Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Letter: Annual Budget Reduced to Repair roads, bike paths and sidewalks.

The City wants to tax us another $11 million per year on the ballot as Measure Q. They claim the money will be used to provide new services, but they don’t tell us what new services. Well I have a problem with spending millions on new services when the City can’t even maintain what it already has.

Everywhere you go in town you can see the awful state of our roads, bike paths and sidewalks. They are in terrible shape. We now have far worse roads than West Sacramento or Woodland. It was promised this would be taken care of by the city when we approved the renewal of the previous 1% sales tax hike, but since then things have only deteriorated even further.

And the City Council approved reducing last year’s road maintenance budget by $1.5 million. Where did that money go? I’ll tell you where it went- it went to increase employee salaries and the development of new programs.

Let’s face it, responsible budgeting means taking care of necessities first, but that is not what is happening. The city keeps asking for more money from citizens in the form of increased taxes to pay for all their “nice to have” pet projects, which are being put ahead of essential maintenance and services. It is time for citizens to say “enough is enough” and vote “NO on Q" for more tax increases until the City Council starts acting more responsibly and accountable to the tax-payers.

Don Price

Posted by

davisite2

on

in

, ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

7 responses to “Letter: Annual Budget Reduced to Repair roads, bike paths and sidewalks.”

  1. Russell

    Part of that 1.5M went to the failed respite center. I believe the current budget for that program is just under $1M.

    Reply
  2. Greg Rowe

    It is my understanding that if the City were to have provided precise details on how the revenue would be spent, the ballot issue would then have required a 2/3 vote to secure passage. The vague verbiage in the ballot measure only requires a 50%+1 favorable vote to pass. I’m not saying this as an argument either in favor or against the measure, but simply to provide information on my understanding of the strategy used by Council in deciding to place the issue on the ballot.
    There can be no argument with the observations by Mr. Price regarding the condition of the roads, sidewalks and multi-use trails in Davis. I find it ironic that the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) encourages biking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet in many places the streets are literally unsafe for biking. I frequently ride from home in west Davis to downtown, and some of the streets I ride on are simply terrible; big cracks, potholes, and in some places the dirt below the pavement is visible.
    I voted for Measure Q because as a planning commissioner, I am concerned that failure of the measure could result in staff layoffs in critical areas, particularly the planning department. The planning staff will need to be fully engaged in the upcoming general plan update, and are busy processing applications for important downtown projects. When I started serving on the planning commission in 2018, there were 6 planners. Now there are just 4, the newest of which just started earlier this year. (At one point several years ago there were just 2 planners.). I fear that failure to pass Measure Q could result in dismissal of the newest planner, thereby delaying the general plan update and longer processing times for important projects that will improve the City’s tax base.
    That being said, however, I thus far cannot find any serious errors in the arguments against Measure Q by commenters such as Elaine Roberts Musser, Colin Walsh or Matt Williams.

    Reply
  3. Tuvia ben Olam DBA Todd Edelman

    Respect to Greg Rowe on his gracious comments.
    Perhaps it’s obvious, but the council didn’t have enough confidence in (what ended up being) Measure Q to make it a 2/3 vote. If it wins, there’s a possibility of a very strong minority going against the wishes of the entire Council, and vice versa if it loses.
    So I wish they had the wisdom to have gone forward only with the 2/3 vote or nothing at all.
    About the planning department, seems like we can keep suppositions if there are volunteer cuts in salary increases? I’m also curious because the transportation department didn’t have a senior level engineer for 4 years… What happened to that half million?
    In regards to how measured Q has been framed by its supporters, delays in the General Plan update, huge waste of time on big plans before that update, and the weakening of
    some commissions in the past couple years… I’m curious about the Planning Department, and I’m wondering if the Downtown Plan – and I was a bit involved in like many elements in it – was in a way the first step of the current municipal coup d’etat we’re living in

    Reply
  4. Alan Pryor

    Before the Measure was even put on the ballot, the No on Q opponents asked the Council to also put an accompanying non-binding Advisory Measure on the ballot in which the Council stated what they hoped to do with the money.
    These are not uncommon and explicitly NON-BINDING so the Council could change its mind at anytime. And they still allow the underlying ballot tax Measure to only require 50% + 1 for passage.
    Obviously the Council refused only. In its absence and given the Council’s abysmal financial track record, why should we trust them to act in a fiscally responsible manner if we give them $11 million more per year.

    Reply
  5. Alan C. Miller

    Stop the enabling!

    Reply
  6. Alan Hill

    I would gladly vote yes on a tax
    If the proceeds are designated to only be spent on roads, paths, sidewalks, and greenbelt maintenance. I’ll vote no on Q and any other proposal that allows council members to payback their campaign investors-I mean, donors- with the funds generated by that tax.

    Reply
  7. Colin Walsh

    It’s not just that the city cut the budget for roads. It’s that they also massively increased spending on staff at the same time. Budgets are value documents. The Council has clearly expressed its values and they are wildly inappropriate. Therefore we can not pass a new tax now, because it will only enable the inappropriate spending.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Russell Cancel reply