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

Author: Roberta Millstein

  • City Council issues lily-livered statement concerning abortion rights

    City council statementBy Roberta Millstein

    Two days ago, the City released a statement signed by all five members of the Davis City Council in response to the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.  Sadly, the statement is wishy-washy and lacking in any sort of call to action.  One wonders why they even bothered.

    Those who moved to Davis recently may not be aware that the City Council voted to make Davis a pro-choice City in 1989.  The LA Times quoted then-Mayor Michael Corbett: “The resolution is a political act to support women’s choice to choose their own morality. . . . I know that will alienate people, but that’s the way I see it.”  That was bold leadership, leadership that is sorely lacking in today’s City Council.  Are we still a pro-choice city today?

    There are, it should be acknowledged, some positive elements to Tuesday’s statement, namely where it says:

    (more…)

  • Bias in jury selection in Yolo County Court

    JusticeBy Roberta Millstein

    What makes a juror too biased to serve on a case? 

    Recently, I was called for jury duty selection for case that involved repeated sexual assault on a person who was a minor at the time.  I was not selected; the prosecuting attorney used one of his peremptory challenges to dismiss me.  I’m OK with that – the trial would have been weeks long – although I do, in an idle curiosity sort of way, wonder about the reasons.  My friends insist it is because I have a PhD (apparently many of my fellow PhDs have been dismissed from juries), but I’d also note that the prosecuting attorney seemed very concerned about having people on the jury who were not in favor of the district attorney, who was on the ballot for re-election.

    But it wasn’t the prosecuting attorney’s dismissal of me that I found troubling.  Instead, it was process, largely led by the defense attorney and, if I understand correctly, allowed by the judge, for dismissing people “for cause.”

    I know at least some of what I say here will be controversial and perhaps heretical.  It won’t be as well-organized as I’d like because I am still thinking through some things.  But perhaps the reader will think through things with me.

    The defense attorney’s questioning of potential jury members was very haphazard.  He asked what was ostensively the same question in different ways, to the point where they seemed like different questions, although I don’t think that was his intent.  Some people were queried more intensively than others.  And it seemed to me that women were queried more intensively than men.

    That was bad enough, but as the process went on, it became apparent that anyone who had experienced sexual assault or who had someone close to them who had been sexually assaulted was being dismissed for cause on the grounds of “bias.”  Since something like 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted, this was quite disturbing.  A lot of people were being dismissed.  (Of course, some people are going to find it too painful to serve, and those people were rightly dismissed – but the dismissals were going beyond that).

    (more…)

  • Davis still needs a new vision

    Back in December 2020, some members of the successful 2020 No on DISC campaign got together and articulated what they felt was a new and better vision for Davis.  With the apparent defeat of DiSC 2022 as Measure H, currently showing a 63.52% "No" vote, I thought I would pull it out again.  I think our vision and much of what we wrote here remains pertinent , including an all-too-prescient prediction that:

    "the developers will try to bring back DISC with minor changes and spend another quarter of a million dollars in the hopes of gaining just enough new votes to change the outcome of the election.  What the election vote shows is that such an attempt would be a mistake.  The project proposal was fundamentally flawed and a few more bells and whistles wouldn’t change that."

    We did not, however, expect that the developer would spend significantly more than half a million dollars, and still lose.  It is to Davisites' credit that we still saw that this was a bad project delivered through a bad process (including an inappropriate developer-funded lawsuit, spearheaded by a sitting Councilmember).

    I hope our op-ed stimulates you to think about an alternative path for Davis.

    -RLM

    The Failure of Measure B Suggests a New Vision Is Needed
    Originally posted December 12, 2020
    https://newdavisite.wordpress.com/2020/12/12/the-failure-of-measure-b-suggests-a-new-vision-is-needed/

    West from Rd 30B - Sac skylineBy Roberta Millstein, Pam Gunnell, Nancy Price, Alan Pryor, and Colin Walsh

    Measure B – the measure that proposed a 200-acre business park and housing development outside of the Mace Curve – failed at the polls.  The defeat comes with official Yolo County returns showing that 16,458 people, or 52% of voters, said “no” to the project.  In Mace Ranch and Wildhorse, 60% of voters opposed the project.

    This is a remarkable result considering that the No on B campaign was outspent by over 14 to 1.  As of October 28, Yes on B had spent $258,919 between when B was put on the ballot in July and the election in November, while No on B had spent $18,149.  The No on B campaign, composed solely of volunteer Davis citizens, created its own literature, designed its own sign and other graphics, was active on social media, and, to the extent possible during COVID, pounded the pavement distributing flyers to let Davisites know about the negative impacts that this project would bring.  It was a true grassroots effort.  There were no paid designers, no paid consultants, no multiple glossy mailers, and no push-polls to gather information on what messages would sell.  Opponents also could not table at the Farmers Market due to COVID restrictions, normally the bread and butter of a campaign lacking deep pocket donors to finance getting its message out.

    By comparison, Yes on B hired a PR Firm and other consultants more than a year in advance of the vote to help contrive and package its message and run the campaign.

    The fact that Measure B was nonetheless defeated in the face of long odds and unusual circumstances shows that DISC was a bad project for Davis from the outset.  It was too big, chewing up prime farmland and habitat.   The promise of on-site housing for DISC employees could not be guaranteed, making the development car-and commuter- oriented with extensive parking areas. Poor public transportation options exacerbated this problem. The DISC development would have massively increased Davis greenhouse gas emissions and made it impossible for Davis to meet its carbon neutrality goals. We are in a climate emergency, as Yolo County and other counties have recognized; Davis needs to shoulder its share of responsibility for climate impacts, including but not limited to wildfire impacts and extreme weather events locally and globally.

    (more…)

  • Don’t forget to vote!

    I-votedToday (Tues, June 7) is the last day to vote! Polls close at 8 PM.

    Easiest way to vote is with a drop box.  Just vote, put your ballot in your envelope, seal your envelope, SIGN your envelope, and drop it in the box.

    • Outdoor boxes:
      • Davis City Hall, 23 Russell Boulevard, Davis
      • UC Davis Campus, 282 Tennis Court Lane, Davis
    • Indoor boxes:
      • Nugget Markets, 409 Mace Boulevard, Davis
      • Nugget Markets, 1414 E Covell Boulevard, Davis

    If you need in-person assistance, our election-day voting centers are:

    • Veterans Memorial Center – Multipurpose Room, 203 E 14th Street, Davis.
    • UC Davis ARC – Ballroom A & B, 760 Orchard Road, Davis
    • Montgomery Elementary School – Multipurpose Room, 1441 Danbury Street, Davis
    • Emerson Junior High School – Multipurpose Room, 2121 Calaveras Avenue, Davis

    My votes:

    • Measure H (the DiSC industrial project): NO
    • Yolo County Supervisor, District 2: Juliette Beck
    • Yolo County District Attorney: Cynthia Rodriguez
    • Yolo County Sheriff: Tom Lopez
    • U.S. Congress: Andrew Engdahl

    But even if you don't vote like me, please vote!

  • Reminder that next Tues June 7 is the last day to vote!

    SitemapfordiscThere are many ways to vote in addition to mailing in your ballot, including drop off boxes and in-person vote centers. This page has the details: https://www.yoloelections.org/voting/polling_place

    We are lucky to live in a place where they make voting easy, so be sure to vote! Locally we have Measure H, the DA race, the Yolo County supervisor race, and more. Plus the state stuff.

  • Councilmember Carson sued me for signing a ballot statement

    6F907AC2-43BA-422A-A5DC-F4974707938FBy Roberta Millstein

    Two weeks ago, I was stunned to learn from a Davis Enterprise article that I and other signers of the Argument Against Measure H (Argument Against DiSC) were being sued by none other than Councilmember Dan Carson, who is serving as the “Honorary” Chair of the developer-funded Yes on DiSC campaign. Measure H is on the June 7 ballot; DiSC is a proposed development project on 100 acres of mostly prime farmland outside the City limits, adjacent to I-80 and Mace Blvd.

    Apparently, the suit had been filed on the last possible day. I waited to be served papers, but none ever arrived. I did receive a phone call, later learning that Councilmember Carson had obtained my phone number from a Commission Chair. I was extremely surprised to learn that he would do something like that, especially since he apparently did not let on what he wanted my phone number for. It is still unclear whether Councilmember Carson funded this lawsuit himself or if someone else funded it; he has refused to answer several people who have asked him.

    With a tight deadline for the ballot to be printed by the County, citizens opposed to DiSC suddenly found themselves having to find a lawyer within a matter of days (like, two days) and the prospect of spending tens of thousands of dollars to retain one — well in excess of the budget for the entire grassroots campaign.

    And what was the suit about?  Well, perhaps Councilmember Carson thought that he could pull the wool over a judge's eyes, but the judge found no problems with our contention that DiSC is in violation of the City's General Plan or our contention that there would be unmitigated greenhouse gases from the project or that there were almost no commitments.

    (more…)

  • What should Davis’s “Resilience Hub” be?

    The City Council approved spending of American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds at its most recent meeting, including $400,000 for "climate resilience hub/climate action needs." This being the only money they allocated related to climate change, it seems especially important to think about what such a hub might look like. Below are relevant documents from the City's Utility Commission.

    ~~~~~~~

    From: Resilience Subcommi1ee
    To: Utilities Commission
    Re: More definitive vision of Resilience Hub Date: October 20, 2021

    The Resilience Subcommittee offers the following ideas and questions to the Utilities Commission to help formulate a vision of how a Resilience Hub could be beneficial to Davis and the specific qualities we would like to have in a Davis Resilience Hub.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————

    Resilience is the ability of people and communities to anticipate, accommodate and positively adapt to and thrive amidst changing climate conditions and emergency events.

    Resilience Hub is a local facility to enhance community resilience by providing reliable essential services when emergency events occur and other community benefits under normal conditions. A resilience hub typically:

    (more…)

  • Why is DiSC back?

    Note: The following comments made at the City Council's Feb 1, 2022 meeting.  The City Council, as expected, decided to proceed with putting the project on the ballot for voters to decide.

    DISC overview shot

    By Roberta Millstein

    DiSC is back. But why is it back? Is it any better than the project that voters rejected just a little over a year ago?

    It has no new features. Indeed, the developer initially deleted a bunch of features from the proposal and, after pushback from the Planning Commission and others, has now added some of them back in. But at best that only restores the status quo to the previously rejected project.

    It is a reduced project, but half of huge is still huge. It’s the size of one Cannery instead of the size of two Canneries.

    It’s still a freeway-oriented and car-oriented project that will massively impact traffic on Mace Blvd, I-80, and adjacent Mace Ranch surface streets. As a consequence, the greenhouse gases from the project will shred the City’s already weak carbon neutrality commitment. Nothing the developers can do on site can change that, since most of the climate change impact would be from commuters to and from the site. Vague promises of possible transportation improvements don’t change this climate killer either.

    (more…)

  • Dramatic reduction in Baseline Features in DiSC 2022

    Screen Shot 2022-01-11 at 9.10.17 PM
    The following email was sent to the Planning Commission in the evening of Jan 11, 2022.  (The agenda for the meeting can be found here):

    Dear members of the Planning Commission,

    I am writing concerning item 6A of your meeting tomorrow (Jan 12), the public hearing on the DiSC 2022 project.

    As you may recall, for a project that will be facing a Measure J/R/D vote, the Baseline Features (BFs) are key.  The BFs are the only features that are guaranteed parts of the project.  In contrast, any features that are part of the Development Agreement can be changed by the City Council.  So, in terms of what the project is, and what the voters will be voting on, it is extremely important to know what the BFs are.

    As it turns out, a number of BFs have changed or been eliminated in the change from the old DISC (rejected by voters in Nov 2020) and the current DiSC 2022 proposal.  Here is my count:

    • 19 BFs essentially unchanged
    • 2 features enhanced
    • 5 BFs changes due to reduction in the size of project (e.g, less housing)
    • 7 BFs that offer a weaker version of feature unrelated to changes in project size
    • 13 features eliminated altogether (appeared in old DISC but not in DiSC 2022).

    Of course, whether these changes are important or not is for you and others to determine, but some of them are arguably important.  Indeed, there are changed or eliminated features in each of the main categories, reducing the sustainability, housing, transit, etc., features of the project.

    I urge you as Planning Commissioners to query the developer about all of these changes in order to determine if they are justified.

    Attached please find a spreadsheet that shows these changes.

    The BFs for old DISC can be found online in the following document: http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/CommunityDevelopment/Documents/PDF/CDD/Aggie%20Research%20Campus/20-111%20-%20DISC%20Project%20Ballot%20Measure.pdf

    Sincerely,

    Roberta Millstein
    Davis citizen
    Former chair, Open Space & Habitat Commission

    **** Download Baseline feature comparison *****

  • Should Davis spend millions of dollars on a ladder fire truck?

    This article was originally posted on 5/16/21. It is being reposted today because the City Council will be considering this item at its meeting tomorrow, 1/11/22. The anticipated one-time capital purchase expense for the fire apparatus and associated equipment is approximately $2.15 million.

    UC Davis Ladder Fire Truck no 34

    UC Davis's Ladder Fire Truck – Truck 34

    By Roberta Millstein

    Is now the time for the City of Davis to be spending millions of dollars on a ladder fire truck when it currently only needs this type of truck approximately once per month at most, when it can currently borrow UC Davis’s ladder truck for free?

    What information do we need to answer this question?  What do we know and what do we need to know?

    According to the Davis Enterprise, on March 16 the Davis City Council “expressed unanimous support for acquiring a ladder truck for the Davis Fire Department and directed staff to move forward both on securing a detailed cost estimate for a truck as well as developing plans to modify the downtown fire station to accommodate it.”

    The estimated costs discussed thus far are as follows (with the City possibly being able to obtain some grants to offset some of these costs):

    (more…)