Preface to thinking about Measure Q Tax and council election

By Alan Hirsch   

I write this having attended more City Council and Commission meetings than all current council members, and all but a few community members.

For years now, I have seen city government fail to harness our community’s education and social capital wealth since the failure of the 2014 R&D Business Park initiative.  The community has not leveraged its charmed geography—a unique rural area highly accessible via I-80 & rail service between the Bay Area & State Capitol. And proximity to UC Davis, a major research university that brings billions in grant dollars to our community. We are ideally located to incubate a wealth of startups and attract businesses. This should be giving us a robust tax base and providing a rich offering of city services.

Instead, we are failing. So, we now need to raise our sale taxes and we seem to have been forced to site new affordable housing next to the freeway, land that should have been used for new startups and businesses to build our city’s tax base.  I note council decided not to site housing on Russell at a redone Trader Joes Mall across from the University this year. And Community resistance to student housing on Russell Fields 6 year back, close to our downtown, forced students to live in dorms in West Village 1 mile from our downtown shopping area- where they don’t feed out sales tax base.

It used to be noted at council meetings that Davis’s greatest asset is its involved and educated residents. No longer. Instead, city staff and council, though their actions, indicate they don’t believe this anymore. It used to be residents could express their insight and expertise by being involved in an independent city commission.  Full commissions used to bring up new ideas, and even vote to disagree with the council, even over ballot measures. No more.  People volunteering for commissions are told by staff that their role is to serve the current council’s policy, even though this contradicts the not-yet-updated official Commission Handbook that recalls the old way: “Commissions are independent.”

Storer Lecturship in the Life Sciences: How Decades of Climate Denial, Disinformation and Doublespeak by Big Oil Fueled the Climate Crisis

Tuesday October 22, 4:00 - 7 pm ARC Ballroom (and Zoom)

Register here: https://bit.ly/102224StorerReg (or use QR code in flyer).   All are welcome.  Please register soon to help ensure an accurate headcount.

Speakers:

The LWV Davis area held three local election forums for the November election.  Measure Q, Davis City Council district 2, and DJUSD Trustee Area 2.  You can find the videos here:  https://lwvdavisarea.org/ (scroll down)

Four Davis City Council Members Accepted Large Campaign Contributions from the Firefighters Union and its Members that Preceded Excessive Salary Increases

By the No on Measure M Campaign Committee

I. Large contributions were accepted by current Davis City Councilmembers’ campaign committees over 2 election cycles from firefighters and their union.

All current Davis City Councilmembers, except Donna Neville, have accepted substantial bundled contributions from individual firefighters and Davis Firefighters Union Local 3494. Additionally, in Gloria Partida’s and Bapu Vaitla’s case, the firefighters’ union also printed and sent out a mailer for each of their campaigns, as well as door hangers. These door hangers were then distributed by firefighter volunteers on behalf of the campaigns in 2022.

Following is a summary of the total contributions accepted by the 2020 campaigns of Will Arnold and Josh Chapman from the Davis Firefighters Union and their members, and by the 2022 campaigns of Gloria Partida and Bapu Vaitla. See Appendix A for a full detailed listing of the contributions as reported on the City of Davis’ and the California Secretary of State’s campaign finance  reporting portals.

By Scott Steward

51 Weeks of Protest, Yolo for Palestinian Justice weekly protest in front of Mike Thompson's Woodland Office. We witness a genocide and Mike does nothing. It will be a year next week.n

51 Weeks of Protest, Yolo for Palestinian Justice weekly protest in front of Mike Thompson's Woodland Office. We witness a genocide and Mike does nothing.  It will be a year next week.

It is some comfort, if small comfort, that the moorings of our Davis democracy are relatively intact, even as our "leadership" gambles our democracy on US/Israeli war crimes.  I would say that Israel has drawn Iran into war and the US along with it, except that it is obvious that the US has been party to the war plan all along.  12 months of Genocide?  That is the cost of doing business for Israel and the US.

After yesterday's 200 mostly destroyed Iranian missile attacks on Israeli military targets, “Make no mistake,” Joe Biden said, “The United States is fully, fully, fully supportive of Israel.” October 1 2024, Michael Birnbaum Washington Post.

Blinken has been lying about peace (see Veterans for Peace lawsuit below). Joe is delusional. Together along with most all of our federal representatives, including our Congressman Mike Thompson, we have been lied to about any and all consternation concerning Israel. No serious thoughts of how to secure the return of the hostages, no thoughts on how to give honor to those killed on October 7th, just a year of killing (42,000 Gazan's dead, mostly women and children).

As we debate Measure Q and the rest of the November ballot here in Davis, you are about to see your future hopes, dreams, and dollars be flushed down the war toilet - again. Why not pay the extra 1% sales tax for Measure Q, and get our $11 million local dollars.  We might as well, we are about to experience the same Iraq/Afghan Washington Beltway war f-- up with Iran  ($21 Trillion US dollars, 2,000 US and 200,000 Iraq killed). In the end, we will have a more radicalized and impoverished Arab world when it is all over.  Let's all go buy Raytheon stock! 

Let's set the record straight regarding the position the No on Q speakers shared at the recent League of Women Voters Forum.

No on Q stated that Interfaith Housing Justice Davis (IHJD) is urging residents to vote for Measure Q because the city is planning to direct more money to homelessness. They implied that the city has already committed to funding new programs addressing housing. While IHJD supports Measure Q, the city has not promised anything other than that housing is on the list of possible recipients of funding along with other legitimate city needs including replenishing the General Fund reserve, and infrastructure. The city has not promised to prioritize housing issues or indeed any particular recipient because Measure Q is a General fund tax and therefore by law, they can't.

No on Q stated that a plan for the City to spend money on homelessness is in the staff report. A review of the 6/4/24 staff report clearly demonstrates a wish list of projects "including urban forestry, climate action, affordable housing and social services, and infrastructure ". No commitments were made (nor can they be made!!) about where funds may be used.

Yes, IHJD supports Measure Q because we hope revenue will be generated sufficient to fund housing related issues. But we understand that passing Measure Q is only the first step. When the council begins the budgetary process after the election, IHJD will advocate for a commitment to address affordable housing and homelessness.

Ellen Kolarik, co-chair IHJD

by the No on Measure Q Campaign Committee

This article factually analyzes and discusses patently false claims made by the Yes on Measure Q campaign in their ballot statements presented to voters.

Introduction and Background

This article is the 3rd in a series presented by the No on Measure Q campaign committee about the significant problems associated with 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. The 2^nd article (see here) gives additional reasons to vote No on the tax measure, discussing the mismanagement of city finances by the current administration.

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 be 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!  

In the Past Decade, City of Davis Revenues and Expenses Soared Far in Excess of the Inflation Rate or Population Growth.

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

Mismanagement of City Finances by the Davis City Council

by the No on Measure Q Campaign Committee

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 2^nd 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.

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).

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?

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.

By 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.

(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

By Roberta Millstein

A 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

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.

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! 

About these "Closed" Requests: 500 5th, next to ex-Hibberts - Overgrowth, remedied as it it's Downtown?; 909 5th St - a downed tree, initially moved only out of the traffic lane into bike lane; 1111 W. Covell, referred to police as it was from private property and a code violation, but still was not removed for about six weeks.)

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, [email protected], [email protected],[email protected].

* Ask the League of American Bicyclists if Davis deserves its "Platinum Bike Friendly" rating: [email protected] (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: [email protected].

By Roberta Millstein

Yesterday, I posted the ballot arguments for and against Measure Q, which would increase Davis's current retail transactions and use tax from 1% to 2%.  Here are the rebuttals to those arguments that will also appear on the November ballot.  See the County's website (where these arguments are also posted) for more details: https://ace.yolocounty.gov/417/Measure-Q---City-of-Davis

Rebuttal to argument in favor of Measure Q:

By Roberta Millstein

This November, Davisites will vote on Measure Q:

To support essential City services, such as public safety and emergency response; crime prevention; pothole repair; parks, road, sidewalk, and bike path maintenance; and addressing homelessness, affordable housing, and climate change, shall the City of Davis's Ordinance be adopted establishing an additional 1¢ sales tax providing approximately $11,000,000 annually for general government use until repealed by the voters, subject to annual audits, public disclosure of all spending and with all funds staying local?

This would increase Davis's current retail transactions and use tax from 1% to 2%.  To pass, a majority (50% + 1) of the votes cast by City of Davis voters must approve the measure.  As implied by the text above, the tax has no automatic sunset date; it will be in effect until repealed by voters. 

Further details are available at the County's website: https://ace.yolocounty.gov/417/Measure-Q---City-of-Davis

Here is the argument in favor that will appear on the ballot:

Being heard in California State Assembly and Senate Appropriations Committees Today

By Scott Steward

Three of the four bills are unbalanced and likely to increase the punitive environment (and the cost) of our California universities, state universities, and community colleges and send a "shut up or else" message to about 2.5 million mostly young adults, their instructors and administrators.

Unfortunately, Dodd already voted to pass the two Senate bills to the Assembly, which is very sad for our college campuses.  Aguiar Curry already voted to pass the assembly bills, which is sad for our high schools.  I'll assume that Democratic majorities are all in on these bills. The bills are now being heard by the appropriations committees of the opposite houses today. Floor votes for the AB bills are likely in the Senate and floor votes are likely for the SB bills are likely in the Assembly soon. 

That said - I would propose you let Dodd and Aguiar-Curry to recommend

For Aguiar-Curry:

NO on senate bills SB 1277 Pupil instruction: genocide education: the Holocaust.

NO on senate bills SB 1287 Equity in Higher Education Act: prohibition on violence, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination.

For Dodd:

NO on assembly bill AB 2918 Pupil instruction: ethnic studies.

And a "not encouraged by" AB 2925.  AB2925 Equity bill was more balanced, but there is concern over the vague nature of who would be implementing anti-discrimination training and what guardrails would be put in place to make sure that anti-discrimination training was developed inclusively - specifically that training included Palestinian voices along with other voices.