Commission Recommends Free Speech Ordinance for Renters

Last Wednesday, the City-UC Davis Student Liaison Commission, which serves as an advisory body to the Davis City Council and examines a variety of issues that relate student affairs within the city of Davis, voted to to recommend passage of an ordinance protecting the right of Davis renters to display political signs in their windows or yards.

The issue came to the commission's attention after the ASUCD Senate passed a resolution, authored by Sen. Michael Lay, calling for an ordinance ensuring the right of Davis renters to post political signs. Several renters had complained to City and ASUCD officials that landlords were not allowing them to put up signs in support of certain candidates for public office.

ASUCD Sen. Andrew Peake:

"The right to free speech is a right guaranteed to everyone, not just to those who own property. When it comes to political participation, it shouldn't matter whether you own your home or not. When certain members of the community aren't allowed to participate in the democratic process in this way, it's a form of disenfranchisement."

City staff circulated a legal memorandum stating that landlords who prohibited their tenants from posting political signs were most likely out of step with the law.

The meeting itself was marked by harsh dialogue and contentious debate between students and property owners and business interests coming primarily from the property owners and business interests.

The most remarkable was an exchange between ASUCD Senator Andrew Peake and Davis Chamber of Commerce CEO Sherry Puntillo. There seemed to be concern on the part of Ms. Puntillo and also Brenda Little who is the manager for Tandem Properties (owned by John Whitcombe), that the allowance of signs on rental property would lead to disputes and hostility.

It was pointed out that neighbors have similar problems potentially and it does not seem limited to just rental problems. Sen. Peake suggested that this is not a huge issue and that neighbors would be able to resolve such conflicts on their own.

Sherry Puntillo then suggested that Mr. Peake was "naive" to believe that this would occur and rudely asked "what color is the sky where you are." Ms. Puntillo did not respond to emails inquiring into the incident.

In the end however, Sherry Puntillo voted with the majority to recommend the city council pass this ordinance. Only three members ended up voting against it, Brenda Little, Steven Worker who chairs the commission, and Christine Bonilla.

The issue of disputes--while clearly a concern--seems like a non-issue. It is not clear that there is any more danger about such disputes between apartment or rental unit neighbors than the rest of the population. And in fact, the sheer number of signs is likely to be significantly lower on such property.

I think the real issue is that apartment owners such as Tandem's John Whitcombe, have traditionally supported pro-development candidates and placed a multitude of signs on their property. Now by allowing renters to place their own signs there will be competition.

According to several who participated and witnessed it, the disdain showed to the viewpoint of students by Brenda Little and the Chamber of Commerce CEO was alarming.

There was the belief that the comments were patronizing and they lacked a modicum of respect for students. This commission was set up to give students a voice in Davis City Government, but the students at this meeting came away somewhat believing that they were viewed as second class citizens, and not treated as equals with respect.

Nevertheless, this incident should not overshadow what was viewed as a huge step toward victory for students to be able to gain a voice in politics even from their rental units. It is the hope that with the support of the City-UCD Liaison Commission that the council will approve an ordinance that allows renters to post signs in and around their rental units.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Will Target Election Re-shape Davis Politics?

In politics as in life there is a proverb, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. In the aftermath of Measure K, this seems to be at least potentially ringing true. While Don’t Big Box Loyalists hold onto to the hope that the conclusion of the ballot count may push the No on K side over the top, some real changes may have occurred due to the tactics used in the Yes on Measure K side.

As we reported earlier, a number of downtown merchants have left the DDBA and Chamber of Commerce, over a difference of opinion over Target and those organizations at least tacit support for Target. In fact, the Chamber was extremely duplicitous in their position on Measure K. They supported Target when it came before the City Council in June. The vast majority of their leaders and board of directors also publicly supported Target and Measure K. However, in almost of an afterthought to a letter from Don Stor, Sherry Puntillo informed the public that the Chamber had supporter Target in June but now had no position. No explanation was offered. Nor was an explanation provided in a brief letter co-authored by Puntillo and Adamsky. It was almost a CYA move while providing tacit support.

Apparently, a number of small merchants and downtown businesses grew tired of these political games. Don Shor last week informed us that in fact a number of businesses have formed an independent association and will be working hard to get a third vote on the Council in the elections in 2008. (Are we surprised that this gets no coverage in the local paper?)

The heavy-handed tactics by the political establishment coupled with the business associates may have won the election in terms of getting a Target approved, however, it may end up at the same time mobilizing opposition for future fights. They may have won the battle, but lost the war. The progressives in this community now have strong new allies in fighting against the current council majority, and hopefully in the future we will see everyone work together to defeat Souza and Saylor in 2008, should they decide to run for re-election.

In the meantime, I for one will continue to vote with my pocketbook by purchasing my goods downtown. I have long since decided never to shop at Target again. My hat is off to the brave downtown businesses who have stood up against the political establishment. And once again, my hat is off to the grassroots effort by Davis residents who nearly defeated Target despite being outspent by more than a 10-1 margin and despite the strong support from the political and business establishment and the mainstream Davis newspaper.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Chamber Clarifies Their Positions

Anyone see the letter to the editor in Thursday's paper, it was kind of buried but it was from Jeff Adamski and Sherry Puntillo:

Chamber reiterates its positions:

The board of directors of the Davis Chamber of Commerce wishes to reiterate its positions on Measures H, I and K. For Measures H and I, the SMUD annexation proposal, the Chamber has not taken any position and will not do so. With respect to Measure K, the Second Street Crossing development, while the Chamber supported the project through the planning process, we have updated our position to neutral.

Okay we're all clear now. Thanks for that.

Anyone wondering what that was all about?

On October 17, the People's Vanguard of Davis reported on the Chamber of Commerce's perplexing change from an endorsement of Target when it was a City Council issue, to no position once it became a ballot measure. The rationale behind that change is perplexing. Moreover, most of the key people in leadership positions are all personally supporting it and the change in position was never formally announced.

Meanwhile, a few days later we discovered that Bruce Gallaudet of University Honda, a board member on the Chamber of Commerce (and husband of Davis Enterprise Editor Debbie Davis) used the Chamber of Commerce attribution on the Sample Ballot Statement against Measure H.

It is nice that they clarify that they have no position on SMUD or Target, but that's all they tell us. There is no public announcement repudiating the use of the attribution by Gallaudet and there is no explanation as to why they would support Target in June but not November.

This seems standard policy by the Chamber to not publicly deal with issues of these sorts, but it's almost like there is a cloak of secrecy involving some of this stuff.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Chamber of Commerce Attribution on Sample Ballot Unauthorized

Thanks to a tip, The People's Vanguard of Davis has learned that Bruce Gallaudet, a board member of the Davis Chamber of Commerce and husband of Davis Enterprise Editor Debbie Davis, signed the "Argument Against Measure H" and also the "Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure H."

According to reliable sources, the Chamber has not taken a position on Measures H & I, which would authorize the Yolo County takeover of electrical services by SMUD replacing PG&E. Moreover, Gallaudet was not authorized by the Chamber to use its name as his attribution. This of course creates the mistaken perception that the Davis Chamber of Commerce opposes Measure H.

(Click on the image to the left for the full sized version)

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Chamber of Commerce is Neutral on Target “After” they Supported It

Forgive me, as a Bush-hater I don’t like to use this reference, but after reading Sherry Puntillo’s response to a criticism of the Davis Chamber of Commerce, I had myself a John Kerry Flashback. (Recall that Kerry in the 2004 Election defended his vote against funding the war in Iraq by clumsily stating: “I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.”)

Don Shor wrote a letter to the editor criticizing the Davis Chamber of Commerce for their position on Target.

I have always appreciated the excellent service that Chamber staff provides. I have been a member of the Chamber nearly every year since 1981. But I regret that I will not be renewing my membership now, or likely in the future, because of the Chamber's position on the Second Street Crossing (Target) project… It is bad enough that the Chamber chose to take a position on Second Street Crossing at all. A neutral position would have been more appropriate. But for me, the final straw was when two Chamber representatives spoke in favor of Target at the June City Council meeting. This public support was directly harmful to the interests of many Chamber members.

Debbie Davis then gives her close friend Sherry Puntillo (didn’t we just criticize this in Sunday’s Entry?) the unusual opportunity to respond:

* Editor's note: Chamber CEO Sherry Puntillo clarifies, "When the Davis Chamber of Commerce's position regarding the proposed Second Street Crossing was presented to the Davis City Council, it was in the context of a pending council decision on the project. However, with the council's decision to place the issue on the ballot, the Chamber board decided to take a neutral position on the project."

Yes thank you Mrs. Puntillo for clarifying that—so what you are saying is that you were for Target before you were neutral on it? Yes, that sets everything straight. I’m crystal clear on the chamber position now.

Can someone please explain to me why the Chamber could/ would support the Second Street Crossing when it was a council decision but take no position on it as a ballot measure? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

While I’m at it, it strikes me as very odd that Sherry Puntillo is allowed to respond to this criticism in the same issue, immediately below Mr. Shor’s letter. Of course, it is probably no coincidence that Debbie Davis, Editor of the Davis Enterprise is also a member of the Chamber’s board and furthermore is the very “bestest” friend of one Sherry Puntillo. No, I’m certain that there must be a coincidence because otherwise that might appear to be unethical. I do not recall other members of the public being given a courtesy call and allowed to “clarify” when someone writes a letter to the editor of criticism.

You know I’m sure if someone were to say, criticize the former Chair of the Davis Human Relations Commission inaccurately, Debbie would call up Ms. Escamilla Greenwald and allow her to clarify her actions and position. Oh wait, that didn’t happen.

It is pretty clear who Debbie Davis panders to. Fortunately for us, Puntillo’s clarification makes about as much sense as John Kerry’s and we all know what happened to John Kerry.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting