And while the council specifically argued about the issue of the city charter, this issue of the use of subcommittees largely transcends any single topic. It goes to the very heart of our democratic values.
While I strongly value the issue of transparency in government, I do think this is at best a very nuanced and complex issue. Both sides of the debate offer strengths and weaknesses in their argument.
Having watched a long and painful discussion a few weeks back where the council basically hashed out a development agreement in public, I would suggest that there are some things that should be done by staff and subcommittee in private because they deal with small and fine details rather than broader principles and issues. It was painful to watch the council try to grapple with specific details in public and inappropriate in my opinion. That would have been a perfect issue to hand back to staff and have staff work it out with council and then bring it back as a consent item to be voted up or down. So I do have some appreciation for the use of bodies that can hammer out details outside of the public realm.
On the other hand, I think the council minority of Mayor Sue Greenwald and Councilmember Lamar Heystek have important concerns about the use of subcommittee when it is used to bring forward full blown proposals that have the weight of staff recommendations behind them. In those cases, the issues are framed by those who hammered them out in private away from the public’s eye. The public misses out on potentially important deliberation and alternative options. The process becomes largely fait accompli with the council majority then neatly and cleanly ratifying staff recommendation.
Now one way to avoid both of these pitfalls would be to have subcommittees instead of being charged with making specific recommendations, bring forward an array of options that the council would then have to deliberate upon. This way the fine details are worked out in private but the subcommittee is not coming forward with a final proposal that would strongly condition whatever action is taken by the council.
I have not figured out the statistics, but the vast majority of staff reports are approved with perhaps only small alterations. That gives an unelected staff tremendous ability to frame the debate and exert vast control over elected councilmembers. Similarly, a subcommittee that meets in private with staff would have tremendous ability to frame and direct a debate. There are occasions when subcommittee proposals have not been accepted–for instance–the subcommittee on commissions got almost all of their recommendations approved however, they did not get their proposed changes for the merger of the Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Services Commission.
The entire debate over the merger of those two commissions actually demonstrates the problem with the subcommittee system. The subcommittee came forward with a full blown resolution to merge the two commissions and they had done so on the consent agenda, meaning unless the item was pulled it would be approved with little discussion. The item was then pulled from consent, it was delayed a week, and only then did the commissions involved begin to realize what was going on and begin to take action. It was largely because the Senior Citizen Commission and its chair, Elaine Roberts Musser, began to raise a fuss and protest the merger that the merger was halted. And then it was primarily due to the strength or perceived strength of that community. In short, it took rather extraordinary conditions including a fair amount of fortune and luck for the subcommittees recommendation to be overruled.
The argument here is that a group of two are making decisions in private that will end up strongly directing whatever debate and public action takes place and the fear by the council minority is that by moving controversial issues from public to private deliberation, it makes it more difficult to raise controversial issues and more importantly strongly directs future council action. The force of subcommittee and staff recommendations provides political cover to what may be otherwise unpopular council actions.
The key debate facing council right now is whether there should be more or less public debate on items and where is the appropriate venue for these discussions. A subcommittee system could work under certain conditions.
First, the subcommittees should not come forward with specific recommendations. That was in my opinion, the biggest problem with the school district’s task force on best uses of schools–they their recommendations, tailored their arguments and report toward those recommendations, and did not provide the elected officials with an array of options. They were thus forced to either overrule a volunteer committee who had spent considerable time working on it or accepting their findings. Statements made by the school board indicated that in fact, that line of thinking did factor into the process and a bare majority of 3-2 voted to ratify the recommendations of the task force.
Thus, subcommittees should be charged with studying issues and presenting a broad array of possible actions rather than focus on a single action. This would achieve the strength of subcommittees–hashing out fine details–while mitigating its weakness, structuring debate toward a single recommendation.
Second, all subcommittee reports should be agendized as full debate and discussion items. They should never be placed on the consent calendar for a non-debated up or down vote.
Third, all subcommittee deliberations should be made public record that can be scrutinized by the public and fellow council members. It would be even better if they could be videotaped and broadcast on the government channel.
Fourth, issues that are likely to be large and contentious should be heard by the full council first to allow for full council direction about philosophy. The subcommittee would then meet to study the issue and hash out the details. The issue could then come back to the full council for more debate and discussion. This would again achieve the best of both worlds.
Overall I do not oppose the use of subcommittees, but I do oppose their current usage and I fully understand the concerns of the minority that the majority can use these as a technique to neatly hash out controversial topics outside of the view of the public and then present them with a quick and neat argument.
It is important to note as we have in the past, that one of the big problems that the council as a whole faces and the council minority in particular faces is that none of them have individual staff working for them. That means issues that are complex and need the expertise of staff put the members of the minority at a huge disadvantage because staff often does not fully present both sides of the issue.
We saw this perhaps most prominently with the water issue, where most of the council members were completely at the mercy of trained experts. Members of the council minority did not have the luxury of allowing their own staffers or independent analysts to provide alternative findings. That strongly disadvantaged any dissenters because they could not bring forward an alternative perspective outside of those who were presenting their own preferred alternatives. This is the same problem that council members face with any topic whether it is the presentation by staff or a subcommittee. And it represents a major disadvantage for any group in any sort of permanent minority on an array of issues.
Now a good and strong staff would present both their recommendations and counter-recommendations, this staff does not seem to do that well. I will never forget the exchange when Councilmember Heystek asked a staffer to explain the weakness of their approach and they could not do so.
In the end, I understand at the times the need and desire for using subcommittees as a means to facilitate and expedite complex topics that require study and development outside of the normal council process. As I stated earlier, there are some activities that just should not take place in full public view at an open meeting. However, I think that the use of subcommittees also takes away from the deliberative and democratic process. So if the council is to continue to use subcommittees, they should restructure their purpose so as to not take away from this process.
In the end however, the minority is really at the mercy of the majority and their own defense is to raise issues in public and allow the public to know what is going on with their government. I favor any arrangements that will facilitate greater transparency in government actions.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
The current Council majority has “overruled” Measure L, purposefully ignored the General Plan and put in place a self-imposed “mandatory” growth plan. All this was never mentioned to the voters when they ran for office. If then, this same majority operates in subcommittee, behind closed doors,to present plans to their own majority for approval, where does the expression of the will of the Davis voters come into play? Once every four years is not sufficient. Public discussion and debate allows the voters to weigh in on these decisions.
The current Council majority has “overruled” Measure L, purposefully ignored the General Plan and put in place a self-imposed “mandatory” growth plan. All this was never mentioned to the voters when they ran for office. If then, this same majority operates in subcommittee, behind closed doors,to present plans to their own majority for approval, where does the expression of the will of the Davis voters come into play? Once every four years is not sufficient. Public discussion and debate allows the voters to weigh in on these decisions.
The current Council majority has “overruled” Measure L, purposefully ignored the General Plan and put in place a self-imposed “mandatory” growth plan. All this was never mentioned to the voters when they ran for office. If then, this same majority operates in subcommittee, behind closed doors,to present plans to their own majority for approval, where does the expression of the will of the Davis voters come into play? Once every four years is not sufficient. Public discussion and debate allows the voters to weigh in on these decisions.
The current Council majority has “overruled” Measure L, purposefully ignored the General Plan and put in place a self-imposed “mandatory” growth plan. All this was never mentioned to the voters when they ran for office. If then, this same majority operates in subcommittee, behind closed doors,to present plans to their own majority for approval, where does the expression of the will of the Davis voters come into play? Once every four years is not sufficient. Public discussion and debate allows the voters to weigh in on these decisions.
“The current Council majority has “overruled” Measure L.”
It must be a nice world to live in when you never seem to let inconvenient facts get in your way.
The truth is that the council, majority and minority, has just started dealing with Measure L, which itself was merely an advisory measure:
“This measure asks the Davis voters whether the City should consider adopting choice voting.”
Secondly, the city council cannot easily change our voting system over to choice voting, because of state law:
“Current state law does not permit Davis, as a general law city, to implement choice voting. Choice voting would be permitted if Davis becomes a charter city or if state legislation is adopted permitting the city to use choice voting.”
A good point, I thought, was made by Sue Greenwald a couple of weeks ago when a motion was put forward to have Councilmembers Heystek and Souza serve on a subcommittee to implement Measure L. Sue said — and this ties in very much with the ideas expressed in this column by David Greenwald — that going to a “charter city” is a really big consideration, far bigger than just choice voting. And because it is so big, it makes sense that ALL of the discussion regarding such a consideration ought to be done by the council as a whole, not on a subcommittee, where the public would not get to here a full airing of the pros and cons and where all council members would not be privvy to the nuances.
To say that the “current Council majority has ‘overruled’ Measure L is not just wrong, it shows you are paying no attention whatsover to what is really going on. The truth is that the subcommittee of Heystek and Souza, both of whom stongly favor choice voting, was approved — against the wishes of the mayor — and the implementation of Measure L is moving apace.
While I am a supporter of Measure L, I agree with Sue that the voters did not really vote on the question of a charter city. We have had no debate on that question. I personally don’t know enough one way or the other to say if that is a good idea. But I do know enough to know that you don’t know what you are saying about “overruling.”
“The current Council majority has “overruled” Measure L.”
It must be a nice world to live in when you never seem to let inconvenient facts get in your way.
The truth is that the council, majority and minority, has just started dealing with Measure L, which itself was merely an advisory measure:
“This measure asks the Davis voters whether the City should consider adopting choice voting.”
Secondly, the city council cannot easily change our voting system over to choice voting, because of state law:
“Current state law does not permit Davis, as a general law city, to implement choice voting. Choice voting would be permitted if Davis becomes a charter city or if state legislation is adopted permitting the city to use choice voting.”
A good point, I thought, was made by Sue Greenwald a couple of weeks ago when a motion was put forward to have Councilmembers Heystek and Souza serve on a subcommittee to implement Measure L. Sue said — and this ties in very much with the ideas expressed in this column by David Greenwald — that going to a “charter city” is a really big consideration, far bigger than just choice voting. And because it is so big, it makes sense that ALL of the discussion regarding such a consideration ought to be done by the council as a whole, not on a subcommittee, where the public would not get to here a full airing of the pros and cons and where all council members would not be privvy to the nuances.
To say that the “current Council majority has ‘overruled’ Measure L is not just wrong, it shows you are paying no attention whatsover to what is really going on. The truth is that the subcommittee of Heystek and Souza, both of whom stongly favor choice voting, was approved — against the wishes of the mayor — and the implementation of Measure L is moving apace.
While I am a supporter of Measure L, I agree with Sue that the voters did not really vote on the question of a charter city. We have had no debate on that question. I personally don’t know enough one way or the other to say if that is a good idea. But I do know enough to know that you don’t know what you are saying about “overruling.”
“The current Council majority has “overruled” Measure L.”
It must be a nice world to live in when you never seem to let inconvenient facts get in your way.
The truth is that the council, majority and minority, has just started dealing with Measure L, which itself was merely an advisory measure:
“This measure asks the Davis voters whether the City should consider adopting choice voting.”
Secondly, the city council cannot easily change our voting system over to choice voting, because of state law:
“Current state law does not permit Davis, as a general law city, to implement choice voting. Choice voting would be permitted if Davis becomes a charter city or if state legislation is adopted permitting the city to use choice voting.”
A good point, I thought, was made by Sue Greenwald a couple of weeks ago when a motion was put forward to have Councilmembers Heystek and Souza serve on a subcommittee to implement Measure L. Sue said — and this ties in very much with the ideas expressed in this column by David Greenwald — that going to a “charter city” is a really big consideration, far bigger than just choice voting. And because it is so big, it makes sense that ALL of the discussion regarding such a consideration ought to be done by the council as a whole, not on a subcommittee, where the public would not get to here a full airing of the pros and cons and where all council members would not be privvy to the nuances.
To say that the “current Council majority has ‘overruled’ Measure L is not just wrong, it shows you are paying no attention whatsover to what is really going on. The truth is that the subcommittee of Heystek and Souza, both of whom stongly favor choice voting, was approved — against the wishes of the mayor — and the implementation of Measure L is moving apace.
While I am a supporter of Measure L, I agree with Sue that the voters did not really vote on the question of a charter city. We have had no debate on that question. I personally don’t know enough one way or the other to say if that is a good idea. But I do know enough to know that you don’t know what you are saying about “overruling.”
“The current Council majority has “overruled” Measure L.”
It must be a nice world to live in when you never seem to let inconvenient facts get in your way.
The truth is that the council, majority and minority, has just started dealing with Measure L, which itself was merely an advisory measure:
“This measure asks the Davis voters whether the City should consider adopting choice voting.”
Secondly, the city council cannot easily change our voting system over to choice voting, because of state law:
“Current state law does not permit Davis, as a general law city, to implement choice voting. Choice voting would be permitted if Davis becomes a charter city or if state legislation is adopted permitting the city to use choice voting.”
A good point, I thought, was made by Sue Greenwald a couple of weeks ago when a motion was put forward to have Councilmembers Heystek and Souza serve on a subcommittee to implement Measure L. Sue said — and this ties in very much with the ideas expressed in this column by David Greenwald — that going to a “charter city” is a really big consideration, far bigger than just choice voting. And because it is so big, it makes sense that ALL of the discussion regarding such a consideration ought to be done by the council as a whole, not on a subcommittee, where the public would not get to here a full airing of the pros and cons and where all council members would not be privvy to the nuances.
To say that the “current Council majority has ‘overruled’ Measure L is not just wrong, it shows you are paying no attention whatsover to what is really going on. The truth is that the subcommittee of Heystek and Souza, both of whom stongly favor choice voting, was approved — against the wishes of the mayor — and the implementation of Measure L is moving apace.
While I am a supporter of Measure L, I agree with Sue that the voters did not really vote on the question of a charter city. We have had no debate on that question. I personally don’t know enough one way or the other to say if that is a good idea. But I do know enough to know that you don’t know what you are saying about “overruling.”
Rich makes a good point when he suggests that the voters really did not vote on the idea of a city charter. That is a very good point.
I will add to it because I do not think the voters really weighed in fully on the idea of choice voting either. It is a good exploration but I want to see full discussion on this in public.
It just concerns me very much to have big questions settled in private. Sure you can debate whether it should be a 50 versus 70 foot setback in public, but the question of how the mayor should be selected, for example, needs to be a public discussion and it needs to be held at multiple meetings.
Rich makes a good point when he suggests that the voters really did not vote on the idea of a city charter. That is a very good point.
I will add to it because I do not think the voters really weighed in fully on the idea of choice voting either. It is a good exploration but I want to see full discussion on this in public.
It just concerns me very much to have big questions settled in private. Sure you can debate whether it should be a 50 versus 70 foot setback in public, but the question of how the mayor should be selected, for example, needs to be a public discussion and it needs to be held at multiple meetings.
Rich makes a good point when he suggests that the voters really did not vote on the idea of a city charter. That is a very good point.
I will add to it because I do not think the voters really weighed in fully on the idea of choice voting either. It is a good exploration but I want to see full discussion on this in public.
It just concerns me very much to have big questions settled in private. Sure you can debate whether it should be a 50 versus 70 foot setback in public, but the question of how the mayor should be selected, for example, needs to be a public discussion and it needs to be held at multiple meetings.
Rich makes a good point when he suggests that the voters really did not vote on the idea of a city charter. That is a very good point.
I will add to it because I do not think the voters really weighed in fully on the idea of choice voting either. It is a good exploration but I want to see full discussion on this in public.
It just concerns me very much to have big questions settled in private. Sure you can debate whether it should be a 50 versus 70 foot setback in public, but the question of how the mayor should be selected, for example, needs to be a public discussion and it needs to be held at multiple meetings.
I wrote above that it is a big deal for Davis to consider becoming a charter city. In thinking about that, I am not sure that is the case — I just don’t know enough about the distinction between a general law city and a charter city. I’ve looked it up on the Web, and all I can find is that a general law city must follow the general laws and procedures established by the state while a charter city can follow those dictates if it so chooses or it can make up it’s own path in a city charter. The charter, however, cannot violate state laws, such as Prop 209.
If that is the only distinction, I wonder why any city would ever prefer to be a general law city? Maybe there is some very expensive legal work that needs to be done to make the changeover?
Also, I found that there are 108 charter cities in California, all of varying population sizes. One of them is Alameda, which is about the same size as Davis. If you are interested, this is a link to Alameda’s complete city charter. It doesn’t seem all that different from Davis, though they elect the mayor directly in Alameda, as well as an auditor and treasurer.
I wrote above that it is a big deal for Davis to consider becoming a charter city. In thinking about that, I am not sure that is the case — I just don’t know enough about the distinction between a general law city and a charter city. I’ve looked it up on the Web, and all I can find is that a general law city must follow the general laws and procedures established by the state while a charter city can follow those dictates if it so chooses or it can make up it’s own path in a city charter. The charter, however, cannot violate state laws, such as Prop 209.
If that is the only distinction, I wonder why any city would ever prefer to be a general law city? Maybe there is some very expensive legal work that needs to be done to make the changeover?
Also, I found that there are 108 charter cities in California, all of varying population sizes. One of them is Alameda, which is about the same size as Davis. If you are interested, this is a link to Alameda’s complete city charter. It doesn’t seem all that different from Davis, though they elect the mayor directly in Alameda, as well as an auditor and treasurer.
I wrote above that it is a big deal for Davis to consider becoming a charter city. In thinking about that, I am not sure that is the case — I just don’t know enough about the distinction between a general law city and a charter city. I’ve looked it up on the Web, and all I can find is that a general law city must follow the general laws and procedures established by the state while a charter city can follow those dictates if it so chooses or it can make up it’s own path in a city charter. The charter, however, cannot violate state laws, such as Prop 209.
If that is the only distinction, I wonder why any city would ever prefer to be a general law city? Maybe there is some very expensive legal work that needs to be done to make the changeover?
Also, I found that there are 108 charter cities in California, all of varying population sizes. One of them is Alameda, which is about the same size as Davis. If you are interested, this is a link to Alameda’s complete city charter. It doesn’t seem all that different from Davis, though they elect the mayor directly in Alameda, as well as an auditor and treasurer.
I wrote above that it is a big deal for Davis to consider becoming a charter city. In thinking about that, I am not sure that is the case — I just don’t know enough about the distinction between a general law city and a charter city. I’ve looked it up on the Web, and all I can find is that a general law city must follow the general laws and procedures established by the state while a charter city can follow those dictates if it so chooses or it can make up it’s own path in a city charter. The charter, however, cannot violate state laws, such as Prop 209.
If that is the only distinction, I wonder why any city would ever prefer to be a general law city? Maybe there is some very expensive legal work that needs to be done to make the changeover?
Also, I found that there are 108 charter cities in California, all of varying population sizes. One of them is Alameda, which is about the same size as Davis. If you are interested, this is a link to Alameda’s complete city charter. It doesn’t seem all that different from Davis, though they elect the mayor directly in Alameda, as well as an auditor and treasurer.
Rich:
“If that is the only distinction, I wonder why any city would ever prefer to be a general law city? Maybe there is some very expensive legal work that needs to be done to make the changeover?”
Writing the charter is an exhaustive and intensive and at times expensive effort.
Rich:
“If that is the only distinction, I wonder why any city would ever prefer to be a general law city? Maybe there is some very expensive legal work that needs to be done to make the changeover?”
Writing the charter is an exhaustive and intensive and at times expensive effort.
Rich:
“If that is the only distinction, I wonder why any city would ever prefer to be a general law city? Maybe there is some very expensive legal work that needs to be done to make the changeover?”
Writing the charter is an exhaustive and intensive and at times expensive effort.
Rich:
“If that is the only distinction, I wonder why any city would ever prefer to be a general law city? Maybe there is some very expensive legal work that needs to be done to make the changeover?”
Writing the charter is an exhaustive and intensive and at times expensive effort.
My error(wrong letter designation) although I’m happy to give an those in need the opportunity to vent. I was referring to the measure that was passed by the Davis voters directing the city to grow at the slowest possible rate.
My error(wrong letter designation) although I’m happy to give an those in need the opportunity to vent. I was referring to the measure that was passed by the Davis voters directing the city to grow at the slowest possible rate.
My error(wrong letter designation) although I’m happy to give an those in need the opportunity to vent. I was referring to the measure that was passed by the Davis voters directing the city to grow at the slowest possible rate.
My error(wrong letter designation) although I’m happy to give an those in need the opportunity to vent. I was referring to the measure that was passed by the Davis voters directing the city to grow at the slowest possible rate.
“I was referring to the measure that was passed by the Davis voters directing the city to grow at the slowest possible rate.”
I think very slow growth is the preference of most voters in Davis. The Measure X vote suggests, among other things, that. However, I don’t recall Davis voters voting on a measure in which that specifically was the language. I’m not saying we didn’t. I just don’t recall any such public vote.
“I was referring to the measure that was passed by the Davis voters directing the city to grow at the slowest possible rate.”
I think very slow growth is the preference of most voters in Davis. The Measure X vote suggests, among other things, that. However, I don’t recall Davis voters voting on a measure in which that specifically was the language. I’m not saying we didn’t. I just don’t recall any such public vote.
“I was referring to the measure that was passed by the Davis voters directing the city to grow at the slowest possible rate.”
I think very slow growth is the preference of most voters in Davis. The Measure X vote suggests, among other things, that. However, I don’t recall Davis voters voting on a measure in which that specifically was the language. I’m not saying we didn’t. I just don’t recall any such public vote.
“I was referring to the measure that was passed by the Davis voters directing the city to grow at the slowest possible rate.”
I think very slow growth is the preference of most voters in Davis. The Measure X vote suggests, among other things, that. However, I don’t recall Davis voters voting on a measure in which that specifically was the language. I’m not saying we didn’t. I just don’t recall any such public vote.
I think he was referring to Measure J. Although I think his stronger argument is overruling the General Plan designated growth rate and self-imposing a 1 percent growth rate.
I think he was referring to Measure J. Although I think his stronger argument is overruling the General Plan designated growth rate and self-imposing a 1 percent growth rate.
I think he was referring to Measure J. Although I think his stronger argument is overruling the General Plan designated growth rate and self-imposing a 1 percent growth rate.
I think he was referring to Measure J. Although I think his stronger argument is overruling the General Plan designated growth rate and self-imposing a 1 percent growth rate.
Vincente… no, not Measure J. I thought that it was a measure passed by the voters in the 1980s. I cannot recall the letter designation and this wording may have actually been in the General Plan. I’m sure that there is someone out there who remembers this more clearly.
Vincente… no, not Measure J. I thought that it was a measure passed by the voters in the 1980s. I cannot recall the letter designation and this wording may have actually been in the General Plan. I’m sure that there is someone out there who remembers this more clearly.
Vincente… no, not Measure J. I thought that it was a measure passed by the voters in the 1980s. I cannot recall the letter designation and this wording may have actually been in the General Plan. I’m sure that there is someone out there who remembers this more clearly.
Vincente… no, not Measure J. I thought that it was a measure passed by the voters in the 1980s. I cannot recall the letter designation and this wording may have actually been in the General Plan. I’m sure that there is someone out there who remembers this more clearly.
Concerning the confusion over Measure L: There have been, in fact, two Measure L’s. In 1986, Davis voters passed Measure L, an advisory vote which stated that the City should “grow as slow as legally possible”. Our recent Measure L was an advisory vote directing council the consider choice voting.
Concerning the confusion over Measure L: There have been, in fact, two Measure L’s. In 1986, Davis voters passed Measure L, an advisory vote which stated that the City should “grow as slow as legally possible”. Our recent Measure L was an advisory vote directing council the consider choice voting.
Concerning the confusion over Measure L: There have been, in fact, two Measure L’s. In 1986, Davis voters passed Measure L, an advisory vote which stated that the City should “grow as slow as legally possible”. Our recent Measure L was an advisory vote directing council the consider choice voting.
Concerning the confusion over Measure L: There have been, in fact, two Measure L’s. In 1986, Davis voters passed Measure L, an advisory vote which stated that the City should “grow as slow as legally possible”. Our recent Measure L was an advisory vote directing council the consider choice voting.
Looks like Rich was wrong and Davisite was right.
Thank you Mayor Greenwald for your input.
Looks like Rich was wrong and Davisite was right.
Thank you Mayor Greenwald for your input.
Looks like Rich was wrong and Davisite was right.
Thank you Mayor Greenwald for your input.
Looks like Rich was wrong and Davisite was right.
Thank you Mayor Greenwald for your input.
“Looks like Rich was wrong and Davisite was right.”
It would have helped, considering that we just had a Measure L and this council is currently dealing with it, if Davisite had originally said he was referring to a Measure L voted on 21 years ago, at a time when, it happens, I was living in Isla Vista, CA.
“Looks like Rich was wrong and Davisite was right.”
It would have helped, considering that we just had a Measure L and this council is currently dealing with it, if Davisite had originally said he was referring to a Measure L voted on 21 years ago, at a time when, it happens, I was living in Isla Vista, CA.
“Looks like Rich was wrong and Davisite was right.”
It would have helped, considering that we just had a Measure L and this council is currently dealing with it, if Davisite had originally said he was referring to a Measure L voted on 21 years ago, at a time when, it happens, I was living in Isla Vista, CA.
“Looks like Rich was wrong and Davisite was right.”
It would have helped, considering that we just had a Measure L and this council is currently dealing with it, if Davisite had originally said he was referring to a Measure L voted on 21 years ago, at a time when, it happens, I was living in Isla Vista, CA.
“It would have helped…..”
It also would have helped if the poster could restrain his reflex to search out perceived “errors” by extracting individual phrases and words.
“It would have helped…..”
It also would have helped if the poster could restrain his reflex to search out perceived “errors” by extracting individual phrases and words.
“It would have helped…..”
It also would have helped if the poster could restrain his reflex to search out perceived “errors” by extracting individual phrases and words.
“It would have helped…..”
It also would have helped if the poster could restrain his reflex to search out perceived “errors” by extracting individual phrases and words.