Mayor Kevin Johnson Surprise Keynote Address Highlights MLK Scholarship Dinner

Last night the sixth annual MLK Scholarship Fund and Recognition Dinner at Freeborn Hall on the campus of UC Davis gave out scholarships to two UC Davis Students and six high school students that will enable them to either go to graduate school or go to college. The fund was co-founded by the late Mel Trujillo and the Reverend Timothy Malone.

Bob Dunning had the honor of introducing the night's surprise key note addresser, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

Mr. Dunning said:

"Mayor Johnson is the first Sacramento Mayor to lead the NBA in assists. The former Mayor wasn't very good at the assists."

Mayor Kevin Johnson spoke at first about the importance of the election of Barack Obama and like many, that he never thought he would live to see an African-American elected President.

"What I appreciate most about Barack Obama is that he does not believe that he just represents the African-American community. He believes that his Presidency transcends color. That's the best of America. Forty years ago Martin Luther King in his 'I have a Dream' speech he said that we should not judge people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. In a generation's time, his dream is being realized. We all have a chance to witness it."

Mayor Kevin Johnson said that while we have accomplished much, there is still much to be done. One thing specifically he mentioned was the importance of education and the failure of our education system.

"There's still a lot more to do. Let me give you one statistic that I think ties into the theme today. That is, public education is failing our kids around this country. If Martin Luther King was around today, I could assure you that he would say that public education is the Civil Rights issue of the 21st Century."

He continued:

"You have situation now where a third of our kids are not graduating high school. Half our kids are not graduating high school that are black or Latino. That's just not acceptable. We're talking about America being one of the most powerful leading countries in the world, and it's no longer the case. When it comes to math and science we're 18th and 25th. Our schools are not preparing our young people for the 21st century. What makes matters worse is that if you're graduating high school and you are black and Latino, you are at the same academic level as white eighth graders. If your in third grade, and you're not reading at grade level, 80% of those kids, never catch up... That means your future is determined by the time your in third grade. To make matters worse, that we are building prison facilities based on third grade reading scores. That we are taking reading scores and projecting it forward to know how many people we have that are going to be filling up our prisons.

That's why none of us can sit on our hands or say we want to sit on the sidelines. We all have to get involved.

Among the awardees, first was UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef who announced that he is retiring in June after 25 years year. Chancellor Vanderhoef received the lifetime achievement award.

Chancellor Vanderhoef related a story from the mid-1990s during a time when the board of regents had repealed many of the state's affirmative action programs in advance of Proposition 2009.

"UC Davis Gospel choir helped me make that point quite a while ago about 11 years ago. I was at the board of regents at the University of California. It was in the mid-1990s, it was shortly after the board approved policies that prohibited consideration of race and gender in UC admission and hiring.

The campus at that time had a rare opportunity, it had an opportunity to make a presentation before the regents--a presentation about what we thought UC Davis was and what we thought was important to UC Davis...

I could still picture the major event of that presentation. We were just about to begin and we had this group of students come into the hall. They marched in. Now the regents had been having a very difficult time with students marching into the meeting because of Prop 209 and things that the regents did prior to that. So they fretted about that group of students marching in and seated themselves altogether.

Then they all rose as one body and in fact it was the Gospel Choir. The diversity of faces, the diversity just in general was obvious, it just filled the room before they even mouths. And then they began to sing. It was wonderful. For one thing, the regents relaxed. They relaxed enough so that by the end of the presentation by the Gospel Choir, they gave them a standing ovation.

Afterwards I talked to one of those regents... I said that moving that the regents felt so good about that group of students. He said, I don't think that we've ever seen any university group that showed the diversity that that group showed and at the same time they showed us how wonderful diversity can be. And what it can bring to the stage that other groups cannot."

Dave Dionisi from Teach Peace received a well-deserved award as an Outstanding International Peace Leader. He shared early in the evening a rather moving story about some of the things they accomplished in Liberia in attempting to transform it from a war torn country to now a place where they provide hope in the form of education to young children for just $50 per year.

Mr. Dionisi talked about Martin Luther King and importance of action:

"In the packet tonight, there's a quote from Martin Luther King that I just love about cowardice. 'Cowards ask the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question: Is it politic? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right?' There are many people out there tonight that have the courage folks that are standing up, that ask some hard questions about the Federal Reserve, what it's doing to our country, to ask difficult questions about the massacre in Gaza and what that means for justice everywhere, to ask difficult questions about what really happened on 9/11 and what that means for our democracy as we go forward. I want to say thank you to all of you who have made such a big impact on my life..."

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald received an award for Outstanding Community Service, she told the students:

"One person can make a change and we can all come together to make a better change. So when Dr. King says that we must sometimes take positions because they are the right positions to take, I want to challenge everyone in the community and students as you go through your studies, as you run into challenging opportunities, some of you have said 'I don't know if I'm going to get into that school,' you know what, knock on that door. And if that door slams on your face, then you go through the window. If the window slams on your face, you go back and kick the door open. I came from a family where we... were in a one-bedroom home, where we shared mattresses, we were very poor. But we never knew it because there was so much love and hope in the family. So don't let lack of finances and lack of opportunities... you keep asking questions and do not take no for an answer."

Professor Bruce Haynes of UC Davis was named outstanding educator:

"We've heard this a few times on the stage here tonight, that sometimes we have to take a position because it's right. That's something that I try to do... I wanted to take this opportunity to say that thing that is uncomfortable but what must be heard. I'm one of the few black professors at UC Davis that is actually tenured. There are few Latino faculty, few Native American faculty, and we're at historical times in the university's history. Never before has there been so many faculty up for retirement, so it is a unique time for personnel change. We have a deep pipeline problem in the state of California. At times I found myself battling with Chancellor Vanderhoef because he had challenging times trying to find diverse faculty. Part of that crisis in education in California really goes back to something that happened in the 1970s, something that no politician seems willing to talk about. That's Prop 13 which is pretty much the reason that education in the state of California left us in the dark ages. It prevents us from keeping up with other states in terms of expenditures, teacher qualifications, training our teachers. I guess I'm putting it on all us to do something about that..."

The Reverend Malone closed the night with a very moving tribute to Martin Luther King as the nation's first African-American President is about to be sworn into office.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Former Davis Police Chief Finds New Department Subject of Federal Class Action Lawsuit

Police Allegedly Targeting African-American Tenants in Antioch

According to a lawsuit filed by Antioch Community Members and four Bay Area non-profit civil rights organizations, the City of Antioch and its police department are engaged in a concerted campaign of intimidation, harassment and discrimination against citizens, specifically African-American residents, who receive federally funded Section 8 housing rent assistance.

This is the apparent culmination of a long and controversial dispute in Antioch between longer term residents and those who have moved their families to Antioch in search of more affordable housing.

The city of Antioch rejected the lawsuit's claims, arguing that

"any objective review of our city's policing efforts will reveal that these efforts are focused exclusively on criminal and/or dangerous behavior."

However, according to Brad Seligman of the Impact Fund, one of the four groups to file the lawsuit on behalf of community members in Antioch:

“There is no question that the City and its police department are targeting Section 8 families, particularly African American recipients... The Police have a deliberate policy of coercion, intimidation and threats that target these Section 8 families and their landlords. The City’s goal is to force these families to move out of town.”

According to a release from the ACLU:

Plaintiff Alyce Payne moved to Antioch with her children to show her family they could “make it” outside of Oakland and so that her children could attend public schools there. But after her landlord received several letters from the police department, her tenancy was terminated. Ms. Payne relocated her family out of the City.

“Everyone should have the right to live in peace in the community they choose,” said Payne, who testified before the Antioch City Council about the discrimination she encountered from police officers. “We all want to live in a place where our families and our rights are respected.”

The suit alleges among other things that the Antioch Police Deparment:

- Established a special unit in 2006, the Community Action Team (CAT) for the purpose of targeting Section 8 residents, and the unit has directed the majority of its activities at African American families.

- Frequently searches the homes of African American families in the Section 8 program (or those erroneously believed to participate in the program) without their consent and without a warrant in an attempt to gather evidence to be used against Section 8 participants.

- Engages in a pattern of informing neighbors of African-American Section 8 households that the household is receiving Section 8 housing assistance and suggesting that neighbors file nuisance or disturbance reports against the Section 8 household.

- Threatens landlords with letters and visits by suggesting that landlords will be held liable for the activities of Section 8 tenants, and police officers actively encourage landlords to evict Section 8 tenants.

- Attempts to pressure the local Housing Authority in charge of the Section 8 program to terminate the voucher benefits of tenants whom the police department has targeted. Over 70% of these attempts have been directed at African Americans. A majority of these complaints were not sustained by the Housing Authority.

According to the complaint filed, in July of 2006, the City and the Antioch Police Department created a unit called the "Community Action Team" or "CAT" within the department. The CAT has disproportionately focused on Section 8 voucher participants, particularly on those residing in the more affluent neighborhoods of Antioch. "The city and APD [Antioch Police Department] have specifically targeted African-Americans they believe hold Section 8 vouchers."

During this time, former Davis Police Chief Jim Hyde had become Chief of Police for the City of Antioch. While these processes were underway, he was clearly in the position to facilitate the program, and in addition "he is responsible for the administration of APD and the training and supervision of its officers." Furthermore, "Defendant City, APD and Police Chief Hyde are, and at all times material to this complaint were, responsible for the employment, training, supervision, and discipline" of three named officers.

Former Davis Police Chief Jim Hyde remains the subject of another federal lawsuit, this one stemming from the 2005 arrest of then-16 year old Halema Buzayan stemming from a disputed hit-and-run accident in a Safeway parking lot and allegations of unlawful arrest, poor police procedures, and violations of Miranda Rights. A judge in April of 2006 dismissed the charges against Ms. Buzayan. The Buzayan federal lawsuit is moving slowly through the court process, having survived efforts from multiple defendants to drop the complaint.

When Police Chief Jim Hyde resigned from the city of Davis, the city was rife with turmoil and complaints against the police department. The Buzayan case was the most publicized and notable. However, in February of 2006, a large number of African-American students and faculty, came before the Davis City Council to complain about racial profiling. In May of the same year, several hundred mostly African-American students marched from the Memorial Union on campus to the Davis Police Department.

While it was the efforts of the Human Relations Commission and my wife Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, in pushing for police oversight and reform, that earned widespread media attention and criticism by many suggesting they had gone too far in their demands, it was the anger of these separate groups that contributed to an overall sense that the police department under Jim Hyde's leadership was under siege.

In June, following the 2006 elections, Jim Hyde abruptly resigned from his position at the Davis Police Department to take the same position for more pay in the City of Antioch.

As he left, he threw more fuel on the fire, blaming my wife, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, and the HRC.

"In my 27 years of government service, 10 years of clinical psychology and 16 years of working with nonprofit organizations, the HRC is the most dysfunctional and incestuous group I have ever witnessed. I hope that (the) City Council will correct this community problem."

The Davis City Council would act quickly before newly elected Councilmember Lamar Heystek, a strong ally of the HRC and supporter of reform, could be seated. On June 26, 2006, the Davis City Council voted by a 4-1 margin to disband the Human Relations Commission.

To be very honest, this blog would likely not exist had it not been for the events in the Spring of 2006 and the actions by Chief Jim Hyde that led the HRC being disbanded.

Even two years later on the campaign trail, I ran into a number of individuals who still hold anger for the fact that Chief Jim Hyde was perceived to have been run off by Cecilia and the HRC.

And yet at the same time, it seems to me that Chief Jim Hyde was a huge precipitator of both the underlying problems in the Davis Police Department as well as an instigator to many of the tensions that arose in the Spring of 2006. When he left, overnight, tension plummeted. Even more than the hiring of a police ombudsman, the hiring of Chief Landy Black in the spring of 2007 served to cut down on the public complaints. I am not suggesting that things are perfect, I still think things could be better, but we have also not had public marches in the streets the last two years. We have not had hundreds of young African-American students coming into city council complaining about police tactics. In my dealings with Chief Black, he has always been willing to listen and has been completely professional, even on those occasions when we have disagreed.

As Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald said to Davis Enterprise reporter Claire St. John during her run for City Council in a Davis Enterprise article:

"I think we all learned from that process," she said. "How communications, situations, can be improved. It's those experiences that make us better people."

Escamilla-Greenwald said the things that came of that time have improved the city. The City Council, although it rejected an independent police oversight commission, did appoint a police advisory commission and hired an ombudsman. The new police chief, Landy Black, is a good fit for the city, Escamilla-Greenwald said.

"We have a new chief of police who is doing a great job as far as I've seen," she said. "I've met with him, I did a ride-along with the police, that was an eye-opener. People are happy, from what I hear. There's now a process in place."

While the situation in Antioch may be somewhat different from that in Davis, the basic scenario seems to follow a similar pattern. The police are alleged to take an overly broad approach to law enforcement. It is unclear the extent to which Section 8 Voucher recipients are being perceived to be causing problems or if they are actually causing those problems. But irrespective of that point, the response by the police in Antioch seems to be to allegedly harass all African-Americans, regardless of their Section 8 status. This is the heart of the racial-profiling allegation.

What we see then is a pattern of behavior not only in terms of police profiling, or perceptions thereof, but in terms of the handling of the matter.

Throughout the Buzayan case, a more honest and forthright approach really could have avoided many of the lawsuits and legal remedies that ultimately resulted.

The acrimony between the police and the HRC did not necessarily have to result from events.

As Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald wrote in 2006 in response to Jim Hyde's parting words:

"After many months of hearing from members of the public, last summer we met with the police chief over concerns about the growing number of complaints about police misconduct. These meetings and interactions quickly turned adversarial as the police chief became defensive. Instead of engaging in public dialogue over these very serious issues, Chief Hyde retreated--he cut off communications with the HRC, he pulled his liaisons to the commission, and began a concerted public campaign to discredit the efforts of the HRC to reach common ground on reforms that could be done within the department."

Furthermore:

"The Human Relations Commission, after hearing repeated accounts from credible citizens in our community, recommended the formation of a Citizen's Review Board of the police department. The Police Chief reacted negatively and with attacks upon the HRC as well myself and members of the community for even suggesting such a body. Once again, Chief Hyde reacted defensively and inappropriately instead of working with the community to resolve these problems."

The situation could have been diffused, perhaps by both sides. The City Council could have approached this by simply acknowledging a potential problem but suggesting that the civilian oversight board would be problematic in Davis. Instead the city endured attacks and allegations and heated rhetoric. No doubt everyone involved could have handled things better.

But we what see now is a pattern. That pattern has repeated itself in Antioch, far away from Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, the HRC or even the Vanguard.

At the same time, the response from the Antioch City Council is eerily similar to that in Davis.

Former Councilmember Ted Puntillo at the time of Hyde resignation called Hyde

"a very talented and probably one of the best chiefs that we could ever hope to have."

On Wednesday, the Contra Costa Times reports similar comments from the Mayor of Antioch as well as City Councilmembers.

On Tuesday, the Antioch City Council approved a nearly $17,000 per year raise for the Police Chief.

Antioch Mayor Donald Freitas:

"The salary increase has more to do with salary compaction but it also reflects an endorsement of Chief Hyde and the outstanding job he's doing. He has performed exemplary in the last two years, and has moved the department into the 21st century with the use of new technology. He's well-respected by the men and women under his command, as well as the community."

Councilmember Arne Simonsen:

"I'm sure there are other cities that would like a police chief like Jim Hyde... but I think the majority of people in Antioch would like him to stay."

I think the Davis Police Department is far better without Chief Jim Hyde here. Much work remains to be done, but so far, Landy Black's tenure as Police Chief has gone off without major incident. The city has been relatively calm since the departure of Jim Hyde. That and subsequent law suits in Antioch simply cannot be mere coincidence.

The Vanguard will continue to monitor the situation in Antioch and in the coming weeks, we will be speaking with some of the attorneys involved in the lawsuit down there and also possibly updating the public on the ongoing Buzayan Federal Lawsuit that is currently working its way through the Federal Court in Sacramento.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Incumbents Wins in Council; Saylor New Mayor; Stunners in Assembly and Supervisor

It was not a good night either for me or the Progressives in the Davis City Council Election. Don Saylor was the top vote getter, meaning he is Mayor Pro Tem and will be Mayor in 2010. Stephen Souza finished a close second. Sue Greenwald was re-elected to a third term but finished a rather distant third. Sydney Vergis was fourth. Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Rob Roy wrapped things up.

We will have a more thorough analysis, but Sue won by finishing third in an all-incumbent vote in a number of precincts as well as heading up the more traditional progressive vote in the core, although her coat tails were not there. Sydney Vergis was the true third vote for Souza and Saylor, never finishing above third in any precinct.

Frankly, the bigger news was in the Assembly, where Mariko Yamada who looked down and out just a month ago, surged late to a narrow but decisive victory over Mayor Christopher Cabaldon who had managed to attract the support of most of the Democratic officeholders and the three predecessors at Assembly However, Mayor Cabaldon who had a large war chest and an even larger support from EdVoice, may overplayed his hand. Meanwhile the unions came in, spent half a million, and then just plain out organized the seemingly well-organized Cabaldon machine.

Mariko Yamada won in both counties by over 3%. She won almost all of Davis and surprisingly almost all of Woodland while Cabaldon won in his hometown of West Sacramento. Around three weeks ago I started to hear residents who had been supporting Cabaldon grow concerned with the large amount of mailers being thrown around. Yamada's IEs went on the attack. And when EdVoice responded with largely false attack ads it seemed to backfire. When Yamada was ahead after the absentee count it seemed all over (and it largely was).

Meanwhile equally stunning was the victory by Jim Provenza over two candidates. The shocker here was not that the former school member finished first, that seemed a foregone conclusion given the way the last few weeks worked out. What was really stunning was that he could get over 50% in a three-candidate field and avoid a costly and heated November runoff. But he too had over 50% in the absentees and stayed that way throughout the night, finishing a seemingly safe 50.5%.

Provenza was by far the best known of the candidates entering the race, but John Ferrera seemed to have seized the momentum early this year. He outraised Provenza. Beat him out for support from the Capital. But the one thing he could not do was get key labor endorsements. Provenza was able to close the gap on money and then the IEs took over and dumped a huge amount into the race. Kennedy finished at a respectable 15%, about where we thought given her stature.

So Jim Provenza represents the big victory for the beleaguered progressive left in Davis. It is hard to figure if Yamada's victory is a blow from the progressives, many of who were angered by her stance on county growth. And the Council race was a huge disappointed despite Sue Greenwald hanging on for a third term.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Growth, Growth, Growth

There are actually a lot of issues in Davis that do not involve growth directly. But as the city council campaign winds down, in the end it is all about growth.

How is Davis going to grow, where, and how fast? To answer that let us look at the key questions from this council and before the next council.

Measure J Renewal and Measure X

The first answer toward that is the question of Measure J's renewal.

Two former Mayors and a Former Davis Councilmember, Ken Wagstaff, Julie Partansky, and Stan Forbes, each who sat on the council that would put Measure J on the ballot weighed in on that yesterday in the Davis Enterprise.

They write:

"No on X proved we need to keep Measure J: The obvious demonstration of Measure J's merits was the Covell Village/Measure X election in 2005. Having approved a subdivision of more than 1,800 homes, the council was required by the Measure J law to have the project ratified by the voters.

Most of the homes to be sold by the project would have been unaffordable to the average Davis worker. Traffic on Covell Boulevard would have been 'intolerable,' according to the environmental impact report. Despite the developer outspending the citizen opposition by more than 10 to 1, the voters rejected the project by a 60 percent no vote.

Had there been no Measure J, a massive project the public did not want would have gone forward. The only way the community could have stopped it would have been to create an organization to gather thousands of signatures and force a referendum vote.

Some say the public should not have the right to vote on growth issues. We disagree. Growth fundamentally affects our quality of life. It affects the taxes we pay. It is vital that citizens have the insurance that Measure J provides.

Moreover, it is evident that City Councils do not always act consistent with the public will. Even after their approval of Covell Village was soundly rejected by the voters, at least two members of the council, one of whom is seeking re-election, tried to justify what they did by saying the public just didn't understand the project. After countless public hearings, and after the Covell Village developers spent more than $500,000 trying to 'educate' the public about their plans, this attitude is condescending and insulting to the voters.

The next council will determine whether Measure J is left intact or gutted. We believe the reasons Measure J was necessary when enacted remain unchanged. Indeed, given the experience of Covell Village/Measure X, the necessity of Measure J is even more manifest."

The differences on Measure X/ Covell Village among these candidates is clear. Sue Greenwald, Rob Roy, and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald opposed Measure X in 2005 and will oppose a new iteration of it if it comes forward. Don Saylor and Stephen Souza led the charge for Measure X and would likely support a new version of it. Sydney Vergis claims she also supported Measure X and would support a new version of it.

1% Growth Guideline

There are really two issues here--one is how fast we grow and one is where we grow.

The council recently renewed the 1% growth guideline. During the Measure X debate, we were told repeatedly that if we did not meet the mandated growth demands, Steve Gidaro would come in and impose growth on us whether we liked it or not.

Now the message coming from Souza and Saylor is that the 1% is a cap and a target, not a mandate. They cite our relatively growth rate the last four years. Sydney Vergis has been advocating a broad range of new housing to meet our housing needs including development on the Nishi property.

Sue Greenwald, Rob Roy, and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald have suggested that 1% is too fast to grow. We should look to approve housing based on the projects not based on some artificial growth cap. Moreover, the RHNA mandate is for considerably lower than 1% to meet our internal housing needs.

What is clear is based on Housing Element Steering Committee's report, most of the growth in the next decade or more can be met with infill development. Both sides somewhat agree on that while disagreeing on what infill is. Both Wildhorse Ranch and Nishi would require Measure J votes, but some have suggested given their locations that they are really infill. Then again, they have called Covell infill as well. None of them meet the true definition of infill.

There are basically two key components of infill. First, it must take place within existing communities or established areas of the city. It could be a vacant lot or a piece of land with dilapidated buildings. Second, they must have existing city services and infrastructure. Neither Nishi, Covell, nor the Horse Ranch fit those definitions. They all currently have agricultural uses, none of them are within the city, and none of them have existing city services already within them.

Regardless, of the definition of infill, we have heard constant rhetoric about as Saylor puts it, "canaries in the coal mine," the danger signs of lack of growth. Souza laments the number of students who have to commute into Davis. Sydney Vergis talks about the need for a range of housing so that generations can live together in Davis.

All of them suggest that while they do not support sprawl (Covell is not sprawl to them apparently), they are concerned that people who live and work at UC Davis have to commute to Davis.

Frankly I think everyone is concerned about this issue, there are a range of solution to it being offered.

However, when they start talking about only 44 new housing permits, it begins me wondering about something. There is an argument that the cost of housing in Davis is so high because of our slow growth policies. They are argue that these policies are making Davis an elitist exclusive town. And that the answer to affordability is of course to build more houses.

A few weeks ago, we showed a data analysis that suggested that there no relationship between the number of residential permits and the cost of housing. The cost of housing in Davis trended almost exactly with the cost of housing in Sacramento.

One of the reasons Measure J passed is that in 1998 there 1013 new housing permits followed by 954 in 1999. That's roughly a 3% growth rate based on current figures.

What Souza and Saylor do not tell you is that they have overseen a period with among the slowest growth in Davis for the past several decades. In 2002, we had 307 new housing permits followed by 277 in 2003. In 2004, the year they took office we had 135, then 250 in 2005, 104 in 2006, and just 44 last year.

What happened? Some will say this is a manifestation of our slow growth policies. But what really happened is that they pushed for Measure X/ Covell Village in 2005. When that was rejected by the voters, they had no back up plan. They put all of their eggs in the Measure X basket.

When Souza and Saylor complain about the lack of growth in Davis, they are as much to blame as anyone. They backed a Measure J project that was too large and the public did not buy and then had nothing else to offer for two years. So despite a 4-1 pro-growth majority from 2004-2006 and a 3-2 pro-growth majority (which is really all you need to pass things in Davis anyway) from 2006-2008, the Souza-Saylor led council has resided over one of the slowest growth periods in Davis history.

It is therefore somewhat ironic when you hear people like Sue Greenwald or others pushing some of the infill development plans and people are skeptical that they will ever get built.

The best opportunities for growth that actually meets our internal needs rather than feeding more commuters as Covell Village would have, rest in projects around the core of Davis and also with the university. The university houses among the fewest students on campus of any university. They have the most available land to expand student housing and that would alleviate the 1% apartment vacancy rate in the city of Davis.

I have heard Souza and Saylor complain about that rate at almost every council campaign forum, yet no one ever asked them what they have done during their four years on the council to address that. Covell Village certainly was not going to address that.

My own preference for growth would be to look toward some of the infill sites and put in smaller units--duplexes, condos, and town houses. Put them near the core of town so that people do not have to drive to downtown. Work with the university to help provide housing for students and new faculty members. If you are concerned about families with children moving into Davis, the best thing we can do is provide housing for young university employees who are most likely to have families. I do not see a need to build outside the current boundaries of Davis for at least the next general plan period. Smaller, more affordable units, can accomodate much of our so-called internal housing demand and if we do it right, we can meet those needs within the current boundaries of our town.

Getting Back To Measure J

The three strongest candidates on preserving and maintaining Measure J are Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Rob Roy. Both Don Saylor and Sydney Vergis have suggested looking at possible changes to Measure J. Ms. Vergis in particular has suggested it is long, cumbersome, and complicated and wishes to make non-substantive changes to streamline it.

The problem with that approach, as we showed a few weeks back is that Measure J is long but it is very straight forward in terms of its language.

The framer's of Measure J were very thorough in their work to insure that there were no loopholes to the ordinance. However, the language itself is simple, direct, and to the point. Any attempt to streamline the ordinance would actually weaken it greatly.

For that reason, for those who view Measure J and a key component of our land use policy and a key feature of the democratic nature of this city, ought to support those candidates who would continue the measure in its current form and seek to make it permanent.

Preserving the Character of Davis

Everyone talks about the character of Davis. For me it is about the charm and atmosphere of this city. You walk through the core of town and there is a unique feel. Of all the things that have happened under the current city council, one of the moves that I disliked the most was the B-Street Visioning Project.

That old neighborhood directly east of campus between A Street and Russell is one of my favorite places in all of Davis. As you walk down third, you really feel that you are in a college town. You have the shops, the students, the old cottages, and you just have a feel for it. It is the part of town when I first visited in 1993 prior to becoming a graduate student, that I fell in love with and one of the reasons I applied to come to school here and eventually made it my home.

I understand the need for more density if we are not going to grow beyond our current borders. But you also have to do it while maintaining the character of Davis. At times in this city, we have done a great job with the concept of adaptive re-use. Taking an existing structure and adapting it to a new use. I have been less of fan when we tear down an old structure and build a new one. There are a lot of ways we could have revamped B-Street while maintaining the character of that neighborhood. This was not one of them.

Some have questioned the feasibility of the PG&E site. But there is so much that it has to offer while maintaining the rest of downtown as the walkable, bikeable, small town feel.

Regardless of what happens tomorrow, there are many issues with which this city has to wrestle with and the Vanguard will continue to be on the front lines of those issues.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Greenwald and Escamilla-Greenwald Receive "A" Grades from the Sierra Club

In a press release dated May 16, 2008, the Sierra Club Yolano Group issued grades of the Davis City Council candidates.

"Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Sue Greenwald rated an “A” grade based on answers to the three questions. Rob Roy, Don Saylor, Steven Souza and Sydney Vergis all received “B” grades."

On April 30, 2008 the Sierra Club Yolano Group and the Davis Neighborhood Coalition submitted 10 questions to Davis City Council candidates. In addition to the candidate forum, each candidate submitted written answers.

"The Management Committee “graded” the candidates based on their responses to the questions that related to the environment. The Sierra Club Yolano Group spent much time deliberating regarding the relative grading of the candidates for this 2008 City of Davis City Council election cycle. In general, the management committee believes that the educational value of the candidates’ answers to the questions - both for the voters and for the candidates is the most valuable portion of this process.

The three main issues discussed in the grading process were: Measure J, Wastewater and Surface Water Capitol Projects, and the future of wood burning in the City of
Davis.

Each candidate received the range of grades available and the final grades that we are presenting are the average of the management committee's votes - not a unanimous grade. This is not a Sierra Club endorsement of any of the candidates."

Vanguard coverage of the candidates forum can be found by clicking here.

You can find excerpts of the answers on both water and Measure J there.

On the issue of residential wood burning, an issue that has not been discussed much on this blog but is becoming an increasing concern in the city due to its impact on air quality, here are some of the highlights of the candidate's answers.

Sue Greenwald:

"I am in favor of looking into an ordinance for banning wood burning."

Cecilia-Escamilla Greenwald:

"As councilmember, I would like to look toward alternative means by which to heat homes—including Natural gas fireplaces rather than real wood or ideally, more energy efficient building designs to better utilize the winter sun, better keep heat (or cool temperatures in the summer) in the home, and solar power as an alternative means by which to heat one’s home or augment other available energy sources.

I would consider a possible ban or limitation of wood burning pending further study by the city and other experts."

Rob Roy:

"We already have the voluntary “Don’t Light Tonight" program in Yolo-Solano air quality management district. We must inform our fellow citizens about the program so they may now when air levels are at unhealthy levels. Expand the conscious of our citizens be more aware of any negative environmental impact is a good thing.

Collecting a voluntary city-wide email list serve to convey this type of information would be a good thing start on."

Don Saylor:

"While I want to withhold judgment until hearing from the NRC, I think we will probably see a combination of further restrictions on burning using specific appliances, incentives and rebates for purchases of cleaner EPA appliances, and more awareness of the issues pertaining to wood burning and the environmental effects."

Stephen Souza:

"There are already restrictions in place on new construction and new installation of fire-places or wood burning appliances. The Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District's Rule 2.40 requires the use of pellet fueled heater or EPA certified heaters. We should also require that at the time of sale, remodel or a certain date that all fireplaces that do not meet Rule 2.40 be replaced or rendered inoperable.

We can also promote a self-imposed program of “Don’t Light Tonight” whereby residents do not use their fire-places or woodstoves when air pollution is approaching unhealthy conditions."

Sydney Vergis:

"The Model Fireplace Ordinance include two primary components- Voluntary curtailment of wood-burning on low quality air days, and a mandatory upgrade to EPA Phase II Fireplace inserts or fireplace removal upon house sale or remodel.

I acknowledge that the voluntary components of the model ordinance or a Spare-the-Air day will not result in full compliance- I am hopeful that good outreach and coordination between the City, local organizations (Yolano!), and the Natural Resources Commission can pay dividends."

While the Sierra Club did not make endorsements in the city council race, the grades provided are a good guide as to which candidates were stronger on specific environmental positions than others. The Sierra Club did make endorsements in both the County Supervisor and the State Assembly race. (See here for full story). Jim Provenza obtained the endorsement in the 4th District County Supervisor Race and Christopher Cabaldon received the endorsement in the State Assembly Race.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Council Candidates Differ on City Budget and Fiscal Situation

To their credit the Davis Enterprise is running a series of questions and answers from the city council candidates. They limit the responses to 100 words each but print the responses verbatim. This is a good way for the public to get a sense about where the candidates sit on seven topics.

Aside from the issue of growth, one of the more interesting points of divide is on the budget.

The claim made by Stephen Souza, Don Saylor, and Sydney Vergis is largely that the budget is balanced, we have a 15% reserve. We have unmet needs though in the future that will require additional taxes. They would also like to expand the economic base of the city.

The claim raised by Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald (my wife) and Rob Roy is that unmet needs constitute part of the budget deficit.

Sue Greenwald raised the point that the problem is more on the expenditure side than the revenue side.

"Our revenues have increased a healthy 60 percent in seven years. Our problem is that expenditures have risen faster."

For her the solution is:

"We should emphasize controlling expenses by phasing in certain large capital improvement projects and controlling salary/benefit costs of management and highest-paid employees."

Cecilia is also concerned about placing much of the burden on the tax and ratepayers of Davis.

"Davis residents face several new taxes in the future on top of large rate hikes for water. The voters just approved new parcel taxes for the library and the schools. With the schools facing a budget crisis, voters may have to approve another parcel tax. We need to look toward other ways to balance our budget."

Everyone would like to see additional revenues. It is not even clear that six candidates differ that much on the type of revenue. For example, although Don Saylor supported Target, he has said at candidate's forums that he thinks that is sufficient to meet the retail needs of the city.

On the other hand, and more problematically, Mr. Saylor has suggested that there are "long-term labor contracts in place." In fact, nearly all of the labor contracts expire next year including the fire contract. His statement is simply untrue.

At the recent meeting as cited in the Davis Enterprise:

"Labor negotiations will reopen during the 2009-10 fiscal year, [City Budget Director Paul]Navazio said"

Conversations during the budget meeting last week, underscore the very tenuous nature of the "balanced" budget claims.

"The city funded benefits under a pay-as-you-go method until last fiscal year, when it added an extra $500,000 to the payment. To fully fund the program, which would save millions in the long run, the city would have to pay in about $4 million per year, Navazio said.

'Given the level of benefits and the cost of benefits, we need to be setting aside 6 percent of our employee salaries, and that percentage is pretty high compared to other cities,' Navazio said. 'That's also a reflection of the city's benefits, which are pretty high, and how that's packaged.'

'We have got to find the means to fund that,' Councilman Stephen Souza said.

'We are fully intending to deal with it, we're just not dealing with it fully in this fiscal year,' Navazio said."

We have balanced the budget on paper. However, the amount of unmet needs faced by this city is growing. We are talking about things that really need to be done. We simply lack the revenue to do them. Moreover, the employee benefit system looks like a train wreck waiting to happen.

As Sue Greenwald remarked at the meeting the other night:

"We're not in better shape than we've been in years. That's just not true. We are locked into a 3% at 50 retirement for the next 70 years for public safety employees and now 2.5% at 55, early retirement for all miscellaneous employees. That's got to affect our longterm budget situation. We have a $42 million post-retirement, unfunded employee retiree health liability. That's huge. That's coming due in only 15 or 20 years..."

And once again, the number of taxes and fees that the citizens of Davis will be asked to pick up in the next few years is actually rather staggering.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Sacramento Bee Endorses "New Political Dynamic in Davis"--Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, and Don Saylor

In a stunning surprise, the Sacramento Bee yesterday endorsed a "New Political Dynamic in Davis." Actually since they endorsed two incumbents--Don Saylor and Sue Greenwald, the only new political dynamic they endorsed is Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald (my wife but no relation to Sue). But if those three were to win, that would mark a new council majority.

For me this comes just over a week after both criticizing the Sacramento Bee for their lack of coverage, their lack of understanding of Davis politics, questioning whether they should even be making an endorsement in this race.

I was both correct and it turns out incorrect in my read on the Sacramento Bee. I figured that the Sacramento Bee would support the pro-growth elements in the race and look little beyond that.

The Sacramento Bee does indeed support pro-growth policies as they acknowledge in their editorial:

"While we remain in agreement with the pro-growth candidates on issues of housing and development, the public in Davis has made its views clear."

At the same time, they seem surprisingly conciliatory to the community having a say in its own land use policies, which is a striking departure for a paper that thought the idea that Davis would vote Covell Village and Target was ludicrous.

Instead, the Bee looks past those issues and towards on big issue: the firefighters.

"Meanwhile, other important issues have emerged: city finances and the influence of public employee unions, and race relations and the police department."

The Bee has seen the damage to city finances that out of control wages and pensions to city employees can do.

They continue:

"Davis firefighters are among the top campaign contributors to pro-growth candidates, a dangerous sign. The firefighters' contract expires next year. Given the current housing slump and the lack of a retail base in Davis to generate sales taxes, it is important that this city hold the line in the next round of bargaining."

The firefighters--their wages and their attempt to influence the outcome of the election--become the top issue for the Bee rather than development.

I remain no less surprised today than I did yesterday.

They claim they narrowly chose Don Saylor over Stephen Souza:

"Of the three pro-growth candidates on the ballot, we narrowly chose Saylor over Souza. Souza is hard working but has a testy personality that has contributed to the incivility at council meetings. Saylor is more steady and has wider experience."

Finally they encourage the slow-growth candidates to follow through on their promise for infill development:

"The slow-growth candidates we've endorsed all say they are committed to infill development. It is essential that they follow through on that commitment. Davis is a city that has priced out its working-class citizens. Whoever is elected must make a better commitment to build affordable housing for people who work in Davis."

Given the Bee's views on Davis and Davis' growth policy this was a huge surprise. But the firefighters involvement in this race has really changed the dynamics here.

Full text of the endorsement:

This year, as in previous Davis City Council elections, growth and housing (or the lack of both) are major issues.

The city had a showdown on growth with its 2005 vote on Covell Village, a proposed housing development, which this page supported as did four of five members of the City Council. Despite that support, the citizens of Davis rejected Covell Village.

This election pits moderate pro-growth candidates who supported Covell Village against slow-growth candidates who did not.

On the pro-growth side are incumbents Don Saylor and Stephen Souza, and challenger Sydney Vergis. On the slow-growth side are Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald and challengers Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald (no relation to the mayor) and Rob Roy.

While we remain in agreement with the pro-growth candidates on issues of housing and development, the public in Davis has made its views clear. Meanwhile, other important issues have emerged: city finances and the influence of public employee unions, and race relations and the police department. On the basis of their positions on those issues, we endorse Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Sue Greenwald.

A UC Davis graduate and longtime student and city activist, Escamilla-Greenwald is the former head of the Davis Human Relations Commission. In that capacity she was instrumental in exposing legitimate concerns from African American and Latino residents of a strong perception of police bias. Her efforts led to the resignation of the city's former police chief and the hiring of an ombudsman to handle citizen complaints. Even though she is a labor representative in her professional life, Escamilla-Greenwald has been forthright in her concerns about the generous pay raises and retirement benefits given to Davis firefighters that threaten city finances.

Greenwald was also a strong supporter of police reform. As a member of the council she has been a forceful and vocal opponent of overly generous firefighter pay raises and retirement benefits. As a result she has not gotten the firefighters union endorsement or their contributions.

Davis firefighters are among the top campaign contributors to pro-growth candidates, a dangerous sign. The firefighters' contract expires next year. Given the current housing slump and the lack of a retail base in Davis to generate sales taxes, it is important that this city hold the line in the next round of bargaining. Greenwald can be counted on to resist union pressure.

Roy declined to sit for an endorsement interview with The Bee, so we have no way to evaluate his qualifications.

Of the three pro-growth candidates on the ballot, we narrowly chose Saylor over Souza. Souza is hard working but has a testy personality that has contributed to the incivility at council meetings. Saylor is more steady and has wider experience.

The slow-growth candidates we've endorsed all say they are committed to infill development. It is essential that they follow through on that commitment. Davis is a city that has priced out its working-class citizens. Whoever is elected must make a better commitment to build affordable housing for people who work in Davis.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Pro-Development Candidates Not Forthcoming on their Growth Positions

Sacramento Bee Coverage of the Davis City Council Race

The Sacramento Bee had a pretty interesting spread on Monday laying out various positions by the Davis City Council candidates on growth.

Given that the Sacramento Bee had limited space and that this will be their only article on the race, they did a good job of getting to the core of the issues and the differences between the candidates in a campaign where many of the candidates sound the same even though they have pretty divergent policy goals.

To start, the happenstance of alphabetical order served to dramatize this point. The first three candidates in the alphabet opposed Covell Village. The last three supported it. That happenstance creates an appearance of stark differences between the candidates.

Measure J and the one percent growth guideline have been covered here. You can see more clearly here that Stephen Souza diverges from his colleagues on his side of the matrix on Measure J, but you can also see that that is the only place that he really diverges from them on.

The point also needs to be made again that Measure J is indeed a lengthy document, but it is really straight-forward and not complex. A non-lawyer or even a non-planner can easily pick it up and understand it. On the other hand, one of the reasons that it is so lengthy is that the drafters of the Measure J went to great lengths to define their terms and define explicit exemptions to avoid loopholes. Any attempt to streamline it will re-open some of those loopholes and thereby weaken the measure.

Question 2 is one that really has not been asked or addressed in forums to do that. So I am going to go through those answers, since they are brief.

The question is would they support a renewed effort to develop the Covell site?

The first three candidates Cecilia (my wife), Sue Greenwald, and Rob Roy give various versions of "no."

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald:

"I do not support developing beyond the borders of the city. We have enough land available within the city's boundaries."

Sue Greenwald:

"I just think it's way too soon to consider that."

Rob Roy:

"We have to focus on infill development. Building out is the wrong direction. Davis will sprawl and lose its character."

The next two candidates Don Saylor and Stephen Souza do a nice job of dancing on the issue.

Don Saylor:

"I haven't seen a revised Covell Village plan. I'm not going to say never, and I'm not going to say I'm all for it."

Is the first part of that answer honest? John Whitcombe's group has been meeting through out the city. I know quite a few people that they have met with to outline their plan for Covell Village. They even met with Cecilia. Are you telling me that they have not met with one of their biggest allies on the council but they met with Cecilia? I kind of seriously doubt that. The honest answer here would be "yeah, I'd consider it." Instead he tries to dance on it.

Stephen Souza:

"If a proposal at Covell Village came forward, I would be interested in looking at it and discussing it."

That's at least a better answer than Saylor's.

Sydney Vergis:

"If the neighboring Hunt-Wesson property is developed, we might want to look at mater-planning that whole area and do it right."

Either Vergis is more pro-growth than Souza and Saylor or she's less shrewd politically, but I think she puts on the table the view that the pro-development side of the ledger sees--a way to develop Covell alongside the Lewis Properties.

For a table that has four very brief answers, in many ways this tells people all they need to know about growth. And then it depends on which side you come down on the issue.

LAFCO Draws Out Differences On Growth--Souza and Saylor Abstain

I take this time to draw on Tuesday's vote yet again, because it seemed to get lost in the complexity once again.

There are two elements to the City Council's Sphere of Influence vote.

First, the need to revisit it was fundamentally due to City Planning Director Katherine Hess' misinformation to council about the meaning of the sphere of influence.

LAFCO lays it out very clearly that the sphere of influence intends to define all the lands to be developed for urban uses. Katherine Hess tried to argue that the city simply would control the land in the SOI whether it was developed or not. That clearly was not true last year when the county tried to study development of land inside the SOI on the edge of Davis. Stephen Souza at the LAFCO meeting tried to argue that there are multiple types of urban uses for land, but he quickly recognized after discussions at LAFCO that this was not the conventional view and that having an overly large SOI might open the process down the line to inclusion in the General Plan and thereby do the opposite of what was intended.

The second intrigue in the meeting is Lamar Heystek's motion removed all of the large peripheral parcels from the Sphere of Influence. Mayor Sue Greenwald seconded this motion.

The argument here is that there is no compelling reason to add more land that could become targeted for growth when there is no protection afforded to the land by being placed in the SOI. It simply signals LAFCO that there is an intent to develop these lands for Urban uses.

Ruth Asmundson opposed the removal of the peripheral parcels, as we would expect.

What no one expected is that Councilmembers Don Saylor and Stephen Souza abstained from the vote. This demonstrates their fear of on the one-hand offending their developer friends, some of whom were in the audience asking to be included in the SOI. Obviously they felt that there was some benefit to being in the SOI.

On the other hand, they did not outright vote against the measure to belie their pro-development colors. They have tried to walk this fence for a long time. They supported Covell but argue that it's good smart growth planning. They support the 1% growth guideline, arguing that this represents a low growth rate and that we are not growing at one percent anyway.

Because of the two abstentions, for the first time ever, Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek's two votes carried the day by a 2-1 margin. In order to not expose their true intentions on growth prior to the election, Souza and Saylor were completely silent on one of the most important growth issues for the LAFCO SOI for Davis.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Christopher Cabaldon and Jim Provenza Endorsed by the Sierra Club

This week Assembly Candidate Christopher Cabaldon and Yolo County Supervisor Candidate Jim Provenza earned the endorsement of the Sierra Club, one of the seminal environmental organizations in the country.

The organization cited Cabaldon's role in the development of the SACOG Blueprint Project. He has also sat on the Central Valley Water Board and consistently has taken strong positions to protect water quality.

Christopher Cabaldon wrote on his website:

"Our district is unique in how much we value our special natural heritage, open spaces, farmland, rolling hills, creeks, and the Delta, and how committed we are to environmental protection and sustainability, as well as clean air and water.

That's why I'm so proud to report that the Sierra Club has now endorsed my candidacy."

He went on to say:

"The Sierra Club only grants its endorsement in a handful of legislative races, and only after a grassroots vote of confidence by the progressive environmental activists working at the local level inside the district."

Delta Protection is one of the most important environmental issues in this district, along with transportation emissions, and protection of agricultural land.

"They know how important it is that we win our fight to rescue the Delta, tackle the causes and impacts of climate change (including my national battle against the Bush Administration on vehicle emission standards), stop pollution of our air and water, put an end to sprawl and the disappearance of our rural legacy, and make trains, transit, biking, and walking real alternatives to more time in our cars. And they know I will continue to be an environmental champion in the Assembly."

For the Yolo County Supervisors race, the Sierra Club acknowledged that both candidates have demonstrated a strong environmental commitment.

The deciding issue revolved around a proposed initiative for Yolo County to protect agricultural land and to continue to limit development to existing cities.

Jim Provenza was a strong advocate against the proposed developments on the periphery of the city of Davis. He opposed Covell Village. And strongly supports Measure J. He vowed to support an initiative at the county level similar to Measure J, according to the Sierra Club.

It is nice to see that land use policies were used as the basis for a Sierra Club endorsement. Too often the protection of agricultural land and defense against peripheral development are overlooked. But from an environmental standpoint, once you pave over farmland, it is lost. I was talking to someone the other day who was raised in what was known as the Santa Clara Valley before it became known as the Silicon Valley. Some may remember that those were some of the best soils in the state and they are now permanently lost by urbanization and sprawl development.

It is a bit disappointing that the Sierra Club apparently will not be endorsing in the Davis City Council race.


Sydney Vergis endorses herself

Could not resist adding this here. This one jumped out at me last night. There is an organization known as the Yolo County Young Democrats. It is a small group that has little to no background. Sometime at the end of last year or the beginning of this year, Sydney Vergis became the President or Director, not sure which, of this organization. There is no web presence so it is difficult to ascertain just how many members there are of this group, but I've heard there are six including the chair.

In the Enterprise last night, Sydney Vergis announced that she had obtained the endorsement of the group that she heads up. I should hope so. Next thing you know, Cecilia will be sending out a press release saying that the Vanguard has endorsed her. Maybe people have not heard, I am married to Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald. Oh and despite what the Davis Enterprise said last year, I am not married to Sue Greenwald.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

League of Women Voters Hold Candidates Forum Last Night

Last night, the League of Women Voters held their candidates forum at the Davis Community Chambers. It was an interesting format in that they allowed for an opening statement of three minutes, three prepared questions, and then after a break, five one minute questions from the audience.

This time instead of recording the entire forum and then transcribing portions of it, I took notes throughout. I have few quotes, a lot of observations and paraphrasing.

The opening statements by the candidates are pretty much the same statement each time. Don Saylor went first, he laid out his professional background, his arrival at Davis and then a litany of accomplishments. One thing that really struck me this time, that I had not quite picked up on before was a line in his statement: "we brought to the voters the first test of Measure J." This was listed in a long string of accomplishments by him. The first test of Measure J was Covell Village that was rejected by a 60-40 margin.

Sydney Vergis talks about her background and her passion for land use planning. Within that she cites herself as someone "who has the land use and community consensus building experience" and that she is "offering the community [her] professional background as a land use planner." She says it as though she had twenty years of experience in it rather than less than one.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald talks about her values. The fact that she was raised in Chico, the changes that have occurred in Chico since she left, and her commitment to preserve the character and small-town feel of Davis.

Stephen Souza cites his back ground and offers for the voters his platform of green, safe, and smart. One the accomplishments he has cited is an annual balanced city budget. He says that they have had four years of a balanced budget with a fifteen percent plus reserve. As we shall see, this is disputed by three of the candidates.

Sue Greenwald talks about her love for city planning. She is driven by that love rather than aspirations for higher political office. She cites her background in a variety of other cities and states that she is happier in those cities that have a sense of community, accord, and a center. She sees this as a great town that she wants to maintain. Her goal is to bring jobs closer to housing and housing closer to jobs. She would like to see a major infill condo development at the PG&E property. Finally she wants to break from the sense of being a sprawling bedroom suburb from the 1950s that recent peripheral developments have created such a feel.

Rob Roy is also worried that Davis not become more of an anywhere USA. He stood against Measure X as a student. Was a student coordinator on No on K. Helped on Measure L--Choice Voting, and want to continue and renew Measure J as a means to protect open space and agricultural land. He believes that Davis has for too long rested on its laurels as a great progressive community. He stands for renters rights and bike safety and wants to increase bike riders from 14% to 25% where it was in the 1990s. Finally he wants to keep Davis unique with businesses and what we do.

The first question asked the candidates to describe their experience working with large budgets and multiple departments and also how might their budgetary experience help with meeting rapidly rising prices for gasoline and goods needed to run our city?

Sydney Vergis went first she said this was something she feels passionate about as a professional financier. Wants to bring the kind of perspective and experience that we need to meet financial challenges. There is a tenuous nature of sales tax which is heavily reliant on automobile sales and gas sales tax. She wants to Work to diversify tax base, but this is only one piece of the puzzle. She claimed, “Currently our budget is balanced.” Range of long term needs that we need to start thinking about specifically capital improvement and transportation. We to think about about longterm.

Cecilia cited her experience as a representative for state workers in 53 different departments. She has a growing concern about the wage and benefit scale among high level employees and management in city government. The city has agreed to sign on to very generous contracts with a number of these top level employees and the resulting contracts along with generous pension plans are threatening to break the system.

The city of Davis provides its residents with a high level of city services. Given the current structure of these salaries, the city faces the prospect of tax increases to its residents. Already in 2006, the voters of Davis approved a parks tax. In the coming months and years, they may be asked to shoulder more of the tax load with the possibility of an additional public safety tax, a sales tax, and other taxes—this on top of a recently approved parcel tax for the schools and one for the libraries. This fall, the school district which is in fiscal crisis may ask the residents for additional help through another parcel tax. These possible additional taxes may occur on top of a rate hike for water as the result of a new waste water treatment plant and water supply plan.

As councilmember, she is not opposed to taxes, but it is clear that we cannot continue to rely on the generosity of our resident to bail us out of past fiscal mistakes.

Stephen Souza cites his experience working wit the city budget. He claimed the general fund portion of the of the budget was balanced and that they have put aside money into a reserve. "We have a strong fiscal budget, but we do have unmet needs that we started planning for two years ago with quarterly meetings." He described those needs and talked about looking into ways to deal with those unmet needs. Suggested that we need more revenues--all cities do. Not just by taxes but by economic growth as well. Looking toward a green technology plant to produce high paying jobs and revenues. However, also listed some other forms of revenue generation through fees and taxes--9/11 fee; property generation tax; .25 cent sales tax.

Sue Greenwald made a passionate argument that experience itself is not the most important question that we should ask. She then cited numerous examples of leaders and budget directors who had tremendous experience and yet led their cities, counties, or companies into ruin. She argued that rather than a balanced budget we have an all-fund deficit of nearly $1.5 million. We have unmet needs. We have basically used a shell game to claim that we have balanced the budget. She flatly stated that she disagreed with her colleague on the shape of the budget--"it's in bad condition."

Everything is called an unmet need rather than part of the budget. There is no capital replacement fund--she thinks that is a time bomb waiting to go off. She says she had the courage to stand up to political pressure and special interests. Voted against lowering retirement age of desk workers to 55. She saved money when opposed demands for pay increase to fire fighters. The plan provided for no new fireman and yet would have cost $400K.

Rob Roy is also concerned about the benefit packages for city employees--specifically the fire fighters. Does not believe that the lack of increase to the wage and benefits package will reduce either the quality of service or our competitiveness. He supports the living wage for the lower level employees. On the other hand, he believes the fire fighters should earn a comfortable wage but points out that they are public servants and that that wage should not harm the city's ability to meet the needs of its citizens. For many state and city employees, their retirement benefits are 2% at 55 or 60, but for fire fighters it is 3 percent at 50. This is one of the reasons that Vallejo recently declared bankruptcy. Talks about the term unmet need as another word for deficit. He said that if he doesn't get enough money to live by his means, and decides not to pay rent this month, he has an unmet need, which means he gets kicked to the curb.

Saylor cites his budgetary experience in the workforce and as a school board member. He also claims we have a balanced budget--a balanced budget and a 15% reserve. Yes there are things that we are not spending money on. When he came into office, we had a $2.2 million deficit, we don’t have that today. We have taken steps to take that away—budget reforms, quarterly budget reviews, personnel cuts. He believes the budget can be balanced in the future with money from economic development. He hopes to have some new state revenues—barring state budget cut. We will face the expiration of parks and sales tax will need to be removed. He argued per capita sales tax revenue is in bottom third statewide.

The next question asked about cannery Park and the prospect for a housing development.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald expressed her concern that development at Lewis Properties might facilitate development at Covell Village. Overall there are several aspects of residential development at Cannery Park that are appealing. First, it is already paved over, so we would not be developing on prime agricultural land. Second, it is located within the current city limits, which means there would be no Measure J vote necessary. Third, it is in a location that is relatively near the core of downtown.

That being said, any new development, in order for me to support must have several key components. First, it must pay for itself. Second, it must be on the cutting edge of green building urban design. Third, it must be extraordinary. To use the words of one of my fellow candidates—there needs to be an extensive “wow” factor along with it. "We need housing that meets the needs of the middle-class and workforce citizens." We do not need a continuation of past sprawl developments that cater to the wealthy by building McMansions that could be found in any city.

Stephen Souza said Cannery Park’s proposal is going through the process of determining whether it is a site for high tech use. The plan that he has seen has a third of it which is a business park development that will enable high tech development. He spoke about the loss of high tech jobs. In order to have revenue from a high tech project which will have housing next to it, we need to make it environmentally friendly.

Sue Greenwald said while there are nice features of the housing proposal see wants to keep it zone as high tech. She was responsible for that land use designation to begin with. Cited the loss Genotech who is building a research facility in Dixon, halfway between Davis and Dixon. Would have liked to have Hunt-Wesson as a possible location for high tech. She has concerns about the cost of the land which she said no one will lower the value of the land as long as they believe they can get housing which would be more lucrative. Wants to turn Davis into a high tech center.

Rob Roy was against Measure X but he understands the need for development of housing communities that live and work in Davis. With Cannery Park they can put housing in. We need to put pressure on Lewis to avoid $641,000 housing and call it affordable. Wants to put housing in back of a high tech facility. He believes we should have enough space for both. He believes that we should have community driven, not developer driven housing.

Don Saylor sets about in general his vision for when we have housing some of which includes it must address true community needs, the benefits outweigh the costs, no costs to existing residents, mitigate traffic costs, it must be green and good affordability. The housing element committee determined Lewis met some desirable elements including a close proximity to downtown. They ranked this site 21 out of 37 which put it in the middle, but it was the second highest preferred site that was 25 acres of more. Saylor also cited problems: traffic is a problem; land locked with railroad tracks on one side and empty field on the other, and it has limited bike access. Saylor never committed either way on this issue, he simply stated his general principles.

Like Don Saylor, Sydney Vergis never stated her actual view on the issue. She laid out a bunch of general principles and wants to study it to see if it viable. "Good opportunity here to meet a range of housing needs and business needs."

The final question was one of civility. The moderator introduced it by citing numerous examples in this community of non-civil discourse.

For Stephen Souza he said when 11 pm strikes at the council meeting there tends to be a shortness with all of the council and there becomes a disconnect between the civility that all carry in their everyday lives and the activity on the dais. There is a tendency to think that each and every one of us has the truth on growth. This leads us to denigrate the opinions of others. We need to at times agree to disagree. All of us love this town. We cannot ask of others what we cannot ask of ourselves—how can we ask people to get along when we cannot get along on this one issue basic to humanity on all issues. How we get there—that’s the age old question—first and foremost he says 'I respect what you may believe and we may have differences.'

For Sue Greenwald she believes we have actually come a long way toward civility. That there have been rougher times and democracy has survived. We need to avoid lecturing since that has the implication that my behavior is good and yours is bad. The public can make up their own decisions about who is right and wrong. Each of us should concentrate on our own behavior. She is proud of fact no complaints about shoving and hissing when citizens come to the microphone. It is important that we find that balance between carrying out a vigorous debate and not carryover it over to personal reactions. She also believes that it is important to question staff very hard--that's the tough part of job but they get paid very well. We need back and forth debate when there is disagreement. The important thing at end of day is to separate personal from political.

Rob Roy joked that the Enterprise and Bob Dunning might be supportive of a less civil council since it would sell more papers. He says that there are passionate folks in Davis and he tries to get along with everyone. They all have their theories on how we get along in our community but at the end of the day we need to get along even when we disagree. He then cited common ground with each of the other candidates.

Don Saylor argued that this was an extremely important topic for our community. He wrote an op-ed piece a year ago on it and he had tremendous response to it. Never had that kind of response and agreement. He said he was humbled that in the Davis Enterprise endorsement that it cited his attention to civility. Then cited two books to read. He feels that this is a different world than 100 years ago, and that we are very isolated in our every day life. We need to improve the tone and interactions in council chambers. People should not be afraid to speak one's mind.

Sydney Vergis believes that civility in community needs to start in the council and really with the council race. She has run a clean campaign with no ad hominen attacks. Cited her professional experience as extensive experience working with diverse interests.

Cecilia believes one should always treat everyone with polite deference even in the face of disagreement. She intends to uphold the best standards of conduct, as epitomized by the behavior of Councilmember Lamar Heystek, a strong supporter of mine.

The candidates then took a brief break. They answered five brief questions. I will briefly outline the candidates positions and when possible refer people to other sources of information.

The first question was on improving the downtown parking situation. Sue Greenwald argued for the mixed-use redevelopment parking lot on E and F between 3rd and 4th. Rob Roy agreed with that and also liked the idea of timed parking lot in the E Street Plaza. For Don Saylor, this was a long process that may bear fruit down the line but he favored a parking structure across from the railroad station with access from Olive Drive. Sydney Vergis did not want to make parking more accessible because she wanted to avoid the incentive to do more parking and instead wants alternative forms of transportation. Cecilia cited her proposal for a multilevel parking structure by Design House which could go over the tracks. It would take traffic from going under the Richards underpass and put pedestrians within a few blocks of all of downtown. Stephen Souza looking toward UDASH, a shuttle between the university and downtown during the lunch hour as a means to reduce traffic in the downtown.

There is a better discussion on water in the forum that was posted yesterday. The one minute format did not do justice to this issue.

They were then asked about choice voting. Saylor believes most people in town have difficult time understanding what choice voting is. We have a lot more work to do to define and how it will work. The education of voter is a critical factor. He is not sure that problem will be fixed by choice voting.

Sydney Vergis was not in favor of choice voting because it would lead to us becoming a charter city. She was concerned with this since it might remove prevailing wage and competitive bidding requirement.

Cecilia said that once she understood choice voting, she supported it. Saw it as the will of the people. She would ensure to minimize the impact on binding arbitration and prevailing wages.

Souza has been a strong supporter of choice voting for years. Cited numerous examples of its successful use. Sees it as the next step in the democratic process.

Sue Greenwald favors district elections with instant runoffs--a form of choice voting. She was skeptical of choice voting, she joked, until she had two Greenwalds on the ballot, now she felt this would force people to look through the ballot more than once.

Rob Roy favors choice voting and believes we can educate people about how we operate rank preference of voting.

There is a fuller discussion of bicycling in the previous forum.

The last question was about housing. I tie in her a statement that kind of struck me during the closing statements, Sydney Vergis suggested that if people want zero growth, she is not their candidate. What struck me about this statement, is that while some of the candidates opposed adding housing on the periphery of Davis--namely the two Greenwalds and Rob Roy--none of them talk about no new housing.

Sue Greenwald talked about utilizing existing cites and likes the PG&E site and talked about on-campus location at Toomey Field as a bookend counterpart. Cecilia talked about looking to meet our housing needs within our current boundaries but also toward expanding on-campus housing, working with the university to provide housing for students and faculty. For Saylor we cannot have affordability with only 44 units and he seems to disparage Sue Greenwald's plan as interesting but neither cheap nor easy.

Sydney Vergis during her comments talked about having community discussion on the detrimental impact that occurs from limited growth. She wants to ease the no growth demand. However, she does not favor sprawl.

There is a clear difference between the candidates on the issue of housing and growth, that I do not know is accurately or adequately treated through these discussions. Everyone it seems wants or at least talks about a compact urban city, smart growth, and new urbanism. No one is for sprawl. No one is for zero growth. Or so they say. Three candidates supported Covell Village, three opposed it. For me and many others, Covell Village is sprawl, aligned with what we saw at Wildhorse or Mace Ranch. There are competing visions for growth--one of which looks at more housing at a rate of 1% per year and a willingness to consider peripheral projects. The other offers a slower rate, looks toward our existing boundaries to fill our immediate housing needs. In the end the voters must decide which is for them.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting