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

Author: Roberta Millstein

  • Two updates on the Village Farms project

    By Roberta Millstein

    This is just to call people’s attention to two updates on the Village Farms project. We had been expecting to see a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), responding to comments on the Draft EIR, when on November 17, the City announced:

    New information has recently come to the attention of the City of Davis Department of Public Works Utilities and Operations related to the City’s overall Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) capacity. Preliminary results from an ongoing study – which is still underway – revealed that the wastewater treatment system is approaching capacity sooner than anticipated, in large part due to the City’s successful water conservation efforts. Simply put, reduced water flow causes a higher concentration of waste. Though the system is performing efficiently, changes to the composition of the wastewater and new assumptions about treatment necessitate modifications to the WWTP to ensure continued reliable service for years to come. Once the study is complete in early 2026, staff will facilitate a discussion with the City Council and community about next steps.

    Thus:

    … the City of Davis is recirculating the portions of the Village Farms DEIR that require revisions to reflect this new information. Until January 2, 2026, the public may submit comments on the recirculated portions. The City will prepare a revised “response to comments” document that includes comments on these revised sections of the DEIR, and intends to make the full Final EIR available to the public at least 10 days prior to City Council action to certify the EIR. Comments submitted during the initial circulation in early 2025, and the City’s responses to those comments, will be made available in draft form for public review prior to the Planning Commission consideration of the project.

    But then on November 21, the City made an additional announcement:

    A partial draft response to comments on the previously circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is provided at the link below. This document is a draft to provide the public and decision makers with an early preview of the partial responses to comments on the previously circulated DEIR for the project. This document is being released to the public prior to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the project and is not required by CEQA regulations but is being provided for maximum public transparency. Minor revisions to this draft document may be required to fully respond to public comment received on the partially recirculated DEIR during its 45-day comment period (November 17, 2025 through January 2, 2026).

    “The link below” that is referred to in the quote is here: https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/CommunityDevelopment/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Project-Applications/Village%20Farms%20Davis/VFD%20Partial%20Draft%20RTCs%20DEIR_Optx.pdf

    For those of us that have been waiting to see the FEIR and have been wondering what was going on (e.g., me), this gives us probably a close-to-final version of what the FEIR will be — as I understand these announcements. (It’s a Draft Final EIR responding to the Draft EIR — got it??)

    For more information on the Village Farms proposal, and for the text of the two announcements copy-pasted above, go here: https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development/development-projects/village-farms-davis

  • Coalition of faculty unions prevails against Trump’s attacks on the UC

    UC administration is still laying low and not joining the fight

    By Roberta Millstein

    This is just meant to be a quick follow up to my earlier article, “Trump’s Attacks on the University of California (and higher education more generally).” On Friday, the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs in AAUP v. Trump, including the Davis Faculty Association, a preliminary injunction. By temporary court order, the federal government is prohibited from holding federal funds hostage in an effort to coerce the University of California into imposing policies that would violate our First Amendment rights.

    The judge’s decision is a rebuke of the “Demand letter” I wrote about in the earlier article (and I believe its arguments would likewise apply to the “Compact” that has been presented to other U.S. universities).  Judge Rita Lin writes:

    Plaintiffs have submitted overwhelming evidence. Across 74 declarations and more than 700 pages of supporting documents, Plaintiffs show that the Administration and its executive agencies are engaged in a concerted campaign to purge “woke,” “left,” and “socialist” viewpoints from our country’s leading universities. Agency officials, as well as the President and Vice President, have repeatedly and publicly announced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding, with the goal of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune. Universities are then presented with agreements to restore federal funding under which they must change what they teach, restrict student anonymity in protests, and endorse the Administration’s view of gender, among other things. Defendants submit nothing to refute this.

    In her article on the decision, Davis Enterprise journalist Monica Stark helpfully explains that the order will stay in place until all of the required procedures under Title VI and Title IX are followed — in other words, the procedures that the Trump administration should have followed instead of simply declaring guilt and trying to impose an outrageous $1.2B fine with illegal conditions.  (See Stark’s article or the judge’s order for the list of required procedures).  The Trump administration’s conditions included, the judge states, “conditions on continued federal funding that impermissibly burden their First Amendment rights” (p. 74).

    Judge Lin offered examples of conditions on the granting or continuance of federal funding that would violate the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs’ members (meaning that the Trump administration is prohibited from doing the following):

    (more…)

  • DEIR for Willowgrove project released

    The Willowgrove Draft Environmental Impact Report has been released and is available for public review for a minimum 45-day comment period.

    The Draft EIR public comment period begins on Nov. 10 and ends Jan. 2 at 5 p.m. Members of the public may submit written comments before the end of the comment period. Written comments can be emailed to the Project Planner Eric Lee at: elee@cityofdavis.org.

    The Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public comment meeting on the Draft EIR on Wednesday, Dec. 10, at 7 p.m. in the city of Davis Community Chambers (23 Russell Blvd). Members of the public or public agencies may provide comments at the meeting.

    To view the DEIR, visit https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Special-Projects/Willowgrove/EIR-Draft/Willowgrove-Draft-EIR-Nov-2025-Combined.pdf

    To learn more about the proposed Willowgrove project, visit https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development/development-projects/willowgrove

  • Trump’s Attacks on the University of California (and higher education more generally)

    By Roberta Millstein

    With so many people in Davis affiliated in some way or another with UC Davis, I thought it might be helpful to try to highlight the two fronts on which the University of California is under attack by the federal government, because it is easy to get lost and confused in the details.  And before I get into some of those details, you may wish to sign up at Stand for UC (open to anyone) for more information and ways to get involved. 

    Also, I want to call attention to this helpful webpage from the UCSD Faculty Association, which contains a statement calling on the UC Regents and UC President James Milliken to publicly reject Trump’s demands and has links to many relevant resources.  I’m drawing heavily on their work in this article.

    The two points of attack are:  1) the “Demand” letter that the administration sent to UCLA back in August and 2) the “Compact” letter that the administration sent to 9 schools in early October, later broadening its “offer” to all U.S. colleges and universities.  I had originally hoped to discuss both in one article, but just explaining the first of these took a lot of words, so I will try to discuss the “Compact” in a future article.

    The “Demand” letter seeks a $1.2 Billion “settlement” from UCLA for allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action.  Now, whatever one thinks of the way UCLA has handled things such as the pro-Palestine protests of last year — and I have my concerns — that amount of money is more than the UC system can absorb without serious damage. Governor Newsom accurately called it “extortion” [1]; President Milliken said it would “devastate UC and inflict real, long-term harm on our students, our faculty and staff, our patients, and all Californians.” 

    Importantly, this Demand letter has only recently become public (as of October 24).  The UCLA Faculty Association and the Council of University of California Faculty Associations had to file a lawsuit against the UC administration (yes, you are reading that correctly), who had refused to release the details of the letter.  The UC released the information after a California superior court judge ordered it to do so and the state Supreme Court rejected its appeal (see Monica Stark’s article in the Davis Enterprise for details of the Superior Court’s ruling).

    In addition to the monetary demand, the letter makes demands on UCLA that go well beyond addressing the alleged problems.  According to the SF Chronicle, the demands would require UCLA to (and this is not a complete list):

    (more…)

  • Response to Bob Dunning, re: the nine misconceptions about Prop 50

    By Roberta Millstein

    Bob Dunning featured my “Nine misconceptions about Prop 50” in a recent Substack article, here (requires a paid subscription to see the whole thing). I appreciate the shoutout to the Davisite and my article and his spreading the word about the nine Prop 50 misconceptions with wit and humor.

    Here is my response to what Bob says about the first misconception, which I also left as a comment on his page:

    I should clarify the first misconception a bit more. I saw, on more than one occasion, people having the temerity (SAT word) to say that Texas was constitutionally required to redraw its districts because they were racially biased. Of course the reality is that it is the new, gerrymandered districts are the ones that hurt minority voter representation in Texas.

    (The origin of this misconception is the DOJ itself, who claimed that four districts had been impermissibly created using race. This was such a howler of an excuse that even Texas stopped using it, but the misconception persists out in social media — details here.)

    And not to blab on, but although you’re [i.e., Bob is] right that Trump would surely have leaned hard on Texans if they hadn’t done what he wanted, it’s people like the Texas Democrats, who risked arrest and their jobs to hold up the gerrymandering vote, that we really need right now. People who are willing to stand up to bullies.

  • Nine misconceptions about Prop 50

    By Roberta Millstein

    Back in August, I wrote an article arguing for why people ought to vote “Yes” on Prop 50: “Fight Fire with Fire.” Today I write to dispel some of the misconceptions about Prop 50 that I have encountered.  These will just be quick responses — more can be said about each of them — but at least this should be a starting point.

    But first: be sure to turn in your ballots before November 4.  And, importantly: if you plan to use the U.S. Mail, mail early because Trump’s cuts to USPS mean that your envelope might not get postmarked on Election Day, and, more generally, mail might be slow enough to cause your ballot not to be counted.  On Election Day, use a drop box or voting center; see Yolo County locations here.

    And some news since I wrote the previous article: It’s not just Texas who is trying to gerrymander to increase its Republican representation in Congress — Missouri and North Carolina are now getting into the act too.

    Onto the misconceptions…

    (more…)

  • We’re back!

    Dear readers of the Davisite,

    I have good news — we are back! For those who care about such things, we are now hosted by the popular blogging/website platform WordPress.com, which will hopefully give us a stable home for many years to come. And more good news — we believe that all of our old posts and comments were imported successfully from the old site.

    In the coming days, expect that we will be working out some of the kinks: maybe tweaking the design a bit, maybe learning some of the new features. I ask that you bear with us through this process. I think it should be fairly smooth and straightforward, though.

    We have a bit of a backlog of posts to get through, and we’ll post a couple a day until we get through them all. After that, we will return to our more or less typical posting rate (which has waxed and waned and waxed again over time, and will probably continue to do so).

    For those of you who are subscribed to our email list – and I encourage everyone to do so — your emails will now be coming directly from the site (WordPress.com) rather than the 3rd party email delivery we had used in the past (Feedblitz). That will give you a few more options than you had before, like the ability to get one email per day, one email per week, or even subscribe to get email notifications of comments for individual posts (if you like a lot of email). We are hopeful that this will work better for most, if not all, subscribers.

    Thank you again for reading the Davisite! And please remember that you are all potential authors, too, so send us your articles, event announcements, etc. There’s a lot going on in Davis, the state, and the world right now, and we hope to provide a platform where ideas and information can be shared.

    Yours in community,

    Roberta Millstein

  • Davisite platform challenges

    Dear readers of the Davisite,
     
    The good news is that the Davisite, after having been down for the last week or so, is back up again — at least for now. If you haven't seen our previous messages, we wanted to let you know what has been going on.
     
    Our software platform, Typepad, recently announced that it would be ending service on Sept 30, leaving us, along with thousands of other blogs, scrambling to find a new solution. We are confident that we can make that work and hope to have something in place by early-mid October. In the meantime, Typepad is *supposed* to keep working until the end of the month, but as you can see, it's been flaky.
     
    Things might be flaky for a while. So please bear with us while we get things to a more stable platform — hopefully soon.  In the meantime, we won't be posting any new articles or comments.  
     
    Thanks for your understanding (I hope!) and watch this space!
     
    Yours in community,
     
    Roberta Millstein
     
     

  • Fight fire with fire

    The change in voting districts would only be temporary; the stakes are too high not to level the playing field

    By Roberta Millstein

    As Californians, we are used to having little say in national politics. But now Proposition 50, "The Election Rigging Response Act," will be on the ballot this November. This is our chance to really make a difference — to stand up for our democracy.  And as a largely liberal city, we Davisites have the opportunity to turn out in force.

    Donald Trump asked Texas to rig its election maps to gain more Republican seats in the House, and Texas readily complied. Prop 50 is California's response to this rigging attempt. It would redraw our maps so as to counter Texas's, easing the path for more Democratic representation in the House than we currently have.

    Importantly, this change to our maps would only be temporary. The maps expire in 2030, at which point the California Redistricting Commission’s authority to draw congressional districts would be restored.

    We've seen the dire attacks on our democracy: the deployment of armed national guards in our cities, the erosion of checks and balances, the decimation of due process, retaliation against Trump's critics and perceived enemies, interference in the governance of higher education, erratic foreign policy with regard to tariffs and our longstanding friends, defunding of scientific and medical research, and more. The stakes could not be higher.

    Some worry about the precedent that this sets for the future — that California will return to the bad old days of gerrymandering on a permanent basis. Should we be so lucky to have a functioning democracy in 2030, I am sure we can keep our independent redistricting, just as we did before.  And again, the districts created by Prop 50 will automatically expire in 2030.

    The situation is desperate. We must fight fire with fire. Vote "yes" on Prop 50.

    Information for how to get involved in the campaign, including donating, is here:  https://stopelectionrigging.com.

    [A slightly shorter version of this letter appeared in the Davis Enterprise].

  • Petition to end the security guards at the Davis Food Co-op

    By Roberta Millstein

    The Davis Food Co-op now has security guards. 

    How those security guards are dressed and armed and why they are there is the subject of some dispute — anyone interested in the variety of opinions on this subject can read the hundreds of comments I accidentally generated when I shared a picture of some sidewalk chalk concerning the guards (the first I had heard of it) on NextDoor.  There you can also read a variety of opinions about whether the guards are a good idea or not, count the number of reactions, etc.  Let's just say it was a classic NextDoor post.  Trying to look at the positives, it at least provided a platform for people to share their opinions and impressions.

    But that is not the point of this post.  The point of this post is to share a petition about the security guards, located here: https://www.change.org/p/end-the-militarized-security-presence-at-our-davis-food-co-op.  I have no involvement in creation of the petition, but whoever wrote it did a beautiful job.  It is well-written and thoughtful.

    I have signed, and I urge others to sign as well. Importantly, the petition not only calls for eliminating the security guards (and explains why) but also calls for the Management and Board of Directors of the Co-op to work creatively with the community — as member-owners of the Co-op — to find alternatives to deal with the recent challenges that the Co-op has had. 

    It is, after all, supposed to be a Co-op and not a just another business, just another grocery store.

    One thing that quickly became clear is how badly the Co-op bungled this.  At a minimum, it should have used its email newsletter to let people know about the problems and how they were thinking of handling them.  That would have saved a lot of fear, anger, and frustration on all sides. In fact, they still haven't sent out an email like this, instead putting up a sandwich board in front of the entrance with a relatively brief explanation.

    Davis Food Co-op, let's work together.  Community, let's urge them to do so.  Again, the petition is here.