by Joe Krovoza, Sue Greenwald, Mike Corbett, Ken Wagstaff, Ann M. Evans, Bill Kopper
We are concerned that Davis City Councilman Dan Carson’s involvement in the Measure H campaign and his efforts to pass Measure H set a terrible precedent for Davis and harms our citizen-based democratic processes.
Carson is the first elected official in Davis to lead a developer’s campaign committee to annex land to the city for a subdivision. He is also the first member of the City Council to use developer money to file a lawsuit to strike down his fellow citizens’ ballot arguments against annexation.
Councilman Carson’s lawsuit did not produce any meaningful changes to the citizen’s ballot arguments. A judge changed one word and converted a troy measurement to a metric measurement. That’s it. The apparent purpose of the developer-funded lawsuit was to squelch the speech of the opponents to Measure H. Mr. Carson and his deep-pocketed backers probably assumed that the citizens would not be able to afford to litigate the ballot 
argument.
Special interests like developers already have a financial advantage and regularly outspend citizen campaigns by more than twenty to one. Mr. Carson and the Measure H developer have come up with a new tactic to press their financial advantage even further — file a lawsuit against the citizens. Win or lose, it makes no difference. Citizen defendants will have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a legal defense, further curtailing their ability to challenge the developer’s project.
Just the possibility of another developer suing the citizen opponents of a project could scare Davis residents from standing up and speaking out. That’s not the Davis way. Winning a political debate shouldn’t depend on the size of your pocketbook. Instead, make your best case and then let the voters decide.
The problem with Carson’s conduct in the Measure H campaign is that he has blurred the line between his role as an elected representative of the people of Davis and his advocacy for a development project. This conflict of interest was on full display at the April 5 City Council meeting, when he took up a Measure H matter that was not on the agenda and gave a lengthy political speech. Even Mayor Gloria Partida admonished Carson this was improper.
As past mayors of the city of Davis, we can assure Davis citizens that Dan Carson is charting new political ground and that it is not good. We would ask that Councilman Carson carefully reconsider what he is doing with respect to Measure H.
— Joe Krovoza, Sue Greenwald, Mike Corbett, Ken Wagstaff, Ann M. Evans and Bill Kopper, former mayors of Davis
“Mr. Carson and his deep-pocketed backers probably assumed that the citizens would not be able to afford to litigate the ballot argument.”
A speculative accusation without foundation.
“Special interests like developers already have a financial advantage and regularly outspend citizen campaigns by more than twenty to one.”
By design, under Measure J, only the rich can afford to run an annexation campaign in Davis. When the bills start to add up for those who oppose most everything they cry foul.
By the way, not all of the people dragged into court are poor. At least one has a history of being a rich developer too. Anyway the disposition of claims for attorney fees is still before the court so its premature to talk about financial impacts on respondents.
Well said Ron. I agree we should dampen the rhetoric and wait for Judge Maguire to provide his ruling.
Bob Fung and I discussed making a friendly wager on the outcome, but found that we both were predicting the same result, so we decided to Dutch Treat each other a pint of beer at our favorite watering hole.
If it was in front of McAdam, I know how I’d bet… (based on ‘Trackside’)
If Maquire (who I have very little knowledge of) is judging, I’ll bet towards “Go away, you’re both taking up too much of the Court’s time… grow up, lick your ‘wounds’, and move on…”
Time will tell… and the lawyers get paid… and the County will likely not break even as to costs from the two parties in the counter suits… which means the taxpayers ‘suck up’ the costs of the Court… wish we could have one/both parties to the suit on “attorneys’ fees” have to fully compensate the Yolo County court system for their ‘p!$$!ng Match’… not likely my wish will be granted…
“This conflict of interest was on full display at the April 5 City Council meeting, when he took up a Measure H matter that was not on the agenda and gave a lengthy political speech. Even Mayor Gloria Partida admonished Carson this was improper.”
Now I get that Carson is an elected official and the chair of the No on H campaign is not but what is left out and shaded here in order to put Carson in the worst light possible is that the No on H chair had gone to public comment and called Carson “A bully and a thug.” Carson was defending himself from the projection of the No on H campaign chair.
While it is unusual and possibly a Brown Act violation it is not unheard of. I remember seeing a video clip of Sheila Kuehl responding to a commenter during public comment at a LA Board of Supervisors meeting after being attacked. Check out this clip of Supervisor Kuehl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFtNzZH1gDM
Another day, another article whining and complaining about a political guy a bunch of people oppose over an issue. Notice that we haven’t seen an article by the NO campaign in quite a while (the last one was a financial analysis by Matt) that actually focuses on the issue (as someone on the fence, I’d like to see a well researched article by the NO campaign….because I do feel bad for the folks in East Davis).
What’s the old saying? “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”. No one has yet to explain how the YES Campaign was supposed to get what they wanted accomplished (change to the voter doc) without legal action. They couldn’t force the opposition to make changes to the voter doc. So that’s what the courts are for. As to suing some citizens personally? I believe he had no choice because Campaigns have to have a local person or persons that are personally responsible for the campaigns (as treasurer I think). To me, that seems like a bad idea. I can sort of understand why it’s that way but it still puts people that want to get involved at risk. Maybe there should be a legal fund for all campaigns? And maybe a ceiling to the amount at risk that helps put a buffer between the campaigns and the citizens involved? I mean ultimately this all came down to wanting some print changed on a document and not huge sums of personal money….other than some attorney fees. Maybe public attorneys could be assigned to campaign cases that go to court?
To paraphrase a song from Evita, “Don’t cry for us, Keith Y-E…”
Either way the vote goes, we’re good… we’ll deal with it, in our schedules, trips, taxes, etc., etc., etc.
This is NOT Armageddon… not the end of the world, however the vote goes…
Got my ballot yesterday… voted it… my tradition is not to deposit it for processing until polling places are open, and/or election day… just in case new info on a proposition or candidate comes to light, that speaks to me to changing my vote… in over 25-49 years, tho’, haven’t felt the need to ‘surrender’ my ballot, get a new one… this might be the first time, but I doubt it…
I started being an “AV” in 1972, when I first voted (attending UCD, home residence in Bay Area)… now have done “VBM” most years since…
I do encourage folk, on any side of any issue/candidate to vote (unlike one VG poster, who on these pages questioned/called me “unqualified” to vote on this issue)… it is not just our right, it is our responsibility…
I may not like the outcome(s), will have to deal with it, but the process is good and sound at its roots.
And if anyone who is eligible does not vote, and then whine about the outcomes, my ears are deaf to you. Voting, then whining on outcomes is fair game… healthy…
As is often the case, I agree with most of what Keith says here. So, tomorrow there will be an article about Affordable Housing, and I’ll do my best to have other articles each day thereafter.
The URC (University Retirement Community) forum yesterday with Dan Carson arguing yes and me arguing no was videoed. As soon as the video is available I will share it here.
In the meantime, downtown business owner Heather Caswell posted a video on YouTube that is worth watching. As you can see from the graphic clip below, her message is clear. The link to it is https://youtu.be/N_GEq8UknR8