By Roberta Millstein
Two weeks ago, I was stunned to learn from a Davis Enterprise article that I and other signers of the Argument Against Measure H (Argument Against DiSC) were being sued by none other than Councilmember Dan Carson, who is serving as the “Honorary” Chair of the developer-funded Yes on DiSC campaign. Measure H is on the June 7 ballot; DiSC is a proposed development project on 100 acres of mostly prime farmland outside the City limits, adjacent to I-80 and Mace Blvd.
Apparently, the suit had been filed on the last possible day. I waited to be served papers, but none ever arrived. I did receive a phone call, later learning that Councilmember Carson had obtained my phone number from a Commission Chair. I was extremely surprised to learn that he would do something like that, especially since he apparently did not let on what he wanted my phone number for. It is still unclear whether Councilmember Carson funded this lawsuit himself or if someone else funded it; he has refused to answer several people who have asked him.
With a tight deadline for the ballot to be printed by the County, citizens opposed to DiSC suddenly found themselves having to find a lawyer within a matter of days (like, two days) and the prospect of spending tens of thousands of dollars to retain one — well in excess of the budget for the entire grassroots campaign.
And what was the suit about? Well, perhaps Councilmember Carson thought that he could pull the wool over a judge's eyes, but the judge found no problems with our contention that DiSC is in violation of the City's General Plan or our contention that there would be unmitigated greenhouse gases from the project or that there were almost no commitments.
It is true that we, in the spirit of reconciliation, offered to change the type of units that were used to describe the amount of greenhouse gases, and the word “only” was deleted from one sentence. For that, Councilmember Carson and the Yes on DiSC developer is running around declaring victory. But that is the spin spin spin of someone who lost big time and is now trying to save face.
The truth is that this was a blatant attempt to curtail the engagement of Davis's citizens in the Democratic process. It was an attempt to squelch our free speech, by an elected official. Luckily, the judge saw through it.
This is a low point for Davis's politics. I fear that future ballot signers will think twice before signing. I also fear that any future campaigns could be quashed just by deep pocket developers filing lawsuits to bankrupt the opposition, no matter the merits of their case. And that would be a sad loss for participatory democracy.
Let’s not let them get away with this. Please vote “No” on Measure H.
~~
UPDATE 4/6/2022: Last night at the Davis City Council meeting, Dan Ramos, the DiSC developer, admitted that the campaign — which is almost entirely or perhaps even fully funded by Ramos's company, Ramco Enterprises — funded the lawsuit against me and the other ballot signers for the "No" side.
I think this can be fairly translated as follows: the lawsuit which could only be brought by a citizen of Davis, was actually funded by the developer, and Councilmember Carson allowed for "his" lawsuit to be paid by that developer.
I leave it to the reader to determine for themselves whether it is ethical for a sitting Councilmember to have brought a developer-funded lawsuit against his own citizens, full of spurious charges. I maintain that this is completely unethical even if it turns out to be legal.
ADDITIONAL UPDATE 4/6/22: In his approximately 3 minute reply to public comment, wherein Dan Carson defended his lawsuit – not a topic on the agenda, it should be noted – Dan Carson also admitted that his lawsuit was funded by the Yes on H campaign.
Davisite 
Leave a comment