By Elaine Roberts Musser
There was a pretty lively discussion that transpired on social media recently. Many citizens in this town don’t understand why Village Homes is getting a complete pavement makeover, while arterials are going to pot(holes). Some suspicion was expressed that there may be political leverage involved in the decision making. Neither do voters understand why their streets are so riddled with alligator cracks, fissures and pits, while the current City Council seems relatively unconcerned about maintaining basic city infrastructure. This is especially true when a recently approved sales tax hike was supposed to help solve the pavement problem. In fact, someone was concerned enough to reach out to both the City and the City Council for an explanation. The City finally responded.
However, the reply seemed contradictory. The City’s representative justified prioritizing repairing Village Homes inner streets over major arterials by saying: “Most of the streets in Village Homes are in failed condition”. Yet later in their explanation the City made the following contrary statement: “Pavement preservation—proactive maintenance of roads in fair or good condition—helps extend pavement life and maximize the value of each dollar spent. This is why some streets may receive treatment even if they appear to be in better shape than others.”
The city can’t have it both ways, especially when it comes to fixing very small neighborhood streets in poor condition, at the expense of not repairing main thoroughfares in fair condition. First, considerably more citizens in this town use the thoroughfares than tiny side streets. And secondly, those major arteries are fast deteriorating from fair condition, and are a good portion of the way to degrading to poor condition.
As it turns out, a case was just handed down in May of this year from the California Supreme Court, which gives a harsh lesson to cities allowing their roads to unacceptably worsen. In a 7- 0 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff could sue the City of Oakland for serious injuries sustained as a result of bicycling on crumbled or cracked pavement. It said the City was obligated to “maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition for travel by the public”. In a statement announcing the $7 million settlement in favor of the plaintiff, the attorney representing the injured party indicated the court’s ruling sent a clear message to California cities that “safe streets are not optional”.
This follows a similar 2018 case in Oakland, where the plaintiff crashed her bicycle on a potholed section of a main boulevard. The city settled with plaintiff for $6.5 million, to cover her medical expenses among other things. In point of fact, over 500 lawsuits have been filed against Oakland by pedestrians, cyclists and drivers between the years 2014 and 2023 – that have cost the city of Oakland nearly $35 million. Part of the city’s payments are from insurance, but most of the money comes from the city’s general fund. So taxpayers are footing most of the bill to pay for the city’s negligence.
In order to be successful in such a lawsuit against a municipality, attorneys must prove the city knew about the bad road conditions for a reasonable amount of time, but failed to repair them. Our City Council has clearly known for quite a while — we’re talking many years here — that Davis roads have been in horrible condition. In 2024 the League of California cities rated Davis roads as the worst of all the cities in Yolo County. That is hardly a distinction Davis should aspire to. And, more importantly, this is a debilitating injury and an expensive lawsuit just waiting to happen. It is an ethical and legal powder keg.
Our City Council needs to seriously grapple with the terrible state of both our main thoroughfares and various side streets. Drive down any road in town, and the pavement conditions are horrendous, with alligator cracking, block cracking, depression, longitudinal cracking, patching, potholes, raveling, rutting, and the like. New city programs and services should not be instituted unless and until the state of the city’s pavement is better addressed. Citizens are fed up with the current state of affairs with respect to the awful condition of our city streets, a situation that is only getting worse by the day.
Elaine Roberts Musser is an attorney who has served on county and city commissions as well as various task forces. She was given the award of Davis Citizen of the Year in 2014. Dan Carson is a former Davis City Council member and city commissioner with a 45-year career in journalism and state and local government service.
Davisite 
Leave a reply to Alan C. Miller Cancel reply