evaluation and contemplation (in the case of handouts with critical information at the meetings themselves). If that’s going to continue, the council should be able to carry the vote over to the next meeting (but cannot in many cases because of real or questionable deadlines to meet).
Maybe the new city manager will help the staff anticipate needs in advance. Yesterday’s [u]Enterprise[/u] had an interesting DACHA story that underlines part of this problem. Here we are more than a year down the road, and: [i][quote]“The council is considering selling the units, which are located throughout the town, at either an affordable rate or market rate. City staff members are getting details together on what it would mean to move forward on either option.”[/quote][/i] Also, I’m surprised that Sue Greenwald is on the back end of 4-1 votes with this council. Principles are important to advertise. But, I wonder if she’d have more influence if she’d join the rest when it comes to the final vote and use her knowledge of the issues to bring along the others as far as she can and then “join the team” for the vote. On the other hand, a lot of folks (including Sue) seem to appreciate her loner, gadfly approach.
JustSaying
I think Sue, like everyone else on the council, should vote their own conscience based on their understanding of the facts and their perception of the best interests of the city. That is, after all, what we elected them to do.
[b]SODA[/b], good question. It’s been quiet. Maybe we’ve been able to stop giving them money. I hope the statistics will let us know how many members are “free” ones (city staff and other special categories). Has the city put any “encouragement” on employees to sign up and/or use Zipcars to drive up stats? I know, it’s terrible to be so skeptical without anything (except history) to base it on.
I agree with most if not all of the analysis on specific issues in this article – it is spot on. However, I do not embrace the negative tone of this piece. First, I think it takes time for a City Council to get its feet wet, and learn the ropes. Some of the decisions made were done when Council members Krovoza and Swanson had only been on the City Council for a matter of a few weeks. Council member Wolk is also very new to the City Council, and just learning the issues. We have two holdovers from previous City Councils, but their views are often diametrically opposed to each other.
Yet all seem to have embraced the concept of working together for the good of the City, leaving behind the gamemanship. They are giving clearer direction to City Staff, who have often been caught in the middle of the nonsense/subterfuge/gamemanship going on between the former City Manager Bill Emlen and the Gang of Three.
My feeling is that I am not always going to agree with stances that any particular City Council member takes. All that I ask is that they perform their duties ethically and honorably. Lamar Heystek was an outstanding former City Council member for many, many reasons, but I did not always agree w him on every issue, nor did I expect to.
And many issues are not that clear cut. I am surprised at this article’s scathing criticism of the new City Manager’s salary, for instance, when the Vanguard itself has pointed out that there is more than one way to look at this issue. If I remember correctly, the Vanguard claimed to have taken a “nuanced” position on the increase in Pinkerton’s salary. It’s okay for the Vanguard to have finally made up its mind on this issue (it didn’t take me any time at all – I was dead set against the salary increase from day one), but why condemn the City Council coming to a more “nuanced” conclusion as the Vanguard itself originally suggested? And my understanding is that not all City Council members agreed on the issue of raising the City Manager’s salary (Council member Greenwald was against it).
I do not expect PERFECTION from the City Council. I do not expect the City Council to agree w me on every issue or necessarily agree w each other on issues. But what I do ask of them is to become thoroughly educated on the issues, not allow special interests to usurp their thinking, foster transparency and respect for the opinions of the public, and vote their conscience with integrity. This will not necessarily result in wise decisions all the time, or perfection, but at least the system will be fair.
[quote]A bigger problem, I’d say, is the rushed, last-minute presentation of staff work to the council and the public. Lots of decisions are getting made with only minutes of evaluation and contemplation (in the case of handouts with critical information at the meetings themselves). If that’s going to continue, the council should be able to carry the vote over to the next meeting (but cannot in many cases because of real or questionable deadlines to meet).
Maybe the new city manager will help the staff anticipate needs in advance. [/quote]
THIS IS AN OUTSTANDING SUGGESTION. You have hit on one of the biggest problems this city keeps grappling w repeatedly. I know City Staff is doing more with less personnel, and the issues can be extremely complicated. But for instance, on the proposed parking garage issue, a last minute addendum to the City Staff proposal was handed to City Council members on the dais at the time the issue was ready to be discussed. The public did not even get a chance to see the addendum. And it turned out to be a crucial addition. It infuriated many in the community.
Now I know enough about this issue, that I can say pretty categorically it was not necessarily anyone’s fault. It was a confluence of a last minute direction from City Council, City Staff scrambled to accommodate, and voila – we had the usual problem – a decision made on something that really was not properly put before the public, the City Council members really did not have time to think about it, and City Staff did not really have time to thoroughly vet and prepare it. This sort of thing really needs to stop, if at all possible.
I recognize there may be times when a last minute flurry may be unavoidable, but this seems to happen all too often. I am not casting blame on anyone here, just commenting that there needs to be more of an effort to avoid this sort of governance by short shrift/rush to judgment/ill-preparedness.
One big difference between the city manager in Davis and the chancellor at UCD is the latter’s role in what is called “development.” If Katehi succeeds in the billion dollar fund raising effort and parlays it into another notch of fund raising before she leaves, the hire will have met expectations. Indeed, it is not good for the low paid staff who are being laid off to see officials hired at high salaries, but I believe that this is one of the sad aspects of our times. The private sector is in the mode of the Ferengi at Star Trek (Google it), “”They and their culture are characterized by a mercantile obsession with profit and trade and their constant efforts to swindle people into bad deals. They are also known for their business acumen and for exploiting females. ….
Their home planet, Ferenginar, is the center of the Ferengi Alliance and is governed by the Grand Nagus and a Commerce Authority made primarily of the Council of Economic Advisors (formerly Board of Liquidators).”
Mitt is the personification of the Grand Nagus, no? I cannot find reference to corporations as people on Ferenginar, but it must be so!
Elaine
Very good points and constructive outlook …..yeah !
GreenandGolden
Love the analogy.
“However, I do not embrace the negative tone of this piece. “
I was surprised by this comment. I had intended it to be fairly balanced. Then I realized what happened, I loaded most of my positive comments upfront – change in tone from previous council, lack of games, railroad, budget and I put the more negative thoughts – the city manager (really a mixed comment), conagra, parking garage, and water. I think if you could words, it’s fairly balanced, but the structure makes it seem more negative ,f you read it through to the end.
[quote]I was surprised by this comment. I had intended it to be fairly balanced. Then I realized what happened, I loaded most of my positive comments upfront – change in tone from previous council, lack of games, railroad, budget and I put the more negative thoughts – the city manager (really a mixed comment), conagra, parking garage, and water. I think if you could words, it’s fairly balanced, but the structure makes it seem more negative ,f you read it through to the end.[/quote]
Yes, I think your analysis of the structure is probably correct, and why I got the impression the article was “negative”. The “negativity” didn’t really match the headline, which was pretty neutral. I’m glad that you feel the article was balanced, bc I sense that you also feel the results are not quite so “negative” as the “tone” would perhaps belie. It’s always hard to get your thoughts across exactly the way you necessarily mean them. I know I’ve had to reword a comment or two (or many more!) to make sure the reader better understood what I really meant. LOL
[quote]Very good points and constructive outlook …..yeah ! [/quote]
🙂
[quote]Also, I’m surprised that Sue Greenwald is on the back end of 4-1 votes with this council. Principles are important to advertise. But, I wonder if she’d have more influence if she’d join the rest when it comes to the final vote and use her knowledge of the issues to bring along the others as far as she can and then “join the team” for the vote. On the other hand, a lot of folks (including Sue) seem to appreciate her loner, gadfly approach.— [b]JustSaying[/b][/quote][b]Just Saying:[/b] I am really perplexed by this statement. I’ll ignore the innuendo part and deal with the substantive content.
First off, the council is unanimous on most votes. People tend to notice issues where there is a split vote and not to notice the unanimous votes. Do you honestly think that it is better for councils to vote in lock-step on all issues? If so, then why have five councilmembers — why not one?
Secondly, principle is important. There is not really anything to be gained when a councilmember votes on a policy that they think is wrong. It just leads to cynicism about elected officials.
Thirdly, and most importantly, historically many of those 4-1 votes and 3-2 votes have eventually resulted in 5-0 votes for the position that I stood fast on. Actually, this has happened countless times since I have been on the council. Those 4-1 or 3-2 votes are frequently not the last word on an issue.
Let me give you the most dramatic example. During the last council, I asked for a review by two leading University experts on whether we needed to spend $200 million on our wastewater treatment plant. I lost over and over and over again. Eventually, I managed to create enough public concern over the cumulative cost of the wastewater/surface water costs that, with the contract for the $200 million plant on the City Managers desk ready to sign, I managed to convince a very reluctant council to give the University experts a chance to review the project. The result was that the $200 million plant was tossed, and we saved $100 million.
Again, this is just the most dramatic example. There are so many examples over the last 12 years that I can’t begin to list them. From certain labor costs to turning Bistro 33 into a restaurant with a patio instead of another community building, turning the Varsity into an independent film venue, defeating the large peripheral development of Covell Village, defeating Wildhorse Ranch, etc., 4-1 and 3-2 vote of mine have turned around and the position on which I have held firm has become policy.
Policy is not usually determined by force of personality; rather it is determined by the support for the policy by the public. If I am either reflecting the public’s desire or the public’s underlying values, then I will frequently prevail against a 4-1 or 3-2 vote. Often, either the council majority will come around or the public will override the council majority opinion. I have been doing this long enough to know that if I voted against my conscience to “join the team” as you say, I would have less affect, not more, on these policies.
[quote]The jury is probably still out on (Dan Wolk). On the one hand he showed initiative and resolve by sticking with the council majority to cast the deciding vote for the budget and the reduction of $2.5 million in personnel costs. — [b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote][b]David:[/b] You are still seriously misrepresenting this vote.
I will clarify once again: The difference here was not on whether to cut $2.5 million in labor costs. The difference was one of timing.
The council majority voted to cut $2.5 million in general fund labor costs by Sept. 20. I made substitute motion which lost on a 3/2 split. My substitute motion was to cut the $2.5 from labor costs by June 30, rather than the Sept. 20 in order to allow time for the legally-mandated collective bargaining process, since our existing labor contracts expire on June 30.
To Sue Greenwald: Your comments are spot on.
Sue: I firmly believe that for you the difference was not on whether to cut but when to cut. I do not believe the same for your colleague, who was clearly looking to delay the implementation in hopes that he can kill it at a later point.
[quote]Sue: I firmly believe that for you the difference was not on whether to cut but when to cut. I do not believe the same for your colleague, who was clearly looking to delay the implementation in hopes that he can kill it at a later point.[/quote]
Reading minds again?
Past behavior is a clue to future behavior.
If you have a friend who always borrows something and forgets to return it despite promising that he will return it, he has done that in the past four or five times. He comes over asking to borrow something, promises to return it, do you have to be able to read his mind to suspect he will forget again?
[quote]Past behavior is a clue to future behavior. [/quote]
Okay, who are you referring to here? Bc if it is Dan Wolk, he does not have enough of a record to have any past behavior to judge future behavior on…
I was referring to Stephen Souza.
[quote]I was referring to Stephen Souza.[/quote]
Ah, gotcha. Misunderstood…