Not much going on in Davis these days . . . coming up short on starter topics . . . #sigh# . . . anyone?
Most importantly, I want to give credit where credit is due: I wish to thank Kendra Smith for the new name for Al's Corner. This is based on the comment:
" . . . Whatever, guy. Much of the content there that I saw over the past few posts (the âAlâs Whateverâ thing) is concerned with what is happening on this blog, and the comments, and how many comments people make, etc. Itâs petty and hilarious." — Kendra Smith, September 15, 2023 at 8:46 am, Davis Vanguard
Thanks for the idea and thanks for the compliment. My aim is to be pettilarious.
Davisite 
Comments
77 responses to “Al’s Whatever Thing (Formerly Al’s Corner) – October 2023”
The students are back! Lots of folks lost on the roads. Many new riders, most on shiny, new cheap bikes. Many new walkers. MUP etiquette is lacking, but always eventually comes around. Illegal parking in bike lanes is rampant since many who are new to town have apparently never seen bike lanes before. And many more who think the NO PARKING signs don’t apply to them since they’re spending the day “moving in.”
DDD — So true. Deserves a whole article.
And “Bike Lane” ? I assume you mean “Multi-Purpose Lane”:
⢠Bikes
⢠Temporary Double Parking
⢠Contractor Parking
⢠Delivery Van Parking
⢠Giant Leaf Pile Storage
⢠Garbage & Recycling Can placement on Garbage Day (and a few days later in some cases)
⢠Daily queue line for parents dropping off or picking students up at Davis public schools.
⢠Storage for chunks of asphalt chunks that have exfoliated from J Street
⢠Temporary Traffic Signs (Including ‘Share the Road’ blocking the bike lane)
⢠Others?
How about we all discuss the “Rubric” and its effect on city housing?
That sounds like a thrilling topic.
Perhaps we could discuss the effect of the road construction on Road 102, and how that “temporary” situation would compare with the “permanent” impact of Covell Village II.
Approximately 15 minute delay, a couple of days ago. People behind me were turning around after awhile.
Might also discuss how WAZE impacts this, now and into the future (in regard to accessing both I-80 and I-5). At times, lots of drivers on Road 29 waiting to get onto Road 102.
Normally, I view traffic congestion as “appropriate punishment” for those ignorant-enough to continue supporting sprawl. Until it impacts “me”, at least.
Oh, and how that destruction of Lagoon Valley between Fairfield and Vacaville, for what will essentially be a new “mini-city”? (Which seems to be related to I-80 expansion, in that area.) Thanks, Vacaville leaders!
https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/industrynews/construction-starts-on-large-vacaville-housing-commercial-project/
The article mentions Genentech as an “example” of something they’d presumably like to see there, but it conveniently leaves out the fact that Vacaville can’t even hold onto Genentech, itself.
https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/genentech-close-plant-near-sacramento-bay-area-18138323.php
This, my friends, is a perfect example of the reason that something like Measure J is needed – everywhere. The people who (somehow) get elected (or even run for office in the first place) are not the same type of people whom they supposedly represent. Just ask Scott Wiener’s constituents, whom are given a “choice” between him or a Republican, I assume. Same with Newsom.
Great idea, KO.
But, um . . . . . . what’s a “rubric” ?
” what’s a “rubric” ?”
I have no effin’ clue.
And I refuse to put myself through the aggravation of reading DG’s article to find out.
Rubric: An overly-dense, square-shaped residential development consisting of individual units which are forever shifted-around in a vain attempt to create affordability for an undefined non-resident population. And without any of the units consisting of parking, which makes it easier to shift them from the ground floor.
With the overall point being the same as the “original” cube – for amusement purposes only.
From Vanguard article: “His friends and family called him âPeanutâ and described him as a loving father, brother, cousin, and friend.”
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/08/letter-the-shooting-and-killing-of-ryant-bluford/
Response from Matt T:
“Bluford was a violent, convicted child rapist who was shot by police after he attempted to fire at them with an illegally owned handgun. This was not an upstanding family man who was protesting his communityâs oppression, and itâs insulting that youâd try and portray him as such.”
(Aw, c’mon now – don’t say that about “Peanut”.)
SUBJECT: “Statement by Moms for Liberty on the Bomb Threats” [Davis Vanguard 2023-09-30]
Keith Y Echols October 1, 2023 at 2:02 pm
Quoting BB: “No one knows who made the bomb threats or where in the world they are originating. No one knows the true motive behind the bomb threats.”
KYE Responds: “This part of her statement completely undercuts any possible sincerity of regret, understanding of the situation and her (possibly indirect) responsibility of her association with criminal domestic terrorists.”
No one does know who, nor their motives. But — they are a narcissistic, self-righteous, dogmatic, criminal loon.
I believe BB is being completely sincere. I also believe she has no regrets. Just because, KYE, you want her to have regrets, does not mean she will feel as you want her to. And I’m assuming, just like all y’all seem to be. Someone stating their beliefs, holding meetings, being annoying, bothering her political foes, etc, is not the same as initiating a bomb threat.
If you believe that her beliefs and actions are responsible for a loon initiating bomb threats, then you give her power that human beings do not posses. One person, or a small group, reacted in a criminal way. Tens of thousands of people in Davis, and hundreds of millions nationwide, did not react to BB’s words and actions by threatening to blow up schools, libraries and people. The proper response to beliefs one does not agree with is to protest those beliefs.
And if actions are believed to be illegal, then report them to the police — some apparently have. I am curious why we have not heard who is being considered to be charged and what the charges are. Are the requests for the DA to charge not publicly available unless and until the DA decides to charge?
Anyway, back to the rest of the KYE comment, ” . . . understanding of the situation and her (possibly indirect) responsibility of her association with criminal domestic terrorists.”
As for ‘indirect responsibility’, I would re-characterize that as NO responsibility. To say BB is responsible is like saying Judas Priest was responsible for that kid in Reno trying to kill himself (and instead horribly maiming himself and dying years later) because he listened to a gloomy ANTI-suicide song they wrote. The court threw it out. People are not responsible for the actions of loons who hear their words and commit criminal actions out of how they interpret them or choose to react to them.
As for associating with “criminal domestic terrorists”, how do you justify that comment? I would categorize Moms for Liberty as a group with extremely-conservative Christian values. But ‘terrorists’ in what sense of the word ? Any sense that makes sense?
Pardon, KYE, I’d debate you in the Vanguard, but I committed commenticide there (ironically), so hopefully someone will tell you that I am disagreeing with you over here and we can discuss this. You won’t be banned unless you doxx me or call me a terrorist. And that would be a paradoxx đ
KYE continues:
Keith Y Echols October 1, 2023 at 8:46 pm
Quote from KO: “Thereâs always the possibility of it being a false flag operation in order to try and discredit M4L.”
KYE say: Thatâs such stupid load of garbage (as there is ZERO evidence that any of this is a false flagâŚ.ZERO).
That is true. There is zero evidence that it is a false flag. Because there appears to be zero evidence of who it is at all.
The culprit could also be God, the Devil, Elvis or my 3rd Grade teacher.
That is not true, because all four of those people are dead. Unless your third grade teacher is alive đ đ đ
I have no way to prove it butâŚhey I can just say stupid things and say imply that itâs a plausibility to stupidly attempt to cloud the issue and the the likely culprits.
Go right ahead.
In the end, it is irrelevant. Once the person is caught or not, the issues will continue. It will not matter if they are aligned with the far-left extremists or the far-right extremists. They are simply a narcissistic, pitiful criminal whose life will be all but ended by their crime. Or they’ll get away with it. But the issues will remain regardless, without the ability to throw blame on one side or the other for bomb threats. But discussion of the issues? Impossible, when both sides are ultra-dogmatics who’s best tactics are to demonize the ‘other side’.
I guarantee there is one group of people who haven’t ruled out a false flag: the FBI
Because they aren’t stupid
Oh sorry readers, now we’re supposed to forget about the “Rubric”.
Today’s Vanguard headline article:
“Monday Morning Thoughts: Forget the Rubric, the Real Issue Is Measure J”
Stay tuned, I’m sure the “Rubric” isn’t forgotten and will make another appearance in a future Vanguard article.
Tim Keller: “I havenât ever heard anyone admit that they just donât want any growth at all⌠(Outside of Ron O, who also advocated for population control )”
(From article – Sunday Commentary: Will the Rubric Be Helpful or Harmful to Cityâs Ability to Produce Housing?)
I don’t know what Tim Keller is referring to. Population “control” (whatever that means) isn’t even an issue in a state that’s losing population on its own.
The YIMBY and state’s efforts to force growth are failing, despite all of the laws that they’ve recently passed. And the more it fails, the less the state will be able to try to force it and the more foolish they’ll look. They’re already the “boys who called housing crisis”, in a state where housing costs are going DOWN at this point.
Last time I checked, most attorneys and politicians don’t have the skills to build housing in the first place. They can only issue decrees while standing on developer-supplied soapboxes.
But I do find it amusing that those who support the destruction of Measure J are suggesting that the city do so in order to prevent the state from doing so. Is this supposed to be a compelling argument?
I also find it amusing that they’re advocating for the destruction of Measure J when there’s pending proposals seeking to gain approval via Measure J. If I was someone like the owner of Covell Village Act II, I wouldn’t be too happy about an effort to dismantle Measure J, when I’m simultaneously preparing a Measure J campaign.
And the city itself would look incredibly foolish if it approved a campaign to dismantle Measure J if there’s also a Measure J proposal on the same ballot. In which case, it would be a simultaneous “two-fer” attempt, in which both proposals would likely be rejected. (Hilariously, at that.)
The “Rubric” is back, that didn’t take long, one day.
Vanguard: “Subcommittee Proposes Changes to âRubricâ Formula”
Al wrote:
I see that David is continuing to try to “sell” the claim that college degrees are automatically valuable, on the same day that Biden released a plan to cancel $9 billion of the $1.7 TRILLION in student debt. (See link, below.)
Gee, what’s the effect of the borrowers NOT paying this money back? Is this one of those situations where the Fed would then just “print money” to make up for it?
In any case, some prognosticators are claiming that this amount of debt will also further impact the economy and housing market, as borrowers are forced to pay back their remaining debt – which restarted this month.
Regardless, it’s the wrong comparison to use (college, vs. no college). A more meaningful comparison would be to compare specific degrees, vs. specific trades. (Along with the cost to the public to subsidize each path.)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/as-student-loan-payments-resume-biden-cancels-9-billion-in-debt/ar-AA1hFOK2
Well, well…..the “Rubric” is now workable. That’s a relief. I guess we’re no longer supposed to forget about it.
Vanguard: “Commentary: We Have a Workable âRubricâ â Now We Need to Be Able to Use It”
So, I see that the Vanguard is once again claiming that eliminating parking also eliminates cars. Onsite parking is actually a mitigation to ensure that new developments partially-offset the impacts that they bring to a city – the same as previous developments were required to do.
I grew up in a dense city (much denser than Davis), never had access to onsite parking, and yet always had a car. As do most of the residents of that city to this day, I suspect.
Now, maybe having “no parking” can theoretically be justified at the massive student dorms proposed for downtown (e.g., Hibbert’s, the theater site, and ACE). Of course, we could talk about how the elimination of the businesses that previously occupied those sites is a LOSS for Davis in the first place (as well as losing the sites themselves to primarily housing), but that’s a different topic.
Getting back to parking, the elimination of it in Davis will likely cause even more families (in particular) to pursue developments in Woodland, and commute to UCD. As such, I’m failing to see the “net gain” regarding any particular goal to be accomplished via the elimination of onsite parking. (Not to mention turning the entire downtown into a massive dormitory, even more than what’s already been occurring.)
At what point are city leaders going to start pushing back on the state, as other cities are doing? When are they going to band-together with those cities? Or is Davis going to continue to be one of the cities which ask the state (while bent-over), “thank you sir, may I have another”?
Comment from Richard McCann, directed at another commenter on the Vanguard:
Richard McCann October 8, 2023 at 1:24 pm
“Ron G”
“Whatâs truly ironic is (commenter’s name withheld on the Davisite) is a strong proponent of identity politicsâitâs just that his tribe is white men.”
(This type of comment is both a reflection of Richard McCann, and the cesspool that is the Vanguard. What purpose – other than a personal attack, as approved by the Vanguard – does it serve?)
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/10/mary-sandy-appointed-by-newsom-to-her-late-husbands-supervisor-seat
In reference to my earlier comment above, I don’t know why Richard is commenting on an issue “outside” of Davis (elsewhere in Yolo county) in the first place, as that would seem to be a “disqualifying” factor to even comment (based upon other comments he’s made).
And then we have Walter, who (based upon his other comments) is opposed to Affirmative action, including a statement that whites cant “cut the mustard” regarding college enrollments (compared to Asians, I assume). (Words to that effect.).
And yet, he apparently has no problem with the governor announcing his intention to limit his selection to a black woman:
Walter Shwe October 8, 2023 at 3:16 pm
“The âbest qualifiedâ is solely in the eyes of the beholder.”
And then we have David himself piping up, with the following comment:
David Greenwald
October 8, 2023 at 5:32 pm
“Couldnât that be one qualities he was looking for in a candidate?”
To be clear, this isn’t “one” of the qualities Newsom was looking for. It was an announced SELECTIVE FACTOR.
Last time I checked, skin color and gender are not “qualities” in the first place in regard to a job, nor is it legal to make selections (e.g., college or a job) based upon that. One of the functions of the EEOC is to ensure that such discrimination doesn’t occur in the first place.
https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices
How politicians like Newsom and Biden can get away with this is beyond me. Perhaps no one has initiated a complaint or legal action (so far).
As I recall, one of the previously-announced candidates for this position (who wasn’t selected by Newsom) but is a black woman stated that Newsom should not pick some (other) black woman as a “caretaker” of the position. Pretty sure that she was implying that SHE should be selected, instead.
This same type of thing happened when Kamala Harris was selected as VP. That is, I recall the mayor of SF implying that she should be selected (as a black woman), over the Hispanic candidate whom Newsom ultimately selected.
“San Francisco mayor blasts California Governor Gavin Newsom for not picking a black woman to take Kamala Harris’ Senate seat”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9081659/Californias-1st-Latino-US-senator-brings-cheers-anger.html
How much more refreshing would it be if ALL of these candidates simply stated that no one should be selected based upon skin color or gender, and that they have NO INTEREST in being selected based upon those characteristics? Especially since they’re trying to use it to their personal advantage, at the expense of some OTHER person of color? (Which I find hilarious, by the way.)
SUBJECT: “Monday Morning Thoughts: ADUs â a Solution to Housing or a Problem?” [tadaysdarvisvarngraad]
DG: “The larger solutions involve addressing income inequality, the housing crisis as a whole, and largely building new housing at a rate that can allow housing prices to track with incomes.”
If I’m reading between the lines correctly, DG and the author of the article he quotes are advocating for socialism, massive subsidies of housing construction and rents, flattening the income range (communism), and tearing down old neighborhoods and replacing them with dense apartments. Because ADUs don’t do enough. Anyone have a different interpretation ?
“If I’m reading between the lines correctly”
I have a hard enough time even reading the Vanguard much less trying to read between the lines.
But yes, I think your interpretation is correct.
Fascinating. I wonder how the communism/socialism is proposed to be funded? Inflation maybe? Or ‘economic development’ ? Like a farm-to-fork economic boom ? Or a business park east of town ? Or sprawl ? Or infill ? Oh, wait, those have been proposed for years, don’t bring in massive subsidies sufficient to ‘address income inequity’ and we can’t even keep massive linear cracks out of our ‘iconic’, now sucky, bike lanes. Yeah Davis. The Davis Way.
Ever get the feeling everything is about to get WAY WORSE, and not get better?
“If I’m reading between the lines correctly . . .
I don’t think you are, for the most part (e.g., regarding communism). Look at the last sentence: “. . . building housing at a rate that can allow housing prices to track with incomes.”
This is a market-based argument, the same one that developers and their YIMBY friends put forth.
One problem with it (other than massive sprawl, and a failure to examine the “cause” of housing demand in a given locale in the first place) is that governments ALREADY ALLOW unfettered growth to occur in most locales, and yet – it’s still not creating AFFORDABILITY for some.
Largely for the same reason that costs for groceries, utilities, gasoline and other costs have risen so much over the past few years – outpacing wage growth.
It also ignores issues such as demographic changes (e.g., the aging of the population). Those folks generally aren’t looking for housing.
But the author that David is quoting puts forth even more-ridiculous arguments (against ADUs), essentially arguing that it creates a “two-tier” social structure/class system. As if those living in ADUs are not able to access social interactions in the neighborhood (which is absurd on its face).
But my guess is that most ADUs are primarily used for family members/guests of the primary home in the first place, and are not rented to the general public.
The reason that ADUs are more popular than wholesale leveling of neighborhoods is because the individual homeowners themselves view it as an opportunity. However, ADUs also have a negative impact on neighborhoods as a whole – just like any other density project. And homeowners themselves are able to “shortchange” their neighborhoods by pursuing ADUs, without mitigating or paying for the cost of their impacts – just like any other developer. The difference is that they view this as “doing it to themselves” (while simultaneously ignoring the impacts on their neighbors).
“Ever get the feeling everything is about to get WAY WORSE, and not get better?”
In some ways, yes. However, it seems increasingly-likely that the housing crash that was predicted back around 2019 (but was delayed by the pandemic) may be starting to surface in a more significant manner, per multiple reports I’ve seen. (In addition to the ongoing downturn that started about a year ago in places like San Francisco, Austin, Boise, etc.).
As such, we might witness “housing affordability” IMPROVING – but unrelated to the so-called “housing shortage”.
But you can be sure that the “housing shortage people” won’t like that, either. (These are the same people who claim to believe that adding jobs to a given locale does not increase demand for housing.)
Richard McCann (from same “ADU” article referenced above):
“Instead we must be realistic about what weâre trying to achieve.”
“What” we’re supposedly trying to achieve hasn’t been defined in the first place, much less how to get there.
I’m guessing that the majority of people don’t even think there’s a problem to be “solved” in the first place (other than to find a way to permanently purge YIMBYs from the system – which indeed would largely solve the “problem”).
From race-baiting article, referenced above:
David Greenwald: Newsom had two appointments â which most Governors donât get any â he selected on Latino and one Black.
Right – and there was a bitter fight regarding which “type” of those pre-selected skin colors should be appointed. Which again, I find hilarious (and inevitable) when selections are made based upon skin color.
“The way to look at is right now, there are 88 white members of the Senate, 6 Latino, 4 Black and 2 Asian.”
” . . . and a partridge in a pear tree”. (Otherwise known as a quota system.)
Folks, discrimination based upon skin color (or other similar characteristics) is ILLEGAL. Seems to me that the attorney general should be looking into the governor’s “pre-qualification” requirements. (Right, I’m “sure” that the attorney general will get right on that, as soon as he’s done suing cities regarding arbitrary housing targets.)
“It is unlawful to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race or color in regard to hiring, termination, promotion, compensation, job training, or any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.”
https://www.eeoc.gov/fact-sheet/facts-about-racecolor-discrimination
In the meantime, I’d highly recommend to everyone that they stop providing any voluntary information regarding your personal, immutable characteristics to any/all government or quasi-government agencies.
To paraphrase Miranda rights, “any information you provide WILL be used against you” (especially if you’re white or Asian, and even more so if you’re a “straight” male). At the very least, make them “guess” regarding such characteristics – which they no doubt WILL do if given the opportunity to do so.
In reference to my comment above, I’d suggest the following “introduction” if you have to meet in-person regarding a potential enrollment, candidacy for office, job opportunity, etc.
“As you can plainly see, I am white. Five years or so ago, you might have also automatically presumed that I’m male, but I realize this type of conclusion is now “up for grabs”. (Unlike skin color.)
In any case, please accept my apology (in advance) regarding my skin color, and for the sins of all those who shared my skin color before me (whom I’m unrelated to). I realize that anyone with my skin color is also racist, so again – apologies for that as well. But if you can see it in your hearts to overlook this, perhaps we can discuss the reasons that I think I’m qualified for the position or assignment. Or at least, to not automatically disqualify me based upon immutable characteristics.
But again, I am deeply sorry for the offense that my skin color has caused, and I realize it is extremely arrogant and racist for me to not simply stand-aside. The “problem” is that I also need a job or an education, despite what other people who share my skin color may have already accomplished. Now, you might assume that I’d look at them as already having filled the quota, but that doesn’t really benefit me.
If I haven’t already lost you, I will now (also) apologize for my sex, gender identification and sexual orientation.”
When you’re “caught” (e.g., in person) – and there’s no way to deny it, the best thing to do is to go-ahead and “admit” that you’re white (or Asian, depending upon the circumstances you’re dealing with).
But for sure, don’t say that you’re “proud” to be white, as that’s going to be interpreted differently than if a member of some other group says it.
Now, the reason that anyone would be “proud” of their skin color (or what other people who share their skin color or sex have done) escapes me in the first place, but that’s a different subject.
In the latest “no shit” news, the Vanguard is announcing that the DA won’t be pressing charges against Beth Borne for publishing 900 names, and doing so without including any additional information (e.g., locale, instructions to harass anyone, etc.).
Now, maybe if she published 901 names . . .
What a crock.
If anyone considered something like that “criminal doxxing”, I’d compare that to what the Vanguard encourages against its perceived opponents – repeatedly.
And from what I recall in viewing Beth’s Facebook page, there actually was doxxing/postings of Beth’s personal information, which I considered to be more serious than a list of 900 names.
But truth be told, I didn’t pay much attention to any of that, nor was I interested in looking at 900 names.
I do hope that Beth is not done with challenging the library’s infringement on free speech – which ultimately extends beyond this particular issue.
SUBJECT: “Restraining Order Hearing Delayed in Bourne Case” [Today’s Mavis Mansplard]
Walter Shwe October 24, 2023 at 1:02 pm
Apparently Davis NIMBYs want Davis frozen in time. Nothing can be done until those NIMBYs are overridden. I have pointed out who some of those NIMBYs are.
So . . . you have listed people who have stated views on a subject that disagree with, a list of those who disagree with your righteous, dogmatic beliefs.
Reminds me of someone else in town.
Maybe Davis needs a restraining order against WS. Stating his views could insight others to call in a bomb threat. I mean, unlikely as fuck, but it could happen đ
In the latest installment of the “boy who cried housing crisis”, we have David Greenwald stating the following, all while professing to be concerned about preserving Measure J:
“There are five Measure J projects and if they all get passed, the city would just have enough affordable housing for one cycle.”
Leaving aside for the moment that every statement David makes regarding Measure J is either a threat or some other attempt to undermine it, how is Measure J useful in the first place if voters have to approve five peripheral proposals just to accommodate the next round of RHNA targets?
And how would approving all five be any different than losing Measure J altogether, in which case (using David’s assumptions) the council would then approve all five? (Again, just for one future round, let alone following rounds.)
And where is Cecilia Aguiar-Curry on this, and (since I already know what her general position is), why do people vote for her (let alone those on the council)?
And do people actually believe David’s claim that he supports Measure J? Anyone?
Ron asks:
South of Davis: David has literally and repeatedly advocated for the abolishment of Measure J (by replacing it with an expanded urban growth boundary to accommodate multiple proposals). This has no relationship to Measure J, and is similar to what you’d find in places like Woodland.
David’s claimed support of Measure J would be like Trump claiming to be an environmentalist.
David is repeatedly claiming that voters need to approve several large, sprawling peripheral proposals (to satisfy the “next” round of state housing targets – which haven’t even been established at this point) in order to avoid losing Measure J.
If David is actually correct regarding this, what use is Measure J in the first place? As such, why should voters be cajoled into supporting proposals that they don’t support out of “fear” of losing Measure J?
Doesn’t it make more sense to at least “see” if litigators actually arise in the first place and are subsequently successful, before capitulating? I suspect this can be dragged-out for years.
David is advocating for surrender, even before any battle has occurred. This is not an indicator of a “supporter”.
Also, what makes David (or any potential litigator) assume that the war would be over even if they succeed?
There is already significant backlash (and groups) fighting the state, as well. The fight is not being led by Davis.
The state’s population has been DECLINING in the first place. The business interests which created the YIMBYs (and their resulting politicians) are not happy about this, but it seems unlikely that they’re going to be able to “force” the state and its communities to grow, regardless of how many laws they pass. There are broader forces at work, regarding that (e.g., declining birth rates, exodus to other states, etc.).
San Francisco alone has lost approximately 7% of its population over the past few years.
In fact, the country as a whole is not growing very quickly anymore.
I suspect that at least half of the full-time residents in Davis came from “somewhere else” in the first place (e.g., the exodus from the Bay Area).
RO, DG had this gem to conclude his article in the V-hole today:
“That could be a basis for a challenge to Measure J from a private entity. The question is who would be the one to file it? Of the four possibilities, this one at least right now seems least likely.”
That’s how the article ended. And then he went to sleep, or something. What the F does that last sentence even mean, as in: who F is “this one”? The shitty writing continues.
As for Measure J, your analysis of the ridiculousness of DG’s “Vote Yes or Lose It!” campaign and his clear opposition to Measure J and wish for someone to come in and destroy it while claiming to support Measure J is clownish. It’s mega-clownish.
I’m not even anti-growth. I have opposed Measure J and all it’s iterations since the beginning. I voted for most Measure J projects. Barely for some.
But I think I’m done. The attitude and tactics of the Council, David Greewald, Taroamamaminoson, the ex-Councilperson from West Davis who I won’t dignify with a name and and most of the developers in this town have worn my ass out. I voted for Covell Village, but it would take a miracle for Rochelle to convince me to vote for Village Farm Mudhole or whatever it’s being called now. Mostly the Vanguard sucks (and everyone knows it!) so anything DG advocates for I’m against, even if he advocates for babies and puppies. If so, I’m against babies and puppies đ
And Covell Mudhole . . .
Yeah, y’all have worn my ass out.
” . . . even if he advocates for babies and puppies. If so, I’m against babies and puppies. If so, I’m against babies and puppies.”
“Anyone who hates children and animals can’t be all bad.”
https://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/02/any-man-who-hates-dogs-and-babies-cant.html
I beg to differ, in that puppies are O.K.
đ
From today’s Vanguard guest article, regarding the national debt:
“But the federal government is the monopoly issuer of dollars, and since 1971, when Nixon âclosed the gold window,â the government can issue as many dollars as it needs at will, without waiting for more gold.”
Is the author actually putting this forth as a “solution”?
And if it actually is a solution, why not just continuously print sufficient money to retire the debt – regardless of how much the government spends?
“It must be âspend first, then retrieve some dollars in taxes.â What do we call the dollars spent, but not retrieved in taxes? Answer #1: The dollars in your wallet or savings account. The dollar financial assets of the population. Answer #2: national âdebt.â
“Both answers describe exactly the same thing.”
For that matter, why not just print enough money to eliminate all taxes, as well?
Sounds like a plan! đ
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/10/commentary-no-dollars-do-not-grow-on-billionaires-the-national-debt-panic-debunked/
SoD said: â and I’m pretty sure if anti-development people bought more ads on his site than the pro-development people he would be happier come out harder in support of Measure J.â
From the latest in the Vanguard today, it looks like Greenwaldâs developer buddies havenât been kicking in enough money. Thereâs a desperation post begging for $700 by tomorrow in order in âmake payroll.â
If heâs this desperate, whatâs the plan to make his payroll next month? And whoâs on the payroll besides him anyway? Certainly not the âinternsâ who he exploits for content generation.
I see that the Vanguard is largely still avoiding the Israeli/Gaza conflict, despite the fact that it’s roiling across university campuses. Can’t help but think that the Vanguard may be avoiding this because it actually doesn’t want to delve into controversial issues, in which “both sides” might be considered progressive.
In any case, it’s not being ignored in other media, as noted in the article below.
But I have a question: Why is it that “both sides” can exist relatively peacefully in the U.S., but not in Israel? How is it that such separation occurred in what is now Israel, and why can’t this be addressed?
Does Israel only consist of Jewish people, at this point?
Could it be that the U.S. is actually the greatest country on earth, regarding the variety of people from across the world that it has historically included? (In regard to people who are already here.)
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/israel-hamas-college-student-18446004.php
And I would ask the same question of Palestine and their allies. No Jewish people allowed, there? Or Christians, atheists, etc.?
I think we can see the reason why the U.S. separates church and state (or attempts to, at least).
RK say: “From the latest in the Vanguard today, it looks like Greenwaldâs developer buddies havenât been kicking in enough money. Thereâs a desperation post begging for $700 by tomorrow in order in âmake payroll.â ”
Even the developers may now be seeing the Vanguard as a liability. The cowardliness of the topics-not-chosen are glaring: nothing on student protests at UCD on Israel-Palestine, nothing on the assistant professor making death threats to Jewish journalists and their children, nothing on the Riley Gaines talk being cancelled by Eventbrite. Despite the fact these are smoking hot Davis-based issues. Could it be that these issues are too scary to take on? That they may offend developer dollars? That in the fear comes the demise? Davis was once oddly described by a certain blogger as having a “dark underbelly”, but it appears the Davis Vanguard has a soft, white underbelly.
Beware the ides of November. The end of the Vanguard is nigh.
RK say: “If heâs this desperate, whatâs the plan to make his payroll next month? And whoâs on the payroll besides him anyway? Certainly not the âinternsâ who he exploits for content generation.”
I love the old pictures of interns past. That picture is so old, it’s in black and white đ
ACM said â I love the old pictures of interns past. That picture is so old, it’s in black and white :-|â
And I âloveâ how Greenwald is using pictures of internsâwho he doesnât payâto beg for money for himself (as the primary payroll liability of the Vanguard). Heâs shameless as usual.
Itâs also interesting that of local âdark underbellyâ stories, Greenwald is ignoring the ongoing saga of David Taorminoâs broken promises and missing waiting list for the Bretton Woods development, or whatever they are calling that boondoggle now.
As the almost-full-moon heads towards they Berryessa Gap in the western hills, everyone is Davis awaits the sunrise to receive the answer to the question that’s been our minds for the last 24 hours . . .
Did the David Vanguard make payroll?
. . . and the followup question:
Who is the idiot who enabled that to happen?
The following verdict is a “big deal” for anyone buying or selling a home (in Davis, or anywhere else). I believe there were other similar lawsuits, which resulted in settlements.
The “current” system essentially forces sellers to pay the fee for the buyer’s agent. The buyer’s agent fee may disappear entirely, as a result of this type of ruling.
These fees are essentially incorporated into the cost that buyers pay for housing.
It will likely result in the U.S. adopting real estate transaction fee structures that are more-similar to other developed countries, where the transaction fees are lower.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/jury-finds-realtors-conspired-to-keep-commissions-high/ar-AA1jaqoz?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=87b7d1a9263542728f70da6194fd3902&ei=21
I saw that Ron. I wonder if everyone that sold a house during the specified time period can now go back and recoup some of the commissions?
Video link below, regarding the impact of California’s housing targets on one community (Sebastopol). Consisting of a conversation with a local engineer. (She is also on some kind of local advisory committee, as I recall.)
In the video, she discusses the “ideology” behind the push for density, the inaccurate assumptions, etc. She also argues that the push for density in places like Sebastopol is “inorganic” in regard to the reality of the locale (e.g., semi-isolated, thereby relying on cars – regardless of dense proposals).
She specifically singled-out the need for cars in such semi-isolated communities, and that proposals built under the state’s housing targets don’t have sufficient parking to accommodate this reality, public transit is not sufficient, and the streets themselves are not designed to handle massive increases in traffic. She also noted that the proposals which bypass local control do not provide any “transition” between the dense proposals themselves, vs. the surrounding residences.
(Sebastopol is similar to Davis is some respects – especially in regard to the need to periodically travel outside of the city since it is not really self-contained. And yet, the foundation of the state’s targets is to create everything that one needs within a 15 minute walk of one’s residence – including jobs, shopping, etc. Even when those features don’t exist.)
She also argues that forced density itself can be a detriment for individuals and that the push from the state is driven by what she describes as “ideologues”. As an example of the negative impacts of this type of living, she notes how inner-city kids “blossom” when exposed to life outside of dense cities.
She further notes that the Affordable components required by the state are not what most people would consider “affordable”, and that the target market would not be low-income.
She also notes that extremely wealthy locales such as Belvedere (in Marin county) are relying upon ADUs which won’t even get built. The reason being that those who own multi-million dollar houses aren’t interested in having strangers living in their backyards, and that they don’t need the rent money.
The video is at least 1/2 hour long, as I recall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APKWn7-s8NY
Keith – regarding the potential recouping of commissions, I believe this is what the $1.8 billon dollars will go toward. (Well that, plus the cost of the attorneys, of course.)
Would have to look at the details/timeframes to confirm who the “plaintiffs” are.
But all I can say is, it’s about f*king time that someone took on those excessive commissions. Some in the industry believed that the Internet alone would have caused more disruption by now.
From reports I’ve seen, this may contribute to a massive decrease in the number of real estate agents, as well.
Interesting article that I just came across, which directly conflicts with the claims by the local growth advocates (who look at continuously-sprawling cities like Folsom as a “model”).
“Sacramento Countyâs shining city on the hill, Folsom, is heading toward structural financial deficits that its spectacular growth will not solve.
With its car dealerships, big box stores and factory outlets, Folsom has long been a sales tax engine, generating revenues for the city annually above the rates of inflation. But that engine has been sputtering in recent years. What used to be sales tax growth at an annual clip of around 6% is now something closer to 2.3%
We have reached a crossroads where we are projecting growing structural deficits beginning in the next fiscal year and increasing from there,â she said at last weekâs city council meeting. âIf we want to keep doing exactly what we are doing right now, we will be unable to continue to do so.â
But the growth wonât help. All those new residents, for example, will require the city to increase its police force by 41% from 2022 levels, according to the cityâs latest budget. The fire department, meanwhile, will have to increase by 23%.
âIncreases in property tax revenue due to development south of 50 are actually no windfall and no surprise,â Anderson said. âThey were always contemplated and built into our planning and projections.â
When it comes to a sales tax increase, Folsom has the same three choices that all California cities have.”
(The “three choices” all consist of tax increases, while also noting that 72% of the city’s budget consists of salaries.)
https://news.yahoo.com/most-successful-city-sacramento-county-120000953.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGNUrHVtlZT_hUQ5md_KXlhVs_SQTbruEuFzaHnlvArYThVj3UWtK7zowqpuC8FYsCY-CxqXH-SbKGSxNwY-8cLipLY0EjvaiUj_0CCXsZFy-8RMj80umokh3XbsWPt8RaJCq2p9gPrwk944iUL7badMEOwQwht91-KuyArRVE2y
SUBJECT: âOpinionâFree Palestine: On Palestinian and Asian Solidarityâ [Yesterday’s VoidGuard]
The following piece was submitted through the Vanguardâs Berkeley Student Publication and represents the views of the author and not necessarily that of the Vanguard and its editorial staff. The Vanguard invites robust but respectful dialogue on this and all topics.
Walter Shwe November 3, 2023 at 1:04 pm
Israel doesnât give a hoot about innocent Palestinian civilian lives in Gaza and the West Bank including scores of babies.
Robust? FAIL
Respectful? FAIL
Bolding the word ‘babies’ ?: PRICELESS
SUBJECT: âThe Battle for Housing in Davis Is Already Underwayâ [Today’s Mavis Splanfart]
DG: “But the question isâhow can we meet our housing needs without creating some impact?”
Is there another human being in Davis who believes that is what ‘the question’ is?
DG say: “But if we donât add housing, we make this community very difficult to sustain and we run afoul with the state and at some point that could well mean that Measure J gets taken out.”
I joined “Our Neighborhood Voices”. My goal is to “take out” all the insane housing laws being imposed from the state, down upon its cities. Viva la local control! Fuck the state, fuck Newsom, fuck Weiner.
WS: “Sometimes the truth hurts. People frequently donât appreciate being called out for who they really are whether they are NIMBYs or neo-fascists.”
The truth does hurt. Since you wouldn’t appreciate it, we won’t call you out.
Go on sniffing your own shit every morning to confirm it doesn’t stink, while failing to acknowledge the problem is: you can’t smell shit.