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

Category: Ethics

  • Village Farms Contaminant Risks

    [This Op-ed article was originally published in the Davis Enterprise on March 22nd in response to February 18th Davisite and Davis Vanguard articles in which Alan Pryor asserted that valid concerns related to contaminants associated with the proposed Village Farms Davis project, are “myths”.  This is a slightly modified version of that article.]

    This map from the Draft Environmental Impact Report, which was not included in the Davis Enterprise Op-ed article, shows Village Farms proposed drainage and housing adjacent the Old Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage Treatment Plant and monitoring well locations. The liner discussed in the Davis Enterprise op-ed article and the Partial Draft Response to EIR Comments does not appear in the Development Agreement or Baseline Project Features. 

    By Steven Deverel, Marjorie Longo, and Robert Okamoto

    There was a recent attempt to dismiss contaminant risks related to the proposed Village Farms project in north Davis. We herein summarize data and potential risks related to contamination from the adjacent Old Davis Landfill, Burn Area, and Wastewater Treatment Plant.

    First, it was posited that contamination from the landfill has dissipated, per and poly fluoralkaline substances (PFAS) are not a health issue and that Village Farms Davis will not be built on the landfill.

    Response

    (more…)

  • An exchange over misleading Village Farms promises about affordable housing

    Greenwald concedes Village Farms could result in little or no affordable housing being built

    By Roberta Millstein

    I want to let readers know about some followups to my two previous posts about the toothless promises concerning Affordable Housing and affordable-by-design housing in Village Farms, which we will vote on in June as Measure V. One is that I meshed the two articles into one, did some more editing, and submitted the new article to the Davis Enterprise, where it appears, here. Now the analysis of affordable housing in Village Farms, which rests in large part on understanding the difference between Baseline Features and Development Agreements — and which “promises” appear where — is all in one place.

    The second thing I want to highlight is a response of sorts to my DE article from the Davis Vanguard, here. What I find interesting about this response is that at each point David Greenwald actually agrees with what I say about the promises of affordable housing. Indeed, there really is no other interpretation — it’s in black and white that the affordable housing is so flexible that the project could end up with little or no affordable housing at all. And he agrees that our city councils have a history of giving in to developers. Quoting from Greenwald’s article (my emphasis added):

    (more…)

  • Village Farms…Is It The Right Time? 

    By Georgina Valencia

    There is no perfect project and there is no perfect time.  But, there are good projects that come at the right time.  Such a project is Village Farms.  There are a few reasons I will vote YES for Village Farms. 

    First, Village Farms is contiguous with the City and I would label this site infill.  It is surrounded by The Cannery, F Street, Covell Blvd and Poleline Road.  While this land is farmland and has been planted under tomatoes, wheat, corn over the years.  It is surrounded by our community on three sides and is ideal for development.

    Second, the property that Village Farms sits on is in the sphere of influence created in 2008.  What is the Sphere of Influence?  “The legislature created the mechanism a “’sphere of influence’ (SOI) as a means for planning of probable physical boundaries and service areas within a local agency…SOIs are designed to both proactively guide and respond to the need for the extension of infrastructure and delivery of municipal services to areas of emerging growth and development.”  Village Farms (formerly Covell Village) is largely within the City’s SOI.  This means we as a community, former Councils as well as City Staff, have thought for decades about the areas of future growth and this is one of them.

    (more…)

  • Davis Deprives Younger Adults of Longterm Housing: Population Demographics

    by Hiram Jackson

    Introduction

    Davis has followed a policy of restrictive growth since 2000 when Measure J passed, which allowed city voters to approve of new projects on the margins of the city.  Since then, Breton Woods, designed for older (55+ years) residents, and the Nishi project, designed for UC Davis students, both passed in 2018. 

    Apart from that, every other proposed project, which notably would have been available for younger adults less than age 54, has been rejected.  This quarter century drought on peripheral developments for younger adults has consequences in our current demographic makeup.

    City of Davis census data show a local declining young adult population

    From 2000 to 2020 U.S. Census data show that Davis grew from about 60,000 to 66,000, an annualized growth rate of about 0.5%.  Within that time the population of 20- to 29-year-olds, which includes mostly UC Davis students, grew by about 2500.  The population of Davis adults aged 50 and older grew by 8,000, reflecting good health and the desirability of our community.  Meanwhile, the number of young adults aged 30 to 49 has shrunk by 2,000 during the same period (See Census chart). 

    Figure 1 – City of Davis Population – 2000 v. 2020 U.S. Census

    This last age cohort, specifically, includes parents who are likely to enroll students in the local public schools.   Based on the 2020 U.S. census, the 30 to 49 age cohort is proportionally larger, statewide and nationally, than either the Baby Boomer or older Gen X population, demonstrating that the Davis decrease is anomalous in not accommodating this age cohort.

    (more…)

  • Why I Now Support Village Farms Davis

    by Alan Pryor

    Introduction

    I have been a fairly consistent opponent of most peripheral development projects in Davis over the past decade. For instance, I was the Principal Officer, Treasurer, and Chair or Co-Chair of the No on Nishi 1 (Student Housing),  No on West Davis Active Adult Community (Senior Housing), and both the No on both DISC 1 and DISC 2 campaigns (primarily Commercial).

    All of those peripheral annexation measures failed except West Davis Active Adult Community. But none of these projects provided for family housing for modest income buyers. I think Davis desperately needs that type of family housing and I believe the Village Farms Davis project provides it so I support the Project.

    As a result, I recently both publicly endorsed the Yes on Measure V campaign and was a  co-signer of the Rebuttal to the Argument Against Measure V that will appear on the June ballot.

    Many folks that I had previously worked with opposing other projects have accused me of abandoning my slow-growth and/or environmental principles after hearing of my endorsement of Village Farms Davis or reading some of the articles I have published about various environmental aspects of the project. Some are saying it is inexplicable to them why I would make this seemingly sudden change in my views toward peripheral development and endorse this Project.

    Well, the reasons are actually pretty simple. I opposed past peripheral development projects because I did not feel any met all of the 3 primary criteria that I look at when considering supporting or opposing a project. And the reason I can now support Village Farms Davis is because I can now check-off each of the boxes for the same 3 criteria – 1) the Features of the Project itself, 2) the Location of the Project, and 3) the Quality of the Developers of the Project.

    Let me explain.

    (more…)

  • 3/28: Third No Kings Yolo to march across Tower Bridge on 60th anniversary of historic farm worker march to Sacramento

    Thousands of Yolo County residents gathered in Davis in October for the second No Kings march and rally. Indivisible Yolo is organizing the next No Kings event for March 28 in West Sacramento. Photo by Laurie Friedman

    Countywide event will be held alongside protests across the country

    (From press release) Following in the footsteps of farm workers in their historic march across the Tower Bridge with the farm workers movement 60 years ago, Indivisible Yolo is joining with the Sacramento Labor Council for Latin American Advancement AFL-CIO and Change to Win, along with Davis Phoenix Coalition, to host the third No Kings Yolo on March 28. The event will begin with a democracy fair at River Walk Park in West Sacramento at 10:30am with activities for all ages and a brief speaker program. Supporters will then march at noon across the Tower Bridge to the state capitol to join Indivisible Sacramento’s No Kings rally. Learn more and sign up: https://www.indivisibleyolo.org/no-kings-yolo. 

    No Kings Yolo, this time themed “We are the Power! Somos el Poder!,” is part of the largest single-day national mobilization in history expected to attract millions nationwide as people gather to protest Trump administration policies – including ICE terrorization, unauthorized wars and threats to working families in the community – and to remind the president that America is a democracy. 

    (more…)

  • What are the guaranteed parts of the Village Farms project?

    Looking at Affordable Housing in particular

    By Roberta Millstein

    With the for and against ballot arguments for Village Farms and their rebuttals posted to the County’s website (as Measure V), and the campaigns starting to ramp up, I thought it was important to highlight what are technically known as the projects Baseline Features. These are available as part of the “Full Text of Measure V” on the County’s website, and I encourage Davisites to take a close look at them, but I wanted to point out a couple of things first.

    Most important to note is what it means to be a Baseline Feature. As the text of the Measure itself clarifies:

    Beyond the Baseline Project Features there are other additional requirements for the Project, including but not limited to, the mitigation measures set forth in the Village Farms EIR, and the Development Agreement that, while important to the Project, are not Baseline Project Features and may be modified with the approval of the City after the appropriate public process (emphasis added).

    Another way of saying this is to point out that only the Baseline Features are guaranteed parts of the project. Anything else can be changed with a vote of the City Council — and here one should keep in mind that membership of that future City Council could be somewhat or even substantially different from today’s City Council. Thus, anything that is not a Baseline Feature is not a guaranteed part of the project.

    And even then, it’s important to read the Baseline Features carefully, as some of us learned when Bretton Woods was able to jettison its promised memory care facility. Let me give an example that is tied to one touted feature of the project that is of great interest to many voters: Affordable Housing.

    The rebuttal to the argument against Measure V states that the project will have “360 units serving very low to moderate income households.” But is this true?

    (more…)

  • Rebuttals to for-and-against ballot arguments are now available

    Roberta Millstein

    In an earlier article, I posted the for and against arguments for the Village Farms project. The rebuttals to each of these arguments are now available on the County’s website, and I have pasted them below. Village Farms is subject to a Measure J/R/D vote of all Davis citizens and has been assigned as Measure V.

    Here is the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Village Farms that will appear on our ballots in June (the rebuttal to the argument against follows after that):

    (more…)

  • Ballot arguments for and against Village Farms now available

    By Roberta Millstein

    This post is to just let people know that the arguments for and against the Village Farms project are up on the County’s website. The rebuttals to the for and against arguments are due by March 3; I will post them at some point afterward. Village Farms is subject to a Measure J/R/D vote of all Davis citizens and has been assigned as Measure V.

    Here is the argument in favor of Village Farms, i.e., in favor of Measure V, that will appear on our ballots in June (the argument against follows after that):

    (more…)

  • The City’s handling of the noise ordinance: The good and the bad

    By Roberta Millstein

    The City’s handling of the proposed noise ordinance was good in some respects and quite bad in others.

    First, the good: At Tuesday night’s meeting, led by Mayor Donna Neville, the council agreed that the noise items weren’t an ordinance clean-up item and that they deserved a true staff report and separate consideration.  The noise ordinance (Chapter 24) items were pulled from the Consent Calendar and Item 4B’s noise ordinance “clean-up” will come to the council at a later date.

    I am grateful to the Council for hearing the Davis citizens who emailed and gave public comment concerning the noise ordinance.  (Previous Davisite articles about the proposed changes can be found here and here). 

    Now for the bad: This should have never been on the Consent Calendar in the first place, which is for noncontroversial items that do not need discussion.  I’m not quite sure how or why it was put there, or why the Council passed it unanimously at its “first reading” (Tuesday was the “second reading”), but to me it’s a continuation of a “trust staff implicitly” mentality.  I hope that this is a sign that the Davis City Council recognizes that it (the Council), not staff, is the responsible party who we voted for and that oversight is needed.

    Another concern is the way that comments emailed to Councilmembers were handled.  I received a reply from Barbara Archer, the City’s “Public Information Officer,” asserting (in essence) that the concerns I raised were not valid.  There are several problems with this:

    (more…)