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

Category: Politics

  • Letter: Support Measure Q: Investing in Our Community’s Future

    I wholeheartedly support Measure Q, which proposes a modest increase in Davis’s sales tax from 8.25% to 9.25%. This initiative will generate $11 million annually, funding critical services that ensure our community’s health, safety, and financial stability.

    Why is this additional tax necessary? While costs have risen, our city’s revenue has not kept pace. For years, the City Council has sought solutions, from proposing a dedicated tax for road maintenance that failed in 2018 to two economic development plans—the Davis Innovation & Sustainability Campus (DISC) in 2020 and DISC II in 2022—both of which did not pass. After cutting discretionary spending, the City is now at a point where further reductions threaten essential services.

    What will Measure Q accomplish? This measure is essential for strengthening our police and fire departments, enhancing maintenance of our parks and greenbelts, and upgrading our aging public infrastructure.  It can also contribute to the Housing Trust Fund, helping to tackle homelessness and expand affordable housing options.

    I understand that sales taxes can disproportionately affect low-income individuals. However, Measure Q exempts essential purchases like groceries and medicine, mitigating that impact.

    Ultimately, I believe that a small increase in sales tax is a worthwhile investment in our community’s future. By supporting Measure Q, we can preserve and enhance the services that make Davis a great place to live. Let’s take this step together to ensure our city thrives for years to come.

    Barbara Clutter

  • More Good Reasons to Vote NO on Davis Measure Q – Part 2

    Mismanagement of City Finances by the Davis City Council

    by the No on Measure Q Campaign Committee

    No on Q Banner Artwork

    Introduction and Background

    This article is the second in a series presented by the No on Measure Q campaign committee about the new tax measure. The first article (see here) provided three good reasons for citizens to vote No on Measure Q  including a decided lack of transparency and disclosures by the City Council in bringing the measure to a vote   This 2nd article discusses the mismanagement of city finances by the current administration, which is attempting to get their financial house in order by encouraging citizens to approve forking over millions of dollars annually rather than addressing the root causes of the city’s financial problems. The best way to describe this effort is that it is a “Bailout of financial and operational mismanagement!

    About Measure Q

    If passed on the November ballot, Davis Measure Q would double the extra sales tax from 1% to 2% imposed by the City of Davis on all goods purchased or used within the City except for some food and medicines. Based on the expected $11 million per year generated by the new tax and a Davis population of about 66,000, this works out to to be an approximately $165/year tax for every man, woman, and child in Davis. And like the previous two ½ percentage point sales and use tax hikes, this tax is permanent.  It doesn’t matter if the City’s financial condition substantially changes for the better in the future, this tax never goes away!   

    Reason 4 –  The City Council suspended paying down $42 million of unfunded employee benefits.

    (more…)

  • Sierra Club Yolano Group Opposes New Changes Proposed for our Revered Davis Citizen Advisory Commissions

    The changes will threaten Commission independence and stifle innovation

     By the Sierra Club Yolano Group Management Committee

    A recent op-ed by Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser (see here)  alerted Davis residents to a concern with a new proposal before the Davis City Council that has the potential to substantially limit citizen input into environmental issues in the City of Davis. 

    According to the op-ed, Mayor Josh Chapman and Councilmember Bapu Vaitla recently began asking Davis City Commissioners for feedback on their proposal for “clarification of how items are placed on a commission meeting agenda.”

    Carson and Roberts Musser state:

    “…in a big change, proposals initiated by a commission would now be subject to review and veto — by either any relevant council subcommittee (two councilmembers) or that commission’s assigned Council liaison (typically one councilmember).The Chapman-Vaitla plan says these new rules would apply whenever the council wished to “undertake a particular task/project/discussion.” In other words, almost anything and everything a commission might ever want to do would be subject to veto by one councilmember. The Council and city staff would dictate what a commission can or cannot do, but the commission itself would have absolutely no control over its work.” (Bold emphasis added)

    If enacted, we find this proposal deeply concerning and undemocratic.  Historically, at least six of Davis’s volunteer citizen commissions regularly dealt with environmentally-related matters: Tree; Open Space and Habitat; Natural Resources; Bicycling, Transportation, and Street Safety; Utilities; and Recreation and Park Commission (for the latter, with topics such as the use of toxic pesticides and drought-tolerant plantings).

    (more…)

  • Good Reasons to Vote NO on Davis Measure Q – Part 1

    Lack of Transparency by the Davis City Council

    By the "No on Measure Q" Campaign

    About Measure Q

    If passed on the November ballot, Davis Measure Q would double the extra sales tax imposed by the City of Davis from 1% to 2% on all goods purchased or used within the City except for some food and medicines. Based on the expected $11 million per year generated by the new tax and a Davis population of about 66,000, this works out to to be an approximately $165/year tax for every man, woman, and child in Davis. And like the previous two ½ percentage point sales and use tax hikes, this tax is permanent.  It doesn’t matter if the City’s financial condition substantially changes for the better in the future, this tax never goes away!  

    Introduction and Background

    This article is the first in a series presented by the No on Measure Q campaign committee talking about various adverse impacts and lack of disclosures of the new tax measure. This article discusses the non-transparent and deceitful process by which Measure Q was brought to the public.  Many elements of Measure Q and the City’s finances have been shrouded in secrecy and not subject to public scrutiny and analysis by a citizen advisory commission.

    _____________________________

    Reason 1 –  The City Council prevented our watchdog Finance & Budget Commission from weighing in on the Tax Measure by unscrupulous means

    For decades, the citizens of Davis have relied on the citizen’s advisory Finance and Budget Commission to provide needed oversight of the City’s finances. But our City Council has been so contemptuous of this Commission that they quietly refused to appoint any new applicants to fill Commission vacancies for more than a year. As a result, they have not met since July, 2023. So this critical Commission never even got the chance to weigh in on the need for new  taxes or how the proceeds will be spent. What is the City Council trying to hide from us?

    (more…)

  • Reminder: Palomino Place meeting, Wed Sep 11, 7 PM

    As mentioned in this earlier post:

    On September 11, 2024, starting at 7:00 PM, the City of Davis Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public meeting to solicit input and comments from public agencies and the general public on the Draft SEIR for the Palomino Place Project. This meeting will be held at the City of Davis Community Chambers, located at 23 Russell Boulevard, Davis, CA 95616.

    There will be no transcription of oral comments at these meetings. Comments received will be summarized by staff for inclusion in the Final EIR. Those who wish to have their verbatim comments incorporated in the Final EIR must submit their comments in writing.

  • New Plan to Micromanage City Commissions Isn’t Good Government (Or Legal)

    Commission-Task-Memo-ATT-Flow-ChartBy Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser

    Mayor Josh Chapman and Councilmember Bapu Vaitla recently began asking city commissioners for feedback on a proposal for “clarification of how items are placed on a commission meeting agenda.”  Chapman and Vaitla did not invite the public at large to weigh in on their proposal, but we feel compelled to do so in the public interest.

    To sum up, we recommend jettisoning this illegal and ill-conceived plan. It would empower even a single councilmember to micromanage and indefinitely block any commission-initiated proposal they didn’t like for any reason whatsoever. There are far better alternatives to promote teamwork and collaboration between the City Council and the city’s expert volunteer citizen commissioners.

    Current city policy allows commissions free reign to work on pretty much anything they want as long as it is consistent with the written charter established for them. Once a commission has explored a policy matter, the city’s Commission Handbook says it may submit items to the Council to be placed on the Council agenda for   its consideration.

    The Chapman-Vaitla plan, summarized in a flow chart [see graphic at the beginning of the article], overrides those policies. The Council and the city staff could continue to place items on commission agendas. Yet, in a big change, proposals initiated by a commission would now be subject to review and veto — by either any relevant council subcommittee (two councilmembers) or that commission’s assigned Council liaison (typically one councilmember).The Chapman-Vaitla plan says these new rules would apply whenever the council wished to “undertake a particular task/project/discussion.”  In other words, almost anything and everything a commission might ever want to do would be subject to veto by one councilmember. The Council and city staff would dictate what a commission can or cannot do, but the commission itself would have absolutely no control over its work. This is bizarre and extremely unwise.

    (more…)

  • Three free public Election 2024 forums this month from League of Women Voters

    (From press release) The League of Women Voters of Davis Area (LWVDA) offers three free public Election 2024 forums this month.

    On Tuesday, September 24, 7pm, LWVDA hosts a ballot issue forum on ”Measure Q: City of Davis Essential Services”, with a one-hour Zoom presentation.” As proposed, Measure Q “adopts a new local transaction and use tax ordinance” that increases the sales tax by 1% (one cent on every dollar) to fund “City determined general governmental purposes”. Donna Neville and Josh Chapman offer the “Yes on Measure Q” campaign position while Elaine Roberts Musser and Alan Pryor will provide the “No on Measure Q” position. An audience Q&A will follow.

    To learn more and receive the Zoom link, sign up on-line at: https://lwvmeasureqforum.eventbrite.com

    On Thursday, September 26, LWVDA presents two live, in-person Candidate forums at the Davis City Council Chambers, 23 Russell Blvd. At 6-7pm, the Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) Trustee Area 2 Candidate Forum features candidates, Lea Darrah (incumbent) and challenger Elizabeth (Lizzy) Griffith. At 7:30-9pm, the Davis City Council District 2 Candidate Forum features candidates Linda Deos, Dillan Horton and Victor Lagunes vying for the district’s open seat. League forums provide an opportunity for all candidates to present their qualifications and priorities to voters. Opening statements are followed by questions prepared by League members and an audience Q&A.

    To attend one or both of these in-person events, the public is encouraged to sign up at https://lwvdavisboearea2forum.eventbrite.com for the DJUSD Forum and https://lwvdavisdistrict2forum.eventbrite.com for the Davis City Council Forum, as space is limited.

    September 2024 forums are co-sponsored, recorded and live streamed by Davis Media Access (DMA). Following these events, recordings remain hosted online by LWVDA https://tinyurl.com/2apus8nm and DMA https://tinyurl.com/2zvv8jm2 until Election Day.

    The League’s public election events seek to promote ballot awareness and informed voter participation. Attendance is free, however, the League welcomes both on-line and in-person donations to help support ongoing voter service activities. More information about these and other 2024 LWVDA voter service events can be found at: https://lwvdavisarea.org

  • Palomino Place Project receiving comments on environmental impact report until Sep 23

    By Roberta Millstein

    Screen Shot 2024-09-02 at 1.29.22 PMA Davisite reader sent me the following information.  Until that point, I hadn't realized that comments were being sought on the environmental impact report for the proposed Palomino Place Project, so I thought I would share the information with other Davisites, too.  I haven't seen anything in the Davis Enterprise or Vanguard about it (though it is possible I just missed it).

    Apparently, the draft Subsequent EIR ("subsequent" to the EIR from 2009) for the Palomino Place Project has been available since early August. Comments on the draft are due September 23. Comments would typically point out errors, inconsistencies, omissions of data or analyses, conclusions not based on evidence, or failures to provide discussion required by CEQA.

    As the post below indicates, there is also a public meeting about the project on Sep. 11.

    City link to Palomino Place documents:

    https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects/palomino-place

    Draft Subsequent EIR released August 2024:

    https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Special-Projects/Palomino-Place-2023/Supplemental%20EIR/Draft-Palomino-Place-SEIR-August%202024.pdf

    Notice of Availability (NOA) of Palomino Place Subsequent EIR:

    https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Special-Projects/Palomino-Place-2023/Supplemental%20EIR/NOA-20240807-Palomino-Place-SEIR.pdf

    (more…)

  • Letter: Support Measure Q

    IFJD masthead

    Measure Q is a 1% sales tax that has been sponsored by the Davis City Council for the November ballot and is expected to provide approximately $11,000,000 annually for general government use.    The council cannot commit to using the funds for any specific purpose.  However, the council has shared that these funds could be directed to infrastructure, emergency response, climate resilience, addressing homelessness and affordable housing among other things.

    Interfaith Housing Justice Davis (IHJD) is an alliance of faith groups in Davis that supports the full spectrum of housing, including providing shelter to the unhoused, affordable rental housing for low and moderate incomes and offering for-purchase opportunities for 1st time home buyers.  We envision a Housing Trust fund (HTF) that can help our city address these housing imperatives. 

    IHJD understands that passing Measure Q will not solve the affordable housing crisis in Davis but is the first step to developing a funding stream for the Housing Trust Fund.  IHJD and the greater Davis community must then press our council to fund the HTF in an ongoing and significant fashion.  If well-funded, our HTF could be the vehicle by which we provide programs that assist our fellow Davisites to stay housed, provide down payment assistance programs to get young families into Davis and to provide the gap funding needed by nonprofit affordable housing builders to build more affordable units.

    Please join IHJD in supporting Measure Q and use your voice to advocate for funding the HTF.

  • Dangerous Bike Lanes: Automobile Normativity Breeds Neglect (Part 1 of 3)

     

    PXL_20240815_190057157.RAW-01.COVER

    East Covell, Westbound, between the Mace Curve and Alhambra. See Video. Reported on 8/1/2024. Based on my understanding of how My Davis Requests are processed, this has not even been evaluated at time of writing. 

    Davis, CA -  I've been riding a bike in cities for most of my adult life – that's forty years. As an example for others I don't often say that something feels safe; but when I feel a situation is dangerous it's a more valid perspective to share. 

    For the last six weeks or so I've had to travel two times a week from my home near Mace and Cowell to Sutter Davis. The fastest way there by car is via 80 and 113; by bicycle it's Mace to East and then West Covell.  I have an e-bike, and it takes about 23 minutes, a bit longer if I don't make the lights, and longer still if I have to slow or even stop to avoid hitting overgrowth of trees and bushes into the bike lane, and slower if I have to stop to let vehicles pass when the overgrowth extends all the way to the edge of the traffic lane. 

    "In some situations when the tree concern appears to be an immediate safety hazard [emphasis mine] the Street division will respond and put up barricades or traffic control to block off the area until tree work can be done. When the Urban Forestry division assesses the tree they determine the urgency of the concern and who the work will be assigned to. They also consider if the tree is the City’s responsibility to maintain. If a tree is blocking the public right of way per the clearance standards for that specific area they will assign pruning of the tree to meet clearance standards for the roadway, bike lane, sidewalk or path. Prune may be done but City Urban Forestry staff or by our contract arborist, currently West Coast Arborist. Work is completed based on the priority assessment conducted by one of the City’s Certified Arborist. If you have any additional questions please contact us …" – from a response to an earlier complaint. 

    How in this cornhole-tomato industrial apocalypse is the situation in the photo above  not an "immediate hazard"? As of time of writing,  along the westbound (WB) route between Mace and Sutter Davis, there are just over 30 bushes and trees which are "overgrowth" – the City's term – in the bike lane. Some require a diversion into the buffer (which is not a passing lane, and only part of this route has painted buffers), some require a diversion into the traffic lane,  some require ducking under possibly sharp branch ends (ironically, the by-product of earlier trimming….). 

    Along this route I first reported overgrowth on the NB Mace Blvd overpass on July 27.  It's still there, requiring a quick maneuver to avoid this punji stick, but – watch out! – not so far into the traffic lane! 

    What's curious is that "Closed" seems to only mean that the problem is solved in regards to potholes (and similar). "Closed" in relation to overgrowth on city property such as Covell indicates that the issue has been forwarded to the City's trees department, and with private property it means it went to the police for code enforcement.  I have mentioned this and suggested that "Closed" should only be used if the issue is resolved (or fixed, etc) or some kind of interim category should be created to show it's in process. While non-anonymous issue filers receive updates via email, it would be better if everything was more clear in the My Davis App. 

    So… a real question is what's a realistic timeframe for the City to respond to what is objectively an "immediate hazard"? BUT the better real question is:

    Would this be tolerated in [motor vehicle] traffic lanes for weeks at a time?

    What would people who drive motor vehicles do if their daily route required diversions, stopping, making sure a big truck wasn't going to ram into them, multiple times a week on the way to work or an errand?

    The answer is simple: The city would clear it immediately, or with a bit of delay during an exceptional weather event. They would clear the traffic lane or lanes. This is how it works here, and my personal experience for the last seven years I've lived here. 

    The roughly similar – but roughly more seasonal issue – is yard waste in bike lanes. It's explicitly completely illegal under city rules; "overgrowth" is not. Both are equally dangerous. 

    Reviewing City Hall minutes from ten years ago… many things regarding yard waste in bike lanes were promised. When I was on the BTSSC (RIP) – actually the night that Officer Natalie Corona (RIP) was killed  – the Commission supported my wording of a recommendation to City Council to improve things. (It's perhaps worth noting that the immediate sequence of events that resulted in a person with serious behavioral health issues killing Officer Corona started with a vehicle crash on 5th St – things like that with cars are seen as normal, and are forgotten). The Council watered it down and nothing improved, or changed (with the exception of a few signs in certain areas simply referring to the existing regulation.) 

    I have very little hope that the Council, Staff and relevant Commissions will do anything about it. Case in point: School starts today! Did DJUSD work with the City in the last weeks  to ensure that our City's safe routes to school (SRTS).. are safe? Beyond my ride to Sutter Davis I can say that they have not. There's lateral pot holes and overgrowth all over. 

    Measure Q?  It makes general promises about improvements, but why would Davis change now and target the needs of the most vulnerable road users? It's never been the priority: The City chronically builds infrastructure that's not compliant with the 2016 Street Standards  — while simultaneously referring to then as "progressive" when it is going forward on a street project. The BTSSC was never consulted about the ongoing 10-year pavement plan nor the overlapping Cool Pavements project. 

    The City's not making it feel safe for me to get around… my sense is that those who are younger or have less experience with bicycles simply don't consider the fastest routes if they feel unsafe on them. Do people who normally drive not take certain routes in town because they feel dangerous?

    *****

    In the following additional examples, there is also the before and after of a sewer grate on the Mace overpass damaged to the level where one could stand a bike up in it, and its "fix", a few months after being reported. Some fine craftsmanship, there!

    There's also a screenshot from the City's "What Do you Do?" video series of very light and uncritical portraits of city staff and their job duties. Why wasn't this slip up about "world" never corrected? 

    Additional photography and video from the Mace overpass on NB Mace to E. Covell just west of Pole Line.

    *****

    Parts 2 and 3 coming soon: 

    Part 2: What the City plans to do about yard waste and other materials in bike lanes – a ridiculous new tool. 

    Part 3: What the City should be doing (and why success of Measure Q might not help very much.)

    *****

    What can you do now? 

    * Write the Transportation Commission (copying to City Council, new Active Transportation Coordinator Sereena Rai and the City's tree department):  tc@cityofdavis org, citycouncilmembers@cityofdavis.org, srai@cityofdavis.org,citytrees@cityofdavis.org.

    * Ask the League of American Bicyclists if Davis deserves its "Platinum Bike Friendly" rating: bfa@bikeleague.org (there is not an application currently under review — this is just a cheeky way to get this corrosive garbage on their radar.)

    * Ask the Board of the Davis Joint Unified School District if the situation is safe for students, and if they got the City to check for obstructions – including potholes – on safe routes to schools in Davis before the first of day of class today: boe@djusd.net.