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

<

>

Al’s Corner – July 2024 – Open Community Discussion Page

IMG_5229Your host:  Alan C. "Al" Miller

Pictured:  an extreme version of himself

Posted by

Alan C. Miller

on

in

, , , , ,
Davisite logo

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

Comments

54 responses to “Al’s Corner – July 2024 – Open Community Discussion Page”

  1. Ron O

    “For somebody who fancies himself an expert on politics, he sure demonstrates a lack of awareness and knowledge.”
    I don’t believe it’s a “lack of awareness and knowledge”. I believe David’s choice in reporting is purposeful. He is well-aware of who is supporting YIMBYs and proposals such as “California Forever”, the well-funded lobbying which goes on at the state capitol, the sprawl which is continuing throughout the region despite the drop in state population, etc.
    He is also aware of the declining school population throughout the state, while simultaneously lobbying for Davis to single-handedly reverse that trend.
    He puts out one-sided, misleading (and sometimes false) information which support his position. For example, his claim that closing down a school won’t save money and/or would “damage” the system. His “source” for that claim, of course, is the self-interested school district itself.
    He claims to be supportive and concerned about Measure J, while constantly claiming that it will be overturned unless it’s gutted (his actual goal).
    That’s how you know that he’s not “lacking awareness and knowledge”. His major in college was political science, as I recall.
    If anything, David is the embodiment of “awareness” regarding how to push an agenda, whether its his pro-development position, social justice, etc.

    Reply
  2. Alan C. Miller

    I wonder if he is as ‘aware’ of nonprofit law as he seems to believe his lawyers are.

    Reply
  3. Ron O

    “I wonder if he is as ‘aware’ of nonprofit law as he seems to believe his lawyers are.”
    That’s yet another case of “political spin”. David is not going to tell you if the Vanguard is actually facing a serious threat. Instead, he’s going to claim that “opponents are trying to destroy democracy”, or something to that effect. I believe he’s already made a similar claim. And the reason for that has to do with fund-raising.
    Gee, this all sounds so familiar (at a national, or any level) at this point. Maybe it was always that way. But no, this doesn’t cause people to become cynical. 🙂
    Let’s be “clear” here – there’s good guys, and there’s bad guys. The good guys are always those who agree with you (or make-believe that they do).

    Reply
  4. Ron O

    But if you think about it, all the IRS is trying to do is to get the Vanguard to pay its taxes – like any other business (such as the Enterprise). They are not trying to shut it down.
    So it’s actually / only about being a cheapskate, and an attempt to avoid civic duty. But that wouldn’t lend itself as well to a fund-raising slogan.
    And since the Vanguard actually is intended as a source of income, why wouldn’t it be subject to taxes? In fact, isn’t it actually “worse” that the Vanguard is a political advocacy blog, and not one actually intended to report the “news”? Or even to present a more-balanced “informational” type of reporting, such as an organization like The League of Women Voters might do?
    Why would IRS regulations favor advocacy reporting, especially one advocating on behalf of developments? Or for/against candidates (“wink wink, nudge nudge”)? (The latter type of advocacy seems to be the one in question.)
    (I’d actually ask that about quite a few 501(c)(3) organizations.) Seems like the criteria to claim that exemption is quite “loose”.

    Reply

Leave a comment