<
>
Welcome to MAY on Al's Corner. Where you MAY discuss the clown-show that is Davis politics. At 5:30pm on Tuesday, the AWARDS will be given out. Maybe we'll finally learn who the person nominated is who does "good" and "bad" according to at least one commenter, and what "bad" they did.
But I doubt it.
So talk about anything 😐
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
2day Vanguard say: “Commentary: Will the Council Have the Guts to Put Changes to Measure J to the Voters?”
YAWN
Join “Our Neighborhood Voices”. Destroy state control of local planning and return planning to local control. Even if our Council will destroy Davis anyway 😐
Does the Vanguard have anything new to say? Yesterday an ad got plastered over an article and I couldn’t read it. And when I try to read an article the page skips several inches and I can’t see where I was.
Good thing the new website is coming . . . in about seven years ago.
“Let me be clear— . . . ” That’s what Biden always says, just before being unclear.
What a putz article. Thin repetitive smelly. Like bad-shrimp induced vomit.
David is claiming that the two proposals (Covell Village and Shriner’s) won’t be enough to satisfy RHNA targets. So, this actually appears to be an argument against voting for those proposals. Do you suppose that’s what David intended to argue?
His argument is apparently that changing Measure J would ensure that only “better” proposals would go forth, via bypassing Measure J. But if, for example, 40% of (the units, or land?) was dedicated for Affordable housing, what makes him think that there’d be funding to build them within an RHNA cycle? And if they’re not built, wouldn’t the state be concerned about that (per David’s own arguments)?
And when, exactly, would a Measure J proposal arise under this scenario? Wouldn’t the argument then be that the proposals should just meet the requirements to bypass Measure J? (What chance of approval would such proposals actually have, if they pursued the Measure J route regardless?)
All of this is rather clownish, when considering the fact that there are two proposals going forth under Measure J as written. What will be their fate, if some are simultaneously attempting to undermine Measure J? (Usually, the folks who want to bypass Measure J are the SAME FOLKS who support those two proposals – and for that matter, ANY proposal.)
I see that David is also citing the attorney for “Californians for Homeownership” in regard to the implied, threatened action against Measure J. That organization is a “non-profit” which was created by the California Association of Realtors (CAR). (If that’s not evidence that “non-profit” status is being abused, I don’t know what is.) On a related note, didn’t CAR (and the National Association of Realtors) just have their asses handed to them, in regard to their practices related to forced buyer’s commissions?
Follow the money – including the sources of the claims regarding a “housing shortage”. And that includes primarily Democratic politicians and the source of their campaign funds.
So far, by the way, state YIMBY politicians haven’t even been able to protect SB 9 (aka, the “elimination of single-family housing” bill):
However, SB 9 has now been stopped. In a decision issued on April 22, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin ruled that the law is unconstitutional.
Atkins’ bill said the “matter of statewide concern” was “ensuring access to affordable housing.” But the Legislature did not require property owners to charge below-market rents for any of the new units they were entitled to build “by right” on their single-family lots.
And that, Judge Kin said, fails the test of whether this particular state law may override local control. “SB 9 is neither reasonably related to ensuring access to affordable housing nor narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in local governance,” he wrote. “SB 9 is therefore unconstitutional as violative of the ‘home rule’ doctrine.”
https://www.dailynews.com/2024/05/04/single-family-zoning-scores-a-win-in-court/
Quoting Keith Echols:
I mean as things stand currently if you play this through; the state will then either get rid of Measure J for the Council or go with more Builder’s Remedy infill projects going forward and housing will be eventually be approved anyway. Both require little political capital by the city council.
There’s no way that the Builder’s Remedy pencils out in Davis, in most cases. And again, the courts have just struck down SB 9.
The only people who seem “oh-so-concerned” about “saving Measure J” are those who are opposed to it in the first place. So I don’t know who their fear-mongering message is supposedly directed to, as this goes to the question of credibility.
Again, David is already noting that the two current, sprawling Measure J proposals won’t even address RHNA targets. So it seems that the claim is that voters could approve both of them, and STILL lose Measure J. (If it’s actually as vulnerable as the fear-mongers claim, it would eventually be overturned regardless of what voters approve.)
Reminds me of Trump supporters who claim that they simply want to ensure that elections aren’t fraudulent, or maybe O.J. claiming that he wants to find the real killer.
There’s also that saying that goes, “we’re from the government, and we’re here to help”.
Maybe it’s time for the growthnicks to face the music: The state ain’t growing anymore.
It’s always Groundhog Day at the Vanguard!
Here’s the latest streak of “articles”, which are all just thinly-veiled attempts at Greenwald appeasing his developer funders, and fishing to get new ones. All from the past 3 weeks, in chronological order.
“Commentary: Davis’ Housing Crisis Grows As System Deadlocks”
“My View: If There Were a Naughty List, Davis Would Be on It”
“Commentary: How Should the City Engage the Community on Housing?”
“Commentary: Measure J Says Conversion of Ag Land Is Not ‘Necessary’ – But That May Not Be True Any Longer”
“Monday Morning Thoughts: First Key Issue About to Drop – Measure J Exemption”
“Commentary: Why State Action on Measure J Is Probably Inevitable”
“Commentary: Will the Council Have the Guts to Put Changes to Measure J to the Voters?”
These are all the same “article” over and over, with huge chunks copy-pasted from the others. Just crisis manufacturing by Greenwald, ending with the latest where he is desperately trying to dare the Council to put this on the ballot.
Sonic summary of David Greenwald’s developer-funded, IRS-violating, Clown Show here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0GNS6F44wE
I see that David is still continuing to beat the drum, to overturn Measure J (while simultaneously claiming that he’s trying to save it).
But for the sake of argument, let’s suppose for a moment that David’s claim is correct, that the state will attempt to overturn Measure J.
David’s claim is that (if successful) this would result in total loss of “local control”. Is he saying, in effect, that the council would then go “hog wild” and approve every peripheral development in the pipeline? In other words, Measure J is the only thing currently preventing them from doing so? How is that an argument for overturning Measure J, without even knowing if the state would pursue such an action with success?
And how is that different than a heavily-modified Measure J, in which the council itself would have essentially no say over what developers pursue? Also resulting in hog-wild development, as long as whatever severely-weakened requirements are met?
In any case, this is what happens when voters elect foxes to watch-over the henhouse. Most of the council members are already aligned with folks like Aguiar-Curry, Scott Wiener, Newsom, and Bonta.
Beth Bourne and M4L have been vindicated.
The library has to change its policies and pay $70,000 in damages and fees.
https://adfmedia.org/case/moms-liberty-yolo-county-v-lopez
I heard. All of you who thought your political views were more important than free speech principals, put your head between your legs and push with your arms until your head is inserted far into your large intestine . . . and cry.
Me . . . I’m dancing.
I hope they get the putz who caused this problem for the library to pay back the fine with a payroll warrant on his salary. But of course we as taxpayers will pay instead 😐
As I posted elsewhere, in my opinion I think Beth and M4L should’ve received $7 million instead of $70 thousand in order to send a strong message that this kind of crap never happens again.
Yay – it seemed pretty obvious all-along that the librarian was wrong.
Seems like there’s a common thread these days, regarding free speech.
KO say-O: “As I posted elsewhere . . . ”
There’s an “elsewhere” ?
All those people who swore the librarian’s actions were justified and legal should have to take down their “Davis is for Everybody” signs until they read the constitution and pass a basic test on the US government.
It is funny that everyone I know with a “Davis is for Everybody” sign is their yard will openly say without shame that they wish all Republicans were dead. I’m not a Republican or a fan of the orange hair narcissistic sociopath, but when I see a “Davis is for Everyone” sign it usually means “Davis is for everyone to the left of Elon Musk” and when I hear people talking about “Diversity” they mean less white people and more people to the left of Elon Musk. P.S. Prove me wrong and point out where someone ads “and Republicans” to their “Davis is for Everyone” sign or where a single “Diversity” statement is looking for more white guys (in a state where white males under 30 are barely 10% of the population)…
SOD, I’d say it’s about diversity of skin color, not diversity of opinion. Extremist progressives hate none more than conservatives-of-color.
It is funny to watch rich white liberals go crazy when they see the increasing number of “people of color” who say they are voting for Trump. The only thing that makes my left of center friends madder than pointing out how the “poor” almost always seem to find the money to pay for cigarettes and tattoos is asking why the schools never talk about Clarence Thomas during “Black History Month”…
Some thoughts regarding the recent “housing seminar” held at the church next to the farmer’s market, which I attended.
First, a comment from David Greenwald, which leads to a question:
David Greenwald
May 25, 2024 at 6:30 am
I think the closer analogy was for example the city identifying the site at Montgomery and Mace owned by the Catholic Church as a site available for redevelopment. However, the Church said no. So the city had to pull back the site.
If churches can say “no”, why can’t individual homeowners (or entire blocks/neighborhoods) do so as well?
General observations:
This was a painful seminar, in that it consisted of a bunch of housing activists speaking for perhaps 3 hours or so straight (not even a break), with no audience interaction. And with no opportunity to question some of the claims they made.
One of the commenters (who works for the church on a temporary appointment) complained about the cost of housing in Davis, but then noted all of the homeless people in WEST SACRAMENTO (where she admittedly lives). If the theory is that high housing costs are causing homelessness, shouldn’t it be concentrated in the more-expensive locales, rather than one of the cheapest ones in the region and state?
Another speaker (who is part of the Davis Community Action Network) noted a relatively high percentage of poverty in regard to children living in Davis. But isn’t this a DIRECT RESULT of building a lot of the existing Affordable housing?
In other words, Davis “invited” low-income residents to live in the city (via extensive Affordable housing), and then this speaker notes that there’s now a significant percentage of low-income residents. So what exactly was the point of her comment? Ironically, she was using this point to claim that this demonstrates a “need” for (even more) cheaper housing – which would presumably push the local poverty rate even higher!
Regarding the group of low-income Hispanic women who live in Affordable housing, I couldn’t help but wonder about their legal status since their recorded presentation was entirely in Spanish. Obviously, not from the U.S. in any case. (And do any of them also have children living in poverty, used in the statistics by the lady from the Davis Community Action Network?)
Another thing I learned from the seminar is that the proposed tax measure would be (partly) used for even MORE Affordable housing.
Folks – make no mistake about it: Affordable housing developers (who may personally make a lot of money themselves) are incentivized to work with developers of sprawl. As such, any support provided for Affordable housing has a high probability of resulting in sprawl (or overly-dense infill).
But I have a more basic question for readers to consider. Doesn’t the relatively high cost of housing ENCOURAGE some people to seek housing where it’s more affordable?
And what exactly is “wrong” with people moving to where it makes more sense for them? (Or at least, not moving “to” Davis from somewhere else in the first place?)
For that matter, didn’t a lot of existing Davis residents move to the city from places that are far MORE EXPENSIVE than Davis?
Again, new housing accommodates NON-RESIDENTS, not “existing” residents. So if some of the housing activists want to see the city increase in size, they should just say so (rather than lie about their goals).
From today’s Vanguard:
“Best underscored that while there was a statewide component due to declining birth rates across the state, the declining enrollment locally “should serve as a wake up call to anyone who does not understand the very real impact of little to no housing development within the city, specifically the West Davis community, they’ve seen virtually no new development over the past 30 years.”
The result is as students have aged out of homes that had children, “they’re either not turning over to owners with children and sometimes not turning over at all.”
Matt Best explained, “We must acknowledge that lack of housing development continues to have a dramatic negative impact on our schools, and we’ll continue to see this effect until new development brings more students to our schools. As way of reference, we have the fewest number of resident students than we’ve had since the mid-nineties in Davis.”
So this extremely well-paid DJUSD employee has the sheer gall to state that Davis should continue growing indefinitely, to satisfy the desires of his oversized school district. Just keep building more-and-more housing, as residents (including those in the “new” housing) age out of the system over time.
In other words, the city must forever grow simply to meet the desire of the school district. Apparently, the city is subordinate to the school district, and exists to serve the school district.
Does anyone actually think that this is a reasonable or sustainable position? How is it that this guy is even comfortable publicly stating this position?
On a related note, David keeps repeating the lie that Davis needs to sprawl outward to meet some future RHNA target. Again, if his claim was true, the same type of “requirement” would apply to cities along the coast (which aren’t expanding outward). This also takes “gall”, to keep repeating an outright lie. (I describe this as a lie, since David already knows that cities along the coast aren’t expanding outward, but are actually the focus of the state’s targets.) There is no requirement whatsoever to expand outward, beyond city limits.
And truth be told, the state’s targets are going to fail (and are failing right now), since it simply doesn’t pencil out. The state will subsequently try to spin this (in other words, “lie”), but there’s no denying this fact either.
Davisite 
Leave a comment