Campaign Crunch Time for Target and Measure K

As the election is now less than two weeks away, we are being bombarded with campaign literature.

Yesterday I received a letter signed by among others former and future Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Former County Supervisor Betsy Marchand declaring that they are my "neighbors," "PTA leaders," "coworkers" and "my friends." Leaving aside that they are none of these, they declare that they "have listened to both sides of the debate are voting for Measure K because..." Ruth Asmundson did not listen to both sides of any debate, she is part of the council majority that brought this issue forward, fast-tracked it, and then decided to place it on the ballot.

The letter cites the number of out-of-town shopping trips by Davis residents to Target as being 300,000 and that the trip is 19 miles round-trip from Davis and that adds up to more than $530,525 per year of gas. Sounds convincing right? Well, now account for this. Target in the Second Street Crossing location for me would be a 12 mile round trip, that saves only 7 miles per trip. Moreover, it would be city miles most likely rather than highway miles, so I may burn comparable amounts of gas. Certainly not enough of a difference to want to bring in a Target. People have the tendency when going to shop out of town to make fewer trips and make more purchases there. If the average person makes five trips a year at 19 miles round trip, if it were say an average of 8 miles round trip, they might make 15 trips per year, and the gas mileage is at best a wash. It's hard to calculate because the building of a more convenient Target is likely to change people's shopping habits.

But there is more--Target in Woodland is not a stand alone and so usually the rare times I went to Target I did it in conjunction with going to Gottschalks (a much larger store than the one in Davis), Mervyns, and other shopping needs. Target was never my only targeted destination. And so the argument that we would substantially cut down on our out-of-city trips is misleading. That of course leads me to conclude they will eventually have to bring in more such business to Davis because they will amazingly discover that Target does not fulfill all of our shopping needs (or any of mine as I head down the road to Vacaville for my COSTCO experience).

Next they try to tempt me once again with the LEED certification of the store, which is the equivalent of putting a pollution filter on a Hummer--it's not dealing with the environmentally disastrous portion of Target which is on the production rather than the consumption end. They claim that the building will reduce 12,000 pounds of CO2 emissions annually but fail to cite how bad Target is globally for CO2 emissions.

The meager wages and Asmundson's opposition to a living wage ordinance that would apply to Target means that Target workers will not be able to afford to reside in the city of Davis. So while they make the claim that it brings in 250 jobs, they fail to mention that none of those jobs will pay people enough to live in Davis. Nor does it get into their anti-union activities nor does it get into the sweat shops that produce the goods we buy. Funny that we never hear a discussion of that from the Target supports. Yes Asmundson claims to support unions, but ask the Unions if they plan on endorsing her any time soon.

And finally they mention it will allow us to "capture about $1 million each year in local sales tax revenue..." The figure that had been cited was $659,000. Now it's a $1 million, I wish they could make up their minds. Neither figure mitigates for the possibility of alternative development at that cite and so to paraphrase Sue Greenwald, it is a comparison of the revenue that Target generates versus the revenue of a vacant field--inflated numbers or not.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Democratic help not arriving for Brown

An article this morning in the Sacramento Bee reports that the John Doolittle Campaign is receiving money from the Republicans to help shore up his re-election bid. Help however will not be arriving for Democratic challenger Charlie Brown who is poised to upset the long-term representative.

But last week, in a stopover in Sacramento, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, suggested that any investment by the Democrats' political committee in the Brown campaign will be limited. "This is a homegrown race for Charlie Brown," Pelosi said. "It's about him, his relationship to the district, and, if anything, he will be contributing to his success more than any of us will be contributing to him."

Democrats have a chance to unseat both Doolittle and Pombo. Charlie Cook and Chuck Todd of the National Journal rate Pombo as the 34th most vulnerable seat up from 37th last week and Doolittle as the 41st most vulnerable seat up from 46th last week.

These are seats that Democrats have a chance to literally steal from the Republicans, but where is the help. Local Democratic Congresspeople have failed to endorse Brown or McNerney who is running against Pombo, or Durston who is running against Dan Lungren. Where is the local Democratic support from local state legislators like Lois Wolk and Mike Machado?

Unfortunately this is not limited merely to the Sacramento area. Democratic Bloggers across the country have had to literally shame safe incumbent Democrats into giving money.

As reported in this morning's Hotline put out by the National Journal:

In yet another sign of their growing influence, Dem bloggers are shaming unopposed House Dems into donating a combined $26M to Dem candidates. (Bloggers have also nudged cash-heavy WH'08 Dems like Bayh, who has $11.3M in the bank).

With Dems "increasingly convinced that House control is within their grasp," party activists are "publicly excoriating politicians in safe districts who have hefty campaign balances" (Zeleny, New York Times, 10/24).

In a posting last week, MyDD.com managing ed Chris Bowers identified 69 Dem incumbents "without serious opposition," whose combined campaign treasuries total "roughly" $50M. In his post, Bowers "suggested that these lawmakers donate as much as 30% of their cash" to the DCCC, or "directly to challengers" in races that "had not been considered vulnerable until recently."

According to Bowers, the transfer of campaign funds from safe incumbents to newly-viable challengers "could be the difference between a landslide election that changes politics in America for more than a decade to come, and an election where control of the House is determined on a knife's edge."

Bowers also posted a list of the Dem incumbents, and "asked his readers to contact them." The list includes Reps. Edward Markey (MA), who has $2.3M; Robert "Bud" Cramer (AL), who has $1.6M; Adam Schiff (CA), who has $1.4M; and Jesse Jackson Jr. (IL), who has $1.3M, according to MyDD calculations. Rep. Martin Meehan (MA) "easily topped the list" with $4.9M CoH.

On 10/20, Bowers' effort "received a boost" when MoveOn.org's PAC also "asked its members to contact the safe incumbents." MoveOn.org PAC Exec. Dir. Eli Pariser: "We just don't want to see anyone hoarding at a time when there is a need for the greater good" (Brownstein, Los Angeles Times, 10/24).

If Democratic activists wish to retake the House and Senate, they need to put pressure on Democrats with money and safe seats to give it to people like Brown, Durston, and McNerney. People should call up the campaign offices of Dianne Feinstein who is unchallenged largely and sitting on 16 million dollars, Mike Thompson, Mike Machado, Dorris Matsui, Lois Wolk and others to give money to Democrats so that Democrats can re-take the House.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Sierra Club opposes Measure K

The Sierra Club Yolano Group has come out in opposition to Measure K and the building of Target.

This project will congest local roadways with 10,000 additional car trips per day to this site, and result in significant degradation of air quality locally. In the EIR, cumulative impacts on air quality for all criteria pollutants are considered “significant and unavoidable” and the emissions of criteria pollutants are greater with this project than those anticipated under current zoning. These impacts on air quality cannot be mitigated. Many studies have shown that air pollution from traffic is directly linked to increased rates of respiratory and cardiac disease, especially in children and the elderly.

Bemused by the Davis Target Debate

On Sunday, the Sacramento Bee wrote with great bemusement: "Davis has become the only city in the nation to force Target to win ballot box approval before it can build."

The crux of the article though is this statement towards the middle of the piece: "Davis' great Target debate is a little hard for some Sacramento politicians to relate to. Big box stores are so common here that another Target hardly merits attention."

And that is exactly at the heart of the debate--as they say, only in Davis is this such a big issue. Sacramento has tons and tons of Big Box stores. To some this is just a matter of Davis being a quirky, college town. Not surpringly, I disagree with this assessment. To me, I think cities like Sacramento have it wrong.

As I've suggested in several previous blog entries, there are many reasons to oppose stores like Target. We could start with the labor practices of Target itself, move to the sweat shops that produce its merchandise, and finish with environmental concerns. I do not understand why supposedly liberal Democratic politicians in Sacramento DO NOT CARE about these sorts of issues?

If we're talking about conservatives towns in rural American, I can understand it, but why do liberal politicians not care about these kinds of issues?

Twenty-five years ago when I was growing up, my family drove across the country first one way and then the other. Each city had its own little stores and flavor. Eight years ago as an adult I drove across the country with a friend and all of that had changed. You see the same stores in the "same" towns all across the country. Only the names of the towns change. The stores remain the same. And that's sad. Little mom and pop stores used to be the backbone of America, and now they are fighting for their lives against the big bad wolves in the form of Big Box Retail, Chain Restaurants, and other national chains that have sprung up everywhere. Davis is an Oasis from the monotony of chain stores. In ten years, we'll hardly recognize it at this rate. Bigger, better, faster, cheaper.

Hey, there was a good letter to the editor last night in the Davis Enterprise responding to Mr. Rifkin's column from last week.

Snap up some deodorant at Longs

Regarding "Sweet-smelling reasons to vote yes," no wonder Rich Rifkin wants a Target in Davis. He doesn't know where he can buy deodorant. Please let him know they sell it at Longs Drugs, and it is pretty cheap!

Kelly Safford

I guess we have to add deodorant to the socks and underwear list.

Signed sockless in Davis...

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Democrats Strive to Re-take the House and Senate

For the second time in two weeks, the Charlie Brown campaign came to Davis for a fundraiser. Two weeks ago they appeared with Former Senator Max Cleland and Former Congressman Pete McCloskey. Hoping to raise $5000, they raised nearly $15,000.

Last night they were back at the Palm Court Hotel in Downtown Davis, this time armed with Former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was at the center of the Valerie Plame controversy. The Brown campaign was stunned to walk into a room in an event not in their district and see well over 150 Democrats who are eager to take back the House and Senate. Brown and Wilson riled up the crowd, throwing out red meat and attacking the Bush administration for their conduct of the war and their overall attacks on the basic tenets of the constitution. It was a night for all Democrats. There was this true sense of energy and anticipation.

Unfortunately in his battle for a congressional seat, Brown is getting thrown everything in the book. Apparently one of the lines of attack from Doolittle, is the fact that Brown is a lifelong member of the ACLU and Doolittle is attacking him for being a member. The ACLU defends all organizations whether it is the KKK or whomever because they believe that the Constitution of the United States protects the rights of even the most dispacable organizations and people. And only by standing up for it when the Constitution is violated for such organizations and people, can they protect us when they go after us. Unfortunately, that is often used against the ACLU and its members.

The Democrats have an honest and true chance to take back the house and the Senate. This blog covers the local scene, and unfortunately, a lot of our local Democrats (some of them deserve quotes around the name "Democrat" are not pulling their weight).

First, let me tip the cap to the Davis Democratic Club who a few weeks ago gave $7500 to several Democrats in the area who are trying to win house seats--that includes Brown trying to unseat Doolittle, Jerry McNerney trying to unseat Pombo, and Bill Durston trying to unseat Dan Lungren.

Second, let us all tip our caps to true Blue Democrats like Senator Boxer who has given tens of thousands to individual Democrats trying to win house seats like Charlie Brown, Jerry McNerney, and Bill Durston. She has given millions to the DSCC and the DCCC which are the Democratic committees that fund and support the Senate and Congressional candidates. Barbara Boxer is a "big D" Democrat and she's trying to help the Democrats win back the house and Senate. As is Hillary Clinton who has given away millions to Democratic campaigns as well.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting.

No on Measure X Responds to PG&E

On Friday, we reported that PG&E was using the "No on X" visage to convince Davis voters that they were green. Yesterday, the People's Republic of Davis received a communication for the "No on X" group. It was a copy of a letter to the PG&E asking them to cease and desist from using their image in the No on H & I campaign and demanding that they retract the implication that "No on X" has anything to do with No on H & I.

No on X

xxxxx County Road 97, Davis CA 95616

October 20, 2006

Davis Enterprise
Woodland Daily Democrat
Sacramento Bee
Sacramento News and review
The Flatlander
People’s Vanguard of Davis
California Aggie

Editor,

We have sent the following letter to PG&E and to its campaign consultants:

Dear PG&E,

No on Measure X was the successful citizens’ campaign to stop the Covell Village residential development in Davis. PG&E has distributed a mailer to all Davis residents which uses an image identical to the No on X campaign sign.

We object to the use of the No on X campaign sign image. We demand that PG&E send a letter immediately to all Davis residents retracting the implication that the No on X Committee has anything to do with your campaign against Measures H and I—the proposals to replace PG&E with SMUD as the electrical provider for Davis.

The No on X Committee does not endorse PG&E’s position against Measures H and I. PG&E has no right to use our lawn sign image in your advertisements and thereby misrepresent our citizens’ group on this issue. We object to your implied message to Davis voters that if they voted No on X they should now vote no on H and I. Measure X had nothing to do with PG&E or SMUD.

We demand your immediate response to this letter.

Sincerely,

The No on X Committee:

Anne Driscoll (530) xxx-xxxx, Stan Forbes (530) xxx-xxxx, Carolyn Hinshaw (530) xxx-xxxx, Dick Livingston (530) xxx-xxxx, Pam Nieberg (530) xxx-xxxx, Bill Ritter (408) xxx-xxxx, Eileen Samitz (530) xxx-xxxx, Ken Wagstaff (530) xxx-xxxx

Journalistic Ethical Lines that Should Not be Crossed

It was with some anticipation that I looked at the editorial section of the Davis Enterprise this morning. For on this Sunday morning it was quite likely that the Davis Enteprise would be offering their endorsement on Measure H & I (Smud Annexation). One has to wonder if this was appropriate at all given Debbie Davis' husband, Bruce Gallaudet's relationship to PG&E and the No on H & I campaign. Davis and the Enterprise probably save themselves serious allegations by taking the Yes on H & I position, against the stated position of Gallaudet, but the questions about the proper relationship between Journalism, Business, and Politics do not resolve themselves so easily.

The legal Definition of a conflict of interest:

A situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business.

As we reported earlier this week, Debbie Davis' husband signed two ballot statements in the sample ballot that oppose Measure H. First he signed the statement opposing Measure H and second he signed the Rebuttal to the argument for Measure H. In other words, the husband of the Editor of the Davis Enterprise, took a public position on an issue that Davis would have considerable power as to whether or not to endorse. It is inappropriate in our opinion, that Davis or her husband take public positions on political issues. If they do take public positions on political issues, Davis should recuse herself from being involved in the endorsement process. As far as we can tell, this did not happen.

The more serious issue involved a meeting in December 2005 for the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission. According to the minutes of the meeting, "Mr. Gallaudet stated he has partnered with P.G. & E." "If P.G. & E. leaves, it will be like losing a friend. This is a big gamble. I don't want to gamble, or to lose a friend, " concluded Mr. Gallaudet. It is unclear exactly what Gallaudet meant by "partnered." But it is pretty clear from his statement that he had rather strong business ties to PG&E, possibly had financial ties as well, and clearly retained strong political support for the electrical company.

A more general problem with the Davis Enterprise is the very strong ties Debbie Davis has to the business community. Debbie Davis is the immediate past chair of the Davis Chamber of Commerce. Bruce Gallaudet serves on the board of directors of the Chamber. In June of 2006, the Chamber of Commerce supported the Second Street Crossing project (popularly known as Target). Sherry Puntillo, who is the CEO of the Chamber, explained in the Davis Enterprise that the Chamber supported Target in June when it was before the council, but now is neutral.

Indeed, according to an email we received from a member of the Chamber, the Chamber had no notification to the public about their changed stance. Not on their website. No in their newsletter. Not in a press release. It is unclear when or how they changed their stance, but apparently they did. Meanwhile their members like Sherry Puntillo and her husband, former Council member Ted Puntillo continue to strongly support Target and Measure K. Puntillo is featured on the TV ad that has been bombarding Davis TV for the past few weeks.

Meanwhile not surprisingly last Sunday, the Davis Enterprise Endorsed Measure K in support of a Davis Target.

Debbie Davis and Bruce Gallaudet's leadership positions with the Chamber of Commerce seems to put her in conflict with her other duty to the public in the form of fair endorsements. Editorial boards of course are paid to give their opinion. However, there should be a reasonable expectation that the Editor does not have other commitments either political or business that would cloud her judgment.

Is Davis well-served by having an Editor with such strong ties to the business community? Recall that the Davis Enterprise endorsed Measure X, a measure that 60% of Davis Residents opposed. Recall that the Davis Enterprise endorsed Ruth Asmundson and Mike Levy. Davis residents supported Ruth Asmundson and Lamar Heystek. So it seems to a large degree that the Davis Enterprise is out of step with the Davis voter.

Those things happen in small towns, however, it seems inappropriate for the Davis Enterprise to be weighing in on issues when the commitments of the editor's husband or the editor herself overlap with the commitments of being an editor. Debbie Davis should have recused herself from endorsing on Measure H & I. And Debbie Davis and her husband should avoid taking public positions on policy issues that affect the City of Davis or the County of Yolo.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Targeting the Anti-Target Crowd

Bob Dunning, earlier this week, as only he can, derided those who suggested we should boycott business supporting the “No on K” campaign.

Whether this is a lifetime boycott or simply on Friday afternoons during the fall is unclear, but boycotting merchants who have taken a public stand on a political issue is a wrongheaded and distinctly un-Davis thing to do … we're not dealing here with folks who support apartheid in South Africa or suppression of third world workers … we're not even dealing with folks who root for Sac State … no, we're talking about a number of merchants who fear for their very lives and who have — in a fit of self-interest — declared their opposition to competition of any kind …

That’s about as back-handed a derision as you could get. Of course, in many ways, Dunning helped foster this kind of contempt. In his June 25, 2006 column Dunning labeled Downtown businesses as “SELFISH.” Ostensibly, that stands for “Sellers Expecting Lifelong Fidelity In Sacred Hometown”—in reality he’s just calling them selfish and trying to be clever about it.

Dunning stokes the fire and then jumps in as the voice of reason. This is hardly a surprise to anyone who has watched Bob Dunning operate.

As Lori Rumsey, owner of Mother & Baby Source demonstrates in her letter yesterday—just because she doesn’t have an anti-Target sign in her store window, does not mean that she doesn’t oppose Target.

And here’s what people who are supporting Target do not get. As she explains—about half of her store inventory is also carried by Target. But because she does not buy in bulk quantities, she does not get a discounted rate of purchase. Because she does not receive those cost reductions, she cannot compete with Target’s prices.

With that in mind, even Dunning’s opposition to the boycott contains inaccurate innuendos. He says that the merchants have “declared their opposition to competition of any kind”—in fact, as Rumsey demonstrates rather clearly, what they oppose is unfair competition. Target is not on a level playing field from them. They have two fundamental advantages—they buy in bulk—thus they can sell their products for a cheaper price than a small business. And second, they can undersell their competition, making smaller profit over the short-term in order to drive out competition from small businesses. This happens all over the country and it explains why you see the same chain and big box retail stores across the country and very few family run businesses are able to compete.

They don’t fear competition they fear annihilation by a big, faceless corporate entity. If they had fair competition, then I suspect, they’d say “bring it on.” However, this is a tilted table and they know it. Why doesn’t Dunning seem to despite his expressed neutrality to the Target issue?

Craig Mohar writes in the Davis Enterprise last night:

Until the city of Davis has the retail shopping opportunities many residents want, Davis residents will continue to drive out of town to spend their money.

This is the argument that is most frequently cited by supporters of Target. The problem is that Target is but one store. Do we do all of our out-of-town shopping at Target? No. So either, you have a partial solution in the building of Target or you are really laying the groundwork to bring in more of this type of retail. And at the end of the day, I think that’s EXACTLY what the developers have in mind.

Mohar also writes:

The proposed Target store is going to be a very nicely designed building that will be the first Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-certified building in Davis and will include landscaping with more than 250 trees and plants.

I’ll give Mr. Mohar this—he has his talking points down. It was almost as though he wrote his letter right from the template. Here’s the problem with his argument however—unless you are a true NIMBY this argument makes no sense. Target is not an environmentally friendly corporation on a global level as we showed in our blog entry last Sunday. Target is anything BUT an environmentally friend corporation in fact. So the only way this argument can at all be compelling is if you only care about the environment in Davis but care nothing about the overall global environment. It’s nice subterfuge, but it misses the larger point.

The Davis City Council and planners knew they could never get a Wal Mart approved by the voters or accepted by the community. However, at the end of the day, Target is exactly the same as Wal Mart except that they’ve been able to foster a better reputation. That’s it. The same practices you hate from Wal Mart are practiced on a daily business by the Target Corporation.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

PG&E's Dirty Campaign

The sentiment of many people I have talked to or received email from was basically that they supported SMUD over PG&E, but it was not an issue that they were passionate about. I guess I just can't get passionate about my electricity the way I do about a police officer violating someone's rights. One makes my blood boil, the other reminds me that I need to go see my accountant.

The People's Vanguard of Davis blog has been up since the end of July and yet the first article I wrote on Measure H & I was on October 11 when I noted that PG&E had spent over $9 million on the campaign against H & I. I've been around politics long enough that I knew PG&E would bring everything they had against this, but I never imagined $9 million, and frankly I looked at another figure--the endorsers of Measure H & I.

This all you really need to see:

Yolo County Supervisor Duane Chamberlain
Yolo County Supervisor Mike McGowan
Yolo County Supervisor Frank Sieferman
Yolo County Supervisor Helen Thomson
Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada

Davis Mayor Ruth Asmundson
Davis City Council Member Sue Greenwald
Davis City Council Member Ted Puntillo
Davis City Council Member Don Saylor
Davis City Council Member Stephen Souza

And you can add newly elected Davis City Council Member Lamar Heystek to that list, not to mention an equally impressive list from West Sacramento and Woodland. You would be hard-pressed to find an elected official in Yolo County supporting PG&E, which is why Pollack a former County Supervisor is given such a prominent role with the PG&E side.

When do these guys agree on anything? And yet they are all supporters of SMUD (at least in name).

I'm a believer that with local candidates and local iniatives it is all about endorsements. Because people pay limited attention to these issues, if they see a person they normally like or are aligned with, they will tend to support it. And when you see Sue Greenwald and Don Saylor agreeing on something, you figure you have the gamut covered. I figured PG&E would outspend SMUD and the local officials, but it would be hard to get past the endorsements.

I've written more about this recently because I believe PG&E is running a deceptive and misleading campaign (shocking I know). They have attacked SMUD on their strengths--claiming that they overstate the savings that individuals will get from the switch while at the same time making the claim that they are more environmental friendly than SMUD.

They then take up the "No on Measure X" mantle by claiming it's not easy being green (see yesterday's entry for the picture). Legal analysts who have evaluated the misleading and unauthorized used of the "No on Measure X" concur that PG&E has in fact committed an actionable misuse of campaign logos. Unfortunately, PG&E is particularly vicious when they are litigated against, and will attack the litigants with a counter-suit--at the very least sapping the resources of the litigants and in some cases actually prevailing.

Folks, PG&E is a particularly vicious company that does not want their domain encroached upon. I know a lot of people are starting to see that they have underestimated the importance of this issue. Hopefully it is not too late to prevent PG&E from prevailing in H & I.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

PG&E Who are you trying to fool?

Someone actually warned me that this was coming in the mail, and it's probably the only thing that saved me from dropping dead, because I've seen a lot of things in my time (and my time has not been that long), and yet, I really don't have good words to describe this. Recall back to last year when a bunch of developers supporting Measure X gathered around and sung "We Shall Overcome." That's the kind of moment that this campaign brochure evokes when you see it.

When I was growing up, PG&E built a nuclear powerplant in my backyard on an earthquake fault. Now PG&E claims to be green and suggests that it is not easy being green (cue up Kermit). And evokes the image of the "No on Measure X" as an argument to support PG&E. This is almost like shooting fish in a barrel. If I'm Dick Livingston, I'm suing.

YES ON K TV ADs and Rich Rifkin

I have to laugh everytime I see the "Yes on K" TV ADs and there is Ted Puntillo trying to sell us on Target. And at some point he talks about how he would like to do all his shopping in Davis and not have to go to Woodland and Sacramento. Do people see through this stuff? First of all, has Ted Puntillo ever gone to Target in his life? Second, even if he has, does all his shopping out of town entail going to Target? It's amazing suddenly if we have a Target in Davis we go from not being able to buy socks and underwear, to never having to shop out of town again. Wow! Target is not just a superstore, it's a miracle worker. And good grief--the very same people who are selling us on Target are the very same people who would never ever shop at Target.

And then you have Rich Rifkin. I will never forgive or forget Rich Rifkin who ripped the HRC for having too many periods in their report on racial profiling. It was embarrassing that the Davis Enterprise gave space to that drivel.

He may have topped that on Wednesday.

"I wouldn't suggest that all members of FETID are stinky, malodorous and in need of a bath. But if you get close enough, you'll find that most FETID don't buy deodorant or soap or undergarments. They never shop at Target. They despise "big box." They are enraged by the idea that the rest of the people in our fair city might actually want a store in town that sells ordinary consumer goods at a decent price, because FETID apparently aren't keen to be clean."

Darn it, he's found me out. He must have read my last blog entry and figured I was on a mission to deprive people of socks and underwear. That I even need to dignify this crap with a response is flat out insulting to me and you. So I'll just leave it up for posterity.

I guess a couple of "substantive" arguments need rebuttal.

"The planners exclaim, "It's four times larger than the permitted store size in the General Plan." That's true, too. It is a big store. But it's a ruse to lean on the General Plan to argue against Target. The General Plan was designed by the people of Davis to serve the needs of the people of Davis. The people, then, have every right to change their General Plan, if it is not serving their needs. That is why we are voting on this question."

Actually the General Plan was designed to protect us from large developments that might harm the character of the city. It was designed specifically to prevent this kind of growth. Now he's correct that people have the right to change the General Plan, but the opponents have the right to remind people that we have the General Plan for a reason.

Let me repeat what Paul Navazio, the finance director for the city of Davis, told me a few months ago: Target will generate $659,000 in new net revenues for our city government. That's a lot of cash. That money's now going to Woodland, Vacaville, West Sacramento and other surrounding cities.

I love this one--oh, he told you that Target will generate $659,000--that must make it so. In a previous blog entry, we cast doubt on that figure. Regardless, that figure is based on a comparison to an empty field rather than a comparison to an alternative development project there that doesn't involve a big-box corporation.

Unlike the geniuses on our Planning Commission, I think most people in Davis would like our city government to keep our sales tax monies. If we vote against Target, we know for certain that the city of Davis will lose $659,000 a year.

Now he insults the Planning Commission. This is flat-out insulting to the Planning Commission and the residents of Davis. They certainly spent a lot more time and energy researching this than he has. If he wants to disagree with them, fine. But be a little respectful of people who volunteer their time and energy.

That's perhaps the biggest beef I have with Rifkin--his irreverence. This type of column backfires because people in Davis are not stupid. They read this stuff as mean-spirited and over-the-top. It's not worth the paper it's written on.

Let's have an honest debate on Target and the future of the city. This is just a bunch of insults wrapped in psuedo-satire. The people of Davis deserve better than that.

---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

Assessing the New Human Relations Commission

It's been a week since the Human Relations Commission met for the first time since council dissolved the former group. There have been many charges levied toward the group and there have been many changes designed to prevent what happened last year from happening again. Many in the public feel that the previous Human Relations Commission overstepped their authority.

Councilmember Stephen Souza would agree with that take. In the Davis Enterprise last Friday:

Council member Stephen Souza stressed to new commissioners that their job is to work to bring community members together through education, not by investigating alleged cases of discrimination. "Your role is to educate, not to adjudicate," Souza said.

In Monday's blog entry however, we saw that in fact, according to the Davis Anti-Discrimination ordinance, the Human Relations Commission's role was to do both. The Ordinance authorizes the HRC to "investigate and mediate" complaints of violations of the Davis Anti-Discrimination ordinance. When Jamal Buzayan came before the Commission last summer and complained that the Davis Police Department violated his daughter's rights, the commission was fully within their authority to investigate his complaint and make recommendations to the City Council to address the problems that they found. They did so in their final report on February 21, 2006.

Now the council wants to essentially do away with the power that the ordinance grants the Human Relations Commission.

The California Aggie yesterday ran an article on the new Human Relations Commission. In it they quote John Pamperin, a longtime member of the commission.

"As we progressed in dealing with the political issues I felt some of our constructiveness got caught up in the campaigns for City Council and district attorney," Pamperin said. "It makes it difficult to look at the civil rights concerns when the issues are one candidate's or another's."

Unfortunately, the Aggie does not attempt to contact any of the former members to respond to this article. Nor does the Aggie respond to inquiries from this blog as to why they presented such a one-sided view of things. The quote from Pamperin is accurate, but it is also misleading. The politicizing of the process as Pamperin puts it came after the City Council rebuffed the HRC's attempts to forge a solution within the process. Moreover, it came after threats from the council following a February 7, 2006 meeting to examine the membership of the HRC and possibly make changes to it at that point. While the council would not act until late June to finally disband the commission, the atmosphere was poisoned and the membership within the HRC realized that working with this current City Council was impossible. Even then, the politicizing of the process came from outside of the HRC meetings and only by members of the HRC as private citizens.

Looking ahead

The City Council may have disbanded the former HRC and filled it with new members that it probably hopes will be closer to their own viewpoints, the problems that erupted last spring will not go away. In many ways, the police issue itself which served as the flashpoint for dissension, is only the tip of the iceberg of larger problems that have been ongoing within this community for over 20 years. Indeed past members of the HRC going back to 1986 have noted that the police issue is not new, it came up in the mid 1980s, it came up in the early 1990s, and it has come up again, because no one has done anything about it. If there is one small victory for the past HRC, it is that they forced City Council to start to address the problem of police oversight.

While the Council did not implement the recommended policy of the HRC, they did hire a police ombudsman who for the first time offers independent eyes to investigate the police. Unfortunately, at the same time, the council has made the process less rather than more transparent. There is no public body aside from the council themselves, with the power or authority to listen and act on public complaints about the police. There is no public body that can handle and discuss publicly police issues and complaints.

Furthermore, there is a huge divide within our community on the issue of race. Again, the police issue serves as an illustrater of this divide. When the issue of police came up last spring, the vast majority of people in Davis came out in support of the police--even liberals and progressives. Why? Because most people in Davis have had positive dealings with the police and rely on the police to protect their property and persons from harm. However, there is a sizeable segment of the population--African-Americans, Hispanics, Muslim-Americans and others that have had very different relations with the police department. It is here, where the complaints about not only racial profiling but also violations of civil liberties and rights have emanated from.

The role of the Human Relations Commission needs to be to bridge that gap between white and brown, white and black, so that they can work together to solve these kinds of problems. Unfortunately, this may be the one job that the new Human Relations Commission is least capable of doing.

At Tuesday's City Council Meeting, Stephen Souza praised the new Human Relations Commission as a "very diverse group of people." Unfortunately, I think that assessment is wrong. The Davis Human Relations Commission has traditionally been the most diverse group in the city. On the last commission, there were five or six different ethnicities on the commission, and in fact, it was a minority-majority group. That is no longer true. It is now a largely white body.

Why? Unfortunately, people of color did not apply to the commission. This fact will unfortunately hinder the commission's ability to bring diverse groups together. Many in the minority community were outraged that the commission that advocated on their behalf was disbanded. There was a fundamental distrust of the City Council and City Government to begin with and that has been exacerbated by the disbanding of the past commission.

Moreover, the problems faced by those in the minority community as not always readily apparent to the rest of the city. I'll use myself as an example because if I did not follow the Human Relations Commission and get to know people who were coming forward with complaints against the police, I would never have known there was a problem in this city. I've never been pulled over by the police or had any sort of negative interaction with them. It is only through my acquaintances and friends that I have learned of the true nature of what is going on in our otherwise great city.

Without first hand knowledge and without community trust, the task ahead for the HRC appears doomed. The new chair John Dixon and much of the membership are people of good intentions. But at least right now, none of them seem to have the fire and drive of the former chair to make the kinds of changes that are needed. The minority community lost a great friend when the HRC was disbanded. The progressive community now needs to come together to ensure that this type of thing never happens again.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Does Target Doom SMUD or PG&E ensure Target's Passage?

I found Richard Harris’ column in last night’s Davis Enterprise rather interesting, making the argument that Target is a “fight with no lasting significance to the life we live.” He describes us as “wrapped around the axle of NIMBYism fighting over where to buy underwear.”

On the other hand, we are missing out on the true issue of paramount importance.

There is a small and effective group of activists and local politicians putting together a pretty good campaign on behalf of Yes on H & I, Yolo Says SMUD Yes (to quote their signs), and I thank them for their efforts. But if you read the newspaper letters, look at lawn signs, run the gauntlet at the Farmers' Market or chat up neighbors, the talk of the town is Target. What a shame.

I guess I take some amusement in naked irony. If the SMUD campaign is indeed overlooked it is at least partly because some of the very same Davis officials pushing SMUD (Souza, Saylor, Asmundson) are some of the very same people who supported Target and put it on the ballot as well.

It is also naked irony in the blatant fact that Target may indeed pass on the back of the SMUD-PG&E mudfight. Recall the strategy of “Triangulation” developed by Dick Morris who was Karl Rove before we’d heard of Karl Rove. The idea was to have President Clinton position himself deftly between the “liberal” Democrats in Congress and the “radical conservative” Republican controlled congress. In that way, Clinton would seem not too liberal but as the alternative to the Republicans who were bent on turning off Sesame Street.

In other years, Target would be the poster-child for corporate excess and greed in Davis. The Target Corporation has outspent the “Don’t Big-Box Davis” opposition by a large margin. They have tried to convince the Davis electorate that they are “Green” and socially responsible. And they have not looked monstrous because of the campaign tactics of PG&E.

PG&E has spent over $9 million on a campaign to convince the people of Yolo County that however much you hate PG&E, SMUD will be worse. The PG&E counterattack is basically while it’s true that SMUD has been cheaper for ratepayers in Sacramento County and part of Placer County than PG&E is for Yolo customers, for Yolo County, SMUD’s underestimated annexation costs would keep that from being the case here. The proponents of the annexation have countered that SMUD is cheaper, greener, more reliable and locally controlled. But PG&E has controlled the terms of the debate through their enormous and unprecedented resource advantage.

Next to PG&E, Target looks downright green, mundane, and nice. Target can subtly point towards PG&E anytime its tactics are questioned.

It will be interesting to see how this ends up, but in many ways, we could end up with the worst of both worlds. The anti-Big Box campaign may end up being doomed because PG&E out-targeted Target. While the SMUD campaign might end up being doomed because Target for whatever reason is the sexier issue for Davis voters.

Harris suggests that SMUD is of much greater importance than Target. I both agree and disagree with that statement. SMUD would provide Yolo County with greener and more locally controlled energy. It remains to be seen at least in the short-term if that would be cheaper, I would guess immediately they might have to pass on the costs of annexation to the rate payer, but that seems a very short term expense.

However, Target would in many ways change the face of Davis. Harris mentioned we’d still shop in downtown if Target won and still shop in Woodland if it didn’t, but face of Davis would be inalterably changed with the building of a Target. And that’s something that we should not take lightly.

The charge of NIMBYism is a red-herring. Growth is inevitable. The U.S. population is now more than 300 million people, however, that does not mean that we have to grow through the construction of big business and corporate monstrosities. On the contrary, with the inevitable growth, it is incumbent upon cities to be even more meticulous in determining what types of business fits the image of the future of their cities.

When Target uses Chico as an example for what Target can do for us, we should shudder. There is a perfect example of how a city failed to annex land on its periphery and failed to protect its future. There are many other examples of Chico—where the character and nature of the town was altered by poorly planned and managed growth. So while I agree with Mr. Harris that SMUD is very important, I think Mr. Harris underestimates how big an undertaking building a Target is.

---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

WILL CITY COUNCIL ALTER DAVIS ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW?

Those who only read about the Davis Human Relations Meeting in the newspaper last week may have missed the big story buried under the lead.

"[T]he commission has been charged with reviewing the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance, created in 1986. Dixon appointed a subcommittee to look at the ordinance to see if any changes are necessary."

The article does not mention why they are reviewing the city's seminal ordinance that incorporates one of the most sweeping anti-discrimination laws in the nation into the Davis Municipal code.

At issue is Section 7A-15(C):

"Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission investigate and mediate his or her complaint. The Commission may adopt rules of procedure to accomodate the needs of such investigation mediation. A complaint to the Commission shall not be a prerequisite to filing a civil action under this section, and the findings and conclusions of the commission issued in response to such proceedings shall not be admissable in a civil action."

Councilmember Lamar Heystek brought this section of the anti-discrimination code to the attention of the HRC and Councilmember Souza (a former chair of the HRC himself) who recently helped re-write the commission's charge, was completely unaware of this section of the city's Anti-discrimination Ordinance. The commission sub-committee is charged with determining whether the city council should alter the anti-discrimination ordinance adopted into law by the City Council on Feberary 26, 1986 and approved by Nichols-Poulos, Rosenberg, Tomasi and Mayor Ann M. Evans and opposed by Jerry Adler.

Now recent history of the HRC begs the question--why was the City Council seemingly completely unaware of this section of the ordinance? This is not a mere academic question, one of the reasons that the City Council disbanded the HRC in June was the claim that they overstepped their bounds. When in fact, according to the Anti-discrimination Ordinance, the former HRC not only had the authority but were in fact mandated to investigate the charges of racial bias in the police department by members of the public. Far from exceeding their authority, they were acting within the direct letter of the law. And for doing that, they were disbanded.

The more pressing question now is will the HRC recommend to abrogate their own authority and duties that are authorized under the Davis Anti-Discrimination Ordinance? And will this community allow the City Council to weaken perhaps the most seminal piece of legislation in our city's municipal code?

---Doug Paul Davis Reporting

Davis Enterprise Endorses Target

It's Sunday, a low traffic day on the People's Vanguard. I save the hot and juicy stuff for Monday, so I went into this entry without much of an idea of what I was going to wite about. The Enterprise today is dominated by SMUD, Choice Voting, and Target.

Let me say something quickly on SMUD since I saw a letter that suggests uncertainty means a "No Vote." I do not know exactly what SMUD will mean other than it will mean NO PG&E. I know PG&E is bad in so many different ways. That's enough for me. I'd vote for Bob's electrical outlet over PG&E. Think about that for awhile...

It is of course of no surprise that the Davis Enterprise would endorse Target. I'm not sure they've seen a development or a pro-developer candidate that they do not like. They endorsed Covell Village and Mike Levy for crying outloud. I could have forgiven them had they endorsed Asmundson and Forbes and opted for experience, but Levy? Good gosh, that's hard to stomach. And it's all too telling about where Debbie Davis' loyalties lie (a close ally of the Puntillos). Given that backdrop, it would have been stunning had they not endorsed Target.

But I'd like this blog to be about ideas rather than ad hominen attacks, so let's look at the arguments the Davis Enterprise puts forth in support of Target.

"The 137,000-square-foot Target store proposed for Davis will generate an estimated $659,000 per year in sales taxes for the city of Davis." That was the rationale used by the Council's majority when they heard the issue of Target back in June. They completely ignored the point that now Mayor Sue Greenwald made in opposition to that figure and it was dead on. If you compare the amount of revenue from Target compared to the current vacant field, it is a good producer for city revenue. However, this is a Hobson's Choice argument. The alternative that council and the pro-Target people present is--Target or vacant field. There is a third option--a development that does not include a big-box retailer.

And what happens if you compare the revenue of Target to alternative developments?

The City Council attacked Sue Greenwald but never answered that question. City Staff disagreed with Greenwald but never addressed that question. And the Davis Enterprise never once offers up an argument against that point. Instead they create a Strawman argument in support of Target: "Target critics... argument presumes a high-value auto dealership occupying the site, which cannot be counted on." The argument that Greenwald made had nothing to do with an auto dealership, it was merely offering an alternative development plan.

Now let us suppose that we develop that property with a number of smaller scale stores and shops. It might not generate the same amount of tax revenue as Target will--I'll grant that point. But it won't be a $659,000 difference either.

Moreover, that projected revenue fails to take into account severe potential opportunity costs. First, while it may generate revenue, it may also cause a number of locally owned or smaller businesses to go under. So while you may generate revenue, the question is are you expanding the revenue base or merely transferring it from one business to another?

There are two consideration--first, how much business from Davis leaves town because there is no Target? Do we have an estimate of that? And second, how much business will come from out of town? Do we have an estimate of that? I would guess that there would be a number of out-of-town customers who would stop and shop at Target for convenience while passing through town. After all, the adjacent cities, all have similar shopping opportunities. A good amount of people from Davis go to Target in Woodland and would be more likely to shop at Target in Davis, so from that perspective some of the business would stay in town.

However, there is a fundamental cost that is not economic. We all live in Davis for a reason--whether it is to grow up in a small and safe community with a unique flavor or to attend or work at the university, there is a unique quality about Davis. It cannot be quantified. Bringing in Big-Box retailers like Target will act to change the nature of this city.

The Davis Enterprise closes with:

"Davis' Target store will be an environmental showplace as well--one of only 10 retail stores worldwide... that have achieved LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Deisgn) certification."

Isn't that special. Davis' Target will be "Green." But will corporate Target also change their practices to fit the sensibilities of Davis? Answer: not bloody likely.

From Co-op America:

"While Target is a partner in the EPA Waste Wise program to reduce municipal solid waste, the company has yet to show significant signs of reducing its overall environmental impact."

Moreover are you concerned about sweat shops?

Target has not escaped the heat altogether as fair labor advocates and big box opponents keep a watchful eye on the company. Conditions at some of Target's supplier factories have included up to 180 hours of unpaid monthly overtime and the failure to provide legal minimum wages to 40 percent of workers.

In our discussion on the living wage proposal by Councilmember Heystek and our article on a "Green Target," we pointed out that a person who makes Target wages was unlikely to be able to even live in Davis. Even with Heystek's modest proposal of $10/ hour, it would be a tight budget. So while we may add jobs, there is a good chance that those will not be jobs for Davis residents. A fact that likely did not escape the Davis Enterprise, as they did not mention it in their article.

And this discussion has not even begun to touch on the anti-Union and Union-busting activities that Target has engaged in. While Wal-Mart is more notorious on this front, Target may be just as bad. There is a reason the Sacramento Labor Council (CLC) strongly opposes the building of Target in Davis.

So yes, this Davis Target story may be "environmentally friendly"... in Davis. But the overall environmental record of Target leaves much to be desired, and if you have concerns about the treatment of third world workers and first world minimum wage employees, then the Davis Enterprise really did nothing to allay those broader concerns with their subterfuge about the Davis Target achieving LEED. The marketing technique is actually quite insulting to the collective intelligence of this community. It takes a very quick Google search to uncover some serious concerns about the business practices of the Target corporation. But then again, most of you probably knew that already.

Unlike the Davis Enterprise, the People's Vanguard of Davis does not endorse. Take all of these factors and arguments and make up your own mind.

---Doug Paul Davis Reporting

More on Racial Profiling

I had originally put this in a comment, I'll throw it as it's own entry and follow-up with some thoughts on it...

One thing that the Davis Police recognize is that the majority of the crime committed in Davis is from people outside of the city and it generally comes in the form of property theft. The police also understand the key access points to the city and they basically watch those access points and look for anyone "who doesn't belong." And then they look for a second reason to pull them over and ask them questions--that could be a minor violation such as failure to use a signal or it could be an expired license plate or broken headlights.

Part of this is good police work--understanding where the crime is going to come from is very important. On the other hand, the people who may "look like they don't belong here" simply because they are not in the majority are most often minorities who live in Davis and end up being pulled over multiple times in short periods of time. This is more common than not.

The key questions that are asked during the stops are things such as, "are you from Sacramento?" Or, "Are you from Oakland?" Which may tell them they are gang members. They also ask if someone is on probation because that allows them to conduct a search without permission or a warrant.

In the end, profiling is hard to prove. There are some aspects of good police work here, but the practice ends up angering many people who fall into the target group that the police believe may not belong. In the end, they are looking for reasons to pull over minorities and question them. It may or may not be an effective crime fighting technique, but it also serves to drive a wedge into the minority community.

The rest of the community really has no conception for the amount of anger that is out there. Last May, I attended a march at the police station with a number of students--almost all of them were minority students and the vast majority of those were African-American. I've followed this issue for quite some time and yet I was caught off guard by the sheer number of students who stepped forward and the level of anger that they had at how they were treated.

I would say more than 20 students spoke about personal experiences with the police and racial profiling and some of them had more than a handful of these experiences. It was shocking to listen to this, because it was clearly a very different world that they inhabit from those of us who are white. So when I heard comments from people in this community last spring talking about the fact that they’ve never had a negative experience with the police, the first thought that jumps into my head is that they are older and white rather than younger and a minority. That gulf made it very difficult for much of the community who has undoubtedly had good experiences with the police to understand where this anger was coming from. That polarization led to many of the problems that occurred in the past year.

The number of times many of these students had been pulled over leads one to the stark conclusion that this is not merely the enforcement of minor violations as some police officers claim. It is systematic and it is very intrusive.

But the issue of racial profiling itself remains a very tricky situation to try to deal with. It is difficult to prove because the encounters are often ambiguous and it is only in the broader context that it becomes apparent that there is a problem. That's been the problem all along--the City Council and the previous police chief denied that there was any problem whatsoever (while at the same time they implemented tremendous amounts of change by creating the position of ombudsman) and the majority of the community agreed with them because they never experienced the problems that some of our residents and our students have had to experience.

There is little that the Ombudsman can do about racial profiling--most cases will be murky at best. A police officer pulls over an African-American UC Davis student, says that he has failed to signal--how is even a video going to demonstrate conclusively otherwise? We would need data on traffic stops and that data would have to somehow demonstrate that a disproportionate amount of African American students were getting pulled over for minor incidents with no citation given.

Amazingly enough there was some data collected at one point by the police department. However, last year Steve Pierce, then Assistant Chief, admitted that they didn't know what to do with it and they threw it out when they moved to the new police station. He admitted this at a public meeting and wrote it in an email to Chief Hyde.

Unfortunately, while I have hope for the new ombudsman and his ability to investigate some of the complaints into the police department, racial profiling is going to be a tough nut to crack. I just don't see that issue getting resolved anytime soon. Clearly the community needs to see what is going on before they are going to be willing to act and I don’t see how that’s going to happen either.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

CAB Meetings to Stay out of Public Light

The majority City Council moved to change the purview of the Davis Human Relations Commission (HRC) citing that the HRC no longer needs to concern themselves with police issues since council has created a Community Advisory Board (among other bodies such as the Police Advisory Committee and the Ombudsman) to serve that purpose.

The following is the description from the city website on the CAB functions:

An advisory board of 12 people representing a cross-section of the community based on neighborhoods, businesses, schools, religion, race, gender, and other factors was formed the last quarter of 2005. The members are selected by the Police Chief with the City Manager’s approval. This board meets with the Chief on a monthly basis to provide input to the department regarding constituent concerns. Additionally, the CAB members will take information away from the police department back into the community. This Board has broad public representation and input into the police department. Most importantly, CAB opens and sustains on-going dialogue with key members of the community on issues of mutual concern.

While the board may have "broad public representation" and it may open and sustain "on-going dialogue," it also meets in private. There has been increasing discussion that with the removal of the police issue from the HRC, the CAB needs to take on a more public role. Councilmember Heystek raised this issue at the September 19, 2006 Council Meeting.

And according to the posting by Chair Steven Worker on the Davis Wiki, this was an item of discussion at the last CAB meeting.

The CAB process was discussed and there was agreement that meetings needed agendas (pre-meeting) and notes (post-meeting). There was discussion that these might be posted on the DPD website. It was felt that guests could be invited by CAB members, but the CAB would not be a place to hear complaints about specific incidents , but rather discuss overall themes and issues.

This is a troubling policy statement for two reasons. First of all, you have a body that is meeting and advising on policy decisions that is not open to the public except by invitation.

Second, the public once again has no public venue in which to air their concerns about police practices except for the City Council Meetings. The Police Chief has suggested that that is the role of the ombudsman, but that forces people to take formal action every time they need to air their grievances. Moreover and troubling is the fact that without public scrutiny there can be no public pressure to change policies. John Burris in his book, "Black and White," cites the fact that even when Police Departments are found to have committed acts of misconduct, the lack of public scrutiny often means that the practices continue and policies remain unchanged. This occurs despite millions of dollars in settlements paid in civil lawsuits and sustained complaints against specific officers. Lack of public awareness means that poor training and other factors can continue despite lawsuits and complaints.

This current arrangement with lack of public hearings is clearly by design. The City Council was not happy with the way things went last year with the Davis Human Relations Commission and they somehow believe that they can handle this problem better by removing it from the public realm.

This approach seems problematic at best. There remains a sizable number of people within this community who are very concerned about the police issue and the conduct of the Davis police department. By forcing this issue largely out of the public realm, these problems will not go away and in fact they may fester beneath the surface. If anything the situation could become more volatile without any sort of pressure release valve provided by bodies such as the Davis Human Relations Commission over the last 20 years.

The Police Ombudsman Robert Aaronson is a good hire and a good person, but most of his duties and reports will be not made public (and there are good reasons for this). It is very concerning that there is no public access now on this issue.

(For further information on the CAB I recommend you read the segment in our Police Oversight Series on the CAB)


---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Video Shows Case of Alleged Racial Profiling

The People's Vanguard of Davis has acquired this footage taken in January of 2006. It shows an area couple who witnessed a police officer pulling over an African-American UC Davis student. They then talk to the student who is unhappy at being pulled over.

As with most cases of alleged racial profiling, the evidence is unclear. We do not have access to the interaction between the police officer and the student. And even if we did, we would see the police officer ask a couple of questions, check the car's paperwork and let the student go. There was no citation given. The charge of racial profiling is difficult to sustain and often explained either by citing a minor vehicle violation or the claim that the person fit the profile of someone sought by the police for the commission of another crime.

The reason that he was allegedly pulled over was failure to signal, however, the student claims that that was untrue and the officer never cites him for it or even gives him a warning. This is a similar story that is told over and over again amongst minority students in this community. A student is pulled over, asked what they are doing, asked where they are from, the license and registration are processed, and then more often than not the person is let go without a citation or even a warning.

I like this clip because the student is clearly well-spoken and someone that most in the community can relate to. He is on his way to a job interview, well-dressed, and driving a nice rental car.

The sad part about this interaction is that these types of interactions between minorities in Davis and the police happen frequently, there is little that can be documented about them and in the end, the only thing this clip can do is raise community awareness about the problem.



---Doug Paul Davis reporting

PG&E Spends $9 Million on anti-SMUD Campaign

The numbers are staggering… According to the Sacramento Bee:

“Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has poured $9.4 million into an aggressive campaign to retain Yolo County customers, spending $21 for every dollar spent by supporters of a Sacramento Municipal Utility District expansion.”

Yolo County officials who never agree on anything are near unanimous in their support for SMUD. That includes people like Mariko Yamada, County Supervisor, Sue Greenwald, Davis Mayor and on the other side Council members Don Saylor, Steve Souza, and Ruth Asmundson. All of these officials support SMUD.

The draw is that SMUD presents about 30 percent-lower average rates. These rates help the cities better maintain their budgets. It helps the school district’s lower costs. And it helps the consumer save on their electricity bill.

Everyone wins except for PG&E. How much are they set to lose? Well enough so that they can spend $9 million without blinking.

As many people in Yolo County have suggested—perhaps had PG&E put their money and efforts into improving their system and their customer service, the ratepayers in Yolo County would not be revolting.

I’m a strong supporter of local business. I’m a stronger supporter that small business provides better services. And finally, in this day and age, I’m a strong supporter of competition. When a company like PG&E operates with a natural monopoly, they have no competition.

This is probably the first time they’ve ever had to compete to keep customers. Because if “I” don’t like them, I can sit in the dark or install a windmill in my backyard and solar panels on the roof. Neither of which are really feasible options.

Now suddenly they have to fight for their customers. Instead of trying to win us over with promises of improvement and rate reduction, they are using their vast wealth that they’ve acquired from us to scare us into sticking with an inferior system. Unlike other political campaigns—everyone knows about PG&E, everyone knows about the services they provide, and they aren’t going to fool anyone with $9 million or even $90 million.

That said, I don’t think SMUD is running a very good campaign. I’ve heard complaints that the spokesperson was very bad at community forums and that Stephen Souza wasn’t very helpful. Why is Stephen Souza the point person on this? It should be someone like Mariko Yamada.

In the meantime, anyone driving by the PG&E plant on L and 2nd in Davis might notice the rather large NO on H and I signs, I could be wrong, but aren’t signs of that size, not allowed in the city limits? Why has no one challenged them?

As I said yesterday on Target, you have a choice. If you like your current rates and the current system, stick with PG&E. If you believe the scare tactics that SMUD is overreaching and this will cripple SMUD, then again, vote for PG&E. Personally, I can not think of many companies in this country that I dislike more than PG&E and I am willing to take the chance on SMUD.

Regardless of these issues, Yolo County deserves better than to be foisted a smear campaign that will cost well over $10 million by the time it is over.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Souza Encourages Heystek to Bring up Living Wage Item on His Own

In what follows is the exchange from the August 1, 2006 Meeting where Heystek first requestioned that council agendize the living wage ordinance. Note that he clearly states he would like it on the September 12 agenda. This is important because when Council votes against agendizing the item by a 3-2 vote, Souza specifically encourages Heystek to prepare the item on his own for discussion. Because he has to prepare the item himself, it takes until the September 19 Meeting to bring it forward, which was the last possible date it could have a first reading and still apply to Measure K. Heystek is then chatised by Souza and Saylor both at the meeting and in the press for politicking and throwing this item on them at the least meeting. In light of this video clip, this attack is shown completely unfounded and the council majority is in fact responsible for the late date by failing to allow staff to prepare this item.

Bottom line here--the video at the end of this clip clearly shows Souza encourage Heystek to bring this proposal forward on his own and later both he and Saylor attack Heystek for bringing it forward at the last minute (he did not) and for politicking. This is duplicitous on the part of council at best.



---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Dreaming of a Green Target?

In Sunday’s paper we were told that a “green Target” not only “provides affordable shopping” but it “fits Davis’ values.”

I read through the entire column written by a large number of individuals, and I did not see much that would sway my view of Target as a large business that would put local owners out of business, would bring in a number of jobs to people who could not afford to live in our community on the Target salary, who practices union-busting behavior, and I could go on.

In fact, I came away rather insulted that they thought, “The use of wood, stone and other design features to make the store unique to Davis” would make me believe that Target supported my values. My values are not based on exterior aesthetics.

The big story from last weekend is the closing of an icon in Sacramento and Davis: Tower Records. From the Sacramento Bee:

“The Tower Records legacy began on Watt Avenue in 1960, where Russ Solomon opened his first store. A store still exists on Watt Avenue, above, but not for long. Tower served as a point of pride for capital-area residents. But competition from big-box discounters and the Internet began eroding music retailers like Tower in the mid- and late 1990s.”

Tower is obviously not a locally owned business, but it was started in Sacramento. Moreover, it demonstrates once again that big-box retailers have the capability to put others out of business.

Meanwhile, we can do some math. Target brings in about 200 jobs (150-250 is the estimate). Most of those will receive Minimum wage which is currently $6.75 per hour. Even if they work a full 160 hours in a month, that is $1080. And that’s before taxes. So we’re talking about $900. No one can reasonably live in Davis on $900 per month. So we would not be bringing in 200 jobs into Davis, we would be bringing them into Woodland, West Sacramento, Dixon or wherever someone can afford to live on $900 per month.

Now imagine that we adopt Heystek’s living wage ordinance, those same people would make $1600 per month before taxes. You could in fact, rent an apartment and live in Davis on $1400-1500 per month. But of course, the council supporters of Target also oppose a Living Wage (despite their weak attempts to claim otherwise).

By the way, an excellent letter by Gene Borack on Sunday calling Souza’s rhetoric for what it is. By the end of this week, Davis residents will be able to view the exchange between Souza and Heystek from the August 1, 2006 meeting on our site and they will see that indeed as we have said and Borack stated, that council encouraged Heystek to go forward only to pillory him for bringing it out at the last minute.

Folks, this is all very basic, the pro-Target people talk about Target fitting Davis values, well it’s all about which values you hold and support. I support the concept of locally owned and operated business. I support the small business owner who resides in our community. I support unions. I support the living wage. This Target proposal goes against all of these core values of mine. If they go against yours, then you ought to oppose Target. If on the other hand, you believe we need to be able to buy socks and underwear in Davis no matter who manufactured said apparel, then by all means, support a Target. I do not wish to tell other people how to vote, but people should have the facts at their disposal.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Saylor Attacked ASUCD back in May

Back in early May, the Davis City Council passed a resolution creating the position of the Ombudsman. Prior to that meeting, the student body at UC Davis (ASUCD), an elective organization that represents 25,000 students, held an emergency meeting to recommend the creation of Civilian Review Board instead of an Ombudsman.

There are two different groups in this community most impacted by the issue of Police conduct—one of those is the minority community at large and the other is the student community, especially the minority community within the student population—the majority of which reside within the city proper. In other words, the ASUCD was not taking up an issue that didn’t directly affect their members. Later in May we saw 150 minority students march to the Davis Police Station to request changes in department policy regarding racial profiling.

Rob Roy, who was both a candidate for the Davis City Council and a member of ASUCD, presented the resolution to the Davis City Council that evening during public comments about the Ombudsman. The Council could have easily accepted the recommendation and then acted as they were going to act anyway. That would probably have been the professional way to respond.

Instead, Don Saylor in very stark and direct language tore into Roy and the ASUCD, blasting the process, blasting their knowledge of the issue, he did so in his trademark measured tone, but it was no less abusive. He called it “at best ill-informed” and at worst “cynical” and “politically motivated.” Further he called them “misinformed” and “misguided.”

It was stunning to see of member of the Davis City Council castigating an independent elective body that was acting to represent the needs of their members. It would be one thing to disregard the recommendation, to disagree with it, but to angrily denounce them seemed well out of bounds.

Like most things said in the late night (this was at around 10:45 PM)—the audience in the chamber was non-existent and the audience on the TV was probably just as small. It was not covered in the paper and unless you happen to watch it, you would have missed it completely.

Here’s a clip of Saylor’s statement…

---Doug Paul Davis Reporting

Charlie Brown, Max Cleland, and the Democratic 2006 Prospects

Yesterday three veterans of the US military were in Davis. Retired Republican Congressman Pete McCloskey who made his name as an anti-Vietnam war Representative, former Senator Max Cleland, and Congressional candidate Charlie Brown. Brown the proverbial underdog is facing eight-term incumbent John Doolittle. Doolittle is in hot water because of his close affiliation with Abramoff and probably because of general disatisfaction with the direction of this country.

Two things among many stike me about the event yesterday. First, Charlie Brown's staffer told us that he's not getting money from the national party. That is a travesty. The New York Times now lists 50 congressional districts that are in play, Doolittle's is now one. The Democratic party has an 18 district strategy--they are funding only 18 districts that they think they have to win to get to 218 and no more.

Folks if the Democrats end up winning the House it will be because of people like Charlie Brown--war heroes who have serious doubts about the conduct of the current administration and the average voter who rise up against the existing political order and caste out the Republican incumbents. It will be a movement of grassroots people who have had enough. The Democratic establishment is utterly useless.

The second amazing thing was watching Max Cleland wheel in on his wheel chair, and you know the guy is a veteran of Vietnam, you know he is in a wheel chair, you know a lot of things. But when you see him up close and you see the remnants of his legs and his right arm, you realize what true sacrifice is. I became angry because in 2002 his Republican opponent dared to challenge this man's patriotism because he had questions about the patriot act. And what a speech he gave. The Republicans claim to be the pro-military party, but they have left the veterans behind, they have hung the brave fighting men and women out to dry, and they had to get rid of Max Cleland because he reminds them of their hypocrisy.

Next time you hear the Republicans charge the Democrats with wanting to cut-and-run, just remember Max Cleland. This man could have cut and run on life a long time ago, he could have given up on his country after losing in 2002, instead, he's still fighting for this country with everything he has. To me that's true patriotism.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting