Last night's Davis City Council meeting saw a number of issues that were raised that we will be discussing over the course of the next few days.
I begin with a procedural fight over what will likely be one of the most contentious issues facing Davis over the course of the next 18 months--the update of the general plan.
Last night the key point in question was what body should be drafting the update to the General Plan. Staff came forward last night with a format that gives the appearance of citizen participation in the form of a steering committee. I say appearance because the council itself will appoint these members and they are likely to reflect a rather narrow cross-section of Davis residents
Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek opposed this option preferring that the council work to draft the new general plan themselves. The stated reason was that both members felt like this should be the primary responsibility of the elected council members rather than point "surrogates."
Now the term surrogate drew a surprisingly angry response from Asmundson, who somehow found that term offensive. She considered it an insult to the people who would serve this role. (In the future, this will be fodder for a video clip, but in the meantime, a brief discussion is in order.)
I looked up the definition to the word surrogate and found it rather innocuous according to WordReference.com. The first definition is: "a person appointed to represent or act on behalf of others." Hello? Is that not what they are doing?
Heystek clearly objected to the process, but it was far from clear that he of all people had any intention of being insulting to citizens who would participate in this process. Asmundson's claim was completely without merit and her response was extremely disproportionate to the so-called offense.
The concern that Greenwald and Heystek have is that each member will draw from a very narrow group of people and that the division lines on the council will be reflected in who the councilmembers nominate to that committee. That part is obvious. The less obvious part is whether a group of 15 appointed by the commission and their likely 9-6 vote would have any greater weight than a 3-2 vote by the council itself.
I think there is a clear concern that this would give the council majority political cover to take whatever actions a body of 15 citizens recommend.
I also think that Heystek has a valid concern echoed in the comments by Eileen Samitz last night that this is the same council majority whose proposed project at Covell Village was overwhelmingly defeated, whose project at Second Street Crossing was narrowly passed, and whose own members were narrowly elected.
Why is that relevant? Because a likely 9-6 breakdown of the members of a steering committee would likely not reflect the sentiment and values of the community at-large.
That said, to be fully honest, I am not sure that any process is going to be completely fair short of competing visions going up for a vote. It is very obvious that the council majority will do what they want to do regardless of how the process is set up (and that’s not necessarily a criticism of them, that’s in fact their right as council majority). The only thing we can hope for is a fair and open proceedings that are recorded and can be shown in the light of day.
As such, projects such as this blog may be the best protection we have. The public needs to be informed and put pressure on the council to adhere to our vision of growth.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
I begin with a procedural fight over what will likely be one of the most contentious issues facing Davis over the course of the next 18 months--the update of the general plan.
Last night the key point in question was what body should be drafting the update to the General Plan. Staff came forward last night with a format that gives the appearance of citizen participation in the form of a steering committee. I say appearance because the council itself will appoint these members and they are likely to reflect a rather narrow cross-section of Davis residents
Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek opposed this option preferring that the council work to draft the new general plan themselves. The stated reason was that both members felt like this should be the primary responsibility of the elected council members rather than point "surrogates."
Now the term surrogate drew a surprisingly angry response from Asmundson, who somehow found that term offensive. She considered it an insult to the people who would serve this role. (In the future, this will be fodder for a video clip, but in the meantime, a brief discussion is in order.)
I looked up the definition to the word surrogate and found it rather innocuous according to WordReference.com. The first definition is: "a person appointed to represent or act on behalf of others." Hello? Is that not what they are doing?
Heystek clearly objected to the process, but it was far from clear that he of all people had any intention of being insulting to citizens who would participate in this process. Asmundson's claim was completely without merit and her response was extremely disproportionate to the so-called offense.
The concern that Greenwald and Heystek have is that each member will draw from a very narrow group of people and that the division lines on the council will be reflected in who the councilmembers nominate to that committee. That part is obvious. The less obvious part is whether a group of 15 appointed by the commission and their likely 9-6 vote would have any greater weight than a 3-2 vote by the council itself.
I think there is a clear concern that this would give the council majority political cover to take whatever actions a body of 15 citizens recommend.
I also think that Heystek has a valid concern echoed in the comments by Eileen Samitz last night that this is the same council majority whose proposed project at Covell Village was overwhelmingly defeated, whose project at Second Street Crossing was narrowly passed, and whose own members were narrowly elected.
Why is that relevant? Because a likely 9-6 breakdown of the members of a steering committee would likely not reflect the sentiment and values of the community at-large.
That said, to be fully honest, I am not sure that any process is going to be completely fair short of competing visions going up for a vote. It is very obvious that the council majority will do what they want to do regardless of how the process is set up (and that’s not necessarily a criticism of them, that’s in fact their right as council majority). The only thing we can hope for is a fair and open proceedings that are recorded and can be shown in the light of day.
As such, projects such as this blog may be the best protection we have. The public needs to be informed and put pressure on the council to adhere to our vision of growth.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
