This is Al's Corner, a place to comment on local issues and articles/comments in other local forums (that you may or may not have been banned from).
For the (very few) Rule-ez at Al's Corner, see top of right column on home page under: "Pages" –> "Al's Corner – What It Is"
There are many ways to vote in addition to mailing in your ballot, including drop off boxes and in-person vote centers. This page has the details: https://www.yoloelections.org/voting/polling_place
We are lucky to live in a place where they make voting easy, so be sure to vote! Locally we have Measure H, the DA race, the Yolo County supervisor race, and more. Plus the state stuff.
By Matt Williams
With apologies in advance to those people who find my articles and/or comments too detailed, I’m going to clearly show David Greenwald of the Davis Vanguard the numbers, so that he, and hopefully everyone, understands the traffic study contents.
For those of you who want to skip the detail and just read the summary, it appears at the bottom of the article alongside the very tall Google Earth image of Mace and its current lane configuration.
With the caveat that the readers of yesterday’s article don’t know what steps might have happened behind the scenes that weren’t described in the article, it appears that yesterday, David Greenwald forgot to follow his own advice. Several times in the recent past David has complained bitterly that one of the Vanguard’s guest writers published their article without taking the time to check with an information source prior to publishing an article that criticizes one or more aspects of our community’s decisions and/or decision processes. I believe, but could be wrong if there is information I don’t know about, David would have done well for himself and for the Yes On Measure H campaign team if he had checked with the information source he criticized in yesterday’s article. If he did do so, I’m sure he will clarify in a comment.
Traffic studies are arcane beasts. They follow a set of clearly set out rules that a lay person like David and me has to work hard to understand. It is easy for a lay person to make mistakes when trying to understand “WHY?” a traffic finding in the traffic study is what it is. In late 2020 when formally submitting questions about the traffic study in the Draft EIR, I learned that lesson the hard way. To their credit Fehr & Peers responded very clearly, logically, understandably, and professionally to my questions … pointing out where I had gone wrong in my calculations. They were good teachers. I thank them for that educational lesson.
So, when the updated traffic study for DiSC 2022 was published I was able to much better understand the data … and also carry forward the intersection by intersection graphics that had accompanied the 2020 traffic study. However, before I finalized any conclusions based on the new data, I reviewed those tentative conclusions with a retired City traffic engineer and two engineering professionals who have considerable experience dealing with traffic. Their collective and individual counsel was very valuable. Their advice would have been very helpful to David if he had sought that advice prior to publishing yesterday.
I strongly oppose the DiSC 2022 project and there are plenty of reasons why, including the plethora of false claims by the Ramos developers.
First, the project will add 12,000 car trips daily to Mace Blvd., so it will increase traffic, not decrease it as they claim.
Second, the fiscal analysis contains absurd assumptions and inflated projections, resulting in a fairy tale fiscal “benefit”.
Third, while we are experiencing a serious drought and Davis residents will have to cut back on water use to conserve what we can, a large commercial park would significantly draw on our limited water resources.
Fourth, the DiSC housing would be expensive and appealing to I-80 highway commuters. DiSC’s 460 housing units would not alleviate housing need but, instead would create more housing demand for the 2,500 DiSC employees and increase local housing costs. Further, DiSChas no mechanism to assure that any DiSC employee would live on-site, therefore creating even more traffic. The minimal number of “affordable units” will not all be located on-site. In fact, they may not materialize since the developer can opt to pay “in lieu” fees instead. Further, this housing is not geared for family housing. Who wants to raise their kids in a commercial/research park?
(From press release) After an extensive evaluation process by the Management Committee of the local Sierra Club Yolano Group, the Sierra Club Mother Lode Chapter Political and Executive Committees, and the Sierra Club Northern California Political Review Committee, the Sierra Club Yolano Group is pleased to announce the Sierra Club's official endorsement of Juliette Beck for Yolo County Supervisor District 2.
We were convinced of our choice based on Ms. Beck's extensive and demonstrable commitment to environmental and social justice and her unwavering support for a just transition when addressing the impacts of climate change on the least fortunate of our citizens. Ms. Beck's platform embraces a progressive, humane, and evidence-based approach which gives voice to historically marginalized citizens which aligns with the core beliefs of the Sierra Club.
Why we are endorsing Juliette Beck for Yolo County District 2 Supervisor
Juliette Beck is running to be the first woman elected to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors since 2006. Beck believes that with transformative climate leadership, youth empowerment, and a laser focus on health and community well-being, the county can build an inclusive economy and truly sustainable communities.
As a mother, raising a fifth-generation Central Valley family with her husband Nick, Beck believes we can not simply hope that things will get better. She is running for Supervisor to create systemic change with opportunities for all Yolo County residents – especially children – to thrive.
Her platform is based on the indigenous concept of “buen vivir” – to live well is to live in harmony with all of life.
Climate Leadership
By Colin Walsh
The Vanguard published a guest commentary by Jackson Mills, “Debunking Deceptive Descriptions of DiSC in No on H Campaign Messaging,” on Tuesday morning. But it’s the commentary itself that is deceptive.
Ironically Mr. Mills himself chooses to mislead people in his selection of an outdated illustration to lead the article. It is notable that the illustration used with this article is from the previous DISC proposal and is certainly not an accurate picture of the current DiSC proposal. The water feature in this picture is an idealized version of the drainage ditch that ran through the middle of the previous project (it also shows far more water than there ever would have been). The drainage ditch does not run through the project in the current iteration. And the drainage ditch certainly doesn’t support paddle boarding as depicted on the Yes on H mailers.
The Vanguard has done nothing to address the Misrepresentations of the Yes on H campaign. Those claims have included such outrageous exaggerations and misinformation such as:
Measure H “helps our community fight the housing crisis” – DiSC will have over 2,400 employees, and by the City’s own documents only 187 will live in the onsite housing. That adds over 2,200 additional people looking for housing in Davis, adding pressure to our already incredibly tight Davis housing market.
(From press release) One side sees new jobs, housing, and city revenue. The other sees traffic gridlock, growing demand for housing, and exaggerated economic benefits.
Davis voters will decide on June 7 whether to annex agricultural land for the Davis Innovation and Sustainability Center (DiSC 2022). This is a scaled-down version of a project defeated by Davis voters two years ago.
To help voters decide for themselves how to vote on the new proposal, the League of Women Voters Davis Area has prepared a nonpartisan Pros and Cons on Measure H.
In table form, the document provides a summary of the pro-and-con arguments on important issues: impact on city and school revenue, the environment, housing, jobs, traffic and impact on the downtown. An overview and history of the project also are provided.
The document can be viewed at bit.ly/MeasureHProCon.
More information about the Davis League — and a copy of the document — are available on the organization’s website at: lwvdavisarea.org.
This is Al’s Corner – A Place to comment on Local Stuff, free from the censorship of biased people.
Free speech rocks! Recent happenings at Netflix & Twitter give hope that Cancel Culture in the U.S. is dying. Recent happenings in Davis local media . . . not so much. Al’s Corner is a place to speak your mind on all things Davis, even as other local forums become more exclusive, more moderated, and more noisier echo chambers that don’t welcome dissent, recognize humor, or allow ‘incorrect’ opinions. That’s why I created Al’s corner — comment here on local media content and comments, without having to deal with the Thought Police.
The simple rules at Al’s Corner are:
WHEN YOU COMMENT:
NOTE 1: Comments are published when I get around to it! You are not being censored; rather, I have other priorities besides your comment. This also means it won’t be a real-time conversation, so post accordingly.
NOTE 2: If someone posts something insensitive/offensive and not directed at an individual, they are their own worst enemy and can hang themselves with the noose of their own words in full view of God and their fellow human beings.
I’ll refresh with a new Al’s Corner space once-a-week-ish, or as needed when things get cluttered. Enjoy expressing yourself at Al’s corner. It’ll be a gas.
— Al, of Al’s Corner (gasoline tanker not included)
This is Al's Corner, a place to comment on local stuff. It's also a place to comment on articles and comments from other local forums you may have been banned from. For the Rule-ez, see top of right column: "Pages" –> "Al's Corner – What It Is"
Al's Corner #1 was a smashing success. Please ruin Al's Corner #2 with poor, thoughtless comments that will make babies cry. Without contrast to success, there is no victory.
Enjoy! 😐
(from press release) Despite clear public opposition to a Solar Tax and to making solar unaffordable, the CPUC announced last week that they are still considering a Solar Tax of between $300 to $600 per year for the average solar user, while also slashing the credit for the solar energy sent back to the grid.
Because we were so successful at stopping their first Solar Tax, the CPUC is now trying to hide the ball by calling the tax by a different name. Their latest idea is to tax the solar energy you produce and use at home. The less energy you buy from the utility because of your solar, the higher the tax.
This is like taxing people who hang-dry their clothing instead of running the dryer. It's absurd, it's intrusive, and it violates every principle of conservation and responsible citizenship. It contradicts everything the Newsom Administration says it is for: solving climate change, promoting clean energy, making solar more equitable, and keeping the lights on. We are also quite sure it is illegal.
But, unless we speak out forcefully against this new Solar Tax proposal, it may very well become the new reality in California. Earlier this year, your voice helped to defeat the CPUC's first Solar Tax. We need your voice again, as loud as ever:
Davisite 