Food Service Worker Protest in Front of Vanderhoef's Residence Revealing

Last night in front of Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef's residence, a number of students gathered in support of Sodexho Food Service Worker's campaign to become university employees with full university wages and benefits. So far, the Chancellor has failed to negotiate in good faith and at a meeting last week refused to allow union representatives to come and speak on behalf of the food service workers. Instead Vanderhoef and Vice Chancellor Dennis Shimek, met with two students and a food service worker--two of whom complained about disrespectful treatment and intimidation tactics.

As far as protests go, this one, planned at the last minute and held during finals week was not huge. Certainly not in comparison with some of the recent protests held on May 1 and May 23, 2007. Nevertheless, the twenty-five or so students who gathered on Tuesday evening in front of Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef's residence served an important purpose. The Chancellor was holding his annual Luau and had invited many university folks and community leaders--most of whom ignored or were indifferent to the efforts of the protesters to pass out fliers. Some were downright hostile.

More interesting was perhaps the reaction of leaders in this community--some of whom have expressed open support for the food service workers. For instance, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk had sent a letter to the chancellor in March urging him to negotiate with the students in good faith. She was also supposed to be meeting with the Chancellor in hopes of pressuring him to resolve the meeting. Given that, it was surprising to see the Assemblywoman walk right past the protesters, along with her husband Bruce Wolk, and say nary a word.

Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor exchanged pleasantries with me, however, he did not attempt to talk to the students despite his earlier letter of support. Nor did Councilmember Ruth Asmundson. Nor did former Mayor and current Judge Dave Rosenberg. Nor did Congressman Mike Thompson's representative Eli Faircloth.

There was but one exception to that list--County Supervisor Mariko Yamada. Ms. Yamada walked up to the protesters, offered words of support and hugs, and made the determination that she should not go in, in light of the protest. The students talked her into going inside, however, it was clear from the student's reaction that her support was very meaningful to them. Nor was the fact that several other leaders in the community had walked right past them without a word lost upon them.

Vice Chancellor Dennis Shimek at one point intentionally and deliberately walked right through the marching picketers--and for really no apparent reason as he walked through some grass in some open space and then returned to the Chancellor's residence. I caught up to him at the park, and told him that my mother had taught me never to walk through a picket line.

He asked me, "why is that?"

I responded, "it is the ultimate sign of disrespect."

He said, "they were in the path, I had the right to walk there, so I did."

He could have easily walked around them. He was attempting to intimidate them and bully them, just as he had up in his office during negotiations. This is a university employee's disdain for students who were exercising their lawful right to assembly.

Finally, what perhaps disturbed me the most was the treatment of the protesters by the UC Davis police. There were at least six police officers there for a pretty small protest. But that's understandable given the size of previous protests. What concerned me was that the police were taking pictures of the protesters.

These students were not breaking the law. This hearkened me back to a time before I was born when the FBI would routinely photograph and keep files on protesters for the purpose of intimidation and a whole lot more. These are the tactics used by the university police against their students? What are they going to do with the pictures?

The picture above is an officer taking a picture of me taking a picture of him. Now I don't know exactly what the officer thought he was going to accomplish by taking of a picture of me. But he can tell his bosses, he got a shot of...

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Council Approves Zoning Change to Allow Densification at Third and B

The Davis City Council decided early this morning by a 3-1 vote to approve zoning changes to allow densification at Third and B with Councilmember Lamar Heystek the sole dissenter and with Mayor Sue Greenwald conflicted out of the process due to her residence within the neighborhood in question. This vote occurred despite numerous concerns raised by neighbors and community members about changing the character of the neighborhood and the core of downtown. There were also a number of concerns raised about parking and traffic. Finally a number of people have argued that Davis lacks much in the way of historic buildings and resources. Those historic buildings that have remained beyond the purging in the 1960s and 1970s are in need of protection.

There were many crucial points of opposition that were aptly raised by various members of the public. Many people also came and spoke in favor of the project.

John Hall, a neighbor who collected around 20 petitions, called the original proposal "OTT" or "over the top." He told the council that this was densification, not infill and implored them to scale back the project. They had come forward with a number of proposals, some of which ended up being integrated into the project, some of which were not.

Rand Herbert, chair of the historic resources commission, referred to a 4-0-3 vote by his commission to use the current design guidelines.

"The HMRC is not against densification, only how it would impact historic resources."

Mike Syvanen, husband of Mayor Greenwald, illustrated the impact that a 38-45 foot building height would have on the character of the neighborhood. He did not reject the notion of redevelopment or even densification of the area outright, but simply suggested that this is the wrong approach.

"I think this plan should be just rejected and sent back to planning so that we can come up with something that is consistent with the character of this residential neighborhood."

Allan Miller from the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association was disturbed by this process. He brought up a very crucial point:

"I continue to be amazed that either intentional or careless neglect is rewarded on property owners who want to redevelop. On this wall we have five scenes, one is gone, it is the one in the middle, the Aggie Hotel, which went through criminal neglect, and then that was given as an excuse as to why redevelopment had to occur."

Mr. Miller's point was a very strong one as we saw a few weeks back with the Anderson Bank Building, another old, historic building that is in need of upkeep and renovation. The appearance of the Bank Building was one of the reasons that the owner asked for changes in the window design. The appearance of the older bungalows in the current neighborhood are among the expressed reasons why some of the owners asked for zoning changes to enable densification and redevelopment in this project and in this neighborhood. Perhaps the council ought to require upkeep as a condition to even consider allowing for zoning change and redevelopment. Because otherwise as both Mr. Miller said, and Councilmember Heystek would later state, we would simply be rewarding people who are failing to take care of their property.

Teta Olna provided some of the most emotional public comments of the evening. She had bought her lot on University as an R2 lot. She was told by city leaders that she lived in an historic neighborhood and was asked to save it. "If you take your R2 property and turn it into an R1 property, we promise you that while this general plan is in effect, this will stay a residential type of neighborhood." And she convinced her neighbor to do the same thing, which probably reduced her property value by $100,000. They accepted a denser neighborhood back in 1990.

"This is just how the council is treating people in the historic neighborhood. Me, who I wanted to save an historic neighborhood, I gave up a lot. I said no I'm not going to develop, I'm not going to do the R2, I'm going to the R1. I'm going to stay here, I'm going to live here. And I put all my nest egg in there. And now I'm left holding the bag, now I'm the fool. So I'm really sorry that this is happening and I feel very unfairly treated. I feel there is a double-standard on this city council. There's a double-standard of protecting the rich peripheral neighborhoods, quality of life issues, ignoring those of us in the historic core that have really given a lot to this city."

Sue Greenwald spoke as a private citizen and a resident of the neighborhood.

"I thought that we had a shared vision, of careful sensitive infill that preserves the historic nature of our most visible and defining historic neighborhoods. We have very little of our historic flavor left. When people visit Davis, or when they walk from campus to downtown, they are always commenting to me that they are amazed that we managed to retain a little history and a little charm. We had a vision that was a really wise vision, it was a vision that we would densify the commercial core with taller buildings, we would scale it down somewhat in the mixed use areas of C Street and D Street, and transition it to leave a village ambiance in the little neighborhood between B Street and campus. It's a very small neighborhood. That vision is exemplified in the existing zoning. Staff has underestimated the number of units that can be built under the existing zoning in this neighborhood and actually overestimated the number that can be built under the proposed zoning."

Some have suggested that opposition to this project is tantamount to opposition to all densification or infill development. I do not believe that this is true at all and I do not think this is true of my viewpoint. Part of the reason for that perception is that the Vanguard tends to focus on controversies rather than points of agreement. However, I would tend to support those who last night suggested that there are better locations for densification and infill.

There were two good alternative proposals put on the table last night by members of the public. First, retired professor Dennis Dingemanns suggested densification on the Old North Davis spot where the school district currently has its main offices but from which the district wants to move and sell their property for future development. Greenwald suggested that there are proper places for infill such as the 25 acre PG&E parcel at 5th and L. She also mentioned other underutilized sites around downtown. "Infill at sites like this will not destroy historic neighborhood." Moreover, infill at these sites can be incorporated into the existing infrastructure rather than imposed upon it. Finally, infill at these locations can be made to reinforce rather than alter the existing character of the community and the neighborhood.

Councilmember Heystek questioned the scope of the EIR, the fact that it did not, in his opinion, test the impact on adjacent areas. Staff disagreed with that assessment, as did his colleagues, who ended up voting 3-1 to approve the EIR. This limited EIR remains a concern to me as well, I do not think it adequately examined the impact of traffic and parking on adjacent areas. The Old North Neighborhood Association remains concerned about their generous parking arrangement, whereby they allow non-residents large use of their parking spots without time limitations. Will this new development force more parking into that neighborhood? Souza speculated on a new parking structure that would ease that problem, but in the meantime, I think that is concern.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek after midnight weighed in on why he ended up opposing this project.

"I believe that this process is a referendum on our current development process. I believe there is something to be said about densification through demolition in this particular neighborhood, where the council has opposed densification in other areas of this town, specifically on the peripheral areas near our city limits. I don't want to unjustly punish this neighborhood for the fact that this current council for whatever reason refuses to accept higher density in other areas of town... Just as the rich or the low density neighborhoods, the members of those neighborhoods claim, that they are entitle to preservation of the integrity of their neighborhood, I believe that those who live in and near the project are similarly entitled to some semblance of neighborhood integrity. And that is why I think it would be unfair not to push the envelope in other areas of town of low density, and yet cram what seems to be high density, what is high density, into this neighborhood."

Councilmember Heystek continued by criticizing the level of neglect of some of the property in this neighborhood.

"I walked through the alleys with Sara, I've walked through the alleys with neighbors, I've walked through the alleys myself, and there seems to be and must be admitted to, if we're going to be honest here, there is some element of neglect on those parcels, on the lots, that abut the alley facing east on B street. Who bears the burden of the responsibility of the lots, of the fact that a lot of the lots have not been very well maintained, it is very popular to say that it's the tenants, it's the student renters who are running this neighborhood down, I'm not saying the renters have been angels, because I've walked down this street on picnic, I've walked down the street on weekends, but we must be honest and say that the owners of these lots also bear responsibility. I don't want to say that if we cannot achieve some semblance of what we want to accomplish in that neighborhood because of the activities of the occupants there, the renters in this case, then that means we have to cover, we've got to demolish, and we've got to build on top of it. Because I'm not willing to reward that. If you run your properties down enough... But also the property owners bear responsibility."

In the end, the council majority supported this project as part of what they consider their vision of the core. They spoke in terms of a transition between the university and the core downtown area. They spoke in terms of commercial development in that transition in order to connect the university with the core areas of town.

And in the end, I simply do not share that vision of the council majority of Councilmembers Saylor, Souza, and Asmundson. I share a very different vision of this city and especially that neighborhood.

There were consistent and persistent concerns about parking and traffic in that part of town. There is legitimate concern about such dense residential development along B Street which serves as a main artery for traffic heading from Fifth Street to downtown and I-80. Large amounts of vehicles pulling out from driveways will inherently disrupt the flow of traffic. Nevertheless, both traffic and parking while legitimate concerns, can be mitigated through good planning. In the end, neither of these were reasons to reject the project in my opinion--though they may be valid reasons for further planning and altering the project.

For me, the reason for opposing this project is based not on principles of growth, but rather the ideal of what our city should look like. I have mentioned before that one of the chief reasons I originally moved to this city to go to graduate school was that this neighborhood and this mix of residential development and commercial development along Third Street drew me to Davis. It has the feel of the college town. And it is precisely because the houses and businesses are older. It is precisely because the businesses seem to seemlessly flow out of the neighboring homes. It is precisely because there is little to distinguish a business like Navines or Ciocolat from the adjacent homes. This is what a college town should feel like.

And when I think of them razing some of these homes and these businesses to build bigger, taller, and more dense units, it really cuts to the core of what I believe our community should be. That neighborhood is a transition from the university to the city. It houses old time residents and students alike. There are faculty members and businesses. The students frequent the businesses in heavy doses during the week. And it has the feel of a real college town with people bustling about, riding their bikes on their way to classes or sitting down and having coffee or lunch out on the street front. To me, that is what a college town should look like. Having three or four story condos with owner-occupancy can be saved for another neighborhood. I am not suggesting that we do not need more housing.

I am not suggesting that densification as a rule is a bad practice. I agree with conservation of agricultural land on the city periphery and recognize that a chief way to do that is to pack more people into less space. However, there are places to do that and in my view, this is not one of them.

I feel like last night, my Davis, my town where I have lived for almost 11 years, was taken from me and that it might never come back. This character once destroyed, I fear will never be restored. I can only hope that in the near future, we can have a council majority that does a better job of mixing the needs of development, growth, and business--all of which are essential to this community--with the character and the soul of this community. I do not oppose all growth, I do not oppose the concept of densification, but I very strongly opposed this growth, this densification, and this demolition of one of my favorite aspects of this great community.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Cabaldon and Yamada Square Off in First Debate

The Northern Solano Democratic Club hosted a debate for the Democratic Nomination for the 8th Assembly District between Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada and West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon. It was very well-attended, with the conference room at the Courtyard Marriot in Fairfield near capacity.

The two candidates agreed in principle on far more issues than they disagreed. In fact, Cabaldon in his closing remarks said as much.

"As you can tell, Supervisor Yamada and I agree on 98, 99 percent of the policy issues that are challenging California. And that is because we are both good Democrats... We understand the priorities of our party, and I would expect, that we would see very similar voting patterns in the capital for both of us."

Where they differed was in terms of emphasis and priorities. Cabaldon spoke at length on issues such as the environment, transportation, and education. Some of the key issues included developing the capital corridor transit system, protecting the delta and talking about delta smelt. He used West Sacramento as a model for the Democratic Party.

"We have proven you can be a strong advocate for the environment and still get good economic development in your community, that produces good clean green manufacturing jobs at a rate that is unmatched anywhere in our region."

He also mentioned his sexual orientation:

"We have proven you can have a gay mayor and still have a socially cohesive powerful place that we believe in community in a place like West Sacramento."

In contrast, Mariko Yamada stressed social issues and social services such as health care among other services. She spoke of her background as a social worker and creating a different approach to solving our problems.

"I come from a set of core values that are essential to our profession, those are service, social justice, the dignity and the worth of all people, the importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence and the desire to change life for the better. These values are, or I think should be, the core values of the Democratic Party."

She added:

"I believe that, and we all share this, that something is wrong with the direction that our society has gone, our values have been subverted, both at the federal level and sometimes the state level, as a social worker and a Democrat, I expect to be an advocate for the poorest of the poor, but what we're seeing now is an erosion of the effects of misplaced priorities of our nation and state, and I believe it is time for really all of us to stand up and question the values that are being carried forward at the highest levels of government and sometimes at the state level."

Cabaldon spoke in favor of extending term limits, through the ballot initiative. Yamada, spoke out against term limits in principle, and in favor of granting the electorate the right to decide.

Both candidates were in strong support of single-payer, universal health care.

Yamada spoke first, passionately, in favor of health care reform.

"The social work profession has been on national record in favor of the single payer, universal health care system for some fifty years. I think we were called 'communists' then, but now we're just regular people."

Cabaldon also strongly favored single-payer universal health care, citing the support of Sheila Kuehl for his candidacy and her pressing the health care issue in legislation. Cabaldon is "hopeful" that health care will not be an issue for when he or Yamada are seated in the legislature.

Where they differ on this issue, is in their perception about the prospects for single-payer health care to pass in the near future. Yamada was somewhat less optimistic about the prospects of the Keuhl bill. "I am not very encouraged by what's happening at that committee. I think there's still way too many politics that have been infused into the dialogue. I am in absolute support of Kuehl's bill..."

They differed on the question of reducing the majority required to pass a budget. Yamada supported keeping the current two-thirds requirement as a means to protect the minority and out of concern for being the minority in the future. Cabaldon supported reducing it to a simple-majority, out of the need to pass legislation now. "With a majority vote, you can hold us, the Democrats, accountable for the budgets that we propose as an expression of our values for California."

The subject to turned to protecting and maintaining agricultural lands. Yamada talked about the Yolo County Supervisors and the general plan process. She also talked about balancing protection of agricultural land with providing enough housing to keep prices down.

"I think that it is always a balance approach, if we don't have, no farms, no food. So we need to make sure that we are protecting agricultural land. I have taken firm positions on my board on development projects that I did not think were in alignment with our core values of preserving and protecting agriculture and open space. I think we have to base our land use decisions on smart growth principles."

Cabaldon responded with a sharp criticism of current discussions for county development on city edges.

"Solano County and Yolo County are the state's two premier counties in terms of growth management by doing one thing, saying growth is going to occur in existing cities." He then pointedly added, "They are under assault today. The scenario where I've got some real concerns about what's going on at Yolo County and the approval of thousands of housing units outside of the incorporated cities on farmland in our county. We can't afford that, what might seem like a good, expedient, financial decision for government is a bad decision for the environment, for the health of our rural economy, and for public health. This is the number issue facing our whole region, is the assault in both counties on longstanding policy of city-centered growth that vitalizes our cities and protects our agricultural and rural places."

Overall, there was far more difference in terms of emphasis and priorities than in terms of policy disagreement. Yamada in her closing comments again called for running a good, clean campaign. For the most part, both of the candidates adhered to that, there were few attacks. The most pointed criticism was probably offered by Cabaldon in his veiled yet pointed criticism of Board of Supervisor policy on land use. While Cabaldon effectively and subtlely was able to criticize the county on that issue, an issue of vulnerability to Yamada especially with her base in Davis, Yamada missed several opportunities to counter by criticizing Cabaldon's development record in West Sacramento. More importantly, she failed to point out that several of Cabaldon's key supporters have also supported development on city edges. This is an issue that has already drawn a lot of attention in Yolo County and it appears that it will continue in the Assembly District race.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Lt. Governor Garamendi and Many Local Candidates Highlight Champagne Brunch

The Davis Democratic Club had its annual Champagne Brunch Sunday, drawing around 80 people from Davis including two statewide officials and many local officials and candidates for local others.

The key note speaker was Lt. Governor John Garamendi, who represented Davis for eight years as a State Senator. He described Davis as home.

"It's good to be back in Davis, it's always good to be in Davis. Why? I don't know of another community in California that cares so much about the future, not only of its community, but the city, the county, and the state and beyond. And your caring and your concern about where we are today, where we're going to be tomorrow and beyond, really makes this an extremely important community, not only for California but really across the nation. You are leaders in many many ways. This incredible university here, the research that's going on, the educational facilities, and the opportunity to have three of my daughters go through this university makes this home."

Garamendi spoke about four key issues--calling these security issues as he talked about issues that go beyond simply what he called the horrific debacle of Iraq. Issues that are key to our well-being.

First he talked about the climate crisis.

"It is absolutely crucial that we immediately engage in reducing not just as far as we can, but even more than we can the greenhouse gases. If there is ever a community that has led the way it is this community with some extraordinary urban planning, and the community here with its awareness of climate, its awareness of urban planning. If there is ever a community that has led the way it is this community. But that is not enough, we have got to move beyond carbon based fuels, and we can."

He also talked about the water system, "the water system is not going to work as it has for the last century."

The second issue was education.

"This economy will not continue to be the strongest and the most robust in the world, giving us an opportunity to share the great wealth, with all of our people, if we don't have the best educated workforce in the world and we're not there. We have to talk about this as a national security issue, because it is. If the economy falters all sorts of bad things will happen in this nation and around the world."

Next was health care.

"Again this is a national security issue because the economy of this state and nation cannot continue to put money in this wasteful system. And it is a wasteful system as it puts a full 30% into administration costs... It is not just an economic problem, it is a human problem. One job, one illness, and you are out of luck."

He spoke in support of a single payer system. "When people say we can't do it, tell them we have done it." He was referring to Medicare. This is a system that has worked for fifty years, it is a single payer system. He talked about simply expanding that system to the rest of the country in order to provide the uninsured with affordable health care.

Finally, he spoke of the need to protect civil liberties and civil rights from government encroachment.

"The security of this nation is in fundamental jeopardy, when we forget the bill of rights, when we forget to fight each and every day for every one of the bill of rights. And what's happened the last six years with the Bush administration is incredible erosion of our civil liberties, in ways that most of us don't understand yet."

Garamendi's speech highlighted the day, but we also got a visit from Secretary of State Debra Bowen, who said a few brief words late in the event.

The other important aspect of the day, was the number of local candidates who came, some of whom spoke briefly, others did not. The Vanguard will be the top place in the coming year for local campaign and election information. There will be feature interviews with several of the local announced candidates in the coming weeks.

We start at the top of the local ticket, State Assemblywoman Lois Wolk was there introducing Lt. Governor John Garamendi, which is of some intrigue because John Garamendi, Jr. was also at this event, although he did not speak. The younger Garamendi is widely expected to run against Assemblywoman Wolk for the State Senate seat that his father previously held.

Both candidates for the 8th Assembly District spoke, Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada and West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon. These two will face each other this evening in Fairfield in their first debate.

Two of the three candidates for 4th District Yolo County Supervisor were there. Jim Provenza, currently a school board member. And John Ferrera was there with literature and endorsement forms. Ferrera is State Senator Denise Ducheny's chief of staff and this was almost his formal announcement.

Three likely Davis City Council candidates were there--all incumbents--Mayor Greenwald, and Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Don Saylor.

Two school board candidates were there, Richard Harris who spoke and Bob Schelen who did not speak.

Undoubtedly there will be more candidates for these offices as time goes on, but here we are in June of 2007, and we already have a large slate of candidates lined up.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Guest Commentary: Old North Davis Neighborhood Association Opposes 3rd and B Street Vision

Regarding the City Council Hearing of Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3rd & B Street Vision or zoning changes to the Central Park West Conservation District

Old North Davis Neighborhood Association (ONDNA) does not support the 3rd and B Street Vision.

The 3rd and B Street Vision violates The Davis Downtown and Traditional Neighborhood Residential Design Guidelines, a document written by citizens in a democratic process to protect the few Conservation Districts that exist in Davis. For many years, development within the Conservation Districts (Old North, Old East and Central Park West) has been shaped by The Design Guidelines, which imposes a rational set of rules to sustain the historic, medium density, small scale, pedestrian friendly, shaded neighborhoods that residents love and the citizens of Davis and visitors enjoy. The 3rd & B Street Vision proposes rezoning a portion of the Central Park West Conservation District. Presumably in order to forward this proposal, the EIR makes only a partial effort to evaluate impacts to the remaining Central Park West neighborhood and to the other Conservation Districts. The proposed change over time from low to high density residential construction looking for more commercial and retail space, so consequently the permitting of much taller structures along the 3rd Street corridor looks as if it will generate tremendous impacts on the Central Park West neighborhood as well as Old East and Old North by way of attempts at circumventing the Design Guidelines.

We have yet to see studies or evidence that retail along 3rd Street is even desirable or would be successful. The "vision" was initially sold as densification to accommodate student housing at the City/University interface, but that vision has now fallen by the wayside and densification is being promoted as "owner occupied" high end townhouse units. This is in defiance of the Design Guidelines that the rest of the Central Park West neighborhood would still have to conform to. The planning staff notes significant impacts to the historic character of this neighborhood, parking, traffic, loss of urban tree canopy and likely loss of context for other historic structures, i.e. "redevelopment" will occur in a piecemeal fashion, causing the initial demolition of a few original structures, but the eventual loss of context and appeal of the remaining structures and the unraveling of the historic fabric of the current neighborhood.

Additionally, the EIR did not evaluate the impact the densification would have on the traffic and parking in the surrounding neighborhoods. OND fought hard to establish a unique parking district which is community minded and allows for unrestricted parking on 2/3rds of our street space. We currently share our parking with students, downtown workers, and shoppers. About half the commuters who park in Old North come from 15 to 50 miles from Davis and have no other place to park. The "vision" currently allows for intense densification but does not require developers to provide adequate parking (the EIR would allow for in-lieu payments to the City instead), potentially pushing the parking and traffic problem into the surrounding neighborhoods, already over-full.

City Council asked to look at rezoning the 3rd & B Street area to see what could be done about "blight", as well as to superimpose zoning that would take the place of overlapping and contradictory directions for development there. This rationale is not a valid one, or else it has not been demonstrated. In order to justify requests to demolish, rebuild and sell, B Street South of 5th is being termed an "edge" area with problems common to all arterial streets in the Conservation Districts: exposure of residents to heavier or commercial use across a bordering arterial, multiple needs of a more diverse population (students, residents, landlords, homeowners, developers looking for "infill" lots on which to build new housing.

Developers and property owners, some absentee landlords, are arguing that along B Street, deterioration of the original structures is so severe they are no longer useful or profitable properties and for that reason the same owners want exemptions from The Design Guidelines. Project proposals originating with property owners on B Street have been made with the expectations of special treatment with rewards for poor or no sense of stewardship and long deferred maintenance should they build the high end townhouses they propose, and sell them at substantial profits. The vision while proposing infill is actually setting the stage for demolition and redevelopment of most if not all the historic structures sited within the proposed zoning.

Davis's other Conservation Districts also border city arterials. Old North has 5th Street on its southern border, G Street on the East and should the ball fields between City Hall and Martin Luther King High School be developed, B Street on its west. Old East shares 5th Street to the north, L to the East and H Street off the downtown. [Along with the residents of the University-Rice Lane neighborhood, we in Old North too frequently find ourselves attending meetings where developers attempt to promote similar treatment for our arterial borders. These areas of high visibility are not just of huge importance in exposing all the passerby to our architectural history, they set the context for the rest of our neighborhood structures and serve useful lives as affordable housing.

If City Council entertains exemptions for proposals to develop B Street properties, it will increase pressure on Old North and Old East to allow the Design Guidelines to be put aside in favor of building high density four story commercial and high end residential structures in our neighborhoods as well. Developers are already buying up properties in these neighborhoods, hedging their bets that they can tear down the historic houses and maximize the profitability of the property.

Old North recommends scrapping the 3rd and B Street Vision in favor of consistent application of the Design Guidelines to all development within the Conservation Districts.

We have had significant successes using the Design Guidelines, have seen solid gains in resale property values and turnover of housing from rental to owner occupied. In the last five years along C Street alone, five alley accessory structures have been added, three houses once rentals are now owner occupied, eight houses have new coats of paint, new landscaping or both. Other streets in the neighborhood have experienced similar revitalization. Student renters are integrated into the social fabric of the neighborhood by renting our accessory structures, instead of being balkanized into apartment complexes. Our neighborhood is seeing innovative architectural strategies developed: finished basements in new construction that add space without adding a second story, revival architecture, drought tolerant landscaping. We are benefiting from historical research and publications from John Lofland and Valerie Vann that contribute to our sense of identity as people who value modest homes, solid workmanship, irreplaceable materials, the generational time line of houses now approaching a century old. The residents of Old North Davis are sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars into improving their existing structures and are offended when we hear that such old houses are good for nothing more than demolition or removal to somewhere else, just because they need
work.

Our Neighborhood Association resists the removal/demolition of contributing structures.

ONDNA has the responsibility to review all proposals for major remodeling or removal/demolition of Old North houses. We work with the owners to comply with The Design Guidelines. In addition, it has provided information to realtors, potential buyers of properties, new owners and developers who benefit from understanding the parameters that apply to the Davis Conservation Districts. We aim to prevent unsuitable plans -- inappropriate demolition or inappropriate scale--from being pursued into the drawing stage, in order to prevent wasted effort and dollars. We have a neighborhood with a positive attitude toward adding appropriate density -- the original house with perhaps an additional bedroom, bathroom or perhaps an accessory structure on the alley or at the back of the lot.

ONDNA supports research and nomination of eligible structures for Merit Resource and Landmark Designations.

We support such efforts because we take the attitude that our significant old homes are Davis public space. They are palpable contact with sidewalks built by the WPA, homes built by previous generations with small energy footprints, grass and trees buffering contact with cars in the streets. They make real to the touch the history of the founders of our town and our great university. When we repair, maintain, live and work in the spaces occupied by the earlier activists and visionaries who shaped Davis we pay respect to their efforts. Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us. Relocating them is little better than archiving their photographs , their histories then setting fire to them. City Council members should encourage property owners along the B Street and 3rd Street corridors to repair their homes, add alley accessory structures, rent to students where appropriate and maintain some our most visible, historically important sets of addresses. The Turtle House, just restored to adaptive reuse by Michael Harrington, is a terrific case in point.

We urge you to attend the Davis City Council Hearings on Tuesday, June 12 after 7:30 PM, and resist the developer vision for B St. high density.

Signed,

Sheryl Lynn Gerety, ONDNA President
Kathleen Groody, ONDNA Treasurer
Steve Tracy, ONDNA Member-at-Large
Dennis Dingemans, ONDNA Member-at-Large
Angela Wilson, ONDNA Former President

Heystek Holds Staff Accountable for Completion of Projects

During budget discussions this past Tuesday, Councilmember Lamar Heystek pressed on the timeline for a number of projects.

"The reason why I am asking is because I noticed on attachment A that staff is deferring funding pending this report, but I believe that since we're making these budget recommendations it would behoove us to put money where our mouths are for the next year's budget, so when it comes time to make motions I will be motioning to appropriate an amount to cover design."

Heystek brought up the issue of the solar panels at community pool. He asked for the timeline of replacement or removal of that entity.

In 2004, twenty-four years after the project was built, Tim Townsend, a mechanical engineer specializing in solar power, went before the Davis City Council and informed them that in fact, the solar panels do not work and have never worked. Despite this fact, this is a signature project of the city with pictures of them have regularly featured on city literature touting Davis's "greenness" and commitment to the environment.

The following is from the minutes of the March 16, 2004 City Council meeting:

"Tim Townsend questioned the usefulness of the city’s largest solar panel at Community Park pool. He alleged that the solar panel does not work and has never worked. He reported that he has spoken to city staff and has not received a satisfactory response other than a statement that it would be too costly to remove. He stated solar panels should be a matter of civic pride and everyone that visits Community Park is lead to believe that the panels actually work. He asked that Council consider removing the panels"

It was only at this point that Bob Weir began to study the problem. At the November 29, 2004 City Council Meeting Weir and Donna Silva, Parks and Community Services Director came back with a Capital Improvement Program to replace the non-functioning solar hot-water heating system at Community Park. This was projected to cost $41,000 in addition to over $100,000 (in 1980 dollars) spent on the initial project.

This issue came up again on Tuesday when Heystek asked for a progress report for repairs and restoration. Bob Weir told the council this past Tuesday that plans were proceeding. He said:

"The next step is basically a cost estimate, that is what it would take to refurbish this facility essentially as is."

This represents a fundamental failure, not of this council, but rather of previous councils to hold vendors accountable for their work and projects. The city spent considerable money in 1980 for something that has never worked. The city now is going to have to consider spending more money because of their failure to ensure that the project worked to begin with.

Heystek would press the issue later with his motions that attempt to hold staff accountable for their projects.

"I want to signal the council's commitment to the city that we are putting our money where our mouths are regarding design of the facility [Walnut Park pool], whatever it is, whatever the project total is, whatever is being projecting by staff. And I just think that having participated in a joint meeting with the council as a member of the park commission and having the council given previous direction to get some facility built. [He reads from the minutes of that meeting...]. It's now over two years later and I would like to be able to locate at least 10 percent of the project total and some sort of funding mechanism, and I think that the park impact fees is the most appropriate source."

Heystek asked for the council to bring back some sort of recommendation to finish it.

Saylor's response was basically that we are working on it and that these things take time. Heystek did not get a second for his proposal.

There is a consistent pattern in this city that projects that are approved either do not get completed properly or get completed on time. This problem is due to lack of oversight and scrutiny. Another problem is the problem with the surface of the road on Covell between Sycamore and Anderson. The road is warped, it was never completed properly and it has been warped for over 10 years. No one held the construction people accountable for their work product.

Throughout this discussion Heystek pressed staff for timelines and assurances that projects approved by council would be completed in a timely fashion. The council majority was not interested in pressing these issues. And moreover, at times Saylor and Souza, both of whom sit on the subcommittee, acted as apologists for staff. Davis residents have paid real money into many of these uncompleted or poorly completed projects. They have also poured money into projects that have fallen into disrepair. It was refreshing to see Councilmember Heystek press for these projects.

What is interesting is that fiscally responsible Don Saylor, who earlier on Tuesday opposed annexation of West Village based on fiscal considerations, does not have the same fervor for fiscal responsibility in this regard. Indeed he continually apologized for staff and acted on their behalf. This does not seem an appropriate role of a councilmember who should be holding staff to the motions and regulations passed by council and if things do not follow the trajectory laid out by council, should ensure that they get back on track.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Friday Briefs: Garamendi To Speak in Davis Sunday

Garamendi To Speak in Davis Sunday At Davis Democratic Champagne Brunch

Rick Gonzales, Jr. Wins Liberty Bell Law Award

Rick Gonzales Jr. received the prestigious Liberty Bell Award for 2007 at the Yolo County Bar Association Law Day Luncheon in Winters recently. This award is given by the Yolo County Bar Association each year to honor a non-lawyer who has promoted better understanding of the rule of law, encouraged greater respect for law and the courts, stimulated a sense of civic responsibility or contributed to good government in the community.

Gonzales is the head of the Yolo County Concilio which gives out scholarships to disadvantaged youth in order to enable them to go to high school. He has been a champion for civil rights and social justice in Davis and in Yolo County.

Vanguard Booth at Farmer's Market on Saturday Morning

We will be back once again at Farmer's Market. Last week we had hundreds of signatures for our anti-war petition. We will bring it back again. In addition, we will have several other potential petitions (or so I have been told).

Free Vanguard Bumperstickers!

We still have a few more free bumperstickers to give out--we have not gotten the shipment just yet in case you have already ordered them. They will eventually be selling for $2 a piece. However, email me a request including a name and address to receive a People's Vanguard of Davis bumpersticker for free! This is a limited time offer.

Facebook user? Vanguard on Facebook

The People's Vanguard of Davis now has a facebook group. If you are a registered facebook user please click here to join the facebook group. If you are not a facebook user, but want to be, please click here to join facebook.

Join the Vanguardians Today

People's Vanguard of Davis has a news alert and update--the Davis Vanguardians. Once a day you will receive email alerts about new articles and updates on the People's Vanguard of Davis.

The list is fully secure and will never be shared with an outside entity.

To sign up click on the link below:

Sign up for the Davis Vanguardians

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: What Changed in the West Village Discussion

Back in early April, the Council majority was not only against annexation of the West Village development on the outskirts of the UC Davis campus, they were nasty about it. (See: Enterprise Article on Mayor Slanted; Mayor Greenwald's Response)

At that time, Mayor Greenwald supported a very basic motion:

"It shall be the position of the City of Davis that annexation of the University’s West Davis neighborhood is a goal that we strongly support in concept."

As Don Saylor said at the time:

“We have no staff analysis in front of us, there are questions of the analysis that are not before us, there are questions of the assumptions that are not before us. This is incredible... And then there's a request to change council policy.”

What Saylor and in fact the Davis Enterprise at the time failed to note was the reason that there is no staff analysis was that the council majority refused to allow this to be agendized as a normal agenda item and instead had to be brought before the council as an item submitted by a councilmember which allows for no staff work to be done on it.

After much debate, ranquor, and sheer tenacity, the issue was back on the agenda, this time with full staff report. Mayor Greenwald deserves much of the credit for keeping this issue alive and forcing the council majority to put it on the agenda. Without her tenacity on this issue, there is no doubt, that this issue would have gone away.

Staff of course, remained very skeptical on the cost impact on the city. The basic view of staff was summed up in this statement:

"Staff acknowledges that annexation of West Village poses a number of challenging issues related to governance and delivery of services that need to be further addressed and fully understood prior to final Council action on the annexation question. The fact that the City would not gain land use authority with annexation is already a significant factor that diminishes the value of annexation. If police and fire services were also retained and provided by UCD, it would be difficult for staff to justify bringing West Village under city jurisdiction given that we would not be directly in control of most urban services provided its future residents."

As Paul Navazio, the city's director of finance said on Tuesday,

"The current assessment of the fiscal analysis, on the operating revenues and the operating costs, is that overall the project does not generate sufficient revenue to cover costs, it generates more revenue under an annexation, then in a non-annexation, if the city with council direction sat down with the campus to explore revenue sharing or supplemental revenues, to help off-set the city costs, it's our sense it would be potentially cost effective from a fiscal standpoint and it would cost the tenants and the residents less and make-up the costs of the campus providing services."

The elements were aligned here once again that pointed to the same result as April: you had a council that previously expressed skepticism (and criticism of this issue) and a staff declaring the project does not generate enough revenue to cover the costs.

The key concern that Greenwald expressed is the infeasibility of having a huge development on the border of Davis, without connection to city governance. This notion was also affirmed by Councilmember Heystek.

Moreover, the staff report revealed that the cheapest alternative--the one that was most cost effective was for the city to annex West Village. That means that with a concerted effort on the part of the city and university, a deal can and should be arrived at that would benefit all sides and pave the way for annexation. The only reason that this was discovered was the vigilance of Mayor Greenwald, who would not allow the issue to die.

On the other hand, even as part of the city of Davis, the annexation would not grant the city any kind of land use authority, which gives UC Davis design control. There will be no access point to Russell Blvd., meaning that the neighborhood will be somewhat isolated from the rest of the city, even as part of the city.

What changed that made this annexation a possibility now, whereas just two months ago, it was dismissed almost out of hand?

One difference was the presence of ASUCD and numerous UC Davis students.

A key concern for students was having access to city government and municipal representation. In their resolution passed unanimously on May 24, 2007, ASUCD affirmed their support of the annexation of the West Village Development by the City of Davis. ASUCD Senator Andrew Peake read this resolution into the record. Several other UC Davis students also came forward in support.

While the students and also resident Ron Glick, made compelling cases for the enfranchisement of students, Saylor remained concerned about the costs to the current residents of the city and the current voters and taxpayers. Saylor's stated principle that "any new project would pay for itself." This is an interesting viewpoint in light of previous fiscal decisions by Saylor that have been less than fiscally sound.

Councilmember Heystek urged the discussion to continue. He countered Saylor's argument by suggesting:

"If that were a standard adopted by council, then we would cease to have affordable housing, because it is clear that affordable housing projects do not pay for themselves. But I think it is ludicrous to say that all of our affordable housing costs need to be mitigated by an overall revenue stream. I don't think that would ever be a philosophy that this council would adopt."

Heystek went on to point out how many different projects would not get done if this philosophy were adopted. His core point that gets back to the issue of enfranchisement was this:

"The thing that we cannot quantify in this whole discussion is the value of civic engagement as the result of inclusion of students, faculty, staff in this new neighborhood. We cannot put a price on that. "

"But we're not talking about what we really do embrace as a whole council. I think the whole council embraces the sentiments of ASUCD, embraces the sentiment of increased civic engagement, the sentiment that we cannot continue to divide our university community between voters and non-voters in the city. I do not think that is something that the council embraces."

One of the key differences in this discussion was the presence of the students and the issue of enfranchisement. Talking to a councilmember after the meeting, it seemed clear that their presence changed the course and trajectory of the debate, and injected energy and passion that were absent in April. The council simply could not look the students in the face and deny annexation. That does not mean that this will go forward, but at least there was consensus about reopening negotiations between city, county, and university.

My own take on this follows from many of the comments expressed on Tuesday. First, I agree wholly with the students, with Sue Greenwald, and with Lamar Heystek on the need for enfranchisement. That I think was the most compelling argument.

I think Ron Glick who spoke at public comments summed it up very well when he discussed the mistake made 50 years ago that denied students on campus voting rights in city elections:

"To deny our students the right to vote is a great tragedy, and I would like to aspire to higher things than property taxes."

Second, I think Sue Greenwald's point is very important:

"We can't have a massive development the size of Winters perched on our borders."

I have seen cities with massive developments on their border that are not annexed by the city, and in general it is a huge problem for the city. It often leads to commercial development that ends up sucking money out of the city without giving money to the city. Looking at this from a strict fiscal analysis now assumes that all things will remain constant into the future. Saylor's argument while compelling, I think was easily countered by Heystek, but moreover, is very short-sighted in terms of its fiscal view.

My biggest concern is really the lack of access point onto Russell. This is a problem because it isolates the community from the rest of the city. Frankly, this is a problem regardless of annexation. It is not a reason to not annex it, it is a reason to negotiate with neighbors and the university to fix that problem.

Overall, the difference between April and June, illustrates the need for transparency in government processes. Moreover, it illustrates a debate point that seems to recur at every council meeting and that is, we need to have our meetings end by 11 pm to ensure public involvement. I will comment more on this later, but I think one of the responsibilities of councilmembers should be that they should expect to meet every Tuesday night. And if they are to be out of town, the show must go on without them.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: An Inappropriate and Insulting Choice For "Teacher of the Year"

Talk about burying your lead, buried toward the end of the Davis Enterprise article highlighting the Senior Awards Night at Davis High School on Tuesday night, in the last four paragraphs is a seemingly innocuous reporting of the recipient of the Rotary Teacher Service Award, otherwise known as, Teacher of the Year.

This year it was awarded to Math teacher Jana Henry. The Davis Enterprise Reporter Maddy Ryen, likely had no idea what kind of story she was actually reporting. This is because Jana Henry was involved in a story that the Davis Enterprise has not once reported on. In fact, even Davis Vanguard readers likely would not have recognized the name, because the Vanguard has done Ms. Henry the courtesy of not reporting her name.

The passage reads:

Math teacher Jana Henry received the Rotary Teacher Service Award, more commonly known as the Teacher of the Year award. Henry, who came to DHS in 2002, received “glowing nominations” from her students, including one who said, “I go to (her) class in a bad mood and leave in merry spirits.”

Cawley noted Henry's “countless hours offering extra tutoring” and her use of technology in the classroom to assist students. He also praised her personal connection with students.

“I'm just really honored,” Henry said of receiving the award. “I just love my job and teaching the kids.”

However, Davis High School Principal Michael Cawley certainly knew the story, and that makes his words and the award all the more appalling. You see Jana Henry is the teacher who pulled the Malcolm X poster off the wall of her classroom that led to the suspension of the Davis High School student for three days for giving a speech in front of the student body that described what happened and how he felt about the teacher singling him out in front of the class and calling the poster "a terrorist message."

We have always done Ms. Henry the courtesy of not reporting her name. But this is too much. In fact, this lies in the realm of the absurd. Just as last year it was absurd that Officer Pheng Ly, accused of serious violations of the rights of a minor and facing a pending federal law suit, would be awarded with Officer of the Year.

In fact, this is worse than that because unlike the case of Officer Ly where you could make the argument at least that he may have had other achievements that could warrant an award, this incident severely impacted Ms. Henry's service record as a teacher.

The audacity of it all is that Mr. Cawley, who knew full well of Ms. Henry's situation and the way that she handled it, had the temerity to praise "her personal connection with students."

Shall we recount her connection with students. There is the incident itself which was handled quite badly. The student brought in the poster and put it up on the wall. Ms. Henry became uncomfortable with it, and frankly that is her right, however, instead of privately discussing with the student why she deemed it inappropriate, she berated him before the class, humiliating and embarrassing him.

We could chalk up that incident as poor judgment and move on, but it becomes a pattern, when she leaves the auditorium in tears.

She compounds it, when the school district makes the determination that the suspension was inappropriate and reinstates the student. She refuses to teach the student again. When the district deems that she is required to teach the student again, she refuses to teach. And for two months she is out of teaching and it is announced to the student body that she has left the teaching position.

After nearly two months of not teaching, suddenly she is back teaching on June 4 and less than a week later is awarded with the Teacher of the Year award.

The Vanguard has nothing against this teacher and wishes her well and hopes she can resume teaching. It is clear that things were not handled appropriately and that she was harmed by the lack of appropriate guidance by the administration on her own campus. However, to award her with teacher of the year is frankly an insult to the other teachers who did not shirk their responsibilities and leave their students high and dry as they prepared for crucial AP examinations. It is an insult to the parents and students who had to take additional tutoring to take the AP exams. For those who had to spend extra time because Ms. Henry did not follow on her commitments. And those students who suffered academically due to the disruption that this caused.

Frankly this is close to the most appalling thing that I have seen in this community, and that is saying something. The school board needs to investigate how this was allowed to happen. And frankly I have real questions about the Principal of the High School anyway, but this just adds fuel to the fire.

The school district and Principal Michael Cawley owe this community an explanation.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Sodexho Workers Continue to Press for UC Jobs Amid Hardball Tactics by Vanderhoef

Yesterday I got a call from the campaigners for the Sodexho Workers that there was a meeting between Chanceller Vanderhoef, Vice Chanceller Dennis Shimek, an ASUCD Senator Andrew Peake, Patricia Zermeno a student career worker, and a Food Service Worker. The meeting was ostensibly to discuss possible solutions to the dispute and a means to arrive at a settlement whereby the Sodexho Food Service workers would get UC jobs.

A number of supporters gathered as well. This time without signs, without chants, they were just there to support the meeting. They tried to wait outside for the decision, but were locked out of the fifth floor of Mrak hall. They locked down the elevators, locked down the stairwell, and posted at a guard at the top of the stairwell preventing anyone from getting in.

The California Aggie was apparently called and refused to report on it, since according to them, this was not newsworthy.

According to one of the organizers, Katie Davalos, a UC Davis student:

"The chancellor wants the opportunity to explain the chancellor's side of this issue, and issue a statement, and Patty is going to issue our statement, and let them know what our opinions are and where we're coming from. We're also giving them a packet of information with facts, statistics, and a list of our supporters to let them know what we're talking about. Basically from there they're just going to discuss the issues and we're hoping to get a union organizer in there that can actually start negotiations, but right now they are not letting anyone from the union in. They are not talking to anyone."

The chancellor refused to allow any union organizers into the meeting. Some of them managed to get up to the fifth floor before it was shutdown, but they were denied any union representation in the meeting itself.



As I was outside taking pictures, it apparently was about to turn 5:00 pm. I walked toward Mrak Hall and reached for the door. Suddenly, the door was pulled shut just as I reached for it and locked. I looked up and there was Robin Souza, wife of City councilmember Stephen Souza, shutting the door and preventing anyone else from getting inside. She also pulled the door shut behind other students who were exiting the building. Ms. Souza works for the admissions office in Mrak Hall.

I spoke briefly with Stephen Souza last night before the Davis City Council meeting and he said that Robin Souza was very upset about the actions of the activists. That they had banged on the glass so hard at their May 23rd demonstration that it nearly broke the glass and this left the employees inside traumatized psychologically. They were under strict orders to lock and close the building Tuesday precisely at 5 pm.

It is unclear why the university is putting its employees in the position of being "security guards" at the door--as this is not a part of their job description. While I'm sure that the situation on May 23, 2007 was at times uncomfortable for the employees, it is also important to keep in mind, that it must be very tough to try to survive on such low wages and poor benefits. The organizers had attempted to rally in the streets on May 1, 2007, and were ignored by administration and thus had to take their action directly to Vanderhoef. It is unfortunate that other employees got caught up in this, however, Vanderhoef is pitting employees against employees as well as students against workers, in his bid to break the will of the organizers.

In contrast to the Souzas, Councilmember Lamar Heystek arrived at the protest to show his support for the students and the Sodexho workers on his way to the evening's city council meeting.

The negotiators came out of the building, visibly distraught at their treatment by Vanderhoef and especially Vice Chancellor Dennis Shimek. Apparently, Shimek during the talks got into the face of one of the students, which was a very intimidating situation.

According to Patricia Zarmeno,

"They are not really actively seeking a way for us to have UC jobs. They know that the issue exists, but they are looking for every other single way possible except for the actual solution. "

Zarmeno did not believe that the university was sincere in holding these talks. They did not appear to be seeking any kind of solution or resolution.

"I feel like we're in the exact same spot we were before we even had this meeting."

There were complaints by both Zarmeno and the Food Service worker who was at the meeting as well that they did not respect them. There was a strong implication that this had to do with the fact that they were both Latina females.

According to Zarmeno:

"They would interrupt us all the time, asking us questions, specifically when I stated that I wanted to finish my statement, I was not respected at all, when I was in the hallway, we were talking about this meeting, Shimek said something about us misunderstanding the purpose of the meeting, and I wanted to clarify, and he cut me off and said that I should let him and Andrew [Peake] finish, and I said fine, I let them have their conversation until the very end of the conversation, then I clarified my point, and clarified that we do understand what the purpose of the meeting was, it is important to have the university represented, and he completely cuts me off and tries to disregard me, and so I asked him to please let me finish, because I respected their request, and he should respect mine as well, and he still didn't let me finish my view, and I finished it anyway... "

The lack of respect was evident.

"I did not feel very respected in that meeting at all... They had this meeting to say that are listening to your views, but we are not going to actually listen to them. We are just going to keep going the way they wanted to originally."

There was frustration at the tactics and the process, but also very clear conviction on the part of the students. The administration had the clear intention of pitting the workers against the students in these talks and breaking the will of the protesters. They dismissed them as representing only a small minority of the students and a small minority of the food service workers.

However, the protesters made the point that the May 1, 2007 action shows that they are not in the minority. Moreover, there is a letter signed by 9 of the 12 ASUCD Senators that demonstrates the strong support that the students have for the Food Service Workers' movement to become UC employees.

Assemblyman Dave Jones and Assemblywoman Lois Wolk will also be meeting with the Chancellor to express their strong conviction that this process is wrong and to complain about the university tactics.

The activists vowed to press on through the summer and fall and to continue to make things as uncomfortable for the Chancellor as possible until there is a real resolution and conviction on the part of the university to change their tactics and their viewpoint.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

UCD Responds by Pitting Workers Against Fee Increase

In an article in Dateline UC Davis, the university said that it wanted to hear from the students "who pay the bills" regarding the demands of food workers efforts to become university employees.

On the one hand, according to the article,

"Sodexho already announced that it has established an independent third-party grievance system, introduced the UC Davis Principles of Community to employees and boosted wages consistent with UC's recent pay increases for its lowest-paid workers."

Furthermore:

In a Sodexho letter dated May 18 and posted online with [Interim Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Janet] Gong's, the company's senior vice president, Bill Lacey, pointed out that the company in 2003 voluntarily elected to follow the Sacramento Living Wage policy, and that the company believes "our compensation is competitive within our industry."

On the other hand,

"The university estimates the cost of providing improved wages and more affordable benefits to Sodexho workers at $2.1 million annually."

Janet Gong, the interim head of Student Affairs suggests the following:

"This is a significant recurring cost that cannot readily be absorbed within the existing university budget."

She added that the burden of paying the extra cost would likely fall on students who rely on Sodexho service in the dining halls and elsewhere on campus. "Being mindful of the additional costs our students would face and consistent with the chancellor's commitment to address these issues, we are exploring a variety of strategies to improve wages and benefits."

The university then gives a third set of numbers.

"Gong also gave an estimate of the cost of converting Sodexho workers to the UC Davis payroll: a minimum of $3.2 million a year, including wages and benefits, administrative costs and capital expenses."

The effect of that increase would be a $600 per year increase in the cost of residence hall fees.

Of course the bottom line for the university is:

Gong noted that the university has a contract with Sodexho through 2010, and "we have chosen to honor this contract and seek ways within it to approach the compensation and employment practices that are at issue."

And that's fine, as we found out last week, the university can of course honor their contract while at the same time pay these people better wages and better benefits.

This entire debate makes me extremely uncomfortable--the idea that the university is now pitting students against low-wage employees.

So let us recap what the university is saying. First, they give us the line that Sodexho is going to raise their wages. But at the same time, they tell us that in order to make their pay commensurate with the entry-level university employees and give them benefits that commensurate with entry-level university employees it is going to cost $2.1 million to the university.

These are people who do not make enough money to live in Davis. These are people who then have to take $450 or so out of their earnings if they want health coverage. And the university is admitting that they are balancing their books right on the backs of these workers.

Moreover, now they are trying to pit students against workers, by threatening students with tuition or residence hall increases if these workers are to be fully compensated for the work that they do. So this issue is going to become a wedge between students and the workers--students who are already facing a sizable fee and tuition increase because of budget shortfalls statewide. And the university wants to use this to break the will of the strike. Of course, somehow other universities in the UC system have managed their budgets while paying food service workers university pay and benefits. I wonder how they have managed that?

Now this article in some ways sounds informative, but it leaves out crucial pieces of information.

First, what is the overall university budget? The $3.2 million sounds like a lot of money, but is it? What percentage of the overall budget is it?

Second, it seems to assume that the money would increase in a lump sum, what would happen if you could phase it in over a couple of years while at the same time finding room in the budget to mitigate some of the costs?

Third, how much money goes to upper administration? They want to balance the budget on the backs of those making $8 an hour rather than those making 200K plus per year. Perhaps the students should have a say in that, whether the food service workers should get that $2.1 or $3.2 million or the upper administration. I wonder who would win in that fight?

The bottom line is very simple, when the university wants something they find ways to get money for it. When the university does not want something, they find excuses not to fund it and they try to play political games. The amazing thing is that the university has basically admitted how much they are cheating these entry-level workers out of sizable salary and benefits.

Chancellor Vanderhoef and the university administration are clearly in violation of UC Davis' Principles of Community, which state that "...each of us has an obligation to the community of which we have chosen to be a part." By pinning workers against students, that undermines that obligation and sense of community.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Saylor Announcement: The Rest of the Story

Don Saylor announces his bid for reelection, and the Davis Enterprise treats it as a headlining story, not only above the fold, but at the very top of the paper. We of course have known since January that Saylor would be running for reelection, and it is worth noting that his counterpart and colleague Stephen Souza did not get above the fold treatment when he announced his reelection bid a few months back.

However, this story is not about placement, it is not about what Saylor said on Friday night, and it is about what he did not say and what was not reported. You've heard the news; now you will hear... the rest of the story.

In the photo on the right from the Davis Enterprise, Saylor is shown talking to Bruce West and Jeff Pelz from West Yost Associates. What the Davis Enterprise does not tell you is who West Yost Associates is and what their connection to Davis City government entails. West Yost Associates are the water consulting engineers who have been receiving city money to design and construct the new water intake system. That's a project estimated to run the city between $150 and $300 million dollars and likely to increase residents' water rates by two to three fold over the next 10 years or so.

Don Saylor has been a strong champion of the new water project despite strong reservation from many progressive, environmental, and smart growth groups. The project has drawn strong questioning from a number of university faculty who are experts in water quality. These experts have great concerns about the costs of the project, wisdom of transporting Sacramento River Water, alternatives, environmental impacts, etc. However, the city led by Don Saylor has heard very few of these concerns at least in public, and one of the reasons is the insistence of Don Saylor to push this project through. So here you have associates with a company that has millions of dollars worth of business with the city at an event supporting Don Saylor's bid for reelection, meanwhile Saylor has refused to support an independent, outside second opinion regarding the feasibility of postponing this project until the $200 million wastewater and storm water upgrades are paid off.

But there is more. As the Vanguard has demonstrated in the past, Saylor continues to want to have it both ways--supporting development projects while talking about sustainability and a lighter environmental footprint.

According to the paper, Saylor said, "sustainability cannot be accomplished by 'saying no to every development opportunity.'"

Sounds like a fair enough statement, but then there is no mention of Saylor's track record on development. In fact, it is hard to think of a development opportunity that Saylor has not supported. Saylor hasn't "said no to every development opportunity," he's said no to almost no development opportunities.

On this score, no mention of the ardent support that Don Saylor had for Covell Village. He was outspoken as a supporter of Covell Village both in the planning phase and in the ballot initiative phase. In fact, he was much more than just a supporter--he and his council majority colleagues actively campaigned for the proposal--acting as advocates and cheerleaders for it. He acted as an advocate for developer interests on the Covell project as a member of the council. This is a proposal that was voted down by the Davis voters by nearly a 60-40 margin, and yet Don Saylor supported it, strongly. Now he wants to suggest that we cannot say no to every development opportunity.

Likewise, Don Saylor was a strong advocate for Target, an initiative that passed by the barest of margins last November despite a $300,000 campaign that outspent the opposition by over 10 to 1. As with the Covell Village project, he worked on the Target campaign and helped to get it passed. These are two of the biggest development projects ever proposed in Davis and Don Saylor was supporting both of them.

Don Saylor's statement about not turning down every development opportunity rings false, in fact, I wonder if there has ever been a major development opportunity that Saylor has opposed in Davis. Frankly, if he supported Covell, he's probably going to support them all. Those of you who are nervous about the 3rd and B Street Visioning Project might want to keep that in mind.

Those of you who voted against Covell Village should be wary that there are plans and have been discussions both in council and in the Housing Element Committee to look into Covell Village II. This is not just about punishing Saylor for his past votes, it is for ensuring that the residents of Davis, 60% of whom voted against Covell Village, have their choice respected by their elected representatives on the council.

Saylor also made veiled reference to "sustaining the fabric of community."

According to the Enterprise:

"By that, Saylor was referring to the tone of public discourse in Davis which has, at times, crept into the uncivil. He pointed guests to copies of an op-ed piece he wrote for The Davis Enterprise about community relations."

Well if Saylor wants to wage his campaign based on civility, I would suggest he is opening a giant hornet's nest. If Saylor wants to point people toward his op-ed piece, I will point Vanguard readers toward my response to his op-ed piece, entitled: Who is Saylor to Lecture US on Civility in Public Discourse? In that piece, specific incidents are mentioned where Saylor himself is uncivil--attacking both the Mayor and Councilmember Lamar Heystek--sometimes rather viciously.

Don Saylor wants to talk about civility does he? Where was Don Saylor when his colleague Ruth Asmundson attacked Mayor Greenwald on the dais?

Asmundson stated:

"It's just unfortunate that the mayor cannot run the meeting more efficiently... If we have a more efficient meeting then we can finish all these things."

As it turned out the problem was not so much that the mayor couldn't run a meeting more efficiently it was that certain council members, namely Asmundson and Saylor spoke for a disproportionately long time compared to their colleagues. Of course, Saylor never spoke against the uncivil tone that his ally used, and yet he wants to lecture us about bringing civility to this community? How about starting by putting your money where your mouth is.

Politicians get away with making misleading statements because no one calls them on the truth. When Saylor wants to run a campaign based on half-truths and tries to have it both ways to confuse the voters into believing he is environmentally conscious and that the debate is really over not turning down every development, he attempts to insult the intelligence of the voters of this town. The voters know that Saylor has a reputation as a strong supporter of even development projects that are voted down by massive margins and as a man who is quick to be just as uncivil to other individuals as he falsely accuses them of being to him.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

A Busy and Fun Saturday in Davis For the Vanguard

The Vanguard Booth once again took in Farmer's Market Saturday in Davis. It was a gorgeous day in early June, and once again a great opportunity to meet some of our loyal readers and get to know new people here in Davis. Once again the question on everyone's mind is just what is the "dark underbelly of Davis?" And once again we discover that no one seems to like the Davis Enterprise (I'm sure somebody must).

(I cheat just a little bit with pictures, the picture of Cecilia with the Rexroad family is actually from last week not yesterday. The other picture is Sharla Harrington talking to Pat Lenzi and Holly Bishop talking to Jim Leonard of the Flatlander).

The talk of Davis right now is now the 3rd and B Street project. There is a lot of concern in the community about that project and what it would do to the character of downtown. We also got a nice history lesson from some longtime Davis residents who told us about a proposal whereby the city was going to build a three-level shopping center with underground parking in some of the territory where the beautiful central park lies. I just cannot picture Davis without Central Park where it is now. Imagine how much the character of the city would be different. I cannot even imagine. And yet, the 3rd and B Street project may do the same.

Cecilia and I had to leave from Farmer's Market to go meet with new police chief Landy Black. It was a very nice meeting with the new Chief. Since the meeting wasn't on the record, I can only mention in generalities. But my initial impressions were confirmed. I feel that the Chief is a straight shooter. He does not fear oversight and scrutiny by the public. I also think he will serve his department well by being very loyal and caring of them, while at the same time he does not seem to have a huge ego, and does not appear from our conversation to be afraid to admit that he doesn't know everything and that he has some strengths and weaknesses. In short, I think this a person that we can work with to make positive changes that will make Davis a safer community without people believing that the police singling them out. Now as I warned him however, the key test will be how the next "crisis" gets handled. That will be how people will end up judging him.

The fun part of the day came after we broke down our Farmer's Market gear and headed to Sudwerks for the Beerfest. This was a wonderful event, you pay a flat fee, you get a bracelet and then you get as much food and beer as you want. Sudwerks had their beer on tap there. And then you could go around and there were (I'm guessing) about 20 different beers from various microbrewing companies across mainly Northern California. As I was mentioning to people yesterday, probably two-thirds of those brews, I had actually been to their brewing company in my trips across the region. But it was fun nonetheless.

Citizens who Care is a wonderful organization that provides a variety of support services to adults and their caregivers. They have an in-home respite visiting program that gives family caregivers of older adults a weekly break from caregiving, so they can do some other things or get rest themselves. They provide companionship and support to the older adult and the caregiver. They also have a visitation program to provide companionship to socially isolated elderly residents. And they have a time off for caregivers to cover a respite a five-hour break a couple of times a month. As many who have been a caregiver know, while fulfilling, it is also a stressful and tiring responsibility, and Citizens Who Care are able to provide much needed support for those loving individuals.

This Beerfest helped to support those activities.

The executive director is former Davis Mayor Ken Wagstaff. The highlight of our day was seeing Ken and Diane Wagstaff. Diane had suffered a debilitating stroke a few months ago. But she was there yesterday and has regained the use of her hand. So she is on her way to making what appears to be a full recovery, which is really a wonderful miracle and that was undoubtedly the highlight of the day for me, well other than the endless supply of beer.

(Pictured above is Bill Ritter, Ken Wagstaff, and Dick Livingston.) Here is a picture that will make the establishment in this community cringe. One of the reasons that Measure X was so handily defeated was the yeoman work of these three activists. If you want great entertainment put Wagstaff and Livingston together on a stage and give them a beer.

Let this be a lesson to all that an endless supply of beer is not always a good thing. Sometimes you can get manipulated into doing things that you ordinarily would not. (For those wondering, no I did not drive home).

---Doug Paul Davis reporting