Housing Report Presented to Council and Planning Commission

Last night at a Joint Meeting between the City of Davis and the Planning Commission, the Housing Element Update Steering Committee (HESC) presented their final report to the joint body.

While the work of the body was universally praised in terms of the time commitment and overall work, the substance of it presents some mixed feelings at best. Part of me believes that the work done by the steering committee could have been performed by city staff over the course of a few months. On the other hand, some of things that emerged from this process have been interesting and somewhat unique, and those would not have occurred with a city staff run process. Nevertheless, throughout the meeting there seemed to be a push to expedite the development of the identified properties--the bigger issue of growth rate has been left unresolved by city council since they have anointed the 1% growth rate as a target rather than a mandate. That leaves a considerable gap between the RHNA numbers and the upper ceiling on growth.

In addition to rank ordering the sites, the HESC developed zones or groupings. The first grouping accounts for just over 500 projected units, these are the primary sites--they have existing zoning and are simply ready to go for development. The next group are the top 20 sites--number 1 to number 20, these are called the Secondary Sites and between the primary and secondary sites, the city would get very close to filling its growth capacity on even a 1% growth rate. Some of these properties include the DJUSD Headquarters (1), Grande School Site (3), Downtown Zoning changes (7), PG&E site (8), Nishi (17), etc.

The next group of sites are the alternate sites and they are sites numbers 21 to 33. These are potential sites for this period, but more likely for a future point in time. Some of these include Lewis Cannery (21), Signature (23), Nishi with Olive Drive access (25), Nugget Fields (28), and Covell Village (32). The last four sites are those not needed prior to 2013. These are Parlin sites near the Binning Tracts, Lin Boschken, the property West of Stonegate, and finally at No.37 Oeste Ranch (I wonder if the county is reading this).

Now one of the more innovative changes that this process may allow the city to make, is a change in the way development is done. Kevin Wolf, Chair of the HESC, told the council that they wanted to use the site rankings in the development processing. Right now interested developers go to the city, it goes through a process, and the city makes a determination. He wants this to change, so that only the sites that are given priority by this reporting would be eligible to go forward and they would go forward somewhat in the order in which they were prioritized by the HESC. So project number 1 would get the first opportunity, if the owner was not interested in developing the property at this time, they could move to the next property on the list. The interest of the property owner would still drive the process, but it would be given some structure along the way.

The current system,

"wastes planning commission time and it may not be a high priority at all, but you are stuck with a project going forward. This says, what we're hoping staff and council will say, your project is not on our priority list. We want to hear from the priority list first, if we don't hear from the ones that are in front of you, we'll hear from you. But right now, don't bring it forward because that other one is in front of you that we want to develop first based on our HESC recommendations."

There is a positive aspect to this concept that Kevin Wolf outlined--it sets a prioritization for development. In that respect this would be a positive change. However, I also think it adds the pressure to develop these top 20 sites. Council defended their decision to keep the 1% as the growth guideline based on the fact that we have not been growing at the 1% rate over the past few years, basically since Measure X was defeated. However, putting this into play, if the council uses the 1% growth number, there is a much more realistic chance that we growth at that rate.

1% of course sounds like a very small amount of growth, but we are talking about adding a property larger than Covell Village between now and 2013. Covell Village itself wasn't even suppose to occur that quickly, it was to be phased in over a ten year period of time. Watching the meeting last night, it was clear to me that this process, would expedite the development pace in Davis.

My overall thoughts here before I discuss a bit more specific observations from the council and the community is that in terms of the ranking of sites, there is not much to quibble about. The HESC did a fine job in this respect. The real questions and debate is just beginning however and it is the political one. The question is one about how much additional housing we need, how fast we should grow, and where will we put this housing.

The issue of density has come up over and over again. I think we need to eliminate that word from our land use planning vocabulary. It is a scary word, especially to residents living in adjacent areas that have sunk their hard earned money into their existing property. Kevin Wolf is one of the biggest proponents of making developments more and more dense to accommodate more people and keep the city fairly compact.

At a HESC meeting Mr. Wolf wanted to direct council to ignore or at least downplay the concerns of neighbors about density. I think we need to re-work this dialogue. What we need to talk about is not higher density, but rather a smaller size for units. Smaller units with good strong design that maintains open space and distances can be made acceptable for neighbors if we include them in the process from day one rather than thrust it on them halfway through. You might never get complete approval, but even a compromised process will lead to community and neighborhood buy-in.

Now some of my concerns. The first is site No.7 which is the downtown area. That's a pretty high priority site and what it looks like to me is completely changing the nature and character of downtown. They have a CGI of what that downtown might look like and frankly it is a bit alarming. We are talking about several story buildings lining the downtown with retail on the ground level and potentially housing on the upper levels. This is clearly a long way from going through at this point, but if it does, it completely changes the landscape, feel, and look of our downtown. In many ways, the downtown did not look like Davis, it looked like it could be in many other cities.

I was also concerned about the talk regarding the Lewis Cannery site.

The recommendation of the HESC:

"The Lewis site should be planned, at a minimum, with thoughtful consideration to circulation and land use compatibility with the adjacent Covell Village site, even though the Covell Village site may or may not be approved for future urban use."

Kevin Wolf was one of the chief proponents of Covell Village in 2005. He said point blank at this meeting that he thinks there needs to be access to Pole Line from the Lewis site and he believes that by 2050, there is no way that Covell Village will not be developed. Of course, the voters voted 60-40 against such a development. The Lewis site is ranked 21 versus 32 for the Covell Village site, but I will say this now, there is no way I can support Lewis if it becomes a means by which to expedite and facilitate the development at the adjacent Covell Village site. The intent of Kevin Wolf was very clear here despite the notion that the "planning for the Lewis Cannery site should be able to stand alone and not be delayed by a Measure J vote."

A key point that was raised had to do with West Village and the fact that if it is annexed, it would count for the growth guideline. That is 1500 units, which would be a large portion of even a pure 1% growth rate. If it is not annexed, then it would not count for the 1% growth rate, but in essence, our area could grow by 4000 units by 2013 if West Village is developed, not annexed, and we grow out the full 1% over the next five years. Both Councilmember Lamar Heystek, speaking through a poor connection from a conference in Arkansas and Mayor Sue Greenwald raised this point.

Sue Greenwald raised an additional point:

"I have another concern, that's that this entire process seems to be numbers driven... One thing that concerns me about this whole process is that it seems to be numbers driven and that there's no vision component and that de facto decisions are being made about the visions for the future because we didn't start with the vision discussion."

George Phillips threw an interesting curveball into the mix. Mr. Phillips spoke on behalf of Steve Gidaro one of the owners of the Shriner's Property--the property that Councilmember Stephen Souza had tried to negotiate to get the city to purchase for the purposes of an athletics complex last summer. Mr. Phillips requested that the council place the Shriner's property back into consideration for development.

"The owners of the property... did not express interest at the time [the HESC selection process was occurring] and there is a reason for that there were discussions going on with the city relative to the potential acquisition of the Shriner's property for park purposes, to be considered as a potential site for the major sports park that the city is considering bringing a building out on the Howlett Property."

According to Mr. Phillips, there was agreement that this would be a straight acquisition, not connected to any kind development proposals or any kind of "quid pro quo." They were encouraged to make an offer to the city.

"We received a response back that the price and terms for that acquisition, the city did not have the funds at this point in time to make that acquisition, and that it probably isn't going to come together in spite of good faith efforts by all involved."

He wants to be added the list and the ranking process. He was told by council that he needs to speak to staff about this.

Eileen Samitz, who served on the committee, spoke as well.

"Another problem addressed was the need for a fourth fire station [was addressed as well] and a significant number of us on the committee felt strongly that we don't need a fourth fire station. Instead we need an emergency medical service. One of the astonishing facts is that only 10 percent of the calls for the fire department are for fires, over 50 percent are for medical. We don't need a fire engine to start someone's heart, we need an emergency medical service and basically a restructuring of our fire services is what we should be looking at."

Finally Councilmember Heystek expressed some of his concerns.

"I also wanted to express some of my concerns. Some of those concerns have already been expressed by some of the speakers during public comment on the dais."

He continued that if we were to look at Measure J projects, before we bless this document with those projects for inclusion, that

"we know exactly what our approach to Measure J is. That we are committed to bringing to the voters some renewal of Measure J. If not one that strengthens Measure J, one that at least renews it in its current form."

He also had a problem with the concept of a "green light project." This is a reference to the color scheme where the top projects are green (1-20), the next projects are yellow (21-33), and then red are (34-37).

"And when we say the projects are green light, I think that sends the message that we support the project before we know what the citizens rights with regards to that project are. We have to be very careful about Measure J projects."

He further was concerned how this list helps us determine the kinds of housing that will help fill our needs. We have the sites, but we do not necessarily know what these projects will look like.

My final comment is that I think we need to have a discussion of Measure J before we go forward with this project. While I commend the HESC for their work, there are a lot of issues that they did not deal with, Measure J being one. Another is that they looked at sites rather than housing, but I think we need a fuller picture like Councilmember Heystek said of what these houses will look like. To use Mayor Greenwald's point, we need to know the vision rather than simply the numbers. And finally, we need to know how much we will grow. If we pass 20 green light projects, does that mean that we grow at 1%? It seems to mean that even though the council's previous discussion seemed to downplay that as even a possibility.

Finally, people may not agree with me on any of these three points in terms of direction. I do not have a problem with that, I would just like to see the cards laid on the table before the election a month and a half from now and allow the voters to decide who they want to lead us. The issues of Measure J, housing needs, and growth rate should all be key discussions during the coming election.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Second Debate Last Night for 8th Assembly District

West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon and Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada squared off last night in their second debate in Vacaville, ironically sponsored by the same folks who put on the first debate, the Northern Solano County Democratic Party. Around 60 people or so filed into the Senior Citizens center in a debate that was recorded to go up on the internet.

The event began late and ended later than schedule. It feature little in the way of substantive differences--for the most part it was style, emphasis, and details. County Supervisor Mariko Yamada performed considerably better than she did the first time around. If there was a difference in the performance, it was not a large difference, unlike the first debate. This time, Yamada more than held her own.

In what follows, we highlight some of the issues and the responses of both candidates.

Christopher Cabaldon in his opening statement talked about the vast transformation of West Sacramento and took full credit for such a transformation. He remarked about his Philipino heritage, the disadvantages he had growing up, and the unlikeliness that someone from his background would lead the transformation of West Sacramento. Substantively he focused on a brown to green revolution in Wet Sacramento, leading it to become a city known for its sustainable and green policies. He talked about his education background. Finally he talked about making the city of West Sacramento safer by reducing crime. He spoke of the need to fight urbanization and protect agricultural land in the 8th AD, his vast number of local and statewide endorsements. Finally he argued that this is a state in crisis and it needs a champion for change.

Mariko Yamada ventured that she was running to give the voters a choice. She will be a choice for those whose voices are not usually heard and that she will be representative not for those in the halls of power but rather in the community and the grassroots. She emphasized her endorsements from the California Nurses Association and California Teacher's Association and being emblematic of her speaking to the real problems of everyday people. She cited her background from Denver, Colorado and the fact that her family had been interned in camps during the second world war. She cited her modest background as helping to root her worldview and work on behalf of the disadvantaged. She wants to solve the problems of those least able to articulate their needs--the children, the disabled, the elderly, the veterans. Finally she mentioned how she has canvased the community and has knocked on over 3000 doors in Solano County.

The first questioned asked about young voters and how they can be inspired and kept involved in the process. For Mariko Yamada, she believes that the excitement among young voters transcends the current elections. She cites the advent of technology such as the internet and youtubes as a means by which to keep young voters excited and engaged. She said this is a different and an exciting time. For Christopher Cabaldon it was about the issues. The issues of health care reform, education, the war, and climate change lend themselves to excitement and involvement by young people. Talks about the need to avoid the politics of scoring of points, this leads to cynicism. We need to respect young voters and indeed, all of the electorate.

Next came the issue of health care which asked which system they favored. For Christopher Cabaldon he suggested that everyone is paying for the uninsured, even when we do not see it. He favors the Sheila Kuehl single payer health system as the ideal. However, he then argued that we must do something even it is not a single payer system. We cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the possible. Finally he argued that cuts in Medi-Cal are taking us in the wrong direction and it will make it impossible to find Medi-Cal providers who cover the disadvantaged. Mariko Yamada was also supportive of the Kuehl Bill and argued that if her supporter, Phil Angelides had been elected Governor, we would have it as law now. She is also willing to consider others but not as enthusiastically. Talked about the fact that social workers have supported single payer health system going back 50 years, back then, she quipped they were called Communists but now normal people also support such a system.

The budget was also a hot topic of discussion. Mariko Yamada argued that the state budget process is broken and that local governments are imperiled by the system. She said that she does not have a problem proposing or supporting new taxes, however she first would like to end tax loopholes for the wealthy. She also believes that categorical programs have caused a huge problem and that there are far too many, which limits discretion and flexibility in the budget. She clarified her position on two-thirds requirement for budget passage, arguing now for a 55-60 threshold for the state budget. She argued that she does not favor a 50 percent plus one approach, that that only works when Democrats are in power and cited 1994 as a recent example of a time when the Democrats were not in power.

Christopher Cabaldon cited his record of balancing the budget in West Sacramento to the point where they have been able to have a city program of preschool for disadvantage kids enacted during an economic downturn. He said that we must ensure long term prosperity and to do so, we must do business better as a state, cut wasteful programs and spending before we ask for more taxes. He also cited the need for tax equity. He wants to close the corporate tax loophole and then he talked about the fact that the tax system has not kept pace with our new economy which is not exclusively based on manufactured and consumer goods. We need to look at a service oriented economy and adjust the tax system accordingly.

For the economy Christopher Cabladon focused on competitiveness even in places like Winters and Dixon in the global economy. Specifically he looked toward infrastructure and the problems of foreclosure. He suggested that we re-use the foreclosed housing stock and look to provide more affordable housing.

Mariko Yamada's focus was on green technology and she believes that the green revolution is the next wave. She thinks that green technology provides us an opportunity to make fundamental changes in the face of global warming and climate change. She wants to use green technology to create new jobs, new training. She believes it will help the economy while at the same time helping us to stay alive on the planet.

Several of the questions focused specifically on Solano County. One asked the candidates to cite what they would do to help the Solano County's economy, what was the biggest need. Mariko Yamada cited the need for local control--we must respect what each jurisdiction would articulate as their greatest needs economically. Each has a flavor of their own, they have staked out their own identity and we need to respect that. Each has its own General Plan and has made its own decisions. We need to work with the local leadership to see what they need the state to provide.

Christopher Cabaldon talked about the consequences of the housing market once again and the need to recycle housing stock. He talked about helping Suisun get block grants to do just that because currently small cities are not eligible for such grants. Then he talked about the tax policy and the state's policy that companies pay higher taxes if they both employ and sell in California. He cited the health care system and the need to provide that with assistance. Finally, he wants to help Travis Air Force Base.

Next the topic turned to traffic and congestion. Christopher Cabaldon cited the real human costs of congestion rather than simply an inconvenience. He pointed toward possible solutions--the capital corridor rail system, the Port of Sacramento as a means by which to transport without using our highways, and the transportation infrastructure bond. Mariko Yamada expressed optimism because ironically of global warming forcing us to deal with transportation, making it a priority. The cost of fuel is also driving that. Interestingly she said the fact that many people are living beyond their driving age as a means by which to relieve pressure on roadways. She suggests an investment in alternative transportation and talking about fixing land use planning by ceasing the promotion of sprawl which forces people to drive more and longer distances.

Highway 12 is another big issue for Solano County. The question asked about expansion to four lanes and whether they favored a bridge or a tunnel at Rio Vista.

Mariko Yamada argued that this is a very dangerous road and thanked Assemblywoman Lois Wolk for her work in helping to alleviate some of the danger. She said that this road was never intended to support the kind of traffic it currently does. She suggested that the Trilogy development will simply add to this. Making it four lanes will simply increase traffic. And while she is not definitive on it, she favors a bridge over a tunnel.

Christopher Cabaldon argued that too many have died on Highway 12 due to the inaction of the state and local leaders. He praised Lois Wolk as well. He differed with Yamada arguing that Trilogy is not the problem, the problem is not residential traffic or even commuter traffic. The problem is that commercial traffic--i.e. large trucks have used Highway 12 and avoided the freeways such as I-80 which were designed for them to use. He suggested that this is not sustainable and cited problems with the Delta as a result of the level of traffic.

Gas prices were also an issue and the question asked what they would do as Assemblymembers to reduce the dependence on oil. Chrisopher Cabaldon quipped that he was glad the question was not about gas prices, since he had no control over them as an Assemblymember. He cited both the monetary and environmental costs. His solution focused on smarter development to avoid commutes and alternative energy such as the hydrogen fuel cell and the pul-in hybrid. Mariko Yamada said that we must look at ourselves and change our driving behavior. She talked about the creation of an e-way in Yolo County--a dedicated path for electric vehicles. The finite supply of money necessarily means higher prices and the only way to combat them is to change our consumption power and develop green technologies.

Perhaps the most unusual question focused on whether it was possible to be an honest politician. Mariko Yamada turned this basically into an attack on her opponent, arguing that she believes it is possible to find an ethical balance and that this balance has been lost. She then suggested without direct citation, questionable behavior on behalf of her opponent, focusing perhaps on the West Sacramento Democratic club and perhaps even his problems with parking tickets. For her the answer is yes, that you can be an honest politician, although she identifies herself as a public servant. She suggested that she has not engaged in political shenanigans and neither have those around her. This speech drew the loudest response of the night from a partisan but split crowd.

Christopher Cabaldon did not immediately take the bait. He argued that in his experience he has never been letdown by the belief that the electorate both expects and deserves complete honesty. He then talks about looking toward our innter angels and makes comparisons with Bush--arguing that Bush has engagement in the politics and fear and cynicism, and of all his acts and policies, this is perhaps the most "evil."

However, Cabaldon would eventually respond to Mariko Yamada's attack in his closing statement. He juxtapose the seemingly trivial issues of parking tickets against the manifold problems and crises facing the voters of the 8th AD and the state of California--everything from schools, to the budget, the economy, healthcare, and the environment. He criticized her for focusing on such petty non-issues as opposed to these very serious issues facing people everyday.

Two final questions about education finished out the specific question section. The first of these explored the concept that education mandates come without funding. Christopher Cabaldon argued that "everyone in the California legislature thinks they are the superintendent of schools." He said that the state micromanages schools and that they put in specific requirements every single year that add up taking away local control. He argued that the local schools need to be allowed to figure it out on their own.

For Mariko Yamada we need to stop the concept of one-size-fits-all education. We need to reduce the number of categorical programs, eliminate No Child Left Behind. She argues that these types of mandates handcuff local schools and officials. Finally she pointed out that she was CTA endorsed and her opponent is supported by a different kind of educational organization, EdVoice.

The final of these questions asked about the mandated high school exit exam. Mariko Yamada argues that while she supports basic standards for graduation she does not support this exam for all children in order to graduation. Christopher Cabaldon on the other hand, supports the exit exam as a means by which to provide students and schools with evidence that they have some knowledge and some learning. He argues that it makes the graduation diploma actually mean something.

As I said at the onset, for the most part, these are two individuals who have a similar value system. There are some substantive differences between the two, but the biggest difference is in the emphasis and the details of their views and police prescriptions.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Interview with Assemblywoman Lois Wolk--Part I

On Friday, the Vanguard sat down and spoke with Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, candidate for the State Senate, 5th District. In November she will face Republican Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian. This is the first of a three-part interview. In this segment, the Assemblywoman discusses the agreement by the University to make Sodexho Workers full-time employees, the educational crisis in California, the Delta, and transportation.

1. I want to start with yesterday’s news about the UC Davis Food service workers. What is your reaction to the news that the university is going to eventually allow them to become UC employees and also, do you intend to support Senator Leland Yee’s legislation that would make it considerably more difficult for future outsourced contracts by the state universities?

I haven’t read Leland’s bill yet, it will come to me. Bills like that are very much amended on the floor. The process is that they are introduced, then they go through the Senate and the Assembly. They are often amended, so I try not to take positions on bills before I’ve read them and before they come to me.

I am very pleased about the Sodexho agreement. I think that was a win-win situation. It is a positive outcome and I’m glad the Chancellor made that decision. He called me yesterday and told me about it in the morning. I was very pleased. It’s the UC Irvine model I believe.

I asked the Chancellor about [the 9-12 month delay in implementation]. Before I knew it was 9 to 12 months, I asked how long does this take? He said, in his discussions with Irvine, and with administrators there, with the committee that actually made the recommendation, they did all of the research and visited many campuses, they were warned that it takes longer to do than you might want or expect. So I think that’s why he was making the estimate of 9 to 12 months. I’m just pleased at the eventual outcome.

2. As everyone knows the Davis school district now has to make a horrible choice between closing schools and laying off teachers and support staff and cutting programs. While it may be worse in Davis in terms of budget cuts, it is a problem that is playing out statewide and many communities do not have the base of support that Davis has—how does the state do a better job of ensuring that a more consistent flow of money gets to the schools?

There have been over 20,000 pink slips issued throughout the state, and that’s because the law requires that school boards early on have to take the governor’s proposal in January, his budget proposal, and respond to that. The legislature has been pretty consistent about protecting K-12. This year is a terrible budget year. I have never voted to suspend 98, and I hope I will never have to suspend 98. I think our schools in Davis are terrific, both our boys went through the system and had very positive experiences. I know that many people move to Davis precisely for this wonderful system.

When it comes to the reform of the educational finance mechanism, I happen to think it would be a good idea to do that, and one of the reasons that we need to do it is that our demographics are changing—not only Davis’ but the state of California. Over 50 percent of the districts have declining enrollment. Part of Davis’ situation is directly related to the fact that we have declining enrollment. I would say that’s probably half of the four million. What that means is that for each and every student who does not show up in a seat, they lose money and they lose it fairly quickly. So you can’t reduce the overhead, I mean you are not going to immediately get rid of teachers, employees, buildings, etc. You instead have a deficit that you have to deal with—an educational deficit, a program deficit.

I would like to see some basic reform of the education finance system. The problem with that is that that’s not easy to do. It’s a big state, with a lot of different needs, and different interests. Suburban districts, urban districts, and rural districts all have different needs. I have introduced bills that have related to finance, home to schools transportation, declining enrollment, and because there is no money available, it is very difficult to make any kind of structural change in the way schools are financed. But more and more people are talking about it, because more and more districts are suffering from this structural change in the demographics of California. It will start to effect higher education in a few years.

I’ve spent most of my political life trying to get more schools, trying to get communities to pass bonds, trying to reduce the two-thirds requirement to 55 percent, to make it easier for school districts to build. We’re now moving into a very different era. It’s an era of demographic change. There will be fewer students eventually at the University of California, fewer students at CSU, and we’re starting to see the beginning of that in Davis. And it’s not only Davis, it’s communities like Vacaville, communities like Benicia, it’s throughout the district—my district, you will see, flat or declining enrollment. There are very few schools where there’s an increase. Elk Grove which has been the poster child for growth in so many areas is having the opposite effect. It’s a daunting challenge but it’s one that we have to confront.

3. Delta Protection has become your hallmark issue, those of us who went to Congressman Thompson’s fundraiser last weekend, learned a lot about efforts underway to protect the delta—how did you get involved in this issue, what are you looking for the state to do on this effort, and finally what can we as citizens do?

District 8 represents the northern part of the Delta. I have been very much involved in water issues and environmental issues from the time that I entered the Davis City Council. As chair of Water, Parks, and Wildlife, I know that the Delta is the heart and soul of the California water system. It is the core and it is in terrible crisis. That has not only a major environmental impact, but a potentially disastrous economic impact of the entire state.

We’ve asked the Delta to do many things and many of them are incompatible with each other. We want it to supply an unending or increasing supply of water to Southern California and to the Bay Area. We want it to be an extraordinary estuary to breed and facilitate fisheries. We want it to be the repository of agricultural and urban runoff. We want it to, I don’t, but it has become an area of increasing urbanization. We’ve asked it to do far too many things and it is dying, it is absolutely dying. Of course it is surrounded by levies that are basically 19th century piles of dirt, and they are failing. And it is seismically at risk. You can’t imagine an area that is of more significance and at risk.

What can we do? We can do a number of things. The people of the state of California voted for a bond in 2006 to repair the levies and to begin the process of improving the water quality in the Delta, and the fisheries, the habitat, and the agriculture. What we can do is to try to raise the profile of the delta. Most people know where the coast is and know why it’s important to protect it. Most people know about the Sierra Nevada, and they will protect it. They know about Yosemite and they will protect it. They know about their local parks and they want to protect those. But the Delta has very few people in it and very little political clout. So we need to be able to raise the profile of the Delta so that it takes its place as the key water and environmental issue for California.

Then we need to put in place structures that will protect it. It needs are steward. There is no steward—no body, no agency—whose sole purpose is to protect the delta. And if I’m elected to the Senate, that’s what I’ll spend many years trying to accomplish. It won’t be easy, but there has to be a body like the Coastal Commission that focuses exclusively on the Delta and has responsibility for all water decisions and all environmental decisions that affect it. That won’t be easy to do, but I am convinced that has to occur.

The average person needs to educate themselves and speak to their representatives. Here we are very blessed with a delegation that understands all of that—both in the surrounding Assembly Districts and the Senate Districts. And at the Congressional level—Mike Thompson and Doris Matsui have been strong supporters of the Delta—they know where it is, they know how important it is to our region. But we don’t have the same recognition other places. That’s very hard for citizens here to accomplish. We have to educate those in the Bay Area, further in the southern part of the Central Valley, in San Diego, in Los Angeles, to the importance of the Delta to them but to California as a whole. And we’re trying to do that. We’ve been working very carefully with members of my committee who represent those areas, in educating them about the Delta.

Hurricane Katrina had an effect in that area. After Katrina, people were suddenly aware that the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta was in fact at greater risk than New Orleans. And look what happened to New Orleans, so that recognition has helped us with flood protection, it’s helped us with environmental legislation in the Delta; it’s helped us get resources to the Delta. Every cloud has a silver lining, Katrina really the knowledge of how fragile this area is. We have to continue that because we need resources from those who might want to put those resources elsewhere.

4. Transportation is always a major issue—this district really has two major thoroughfares cutting through it, in the northern part we are particularly concerned with the congestion along the I-80 corridor. This is no longer just an issue however about transportation it is also now an issue of the environment, oil supplies, global warming, etc. In your view, what should the state do to address transportation problems in the region?

The state has to take a very active role in addressing these problems. One of the first steps was this extraordinary $18 billion bond that was passed by California. We have worked very hard to assure our fair share of funding. We have roads that are bottlenecks. We have a port; why not use more sea transportation as opposed to truck transportation on the roads? We have achieved funding to dredge the port, to make certain that it can be used increasingly for transportation. We have to fund trains and transit. I’ve been a very strong supporter of all modes of transit and we need resources to do it.

We people seem to be very willing to put money into transportation, into transit. But this remains a very difficult problem because what’s happened is without jobs in the areas where people live, people will commute. That’s what you have between San Joaquin and the Bay Area. That’s what you have between Solano County and the Bay Area. You have people who want to live in these areas because they are pleasant to live in, and housing is a little cheaper, but that means that they have a commute. So we need every form of transportation to be at its best. And to do that we need resources.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: The Perpetual Problem of Parking in the Downtown

If there is one problem that the City Council has not adequately addressed it is the problem of parking. And really to be fair, this city council is not unique for the failure to properly deal with that problem, nor is this city unique.

However, in many ways, the solutions have not solved the problem. For instance, it is my view that the re-parking prohibitions are an unmitigated disaster. I have not seen it free up parking spots, what it does do is preclude long term parking and people from therefore doing longer term shopping or entertainment stops. That I think is the opposite of what you want to achieve.

Last year we discovered that this policy worked so well that it reduced the amount of parking tickets and therefore cut into the city's revenue.

This week we learn that the DDBA is in agreement that a solution to the parking in downtown is to meter the parking in the E Street Plaza. By itself, it is not a bad idea, I come from a city that has metered parking, but in order to provide enough of it, they had to build not one but two parking garages on both sides of the downtown and expand one of them.

The metering might provide some revenue, but I fail to see how it is going to deal with the broader problems of parking.

In isolation this problem would be somewhat of an annoyance. However, time is ticking so to speak because at some point there will be built Target out by Mace and Second Street with presumably a large amount of parking. That will take business from our downtown core. As some fear, the combination of parking problems and cheap merchandise at Target may imperil our downtown. And yet there does not seem to be a real sense of urgency among either the council or the downtown on this front.

Adding to the parking problems is the Amtrak Station that is attracting numerous out-of-town parkers who come here from the convenient and easy parking, leaving the residents of Davis high and dry.

We have a parking facility in the downtown, but in my view it is not located in the proper spot. It is on G and Fourth Street. That puts it on the east side of downtown and away from the main traffic flows and off the main track.

The parking situation calls for some more innovative solutions. We need to find a way to get parking into a central and convenient location, where it is easy for the traffic to access and easy for the pedestrians to walk to the rest of downtown.

This should not be an impossible problem. This past week, I had Matt Rexroad on the radio show, he mentioned problems with Woodland's downtown, namely that it was one long strip. Davis has a good compact downtown that should be walkable if you can find the right location to locate your parking that is.

At the end of the day, parking perhaps even more than Target or even combined with Target might be the biggest threat to the vitality of our downtown and that would be a shame because the downtown has the potential to be a really great community asset.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Painful Times Ahead for DJUSD

This is what we have come to--on Thursday night, the Davis School District, faced with a huge budget cut, put on the table the notion of rolling back teacher salaries by 2 percent. The motion was made by Richard Harris and seconded by Susan Lovenberg.

If the motion had been approved, Mr. Harris would then have asked administrative staff to take a similar temporary pay cut.

The idea purportedly came from one of the PTA presidents, who wondered how many teaching positions could be saved if teachers would agree to forgo their salary increases until after the state budget approval, which is expected to happen sometime in the late summer or early fall.

Richard Harris operated under the belief that up to $1 million would be added to the budget from the state once the agreement is actually reached but by that point it would be too late to do much with the current budget--unless you are dealing with salaries that could be the first thing adjusted once a budget passes.

There is a logic to Richard Harris' proposal, but the rest of the board Tim Taylor, Gina Daleiden, and Sheila had serious doubts.

One problem was that the idea came forward from a board member rather than either the Davis Teachers Association or the California School Employees Association. In fact, the president of DTA, Tim Paulson told the board that a 1 percent salary rollback had been proposed at a recent meeting but failed without so much as a second. CSEA also had problems with a rollback.

Tim Taylor I think clinched it in my mind:

"If we pass this motion, we're saying (to employees) 'Why don't you step up to this 2 percent?' We're not asking this of doctors and lawyers. ... We're asking this of teachers and other staff who we'll all admit are not paid enough already."

Sheila Allen examined whether there was even time to pursue such negotiations, but Kevin French indicated that there was not.

For Sheila Allen it became an issue of timing:

"I don't think we can get the information out to the membership to put the money back into the budget in time so that we can use it. I can't support this motion tonight."

In the end, the correct answer probably came from both Sheila Allen and Gina Daleiden--from a practical standpoint, it is not clear that they could have gained sufficient buy-in from the teachers in the amount of time available to contemplate such a decision.

The choices here are quite horrific, at this point in time, it is really not a realistic option. On a philosophical level, I think I have to side with Tim Taylor, himself a lawyer. Asking people who are not paid enough to begin with, to take a pay cut, does not seem a responsible course of action. But then again, cutting positions is not a comforting action either.

In the meantime, the board also delayed the decision on additional pink slips to classified employees, that decision will be made on April 28, 2008 at the very earliest.

It seems to me that the district has taken a lot of options off the table, but at the same time, it seems pretty clear that they still have to make these deep cuts. None of these cuts are going to painless. They already decided that they could not close a school on this kind of notice, which is probably the right decision but it nevertheless puts another $500,000 in cuts back into play.

Hence we have the proposal to cut classified positions. However, now six elementary school principals warn that serious problems will result if school secretaries' hours are reduced.

Here's what I have come to the conclusion about watching this process. There has been perennial speculation out there that public schools are run inefficiently, that they waste huge amounts of money. And yet, when push comes to shove and they actually have to make deep and real cuts, they are not able to do it painlessly. To me that's an indication that there is not nearly as much waste in a school district as people think.

Perhaps there were too many administrators, but even cutting some did not dent the budget and the amount of work performed by the administration, I think is severely underestimated. The additional workload with reduced staff will have consequences.

On a school site itself, who are you going to cut? Teachers? Secretaries? Principals? Other support staff? Each of those carries with it, vital tasks and duties.

When we are talking about cutting salaries for professionals who -most in society acknowledge- get paid too little to begin with, you suddenly realize that the amount of waste in public schools is not nearly what most think it is. We can cut painlessly perhaps on the margins, but once we get into real cuts, there is nothing but pain to go around and that's why these decisions are so difficult and why the process is taking so long. In the end, we are going to have to make decisions and do things that really hurt--that is the only way to avoid even worse consequences of losing control of the operations of our district.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

MAJOR VICTORY FOR CAMPUS FOOD WORKERS

Workers Applaud University Decision but Lament Delay in Timeline

It was nearly a year ago last year that the Campus Food Workers launched their most recent campaign to become university employees. On May 1, 2007, joined by hundreds of UC Davis students and community members they marched from the MU to the corner of Russell and Anderson. Three weeks later, they marched on Mrak Hall shutting it down. The actions have been consistent. They have received the support of many public leaders--Lamar Heystek, Lois Wolk, Christopher Cabaldon, the Yolo County Democratic Central Committee, former President Bill Clinton, and most recently Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald.

For the University it was an embarrassment--the only institution in the system to outsource their food service workers. For the workers it was at times a life and death fight, trying to get fair wages, affordable health coverage, and job protection. The lack of affordable health coverage literally put lives at risk.

The University finally pledged to study the issue, but no one had any idea what this would mean or where this would go.

We spoke with many workers over this time. One would tell us about her appendectomy that left her with a $47,000 debt that she would never repay. For another it was the inability to buy heart medicine that put his life on the line.

For these workers, help is on the way, but not as fast as some would like or need. Yesterday, UC Davis announced that they are taking a new approach toward the management of the food service program and its employees.

According to a press release:

"Under this new direction, the campus's food service contractor, Sodexho, will continue to manage residential and retail food operations on campus, but an estimated 175 to 200 nonmanagement Sodexho employees will be eligible to transition to University of California employment.

UC Davis' decision follows an extensive, six-month-long review of food service delivery models at college and university campuses across the country that employ best practices.

Campus and Sodexo officials here say they intend to act as soon as possible to complete the process of transitioning the Sodexho employees to UC-employee status and amending the existing contract. However, they anticipate it will take nine to 12 months to finish the job in a prudent manner that fully addresses the complexity of human resource issues that need to be managed."

According to the Chancellor:

"We arrived at this new direction only after an engaged, thoughtful and collaborative process. We consulted with many key constituents, including representatives from student governance groups. Throughout the entire review process this campus was guided by several key principles to ensure that our final decision would allow us to retain the high quality and diversity of our campus food service program without weakening our commitment to access and affordability for all students."

Sodexho's senior vice president for campus services, Bill Lacey:

"Our desire is to offer the best opportunities for our employees and services to the campus. The university's decision allows us to continue our long-term relationship and commitment to our employees with our continued focus on service to the campus."

State Assemblywoman Lois Wolk applauded the announcement:

"This is a win-win solution to a problem that has divided the campus community for too long. It's a win for the workers and students and it's a win for the entire university family and the greater Davis community. It also provides for the university to benefit from the expertise and high quality food service that Sodexo management provides.

"Chancellor Vanderhoef should be praised for listening to the workers, students and many in the Davis community who supported bringing these workers into direct UC employee status."

The workers themselves were a bit more circumspect about providing praise and in their celebration. The gist of their position is that this is a good thing, they are excited, but to a person no one understands the need to wait another 9 to 12 months.

I spoke with Ashok Kumar who has worked for Sodexho for six months as a part-time employee. He earns $8 per hour and has much uncertainty about the future since he does not know how he can support his family on that wage.

"I am excited about the long term situation, but it is tough in the short term."

He believes nine months is a long time to wait. Moreover, he has been trying to become a full-time employee but they gave that job to someone else.

Kevin Cole is a worker I have spoken with before, in fact he is one of the workers that got a chance to meet President Clinton in mid-January.

"I was really happy that it happened. The only thing I really am not happy about is why we have to wait so long for this to take place. I don’t think it makes any sense to wait another year for this to take place.

They are telling us they are going through a process--I don't understand what kind of process would take 10 to 12 months? Unless you are going to have to move across the country or something, but we’re right here."

Chris Beran has been with the company for three years and have been fighting for the union the entire time.

“I’m happy with the outcome, I’m really just discouraged with the time frame and the fact that they are holding back on us.”

According to the University, this arrangement will cost an additional $2 million per year. Some of this will be passed on to students, but the university also intends to mitigate the impact.

"The transitioning of the food service employees to UC-employee status and the anticipated amendment to the Sodexo contract are expected to add additional annual costs of approximately $2 million -- an estimated $1.5 million per year in additional costs to Student Housing and $500,000 per year to the Student Union operating services.

While a portion of these increased costs will be passed on to students, UC Davis intends to moderate the impact by: gradually passing on the increased costs over time; potentially expanding and modifying retail food services at places such as the Silo Union and the Activities and Recreation Center; using some reserve funds from the capital reserves of Student Housing and the student unions; and negotiating with Sodexho for an appropriate level of financial participation in the new approach."

That seems the least they could have done. The lack of creativity in this process has often been appalling. To use that as justification for keeping low income people in poverty wages never made any sense.

In the end, timeline or no timeline this is a tremendous victory for not only the food service workers who will hopefully by January be getting better wages, access to affordable health care, and protection in the workplace, but to the entire community. The Chancellor may have done the right thing in the end, but throughout the process it was clear that this was not his first choice. The community forced him to do the right thing. This is a victory for the workers, the organizers, the students, and indeed the entire community. The individuals, the leaders, and the people who got behind this movement are the ones that made it possible. It was a tough fight, but in the end, justice prevailed.

Those who questioned their methods, never had to walk in their shoes. The May Day Protests may indeed have inconvenienced students who needed to get to class and take exams, but for the food service workers this was a fight that for some of them was for their very lives. It is one thing to have substandard wages, it is another thing to lack affordable health care. It is a sacrifice that those students who were inconvenienced made, albeit unwittingly, that has now allowed hundreds of workers the chance for better wages and to get themselves and their families the health insurance coverage that many of them so desperately need.

Without the May Day Protests and the subsequent march on Mrak Hall is doubtful that the community would have become energized and mobilized to the extent that it was. It is doubtful that their struggle would have caught the attention of so many public leaders. It is doubtful that the university would have felt the pressure to negotiate that they eventually did without that pressure. And so today, the victory was only possible because a public university that is so insulated from public accountability, a public university that is in many ways so insulated that they are responsible to no one, bowed to the pressure of a community that would not relent. Yesterday was not just a victory for workers, it was a victory for our community and indeed in the democratic process.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Mayor Greenwald Joins Councilmember Heystek in Support of Sodexho Workers

On Monday April 14, 2008, Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald wrote a letter to UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef, making public her “support of Sodexho workers’ requests.”

Greenwald has met with Sodexho workers over the past two years and chose to make her support public now as she and City Councilmember Lamar Heystek have begun taking public actions for a Living Wage City Ordinance.

Mayor Sue Greenwald in a letter to Chancellor Vanderhoef wrote:

“I feel strongly that if the University truly believes in its ‘Principals of Community’ ethic it would treat all of its workers with the respect and equity that they are due.”

She goes on to once again point out that:

“UC Davis is the only UC campus which does not include its food workers as part of its community.”

Mayor Greenwald called on the Chancellor to recognize the Sodexho workers’ requests for the “same benefits and wages as the University food services employees, as well as union representation.”

Meanwhile a Senate Committee on Tuesday approved legislation to ensure that the University of California contracts with responsible businesses and that there is a competitive bidding process every three years. In addition, the University of California (UC) Responsible Contracting Act requires the University to maintain a centralized database of contracts that is available for public review at each campus.

Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) introduced the measure as a result of numerous reports of UC’s deficient and non-transparent contract bidding process. It was recently uncovered that a UC Santa Barbara contractor violated wage and hour laws. For more than a decade, UC Davis has failed to put out to a bid contract for food services. In fact, the same food service company has held the contract for over thirty years.

Senator Yee said:

“SB 1596 will ensure that the University contracts with responsible entities, workers are protected, and the taxpayers’ and students’ dollars are being wisely spent. It is imperative that UC has a competitive environment where bidding is fair, transparency and accountable to the people of California.”

Senator Yee in his comments singled out UC Davis:

“It is unacceptable that UC Davis has contracted with the same campus food service company for decades without putting the contract out to bid. The cost to taxpayers and students as a result of this policy is immeasurable.”

According to a Press Release from AFSCME 3299:

"Recently, UC Santa Barbara awarded a low-bid contract to provide painting services on campus. Unfortunately, the contractor declared bankruptcy and the employees were unable to cash their paychecks for painting services they had already provided the University. Wages owed to workers included approximately $90,000. SB 1596 is expected to prevent such events from happening in the future."

Lakesha Harrison President of AFSCME 3299 said:

“The passage of SB 1596 is crucial to ensuring the fundamental right of the public to have access to information and providing greater oversight of the University. The bill will ensure that questionable practices, like at UC Davis where Sodexo has had the contract with the university for over 3 decades with no competitive bidding in over 10 years, would be put to an end. The bill will also ensure that contractors are responsible so that Californians receive quality services at the best costs.”

While the bill was passed out of committee, it remains a long way from passage into law.

SB 1596 will also ensure competition by requiring all contracts be limited to three years terms and that upon completion of the term, the University shall solicit bids through a competitive bidding process. The would avoid a repeat of what happened with UC Davis in 2004, when the University announced a six year extension with Sodexho at the same time the university announced a multi-million dollar investment in the campus by the same contractor. This despite growing public scrutiny at that time into the food service contract.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Hundreds of Students March To Save Their Schools

Around 300 people, primarily students from three different schools, gathered at the Community Park yesterday afternoon in Davis and marched down to Central Park and Farmer's Market in support of the Davis Schools Foundation Dollar-a-Day Campaign.

The event was organized by the Blue and White Foundation, an alumni group for Davis High School.

The event brought out a good number of students, some parents, and a few community leaders including four of the school board members, three city council members, and a few candidates.

The Hanlees Auto Group announced they are donating $30,000 as a community challenge match--meaning that the community must raise $30,000 over five days culminating on Sunday, April 20, 2008. If they do that, Hanlees will match the community with a $30,000 donation of their own.

It was also mentioned that an anonymous donor has given the Davis Schools Foundation $100,000. The Davis Schools Foundation is trying to raise up to $3.8 million by mid-May in order to help off-set expected cuts to teachers and programs in the district.

With the recent donations, it seems like that the schools foundation has raised close to, if not exceeding, $300,000 to date. That would be a great sum, but also unfortunately well short of the amount of money needed to make a serious dent into the district's budget deficit.

Joining the rally and leading the students in cheers was Davis Superintendent James Hammond, who expressed his admiration at the way in which the community has rallied in support of the schools.

Two weeks ago the Davis School board made the decision to keep Emerson Junior High School open for another year and to maintain the current configuration for the secondary schools. While that decision was welcome relief for many students and parents in the district, the problem remains as to how to find the cuts necessary to balance the budget.

Unfortunately it appears that the school may stay open at the expense of fifteen additional positions. Last month, the district issued around 112 layoff notices to teachers and administrators. Tonight they may cut fifteen more positions. These layoffs would cut support staff positions that would save the district around $515,000 or roughly the amount of money they would have saved by closing Emerson Junior High.

At this point it appears that the only immediate relief would come from efforts from the Davis Schools Foundation to raise money to offset these cuts. While their efforts are valiant and the community has stepped up, to date the money raised pales in comparison to the budget crisis the district faces.

If you wish to donate to the Davis Schools Foundation, you can do so by logging on to http://davisschoolsfoundation.org

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Wednesday Briefs

Rexroad to Be Guest on Vanguard Radio Show

Tonight's Vanguard Radio show from 6 PM to 7 PM on KDRT 101.5 FM will feature Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad. Callers are welcome to call in at: 792-1648

March for Davis Schools Today at 4 PM

Council Holding Off on Discussions of Measure J Until After Election

During the long range calendar, Councilmember Stephen Souza suggested agendizing a discussion on the legal opinion submitted by City Attorney Harriet Steiner in June which would place it for discussion after the election.

Several members of the public then came up to speak on Measure J during the public comment portion of the meeting.

Those who spoke believe that this issue needs full discussion prior to the election.

Gene Borack said:

“I think it is unfortunate that [Stephen Souza] recommended that the discussion begin after the June election.”

Mark Spencer would follow up Dr. Borack's point by stating:

"I would hope that the council would address this prior to the next city council election because I think it goes to a very important fundamental pillar in what has become Davis’ sense of inclusion of the voters in land use which is critical."

They also disagreed with Harriet Steiner's interpretation of the renewal clause on Measure J.

Stated Gene Borack:

“As I read it Counselor Steiner’s opinion is that the next council majority can amend Measure J and she offers no limitations. Most importantly she says that the next council majority is not required to offer the voters the original version of Measure J as an alternative choice on the same ballot. The fate of Measure J rests squarely in the hands of those who will be on the next council in less than eight weeks.”

Mark Spencer is often regarded as the architect of Measure J, he worked extensively in drafting the language of the ordinance.

“Having looked over the city attorney’s opinion on the renewal clause, I find it troubling. I was involved in the drafting of the language of measure J as a member of the planning commission and the open space commission, our intent was pretty clear about each of the provisions that we had hoped to be included in the final measure. And we relied on the city attorney at the time for the clarity of the legal language which would declare our intent and would make our provisions happen in legal language. That’s what makes the opinion of the city attorney so curious—in that it’s the same city attorney. And yet at the time, no one was appraised of the renewal clauses language that is detailed in this several page document that has been given to the city council in the council’s packet."

He went on to say:

"I think that Harriet’s interpretation of the renewal clause is unnecessarily torturous. There are other ways and I think more readily accessible ways to interpret the renewal clause that I think is consistent with the obvious intent that the council had at the time when it approved the final language that was submitted to voters."

Finally Mark Spencer argues:

"Harriet gives a very long and I think torturous interpretation as I read it which breeds cynicism on someone who was involved in and had conversations at the time with the same city attorney about the language we wanted to achieve the intent that we had."

Nancy Price also spoke strongly in favor of renewing Measure J as a means by which to enfranchise the Davis voters to be able to control the city's land use decisions. She also favored a more imminent discussion prior to the next election.

“I was not directly involved but I was behind the scenes very much involved in the discussion of Measure J. I think it’s very important as this measure really relates to the enactment of democracy and the inclusion of citizens in land use decisions, that the council take this up before the election. And I think it’s really important that those of you running for election address this issue prior to the election and make your positions very clear on this matter. I think the citizens need to have a very clear stand from those of you running.”

City Council candidate and wife of this blogger, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, spoke strongly in favor of retaining Measure J as currently written and making it permanent.

“The only way to ensure that this [voter control of land use policy] occurs is to put forward a measure that keeps Measure J as it is currently written so that it’s not weakened or watered down. Measure J must be made permanent in its current format so that we do not have to revisit this issue once again in the future.”

Following public comment, Mayor Sue Greenwald asked the council whether they wanted to put this on the agenda prior to the June election.

Councilmember Stephen Souza was adamantly against this suggestion. He was concerned that this would politicize the issue.

"I think it’s clear that for me, I don’t want to politicize it. I would rather leave the politics off the dais and leave it to the forums during the election campaign.”

That sounds good, but given that this measure eventually must go before the voters, I do not see how you can avoid politicizing the issue--it is by definition a political issue. The question is really whether or not Mr. Souza wants to go on record having a viewpoint that the voters can either choose to support or oppose.

The idea that somehow this is not going to be a politicized process at some point along the line is far-fetched at best. If it is to go before the voters in December of 2010, then it inevitably will become a potential issue for the June 2010 elections. When it goes on the ballot, it becomes a political issue then. So the question really is--when would this not be a political process? I do not see that that prospect can be avoided--so why not take it up and let the voters decide now prior to the 2008 election?

He went on to argue that this will be addressed in various candidate forums.

"For me that’s how I’m going to address [in candidates forums], I’m going to address it very clearly."

No one doubts that point, but there is a large difference between what you say during a candidate's debate and what you actually do when you have to make a decision that is before you. And frankly this should be a no-brainer in terms of the course of action that needs to be taken.

Finally, I found most troubling this statement:

"Any action that we take up here in regards to it can always be superseded by the action of the public through initiative."

According to Harriet's opinion, as I read it, the citizens can put a measure on the ballot--that in itself requires a tremendous amount of time and energy. It would also have to go up against the council's own initiative. That puts the citizens at a great disadvantage. He seems to be using this clause as a means by which to diffuse the gravity of the council's decision without regards to the amount of energy and resources it would take to mount such a citizen's drive. It would be far simpler to have a council majority that passes the measure that the citizens want and having the council support that measure.

I agree fully with the comments of Dr. Gene Borack:

"The fate of Measure J rests squarely in the hands of those who will be on the next council in less than eight weeks."

I do not see anyway that the council can avoid it. I understand in principle the point that Councilmember Souza is making with regards to the politicization of the process, the problem is that in this case, there is no avoiding that. Why not put yourself on record and have a full public debate on what is one of the most important issues facing the electorate?

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Yamada Campaign Boots The Mayor's Parking Story

By now, many of you will have heard the story about West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon's car getting booted due to a large number of unpaid parking tickets. For most of us, it is a funny human interest story. Some of us who shall remain nameless can relate to the story. So he pays his fine and gets his car back big deal.

The Mayor did not try to make excuses for himself either. Basically he admitted he had made a mistake. He would take the tickets, put them on his kitchen table, and forgot about them. Those tickets caught up to him yesterday in the form of the notorious parking boot. He learned his lesson and apologized.

For most of us a $567 lesson is a slap on the wrist and a reminder that we might want to pay those tickets or even avoid them in the first place, although I'm probably the last person in the world to make such claims.

That should have been the end of the story except for the fact that driving by and witnessing the booting of the Mayor's car was none other than Mariko Yamada's campaign manager Brian Micek. Yamada of course is running against Cabaldon for the 8th Assembly district.

Mr. Micek was quoted in the Sacramento Bee saying "he couldn't believe his luck."

"I said you gotta be kidding me. No way."

The unbelievable aspect of this--or perhaps very believable depending on your perspective--is the fact that the Yamada campaign is trying to make political hay out of this.

To the Yamada Campaign and Brian Micek this was a political opportunity.

"This is evidence that Mr. Cabaldon feels he doesn't have to play by the same rules the rest of us do."

Which is interesting because the reaction of Channel 13 News last night was the opposite, they basically said it was refreshing that the Mayor owned up to it and didn't try to make excuses.

So there it was late yesterday afternoon and I received a press release from the Yamada campaign on this issue. My reaction was--are you kidding me? They are trying to get political points off this?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, April 14, 2008
Contact: Brian Micek
(916) 801-4257


West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon Gets the Boot
Unpaid Parking Tickets Result in Boot-Lock on Politician’s Sports Car

SACRAMENTO – Sacramento parking officials today booted the car of West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon for a history of unpaid parking citations.

For a car to be eligible for the boot, the owner must have at least five parking tickets unpaid for 45 days or more.

Cabaldon’s black Nissan Z, littered with plastic water bottles, Starbuck’s cups and “Cabaldon for Assembly” campaign literature, was parked at the corner of 10th and J Streets in downtown Sacramento. Cabaldon is running for State Assembly District 8 in the June Primary against Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada.

The goal of Sacramento's Vehicle Immobilization Program is to collect payment from the city’s worst offenders -- those drivers with the highest number of delinquent and unpaid parking tickets. The City of Sacramento is facing a $55 million budget shortfall and is expected to cut the city work force by 10 percent.

Cabaldon paid the tickets and fines and parking enforcement officers removed the boot. When they left, his meter had again expired.

###

And he sent pictures of it!

I hate to break it to the Yamada Campaign--this is not the political gold that you think it is. Yes, you caught the Mayor in an embarrassing moment, but the Mayor comes across okay in this. He was humble and apologetic. It is a funny story more than anything else. But no one is going to look at this story and believe that the Mayor thinks he is above the law or that he does not have to play by the same rules the rest of us do.

Now if the Mayor barged into Heather Fargo's office and demanded that she take care of the tickets or tried to use his position to get off from the consequences of the unpaid parking tickets--you would have a point. But him having to go in and pay a fine to get his car out of a boot is actually playing by the exact same rules as the rest of us--if you do not pay your tickets, your car gets booted. Lesson learned.

If anything having this story on the news last night probably helps the Mayor, as I said, he looked pretty good and honest on TV. Meanwhile it seems my mailbox has already had a few Cabaldon pieces in it, I am still waiting for my Mariko piece and waiting to see the Mariko signs pop up across town like the Cabaldon signs already have.

Meanwhile let us get back to the issues that mean something to us. Tell us how you are going to solve our education problem in this state or how you are going to protect the environment or fix our transportation system.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Measure J is in the Hands Largely of the Next Council

While the voters will have to approve what the council does, the council will have a large say over the shape and scope of the next Measure J vote, at least according to the opinion written by Harriet Steiner first reported by the Vanguard on Saturday morning.

Harriet Steiner believes that the city council has four options.

1. Not extend Measure J
2. Extend Measure J as is
3. Extend Measure J with an amendment or amendments
4. Place two or more measures on the ballot; one to extend Measure J as is and one or more additional measures to amend Measure J. The measure or measures that would go into effect would depend on how the measures were drafted, and how many votes each received, as explained below.

In addition to the council options, "the voters have the right to proceed with an initiative measure by collecting signatures and submitting an initiative petition to the City Council."

For clarification purposes, options 1 through 4 require a public vote--that means the council does not unilaterally get to repeal the Measure, but they could put before the voters a measure that would repeal Measure J.

Some have suggested that the public can simply organize and put the requisite number of signatures on the ballot in 2010. That is certainly true and likely what would occur should the council decide on 1 or 3. However, as I read the opinion, if there are competing measures, the one with the most votes win. The more confusion caused by competing measures, the less likely it is for Measure J to pass as currently written. One need only see the competing propositions by the auto industry on the ballot in 1990 to understand the possibilities.

The safest route for those who continue to support the citizen's right to choose would be to elect a new majority that has pledged to support Measure J in its current form and make it a permanent measure.

What is interesting to me is that people equate Measure J as an anti-growth measure. You can see the theme in some of the more colorful comments. Perhaps part of that is that the only Measure J vote went down to horrific defeat. But that was a proposal for nearly 2000 units. The next Measure J vote is likely to be considerably smaller in size and figures to fare far better at the polls.

The question is really twofold: does a development draw organized opposition and will that opposition resonate with the public as a whole. The last two growth measures was Measure X and Measure K (Target). Both drew strong organized opposition, but Measure K while not a Measure J mandated vote, passed.

Wildhorse was also not a Measure J vote, but it was able to obtain support from the community. Why? Because the developers and promoters worked with key neighbors and members of the community and were able to forge a coalition. Yes, there was organized opposition but they were able to overcome it.

The point is, that Measure J compels a vote, but that in itself does not doom a project. Ideally it would make the project better. It would force promoters and developers to work with a broad subsection of the public to make the project better. That is really what Measure J is about and exactly what the Covell Village partners did not do. The Covell Village partners would not have been able to sell the public on that specific project, but with better outreach and communication might have been able to develop a project that would have gained majority support.

Measure J is not about putting a wall around Davis or digging a moat. It is about giving the public a choice in how, when, and how much we develop. It is about forcing the developers to work with the public to create a project that the majority will support. But it puts the ultimate say with the public. It is for that reason that we need to work so hard to protect it.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Political Facelift For Don Saylor

I was not going to write about this, but I was just reading one of Bob Dunning's columns this morning as I was waking up. Someone named Liz may or may not have written to Bob Dunning and he was responding. For those wondering, this column is not about Bob Dunning, but rather about this statement:

"'Yet someone like Don Saylor, who appears to be sane, thoughtful, pragmatic, courteous and fair, rarely gets mentioned. Is that because he is boring or you don't like him?'"

That led me to wonder when Don Saylor's perception became "sane, thoughtful, pragmatic, courteous and fair?"

This is a man whose reputation in this town was the exact opposite. It was nearly a year ago to the date that I first wrote the column: "Who is Saylor to Lecture US on Civility in Public Discourse?"

I wonder has this man so thoroughly been able to re-write his image that in people's minds, he has become all of those above qualities? Gone now is the Don Saylor of old who was mean, nasty, and vindictive? Who would blow up at people on the street, berate people in that cool, measured voice? Do people really have no memories in political life or is it strictly a matter that no one is paying attention?

I am not going to regurgitate that whole column, but I do encourage people to read it, because it provides a lot of background into a variety of occurrences in Don Saylor's political life prior to him re-inventing himself as Mr. Civility in April of last year ahead of his reelection campaign.

Ask numerous people in this community including former elected officials and you will get a very different version of Don Saylor.

There are many examples I could go into, but most of them I have heard either off the record or second hand. However, there is one that stands out to me more than any other. It was May 23, 2006, the last city council campaign was wrapping up and Julie Saylor wrote a letter to the Davis Enterprise. Now, far be it from me to attack an office holder's spouse, but let us just say there is no reasonable way that this letter was written by anyone other than Don Saylor. And even if it was, there is no way that Julie sent this without at least Don's permission or Don's knowledge but I suspect that he had far more involvement than that.

Anyway many of you who were around back then will undoubtedly remember this letter. It was vicious, it was unfair, and it was taken out of context. Anyone who knows Lamar Heystek knows that this young man has no misogynist bone in his body. And anyone who questions his maturity on the Davis City Council has not been watching--if anything he has been too mature. I reprint it in its entirety so that people might have the full effect and not accuse me of distorting the position of the Saylors.

"Shared values? I don't think so

Is it a brand-new sexist day in Davis? Stop reading Lamar Heystek 's campaign literature and read his own words in his weekly column in the UC Davis Aggie newspaper, www.californiaaggie.com (search: Lamar Heystek ).

Two choice quotes are: "Women like to be treated like dirt. The worse you treat them, the more they want you" (Jan. 24, 2006). And, " I'd enjoy a strategically placed hickey. Hell, I'd even settle for a cigarette burn near my groin. I'll take anything that could be construed as evidence of having 'been' with a girl" (Jan. 31, 2006).

Read his columns completely. These quotes are not more palatable in context and the entire body of work is short on wit and long on references to virginity and feminine products.

Lamar is a lecturer in linguistics at UC Davis. He should have a good grasp of the meaning and power of language, so don't let him spin his writing as "just kidding." Would you want to be taught and evaluated by a teacher who thought it was acceptable to write this in the student newspaper? I certainly don't want my son and daughter to think this is the behavior for a role model.

More important now for Davis voters, would you like a City Councilman who displays such lack of judgment and maturity? I have been bringing home the Tuesday edition of The Aggie for months, marveling each week that a council candidate is so foolish as to write this unacceptable misogynistic drivel week after week. But he does. And he does it even as he asks voters to elect him because of his commitment to social justice. This man running for council says "Trust me. We have shared values." I don't think so.

I recommend that Lamar Heystek get a decade or two distant from his Aggie column before anyone consider him a viable candidate for council. This is not a comment about chronological age. We need to choose candidates with the emotional maturity, balance, perspective and experience to serve our whole community.

Julie Saylor"

And if people want to argue that this happened during the heat of the battle, that's fine. You can make up your own mind about it or the people behind it. I'm just suggesting it is difficult for me to think of this man as "courteous" and "fair." There are several other examples that I enumerate in the other blog post from April 11, 2007, but this is the most graphic and the most blatant example.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting