Do tell.

It is true that Sheedy is not the most friendly person on the council, but I recall Sheedy standing up fiercely for her district, but the rest of the council and mayor were/are just not interested in hearing problems residents face in District 2 AND those in former alignment of District 3. Both consist of primarily old neighborhoods with old housing inhabited by mostly low income people who can't afford to contribute to campaign funding.

I don't know for sure, but I imagine preliminary polling showed she started with a severe disadvantage and with so many challengers, she either faced losing in June by not placing in the top two (like incumbent Waters' did when he failed to secure a November 2010 runoff position since D. Fong and Ryan Chin ranked as the top two June 2010) OR losing outright to a challenger who would win 50%+1 (ala Ashby's historic 51-42-7 definitive defeat in June 2010 over incumbent Tretheway in a hotly contested three-way race). I think she saw how painful those defeats were to her former colleagues and she decided to end her political career on her own terms rather than subject herself to the humility of a defeat on election night.

It's also worth noting that she had no challengers at all in 2008, so she did not have to campaign at all that year. Attending debates, walking precincts, etc., is all very hard work, let alone the emotional investment and the political attacks she would endure along the way. At 68 years old, that's a big commitment with very little down time without any assurance of success at the end of it all -- and even if she did manage to win the election, the council would no longer be the elitist officious impenetrable politically entrenched mob it was over the previous decade, so the four years that followed would probably be more challenging than in previous years.

The timing is also interesting because Sacramento Police Officers' Association endorsed challenger Kim Mack a few days ago. It is therefore likely that Sacramento Area Fire Fighters Local 522 will follow suit. Those public safety employee associations supported Ashby very early in the 2010 race and their support was critical in delivering Ashby's grassroots message to voters in what was the most populous council district at the time.

Now Sheedy is in the position of a lame duck councilperson between now and November 2012. That's a long time and a lot of damage can be done. She literally has nothing to lose because she has no accountability whatsoever to her constituents anymore. Let us hope she does not do anything too extreme against the wishes of her communities in a Hail Mary pass for the sake of her legacy at the expense of taxpayers. Let's keep our eyes peeled for efforts to have streets, public buildings, and/or parks named after her or her husband.

Proposition 13 (1978) requires voters to approve certain tax increases by a supermajority vote. Proposition 39 (2000) lowered the threshold to 55% for certain bonds.

Are you suggesting that voters pass an initiative that would require "all large investments by taxpayers" be required to gain voter approval?

What is the definition of "large investment"?

While I appreciate the sentiment behind giving taxpayers opportunity to weigh in on decisions involving their tax dollars, a line has to be drawn somewhere that separates "Voters, may we...?" to "Voters hired me to..."

Voters have a voice on matters of tax dollar investments -- they can use that voice to vote incumbents out of office when they make poor decisions and can threaten to do so when incumbents are on the verge of doing so.

I'm all for taxpayers having a stronger voice, but to cease all "large investments by taxpayers" until they receive election day voter approval is, in my view, a mistake. Ballots in California are confusing enough as it is with their multiple languages and so many propositions -- adding propositions for "all large investments by taxpayers" would make our ballots look like phone books.

No thanks -- I'd rather elect smart, fiscally conservative, responsible, community-minded people to represent my interests.

I think this is an interesting question and not easily defined. Clearly there are decisions made on a regular basis that have enormous financial implications over decades, such as salary and benefits negotiations with employee unions - just as there are smaller and equally routine decisions having to do with one-time equipment purchases and short-term lease agreements. But I think the key characterization of what the City Council does on a regular basis is just that - the regularity of it. They are elected with every expectation from both the electors and the elected that decisions of this kind will have to be made - the normal and anticipated decisions that go with the normal and anticipated running of a City.

But the counterpoint is the decision that is neither normal nor regular in nature. And I don't think anybody can reasonably suggest that the kind of decision that is involved with the possible leasing of City parking facilities for as many as 50 years is in any way normal or regular. And if Councilmember Sheedy believes that major decisions that are neither normal nor regular and that have multi-decade-long implications in revenue reduction for the City should be addressed in a non-normal and non-regular manner, then she should act on that belief. You may not agree with her, but it's not an especially unreasonable position for an elected official to take.

I agree, there has to be a line somewhere. I'm not sure where that line might be but I'm not surprised or alarmed that a Councilmember thinks this is a decision that exists on the far side of it. I think it's actually quite reassuring that there isn't an assumption that anything goes once elected.

The City Manager Has the authority to enter into contracts and agreement up to a threshhold amount without city council approval. From City Codes:

3.04.020 Income or expenditure one hundred thousand dollars or more.

Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, all agreements specified in Section 3.04.010 involving income or expenditure of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) or more, shall be approved by the city council, for signature by the city manager.

So we have the wisdom and forethought to restrict the authority of the CM with regards to sale of asserts and purchases along with service contracts, yet not to restrict the expenditures of the city council by the city voters?

There is something wrong with that premise, at a very basic level.

Given the size, scope and duration of this proposal about parking privatization and that all the net proceeds be only applied for a non-defined arena construction budget not to mention, creating an additional 9 million (2012) dollar shortfall annually for the city's budget...that crosses the line...big time.

If you were paying attention a few years ago, nobody objected to the sale of the Sheraton Garage, what was it 25,000,000? So there's a line in the sand....Is it too low or just right? Debatable. However, now it's a 1x cash deal with a 50 year headache, that obviously does't cover the arena budget. Way past being ok on a simple council vote.

And regarding that comment "No thanks -- I'd rather elect smart, fiscally conservative, responsible, community-minded people to represent my interests."

Last June, during the budget vote...the irresponsible can kicker's were Cohn, Ashby and the Mayor.