Ballot Box Blogging

Tomorrow is an election day here in California. In addition to the statewide primaries, we need to decide on candidates for the Davis City Council. There are two seats open, and I'm having a very hard time making up my mind. A big issue in town is growth, both in regard to what extent we should grow and how we should go about it. This is a particularly important issue as the next council will be responsible for developing the city's next General Plan. The current plan expires in 2010.

The town is still smarting a bit from the fight over the proposed Covell Village development, which would have converted open land into a 1,900-unit housing tract. The controversial project was approved on a 4-1 vote by the city council, and was rejected 60%-40% by the voters, who, under local Measure J, have the right to vote on proposed open land developments. Some of the city council candidates, as you might expect, are using the issue to gain traction in the election.

The two biggest "antis" in the field are Lamar Heystek and Stan Forbes. Both candidates are firmly in the slow-growth camp, but, temperamentally, couldn't be more different. Stan is a local farmer and book store owner who has served previously on the council. He's a white-haired gent with a beard and a subdued demeanor who loves to talk about zoning laws and general plans. Not much for pandering, Stan gives the appearance of the reluctant candidate. Lamar, by contrast, is a young Safeway employee who gives the appearance of preferring campaigning to anything else (at age 26, he's already in his second council race).

Linked by the local progressive community, Stan and Lamar have been running almost as a team. It's very common to see yard signs of both candidates in front of local homes. To the extent there is a consensus on the race, though, it would appear that only one of them is likely to win a seat on the council, if any, as most assume that incumbent Ruth Asmundson will win one of the two available slots.

The other major candidate (sorry, Rob) is Mike Levy. Mike is an attorney for the state Water Resources Control Board. He's more or less been paired with Asmundson as a pro-growth candidate, but he doesn't appear to be quite as strong on the development pedal as she is, as noted by the fact that he was okay with Covell Village when it was a 900-unit proposal, but opposed the final package due to its size. Mike has focused great attention in his race on the fact that he is the only candidate in the race with young children, and he'll bring a family-friendly perspective to the council (as a father of two young boys, I assume he'll also bring a very tired perspective to those lengthy council meetings...). He is also interested in providing free city-wide Wi-Fi access.

I had been leaning toward Forbes, but I was troubled to discover that he was in favor of Prop 187 several years back. He now says his thinking has evolved on the issue, but it does give me pause. The problem I face is that I would like some more balance on the council in regard to growth, but I'm reluctant to vote for Heystek as I think he is all hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas (at least, I hope they say things like that). My conversations with him have rarely gotten past bumper sticker responses.

So, I guess the questions I'll be weighing over the next 14 hours or so are:

1) Should growth be the number 1 consideration? It's obviously an important issue for Davis, but has the community shown it can handle the issue through the exercise of Measure J?

2) Has Forbes truly evolved enough to earn my vote? I feel there is much to recommend him as a candidate, but some of his earlier views make me wonder how I'd be represented if he were elected.

3)Would Levy provide any meaningful brake on the current council's pro-development leanings? His "smart-growth" approach would fit nicely on a more balanced council, but he might not represent more than a speed bump for this council.

4) Would Heystek be a good choice for this council regardless of my misgivings over his seeming callowness? He is energetic and would clearly provide balance for the council. It also might not be a bad thing to have one person on the council that was younger than 40. Of course, if elected, he'll probably just start campaigning for his next office...

One way or another, we'll know the winners tomorrow night.