<
>
By Alan "Lorax" Hirsch
I have again compiled my thought on voting in Davis for the March 5th election.– the 10th edition of my Davis Neighborhood Ballot flier ™
The two pages are posted below and at Facebook's Davis Ballot Talk (scroll down) where you can find this and lot of other free advice. Or download here: Download Davis Neighborhood Ballot Rec v3 2 page 2024 03 05
My thoughts may be helpful….or not?
Occasionally people think I get it right …but more usually its left.
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
Sorry Alan,
I can’t say I agree with your recommendation for Antonio for Board of Supervisors. Sheila Allan has been working hard for Davis and Yolo County for over 30 years, and has the knowledge and experience needed. Antonio has not even lived in Yolo County for the vast majority of the last 10 years. He left Davis for college and went on to Washington D.C. working for politicians. He worked on one program for Yolo County for a year or so, coordinating COVID vaccines for migrant workers. While, that is commendable, he does not have the experience, nor does be understand the many complex issues before Yolo County.
He is very ambitious at 29 years old, and obviously wants to climb the political ladder, as he has made clear that his future plans are to return to Washington D.C. , win or lose, in this Yolo County Board of Supervisors election. So, while he is using this Board of Supervisor’s election as a ladder step, that is not a commitment to our County that is needed for the long-term. More importantly, he has not got the experience needed for the vastly responsible job of a Yolo County Supervisor, particularly given all the challenges before us.
In short, Sheila Allen is clearly the best candidate for Yolo County Board of supervisors having served Davis and Yolo County in so many capacities serving the young, and all ages including the elderly. Sheila was a School Board member, is a founding member of First Five for kids, helped to save the Explorit Center, and even started the Yolo Healthy Aging Alliance organization. Since Sheila is a nurse, she has the medical background to understand the public health issues, as she served on the Yolo County Health Council, and even helped to administer vaccines during the pandemic. She strongly supports the Yolo Climate Action Committee goals, and also efforts to update and improve the Yolo County Animal Shelter.
Sheila also has been serving as current Supervisor Jim Provenza’s Deputy Assistant, so she understands the issues before Yolo County. So, I will be voting for Sheila, and encourage others to vote for her since she is the most qualified candidate for Yolo County Board of Supervisors, District 4.
Alan,
Your suggestion that voters vote for Antonio for supervisor fails to address the fundamental requirement such a position demands. It is a role that demands experience. Antonio has never been on a single commission or a committee in Davis. He has never handled a huge budget. He is not familiar with the myriad issues the county deals with. He is, however, good at criticizing the current board. It’s easy to do that. He promises less traffic and more affordable housing. Did you ever wonder ‘how’ he will accomplish these goals? Has he ever handled a large budget, or any budget for that matter. No he has not. The County budget is about 1 billion dollars. Think about that. He has not participated in any Davis political issues. These are just a few of the reasons voters should pause and really hear what he is saying. Voters should question his candidacy. His slogan, ‘bring in the new’ is just that, a slogan. Something new doesn’t automatically translate into ability or skill. Referring to Sheila (some directly, some indirectly) as ‘old’ is ageist and quite insulting. This is perhaps an example of his equating youth with knowledge. Sheila is mature, she is experienced. He is young and inexperienced. Good policy makers must have experience. One gets experience by being involved, for years, in many aspects of civic life. Sheila experience dwarfs that of Antonio. Being young is not a qualification for political office. Anyone can make themselves look good on paper but the proof is in the accomplishments one has garnered by actually doing the work. In with the new, out with the old dismisses the accomplishments of so many elected officials. It is demeaning and, most of all, it is a stereotype. Voters need to look closely at his lack of experience. This is not an entry level position. We need a supervisor who knows how the county works, knows the issues, and has done serious work within our community and with vulnerable community members. Sheila has done the work. She is dedicated, skilled, committed, but most of all she is experienced. Take a close look voters. When you do you will see the clear choice, as the Davis Enterprise endorsement agrees, is Sheila Allen.
I’m glad to see that Mike Harrington is helping to fund the campaign against Measure N (the school parcel tax), per the Vanguard’s article today.
The district needs to address its overall SIZE, before asking for more money. It is simply “oversized”, compared to the actual needs of Davis. That’s why they poach some 1,200 students (15% of the student body) from other communities, rather than close down a school or two.
The result is that Davis property owners fund the education of non-resident students. This also negatively impacts the districts that are being “poached”.
But it’s worse than that. Some of those associated with the district advocate to increase the size of the city, rather than decrease the size of the school district. How is this type of advocacy taken seriously by those on the council, etc.? Not only do they take it seriously, those on the council actually SUPPORT it – per their own comments. (I can provide links, as needed.)
If there were fewer students, the parcel taxes would actually go farther (since it’s not dependent upon the number of students.)
Then there’s the rather-unseemly exemption for seniors, which encourages them to vote for the proposal, without actually having to pay for it. But as the population of Davis continues to age, the gravy train is going to continue to shrink (both in terms of required contributions, and number of students).
But perhaps the most-amusing part of the argument in favor of the parcel tax is the proponents’ claim that it maintains “high housing prices”, while they simultaneously complain that those prices are preventing families from moving to Davis. Since they claim that those two goals CONFLICT with each other, how is it that they make those claims SIMULTANEOUSLY, while apparently expecting no one to notice?
For anyone who supports the parcel tax BECAUSE they believe it maintains “high housing prices”, is your “benefit” actually offset by the ongoing cost of the tax – assuming that you’re not a senior who qualifies for exemption?
The senior exemption is also rather disingenuous, as it encourages a vote that “others” would pay for (while also gaining a supposed personal benefit in the form of “high housing prices”). Thereby shifting the cost to the “families” that DJUSD is supposedly trying to encourage. (These same families would also be continuing to subsidize non-resident students.)
Then there’s the fact that multi-unit apartment buildings pay the SAME AMOUNT as single-family dwellings, thereby disproportionately shifting the cost to single-family buildings. Regardless of how many students are generated from each.
I believe that some types of Affordable housing may be totally-exempt from property and parcel taxes, as well. Perhaps something to consider when being asked to approve even more Affordable housing than Davis already has.
Bottom line is that DJUSD needs to reduce its size (rather than asking the city to increase its size), BEFORE asking taxpayers for any more money. Again, the existing situation is hurting the same folks that DJUSD is supposedly trying to attract (not to mention many others forced to pay – without benefit), and is ALSO damaging the school systems being “poached”.
As with many other school districts, it’s well-past time for DJUSD to face the music, and realize that they exist to serve the community – not the other-way around!
Ron writes:
Some of those associated with the district advocate to increase the size of the city
It is more than “some” since “everyone” associated with the district I have ever met wants the city to keep growing (so the district get’s more students and parcel taxes).
But perhaps the most-amusing part of the argument in favor of the parcel
tax is the proponents’ claim that it maintains “high housing prices”, while
they simultaneously complain that those prices are preventing families from
moving to Davis.
These are the same people that said the proposed Nishi development was too close to the freeway and dangerous for kids while simultaneously saying that the proposed Nishi development did not have enough affordable housing for families with kids.
Then there’s the rather-unseemly exemption for seniors, which encourages
them to vote for the proposal, without actually having to pay for it. But as
the population of Davis continues to age, the gravy train is going to continue
to shrink
I don’t know if they release the number of seniors that ask for an exemption but years ago I saw the number for a San Mateo County parcel tax and few (a very small percentage) Seniors took the time to file the paperwork for the school parcel tax exemption. I’m betting the most “seniors” living in Davis (or in $1mm+ homes in El Macero or “South of Davis” that also have the parcel tax) ever get around to filing the paperwork to avoid the school parcel tax.
South of Davis: I was trying to give those associated with the school district the “benefit of the doubt”, but I suspect you’re right – it’s pretty much all of them.
I suspect that a lot of seniors don’t know about the parcel tax exemption. It’s not exactly “advertised”, for obvious reasons.
Davisite 
Leave a reply to Ron O Cancel reply