<
>
Welcome to Al’s Corner – “Pouring Gasoline on the Dumpster Fire of Davis Politics” – Volume #10
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
<
>
Al's Corner is a space for YOU to comment on local issues. Maybe you read about the issue in a crappy local blog, in a newspaper, or misheard gossip at the Farmer's Market. Your biased distortion of reality is welcome at Al's Corner for the entertainment of all.Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
Davisite 
Comments
43 responses to “Welcome to Al’s Corner – “Pouring Gasoline on the Dumpster Fire of Davis Politics” – Volume #10”
I got nuthin’
I see your nuthin’ and raise you less.
You got nuthin’? We finally learn for a fact that yes, Carson’s lawsuit was paid for by the developer and so might be considered a gift, that the Yes campaign spent almost a cool mil only to lose splendiforously, that people who endorsed the litigious Carson (including current CC members) are now also endorsing Bapu Vaitla, that all talk of wanting to elect young women, including renters, has vaporized as the usual suspects all line up for Vaitla, that after months of plumping for development DG now turns and plumps for housing (the 6k he received from the Yes on H campaign still unexplained) and you got nuthin’?
Sir, there is something wrong in the state of Davis. But perhaps that isnât news.
what Roberta said *
I’ve concluded that there’s essentially a “cabal” (a political machine if you will) in Davis that’s locking out others and creating harm. While simultaneously claiming to be “progressive”.
It’s tied-together by the Vanguard, which advocates for candidates in violation of law regarding 501(c)(3) non-profits. (Though they are being more sly about it, these days.) Yes – that’s my opinion, but there’s actually been formal complaints about it, some of which I have seen (and seem well-supported).
The results of those complaints have not been made public, to my knowledge. But it does appear that the IRS does not readily take visible action, regarding such violations.
The Vanguard is a harmful force, as are those associated with it. In addition, those who venture onto it (via opposing comments) can expect some pretty nasty, one-sided “treatment”.
Davis would be much better-off without the Vanguard.
In regard to my “cabal” comment, what we’re also seeing is that same cabal attempting to swoop-in and take advantage of how the lawsuit against the “slow-growthers” was perceived.
So while neither party likes Carson (or claims they don’t), it’s not unlike the temporary “alliance” that the U.S. had with Russia, during WWII.
Note that the cabal did plenty of “defending” of Carson, in the beginning. But they’ve now sensed an opportunity to get “their guy” in there, by joining in on the attack on Carson. All without “experiencing” the lawsuit, themselves.
In my opinion, the slow-growthers are better-off with a damaged Carson, than they are with a fresh, rather “extreme” social activist like Bapu Vaitla – who is supported by the cabal. And who has pretty much the same views as Carson does, regarding development issues (e.g., DiSC).
Davis definitely has a political machine, and when they need to hold onto power and there is a threat, they have someone step up and with the machine behind them they keep off the council whoever they so choose. Not mentioning any names, but I have watched it happen.
Vaitla has sent press releases to the Vangaurd 2 days in a row and is ignoring the Davisite and Davisite readers.
I agree that there is a cabal/political machine in Davis, and I have seen them in action, not afraid to stoop to whisper/smear campaigns and pressure tactics against those who donât comply. They are a corrosive force that makes it extremely difficult for âoutsidersâ to participate. And they seem to be embracing Vaitla. I donât know that they prefer Vaitla so much as they recognize that their former representative, Carson, has tainted himself by his actions and now risks loss of power, so he is being dropped. From my perspective, though, it makes little difference as to whether it is Carson or Vaitla. Neither is open to listening to citizens who disagree with them – it’s just that one of them went so far as to file a lawsuit to make sure that voices were squelched. And the Davis political machine continues to stay silent on that issue.
I agree Roberta.
I think the use of the word “outsiders” is interesting.
“Outsiders” well describes both exclusion that actively happens, and the intentional othering through whispered smear campaigns.
“Outsiders” is also a good word because it shows the inherint problem with the power click. No one should be excluded and outside a democratic goverment, yet here we are.
SUBJECT: Student Opinion: Interpreting the So-Called Californian Exodus (David Vanguard, 8-22-2022)
QUOTE: “The UC survey finds that there is no strong feeling of dissatisfaction with the declining population. A majority would prefer the population to remain the same, while few would prefer growth.”
In other words, stop blaming “old” “white” “males” as the center of NIMBY-ism. Clearly from this survey, the vast majority of students don’t want to live in more crowded conditions in California. That makes them NIMBYs, at a very young age, and before they become property owners. Imagine this generation as they get older and start screaming, “get off my lawn!”
Alan M: The results of that survey is indeed a “problem” for the interests which keep pushing for growth. Unfortunately, those interests have a “loud voice”, since they infiltrated politics (and most media) a long time ago.
The only thing they’ve changed is the type of arguments that they now use. And while they may have made some inroads using those arguments, even they cannot overcome the net exodus from some cities and the state as a whole (primarily due to the ability to telecommute). They’re fighting a losing battle, even as they try to “force” cities such as San Francisco to “grow” (while simultaneously losing more than 6% of its population – and in a declining housing market due to the rise in interest rates, etc.).
So they can make all the noise they want (and might win a few individual battles), but they’re on the losing side of the war that they instigated against their own cities.
The follow comment about David Vanguard’s piece defending the spend of one million in our financially-problem’d town WAS accepted but I think it’s good, and I know that some don’t go to that website any longer….
“One, two, three good reasons to cheer/Only gonna go semi-Godwin here/apologismgasm in full infection/perhaps it’s a good time for a reflection/but hold a second that photo at the top/any smart and kind person should do a mic drop/Aggies holding signs that lie/if graded on truth they’d get F’s and cry/but okay now back to the main point, the pain joint who should we anoint?/as the lead apologist here never mind let’s focus on the content instead/and perhaps put this matter partly to bed/DISC 2022 as a project was a rotten pomegranate/with a proper General Plan Update it’d never be on the ballot/oh I forgot the Godwin thing/So yeah what if we wanted to re-introduce slavery?/Would it have lost because of the “messaging” or its depravity?
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2022/08/commentary-bottom-line-measure-j-campaigns-are-expensive/#comment-467567
“I know that some don’t go to that website any longer….”
That Vanguard, in my opinion, has made moves lately that hurt its reader’s and commenter’s experience. The recent ad splurge with annoying pop-ups and the new comment policy I’m sure has driven several people away. Try using the site on your smart phone, I find it to be a total f’ing shit show.
It’s been several hours, and the Vanguard hasn’t posted my response to Keith E’s comment. In any case, I can’t help but think that Keith E. might be reading the Davisite periodically – even though he doesn’t comment on here. đ
Keith E. – August 23, 2022 at 11:40 am:
“Todd thatâs some stream of consciousness of a post youâve got going there. Iâm not sure what the Secret Cabal of the Bicycle Illuminati is giving you to help your enlightenment but I hope itâs the good stuff.”
My response – August 23, 2022 at 12:13 pm”
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
““Secret Cabal”
“Somebody has been reading a different local blog.”
“But, weâll keep that a âSecretâ. đ
Keith August 23, 2022 at 4:23 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Ron stated:
“It certainly didnât help them when they spent $6,000 for ads on the Vanguard which never appeared.”
David, do you care to respond to this?
“I expect that the number of college students willing to canvass neighborhoods for free about a land use issue that will be of no benefit to them during their college years can be counted on one hand.”
And this in my view gets to the real deception of this style of campaign tactic. The students calling imply this is a project they are passionate about to improve housing stock or future career opportunities as if it will help them, but they are really saying that because they are being paid. Same tactic as when for two years not a peep from a student at a Council meetings while OEDNA attended every meeting during that same time — but then at the very last meeting when the vote was taken a parade of students spoke in favor of Trackside, high-end luxury housing!!!, as increasing housing stock. After the meeting I was standing in the foyer and one of the principals gathered the group of Campus Democrats to thank them and buy them a meal at Thai Canteen. I have no way to confirm or deny if there was additional compensation or contributions.
I agree, Alan M.
There were also people showing up voluntarily to oppose Trackside who don’t even live in the neighborhood. They were primarily doing so to show support for their neighbors, but also in an attempt to discourage the city from establishing a precedent.
The thought has occurred to me that if OEDNA pooled their money, perhaps they could now purchase Trackside (since it’s for sale), and build a project that would be less-disruptive. (But, I suspect the cost of the property, along with the cost of redevelopment would be prohibitive for neighbors, at this point.)
One also wonders if a non-profit “Affordable housing” developer might be interested, though the approved project is probably not currently zoned in a manner that would accommodate that.
In any case, I do recall some of those “student supporters” of developers, and found them both unfriendly and unreasonable (online, and off). That trend continued in regard to the University Mall redevelopment proposal.
In my opinion, they are not reflecting well on the student population at large. (Though I think we all understand that they are not “representative” of the larger student body.)
I have also found that this sub-population of students does not seem to appreciate the enormous effort that some have made, in regard to encouraging more on-campus housing. In general, they are not a friendly bunch toward existing residents – even when those residents are attempting to help students resolve their underlying concern.
SUBJECT: “Bill to Address Public Meeting Disruptions Signed into Law” (David Vanguard 2022-08-24)
“establishing common-sense mechanisms to deescalate significant disruptions and allow members of a legislative body to return to their important governmental business in a swift manner”
I wonder if this will effect the Council-meeting antics of that clown show circus act known as Alan C. Miller?
Or, really, anyone named Alan. Are Alan’s banned by this legislation. I ask because this has been a long-time wish of Davis City Councilmemebers for going on 20 years đ
DG: “The law lays out a protocol and rules to give local government tools they can use if a problem arises.”
Would have been helpful if ur article outlined what those were instead of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
KO Say: “David, how many groups and organizations do you often cite in your articles that no one has ever heard of?”
That is word for word what I was going to say.
KO Say: “Wrong, Mr. Olsen just wants any laws dealt out evenly and fairly to all involved regardless of their political views. [edited]”
That’s how I see KO’s message very consistently. And I agree.
What was the “edited” part that got “left” (pun intended) out. I’ll bet it was a right-leaning example that got the moderator’s undies in a bunch. Because, y’know, “harm” could be done, because “words are violence”.
“Mr. Olson” is welcome to post the “edited” part OUT LOUD, on Al’s Corner. That’s what Al’s Corner is for: publishing words so they can harm people đ
Alan, I didn’t screenshot it but here’s the edited part to the best of my recollection:
Wrong, Mr. Olsen just wants any laws dealt out evenly and fairly to all involved regardless of their political views. It’s the same thing I want when commenting on the Vanguard, that moderation practices are the same for all commenters regardless of their politics. Unfortunately, I find that often not be the case.
“Or, really, anyone named Alan. Are Alan’s banned by this legislation. I ask because this has been a long-time wish of Davis City Councilmemebers for going on 20 years :-|”
That’s where I can see this all going. If you toe the line and are on board with the meeting’s agenda speakers will have more leeway than those that are speaking against policies. For ex: Parents getting cut off at school board meetings who are complaining about their children being taught CRT or gender indoctrination.
Anyone who thinks this law will be dealt out evenly is dreaming.
“It’s the same thing I want when commenting on the Vanguard, that moderation practices are the same for all commenters regardless of their politics. Unfortunately, I find that often not be the case.”
OH. MY. GOD. You DIDN’T. You broke the cardinal rule — “thou shalt not question our moderation practices”. Even though they SUCK. That part about sucking I added.
Thankfully, here at Al’s Corner, you can publish the “edited” part of what the Davis Vanguard censor censors, or censors censor.
You have no doubt heard of “speaking truth to power”. This is “speaking truth to suck”.
SUBJECT: “Bill to Address Public Meeting Disruptions Signed into Law”
David Greenwald: “I think it codifies the power of the presiding officer to remove disruptive individuals.”
Remove HOW, DG (who won’t be caught dead reading the Davisite)? By having an armed police present at every meeting? I still look back ‘fondly’ on the night of the Trackside decision. There were two armed officers in the back of the Chambers at the beginning of meetings due to several recent meetings disrupted by ‘defund the police’ protestors. On the night of the Trackside decision, I noticed the officers didn’t leave after the ‘defund’ protestors left after public comment as they usually did. After the decision I went up to one of the officers and asked why they were still there — I was told that ‘they had been asked to stay for this (Trackside) item’. However contentious, there was never a hint of violence or disruption from parties involved in the Trackside issue. I found it an incredible misread that anyone could think that there would be a disruption requiring armed officers upon the announcement of the decision (the outcome of which we already knew from the makeup of the Council). To this day I’d love to know who asked for that armed police presence to stay.
David Greenwald: “I recall two incidents in Davis in 16 that might have applied to this.”
DO TELL, DG! What incidents are you speaking of? Were they ‘righty’ incidents or ‘lefty’ incidents. I recall no righty disruptions at Davis Council Chambers, but several lefty ones. Are you not mentioning the details because you know damn well it was the ‘defund the police’ crowd that disrupted meetings? As one example, an older woman filibustered at the comment podium on a policing issue. I don’t remember the year, but I remember Robb Davis was mayor and running the meeting. The woman kept talking well past time, and RD shut off her microphone and declared a break and the Council left the Dias. The woman kept talking un-amplified and others gathered with her. It was not the first time the same woman had disrupted a Council meeting similarly.
If you have some righty Davis examples, please, DO TELL!
David Greenwald: “But at the same time, the problem of disruption seems to be growing.”
“Seems to be” HOW? What is your evidence of this in Davis? Alan Pryor challenging Carson? Which Carson well deserved, by the way.
“DO TELL, DG! What incidents are you speaking of? Were they ‘righty’ incidents or ‘lefty’ incidents. I recall no righty disruptions at Davis Council Chambers, but several lefty ones.”
That’s what I found head scratching in David’s article. It has a picture and examples of right wingers supposedly disrupting meetings. But truth be told it’s mostly lefties that disrupt meetings especially in Davis.
SUBJECT: âCommentary: Climate Change Is Happening More Quickly and More Unpredictably than Anticipated Even a Few Years Agoâ
From: Keith Olson August 25, 2022 at 7:59 am: “I posted earlier that most âclean electricityâ is anything but clean. My comment was deleted for some reason. Can I get an explanation as to why?”
Al’s Corner: How’s that explanation coming along?
Al’s Corner: How’s that explanation coming along?
Nothing as expected.
But at least they posted my comment after I complained.
I can’t understand why it was deleted in the first place.
Why have comment rules if if implementation of them is arbitrary?
“Moderator August 25, 2022 at 2:27 pm
Hi folks,
These are event announcements, not commentaries or articles, so please keep comments to a minimum. This isnât the place to debate these topics.”
Funny thing is the event announcement read like an article and a commentary.
Read it for yourself, you be the judge.
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2022/08/democracy-central-park-rally-sunday-8-28-6-730/#comment-467625
SUBJECT: “Democracy â Central Park Rally â Sunday 8/28 6-7:30”
Moderator: “August 25, 2022 at 2:27 pm Hi folks, These are event announcements, not commentaries or articles, so please keep comments to a minimum. This isnât the place to debate these topics.”
Bad moderator. Bad, bad moderator. No soup for you.
SUBJECT: “Legislative Leaders Agree to Housing Affordability Production Package” (David Vanguard, 2022-08-26)
Once again, an article filled with platitudes from the bill authors about what their bill will do, and precious little about the HOW. The titles of bills mean nothing, and more and more nothinger. Look at the “Inflation Reduction Act” which is actually the “Green New Deal” but couldn’t be called that, and not clear what in the FRUCK it has to do with inflation. Anyhoo, I think this quote from the Vanguardicle says it all:
“The agreement also is supported by the NorCal Carpenters Union, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, which represent hundreds of thousands of workers.”
As with everything in this state, the unions and developers and the you-name-’ems with BIG MONEY shape the bills. The BIG MONEY gives to the re-lection campaigns, and the re-lecteds pass bills with green-soundin’ names that give to the donors a ten-fold return.
Little wheel spin and spin
Big wheel turn around and around
Merry Christmas, “Jingle Bells”
Christ is born and the devil’s in hell
Hearts they shrink, pockets swell
Everybody know and nobody tell
–Buffy Sainte-Marie
Note: Al’s Corner tell
I have two comments that have been “moderating” on the Vanguard. So they may or may not get posted. Your guess is as good as mine. I had the same take as Alan on these bills.
Keith August 26, 2022 at 7:53 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
The agreement also is supported by the NorCal Carpenters Union, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
Well that immediately sounds the alarmâŚ
How much more expensive will this make the price of these supposedly âaffordableâ homes?
ReplyReport comment â
Keith August 26, 2022 at 8:38 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
AB 2011 could be the worst bill of 2022 for taking away local control!
“AB 2011 was a gut and amend that created a massive new bill on April 18th
It requires ministerial approval of construction across a broad category of zones â including office, retail, and parking.
AB 2011 is a massive state taking of flexibility needed by local jurisdictions to place housing where it best meets the needs of the community.
CEQA is circumvented on these projects. CEQA is an important source of information to the community and developers and helps protect the environment.
Cities are not allowed to require parking for these projects. Parking is a necessary feature for many developments. Any developments containing commercial space are particularly sensitive to parking needs.
The billâs labor requirements make the cost of housing higher than necessary when what we need is more affordability.
The billâs contains monthly labor reporting requirements that are a burden on both construction contractors and the local governments expected to enforce the billâs labor requirements.
The department is allowed to adopt guidelines or terms that are not subject to the Administrative Procedures Act Government, taking away an important review process.
AB 2011 details pages of standards imposed by the state that are best left to local communities.”
https://www.livablecalifornia.org/ab-2011-could-be-the-worst-bill-of-2022-for-taking-away-local-control/
Yes, K.O., exactly. We call it ‘affordable housing’, and subject it to BIG LABOR big wishes codified into state law that makes the projects massively more expensive. This is what happens when you live in a state with a one-party super-majority where the corrupt-yet-somehow-legal mass money flow has no diversion damns to stem the corruption. Believe me I wouldn’t want to live in a Republican-controlled super-majority state either. This is illustrative of how California has gone off the rails. And the gutting of local control is approaching the terrifying. I predict a backlash that will eventually win with initiatives, but after so so much damage has been done. Not the least of which is making everything more expensive (except for those with BIG UNION contracts who will be compensated).
And for anyone who doesn’t know what a ‘gut and amend’ is, let me share with you the story of how I found out:
I was lobbying for a non-profit in Sac and working on what I thought were negotiations on a bill of particular interest to our group. This was a process that went on for MONTHS. On the morning of the last day of the session, we found the bill had been GUTTED overnight in the wee hours, and came back on the final day of voting COMPLETELY AMENDED and was essentially and entirely new bill, except for the name. This of course had been planned all along, and all the negotiating we had been doing was nothing but a distraction so we wouldn’t notice the author’s true intentions. That was the moment I became completely disillusioned by California State Politics and realized that no matter how corrupt you think Sacramento is, it is far worse than your little mind could ever comprehend.
Hey Alan, your ” I got nuthin’ ” post has generated 32 comments.
Pretty good for nuthin’.
Are we all enjoying “Newsy” ???!!!
Over there . . .
Perhaps the Davisite could similarly sell-out to destroy it’s format and make it unusably annoying AF.
Well 2 out of 3 of my comments on the Vanguard this morning managed to get past the moderator’s heavy hand.
The article is about “Gender-Affirming Medical Care for Transgender Youth”
Here’s the one that didn’t pass muster for WTF knows anymore:
“Medical decisions should be between doctors and their patients”
I noticed Bonta didn’t mention the parents since children are involved.
I also posted a comment similar to Alan’s and Keith’s on the Vanguard, which hasn’t appeared. They are both right, in regard to the actual purpose of the housing bills (one of which doesn’t require any Affordable housing – though it appears that local governments might still be able to require it).
Since one of the bills requires cities to rezone commercial land for residential, it would be interesting to know if this could conceivably apply to any approved peripheral “innovation centers”, as well. (Then again, there are none on the immediate horizon – except for the “other half” of DISC which is now being proposed as strictly a leapfrog/isolated housing development. But at least those developers are now being “forthcoming”, regarding their interests.)
State government continues to kowtow to the special interests which support their campaigns for office (e.g., labor/construction, technology, schools, real estate) which “aren’t happy” when the state stops growing (or declines, as has been the case for the past couple of years). As a direct result of “who” our state leaders actually try to appease, the state has declared war on its own cities and their existing residents, under a guise of a “housing shortage”. (Which is actually an “affordability” challenge for some, partly as a result of those same special interests.)
Left unsaid is exactly “how” they’re concluding that there’s a “housing shortage” in the first place, in regard to a state that has been experiencing a declining population. Ever-changing numbers have been presented regarding this, none of which appear to have any basis in reality. The numbers are a “goal” for these interests; not a reflection of “need” for the existing population.
Truth be told, voters have no say in this matter, as both of the major parties kowtow to these interests. (Can’t help but think of George Carlin’s comments, in regard to voting).
It would also be interesting to know what the tax implications are (for government) when cities are forced to rezone commercial sites at the whim of developers.
Here’s some more information regarding the bills:
“After weeks of negotiation, two major construction unions didnât reach a compromise on bills about turning commercially zoned land into housing. Legislators congratulated each other anyway.”
https://calmatters.org/housing/2022/08/california-housing-crisis-labor-deal/
K.O.: “Well 2 out of 3 of my comments on the Vanguard this morning managed to get past the moderator’s heavy hand.”
Yes, but isn’t it joyous not knowing if they are going to be censored, or if Maud is just taking extra time in the bathroom this morning?
. . . and then never getting ‘reason why’ . . .
37 Genius Amazon Products that can be Used by Anyone!!!
(just trying to be as annoying AF as the Vanguard is these days with its poppy ads)
Well you forced me Alan, I had to Google “AF”.
Yes, the slang fits.
I posted the following anonymously on Yolo Leaks this morning:
Yeah I heard the Davis Vanguard received $6000 for ad money from the developer of DISC but did not run any ads. Maybe you should look into this.
” . . . . Yolo Leaks â a way for sources to leak information to our journalists either by sending a message or files.”
I can’t wait for the result of the deep investigative journalistic dive into this Davis scandal by the Davis Vanguard’s crack “journalists” đ And as for files, I was looking for a photo of a particularly pathetic clown if anyone has one to post.
“The Davis Vanguard is a non-profit, news organization that monitors and reports on local government in Yolo County and the Sacramento region.”
Some would beg to differ.
“One of our goals is being able to report on important news and information.”
How’s that goal going? Seems to have been eclipsed by an obsessive barrage of housing regurgitations.
Re: Greenwald’s “Will District Elections Mean More Campaign Attacks?”
I just want to make sure I got this straight. When a letter writer in the DE points out that one of the candidates has gone negative, that is going negative. But when Greenwald says that the letter writer has gone negative, that is not — presumably — going negative.
Do I have that right?
I wouldn’t try to make sense of it, Roberta.
The Vanguard/Robb Davis faction is in full campaign mode, in regard to their support for Bapu Vaitla.
It’s kind of sad to see that “wing” of the progressives fully-embrace traditionally-conservative, developer-oriented advocacy in regard to both issues and candidates. That would include, of course – Gloria Partida.
It seems that the only difference between Vaitla and Carson is that Vaitla would lay claim to being a “progressive”, while continuing along the same path in regard to pushing for peripheral developments.
Clearly, Kelsey Fortune is not a “no-growther”, but at least she has some principles (e.g., in regard to local contributions to climate change, while the others support proposals which conflict with their own stated concerns). Davis would be “Fortune-ate” if she wins. And since she has a strong economic background as well, perhaps the city’s own “fiscal Fortune” would improve.
The goals of the other person (Adam Morrill) in the upcoming race (to hopefully bump-off the pro-development Partida) seem less-clear to me, so far.
But I really miss the days when candidates could simply position themselves as slow-growth without any “apology” – especially in regard to peripheral developments.
It’s hard to figure out Davis voters. Measure J won by 4 to 1, DiSC went down to defeat by almost 2 to 1. But yet Davis voters continue to elect pro development candidates. I have to believe that if more candidates ran on a slow growth platform they would have a good chance of winning.
Ron, I think you missed the sarcasm in my comment. It’s plain to see that Greenwald has a double standard. I was trying to point that out in a humorous way.