The City Council did, at Councilmember Stephen Souza's motion, pull back the portion of the election code item that would have changed the campaign contribution limitations from $100 to $250.
However, they left the sign ordinance on the agenda. Six UC Davis students stayed until late in the evening on their winter break on behalf of this issue.
The item was not without some controversy. As originally written, the ordinance would only impact those renters whose landlords did not have a provision in their lease that would ban campaign signs. While that turns out to be most of the rental agreements, the fear was that for this election cycle, renters would be able to display signs, but new rental agreements would contain provisions that would prevent the display of signs.
City Clerk Margaret Roberts during her staff report said:
Councilmember Don Saylor voted in favor of the first reading, however, he requested to see material for the second reading. He suggested that the new language has not been seen by people outside of the room (I am not certain that has been a concern in the past when he has proposed amended language to agenda items and ordinances).
One item of interest was Senate Bill 540, which passed both houses of the legislature but was vetoed by the Governor.
That bill would have established:
The council settled on presenting material on the second reading.
Lamar Heystek, lauded and applauded ASUCD for bringing forward this issue and getting it to the city council. He wanted to honor their commitment and the fact that they were there late into the evening during Winter Break, with appropriate action.
Don Saylor supported the ordinance but he had reservations.
Secondly, it is also interesting that no one showed up. From our description of the October commission meeting, this was indeed a lively and at times contentious debate. The CEO of the Chamber of Commerce was present for that debate. As was a representative from one of the largest property management companies in town--Tandem Properties owned by John Whitcombe. This is to suggest that if they were not aware of this issue, I would have a tendency to put it on them.
Finally, it is ironic because Mr. Saylor, is just a bit disingenuous throughout this statement. He is concerned about these factors on issues that he cares about. The fact that he and Mr. Souza supported the ordinance reflects political realities more than personal preferences.
Nevertheless this is a moment for applause rather than criticism. The work of members of the ASUCD Senate should be applauded. As should their dedication. It was their work and the strong support of Councilmember Lamar Heystek that made this passage possible.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
However, they left the sign ordinance on the agenda. Six UC Davis students stayed until late in the evening on their winter break on behalf of this issue.
The item was not without some controversy. As originally written, the ordinance would only impact those renters whose landlords did not have a provision in their lease that would ban campaign signs. While that turns out to be most of the rental agreements, the fear was that for this election cycle, renters would be able to display signs, but new rental agreements would contain provisions that would prevent the display of signs.
City Clerk Margaret Roberts during her staff report said:
"The ordinance that's before you minimally addresses that in that it says that they [political signs] are allowable, however, currently if a lease between a landlord and a tenant prohibits political signs, or any signage in their windows, that contract would supersede our ordinance. With that said, the city attorney has prepared at my request some alternatives that would disallow landlords from forbidding them to put that in."City Attorney Harriett Steiner suggested that nothing would preclude the city from adding a section to the ordinance dealing with non-commercial advertising signs, that would enable renters to post signs on their rental unit space.
Councilmember Don Saylor voted in favor of the first reading, however, he requested to see material for the second reading. He suggested that the new language has not been seen by people outside of the room (I am not certain that has been a concern in the past when he has proposed amended language to agenda items and ordinances).
One item of interest was Senate Bill 540, which passed both houses of the legislature but was vetoed by the Governor.
That bill would have established:
"that a landlord may not prohibit a tenant from posting a sign, flag, or banner relating to an election or legislative vote, or the initiative, referendum, or recall process, subject to certain limitations."Councilmember Stephen Souza had similar reservations about the change in langauge as Mr. Saylor, but he also had a concern about the timing since the primary election is around the corner in February 2008.
The council settled on presenting material on the second reading.
Lamar Heystek, lauded and applauded ASUCD for bringing forward this issue and getting it to the city council. He wanted to honor their commitment and the fact that they were there late into the evening during Winter Break, with appropriate action.
"It's very clear that tenant's should have equal freedom of speech rights, that they have political views, that they have opinions to express, and if they do them within the constraints of other residents, be they owners or not, I think it's a reasonable accommodation to make and I think frankly it's unfair to ask tenants to shop around for that right. To ask tenants to look for a place that will allow you to do that. It's a fundamental freedom of speech right. And just because students don't own the land that they live on doesn't mean that they don't get that right either."He concluded by suggesting that around 40% of our residents are renters, and therefore if we do not pass this ordinance, we will be excluding 40% of our residents from an ability to post political signs.
Don Saylor supported the ordinance but he had reservations.
"I think as we express our heartfelt appreciation for the six people who are here this evening and who have worked to bring this to us... I think as we applaud free speech, and the opportunity for all people who are interested in an issue to be present to discuss it. It's also important to understand that many people who might have been interested in this issue aren't here. And one reason that they aren't here is that they weren't aware that this issue was going to be discussed in this fashion. I'm going to support the resolution, the ordinance with the amendment that has been suggested, I think it's appropriate that we proceed. But I have to say that we don't have information for alternatives for how to approach this. We have one point of view represented. That is not a good way to do business. For that reason, I'm giving you a little bit of a cold shoulder on loving it to death, because I want to know on all issues what the various points of view are so that when we pass something, we know that we have weighed them carefully and understood the tradeoffs and understood what the points of view are that may not be represented. There is always something that we pay attention to whether we agree with it or not is another questions. So democracy and free speech includes all points of view."A few thoughts from my perspective. This is the most committed and most organized I have seen students in this community since I arrived in 1996. Don Saylor's view is ironic because the students felt that the timing of this item was inappropriate--students were on winter break, finals were over, most have left town. So it is greatly ironic that students who do not permanently live in town in some cases would show up and stay until 11:30 p.m. and that town residents would not.
Secondly, it is also interesting that no one showed up. From our description of the October commission meeting, this was indeed a lively and at times contentious debate. The CEO of the Chamber of Commerce was present for that debate. As was a representative from one of the largest property management companies in town--Tandem Properties owned by John Whitcombe. This is to suggest that if they were not aware of this issue, I would have a tendency to put it on them.
Finally, it is ironic because Mr. Saylor, is just a bit disingenuous throughout this statement. He is concerned about these factors on issues that he cares about. The fact that he and Mr. Souza supported the ordinance reflects political realities more than personal preferences.
Nevertheless this is a moment for applause rather than criticism. The work of members of the ASUCD Senate should be applauded. As should their dedication. It was their work and the strong support of Councilmember Lamar Heystek that made this passage possible.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
