The word we have received from the powers on high – at least as high as Woodland – is that only one-third of the absentee ballots have been turned in.
I know a lot of people do not like the horse race stuff – but I think we have talked a lot about issues here, I think we have talked a lot about extraneous stuff no one really cares about, and what this boils down to is a horse race. What matters is who will be on the council.
So here’s what I am saying right now. Throw out everything I said previously – I was wrong. No one is dead. Some may be more alive than others, but no one is dead.
So, with those niceties dispensed with, here is my assessment heading into the final week. I do not believe this race is anyone’s to win. I think some people are better positioned than others. However, anyone could win under the right circumstances.
Dan Wolk: Throw out the notion that there are two slates and Dan Wolk is on both. There are actually three slates and I believe Dan Wolk to be on all three. We will call slate one the Chamber of Commerce Slate. Slate two is the Davis Enterprise slate. And Slate three is the new blood slate.
One of the things that makes this round interesting is that there are only five candidates for three spots, meaning you cannot have diametrically opposed slates. That works out well for Mr. Wolk since he seems to have offended the fewest.
The newest adherent to the new blood slate is Delaine Eastin. Ms. Eastin is someone, as former Superintendent for Public Instruction, whose passion for schools is duly noted. She is someone I listen to even when I disagree with her.
She writes, “Today, our town needs some new blood. It needs leadership that will ask the hard questions and not go along to get along. Watching the council of late, a majority seems to think that they work for the staff and that the job of the council is to sally forth on whatever the staff recommends, even if the plan is half-baked, feckless, overly expensive or obscure to the taxpayers.”
After going through the accolades for her three, she writes, “We need a council that works for the people and not a council that works for the staff. With Frerichs, Lee and Wolk, we will have a fiscally conservative, socially progressive, hard-working trio that can help put Davis back on its progressive historical path.”
She adds, “The current council seems unable or unwilling to focus on safety and security, lean staffing in lean times in areas not associated with safety, or aggressive oversight of staff decisions that result in fewer services for citizens but more legal fees for staff cronies, meanwhile turning a blind eye to people who mismanage the community’s resources.”
Lucas Frerichs: The surprise winner in the money race is not Dan Wolk, who we still believe will finish first. The interesting thing is that Mr. Frerichs has not dumped his own money in, so he raised $32,000 largely in $100 increments.
Does that mean a lot?
Bob Dunning thinks so. He wrote last week, “Certain folks in town always run up the red flag when City Council candidates report how much money their campaigns have raised … they talk of elections being ‘bought,’ which is just so much nonsense given that Davis has a $100 contribution limit …”
Mr. Dunning is partly right and partly wrong. Four years ago the firefighters used to combine their individual power with their numbers to create a $4000 block of money. If you do not believe that can be influential, understand that for one of the candidates, that was almost 80% of their money.
Bundling is one way to subvert the $100 limit and we know from talking to some of our old friends that firefighters weren’t the only ones to do it. Developers and other monied interests would routinely raise $2500 in twenty-five $100 donations.
The good news is that this appears to be a thing of the past and ironically it seems to be public ridicule and pressure that has ended this practice.
But Mr. Dunning adds, “With that $100 limit in place, the candidate raising the most dollars is likely to be the candidate with the most support from the voters.”
We will see. He points out Julie Partansky as an exception, but it is really harder and harder to know. These days, a lot less money is going into the race.
So where does that leave Mr. Frerichs? We think he is good shape for a council spot, and No.2 seems increasingly likely.
Sue Greenwald: It seems like there is no more polarizing figure in Davis than Sue Greenwald. Love her or hate her, there are few with soft feelings towards her.
Vanguard attorney Paul Boylan wrote recently that Sue Greenwald “maintains the balance.” He adds, “The real reason why I support Sue Greenwald is because I deeply dislike those who oppose her. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and, in all honesty, I don’t like Sue’s enemies. You know them. They don’t live here. They don’t even visit. They have nothing to do with Davis, but they spent $25,000 on a mailer attacking Sue.”
“That offended me, as I am sure it offended you. This is Davis. We don’t take kindly to outsiders spending big money to influence our elections so that they can personally profit.”
Then there is Gene Borack, representing the bullet voting contingency.
He writes, “There are five candidates for our City Council. Three (Stephen Souza, Dan Wolk and Lucas Frerichs) are either tainted by a public record on previous councils or can be assumed to have future political ambitions that will require that they ‘deliver’ to the special interests that are needed to fund their future campaigns. Brett Lee, the fourth candidate, is articulate but is untested in Davis local politics.”
“A vote for Sue Greenwald, with her solid council record of defending the interests of Davis voters, is the one that will count in shaping the next council’s agenda and the future of Davis,” Dr. Borack writes. “As Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning so succinctly put it, ‘Sue Greenwald will keep the council honest.’ “
It has been a bit of a rough week for Ms. Greenwald, however. Something as minor as nefarious sign play has landed Sue Greenwald, who seemed to have survived the attack mailer, in a bit of hot water.
We still think she makes it back on the council, but we are no longer as sure. Our thought is that the people complaining about the signs weren’t going to vote for her anyway. Her supporters are unlikely to waiver. And so it is difficult to see that this brings her down.
Stephen Souza: Last week we thought he was dead. We won’t apologize for that, though it seemed to rub some the wrong way. We still think he is in trouble. He has been uncharacteristically invisible on the campaign trail.
Then there is the money issue – he has only raised $12,000 this cycle. Some have pointed out that he has at least raised all of that money rather than spending his own, but the problem is that in 2008, he raised about $55,000 and most of that was in $100 increments as well.
We have the Chamber Endorsement of him, along with Mr. Wolk and Mr. Frerichs. There is an interesting slate coming together – those who wish to take out the other incumbent, who do not believe Brett Lee will be able to win.
There have not been a lot of letters for Mr. Souza.
Jane Rundquist writes, “Stephen Souza has a number of personal qualities that have contributed to his success as a City Councilman and that underscore some of the many reasons he should be re-elected. Patience, good humor and an innate respect for others are among them – prerequisites for anyone in elected office!”
She adds, “However, it is Stephen’s ability to listen and to actually hear that allows him to respond so well to the needs and concerns of citizens from across the spectrum.”
That leaves us with Brett Lee.
We still believe that Dan Wolk finishes first and Brett Lee finishes last. It really comes down to name recognition and work in the community. Of the five candidates, Brett Lee coming in had the least name recognition and had done the least work in the community.
He has had some notable successes in changing that, most notably the Davis Enterprise Endorsement.
He has gotten some positive publicity. A nice write-up by Bob Dunning yesterday: “City Council candidate Brett Lee, asked by The Enterprise’s Tom Sakash for his opinion on the surface water project, put it all in very simple terms … said Lee: ‘We get to vote on the parks tax, which is $49 per year for six years, and yet we do not get to vote on a project that will cost us $400 to $600 per year for the next 20 to 30 years.’ … other than the fact his ‘$400 to $600’ figure is perhaps woefully low, Lee makes a whole bunch of sense.”
Delaine Eastin, already mentioned, speaks favorably, “Brett is willing to do his homework and to ask the staff hard questions. His longtime connection with our town makes him a candidate with deep roots, while his business experience will make him a good steward of our resources.”
Audrey Lippmann writes, “To attract young people to a vibrant Davis in the future, I see Brett Lee’s qualities combine to make promising changes for that vision.”
Stephanie Brown Fehm writes, “His intelligence, integrity and willingness to listen to all sides of an issue before arriving at a decision will serve us well.”
“He worked actively to support the water rate referendum to stop the council’s water rate increase, believing that the people have a right to vote on a matter as significant as this,” she adds. “His opposition to peripheral sprawl appeals to me as well as his belief that growth should be community-driven, not by developers.”
Jean Jackman supports both Sue Greenwald and Brett Lee.
She writes, “My first vote will go to Sue Greenwald because for 12 years she had been a workhorse and a great researcher. She saves our city money and represents my values with her votes. She works at the job full time. Few council members can afford to do that. I will trust that she will calm down a bit, hopefully with a council with a more progressive bent where she will not be a voice of one.”
In supporting Brett Lee she adds, “Brett Lee also impresses me. His engineering and business planning background will be useful for problem-solving and dealing with hard decisions on water and sewage. I applaud The Davis Enterprise for endorsing Greenwald and Lee.”
Brett Lee needed to become a household name and that was a tougher chore for him than the others. Despite putting about $12,000 of his own money into this race and impressing a number of people, we still believe the one real opportunity that Brett Lee has is if the voters go, like Delaine Eastin, for an all-new blood ticket.
But there seems a large number that at least want some institutional memory, and with Joe Krovoza, Rochelle Swanson and Dan Wolk only on since 2010 (or 2011 in Mr. Wolk’s case), that means one of either Sue Greenwald or Stephen Souza. Few slates that we have seen have both – interestingly enough.
Bottom line, if you want to argue that this is anyone’s race to win – you are boring, but it is a defensible position. We are fairly certain who will finish first and fifth, and the order in the middle is up to the swing of voters on June 5.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In four days we will know. I urge everyone (who is eligible) to vote. If you don’t vote, you lose your “whining rights” as far as I’m concerned.
David, one of the reasons that Souza has appeared to be invisible may be that he is very much more of a “retail politician.” He loves to walk the neighborhoods and reachout and shake the hands of the voters one-on-one. He works much harder at that than lots of other candidates do. One advantage of that approach is that it doesn’t require lots of money, just lots of time.
In the end we will see whether the optimism I heard from Stephen the last time we spoke was on target or misplaced.
Well said Hortense . . . except for those of us outside the City Limits. As Rich Rifkin can tell you, we are part of the community, but we aren’t part of the defined subset.
[quote]“There are five candidates for our City Council. Three (Stephen Souza, Dan Wolk and Lucas Frerichs) are either tainted by a public record on previous councils or can be assumed to have future political ambitions that will require that they ‘deliver’ to the special interests that are needed to fund their future campaigns. Brett Lee, the fourth candidate, is articulate but is untested in Davis local politics.”
“A vote for Sue Greenwald, with her solid council record of defending the interests of Davis voters, is the one that will count in shaping the next council’s agenda and the future of Davis,” Dr. Borack writes. “As Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning so succinctly put it, ‘Sue Greenwald will keep the council honest.’ “
[/quote]
Dr. Borack is exactly right.
Matt… you folks could annex to the City, and vote on CC elections. Y’all won’t. You don’t even currently have the right, in my view, to whine about who we choose to lead the CC. But have a great weekend, anyhow. [actually, my Dad taught me how to deal with folks who live outside the City and want to whine… “Go to the chaplain, and have your TS card punched”.]
So Dr. Wu, you are saying that Sue is the only candidate worth voting for and you believe she can be effective by herself? You can’t even get a second for motion when you are by yourself. I don’t understand this viewpoint. What do you hope to accomplish? Have her filibuster every vote she doesn’t like?
[quote]Bottom line, if you want to argue that this is anyone’s race to win – you are boring, but it is a defensible position. We are fairly certain who will finish first and fifth, and the order in the middle is up to the swing of voters on June 5.[/quote]
Let me be boring – this is anyone’s race to win or lose… or to be a bit more precise, I agree Dan Wolk will probably place first, but after that it is anyone’s guess who will win or lose… and there is no way of telling who will come in second, third, fourth or fifth…
All are capable candidates. The two incumbents have the disadvantage of track records to criticize – and both have some serious baggage. However, the newcomers have no track record, which makes some voters nervous. Some of the newbies have made some missteps, but recovered nicely. We have 5 candidates who are all quite capable of being fairly decent City Council members, some easier to work w than others. I would say who will win those three seats up for grabs is pretty much anyone’s guess…
I should have said “Two incumbents have the disadvantage of track records to criticize – and both have serious baggage.”
I wonder if the anti-incumbent sentiments sweeping the democratic world will show themselves in our city also. I think a lot of us are tired of the old crap and want a fresh approach.
The other liability with incumbents – one that I pay close attention to – is that their actions replace their words with respect to common issues. How did they vote? What issues did they play a leadership role in, and what was the result? New candidates only have their words. It is an advantage when times are troubled.
D. Greenwald: [i]”The newest adherent to [b]the new blood slate[/b] is Delaine Eastin. Ms. Eastin is someone, as former Superintendent for Public Instruction, whose passion for schools is duly noted. She is someone I listen to even when I disagree with her.”[/i]
Ms. Eastin is very close to the owners of Neighborhood Partners + Twin Pines ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/opinion-columns/council-show-some-leadership/[/url]), who are in a huge and very expensive legal battle with the City of Davis. If Ms. Eastin’s NP friends win their lawsuit, the City’s funding for low-income housing will be greatly harmed, if not entirely wiped out.
So why does the NP + TP crowd — it should be noted that former Davis Mayor Ann Evans ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/letters/listen-to-the-whistleblower/[/url]), a close friend of Eastin and the wife of NP + TP Pines impresario David Thompson, is pushing this same “new blood” slate — want to get rid of the incumbents? The answer is their lawsuit against the City of Davis. As things now stand, a majority of the five incumbent Council members is resisting the claims being made against the City by NP + TP. (Since the Council’s discussions on this are in closed session, it is impossible to know if the Council’s position is 5-0, 4-1 or 3-2, but it is certainly a majority.) The NP + TP crowd appears to either hope that a new Council with a new majority will buckle in the face of their lawsuit or at the very least those members who stood up to NP + TP will be punished at the polls for it.
I grant that Eastin and Evans and some others pushing the “new blood” slate could have other motives in addition to the one I have described. But given that Eastin and Evans are the only leaders among those desiring entirely “new blood”, it appears the hand of NP + TP is playing a significant role here.
Rifkin: “[i]I grant that Eastin and Evans and some others pushing the “new blood” slate could have other motives in addition to the one I have described. But given that Eastin and Evans are the only leaders among those desiring entirely “new blood”, it appears the hand of NP + TP is playing a significant role here.[/i]”
Or then again, maybe she just has a different opinion than you, and unlike you, doesn’t feel the need to make up motives and ‘true meanings’ that are unsupported by the original comment.
[quote]“I grant that Eastin and Evans and some others pushing the “new blood” slate could have other motives in addition to the one I have described. But given that Eastin and Evans are the only leaders among those desiring entirely “new blood”, it appears the hand of NP + TP is playing a significant role here.”[/quote]Rich, this is so unlike you–to claim things without offering a single bit of proof or research.
Come to think of it, your past displays of unsupported hatred of David Thompson–and don’t suggest you love him and eat lunch with him regularly–make it apparent you’d do anything to undo something you might imagine he’s doing. Only trouble is you’ve provided no reasons for you claims here.
Then, you follow up your unsupported claims with the inside scoop on the supposed rationale. So, this secret scheme is have a fresh council “buckle in the face of their lawsuit….” Where did you come up with this? What does “buckle” mean, keep trying to settle like the present council said it and previous councils have been doing for years?
I’ve never seen you spew such crap. These allegations, while granting that others “could have different motives in addition to the one I have described,” attempts to shame everyone who thinks it’s time to elect someone other than Sue and Stephen.
The mysterious “hand of NP +TP is playing a significant role,” you say. Your BS needs TP to clean up this messiness.
hpierce said . . .
[i]”Matt… you folks could annex to the City, and vote on CC elections. Y’all won’t. You don’t even currently have the right, in my view, to whine about who we choose to lead the CC. But have a great weekend, anyhow. [actually, my Dad taught me how to deal with folks who live outside the City and want to whine… “Go to the chaplain, and have your TS card punched”.]”[/i]
Hortense, it would be neat and clean if it were as simple as you describe it. However, it isn’t in this case. All our school issues do not stop at the City line. All our water and wastewater issues do not stop at the City line. Lots of social services issues do not stop at the City line. Land use planning issues do not stop at the City line. Economic Development issues do not stop at the City line. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
With the above said, I am quite a bit surprised that you would label me a whiner. Can you point to an issue where my arguments/posts have strayed to the emotional (whining) side of the discussion structure? I work very hard to make sure that the points I make are as consistent with factual information as possible. I’m surprised that your perception is otherwise.
I look forward to your response.
[quote]So why does the NP + TP crowd — it should be noted that former Davis Mayor Ann Evans, a close friend of Eastin and the wife of NP + TP Pines impresario David Thompson, is pushing this same “new blood” slate — want to get rid of the incumbents? The answer is their lawsuit against the City of Davis. As things now stand, a majority of the five incumbent Council members is resisting the claims being made against the City by NP + TP. [/quote]
Whatever makes you think the newbies, if elected, would knuckle under to the demands of David Thompson? I have seen no evidence of any such thing – in fact quite the contrary…
David Thompson has a new letter to the Enterprise ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/letters/no-friend-of-senior-citizens/#comment-176878[/url]) today–I just saw it for the first time a minute ago–where he attacks Sue Greenwald for opposing his Eleanor Roosevelt Circle project.
I won’t bother to explain all the problems of ERC–it did not deliver what was promised by Thompson–but I think it is clear that Thompson, Evans, et al have business motives to remove Greenwald and Souza.
“Whatever makes you think the newbies, if elected, would knuckle under to the demands of David Thompson? I have seen no evidence of any such thing – in fact quite the contrary…”
I also do not completely buy in to the “knuckle under theory”. But I do think there is more than a grain of reasonableness here. If I were locked in a lawsuit with a group of elected officials and the suit had gone no where for years, it would seem reasonable to me that I might feel that my chances would be improved by having a new group in place.
[quote]We still believe that Dan Wolk finishes first and Brett Lee finishes last. It really comes down to name recognition and work in the community.[b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]I’m in complete agreement.
My two cents:
IMO this boils down to a race between Sue and Steve for third place. My hope is that whoever finishes third will trail Dan and Lucas by a wide margin so that it is crystal clear that they do not have a mandate – they simply lucked out because the field was weak.
The new blood slate is very appealing intellectually, but we simply didn’t have enough candidates. It doesn’t make any sense to support a weak, untested candidate with no real history of community service simply because there is a desire to “throw the bums out.” With three seats and only two non-incumbents + one appointee, the new blood idea seems contrived – little more than a marketing strategy for Brett.
From my perspective, the biggest concern with the election is the question of why we only had five candidates. My theory is that there are two main reasons. First is the economy. The new council is going to be confronted with huge problems that demand action. It’s not surprising that few people stepped up to take on this job. Second is Sue Greenwald. I truly believe that the prospect of having to serve with her is a strong disincentive to many potentially qualified candidates. If she is reelected, then this problem will also negatively impact the quality of the 2014 field.
Evans-Thompson also endorsed Joe and Rochelle in 2010 for all of the good it gave them.
[i]”your past displays of unsupported hatred of David Thompson.”[/i]
I’ve never met David Thompson. Not once. I don’t hate him. I hate the fact that he set up a so-called cooperative which was geared to making profits for himself and his partner at the expense of gullible, naive and vulnerable would-be homeowners of DACHA. Thompson devised and controlled the Board of Directors and that Board paid him consulting fees. The larger DACHA grew, the more fees Thompson pocketted. But when the members of DACHA eventually took charge of the Board and would not play his game, Thompson went on the lawsuit warpath–it seems to me the law is in his favor, I have not doubted that–and that led us to where we are. I don’t claim that the DACHA members did not screw up. I don’t claim that the City of Davis did not screw up. I claim that those who set up a scam like DACHA for their own profits are wrong.
PS:
“little more than a marketing strategy for Brett” – I don’t believe he has ever used the phrase. I took it from Delaine’s letter.
Second, the biggest reason why there were only five candidates is that there are three incumbents. In 2008, there were six candidates against three incumbents, one of those was a student. There would have been six this year had the student qualified.
Matt… the problem with blogs is that you can’t see facial expressions… my tongue was fairly firmly in cheek.
[i]”Whatever makes you think the newbies, if elected, would knuckle under to the demands of David Thompson?”[/i]
I never said I thought the any “newbie” would knuckle under or buckle. You misread my post.
RR:”I’ve never met David Thompson. Not once.”
The first time I met him was at an election thing at Sue Greenwald’s house 12 years ago shortly after she was first elected to the council. The reason I remember is because of his accent and my surprise that someone i understood to be a developer was already trying to co-opt the new anti-growth member of the council. So if you want to play the guilt by association game you can start there or with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.
Remember just because someone supports you doesn’t mean you agree with them on everything. As Jess Unruh famously said “If you can’t eat their food, drink their liquor, fuck their whores and take their money and STILL vote AGAINST them, you don’t belong in this business.”
hpierce said . . .
[i]”Matt… the problem with blogs is that you can’t see facial expressions… my tongue was fairly firmly in cheek.”[/i]
You are right. The visuals on this site are for the birds.
Rich, your post was very easy to misread.
[i]”The NP + TP crowd appears to either hope that [b]a new Council with a new majority will buckle in the face of their lawsuit[/b] or at the very least those members who stood up to NP + TP will be punished at the polls for it.”[/i] clearly indicates that you felt that that was the motive, and you did nothing to let the reader know that you disagreed with the accuracy of that expectation.
Oh, and i might add, it was Sue Greenwald who voted for Thompson’s project not the other candidates although I don’t know if the deal went down before or after Steve was on the Council. Even Mike Harrington an ardent Sue supporter has told her she should admit her mistakes with regard to Dacha and move on so blaming others, who have had nothing to do with Dacha, seems quite a stretch and a bit partisan.
David: I said “for” Brett, not “by” Brett.
In the case of Delaine, she seems to have an extremely low opinion of both Sue and Steve. Promoting Brett on the premise that we need “new blood” is pretty ad hoc since there’s no left to support but Brett.
That’s the problem. We don’t really have enough good choices this cycle.
IMO, the DCOC made the only rationale decision. If Sue is reelected, I think she will become even more destructive than she has been in the past. I don’t see her seeking a fifth term so she will be unfettered from the prospect of ever facing the voters again. In addition, we are entering a period where unpleasant decisions will have to be made — and this is the sort of environment that brings out the worst in Sue.
PS said “I don’t see her seeking a fifth term so she will be unfettered from the prospect of ever facing the voters again.”
“Mar 9, 2012 … Hal Brown, 1945 – 2012 Former Marin County Supervisor Harold “Hal” Brown, who served county government for nearly 30 years, died March 2 at his … Brown was in his seventh term in office, having been appointed to the seat in 1983 by his cousin and then first-time governor, Jerry Brown, to fill the seat …”
PS you usually seem pretty astute but you are wrong Sue Greenwald will run again in four years if she is re-elected on Tuesday. Her whole identity has become wrapped up in her position as an elected official and I predict that as long as she has breath in her lungs and the votes in the box she will continue to run. Has she indicated otherwise?
“The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously”
Hubert H.
Rifkin has it right.
Eastin set Ann Evans up as state nutritionist for the State Eduction ofc.
They’re all very close and help each other out.
As one who knows David T. and NP very well, they’re always calling on their friends and associates to help them out behind the scenes.
And yes, there are problems still with Eleanor R. and Rancho Yolo, both badly conceived at other’s expense, like the DACHA scam.
Frerichs has a lot of baggage no one mentions: On the SS commission he was involved in helping David and NP with their projects.
Say what you will, all the phony baloney about Davis food co-op and the Farmers Market covers up his main interest which is money from Chevron Oil and helping his oily friends. Eastin and her group aren’t foolish.
Frerichs will be very important for that group if he’s on the Council.
Rich. Given you have attacked TPCF I must reply.
I receive a $100 dollar month stipend for serving as the President of TPCF. We are the oldest consumer coopearative foundation in the USA. We moved to Davis because we felt we would be welcome here. Our board is having severe second thoughts about staying in Davis. When City staff provide almost over $4 million of public funds to a board of ineligble mebers who are delinquent to to the tune of over $60,000 then you have to ask are City staff practicing due diligence.
Rich, your remarks lacking in detail or sobriety and the unture statements made by the Council in the OpEd saying they had made an offer to NP and TPCF when that clearly and factually was not true have us question the “business friendly climate” in Davis.
Other cities would be glad to have us move there. We are considering those. We will make choices about our future based on facts and we would ask that you use facts when you critique us. So far you have refused to meet, refused to look at the facts and continued to throw irrrational invective rather than light. I respect you for other work you do but you have lost your compass on DACHA. That is your choice.
Rich, for the fifth time publicly I offer you an opportunity for you to sit down with Luke and I and go over the economics of DACHA. As before I offer to show you all the numbers and you will see that NP made the lowest number of dollars per unit of any affordable housing in Davis. We made just over $6,000 per each home.
Just three years ago, Sue Greenwald approved CHOC getting over $30,000 per home. Why did you not attack that?
Why accuse us of being greedy. The facts show your wild accusations to be wrong.
You make similar unsupported accusations about Eleanor Roosevelt Circle. We had to take Sue on to get the $30 dollar a month savings for life for 15 very low income seniors Davis residents. I will be happy to go over the details with you or anyone from this blog. I have no fear of the facts. NP is the lowest cost developer of affordable housing ever in Davis and we are proud of getting more external dollars and using the fewest Davis dollars for our projects.
For six years the DACHA board has been illegally composed of ineligible members.
City staff and the City Appointee participated in about 17 illegal board and membership meetings.
Sue personally threatened a member of the RYCA board and he has the recording of that threat.
I have seen how Sue kept ERC from getting project based vouchers for our residents for over three years.
Everyone talks about housing but few people do anything about it.
And Sue has never been a supporter of housing the lowest income residents of our town.
David Thompson, President
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Would David Thompson like to discuss and divulge on this site ALL the details of the loans he made to DACHA residents?
Frerichs, Thompson, Chevron, Eastin.
What a tangled web we weave. Why not throw in the Skull and Bones, 666 and the Cult of Isis.
When I met Lucas he was working for Wes Chesbro who has a 97% lifetime approval ranking from the League of Conservation Voters.
Would eagle eye like to discuss and divulge on this sit all the details of his name?
Doing so would make his acidic comments more credible.
The city claims that DACHA residents’ payments, on the personal loans David made to residents who didn’t have enough savings to buy a $20,000 share in the co-op, where the ultimate cause of DACHA not being affordable. The payments on those notes, with varying amounts of interest, and balloon payments, apparently made the units’ total monthly cost too high and residents fell behind on their monthly assessments as a result.
Thompson has never denied this problem or shared the details of the notes, which were claimed to all have different terms and conditions, as far as anyone knows.
This isn’t “acidic”, it’s just a simple question that David can easily answer and clear up a question about the financial viability of his DACHA plan.
“So Dr. Wu, you are saying that Sue is the only candidate worth voting for and you believe she can be effective by herself?”
Sue Greenwald will be a minority voice on the next Council. She recognizes that serious issues will come before the next Council and accepts that there will be no “comfort level” for her.For this, she has my respect . She has a clear and unambiguous public record on the Council dais of not allowing the Council majority to deal with politically difficult issues by public OMISSION but rather insists and attempts to have full public discussion. Her record as Councilperson of being “effective by herself” as a minority voice on the dais “bully pulpit” is without question(Covell Village, less expensive wastewater treatment plant, the public “stonewalling” of former Public Works Director Weir to her questions concerning the direction of the now discredited surface water project process).
“This isn’t “acidic”, it’s just a simple question that David can easily answer and clear up a question about the financial viability of his DACHA plan.”
This certainly sounds like a local version of the national sub-prime mortgage debacle. The fatal flaw was excessive hubris, both on Wall St. and Neighborhood Partners.
[quote]“This isn’t ‘acidic’, it’s just a simple question that David can easily answer and clear up a question about the financial viability of his DACHA plan.”[/quote]And, your question is…what?
I notice your allegation that the city claims that DACHA residents’ payments on loans provided by David Thompson are “the ultimate cause of DACHA not being affordable.” Please provide at the city statement that makes this claim.
“PS you usually seem pretty astute but you are wrong Sue Greenwald will run again in four years if she is re-elected on Tuesday. Her whole identity has become wrapped up in her position as an elected official and I predict that as long as she has breath in her lungs and the votes in the box she will continue to run. Has she indicated otherwise?” Mr. Toad
Toad: She’s vacillated on whether or not to run in the last two races (2010 County Board of Supervisors and 2012 Davis City Council). She’s maybe 63 (if I recall correctly). Mike’s pension from UCD will be nice and fat. If she’s re-elected I predict her next term is going to be much harder on her – I sense that the business community is not going to let her get away with the same dysfunctional BS she has served up the last 12 years. Bottom line – large segments of the electorate are already done with her and she seems to be loosing the stomach for it. I just don’t see her running in 2016 if she’s re-elected.
“Sue personally threatened a member of the RYCA board and he has the recording of that threat. “
I have no idea what this statement is referencing, but seems to be a fairly serious accusation against a current and candidate elected official.
This is exactly the kind of comment that I feel should either be backed by facts, or not put forward at all.
Does PS stand for Pure Speculation?
Sue didn’t run for Supervisor because she couldn’t win. Don had the entire political establishment lined up against her. Still, she wanted to run so much that she ran out the clock, instead of giving someone else the chance to come forward and file to run by stepping aside, handing Don the seat. It is shocking that her supporters have given her a pass on her politically immature demonstration of self importance. You would think that with as many polarized supporters of Sue, who likewise oppose Don’s politics, there would have been some anger that Sue sat on the fence about running until there was no time left for someone else to mount a campaign. I can honestly think of no other case where a politician vacillated until the filing deadline and didn’t run, when everyone else from their coalition was expecting that person to run, causing them to have no candidate in the end. It is. to my knowledge, unprecedented. The silence about this of her sycophantic no growth supporters is appalling.
Sue has run for city council at least six times and has been on the ballot in Davis since 1996. Until she says its her last run I would assume otherwise based on her history. It would be wishful thinking to suggest anything else. I can’t imagine her not running; serving on the city council is, after all, what she does. Can you imagine her losing or not running, wandering around downtown like the Mad Hatter haranguing whoever gets in her path. People constantly trying to politely get away from her. i guess it wouldn’t be any different than it is now except she wouldn’t have a vote on the council.
” She’s maybe 63 (if I recall correctly)”
I don’t know if 63 is accurate but it is clear that Councilperson Greenwald is the only candidate(and potential member of the next Council) that has Davis Council institutional memory as well as life experiences that coincide and will best represent the interests of the Davis senior citizen community.
I don’t know if 63 is accurate but it is clear that Councilperson Greenwald … and will best represent the interests of the Davis senior citizen community.
How will she do that when she opposes senior housing that would allow people to downsize to a place where they can have more support services that meet their needs.
[b]@David Thompson:[/b]We’ve already been through this, David Thompson. I prefer tenant-based vouchers to the project-based vouchers for which you advocated. The reason that I prefer tenant-based vouchers is that they enable us to market the units to those who live, work or have roots in Davis, and allow us to use our city preference system which allows us to give some preference to those who live or work in Davis.
The project-based vouchers that you advocate result in tenants being selected from a county-wide list in the order that the county determines, making it impossible for us to use our legally-permitted city preference list or to market the units first to those who live in Davis.
“The project-based vouchers that you advocate result in tenants being selected from a county-wide list in the order that the county determines, making it impossible for us to use our legally-permitted city preference list or to market the units first to those who live in Davis.”
Of course because we wouldn’t poor people moving here from someplace like Woodland. Disgustingly exclusionary and elitist and sadly representative of your supporters.
“How will she do that when she opposes senior housing that would allow people to downsize to a place where they can have more support services that meet their needs.”
On the contrary, most Davis senior citizens would prefer to remain in their current residences and not be driven out of their homes by simultaneous massive increases in their water bills, payment for a new waste treatment plant and storm sewer upgrade. Councilperson Greenwald’s position to phase in these projects to keep the cumulative tax manageable is exactly what is desired by those on fixed incomes.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”Councilperson Greenwald’s position to phase in these projects to keep the cumulative tax manageable is exactly what is desired by those on fixed incomes.”[/i]
What proportion of Davis’ seniors are on fixed incomes?
BTW daviste2, did you ever get that water leak fixed that was causing your water bills to be triple the city-wide average for single family residences? Water leaks, if left unaddressed, can have a huge impact on all incomes, whether fixed or not.
“On the contrary, most Davis senior citizens would prefer to remain in their current residences and not be driven out of their homes by simultaneous massive increases in their water bills, payment for a new waste treatment plant and storm sewer upgrade. Councilperson Greenwald’s position to phase in these projects to keep the cumulative tax manageable is exactly what is desired by those on fixed incomes.”
Agreed. And to add to this, we do not need to look beyond the boundaries of Davis to find low income folks who would benefit from affordable housing. Some would have us believe that it is only the “elite” who have an interest in keeping down costly peripheral developments. I see many folks in my clinic who would benefit from truly low cost housing, but would not stand to benefit at all from yet another bedroom community of expensive single family homes.
I agree medwoman, that is why this Wednesday night’s Planning Commission meeting is a big disappointment for me. The site at 4th and C Streets where the fraternity’s alumni want to tear down the existing house and put up a smaller replacement would be a much “higher and better” (dare I say highest and best) use as a site for affordable senior housing. There are locations closer to campus (where other fraternities and sororities are congregated) that would be much better sites for a rebuilt fraternity house. Such a relocation and use of the 4th and C site for Senior Housing in close proximity (walking proximity) to downtown and the Senior Center would be much much better for our community and its seniors.
Unfortunately, the fraternity’s alumni have an emotional attachment to the existing site and want to rebuild there come hell or high water. What is even sadder is that the alumni had to close down the chapter in recent years because of a lack of undergraduate members. If that happens again (in part because the site is physically remote from other greek houses) then we will have doubly missed the boat.
Matt, there is a related point to consider here. I am closer to your age and medwoman’s age than I am the frat students’ age; but you are talking about a limited amount of real estate that is within walking distance of the downtown. What about the students? Heck, what about me? I live in West Davis… it is a 10 minute car ride to downtown (including finding a parking space) and a 15 minute bike ride. It is a 30 minute walk.
We can’t just make all the downtown residential space senior-living space can we?
I’m think I’m starting to get a picture for why many people are so opposed to growth. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think they think of the core area as the perfect retirement village… or at least their semi-retirement village.
If that is the vision, then let’s talk about it. But, we also need to consider all the other people not living in the core area.
Jeff, reasonable questions. My response to you is actually similar to what I have said to Council many times in public comment when CHA has gotten up and advocated for their senior village on the north side of town. Specifically, we need to have a coherent, holistic plan for providing the kind of housing that the changing demographics of Davis needs. Mrs. Katehi’s additional 5,000 students per year is going to make an already bad rental market even worse. The aging of the Davis population is going to mean there are significantly more Davis residents who feel they are mismatched to their current home, but have to continue to live there because there are no other options.
When I embarked on my “highest and best use” research about 4th and C Street, one of the first steps was to try and locate alternative sites where the fraternity could locate that would be even closer to the locus of their activity . . . the UCD campus. Bottom-line, I found three fairly quickly. So, the students would be better located, not worse.
Regarding whether a downtown site should be seniors or non-seniors, the market should be able to sort that out; however, my current suspicion is that if you look at the recent history of housing build-outs you will find that the proportion of universally accessible units is a pittance when compared to the units made for non-seniors.
Said another way, your demographic has been doing very well at the trough and it is time you let some others have their turn.
I say the above with a full complement of warmth and affection. 8>)
[i]”I say the above with a full complement of warmth and affection.”[/i]
I would take it no other way! 😉
[i]”Said another way, your demographic has been doing very well at the trough and it is time you let some others have their turn.”[/i]
Every morning when I roll out of bed, I feel my demongraphic shifting…
I think the students probably like being close to the downtown action too. However, you bring up good points. I have not really started to consider the growth and design issues from the lens of retirement. This might have something to do with the fact that I will likely be working well into my 70s assuming my health hold up. I can only WISH I had a deal like my peers working for the state and city gubment.
Jeff
“I’m think I’m starting to get a picture for why many people are so opposed to growth. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think they think of the core area as the perfect retirement village… or at least their semi-retirement village. “
Like Matt, writing with warmth, affection, and empathy for your shifting demographics, you are wrong. I do not see, nor want to see downtown as a retirement village. What I want is the downtown that I saw this weekend on my walk to Farmers Market. Streets filled with people of all ages from the baby’s in strollers, the under 10 crowd climbing and swinging on the statues, the teens and college aged kids asking us to stop long enough to snap pictures of our Corgi, as well as those of us who are starting to grey. I have posted many times that I favor increased student housing and housing for the truly low income which certainly includes more than just seniors. I am as you know opposed to peripheral development of bedroom communities, and indeed any pattern or growth that promotes single user automobiles and commuting given the devastating esects on both the health of the individual and the environment. I do not oppose all change as some would apparently like to believe, I do oppose change that perpetuates, in the name of progress, a demonstrably unhealthy pattern of growth.
I have a perspective on another aspect of this campaign that I would like to share which Jeff’s belief that many see downtown as a retirement village brought up for me. Some aspects of the current campaign seem to me to have a tendency towards ageism that I think is short sided and self defeating.
I don’t intend to pick on any one candidate with this comment, since I am an active supporter of some of the younger challengers, but I believe that Dan Wolk’s ” a new generation of leadership” evokes this best, as do the calls for “new blood”. This implies that there is something inherently better about the perspective and ideas of someone who is chronologically younger. I believe that this is incorrect for two reasons. First, not everyone becomes entrenched in their own ideas as the only correct way to approach things as they age. There are many folks who are now embarking on completely new adventures both in their personal and public liveds well into their fifties, sixties and beyond. It is the ability to maintain an open mind and willingness to consider new ideas and models that matters, not the chronological age of the individual.
The second flaw in this thinking is that the only thing that matters to retirees is their own well being as retirees. What this attitude fails to consider is that we have an experience that the younger generation cannot claim. We have been your age. I recall what it is to be a student, have new born babies, to have toddlers, to have elementary, high school and college age children. Most of us want a community that will be great not only for ourselves but also for our kids and grand kids. I doubt that many of us have forgotten that a great community may have somewhat different connotations for different age groups. But the seniors are the only one’s who have had the experience of understanding through personal experience what a ” great community ” means at each life stage.
In short, I think that what we should be considering when we vote are the visions, ideas, concepts, plans and programs being advocated by the candidates not their age, duration on the council, and personality likes and dislikes. What we should be considering is who are the candidates most likely to consider and act on what they perceive as in the best interests of the entire community, not a specific subset with which they may relate personally , professionally or “generationally”.
Well said medwoman. Very well said. In your last paragraph you have summed up the feelings I have about Sue perfectly. She is representing doggedly, fiercely and with a take no prisoners attitude, the interests of about 25% of Davis’ residents and workers. I have always felt that there are two groups of about 25% in this town and one vast 50% group in the middle who really don’t care that much (or that often) about the issues that each of the 25% groups care so passionately about. Actually 25% may be a bit high for both the passionate groups.
Great stuff from two of my favorite blogging friends. Great food for thought.
When dealing with change in the corporate environment, there was always a trend of thirds: one third against it, one third for it, and one third didn’t really care.
However, there is a big problem with the sustainability of what medwoman characterized above. We are not creating a community that will be great for our kids.
One related point… us baby boomers have a very poor track record for behaving unselfishly. We have really screwed it up for the generations that follow. We have pensions and assets and a sense of power and entitlement to control our living environment. All of these great life attributes are not going to be available to a growing population of young people. In fact, many are already gone. I frankly am a bit sensitive to demands from our age group that causes additional impacts to younger generations. So, in some respects, I think I am guilty of a bit of ageism. We owe something back to the young people that we screwed, IMO.