From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Thu Sep 16 08:51:44 2004 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:51:44 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] Greenwald Conflicts of Interest In-Reply-To: <2AF6C11D-0771-11D9-86D7-000393BD0562@davis.com> References: <2AF6C11D-0771-11D9-86D7-000393BD0562@davis.com> Message-ID: Old Northers, Many thanks to Steve Tracy for his interest in Sue Greenwald's conflicts of interest. He is quite correct in his implicit suggestion that we should nail down exactly what Greenwald can and cannot vote on regarding the Old North. It would be good if Steve or others investigated this topic as a general matter with appropriate officials and report to us what they find. Beyond the view of the City attorney, perhaps we should engage our own legal advisor--a matter someone might also explore. That is, the Davis City attorney likely does not always express the only legally plausible view of various conflict of interest topics. In the logic of the situation, we should expect any City attorney to incline to a "you are conflicted" conclusion. It is the safest opinion to render. On the specific matter of conflicts of interest regarding the Fifth Street safety project, it would be good for Steve to share with us any City attorney documents he may have containing the conclusion he reports below and the evidence for that conclusion. (Posting it or them in pdf on the oldnorth.com site would work well.) Thanks again Steve! John Lofland At 4:44 PM -0700 9/15/04, Tracy-Marshall wrote: >Neighbors. > >Sue Greenwald isn't conflicted on the 5th Street project. Her >rental property is 550 feet from the 5th Street right of way. > >Steve Tracy. >On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, at 03:56 PM, Valerie Vann wrote: > >> >>John Lofland wrote: >>> >>>Even worse, the one Council member we can rather count on owns property in >>>the Old North and cannot participate in Council decisions regarding our >>>area. So, we are essentially without a Council person on our side. (Argument >>>here for district elections?) >>> >> >>I'm beginning to have a real problem with the above, both for council >>members and city staff. >> >>What actually is the rule on "conflict of interest"? >> >>I can see a need for recusal if the council is voting on a property >>that belongs to a member (council or staff), or within the 500 foot >>notification limit even, so that the member could be assumed to have >>a direct financial interest in the matter, but I really can't see it on >>issues affecting a whole neighborhood or district, just because >>the member lives there; still less if a meeting doesn't involve >>a vote, but is a workshop, or for informational purposes, etc. >> >>The same logic that is invoked against a member voting on >>an issue in their neighborhood would prevent anyone from voting >>on an issue affecting the whole of Davis, if they live in Davis. >> >>The problem I'm having is this: I vote for certain individuals because >>I think they will support what is in my interest, as well as the >>general public interest. But if the representatives I vote for >>can't vote on those issues of most concern to me because they live >>in the same neighborhood, what's the point of my supporting them >>with my vote, etc.? They're forced into recusal when we need >>them most. We end up NOT be represented by those we elected to >>represent us. >> >>So an issue can end up being voted on by members who would oppose >>such an issue in their neighborhood, regardless of how our >>neighborhood (and a council member living here) feel about it. >> >>In the current Council, one recusal is enough to lose a vote on >>a crucial issue. We could be "strong supporters" of like minded >>Council members, and what good would it do us? What would happen >>if a whole council just all happened to live in the >>same "neighborhood"? Flip a coin? >> >>Similarly, it is ridiculous that a staff member can't attend >>a meeting or make a staff presentation because of living in >>the neighborhood in question, whether or not that person may >>have more experience and expertise on the matter or not. >> >>Maybe we do need district representation; or a bigger council, >>so that where members live would be less important. >> >>Valerie Vann >>valerie at vanngroup.com >> > >_______________________________________________ >oldnorth mailing list >oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org >http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth From stracy at davis.com Thu Sep 16 09:09:45 2004 From: stracy at davis.com (Tracy-Marshall) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:09:45 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] Re: Greenwald Conflicts of Interest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Neighbors. Believe me, I monitored this very closely during the first council sessions on our 5th Street study. Harriet Steiner opined that Sue was not conflicted, because her property was over 500 feet from 5th. She did conclude, however, that both Mike Harrington and Susie Boyd did have conflicts. This in spite of our argument that thie was a safety project, and was included in the adopted General Plan, which this just implemented. To paraphrase her opinion: "If you own it, you have an economic conflict of interest, no matter what the decision before you." Anyone can go to the FPPC web site and see how the guidelines are worded. I think, as John suggests, she took the easy and safe route, although it is much stronger than the FPPC would take. Steve. On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 08:51 AM, John Lofland wrote: > Old Northers, > > Many thanks to Steve Tracy for his interest in Sue Greenwald's > conflicts of interest. > > He is quite correct in his implicit suggestion that we should nail > down exactly what Greenwald can and cannot vote on regarding the Old > North. > > It would be good if Steve or others investigated this topic as a > general matter with appropriate officials and report to us what they > find. > > Beyond the view of the City attorney, perhaps we should engage our own > legal advisor--a matter someone might also explore. That is, the Davis > City attorney likely does not always express the only legally > plausible view of various conflict of interest topics. > > In the logic of the situation, we should expect any City attorney to > incline to a "you are conflicted" conclusion. It is the safest opinion > to render. > > On the specific matter of conflicts of interest regarding the Fifth > Street safety project, it would be good for Steve to share with us any > City attorney documents he may have containing the conclusion he > reports below and the evidence for that conclusion. (Posting it or > them in pdf on the oldnorth.com site would work well.) > > Thanks again Steve! > > John Lofland > > > > > > At 4:44 PM -0700 9/15/04, Tracy-Marshall wrote: >> Neighbors. >> >> Sue Greenwald isn't conflicted on the 5th Street project. Her rental >> property is 550 feet from the 5th Street right of way. >> >> Steve Tracy. >> On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, at 03:56 PM, Valerie Vann wrote: >> >>> >>> John Lofland wrote: >>>> >>>> Even worse, the one Council member we can rather count on owns >>>> property in >>>> the Old North and cannot participate in Council decisions regarding >>>> our >>>> area. So, we are essentially without a Council person on our side. >>>> (Argument >>>> here for district elections?) >>>> >>> >>> I'm beginning to have a real problem with the above, both for council >>> members and city staff. >>> >>> What actually is the rule on "conflict of interest"? >>> >>> I can see a need for recusal if the council is voting on a property >>> that belongs to a member (council or staff), or within the 500 foot >>> notification limit even, so that the member could be assumed to have >>> a direct financial interest in the matter, but I really can't see it >>> on >>> issues affecting a whole neighborhood or district, just because >>> the member lives there; still less if a meeting doesn't involve >>> a vote, but is a workshop, or for informational purposes, etc. >>> >>> The same logic that is invoked against a member voting on >>> an issue in their neighborhood would prevent anyone from voting >>> on an issue affecting the whole of Davis, if they live in Davis. >>> >>> The problem I'm having is this: I vote for certain individuals >>> because >>> I think they will support what is in my interest, as well as the >>> general public interest. But if the representatives I vote for >>> can't vote on those issues of most concern to me because they live >>> in the same neighborhood, what's the point of my supporting them >>> with my vote, etc.? They're forced into recusal when we need >>> them most. We end up NOT be represented by those we elected to >>> represent us. >>> >>> So an issue can end up being voted on by members who would oppose >>> such an issue in their neighborhood, regardless of how our >>> neighborhood (and a council member living here) feel about it. >>> >>> In the current Council, one recusal is enough to lose a vote on >>> a crucial issue. We could be "strong supporters" of like minded >>> Council members, and what good would it do us? What would happen >>> if a whole council just all happened to live in the >>> same "neighborhood"? Flip a coin? >>> >>> Similarly, it is ridiculous that a staff member can't attend >>> a meeting or make a staff presentation because of living in >>> the neighborhood in question, whether or not that person may >>> have more experience and expertise on the matter or not. >>> >>> Maybe we do need district representation; or a bigger council, >>> so that where members live would be less important. >>> >>> Valerie Vann >>> valerie at vanngroup.com >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> oldnorth mailing list >> oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth > From bwinterhalder at ucdavis.edu Thu Sep 16 11:33:05 2004 From: bwinterhalder at ucdavis.edu (Bruce Winterhalder) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:33:05 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] Important: ON Zoning Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20040916104005.01b50ec0@bronze.ucdavis.edu> Board Members and Old North Neighbors: I have been rummaging around in documents I have been gathering related to zoning and in-fill and came across something that could be critical to to the Old North neighborhood. Please think about it and come to the next meeting (23 Sept; Hattie Webber, 7:30 PM) ready to discuss it. In July, developer Jim Kidd submitted a preapplication for an 18-unit condominium unit for two lots in the 200-block of B St. That much we had heard in meetings; his proposal was a mostly 'silent' element of the discussion on the formal proposals for the 200- and 300-blocks that went before the Planning Commission and the City Council, designed by Maria Ogrydziak. Attached to the printed copy of the Kidd pre-proposal is a 'talking points' presentation (perhaps a page x page copy of a power point show), apparently a concept piece addressed to the DDBA, titled, "How can Davis strengthen the downtown?" A key element of the ideas presented is a proposal for "Banding [the] core area with density housing." The subsequent page is a map depicting, with hand-drawn shading the suggested band of density housing. It includes the west side of B St, from 1st to 4th, the area east of I St (between I and the tracks), including Rowe Court, from about 2nd to 5th, and -- the important part for us -- the area north of 5th, from B St to the tracks, 2 to 3 lots (it is not awfully clear in the crude drawing), into the ON neighborhood. Another page shows the school district headquarters becoming a parking deck. Kidd's proposed Muir Wood Manor (the 18-unit condominium on two lots) would be part of the SW side of this band, and is presumably more or less what is envisioned for the rest of it. MOgrydziak's proposed building and home/office would continue it to 3rd St., the (now withdrawn or on hold ) proposal for an MO look-alike set of four, multi-story units on one lot in the the 300 block of B would continue it up that block toward 4th. I don't know how seriously to take this, but we definitely need to be aware that it is being talked around. It also suggests that we have been correct in not thinking of the B St developments as if they are independent of our concerns for ON. Bruce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From valerie at vanngroup.com Thu Sep 16 15:11:34 2004 From: valerie at vanngroup.com (Valerie Vann) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:11:34 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] New frontier of parking problems Message-ID: <414A0F96.19FFABDD@vanngroup.com> I experienced an interesting aspect of the parking issue yesterday, in the form of an escalation, or grossification of something that has been happening more frequently recently. Since I live on the west side of the 600 block G, we always get a certain amount of parking overflow of the mall lot. Sometimes this takes the form of trucks waiting for businesses to open, tour buses (or team buses) whose passengers are at the restaurant, or RV at the restaurant or stocking up at the COOP, etc. The problem comes when they "park" with their engines running; the buses usually do this because they keep the AC going; and trucks with refrigeration do it for the same reason. The buses have been late into the evening, and trucks both very early and very late. You probably don't realize how much noise a bus or truck engine and AC compressor makes until you've had one parked in front of your house for hours. Plus the exhaust fumes of course. We also get "stored" RV's, but at least they're just eyesores and prevent street cleaning, they're quiet at least. Presumably the drivers pick my place because the driveway gives extra room to maneuver a whale into the curb, and my side has big shade trees. Yesterday shortly after noon a HUGE (40 feet? more?) RV/mobile home parked right in front of my house. This thing looked like the Beverly Hills Hilton on wheels. It occupied two full parking places and part of a third. All the curtains in this monster (including the windshield) were drawn. There was a dog inside that barked at every passerby (G St. gets a lot of foot traffic during the day). But the "best part" was that the AC unit on top was roaring away (which is what lead me to investigate why I was hearing "truck noise" for more than a few minutes). AND to keep the AC going, the engine was also running at idle, but "reving" about every 5 minutes, and the tail pipe spewing exhaust into my front yard. The thing finally disappeared about 6:30pm, just as I was wondering if it was going to be there overnite, and considering my options if it was. Val ---- Valerie Vann valerie at vanngroup.com