Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

No on DiSC’s statement on vandalized Yes on H signs

IMG-4080The No on DiSC/No on H campaign denounces the recently discovered vandalism of a large Yes on Measure H sign posted on Covell Blvd at Risling Ct., possibly in the public right of way. Although we have been frustrated by the misrepresentations of the Yes on DISC campaign (including the signs themselves which give no indication of the true nature of the DiSC project) this type of petty property crime is not an appropriate means of advocacy.

The No on H campaign has also been experiencing rampant sign theft. Large numbers of the signature orange “No on H” traffic jam signs have been stolen across the city. Most notably, on 2 separate occasions more than 10 signs were removed from multiple homes in 2 different neighborhoods.

If your sign has been stolen or damaged, or if you would like a “No on Measure H” lawn sign, please contact the campaign through the website https://www.VoteNoOnDisc.com/

Posted by

davisite2

on

in

,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

16 responses to “No on DiSC’s statement on vandalized Yes on H signs”

  1. Alan Miller

    Way to get in front of this. There is so much weirdness around campaign signs, especially in this town. And you never know about ‘false flag operations’ with campaign signs 😉 . Hey, it could happen. Can you imagine actually being enough of a moron to think, “I’m so mad seeing this lawn sign, I’m going to come back at 3:00am and take it and throw it in a dumpster and then our side will win, because people won’t see the message from the other side!”. Uh huh.
    I don’t need a “No on H” lawn sign, but do you have any “No on Carson” lawn signs left in stock?

    Reply
  2. Susan Rainier, AIA, LEED BD+C, LFA

    Well, I cannot deny that I had the same thoughts yet decided not to act on it.
    I also cannot deny that I like it. It’s not great to have to resort to this yet the false narrative of what DISC is putting forth is down-right greed driven gaming the truth about everything! They are NOT Sustainable, They will NOT fix Mace Traffic – they will make it worse….on and on – not to mention the costly, petty & frivolous lawsuit by one of the developers puppets.
    To be very clear: NO people are NOT against development and housing for Davis. We are against bad, lower than status quo, unsustainable projects like DISC. We do not steal signs either. YES has shown their true colors – Fossil Fuel Grey Greed Dirty Tricks.
    Be Advised:
    Davis has many approved in-fill areas by SACOG “GO MEANS GREEN” that DO NOT INCLUDE East of Mace where DISC is, that open the City to grant monies.

    Reply
  3. Darell Dickey

    Even if accurate, it is indeed still vandalism. 😦
    Why was it planted in the public right of way? If replaced with a new sign, I hope the new one includes the extra human frolickers and especially the stand-up paddle boarder enjoying Lake DiSC. And I also hope this truth in advertising will be legally placed on private property.

    Reply
  4. Ron O

    I agree – it’s vandalism, and is not helpful to those who are trying to maintain a logical boundary regarding the city’s spread onto prime farmland.
    However, since Darrell mentioned a paddle-boarder, I’m now wondering what happened to the glider that we used to see soaring above the images of MRIC/ARC/DISC?
    Kind of reminds me of DiSC itself, in that the image of a glider obscures the fact that fossil fuels (tow planes) are normally used to get gliders into the air in the first place.

    Reply
  5. Roberta L. Millstein

    For those who don’t get Darell’s paddle-boarder reference, one of the DiSC mailers (also an ad in the Davis Enterprise) depicted a stand-up paddleboarder, implying that this would be one of the activities at the DiSC site. In case there was any doubt, there would not be any place on the business/industrial complex where one could go for a standup paddle. Whether one considers that to be a “lie” is, I guess, a matter of perspective. Still not worth defacing a sign over, though. A letter to the editor about deceptive marketing would be far more appropriate.

    Reply
  6. Alan Charles Miller

    “Well, I cannot deny that I had the same thoughts yet decided not to act on it.”
    I’m sure many had thoughts about Donald Trump they did not act on. Thankfully.
    “I also cannot deny that I like it. It’s not great to have to resort to this yet . . . ”
    I appreciate the honesty, but . . . we have to have political discussions within a framework of civility. Vandalism doesn’t help your side, it makes them look lawless. I understand you don’t agree with the look of their signs, but if you condone vandalism because ‘we must resort to this’ then, of course, “they” can do the same, because they believe, for example, your ballot argument is “wrong”. So better to just have the better campaign and try to keep the vandals under control if you know who they are (like if they are sitting in Woodstock’s bragging about it after their sixth beer).

    Reply
  7. Roberta L. Millstein

    What part of “ The campaign announces this” did you not understand? The comments that you are responding to are not official comments of the campaign, just the expressions of individuals. It is not possible to keep the vandals under control when we have no idea who they are. You are trying to blame the campaign for something that it was not involved in and something that they have explicitly condemned — the whole point of this press release.

    Reply
  8. Ron O

    Roberta: I believe that Alan was responding to Susan’s quoted comments, and not the campaign.

    Reply
  9. Roberta L. Millstein

    Perhaps it was not his intention, but I read the comment as suggesting campaign involvement or agreement.

    Reply
  10. Ron O

    That’s the problem – some people might suspect that, regardless. (And others may allege it for their own nefarious reasons.)
    But I’m pretty sure that’s not what Alan was implying. (Look at his first comment, above.)
    It’s probably safe to assume that it’s someone who is not happy about DiSC, at least. (Though wouldn’t it be something if it was actually a supporter, attempting to undermine those concerned about sprawl? Not likely, I suspect.)
    In any case, it’s not helpful.

    Reply
  11. Sharla

    The sign is sitting on the corner of Sutter and Covell, right next to a Cynthia Rodriguez campaign of equal size, so you should note that that campaign is equally tarnished by its misplacement of its signs, if you are going to complain about placement.
    There is no excuse for this vandalism in Davis politics. It is petty, I agree – juvenile, in fact. The No on H campaign should have more thoroughly condemned this action, without including its own campaign sign woes and complaints about inappropriate placement (as if that makes it OK to vandalize it). It comes off as “tit for tat.”

    Reply
  12. Roberta L. Millstein

    The No on H campaign completely condemns this action and does not consider it tit for tat. We are making it clear that we condemn all inappropriate sign activity.

    Reply
  13. Ron

    Sharla: “The No on H campaign should have more thoroughly condemned this action,”
    Really? I suspect that many people wouldn’t have even known about it, had this article explicitly condemning it not been posted.

    Reply
  14. Alan C. Miller

    What Ron O. said, regarding my 2nd post.

    Reply
  15. Roberta L. Millstein

    Ok, thanks for the clarification, Alan. The “So better to just have the better campaign” was what threw me. Also the “your side” stuff… I mean, it’s well known that I am “No on H” (as a ballot signer sued by Carson) but that doesn’t mean that I share the beliefs and tactics of everyone who plans on voting No on H (or who has voted already, for those who are uber on top of things).

    Reply
  16. Sharla

    Thank you, Roberta.
    I saw it on my way to a doctors appointment on Friday. It’s on a busy thoroughfare so many people saw it, I imagine.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Darell Dickey Cancel reply