The Davis City Council did the right thing this week when it unanimously passed the sign ordinance by emergency ordinance. This ordinance would allow renters to post political signs on their rental units. Given the perceived level of opposition during the commission hearing back in October, it is somewhat surprising that this measure turned out to be as non-controversial as it did.
Of course there is some fine print that we must take note of. For instance, because of the emergency status of the ordinance it is only a temporary ordinance. At some point in the future, the council will have to pass the ordinance on a permanent basis.
Some of the students in the audience drew concern from this believing that perhaps during the of a non-election period, when council members were not trying to appeal for student vote, there might be a change of heart.
At the time of the commission, there was expressed concern that signs would like to dispute and conflict. But those concerns never made it passed the commission level. At neither the hearings at the council did a single individual object to the ordinance.
There are three interesting features of this council meeting.
First, if the perception in this city is that student are apathetic, one should have attended this past week's council meeting. There was a large contingent of UC Davis students who waited patiently for issue to come forward. My estimate would be upwards of 20 to 30 students. This after six students showed up in December, after finals, and waited until nearly midnight for their item to come forward. This may not be an important issue to many in this town, it is to students. One must remember however, 40 percent of residents of Davis are renters, this is not merely a student issue.
Second, I would be remiss not to point out that the students dressed better than many of the councilmembers and other town residents. Many of them wearing jackets and ties. Some wearing full suits.
This just underlies the level of student activism and commitment. Their level of commitment is the highest I have seen from student groups since I have been here over the last decade plus.
Also I should point out there were two separate groups from campus involved. One of ASUCD. The other was the Davis College Democrats.
Finally as I told Tom Cross, the lone property owner who showed up, I always complain about lack of communication when it occurs against issues that I favor and groups that I work with, I would be remiss not to make the same claim when it happens to others.
Mr. Cross was concerned with the lack of awareness on the part of property owners. The lack of communication by the city to property owners. He said that he did not talk to any property owner who was against this ordinance, however, they felt excluded from the discussion.
Frankly I am not sure how that occurred. There were representatives of the property owner community at the commission meeting. Brenda Little works for Tandem Properties, one of the largest rental property owning companies in the city. In fact, she voted against the ordinance.
It is true that on December 18, 2007, the ordinance was strengthened to overrule local property owner decisions on the issue. Originally it was written weakly to provide the right to post a sign if there was no rule against it by the manager. It was obviously that that language would have little teeth and so at the December 18 meeting the ordinance was strengthened to make the right to post signs in place regardless of any rules to the contrary by property managers.
This provision apparently never got out to the property owners in the near month interceding, which of course was interrupted by the holidays. Clearly communication needs to improve for the city of Davis. There needs to be a better mechanism whereby citizens and interested persons can be made aware of coming discussions.
As Mr. Cross pointed out to me there is no longer any kind of overarching organization capable of bridging that communication gap by the property owners and managers. As a result there is no good way to get the word out a group that is often scattered and some of whom reside out of town.
I am glad that there was no opposition from the property owners and I agree that the lack of communication, as it always is, is a concern.
Overall though, I think the city did the right thing and I think people in this city need to start paying attention to students and their concerns. It looks like they will play a much larger role in city discussions than they have in the past.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
Of course there is some fine print that we must take note of. For instance, because of the emergency status of the ordinance it is only a temporary ordinance. At some point in the future, the council will have to pass the ordinance on a permanent basis.
Some of the students in the audience drew concern from this believing that perhaps during the of a non-election period, when council members were not trying to appeal for student vote, there might be a change of heart.
At the time of the commission, there was expressed concern that signs would like to dispute and conflict. But those concerns never made it passed the commission level. At neither the hearings at the council did a single individual object to the ordinance.
There are three interesting features of this council meeting.
First, if the perception in this city is that student are apathetic, one should have attended this past week's council meeting. There was a large contingent of UC Davis students who waited patiently for issue to come forward. My estimate would be upwards of 20 to 30 students. This after six students showed up in December, after finals, and waited until nearly midnight for their item to come forward. This may not be an important issue to many in this town, it is to students. One must remember however, 40 percent of residents of Davis are renters, this is not merely a student issue.
Second, I would be remiss not to point out that the students dressed better than many of the councilmembers and other town residents. Many of them wearing jackets and ties. Some wearing full suits.
This just underlies the level of student activism and commitment. Their level of commitment is the highest I have seen from student groups since I have been here over the last decade plus.
Also I should point out there were two separate groups from campus involved. One of ASUCD. The other was the Davis College Democrats.
Finally as I told Tom Cross, the lone property owner who showed up, I always complain about lack of communication when it occurs against issues that I favor and groups that I work with, I would be remiss not to make the same claim when it happens to others.
Mr. Cross was concerned with the lack of awareness on the part of property owners. The lack of communication by the city to property owners. He said that he did not talk to any property owner who was against this ordinance, however, they felt excluded from the discussion.
Frankly I am not sure how that occurred. There were representatives of the property owner community at the commission meeting. Brenda Little works for Tandem Properties, one of the largest rental property owning companies in the city. In fact, she voted against the ordinance.
It is true that on December 18, 2007, the ordinance was strengthened to overrule local property owner decisions on the issue. Originally it was written weakly to provide the right to post a sign if there was no rule against it by the manager. It was obviously that that language would have little teeth and so at the December 18 meeting the ordinance was strengthened to make the right to post signs in place regardless of any rules to the contrary by property managers.
This provision apparently never got out to the property owners in the near month interceding, which of course was interrupted by the holidays. Clearly communication needs to improve for the city of Davis. There needs to be a better mechanism whereby citizens and interested persons can be made aware of coming discussions.
As Mr. Cross pointed out to me there is no longer any kind of overarching organization capable of bridging that communication gap by the property owners and managers. As a result there is no good way to get the word out a group that is often scattered and some of whom reside out of town.
I am glad that there was no opposition from the property owners and I agree that the lack of communication, as it always is, is a concern.
Overall though, I think the city did the right thing and I think people in this city need to start paying attention to students and their concerns. It looks like they will play a much larger role in city discussions than they have in the past.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
