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

Category: Current Affairs

  • How Do You Die In a Sinking Submarine? Part 1 – Carson

    USS Carson copyWith a whopping 11,000 votes cast, Measure H was massacred, going down 64% to 36%, or nearly 2-1.  I was actually in favor of the project, slightly, and would have voted for it, had Carson not . . . well, no need to rehash here, you all know — some of you fellow citizens know intimately/legally/financially.  With this scaled-back version going down like a rock, it is safe to ask . . . did the decision to bring on Carson and then sue Davis residents kill this project? 

    I believe the project would not have passed anyway, based on a guess I pulled out of my ass while typing this.   But a reasonable question is, could 1500-2000 of those 11,000 Davis residents been so offended by what the developer and Carson did that they changed their vote or made a point of voting when they may not have otherwise?  I believe, also sourced from my colon, that the answer is yes, they could have.  What I do know is I talked to a lot of people who were very angry at Carson and thought he had made himself into a fool clown.  Nothing motivates one to vote like anger at a fool clown.

    The main conclusion of the video 'How Do You Die in a Sinking Submarine?' is that you die instantly when the hull implodes.  Carson, on the other hand, is going down slowly through June, July, August, September and October.  Painfully listening as the political hull creaks and groans under the pressure of his own stupidity reflected back on him from Davis residents, until:  BOOM!  Or, rather, since submarines implode rather than explode:  MOOB!

    Why am I being such a dick to Carson?  I want to send a clear message so that never again will anyone be so brazen as to:

    1. Hire a sitting City Councilmember to be your campaign chair, honorable or not (in this case not).
    2. Volunteer to be that Councilmember who becomes the campaign chair.
    3. Hire a proxy to sue Davis citizens over ballot language.
    4. Volunteer to be that proxy.
    5. Sue anyone over ballot language on a local issue in Davis ever again.

    Personally, I found much of the NO on H ballot argument outrageous; I also found much of the YES ballot argument outrageous.  I doubt anyone on the NO side ever thought, 'hey I know, let's sue the YES side over their ballot language'!  No, they used media and lawn signs, like normal, decent people do.  This skull-f*ckery of suing Davis citizens over ballot language will stop.  Y'all should have been intelligent enough to see what a bad idea that was.  You weren't.

    We all tend to have very short memories when politicians do stupid things.   I intend to keep the pressure on, keep the memory of the stupidity going, and hope the people of West Davis are more intelligent than Carson and the developer.  The sub is sinking; let's all keep the pressure increasing on the hull over the next five months until we see the bubbles on the surface.

    MOOB!

  • Welcome to Al’s Corner – “Pouring Gasoline on the Dumpster Fire of Davis Politics” – Volume #4

    image from www.sparkysonestop.comThis is Al's Corner, a place to comment on local issues and articles/comments in other local forums that you may or may not have been banned from.  For the few Rule-ez at Al's Corner, see "Pages" –> "Al's Corner – What It Is".

  • NO on Carson (Letter to Editor, Davis Enterprise, June 3rd, 2022)

    Campaigners are often so set in the righteousness of their views that they forget that the only people they need to convince are those few in the middle weighing both sides. Carson changed my vote on Measure H.

    I see both advantages and consequences to building DiSC; my main issue was infrastructure, specifically the bike under-crossing. I was torn but until recently decided to cross the 50-yard line in support of the project, based on the developer's commitment to build the bike/ped tunnel (though I was getting concerned as some pointed out the wording in the agreement could allow the 'commitment' to be pushed off indefinitely).

    Then Carson became the head of the committee to support the project he just voted to put on the ballot, as a coucil-member. I'm fine with council-members having opinions and speaking out, but I don't ever want to see such an intimate relationship between a party of interest and a politician, even if technically legal. Honestly, I may never have noticed, had Carson not chosen to become the developer’s proxy to sue Davis citizens over a ballot argument. Yes, the ‘No’ ballot argument is outrageous; also outrageous is the developer’s ‘Yes’ ballot argument, lawn signs, etc. That's the nature of ballot arguments!

    Loss of political integrity on this scale trumps mere issues and must not be tolerated. I will not only vote No on H, but likely permanently against this piece of land and this developer. I will also get my exercise this fall by walking the streets of West Davis in support of Carson's replacement.

    Vote NO on Carson.

    Alan C. Miller
    Davis

  • Welcome to Al’s Corner – “Pouring Gasoline on the Dumpster Fire of Davis Politics” – Volume #3

    image from www.sparkysonestop.comThis is Al's Corner, a place to comment on local issues and articles/comments in other local forums (that you may or may not have been banned from). 

    For the (very few) Rule-ez at Al's Corner, see top of right column on home page under:  "Pages" –> "Al's Corner – What It Is"

  • Welcome to Al’s Corner – “Pouring Gasoline on the Dumpster Fire of Davis Politics” – Volume #2

    image from www.sparkysonestop.comThis is Al's Corner, a place to comment on local stuff.  It's also a place to comment on articles and comments from other local forums you may have been banned from.  For the Rule-ez, see top of right column:  "Pages" –> "Al's Corner – What It Is"

    Al's Corner #1 was a smashing success.  Please ruin  Al's Corner #2 with poor, thoughtless comments that will make babies cry.  Without contrast to success, there is no victory. 

    Enjoy! 😐

  • This Sounds and Smells Fishy – More Noise Ordinance Follies

    By Robert Canning

    Almost a year ago, City of Davis staff attempted to slip a change to the City’s sound ordinance through the city council with little discussion and no commission input. The proposal was pulled back by staff after questions immediately arose about the intent and substance of the change, and how they related to a controversial (and noisy) piece of playground equipment in Arroyo Park.

    Now, the staff are bringing a new proposal to the Recreation and Park Commission and asking the commission to review the report of a sound consultant and give “feedback” on new locations for the Sky Track equipment based on the staff report and a survey of Davis residents who live within 1,000 feet of the equipment. The staff report quotes at length from and discusses the sound consultant’s report. But basically, the sound consultant parrots the line from a year ago that the city should use the average of sound over time rather than the maximum allowable sound as the basis to evaluate whether the Sky Track produces is too noisy. 

    It is puzzling why the consultants continue to use the Leq metric since that does not appear anywhere in the Davis Municipal Code section on sound (Sec. 24.020). In fact the ordinance specifically states that “Noise Level means the maximum continuous sound level or repetitive peak level produced by a sound source or group of sources…” It’s unclear why the staff report states on page 2 of the report that the consultants “determine that the “City Standard is a Leq”. Isn’t it the city’s job to tell the consultants what the code says? We shouldn’t be asking noise consultants to give a legal interpretation of the city code – to the city. And there is no timeframe referenced in the city code, which would be required if an average measurement is to be used. A change in the language of the ordinance regarding maximum allowable sound levels, as has been pointed out before, has ramifications beyond the issue of Arroyo Park and are akin to last year’s fiasco should not be contemplated without more public input.

    (more…)

  • Welcome to Al’s Corner – A Place to Comment on Local Stuff – #1

    image from www.sparkysonestop.comThis is Al's Corner – A Place to comment on Local Stuff, free from the censorship of biased people.  Free speech rocks!  Recent happenings at Netflix & Twitter give hope that Cancel Culture in the U.S. is dying.  Recent happenings in Davis local media . . .  not so much.  Al's Corner is a place to speak your mind on all things Davis, even as other local forums become more exclusive, more moderated, and more noisier echo chambers that don't welcome dissent, recognize humor, or allow 'incorrect' opinions.  That's why I created Al's corner — comment here on local media content and comments, without having to deal with the Thought Police. 

    (more…)

  • Hold your pets! Hold your breath! FIREWORKS are back!

    Dog-fireworksAt this Tuesday's City Council meeting, May 10th, at 630pm, less than one month ahead of Celebrate Davis and less two months ahead of the 4th of July, the City Council is planning to authorize pyrotechnic displays at these events.

    For the past two years due to COVID and/or wildfire smoke issues, spring and summertime fireworks have been suspended for the most part. Wiith all the other stresses on our families, it's been a literal lifesaver for dozens or more pets typically killed, injured or traumatized by fireworks, and a small measure to keep the air clean as many took their last breaths due to the pandemic. It's likely that wild animals also suffer. Some may also have supported the cancellation in solidarity with communities nearby that burnt in recent years.

    We breathed in the smoke from fires in Paradise, so why are we allowing toxic combustibles to be launched into the sky, also as many of us do all we can to help people attacked by larger pyrotechnics in Ukraine?

    Sadly, it's claimed that pyrotechnic displays fulfill the Council Goal to "Support an array of festivals and celebrations that will culturally enhance and engage our community [and] promote equity…"

    Cultural? Engagement? EQUITY?

    We can have fun and safe events that promote community and patriotism without fireworks!

    What can we do about it? Many cities around the country have replaced fireworks displays with lazer light shows. The Council – or at least Mayor Partida – and a representative of the Davis Chamber of Commerce – organizer of Celebrate Davis – are aware of this and have engaged with citizens in past years. So it's unclear why this is only on the Consent Calendar, presumably to be passed without comment.

    We need to comment immediately, in advance of the Council meeting! By email – before 3pm on Tuesday – to or by calling in starting at noon that day at 530-757-5693 and leaving a message of up to two minutes in length. Please voice your opposition (and why), ask for a light show instead of fireworks, and for the item to be pulled from the Consent Calendar so that it can be discussed.

    It may also be useful to contact the Natural Resources Commission which is having a special meeting on Monday at 630pm about the City's climate actions (CAAP), by email to by10am Monday and/or by calling in live at 530-757-5693 as a general comment at the beginning of the meeting, or you can probably relate this issue to climate change and alternatively can call in during public comment for the CAAP item.

    Please copy emails to the Davis Chamber of Commerce: and or call them at 530-902-7699 or contact them separately with the same message as above.

    City Council links: https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/2022/2022-05-10/03N-Fireworks-Display-Authorization.pdf + https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/2022/2022-05-10/City-Council-Agenda-05-10-22.pdf

    NRC link: https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/CityCouncil/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Natural-Resources-Commission/Agendas/20220506/2%20Agenda%20Natural%20Resources%20Commission%20Special%20Meeting%20Agenda%20May%209,%202022.pdf

    Davis Chamber of Commerce links: https://www.davischamber.com/celebrate-davis.html + https://www.davischamber.com/

    Finally, Nugget Markets is the Title Sponsor of Celebrate Davis. They and other sponsors such as Dignity Health and Kaiser Permanente would probably not want to be associated with a potentially great event that is toxic and worse for families. Contact them, too!

  • Citizens try to recoup costs resulting from spurious lawsuit

    Scales-of-justice(From press release) Today in Yolo Superior Court, the attorneys for the citizens who wrote and signed the No on Measure H ballot statement, filed a motion for an award of legal fees and costs they incurred in their defense of a lawsuit filed by Davis City Councilmember Dan Carson. Carson had previously sued the ballot signers claiming their ballot statement was false or misleading.  

    The citizen Defendants (the “real parties”) named in the Carson lawsuit retained legal representation on a partially contingent basis which permitted the attorneys to seek an award of their legal fees if they were successful in defending the ballot language against Carson’s claims.  

    The Defendants’ filing states “The Court outright rejected three of Petitioner’s challenges and adopted Real Parties’ suggestions for the two modest edits it ordered.” 

    Alan Pryor, the Treasurer of the No on DiSC campaign and one of the Defendants stated “Carson’s lawsuit requested whole sentences in the ballot statement be stricken by the Judge. In his final ruling, however, made only two small changes that were suggested by authors of the statement.” 

    “In my experience, it is highly unusual for a sitting public official to sue their own citizens over ballot arguments,” said Beverly Grossman Palmer, an experienced election attorney and partner at Strumwasser & Woocher. “None of the attorneys in my firm can recall a similar situation in any of our collective years of practicing election law.”

    (more…)

  • Four Car Washes Near 80 & Mace?

    Car wash center sign

    Poorly-Photoshop'd modification of "Davis Auto Center" sign on Chiles next to I-80

    I have been engaged for a couple of weeks on the subject of the proposed car wash at 480 Mace (at Cowell Blvd.), and have written about it.

    I am not sure when the following items appeared on the City's website, but I see now that there's also a plan for a "new service station, a convenience store and carwash, a separate retail building, and related site improvements" at 4810 Chiles AND to "maintain the existing carwash [and] construct a new 2,832 square-foot convenience store" and implement related features at 4480 Chiles, which already has a car wash.

    My concerns are:

    1) The public notification and project documents for the 480 Mace proposal make no mention of the simultaneous process for 4810 Chiles, for which Mr Njoku says he's aiming a hearing on March 23, 2022, though I believe Sherri Metzger said at the PC meeting tonight that this was not guaranteed – nor for 4480 Chiles, which Mr Lee says will have a hearing "soon". This is two weeks after the re-scheduled Planning Commission hearing for 480 Mace. What's the CEQA comments deadline for 4810 Chiles? The sum of this seems to be that perhaps a week before the re-rescheduled Planning Commission hearing on 480 Mace, the residents of 4735 Cowell Blvd who received the 500 ft notice that proposed car wash will receive another for the second car wash at 4810 Chiles, as will other commercial addresses within the 500 ft radius BUT significantly also the Ellington Apartments, which have their main entrance on El Cemonte, and a small shared border with 4810 Chiles. Is the 4810 Chiles applicant going to be making the same mistake as 480's in regards to a lack of outreach. (The letter about the requested continuance from the 480 Mace applicant which was shown at the PC meeting tonight thanked Staff for circulating the announcement and mentioned they were doing similar on NextDoor. Nothing else.

    Car wash plan mapOn the left the two existing car washes; on the right two proposed.

    Note that proposed ones are directly adjacent.

    2) The Traffic Studies for 480 Mace and 4810 Chiles make no mention of each other. I had already written about my concerns for the overlap for design and signalling changes for 480 Mace proposed mitigations and the Mace Re-Design non-approved plans, and this makes me even more curious.

    3) The Traffic Study for 4810 Chiles seems to show egress from NB Mace, but it's not clear if it's open, one-way etc. The Study mentions no mitigations for it.

    4) The available documents for 4810 Chiles include maps which marginally at best show El Macero Village and Ellington as "Apartments", not e.g. perhaps 500 people or more within 500 ft.

    5) The documentation for 480 refers to the proposed buildings having visual elements similar to those nearby, but this is not inclusive of what's proposed for 4810 Chiles, which looks objectively remarkably different (and subjectively incredibly generic and ugly.)

    Circle K

    Proposal for 4810 Chiles… yeah, ugh…

    6) I understand the current zoning, the district plan already referred to by Staff as "out of date", but don't see how it makes sense to have a total of four car washes in close proximity to each other (three mentioned and the one behind the Chevron station at Mace and 2nd St.) and why it's been encourage or allowed to be pursued. Given the very close timing of 480 Mace and 4810 Chiles including the lack of time and effort for community input for 480 Mace, it also seems like a race. Perhaps the Planning Commission won't approve them but what if it does, because…

    7) Two of the proposed car washes are so close that their vacuums – or loud stereos played by customers – may be able to be heard by visitors to the other location, and more critically by the apartment complex that lies partially directly in between them, El Macero Village Apartments, where I live, except during the times that the sound of I-80 is louder, but then this all has at least a subjective cumulative effect.

    8) Fehr & Peers has done the Traffic Studies for both 480 Mace and 4810 Chiles, and also the design plans for the Mace Re-Design. For the former two they are working for the applicants and for the latter for the City (and County?). It's not clear if their work for the City for the Re-Design of Mace has been used for 480 – or also 4810 Chiles – but it seems so as in the Study for 480 they suggest mitigations for areas – namely, the intersection of Mace and Cowell – for which they've also proposed concrete design modifications at the direction of the City. Is this all perfectly normal?