This banner was found at the corner of F and 8th Street in front of an apartment complex.
According to the city’s municipal code:
“(1) No sign on residential property including single-family, duplex, multi-family, and apartments shall exceed six (6) square feet.”
As one can see from the scale, the sign easily surpasses the legal size limit allowed by city statute.
Tom Cross, owner of Star-Cross Properties and director of Delta Breeze (apparently) sent out an email to all six of the city council candidates in advance of the expenditure.
The Enterprise on Friday reported on the donors to the Independent Expenditure Committee:
“The other committee, called The Delta Breeze, has raised $1,500 and spent $1,300 on T-shirts and banners, according to the filing. The committee received $100 donations from Rochelle Swanson, Alice Belenis, Jim Belenis, Anthony Eggert, Gregg Herrington, Charlie Swanson, Mike Levy, Fast Aid Franchise Corp ($200), Don Fouts, Tom Cross, Randolph Yackzan, Stephanie Cross, Ted Puntillo and Jay Gerber.”
Two of the more interesting ones are Anthony Eggert, who is the boyfriend of Sydney Vergis and works on her campaign. Last week he stood in for her at a candidate’s debate. Also you have Randy Yackzan, one of the owners of the Northwest Quadrant.
Tom Cross helped spearhead the efforts against the renter’s rights ordinance that was eventually passed in January to enable renters to be able to put up political signs of their choice on their rental units. He was trying to delay implementation of the ordinance until after the February 5, 2008 primary election.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Yawn, so what? The same old suspects supporting the same old candidates.Its not like there is anything new or compelling in this story. Most people already know how they feel about the candidates so this sort of stuff is meaningless. Its not like the day before the election when they put the knife in Harrington’s back but don’t be surprised if that one is coming.
Yawn, so what? The same old suspects supporting the same old candidates.Its not like there is anything new or compelling in this story. Most people already know how they feel about the candidates so this sort of stuff is meaningless. Its not like the day before the election when they put the knife in Harrington’s back but don’t be surprised if that one is coming.
Yawn, so what? The same old suspects supporting the same old candidates.Its not like there is anything new or compelling in this story. Most people already know how they feel about the candidates so this sort of stuff is meaningless. Its not like the day before the election when they put the knife in Harrington’s back but don’t be surprised if that one is coming.
Yawn, so what? The same old suspects supporting the same old candidates.Its not like there is anything new or compelling in this story. Most people already know how they feel about the candidates so this sort of stuff is meaningless. Its not like the day before the election when they put the knife in Harrington’s back but don’t be surprised if that one is coming.
Oh my gosh, a sign that exceeds the size limit? Whatever shall we do? I wonder how this compares in election high jinks to a funded website that is dedicated to promoting Cecilia for city council? The humanity!
Oh my gosh, a sign that exceeds the size limit? Whatever shall we do? I wonder how this compares in election high jinks to a funded website that is dedicated to promoting Cecilia for city council? The humanity!
Oh my gosh, a sign that exceeds the size limit? Whatever shall we do? I wonder how this compares in election high jinks to a funded website that is dedicated to promoting Cecilia for city council? The humanity!
Oh my gosh, a sign that exceeds the size limit? Whatever shall we do? I wonder how this compares in election high jinks to a funded website that is dedicated to promoting Cecilia for city council? The humanity!
The expression on the little girl’s face in the sign photo looks like she is saying, “Eeeew, yuck!” Like she was standing next to something giant, smelly and gross.
I don’t blame her.
The expression on the little girl’s face in the sign photo looks like she is saying, “Eeeew, yuck!” Like she was standing next to something giant, smelly and gross.
I don’t blame her.
The expression on the little girl’s face in the sign photo looks like she is saying, “Eeeew, yuck!” Like she was standing next to something giant, smelly and gross.
I don’t blame her.
The expression on the little girl’s face in the sign photo looks like she is saying, “Eeeew, yuck!” Like she was standing next to something giant, smelly and gross.
I don’t blame her.
To regular Vanguard poster Matt Williams: I wonder if you are still so enthusiastic about reelecting Souza.
To regular Vanguard poster Matt Williams: I wonder if you are still so enthusiastic about reelecting Souza.
To regular Vanguard poster Matt Williams: I wonder if you are still so enthusiastic about reelecting Souza.
To regular Vanguard poster Matt Williams: I wonder if you are still so enthusiastic about reelecting Souza.
Don’t forget the copyright infringement upon DC Comics’ trademarked Superman logo.
Don’t forget the copyright infringement upon DC Comics’ trademarked Superman logo.
Don’t forget the copyright infringement upon DC Comics’ trademarked Superman logo.
Don’t forget the copyright infringement upon DC Comics’ trademarked Superman logo.
…..reminds me of the political foolishness of godfather Whitcombe and his “family” singing, “We shall overcome” right before their trouncing in the Measure X campaign.
…..reminds me of the political foolishness of godfather Whitcombe and his “family” singing, “We shall overcome” right before their trouncing in the Measure X campaign.
…..reminds me of the political foolishness of godfather Whitcombe and his “family” singing, “We shall overcome” right before their trouncing in the Measure X campaign.
…..reminds me of the political foolishness of godfather Whitcombe and his “family” singing, “We shall overcome” right before their trouncing in the Measure X campaign.
“Rob Roy said…
Don’t forget the copyright infringement upon DC Comics’ trademarked Superman logo.”
Good point, Rob. As an attorney, I find this reprehensible on the part of City Council members, who should know better. Tsk, Tsk.
What the sign should tell you is SSS – Saylor, Souza and Sidney – are on the same trajectory, i.e. pro-development. Their actions with this sign speak louder than words. It also tells the public what the three think of voters – not much. These three will approve Covell Village yet again – which is not in line with the will of the people. It seems pretty clear to me that SSS stands for “me, myself and I”!
“Rob Roy said…
Don’t forget the copyright infringement upon DC Comics’ trademarked Superman logo.”
Good point, Rob. As an attorney, I find this reprehensible on the part of City Council members, who should know better. Tsk, Tsk.
What the sign should tell you is SSS – Saylor, Souza and Sidney – are on the same trajectory, i.e. pro-development. Their actions with this sign speak louder than words. It also tells the public what the three think of voters – not much. These three will approve Covell Village yet again – which is not in line with the will of the people. It seems pretty clear to me that SSS stands for “me, myself and I”!
“Rob Roy said…
Don’t forget the copyright infringement upon DC Comics’ trademarked Superman logo.”
Good point, Rob. As an attorney, I find this reprehensible on the part of City Council members, who should know better. Tsk, Tsk.
What the sign should tell you is SSS – Saylor, Souza and Sidney – are on the same trajectory, i.e. pro-development. Their actions with this sign speak louder than words. It also tells the public what the three think of voters – not much. These three will approve Covell Village yet again – which is not in line with the will of the people. It seems pretty clear to me that SSS stands for “me, myself and I”!
“Rob Roy said…
Don’t forget the copyright infringement upon DC Comics’ trademarked Superman logo.”
Good point, Rob. As an attorney, I find this reprehensible on the part of City Council members, who should know better. Tsk, Tsk.
What the sign should tell you is SSS – Saylor, Souza and Sidney – are on the same trajectory, i.e. pro-development. Their actions with this sign speak louder than words. It also tells the public what the three think of voters – not much. These three will approve Covell Village yet again – which is not in line with the will of the people. It seems pretty clear to me that SSS stands for “me, myself and I”!
speaking of the apartment window rule change, what campaign signs have people seen in apartment porches or windows?
speaking of the apartment window rule change, what campaign signs have people seen in apartment porches or windows?
speaking of the apartment window rule change, what campaign signs have people seen in apartment porches or windows?
speaking of the apartment window rule change, what campaign signs have people seen in apartment porches or windows?
“As an attorney, I find this reprehensible on the part of City Council members, who should know better…”
The above statement should come as no surprise to those who have followed the public record of the current Council Majority. Souza and Saylor’s record in office reveals arrogance, contempt for the voters as well as outright a breach of the public trust during the Covell Village Measure X campaign.
“As an attorney, I find this reprehensible on the part of City Council members, who should know better…”
The above statement should come as no surprise to those who have followed the public record of the current Council Majority. Souza and Saylor’s record in office reveals arrogance, contempt for the voters as well as outright a breach of the public trust during the Covell Village Measure X campaign.
“As an attorney, I find this reprehensible on the part of City Council members, who should know better…”
The above statement should come as no surprise to those who have followed the public record of the current Council Majority. Souza and Saylor’s record in office reveals arrogance, contempt for the voters as well as outright a breach of the public trust during the Covell Village Measure X campaign.
“As an attorney, I find this reprehensible on the part of City Council members, who should know better…”
The above statement should come as no surprise to those who have followed the public record of the current Council Majority. Souza and Saylor’s record in office reveals arrogance, contempt for the voters as well as outright a breach of the public trust during the Covell Village Measure X campaign.
The most serious violation may be the donation to Delta Breeze by Mr. Eggert. That strikes me as tantamount to coordination between the Vergis campaign and the sign maker.
The most serious violation may be the donation to Delta Breeze by Mr. Eggert. That strikes me as tantamount to coordination between the Vergis campaign and the sign maker.
The most serious violation may be the donation to Delta Breeze by Mr. Eggert. That strikes me as tantamount to coordination between the Vergis campaign and the sign maker.
The most serious violation may be the donation to Delta Breeze by Mr. Eggert. That strikes me as tantamount to coordination between the Vergis campaign and the sign maker.
“Don’t forget the copyright infringement upon DC Comics’ trademarked Superman logo.”
Rob, I believe they are instead infringing on Shaquille O’Neal’s trademarked tattoo.
FWIW, I never knew we had a 6 sq. feet limitation on signs. That explains why everyone buys those 2′ x 3′ jobs. I suppose the idea is that we don’t want to have signs so large that they are a hazzard or they impinge on a neighbor’s enjoyment of his property. That said, I wouldn’t oppose larger signs — say 3′ x 4′ — being allowed, as long as they don’t cause some kind of a hazzard.
“Don’t forget the copyright infringement upon DC Comics’ trademarked Superman logo.”
Rob, I believe they are instead infringing on Shaquille O’Neal’s trademarked tattoo.
FWIW, I never knew we had a 6 sq. feet limitation on signs. That explains why everyone buys those 2′ x 3′ jobs. I suppose the idea is that we don’t want to have signs so large that they are a hazzard or they impinge on a neighbor’s enjoyment of his property. That said, I wouldn’t oppose larger signs — say 3′ x 4′ — being allowed, as long as they don’t cause some kind of a hazzard.
“Don’t forget the copyright infringement upon DC Comics’ trademarked Superman logo.”
Rob, I believe they are instead infringing on Shaquille O’Neal’s trademarked tattoo.
FWIW, I never knew we had a 6 sq. feet limitation on signs. That explains why everyone buys those 2′ x 3′ jobs. I suppose the idea is that we don’t want to have signs so large that they are a hazzard or they impinge on a neighbor’s enjoyment of his property. That said, I wouldn’t oppose larger signs — say 3′ x 4′ — being allowed, as long as they don’t cause some kind of a hazzard.
“Don’t forget the copyright infringement upon DC Comics’ trademarked Superman logo.”
Rob, I believe they are instead infringing on Shaquille O’Neal’s trademarked tattoo.
FWIW, I never knew we had a 6 sq. feet limitation on signs. That explains why everyone buys those 2′ x 3′ jobs. I suppose the idea is that we don’t want to have signs so large that they are a hazzard or they impinge on a neighbor’s enjoyment of his property. That said, I wouldn’t oppose larger signs — say 3′ x 4′ — being allowed, as long as they don’t cause some kind of a hazzard.
I completely agree with Davisite.
Souza and Saylor only care about themselves and their kickbacks.
And Sidney is along for the same ride.
Rob Roy
I was thinking the same thing.
Rich Rifkin
Just because Shaquille O’Neal ripped off the Superman logo, doesn’t make it right. Give us all a break.
This is good reporting on DPD in that it brings attention to how low all of these so called community leaders will go. If one is a major property owner, they by default are community leader, just like a city council member.
Shame on them.
Keep Davis Boring.
I completely agree with Davisite.
Souza and Saylor only care about themselves and their kickbacks.
And Sidney is along for the same ride.
Rob Roy
I was thinking the same thing.
Rich Rifkin
Just because Shaquille O’Neal ripped off the Superman logo, doesn’t make it right. Give us all a break.
This is good reporting on DPD in that it brings attention to how low all of these so called community leaders will go. If one is a major property owner, they by default are community leader, just like a city council member.
Shame on them.
Keep Davis Boring.
I completely agree with Davisite.
Souza and Saylor only care about themselves and their kickbacks.
And Sidney is along for the same ride.
Rob Roy
I was thinking the same thing.
Rich Rifkin
Just because Shaquille O’Neal ripped off the Superman logo, doesn’t make it right. Give us all a break.
This is good reporting on DPD in that it brings attention to how low all of these so called community leaders will go. If one is a major property owner, they by default are community leader, just like a city council member.
Shame on them.
Keep Davis Boring.
I completely agree with Davisite.
Souza and Saylor only care about themselves and their kickbacks.
And Sidney is along for the same ride.
Rob Roy
I was thinking the same thing.
Rich Rifkin
Just because Shaquille O’Neal ripped off the Superman logo, doesn’t make it right. Give us all a break.
This is good reporting on DPD in that it brings attention to how low all of these so called community leaders will go. If one is a major property owner, they by default are community leader, just like a city council member.
Shame on them.
Keep Davis Boring.
What about the fact that landlord Tom Cross, who appears to be the front man for this operation, appeared before the council on behalf of apartment landlords to ask that the ordinance allowing tenants the basic freedom of speech right to post political lawn signs at their homes be postponed so that the “landlords’ point of view” could be heard?
Postponing the ordinance means that the ordinance would not have been in place to protect tenants during the election that was approaching.
Is there any way to let tenants know who these people are, and what they stand for?
What about the fact that landlord Tom Cross, who appears to be the front man for this operation, appeared before the council on behalf of apartment landlords to ask that the ordinance allowing tenants the basic freedom of speech right to post political lawn signs at their homes be postponed so that the “landlords’ point of view” could be heard?
Postponing the ordinance means that the ordinance would not have been in place to protect tenants during the election that was approaching.
Is there any way to let tenants know who these people are, and what they stand for?
What about the fact that landlord Tom Cross, who appears to be the front man for this operation, appeared before the council on behalf of apartment landlords to ask that the ordinance allowing tenants the basic freedom of speech right to post political lawn signs at their homes be postponed so that the “landlords’ point of view” could be heard?
Postponing the ordinance means that the ordinance would not have been in place to protect tenants during the election that was approaching.
Is there any way to let tenants know who these people are, and what they stand for?
What about the fact that landlord Tom Cross, who appears to be the front man for this operation, appeared before the council on behalf of apartment landlords to ask that the ordinance allowing tenants the basic freedom of speech right to post political lawn signs at their homes be postponed so that the “landlords’ point of view” could be heard?
Postponing the ordinance means that the ordinance would not have been in place to protect tenants during the election that was approaching.
Is there any way to let tenants know who these people are, and what they stand for?
Who is supposed to enforce this municipal code section, and why aren’t they doing so?
Who is supposed to enforce this municipal code section, and why aren’t they doing so?
Who is supposed to enforce this municipal code section, and why aren’t they doing so?
Who is supposed to enforce this municipal code section, and why aren’t they doing so?
Robin – The city is suppose to enforce the municipal code. However when you call the city clerks office the seem a bit confused as to who the enforcer is. I suppose they do this to play ignorant so that by the time it really is addressed the election will be over.
They set the rules for purposes of grandstanding, but then don’t follow them.
I have even seen signs on right of ways.
Robin – The city is suppose to enforce the municipal code. However when you call the city clerks office the seem a bit confused as to who the enforcer is. I suppose they do this to play ignorant so that by the time it really is addressed the election will be over.
They set the rules for purposes of grandstanding, but then don’t follow them.
I have even seen signs on right of ways.
Robin – The city is suppose to enforce the municipal code. However when you call the city clerks office the seem a bit confused as to who the enforcer is. I suppose they do this to play ignorant so that by the time it really is addressed the election will be over.
They set the rules for purposes of grandstanding, but then don’t follow them.
I have even seen signs on right of ways.
Robin – The city is suppose to enforce the municipal code. However when you call the city clerks office the seem a bit confused as to who the enforcer is. I suppose they do this to play ignorant so that by the time it really is addressed the election will be over.
They set the rules for purposes of grandstanding, but then don’t follow them.
I have even seen signs on right of ways.
City code: “Chapter 12 ELECTIONS
12.01.120 Political campaign signs.
(2) No sign on commercial or industrial property shall exceed eighteen (18) square feet per street frontage.”
Presuming this property qualifies as commercial, it looks like it’s ok by the code. My eyeball of the sign suggests it is less than this.
City code: “Chapter 12 ELECTIONS
12.01.120 Political campaign signs.
(2) No sign on commercial or industrial property shall exceed eighteen (18) square feet per street frontage.”
Presuming this property qualifies as commercial, it looks like it’s ok by the code. My eyeball of the sign suggests it is less than this.
City code: “Chapter 12 ELECTIONS
12.01.120 Political campaign signs.
(2) No sign on commercial or industrial property shall exceed eighteen (18) square feet per street frontage.”
Presuming this property qualifies as commercial, it looks like it’s ok by the code. My eyeball of the sign suggests it is less than this.
City code: “Chapter 12 ELECTIONS
12.01.120 Political campaign signs.
(2) No sign on commercial or industrial property shall exceed eighteen (18) square feet per street frontage.”
Presuming this property qualifies as commercial, it looks like it’s ok by the code. My eyeball of the sign suggests it is less than this.
Except for the fact that apartments are specifically mentioned in the first part of the code. Therefore it is in violation.
Except for the fact that apartments are specifically mentioned in the first part of the code. Therefore it is in violation.
Except for the fact that apartments are specifically mentioned in the first part of the code. Therefore it is in violation.
Except for the fact that apartments are specifically mentioned in the first part of the code. Therefore it is in violation.
curious said…
To regular Vanguard poster Matt Williams: I wonder if you are still so enthusiastic about reelecting Souza.
Since you asked, the simple answer is “yes.” The “dark side” has fewer options for a third candidate to vote for than the “progressives” do. After Saylor and Sydney they have four candidates who have come out publicly and often in support of renewing Measure J “as is.”
What would you want them to do? Publicly endorse only Saylor and Sydney? That would be incredibly stupid on their part . . . more than incredibly stupid.
On the other hand, the progressives can vote for Rob Roy rather than Souza. Some will. Some won’t. That is democracy at work.
curious said…
To regular Vanguard poster Matt Williams: I wonder if you are still so enthusiastic about reelecting Souza.
Since you asked, the simple answer is “yes.” The “dark side” has fewer options for a third candidate to vote for than the “progressives” do. After Saylor and Sydney they have four candidates who have come out publicly and often in support of renewing Measure J “as is.”
What would you want them to do? Publicly endorse only Saylor and Sydney? That would be incredibly stupid on their part . . . more than incredibly stupid.
On the other hand, the progressives can vote for Rob Roy rather than Souza. Some will. Some won’t. That is democracy at work.
curious said…
To regular Vanguard poster Matt Williams: I wonder if you are still so enthusiastic about reelecting Souza.
Since you asked, the simple answer is “yes.” The “dark side” has fewer options for a third candidate to vote for than the “progressives” do. After Saylor and Sydney they have four candidates who have come out publicly and often in support of renewing Measure J “as is.”
What would you want them to do? Publicly endorse only Saylor and Sydney? That would be incredibly stupid on their part . . . more than incredibly stupid.
On the other hand, the progressives can vote for Rob Roy rather than Souza. Some will. Some won’t. That is democracy at work.
curious said…
To regular Vanguard poster Matt Williams: I wonder if you are still so enthusiastic about reelecting Souza.
Since you asked, the simple answer is “yes.” The “dark side” has fewer options for a third candidate to vote for than the “progressives” do. After Saylor and Sydney they have four candidates who have come out publicly and often in support of renewing Measure J “as is.”
What would you want them to do? Publicly endorse only Saylor and Sydney? That would be incredibly stupid on their part . . . more than incredibly stupid.
On the other hand, the progressives can vote for Rob Roy rather than Souza. Some will. Some won’t. That is democracy at work.
Say, how about this for a slogan:
SUPERSIZE DAVIS: VOTE FOR THE SUPER THREE! or not. . . . .
Say, how about this for a slogan:
SUPERSIZE DAVIS: VOTE FOR THE SUPER THREE! or not. . . . .
Say, how about this for a slogan:
SUPERSIZE DAVIS: VOTE FOR THE SUPER THREE! or not. . . . .
Say, how about this for a slogan:
SUPERSIZE DAVIS: VOTE FOR THE SUPER THREE! or not. . . . .
This has got to be a string of the most egregiously stupid posts I have ever read. Congratulations! You have reached a new low!
This has got to be a string of the most egregiously stupid posts I have ever read. Congratulations! You have reached a new low!
This has got to be a string of the most egregiously stupid posts I have ever read. Congratulations! You have reached a new low!
This has got to be a string of the most egregiously stupid posts I have ever read. Congratulations! You have reached a new low!
Click on this if you want to read to municipal code in question:
12.01.120 Political campaign signs.
(a) Allowable size for political campaign signs:
(1) No sign on residential property including single-family, duplex, multi-family, and apartments shall exceed six (6) square feet.
(2) No sign on commercial or industrial property shall exceed eighteen (18) square feet per street frontage.
The ordinance, whether sensible or not, is clear: that sign, at an apartment complex, violates the code. (By the way, to the guy with no sense of humor, I was kidding about the Shaq thing.)
Click on this if you want to read to municipal code in question:
12.01.120 Political campaign signs.
(a) Allowable size for political campaign signs:
(1) No sign on residential property including single-family, duplex, multi-family, and apartments shall exceed six (6) square feet.
(2) No sign on commercial or industrial property shall exceed eighteen (18) square feet per street frontage.
The ordinance, whether sensible or not, is clear: that sign, at an apartment complex, violates the code. (By the way, to the guy with no sense of humor, I was kidding about the Shaq thing.)
Click on this if you want to read to municipal code in question:
12.01.120 Political campaign signs.
(a) Allowable size for political campaign signs:
(1) No sign on residential property including single-family, duplex, multi-family, and apartments shall exceed six (6) square feet.
(2) No sign on commercial or industrial property shall exceed eighteen (18) square feet per street frontage.
The ordinance, whether sensible or not, is clear: that sign, at an apartment complex, violates the code. (By the way, to the guy with no sense of humor, I was kidding about the Shaq thing.)
Click on this if you want to read to municipal code in question:
12.01.120 Political campaign signs.
(a) Allowable size for political campaign signs:
(1) No sign on residential property including single-family, duplex, multi-family, and apartments shall exceed six (6) square feet.
(2) No sign on commercial or industrial property shall exceed eighteen (18) square feet per street frontage.
The ordinance, whether sensible or not, is clear: that sign, at an apartment complex, violates the code. (By the way, to the guy with no sense of humor, I was kidding about the Shaq thing.)
Does no one realize the hypocrisy that this blog acts as one giant well-funded and well-coordinated advertisement for DPD’s wife Cecilia’s campaign?
Does no one realize the hypocrisy that this blog acts as one giant well-funded and well-coordinated advertisement for DPD’s wife Cecilia’s campaign?
Does no one realize the hypocrisy that this blog acts as one giant well-funded and well-coordinated advertisement for DPD’s wife Cecilia’s campaign?
Does no one realize the hypocrisy that this blog acts as one giant well-funded and well-coordinated advertisement for DPD’s wife Cecilia’s campaign?
Anonymous,
Does no one realize that:
*The Enterprise is one big PR machine for developers and status quo
*Asmundson, Saylor, Souza (a.s.s.) created their “never been involved” candidate in attempts to take away votes from Sue and Cecilia
*Tom Cross is a Whitcombe wannabe who supported Measure X and sprawl development
* The supposed “no paper” candidate that Souza and Saylor tried to create has paper. “No paper” is a way to appear more green.
* I was buying some squash and onions at farmer’s market this past Saturday and saw the “no paper” candidate in a very big, white, gas guzzling SUV. She was having a hard time doing a three point turn. Not so green. Maybe it was her boyfriend’s truck. Ruth was with her too when she tabled and handed out paper.
It’s insulting. It’s time for a new council majority of true Progressives that are for slow growth.
Anonymous,
Does no one realize that:
*The Enterprise is one big PR machine for developers and status quo
*Asmundson, Saylor, Souza (a.s.s.) created their “never been involved” candidate in attempts to take away votes from Sue and Cecilia
*Tom Cross is a Whitcombe wannabe who supported Measure X and sprawl development
* The supposed “no paper” candidate that Souza and Saylor tried to create has paper. “No paper” is a way to appear more green.
* I was buying some squash and onions at farmer’s market this past Saturday and saw the “no paper” candidate in a very big, white, gas guzzling SUV. She was having a hard time doing a three point turn. Not so green. Maybe it was her boyfriend’s truck. Ruth was with her too when she tabled and handed out paper.
It’s insulting. It’s time for a new council majority of true Progressives that are for slow growth.
Anonymous,
Does no one realize that:
*The Enterprise is one big PR machine for developers and status quo
*Asmundson, Saylor, Souza (a.s.s.) created their “never been involved” candidate in attempts to take away votes from Sue and Cecilia
*Tom Cross is a Whitcombe wannabe who supported Measure X and sprawl development
* The supposed “no paper” candidate that Souza and Saylor tried to create has paper. “No paper” is a way to appear more green.
* I was buying some squash and onions at farmer’s market this past Saturday and saw the “no paper” candidate in a very big, white, gas guzzling SUV. She was having a hard time doing a three point turn. Not so green. Maybe it was her boyfriend’s truck. Ruth was with her too when she tabled and handed out paper.
It’s insulting. It’s time for a new council majority of true Progressives that are for slow growth.
Anonymous,
Does no one realize that:
*The Enterprise is one big PR machine for developers and status quo
*Asmundson, Saylor, Souza (a.s.s.) created their “never been involved” candidate in attempts to take away votes from Sue and Cecilia
*Tom Cross is a Whitcombe wannabe who supported Measure X and sprawl development
* The supposed “no paper” candidate that Souza and Saylor tried to create has paper. “No paper” is a way to appear more green.
* I was buying some squash and onions at farmer’s market this past Saturday and saw the “no paper” candidate in a very big, white, gas guzzling SUV. She was having a hard time doing a three point turn. Not so green. Maybe it was her boyfriend’s truck. Ruth was with her too when she tabled and handed out paper.
It’s insulting. It’s time for a new council majority of true Progressives that are for slow growth.
SLOW: “It’s insulting. It’s time for a new council majority of true Progressives that are for slow growth.”
You do know we have not grown at all in about 6 years. And that, given the real estate market, there is little prospect for any growth for the next few years. As such, “too much growth” ought not be your biggest concern in this election.
SLOW: “It’s insulting. It’s time for a new council majority of true Progressives that are for slow growth.”
You do know we have not grown at all in about 6 years. And that, given the real estate market, there is little prospect for any growth for the next few years. As such, “too much growth” ought not be your biggest concern in this election.
SLOW: “It’s insulting. It’s time for a new council majority of true Progressives that are for slow growth.”
You do know we have not grown at all in about 6 years. And that, given the real estate market, there is little prospect for any growth for the next few years. As such, “too much growth” ought not be your biggest concern in this election.
SLOW: “It’s insulting. It’s time for a new council majority of true Progressives that are for slow growth.”
You do know we have not grown at all in about 6 years. And that, given the real estate market, there is little prospect for any growth for the next few years. As such, “too much growth” ought not be your biggest concern in this election.
DPD,
Why don’t go back and read your piece on the Booting of cabaldon’s vehicle. No question, your are definitely a hypocrite.
What a stupid thing to whine about.
DPD,
Why don’t go back and read your piece on the Booting of cabaldon’s vehicle. No question, your are definitely a hypocrite.
What a stupid thing to whine about.
DPD,
Why don’t go back and read your piece on the Booting of cabaldon’s vehicle. No question, your are definitely a hypocrite.
What a stupid thing to whine about.
DPD,
Why don’t go back and read your piece on the Booting of cabaldon’s vehicle. No question, your are definitely a hypocrite.
What a stupid thing to whine about.
How did all of those Cecilia, Sue, and Jim signs get put up all at once in East Davis, especially along Pole Line? Seems like some special interest backing must have been coordinating, because they all appeared at the same time.
How did all of those Cecilia, Sue, and Jim signs get put up all at once in East Davis, especially along Pole Line? Seems like some special interest backing must have been coordinating, because they all appeared at the same time.
How did all of those Cecilia, Sue, and Jim signs get put up all at once in East Davis, especially along Pole Line? Seems like some special interest backing must have been coordinating, because they all appeared at the same time.
How did all of those Cecilia, Sue, and Jim signs get put up all at once in East Davis, especially along Pole Line? Seems like some special interest backing must have been coordinating, because they all appeared at the same time.
5:15 : One is a very clear violation of an election law that would give one side a potential electoral advantage, the other is a personal matter that had nothing to do with the campaign.
5:21 : A volunteer walked the entire street asking if they could put up signs, once they got an answer, they put up all the signs in the same night so they all went up at once.
5:15 : One is a very clear violation of an election law that would give one side a potential electoral advantage, the other is a personal matter that had nothing to do with the campaign.
5:21 : A volunteer walked the entire street asking if they could put up signs, once they got an answer, they put up all the signs in the same night so they all went up at once.
5:15 : One is a very clear violation of an election law that would give one side a potential electoral advantage, the other is a personal matter that had nothing to do with the campaign.
5:21 : A volunteer walked the entire street asking if they could put up signs, once they got an answer, they put up all the signs in the same night so they all went up at once.
5:15 : One is a very clear violation of an election law that would give one side a potential electoral advantage, the other is a personal matter that had nothing to do with the campaign.
5:21 : A volunteer walked the entire street asking if they could put up signs, once they got an answer, they put up all the signs in the same night so they all went up at once.
Rich Rifkin (at 5:03pm) somewhat under-estimates population growth in the city: from 2002 to 2008 Davis added 3.97% (+2514) which is about half of the state’s +8% growth rated. Were the fastest growing “slow-growth” community, no? Growth control is certainly still an issue since the California housing market and our local housing market can turn around rapidly.
To add more on the SuperSized sign (it is 70 by 34 or about 6 by 3 feet) at 8th and F: the sponsorship of this sign by The Delta Breeze with its contribution by the Sydney Vergis boyfriend reminds me of the unintended message in yesterday’s Enterprise (page 3) advertisement for Sydney Vergis. The ad headline says “SYDNEY VERGIS IS READY TO LEAD” but then the photograph shows Sydney riding the back seat of the bicycle with boyfriend Anthony Eggert doing the driving/leading/steering. A metaphor, no? The guys (Don and Steve) lead the ticket and Sydney tags along with Ruth’s assistance (Asmundsons are the Vergis campaign treasurer, assistant treasurer, and home address at 545 Miller).
Sniping, above, by Dennis
Rich Rifkin (at 5:03pm) somewhat under-estimates population growth in the city: from 2002 to 2008 Davis added 3.97% (+2514) which is about half of the state’s +8% growth rated. Were the fastest growing “slow-growth” community, no? Growth control is certainly still an issue since the California housing market and our local housing market can turn around rapidly.
To add more on the SuperSized sign (it is 70 by 34 or about 6 by 3 feet) at 8th and F: the sponsorship of this sign by The Delta Breeze with its contribution by the Sydney Vergis boyfriend reminds me of the unintended message in yesterday’s Enterprise (page 3) advertisement for Sydney Vergis. The ad headline says “SYDNEY VERGIS IS READY TO LEAD” but then the photograph shows Sydney riding the back seat of the bicycle with boyfriend Anthony Eggert doing the driving/leading/steering. A metaphor, no? The guys (Don and Steve) lead the ticket and Sydney tags along with Ruth’s assistance (Asmundsons are the Vergis campaign treasurer, assistant treasurer, and home address at 545 Miller).
Sniping, above, by Dennis
Rich Rifkin (at 5:03pm) somewhat under-estimates population growth in the city: from 2002 to 2008 Davis added 3.97% (+2514) which is about half of the state’s +8% growth rated. Were the fastest growing “slow-growth” community, no? Growth control is certainly still an issue since the California housing market and our local housing market can turn around rapidly.
To add more on the SuperSized sign (it is 70 by 34 or about 6 by 3 feet) at 8th and F: the sponsorship of this sign by The Delta Breeze with its contribution by the Sydney Vergis boyfriend reminds me of the unintended message in yesterday’s Enterprise (page 3) advertisement for Sydney Vergis. The ad headline says “SYDNEY VERGIS IS READY TO LEAD” but then the photograph shows Sydney riding the back seat of the bicycle with boyfriend Anthony Eggert doing the driving/leading/steering. A metaphor, no? The guys (Don and Steve) lead the ticket and Sydney tags along with Ruth’s assistance (Asmundsons are the Vergis campaign treasurer, assistant treasurer, and home address at 545 Miller).
Sniping, above, by Dennis
Rich Rifkin (at 5:03pm) somewhat under-estimates population growth in the city: from 2002 to 2008 Davis added 3.97% (+2514) which is about half of the state’s +8% growth rated. Were the fastest growing “slow-growth” community, no? Growth control is certainly still an issue since the California housing market and our local housing market can turn around rapidly.
To add more on the SuperSized sign (it is 70 by 34 or about 6 by 3 feet) at 8th and F: the sponsorship of this sign by The Delta Breeze with its contribution by the Sydney Vergis boyfriend reminds me of the unintended message in yesterday’s Enterprise (page 3) advertisement for Sydney Vergis. The ad headline says “SYDNEY VERGIS IS READY TO LEAD” but then the photograph shows Sydney riding the back seat of the bicycle with boyfriend Anthony Eggert doing the driving/leading/steering. A metaphor, no? The guys (Don and Steve) lead the ticket and Sydney tags along with Ruth’s assistance (Asmundsons are the Vergis campaign treasurer, assistant treasurer, and home address at 545 Miller).
Sniping, above, by Dennis
“Rich Rifkin (at 5:03pm) somewhat under-estimates population growth in the city: from 2002 to 2008 Davis added 3.97% (+2514) which is about half of the state’s +8% growth rated.”
I’m happy to be proved wrong if I am wrong. However, it is my understanding that over the last 3 years, our town’s population has declined slightly, because we have added so little housing and attracted more retirees and fewer families with children.
If you then consider these numbers, which I found on this website, you see where I reached my conclusion:
2002 62,126
2003 62,342
2004 62,051
2005 60,709
2006 ???
2007 ???
2008 ???
According to that citydata website, their numbers come from the census.
“Rich Rifkin (at 5:03pm) somewhat under-estimates population growth in the city: from 2002 to 2008 Davis added 3.97% (+2514) which is about half of the state’s +8% growth rated.”
I’m happy to be proved wrong if I am wrong. However, it is my understanding that over the last 3 years, our town’s population has declined slightly, because we have added so little housing and attracted more retirees and fewer families with children.
If you then consider these numbers, which I found on this website, you see where I reached my conclusion:
2002 62,126
2003 62,342
2004 62,051
2005 60,709
2006 ???
2007 ???
2008 ???
According to that citydata website, their numbers come from the census.
“Rich Rifkin (at 5:03pm) somewhat under-estimates population growth in the city: from 2002 to 2008 Davis added 3.97% (+2514) which is about half of the state’s +8% growth rated.”
I’m happy to be proved wrong if I am wrong. However, it is my understanding that over the last 3 years, our town’s population has declined slightly, because we have added so little housing and attracted more retirees and fewer families with children.
If you then consider these numbers, which I found on this website, you see where I reached my conclusion:
2002 62,126
2003 62,342
2004 62,051
2005 60,709
2006 ???
2007 ???
2008 ???
According to that citydata website, their numbers come from the census.
“Rich Rifkin (at 5:03pm) somewhat under-estimates population growth in the city: from 2002 to 2008 Davis added 3.97% (+2514) which is about half of the state’s +8% growth rated.”
I’m happy to be proved wrong if I am wrong. However, it is my understanding that over the last 3 years, our town’s population has declined slightly, because we have added so little housing and attracted more retirees and fewer families with children.
If you then consider these numbers, which I found on this website, you see where I reached my conclusion:
2002 62,126
2003 62,342
2004 62,051
2005 60,709
2006 ???
2007 ???
2008 ???
According to that citydata website, their numbers come from the census.
Matt: your suggestion that we vote for Souza offers the very real possibiity that he will “knock off” either Sue or Cecilia when you add the votes of The Force to the votes that Souza automatically gets from The Dark Side. He has been running for Mayor Pro Tem for some time now(he has blustered,in private to other council members that he WILL be our next mayor pro tem). You CLEARLY then prefer Souza to Sue or Cecilia and have bought his new political song and dance.
Matt: your suggestion that we vote for Souza offers the very real possibiity that he will “knock off” either Sue or Cecilia when you add the votes of The Force to the votes that Souza automatically gets from The Dark Side. He has been running for Mayor Pro Tem for some time now(he has blustered,in private to other council members that he WILL be our next mayor pro tem). You CLEARLY then prefer Souza to Sue or Cecilia and have bought his new political song and dance.
Matt: your suggestion that we vote for Souza offers the very real possibiity that he will “knock off” either Sue or Cecilia when you add the votes of The Force to the votes that Souza automatically gets from The Dark Side. He has been running for Mayor Pro Tem for some time now(he has blustered,in private to other council members that he WILL be our next mayor pro tem). You CLEARLY then prefer Souza to Sue or Cecilia and have bought his new political song and dance.
Matt: your suggestion that we vote for Souza offers the very real possibiity that he will “knock off” either Sue or Cecilia when you add the votes of The Force to the votes that Souza automatically gets from The Dark Side. He has been running for Mayor Pro Tem for some time now(he has blustered,in private to other council members that he WILL be our next mayor pro tem). You CLEARLY then prefer Souza to Sue or Cecilia and have bought his new political song and dance.
Curious, I am very much for Sue and Cecilia. I was walking South Davis with Cecilia this weekend, and will be working for their election actively between now and Election Day. The difference between my approach and yours is that you are “playing not to lose” while I am “playing to win.” Anyone who has watched an NFL football team go into a “prevent” defense toward the end of a game knows that the “prevent” defense more often than not prevents winning rather than delivering a win.
Regarding Souza’s “song and dance” I openly admit that I don’t have the negative history with Souza that people who were active in the Measure X campaign have. My first interaction with Souza was in March last year when he brought information to me in my Sutter Davis hospital room regarding the Vineyards @ El Macero development. I was a nobody at that time (still am), but he still went out of his way to bring the material to me that I had asked about. That definitely wasn’t a pro-development move on his part. It was a pro-democracy move.
I don’t always agree with him, but I also know that he is very willing to engage the voters in discussion of the issues. I believe he has “seen the light” regarding Measure J. He has looked me in the eye and stated his position directly and unequivocally. Contrast that to Don Saylor’s and Sydney Vergis’ desire to change Measure J’s wording. One of Saylor’s comments about the 1% Guideline was, “If there is no evidence that it is broken, and I see no such evidence, then why fix it?” IMHO, Saylor should apply the same criteria to measure J … Souza already has. Therefore he gets my support.
Curious, I am very much for Sue and Cecilia. I was walking South Davis with Cecilia this weekend, and will be working for their election actively between now and Election Day. The difference between my approach and yours is that you are “playing not to lose” while I am “playing to win.” Anyone who has watched an NFL football team go into a “prevent” defense toward the end of a game knows that the “prevent” defense more often than not prevents winning rather than delivering a win.
Regarding Souza’s “song and dance” I openly admit that I don’t have the negative history with Souza that people who were active in the Measure X campaign have. My first interaction with Souza was in March last year when he brought information to me in my Sutter Davis hospital room regarding the Vineyards @ El Macero development. I was a nobody at that time (still am), but he still went out of his way to bring the material to me that I had asked about. That definitely wasn’t a pro-development move on his part. It was a pro-democracy move.
I don’t always agree with him, but I also know that he is very willing to engage the voters in discussion of the issues. I believe he has “seen the light” regarding Measure J. He has looked me in the eye and stated his position directly and unequivocally. Contrast that to Don Saylor’s and Sydney Vergis’ desire to change Measure J’s wording. One of Saylor’s comments about the 1% Guideline was, “If there is no evidence that it is broken, and I see no such evidence, then why fix it?” IMHO, Saylor should apply the same criteria to measure J … Souza already has. Therefore he gets my support.
Curious, I am very much for Sue and Cecilia. I was walking South Davis with Cecilia this weekend, and will be working for their election actively between now and Election Day. The difference between my approach and yours is that you are “playing not to lose” while I am “playing to win.” Anyone who has watched an NFL football team go into a “prevent” defense toward the end of a game knows that the “prevent” defense more often than not prevents winning rather than delivering a win.
Regarding Souza’s “song and dance” I openly admit that I don’t have the negative history with Souza that people who were active in the Measure X campaign have. My first interaction with Souza was in March last year when he brought information to me in my Sutter Davis hospital room regarding the Vineyards @ El Macero development. I was a nobody at that time (still am), but he still went out of his way to bring the material to me that I had asked about. That definitely wasn’t a pro-development move on his part. It was a pro-democracy move.
I don’t always agree with him, but I also know that he is very willing to engage the voters in discussion of the issues. I believe he has “seen the light” regarding Measure J. He has looked me in the eye and stated his position directly and unequivocally. Contrast that to Don Saylor’s and Sydney Vergis’ desire to change Measure J’s wording. One of Saylor’s comments about the 1% Guideline was, “If there is no evidence that it is broken, and I see no such evidence, then why fix it?” IMHO, Saylor should apply the same criteria to measure J … Souza already has. Therefore he gets my support.
Curious, I am very much for Sue and Cecilia. I was walking South Davis with Cecilia this weekend, and will be working for their election actively between now and Election Day. The difference between my approach and yours is that you are “playing not to lose” while I am “playing to win.” Anyone who has watched an NFL football team go into a “prevent” defense toward the end of a game knows that the “prevent” defense more often than not prevents winning rather than delivering a win.
Regarding Souza’s “song and dance” I openly admit that I don’t have the negative history with Souza that people who were active in the Measure X campaign have. My first interaction with Souza was in March last year when he brought information to me in my Sutter Davis hospital room regarding the Vineyards @ El Macero development. I was a nobody at that time (still am), but he still went out of his way to bring the material to me that I had asked about. That definitely wasn’t a pro-development move on his part. It was a pro-democracy move.
I don’t always agree with him, but I also know that he is very willing to engage the voters in discussion of the issues. I believe he has “seen the light” regarding Measure J. He has looked me in the eye and stated his position directly and unequivocally. Contrast that to Don Saylor’s and Sydney Vergis’ desire to change Measure J’s wording. One of Saylor’s comments about the 1% Guideline was, “If there is no evidence that it is broken, and I see no such evidence, then why fix it?” IMHO, Saylor should apply the same criteria to measure J … Souza already has. Therefore he gets my support.
Matt: Note that Souza DOES NOT take the position that the original Measure J measure will be the only one on the ballot in 2010. He only says that he supports it being offered on the ballot. The issue of multiple amended versions of Measure J with the “gaming” that this portends he refuses to discuss until AFTER the June 3 election. Souza’s local political history suggests that he can be “all over the place” and that his previous positions “evolve”. Yes, he appears to listen but may just as likely return to listening to his developer-patrons once elected. Souza’s past public record does not demonstrate consistency or honoring campaign pledges
Your modesty is admirable but you are not a political “nobody”. You stepped forward as a “civilian” leader” and “voice” for the work of the Steering Committee and this did not go unnoticed.
Matt: Note that Souza DOES NOT take the position that the original Measure J measure will be the only one on the ballot in 2010. He only says that he supports it being offered on the ballot. The issue of multiple amended versions of Measure J with the “gaming” that this portends he refuses to discuss until AFTER the June 3 election. Souza’s local political history suggests that he can be “all over the place” and that his previous positions “evolve”. Yes, he appears to listen but may just as likely return to listening to his developer-patrons once elected. Souza’s past public record does not demonstrate consistency or honoring campaign pledges
Your modesty is admirable but you are not a political “nobody”. You stepped forward as a “civilian” leader” and “voice” for the work of the Steering Committee and this did not go unnoticed.
Matt: Note that Souza DOES NOT take the position that the original Measure J measure will be the only one on the ballot in 2010. He only says that he supports it being offered on the ballot. The issue of multiple amended versions of Measure J with the “gaming” that this portends he refuses to discuss until AFTER the June 3 election. Souza’s local political history suggests that he can be “all over the place” and that his previous positions “evolve”. Yes, he appears to listen but may just as likely return to listening to his developer-patrons once elected. Souza’s past public record does not demonstrate consistency or honoring campaign pledges
Your modesty is admirable but you are not a political “nobody”. You stepped forward as a “civilian” leader” and “voice” for the work of the Steering Committee and this did not go unnoticed.
Matt: Note that Souza DOES NOT take the position that the original Measure J measure will be the only one on the ballot in 2010. He only says that he supports it being offered on the ballot. The issue of multiple amended versions of Measure J with the “gaming” that this portends he refuses to discuss until AFTER the June 3 election. Souza’s local political history suggests that he can be “all over the place” and that his previous positions “evolve”. Yes, he appears to listen but may just as likely return to listening to his developer-patrons once elected. Souza’s past public record does not demonstrate consistency or honoring campaign pledges
Your modesty is admirable but you are not a political “nobody”. You stepped forward as a “civilian” leader” and “voice” for the work of the Steering Committee and this did not go unnoticed.
I appreciate Matt Williams honesty on why he supports Souza, but for those of us who have been given empty promises year after year after year his latest dance around Measure J is just another empty promise and an attempt to fool voters into thinking that he is progressive. He is not.
I will vote Rob, Cecilia and Sue. Steve will not have my vote. He is behind the ugly banner too.
Let’s not be fooled again.
I appreciate Matt Williams honesty on why he supports Souza, but for those of us who have been given empty promises year after year after year his latest dance around Measure J is just another empty promise and an attempt to fool voters into thinking that he is progressive. He is not.
I will vote Rob, Cecilia and Sue. Steve will not have my vote. He is behind the ugly banner too.
Let’s not be fooled again.
I appreciate Matt Williams honesty on why he supports Souza, but for those of us who have been given empty promises year after year after year his latest dance around Measure J is just another empty promise and an attempt to fool voters into thinking that he is progressive. He is not.
I will vote Rob, Cecilia and Sue. Steve will not have my vote. He is behind the ugly banner too.
Let’s not be fooled again.
I appreciate Matt Williams honesty on why he supports Souza, but for those of us who have been given empty promises year after year after year his latest dance around Measure J is just another empty promise and an attempt to fool voters into thinking that he is progressive. He is not.
I will vote Rob, Cecilia and Sue. Steve will not have my vote. He is behind the ugly banner too.
Let’s not be fooled again.
Rifkin in his 11:41 pm post gives population figures that are less-current and at variance with these which I get from the CA Department of Finance site (much more frequently and accurately estimated than the census figures — the DOF uses driver license and other sources to revise annually in a January 1 estimate).
65,814 in 08;
65,397 in 07;
64,585 in 06;
64,338 in 05; . . .
63,300 in 02.
Dennis
Rifkin in his 11:41 pm post gives population figures that are less-current and at variance with these which I get from the CA Department of Finance site (much more frequently and accurately estimated than the census figures — the DOF uses driver license and other sources to revise annually in a January 1 estimate).
65,814 in 08;
65,397 in 07;
64,585 in 06;
64,338 in 05; . . .
63,300 in 02.
Dennis
Rifkin in his 11:41 pm post gives population figures that are less-current and at variance with these which I get from the CA Department of Finance site (much more frequently and accurately estimated than the census figures — the DOF uses driver license and other sources to revise annually in a January 1 estimate).
65,814 in 08;
65,397 in 07;
64,585 in 06;
64,338 in 05; . . .
63,300 in 02.
Dennis
Rifkin in his 11:41 pm post gives population figures that are less-current and at variance with these which I get from the CA Department of Finance site (much more frequently and accurately estimated than the census figures — the DOF uses driver license and other sources to revise annually in a January 1 estimate).
65,814 in 08;
65,397 in 07;
64,585 in 06;
64,338 in 05; . . .
63,300 in 02.
Dennis
curious said…
Matt: Note that Souza DOES NOT take the position that the original Measure J measure will be the only one on the ballot in 2010. He only says that he supports it being offered on the ballot.
Curious, and anyone else out there who is interested in this dialogue, you are incorrect. If you go to the Sierra Club website and read the candidates’ written submitted answers, you will find the following, I support putting Measure J before the voters as it is, because the community should determine when and how it would be necessary to grow on greenfields that are outside of the existing General Plan.
Those words speak for themselves, but just incase you missed it, the three key words are as it is. There is no equivocation, no hedging, just a simple statement of exactly where Souza stands on Measure J and the 2010 ballot.
If you want to beat Souza up on his clearly stated Measure J position, you will need to focus on the duration he also clearly states, “The duration of Measure J should be consistent with the time horizon of the General Plan up-date horizon.” Some people will say that the duration should be permanent, but realistically, since something like 2035 will be the next General Plan time horizon, I find that to be a distinction in name only.
People learn from history. You do. I do. Why is it impossible for you to accept the possibility that Souza does? His statement on the Sierra Club website does a good job of explaining why his Measure J position is what it is. He says, “The Citizens Right to Vote on Future Use of Open Space and Agricultural Lands has become a part of our community’s de-termination of when an amendment should occur to the General Plan land use. We have always cherished and sought to protect the farmlands that surround our city and if a project is justified it should be the citizens of this community that will make the determina-tion by a direct vote after the City Council and other public bodies have given it full review and determination of the base-line project features.”
Did anyone expect the Measure X vote to turn out the way it did? I certainly didn’t, and from my discussions with Souza about what he learned from the Measure X vote, I know he learned that there was much more of a concensus than he had thought there was. Without the Measure X vote, how could anyone have known that such an overwhelming concensus existed? Bottom-line, we all can learn from history. Souza appears to have learned … Saylor and Vergis haven’t.
curious said…
Matt: Note that Souza DOES NOT take the position that the original Measure J measure will be the only one on the ballot in 2010. He only says that he supports it being offered on the ballot.
Curious, and anyone else out there who is interested in this dialogue, you are incorrect. If you go to the Sierra Club website and read the candidates’ written submitted answers, you will find the following, I support putting Measure J before the voters as it is, because the community should determine when and how it would be necessary to grow on greenfields that are outside of the existing General Plan.
Those words speak for themselves, but just incase you missed it, the three key words are as it is. There is no equivocation, no hedging, just a simple statement of exactly where Souza stands on Measure J and the 2010 ballot.
If you want to beat Souza up on his clearly stated Measure J position, you will need to focus on the duration he also clearly states, “The duration of Measure J should be consistent with the time horizon of the General Plan up-date horizon.” Some people will say that the duration should be permanent, but realistically, since something like 2035 will be the next General Plan time horizon, I find that to be a distinction in name only.
People learn from history. You do. I do. Why is it impossible for you to accept the possibility that Souza does? His statement on the Sierra Club website does a good job of explaining why his Measure J position is what it is. He says, “The Citizens Right to Vote on Future Use of Open Space and Agricultural Lands has become a part of our community’s de-termination of when an amendment should occur to the General Plan land use. We have always cherished and sought to protect the farmlands that surround our city and if a project is justified it should be the citizens of this community that will make the determina-tion by a direct vote after the City Council and other public bodies have given it full review and determination of the base-line project features.”
Did anyone expect the Measure X vote to turn out the way it did? I certainly didn’t, and from my discussions with Souza about what he learned from the Measure X vote, I know he learned that there was much more of a concensus than he had thought there was. Without the Measure X vote, how could anyone have known that such an overwhelming concensus existed? Bottom-line, we all can learn from history. Souza appears to have learned … Saylor and Vergis haven’t.
curious said…
Matt: Note that Souza DOES NOT take the position that the original Measure J measure will be the only one on the ballot in 2010. He only says that he supports it being offered on the ballot.
Curious, and anyone else out there who is interested in this dialogue, you are incorrect. If you go to the Sierra Club website and read the candidates’ written submitted answers, you will find the following, I support putting Measure J before the voters as it is, because the community should determine when and how it would be necessary to grow on greenfields that are outside of the existing General Plan.
Those words speak for themselves, but just incase you missed it, the three key words are as it is. There is no equivocation, no hedging, just a simple statement of exactly where Souza stands on Measure J and the 2010 ballot.
If you want to beat Souza up on his clearly stated Measure J position, you will need to focus on the duration he also clearly states, “The duration of Measure J should be consistent with the time horizon of the General Plan up-date horizon.” Some people will say that the duration should be permanent, but realistically, since something like 2035 will be the next General Plan time horizon, I find that to be a distinction in name only.
People learn from history. You do. I do. Why is it impossible for you to accept the possibility that Souza does? His statement on the Sierra Club website does a good job of explaining why his Measure J position is what it is. He says, “The Citizens Right to Vote on Future Use of Open Space and Agricultural Lands has become a part of our community’s de-termination of when an amendment should occur to the General Plan land use. We have always cherished and sought to protect the farmlands that surround our city and if a project is justified it should be the citizens of this community that will make the determina-tion by a direct vote after the City Council and other public bodies have given it full review and determination of the base-line project features.”
Did anyone expect the Measure X vote to turn out the way it did? I certainly didn’t, and from my discussions with Souza about what he learned from the Measure X vote, I know he learned that there was much more of a concensus than he had thought there was. Without the Measure X vote, how could anyone have known that such an overwhelming concensus existed? Bottom-line, we all can learn from history. Souza appears to have learned … Saylor and Vergis haven’t.
curious said…
Matt: Note that Souza DOES NOT take the position that the original Measure J measure will be the only one on the ballot in 2010. He only says that he supports it being offered on the ballot.
Curious, and anyone else out there who is interested in this dialogue, you are incorrect. If you go to the Sierra Club website and read the candidates’ written submitted answers, you will find the following, I support putting Measure J before the voters as it is, because the community should determine when and how it would be necessary to grow on greenfields that are outside of the existing General Plan.
Those words speak for themselves, but just incase you missed it, the three key words are as it is. There is no equivocation, no hedging, just a simple statement of exactly where Souza stands on Measure J and the 2010 ballot.
If you want to beat Souza up on his clearly stated Measure J position, you will need to focus on the duration he also clearly states, “The duration of Measure J should be consistent with the time horizon of the General Plan up-date horizon.” Some people will say that the duration should be permanent, but realistically, since something like 2035 will be the next General Plan time horizon, I find that to be a distinction in name only.
People learn from history. You do. I do. Why is it impossible for you to accept the possibility that Souza does? His statement on the Sierra Club website does a good job of explaining why his Measure J position is what it is. He says, “The Citizens Right to Vote on Future Use of Open Space and Agricultural Lands has become a part of our community’s de-termination of when an amendment should occur to the General Plan land use. We have always cherished and sought to protect the farmlands that surround our city and if a project is justified it should be the citizens of this community that will make the determina-tion by a direct vote after the City Council and other public bodies have given it full review and determination of the base-line project features.”
Did anyone expect the Measure X vote to turn out the way it did? I certainly didn’t, and from my discussions with Souza about what he learned from the Measure X vote, I know he learned that there was much more of a concensus than he had thought there was. Without the Measure X vote, how could anyone have known that such an overwhelming concensus existed? Bottom-line, we all can learn from history. Souza appears to have learned … Saylor and Vergis haven’t.
Matt at 10:55 am – You said
“Did anyone expect the Measure X vote to turn out the way it did? I certainly didn’t, and from my discussions with Souza about what he learned from the Measure X vote, I know he learned that there was much more of a concensus than he had thought there was.”
Sorry Matt, but when Souza and Saylor and Asmundson say things like “The voters didn’t understand what Measure X was about…”
Comments like the one above, which you can see for yourself if you watch past council meetings where he has stated this, lead me to believe that he did not know or care what we, the voters were saying when we said that we do NOT want sprawl. It’s insulting. You can defend him all you want.
He may have been nice to you and to others, but this isn’t about nice. This is about having people on the council who are going to respect the will of the voters and not change their stance a million times just to get a vote.
This is about the future of Davis and I don’t trust the future of Davis in the hands of Souza, Saylor, or Viergus.
Take the blinders off and you will see what we have seen for years.
Matt at 10:55 am – You said
“Did anyone expect the Measure X vote to turn out the way it did? I certainly didn’t, and from my discussions with Souza about what he learned from the Measure X vote, I know he learned that there was much more of a concensus than he had thought there was.”
Sorry Matt, but when Souza and Saylor and Asmundson say things like “The voters didn’t understand what Measure X was about…”
Comments like the one above, which you can see for yourself if you watch past council meetings where he has stated this, lead me to believe that he did not know or care what we, the voters were saying when we said that we do NOT want sprawl. It’s insulting. You can defend him all you want.
He may have been nice to you and to others, but this isn’t about nice. This is about having people on the council who are going to respect the will of the voters and not change their stance a million times just to get a vote.
This is about the future of Davis and I don’t trust the future of Davis in the hands of Souza, Saylor, or Viergus.
Take the blinders off and you will see what we have seen for years.
Matt at 10:55 am – You said
“Did anyone expect the Measure X vote to turn out the way it did? I certainly didn’t, and from my discussions with Souza about what he learned from the Measure X vote, I know he learned that there was much more of a concensus than he had thought there was.”
Sorry Matt, but when Souza and Saylor and Asmundson say things like “The voters didn’t understand what Measure X was about…”
Comments like the one above, which you can see for yourself if you watch past council meetings where he has stated this, lead me to believe that he did not know or care what we, the voters were saying when we said that we do NOT want sprawl. It’s insulting. You can defend him all you want.
He may have been nice to you and to others, but this isn’t about nice. This is about having people on the council who are going to respect the will of the voters and not change their stance a million times just to get a vote.
This is about the future of Davis and I don’t trust the future of Davis in the hands of Souza, Saylor, or Viergus.
Take the blinders off and you will see what we have seen for years.
Matt at 10:55 am – You said
“Did anyone expect the Measure X vote to turn out the way it did? I certainly didn’t, and from my discussions with Souza about what he learned from the Measure X vote, I know he learned that there was much more of a concensus than he had thought there was.”
Sorry Matt, but when Souza and Saylor and Asmundson say things like “The voters didn’t understand what Measure X was about…”
Comments like the one above, which you can see for yourself if you watch past council meetings where he has stated this, lead me to believe that he did not know or care what we, the voters were saying when we said that we do NOT want sprawl. It’s insulting. You can defend him all you want.
He may have been nice to you and to others, but this isn’t about nice. This is about having people on the council who are going to respect the will of the voters and not change their stance a million times just to get a vote.
This is about the future of Davis and I don’t trust the future of Davis in the hands of Souza, Saylor, or Viergus.
Take the blinders off and you will see what we have seen for years.
It is your prerogative to paint all three with the same brush. The reality is that you are going to get either Saylor or Souza on the Council this election. Which one do you want? IMHO, Vergis and Roy are both marginal candidates, so it comes down to a bottom-line that three from the list of Escamilla-Greenwald, Greenwald, Souza and Saylor will be on the Council.
Rather than go back and forth at length about this, lets change the focus to what can be done to ensure that Greenwald and Escamilla-Greenwald are elected. Two early voting polling places opened today at The Senior Center on A Street and at the Old Post Office at the MU on the UCDavis campus. Getting people to go to those polling places this week, as well as helping people who may need physical help in order to vote are two things we all can do between now and Election Day. Every vote will count, especially in this low turnout election. Make every day count … both this week and next week.
It is your prerogative to paint all three with the same brush. The reality is that you are going to get either Saylor or Souza on the Council this election. Which one do you want? IMHO, Vergis and Roy are both marginal candidates, so it comes down to a bottom-line that three from the list of Escamilla-Greenwald, Greenwald, Souza and Saylor will be on the Council.
Rather than go back and forth at length about this, lets change the focus to what can be done to ensure that Greenwald and Escamilla-Greenwald are elected. Two early voting polling places opened today at The Senior Center on A Street and at the Old Post Office at the MU on the UCDavis campus. Getting people to go to those polling places this week, as well as helping people who may need physical help in order to vote are two things we all can do between now and Election Day. Every vote will count, especially in this low turnout election. Make every day count … both this week and next week.
It is your prerogative to paint all three with the same brush. The reality is that you are going to get either Saylor or Souza on the Council this election. Which one do you want? IMHO, Vergis and Roy are both marginal candidates, so it comes down to a bottom-line that three from the list of Escamilla-Greenwald, Greenwald, Souza and Saylor will be on the Council.
Rather than go back and forth at length about this, lets change the focus to what can be done to ensure that Greenwald and Escamilla-Greenwald are elected. Two early voting polling places opened today at The Senior Center on A Street and at the Old Post Office at the MU on the UCDavis campus. Getting people to go to those polling places this week, as well as helping people who may need physical help in order to vote are two things we all can do between now and Election Day. Every vote will count, especially in this low turnout election. Make every day count … both this week and next week.
It is your prerogative to paint all three with the same brush. The reality is that you are going to get either Saylor or Souza on the Council this election. Which one do you want? IMHO, Vergis and Roy are both marginal candidates, so it comes down to a bottom-line that three from the list of Escamilla-Greenwald, Greenwald, Souza and Saylor will be on the Council.
Rather than go back and forth at length about this, lets change the focus to what can be done to ensure that Greenwald and Escamilla-Greenwald are elected. Two early voting polling places opened today at The Senior Center on A Street and at the Old Post Office at the MU on the UCDavis campus. Getting people to go to those polling places this week, as well as helping people who may need physical help in order to vote are two things we all can do between now and Election Day. Every vote will count, especially in this low turnout election. Make every day count … both this week and next week.
OMG, I just saw signs for Cecilia, Provenza, Greenwald and Souza at the Silverstone apts off of Pole Line. What is the world coming to?
OMG, I just saw signs for Cecilia, Provenza, Greenwald and Souza at the Silverstone apts off of Pole Line. What is the world coming to?
OMG, I just saw signs for Cecilia, Provenza, Greenwald and Souza at the Silverstone apts off of Pole Line. What is the world coming to?
OMG, I just saw signs for Cecilia, Provenza, Greenwald and Souza at the Silverstone apts off of Pole Line. What is the world coming to?
“What is the world coming to?”
Were they oversized or otherwise illegal? If they were not, your comment is irrelevant.
“What is the world coming to?”
Were they oversized or otherwise illegal? If they were not, your comment is irrelevant.
“What is the world coming to?”
Were they oversized or otherwise illegal? If they were not, your comment is irrelevant.
“What is the world coming to?”
Were they oversized or otherwise illegal? If they were not, your comment is irrelevant.
“what can be done to ensure that Greenwald and Escamilla-Greenwald are elected.”
Minimize the votes of Souza and Saylor and hope that one of them finishes fourth.
“what can be done to ensure that Greenwald and Escamilla-Greenwald are elected.”
Minimize the votes of Souza and Saylor and hope that one of them finishes fourth.
“what can be done to ensure that Greenwald and Escamilla-Greenwald are elected.”
Minimize the votes of Souza and Saylor and hope that one of them finishes fourth.
“what can be done to ensure that Greenwald and Escamilla-Greenwald are elected.”
Minimize the votes of Souza and Saylor and hope that one of them finishes fourth.
Maximize the votes for Cecilia and Sue and KNOW that “one of them finishes fourth”
Maximize the votes for Cecilia and Sue and KNOW that “one of them finishes fourth”
Maximize the votes for Cecilia and Sue and KNOW that “one of them finishes fourth”
Maximize the votes for Cecilia and Sue and KNOW that “one of them finishes fourth”
Souza is passionately committed to his position until he moves to its opposite.. then he is passionately committed to that one.. please don’t confuse passionate self-deluding ego with a well-reasoned firm principled position that can withstand the buffeting winds of Davis local politics.
As to his statement that he supports putting Measure J on the ballot as it is, there is no mention of whether he also supports putting additional amended versions of Measure J on the same ballot. In a back-and-forth council discussion from the dais, this would be one of the first questions that he would have to address.. a piece of candidate information that the voters are deprived of with his refusal(along with the Council Majority) to have this council discussion before June 3.
Souza is passionately committed to his position until he moves to its opposite.. then he is passionately committed to that one.. please don’t confuse passionate self-deluding ego with a well-reasoned firm principled position that can withstand the buffeting winds of Davis local politics.
As to his statement that he supports putting Measure J on the ballot as it is, there is no mention of whether he also supports putting additional amended versions of Measure J on the same ballot. In a back-and-forth council discussion from the dais, this would be one of the first questions that he would have to address.. a piece of candidate information that the voters are deprived of with his refusal(along with the Council Majority) to have this council discussion before June 3.
Souza is passionately committed to his position until he moves to its opposite.. then he is passionately committed to that one.. please don’t confuse passionate self-deluding ego with a well-reasoned firm principled position that can withstand the buffeting winds of Davis local politics.
As to his statement that he supports putting Measure J on the ballot as it is, there is no mention of whether he also supports putting additional amended versions of Measure J on the same ballot. In a back-and-forth council discussion from the dais, this would be one of the first questions that he would have to address.. a piece of candidate information that the voters are deprived of with his refusal(along with the Council Majority) to have this council discussion before June 3.
Souza is passionately committed to his position until he moves to its opposite.. then he is passionately committed to that one.. please don’t confuse passionate self-deluding ego with a well-reasoned firm principled position that can withstand the buffeting winds of Davis local politics.
As to his statement that he supports putting Measure J on the ballot as it is, there is no mention of whether he also supports putting additional amended versions of Measure J on the same ballot. In a back-and-forth council discussion from the dais, this would be one of the first questions that he would have to address.. a piece of candidate information that the voters are deprived of with his refusal(along with the Council Majority) to have this council discussion before June 3.
It’s simple vote for Cecilia, Sue, and Rob.
Don’t give your vote away to Souza.
It’s simple vote for Cecilia, Sue, and Rob.
Don’t give your vote away to Souza.
It’s simple vote for Cecilia, Sue, and Rob.
Don’t give your vote away to Souza.
It’s simple vote for Cecilia, Sue, and Rob.
Don’t give your vote away to Souza.
Curious, your passion regarding Souza knows no bounds. Is there more to this than meets the eye?
Do you apply the same standard to Saylor? How does he fare by comparision?
Curious, your passion regarding Souza knows no bounds. Is there more to this than meets the eye?
Do you apply the same standard to Saylor? How does he fare by comparision?
Curious, your passion regarding Souza knows no bounds. Is there more to this than meets the eye?
Do you apply the same standard to Saylor? How does he fare by comparision?
Curious, your passion regarding Souza knows no bounds. Is there more to this than meets the eye?
Do you apply the same standard to Saylor? How does he fare by comparision?
“Did anyone expect the Measure X vote to turn out the way it did? I certainly didn’t, and from my discussions with Souza about what he learned from the Measure X vote, I know he learned that there was much more of a concensus than he had thought there was.”
Baloney! What Souza said was that the voters did not understand Measure X. What an insult to voters!
“Did anyone expect the Measure X vote to turn out the way it did? I certainly didn’t, and from my discussions with Souza about what he learned from the Measure X vote, I know he learned that there was much more of a concensus than he had thought there was.”
Baloney! What Souza said was that the voters did not understand Measure X. What an insult to voters!
“Did anyone expect the Measure X vote to turn out the way it did? I certainly didn’t, and from my discussions with Souza about what he learned from the Measure X vote, I know he learned that there was much more of a concensus than he had thought there was.”
Baloney! What Souza said was that the voters did not understand Measure X. What an insult to voters!
“Did anyone expect the Measure X vote to turn out the way it did? I certainly didn’t, and from my discussions with Souza about what he learned from the Measure X vote, I know he learned that there was much more of a concensus than he had thought there was.”
Baloney! What Souza said was that the voters did not understand Measure X. What an insult to voters!
“The reality is that you are going to get either Saylor or Souza on the Council this election. Which one do you want?”
I wouldn’t count out Rob just yet! His statements have been pretty sensible of late – he’s learning fast! I’ll take him over Souza or Saylor any day!
“The reality is that you are going to get either Saylor or Souza on the Council this election. Which one do you want?”
I wouldn’t count out Rob just yet! His statements have been pretty sensible of late – he’s learning fast! I’ll take him over Souza or Saylor any day!
“The reality is that you are going to get either Saylor or Souza on the Council this election. Which one do you want?”
I wouldn’t count out Rob just yet! His statements have been pretty sensible of late – he’s learning fast! I’ll take him over Souza or Saylor any day!
“The reality is that you are going to get either Saylor or Souza on the Council this election. Which one do you want?”
I wouldn’t count out Rob just yet! His statements have been pretty sensible of late – he’s learning fast! I’ll take him over Souza or Saylor any day!
“Do you apply the same standard to Saylor? How does he fare by comparision?”
Saylor, unlike Souza, will win reelection with the same base support that he has always had. There is little/no chance that Saylor’s campaign rhetoric will attract progressive voters to make him their third choice. Souza, on the other hand, has worked vigorously(note public posturing, not any meaningful vote from the dais) for some time now to reinvent himself to appeal to progressive voters as their third choice and ,if successful, may very well displace Sue or Cecilia from our next Council. Souza has taken aim at the top vote getter and the mayor pro tem’s spot It is up to the voters to weigh his public campaign posturing against his record in office.
“Do you apply the same standard to Saylor? How does he fare by comparision?”
Saylor, unlike Souza, will win reelection with the same base support that he has always had. There is little/no chance that Saylor’s campaign rhetoric will attract progressive voters to make him their third choice. Souza, on the other hand, has worked vigorously(note public posturing, not any meaningful vote from the dais) for some time now to reinvent himself to appeal to progressive voters as their third choice and ,if successful, may very well displace Sue or Cecilia from our next Council. Souza has taken aim at the top vote getter and the mayor pro tem’s spot It is up to the voters to weigh his public campaign posturing against his record in office.
“Do you apply the same standard to Saylor? How does he fare by comparision?”
Saylor, unlike Souza, will win reelection with the same base support that he has always had. There is little/no chance that Saylor’s campaign rhetoric will attract progressive voters to make him their third choice. Souza, on the other hand, has worked vigorously(note public posturing, not any meaningful vote from the dais) for some time now to reinvent himself to appeal to progressive voters as their third choice and ,if successful, may very well displace Sue or Cecilia from our next Council. Souza has taken aim at the top vote getter and the mayor pro tem’s spot It is up to the voters to weigh his public campaign posturing against his record in office.
“Do you apply the same standard to Saylor? How does he fare by comparision?”
Saylor, unlike Souza, will win reelection with the same base support that he has always had. There is little/no chance that Saylor’s campaign rhetoric will attract progressive voters to make him their third choice. Souza, on the other hand, has worked vigorously(note public posturing, not any meaningful vote from the dais) for some time now to reinvent himself to appeal to progressive voters as their third choice and ,if successful, may very well displace Sue or Cecilia from our next Council. Souza has taken aim at the top vote getter and the mayor pro tem’s spot It is up to the voters to weigh his public campaign posturing against his record in office.
addendum: I should have begun with…. IF Saylor wins reelection… I trust that the Davis voters will not be taken in by his campaign obfuscations and also look closely at his record in office
addendum: I should have begun with…. IF Saylor wins reelection… I trust that the Davis voters will not be taken in by his campaign obfuscations and also look closely at his record in office
addendum: I should have begun with…. IF Saylor wins reelection… I trust that the Davis voters will not be taken in by his campaign obfuscations and also look closely at his record in office
addendum: I should have begun with…. IF Saylor wins reelection… I trust that the Davis voters will not be taken in by his campaign obfuscations and also look closely at his record in office
Curious, you have talked around the question. Do you apply the same standard to Saylor as you apply to Souza? You appear to be saying you prefer Saylor to Souza. Is that true? If so, why? If not, why are you not attacking Saylor more vigorously than you are attacking Souza?
You also appear to be attacking Souza for assimilating Progressive values into his historically Moderate platform. You have essentially called him a bold-faced liar … with the premeditated intention of throwing his sheep’s clothing aside after the election. That is a pretty bold prediction. What makes you believe he could get away with such a duplicitous tactic?
Finally, which would you prefer, four pro-measure J “as is” votes on the Council, with Souza as the highest vote getter orSaylor on the Council?
Curious, you have talked around the question. Do you apply the same standard to Saylor as you apply to Souza? You appear to be saying you prefer Saylor to Souza. Is that true? If so, why? If not, why are you not attacking Saylor more vigorously than you are attacking Souza?
You also appear to be attacking Souza for assimilating Progressive values into his historically Moderate platform. You have essentially called him a bold-faced liar … with the premeditated intention of throwing his sheep’s clothing aside after the election. That is a pretty bold prediction. What makes you believe he could get away with such a duplicitous tactic?
Finally, which would you prefer, four pro-measure J “as is” votes on the Council, with Souza as the highest vote getter orSaylor on the Council?
Curious, you have talked around the question. Do you apply the same standard to Saylor as you apply to Souza? You appear to be saying you prefer Saylor to Souza. Is that true? If so, why? If not, why are you not attacking Saylor more vigorously than you are attacking Souza?
You also appear to be attacking Souza for assimilating Progressive values into his historically Moderate platform. You have essentially called him a bold-faced liar … with the premeditated intention of throwing his sheep’s clothing aside after the election. That is a pretty bold prediction. What makes you believe he could get away with such a duplicitous tactic?
Finally, which would you prefer, four pro-measure J “as is” votes on the Council, with Souza as the highest vote getter orSaylor on the Council?
Curious, you have talked around the question. Do you apply the same standard to Saylor as you apply to Souza? You appear to be saying you prefer Saylor to Souza. Is that true? If so, why? If not, why are you not attacking Saylor more vigorously than you are attacking Souza?
You also appear to be attacking Souza for assimilating Progressive values into his historically Moderate platform. You have essentially called him a bold-faced liar … with the premeditated intention of throwing his sheep’s clothing aside after the election. That is a pretty bold prediction. What makes you believe he could get away with such a duplicitous tactic?
Finally, which would you prefer, four pro-measure J “as is” votes on the Council, with Souza as the highest vote getter orSaylor on the Council?
It does not matter to me whether it is Saylor or Souza who is the third winning candidate(although I would prefer Souza), as long as the next Council Majority is Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Greenwald and Lamar Heystek.
I am not willing to risk my vote for Souza resulting in a Saylor, Asmundson, Souza Council majority,displacing either Sue or Cecilia from the dais.
It does not matter to me whether it is Saylor or Souza who is the third winning candidate(although I would prefer Souza), as long as the next Council Majority is Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Greenwald and Lamar Heystek.
I am not willing to risk my vote for Souza resulting in a Saylor, Asmundson, Souza Council majority,displacing either Sue or Cecilia from the dais.
It does not matter to me whether it is Saylor or Souza who is the third winning candidate(although I would prefer Souza), as long as the next Council Majority is Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Greenwald and Lamar Heystek.
I am not willing to risk my vote for Souza resulting in a Saylor, Asmundson, Souza Council majority,displacing either Sue or Cecilia from the dais.
It does not matter to me whether it is Saylor or Souza who is the third winning candidate(although I would prefer Souza), as long as the next Council Majority is Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Greenwald and Lamar Heystek.
I am not willing to risk my vote for Souza resulting in a Saylor, Asmundson, Souza Council majority,displacing either Sue or Cecilia from the dais.
IF YOU WANT MORE PROBLEMS FOR THE CITY OF DAVIS VOTE FOR; CECILIA GREENWALD.
IF YOU WANT MORE PROBLEMS FOR THE CITY OF DAVIS VOTE FOR; CECILIA GREENWALD.
IF YOU WANT MORE PROBLEMS FOR THE CITY OF DAVIS VOTE FOR; CECILIA GREENWALD.
IF YOU WANT MORE PROBLEMS FOR THE CITY OF DAVIS VOTE FOR; CECILIA GREENWALD.