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

Category: Health

  • Dangerous Bike Lanes: Automobile Normativity Breeds Neglect (Part 1 of 3)

     

    PXL_20240815_190057157.RAW-01.COVER

    East Covell, Westbound, between the Mace Curve and Alhambra. See Video. Reported on 8/1/2024. Based on my understanding of how My Davis Requests are processed, this has not even been evaluated at time of writing. 

    Davis, CA -  I've been riding a bike in cities for most of my adult life – that's forty years. As an example for others I don't often say that something feels safe; but when I feel a situation is dangerous it's a more valid perspective to share. 

    For the last six weeks or so I've had to travel two times a week from my home near Mace and Cowell to Sutter Davis. The fastest way there by car is via 80 and 113; by bicycle it's Mace to East and then West Covell.  I have an e-bike, and it takes about 23 minutes, a bit longer if I don't make the lights, and longer still if I have to slow or even stop to avoid hitting overgrowth of trees and bushes into the bike lane, and slower if I have to stop to let vehicles pass when the overgrowth extends all the way to the edge of the traffic lane. 

    "In some situations when the tree concern appears to be an immediate safety hazard [emphasis mine] the Street division will respond and put up barricades or traffic control to block off the area until tree work can be done. When the Urban Forestry division assesses the tree they determine the urgency of the concern and who the work will be assigned to. They also consider if the tree is the City’s responsibility to maintain. If a tree is blocking the public right of way per the clearance standards for that specific area they will assign pruning of the tree to meet clearance standards for the roadway, bike lane, sidewalk or path. Prune may be done but City Urban Forestry staff or by our contract arborist, currently West Coast Arborist. Work is completed based on the priority assessment conducted by one of the City’s Certified Arborist. If you have any additional questions please contact us …" – from a response to an earlier complaint. 

    How in this cornhole-tomato industrial apocalypse is the situation in the photo above  not an "immediate hazard"? As of time of writing,  along the westbound (WB) route between Mace and Sutter Davis, there are just over 30 bushes and trees which are "overgrowth" – the City's term – in the bike lane. Some require a diversion into the buffer (which is not a passing lane, and only part of this route has painted buffers), some require a diversion into the traffic lane,  some require ducking under possibly sharp branch ends (ironically, the by-product of earlier trimming….). 

    Along this route I first reported overgrowth on the NB Mace Blvd overpass on July 27.  It's still there, requiring a quick maneuver to avoid this punji stick, but – watch out! – not so far into the traffic lane! 

    What's curious is that "Closed" seems to only mean that the problem is solved in regards to potholes (and similar). "Closed" in relation to overgrowth on city property such as Covell indicates that the issue has been forwarded to the City's trees department, and with private property it means it went to the police for code enforcement.  I have mentioned this and suggested that "Closed" should only be used if the issue is resolved (or fixed, etc) or some kind of interim category should be created to show it's in process. While non-anonymous issue filers receive updates via email, it would be better if everything was more clear in the My Davis App. 

    So… a real question is what's a realistic timeframe for the City to respond to what is objectively an "immediate hazard"? BUT the better real question is:

    Would this be tolerated in [motor vehicle] traffic lanes for weeks at a time?

    What would people who drive motor vehicles do if their daily route required diversions, stopping, making sure a big truck wasn't going to ram into them, multiple times a week on the way to work or an errand?

    The answer is simple: The city would clear it immediately, or with a bit of delay during an exceptional weather event. They would clear the traffic lane or lanes. This is how it works here, and my personal experience for the last seven years I've lived here. 

    The roughly similar – but roughly more seasonal issue – is yard waste in bike lanes. It's explicitly completely illegal under city rules; "overgrowth" is not. Both are equally dangerous. 

    Reviewing City Hall minutes from ten years ago… many things regarding yard waste in bike lanes were promised. When I was on the BTSSC (RIP) – actually the night that Officer Natalie Corona (RIP) was killed  – the Commission supported my wording of a recommendation to City Council to improve things. (It's perhaps worth noting that the immediate sequence of events that resulted in a person with serious behavioral health issues killing Officer Corona started with a vehicle crash on 5th St – things like that with cars are seen as normal, and are forgotten). The Council watered it down and nothing improved, or changed (with the exception of a few signs in certain areas simply referring to the existing regulation.) 

    I have very little hope that the Council, Staff and relevant Commissions will do anything about it. Case in point: School starts today! Did DJUSD work with the City in the last weeks  to ensure that our City's safe routes to school (SRTS).. are safe? Beyond my ride to Sutter Davis I can say that they have not. There's lateral pot holes and overgrowth all over. 

    Measure Q?  It makes general promises about improvements, but why would Davis change now and target the needs of the most vulnerable road users? It's never been the priority: The City chronically builds infrastructure that's not compliant with the 2016 Street Standards  — while simultaneously referring to then as "progressive" when it is going forward on a street project. The BTSSC was never consulted about the ongoing 10-year pavement plan nor the overlapping Cool Pavements project. 

    The City's not making it feel safe for me to get around… my sense is that those who are younger or have less experience with bicycles simply don't consider the fastest routes if they feel unsafe on them. Do people who normally drive not take certain routes in town because they feel dangerous?

    *****

    In the following additional examples, there is also the before and after of a sewer grate on the Mace overpass damaged to the level where one could stand a bike up in it, and its "fix", a few months after being reported. Some fine craftsmanship, there!

    There's also a screenshot from the City's "What Do you Do?" video series of very light and uncritical portraits of city staff and their job duties. Why wasn't this slip up about "world" never corrected? 

    Additional photography and video from the Mace overpass on NB Mace to E. Covell just west of Pole Line.

    *****

    Parts 2 and 3 coming soon: 

    Part 2: What the City plans to do about yard waste and other materials in bike lanes – a ridiculous new tool. 

    Part 3: What the City should be doing (and why success of Measure Q might not help very much.)

    *****

    What can you do now? 

    * Write the Transportation Commission (copying to City Council, new Active Transportation Coordinator Sereena Rai and the City's tree department):  tc@cityofdavis org, citycouncilmembers@cityofdavis.org, srai@cityofdavis.org,citytrees@cityofdavis.org.

    * Ask the League of American Bicyclists if Davis deserves its "Platinum Bike Friendly" rating: bfa@bikeleague.org (there is not an application currently under review — this is just a cheeky way to get this corrosive garbage on their radar.)

    * Ask the Board of the Davis Joint Unified School District if the situation is safe for students, and if they got the City to check for obstructions – including potholes – on safe routes to schools in Davis before the first of day of class today: boe@djusd.net.

  • Yolo County MHSA Community Member Survey & related info

    MHSA survey flyer(From press release) The Yolo County Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Annual Update FY 2024-2025 kickoff began Tuesday January 16th with a Community Engagement Work Group (CEWG) meeting (slide deck).

    As part of the Community Planning Process, MHSA requires counties to engage in community planning and engagement annually to gather feedback on community needs to inform the development of the plan.

    This year Yolo MHSA is requesting support with the following:

    • Yolo County MHSA Community Member Survey (anonymous)
      • Complete and distribute this electronic survey
      • The survey will remain open until February 9, 2024, 11:59 pm
      • Hardcopies will also be available in HHSA buildings and community locations shortly

    • Regional Listening Sessions-participation (TBD Feb/March)
      • Additional information on the listening session dates and formats will be forthcoming by email
      • Email lvila@evalcorp.com if you would like to be invited to a Community Listening Session

    • Yolo MHSA Community Flyer distribution (to the right)
      • Please post and share with others

    Please email MHSA@yolocounty.org if you have any questions or require any additional information.

    Thank you for your interest in Yolo County's Mental Health Services Act Community Planning Process!

    MHSA Team

    Mental Health Services Act

  • Wingnut Advocates for Nuclear Mosquito Control

    Screenshot 2023-09-02 071056by David Abramson
     
    Steve, who previously spoke to the City Council advocating that we ban all the leaves from Davis returned this past Tuesday to give public comment in support of the pesticide spraying of the Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito Vector District, particularly supporting the aerial spraying over our cities and encouraging them to develop even larger pesticide bombs to eliminate the mosquitos once and for all.
     
    I am personally outraged that Steve and the Sacramento Yolo Mosquito Vector Control District believe that mosquito activity warrants dumping pesticides on our heads several times per weeks.
     
     

  • Concerns regarding our pesticide spraying program

    BiteBy David Abramson

    Dear Neighbors,

    You may have seen that over the past several months, I have been sharing regularly with notifications about and my concerns regarding the pesticide spraying program that’s being done by the Sacramento Yolo Mosquito Vector District in our County. Yes I'd rather be doing something else but alas, many people don't even know this is happening, so I thought an awareness campaign was appropriate.

    As others have posted, the agency has scheduled an entire blanket aerial spray of the chemical Diprom/Naled over the cities of Davis and Woodland tonight and tomorrow between 8:30PM-12AM.

    My concerns are that:

    1. They are using a pesticide (Naled/Diprom) that’s currently banned in the EU due to concerns of it’s toxicity
    1. This pesticide has known toxic effect on bees and butterflies even at the doses prescribed for mosquito spraying programs (1)(2)(3). Many studies have conducted tests of varying quality in controlled environments, single-species results of large insects, or for single dose exposure, but not for this particular spraying program or frequency in which the spraying is happening and in an ecosystem setting accounting for all variables of the real world.
    1. Formal requests to the SacYolo Mosquito Control Vector District to share the science that shows the pesticide to be safe for the ecosystem, including our native pollinators has not been satisfactorily fulfilled. In neither of the two requests did they highlight a study showing the spraying program to be safe for insects or other pollinators.
    2. There is a lack of transparency, accountability, and oversight on the spraying programs. As far as I know, there are no ground samples being taken by the agency or independent researchers after these sprayings and no regular monitoring or data that's publicly available.

    To that end, I am recommending that:

    (more…)

  • The Appalling Spectacle Now Happening in Yolo Superior Court

    By Robert Canning

    Like a number of people, I watched the live video stream of the Carlos Dominguez competency “trial” in Department 10 of Yolo County Superior Court last week and will watch again when the trial reconvenes.

    As a forensic and correctional psychologist for the past twenty years with experience working in and consulting to jails and prisons on mental health treatment issues, I was amazed and appalled watching the spectacle unfold in real time. The trial is to determine the competence of a young man whose severe mental illness is on display daily in open court for all to see. The law requires the jury decide first whether Mr. Dominguez suffers from a mental disorder, and then if the mental disorder interferes with his capacity (competency) to understand and reason about the charges against him, and whether he can aid in his own defense.

    What is most appalling to me is that his mental illness has been allowed to worsen while in custody. If the Yolo District Attorney had not requested a jury trial then Judge McAdams would have been the sole source of the decision about Mr. Dominguez’ competence. Given his comments this week to the public defender, I believe he would have found Mr. Dominguez incompetent to proceed weeks ago. In that case Mr. Dominguez would have been able to receive treatment for his mental illness sooner, possibly in a state hospital setting. If this treatment was provided, it is possible that Mr. Dominguez could be restored to competency in a matter of months.

    The law requires that detainees in jails receive adequate medical and mental health care. This has been guaranteed since 1976 when the Supreme Court decided in favor of inmates in Estelle v Gamble. Subsequent case law has reinforced the right to appropriate care and emphasized the role of correctional systems in providing that care.

    Because we have a public trial with testimony from mental health and medical experts and jail staff, we can see some of the glaring inadequacies of mental health care in our county jail.

    (more…)

  • Explaining how RFK Jr.’s recent remarks were racist

    It’s a good reminder that “hate” is a very limited way of talking about racism.

    By Roberta Millstein

    I recently got into a conversation with some people on Facebook about whether Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent remarks about Chinese people and Ashkenazi Jews regarding COVID-19 were racist.  The conversation was too hard to have on Facebook, so I stopped engaging, but I think it’s worth looking at his remarks in more detail because I think they are quite damning, and yes, racist. 

    I take his remarks personally because I myself am an Ashkenazi Jew, but since RFK Jr. is running for President of the United States, and since apparently some Davisites think he is a good candidate, it’s important for all of us to take a second look.

    The video of his remarks is here.  The quotes below are my transcription.  I edited lightly (removing stutters, etc.), and may have missed a small word here or there, but I am confident that I have it mostly correct.

    (more…)

  • Sutter Davis Hospital Farmers Market opens for the season

    (From press release) The Sutter Davis Hospital Farmers Market is back for the season, celebrating its 13th year bringing farm-fresh produce and local foods to employees and visitors. The market is open from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Thursdays through Sept. 28.

    Since 2010, the Sutter Davis Hospital Farmers Market has brought regional foods and produce to the hospital’s main entrance, 2000 Sutter Place in West Davis. Its soft opening was May 4.

    Tammy Powers, chief administrative officer for Sutter Davis Hospital, said, “We know how greater access to nutritious foods can improve one’s overall health. Having fresh and wholesome options available right here on our campus makes healthy choices even easier and more convenient for the community.”

    (more…)

  • The Proposed Village Farms Davis Development Project is NOT Threatened by Groundwater Contamination from the Former Davis Landfill Site

    By Alan Pryor

    Executive Summary and Conclusions

    This article reports on potential groundwater contamination beneath the former Davis Landfill site north of the City of Davis on Poleline Rd. and the adjacent site proposed for the Village Farms Davis development project immediately south and southeast of the old landfill site.

    During the contentious Measure X election in November, 2005 in which the proposed Covell Village project (on the same site as the current proposed development, Village Farms Davis) was rejected by voters, allegations were made that the site’s groundwater was contaminated by leaching of pollutants from the former Davis landfill site just north of the project. In particular, it was alleged that a carcinogen, vinyl chloride, was in the groundwater beneath the project site rendering the project unsuitable for development in as much as a deep well was proposed for the site to add to the City of Davis potable water supply.

    In a recent City Council meeting (April 4, 2023) in which the possible timing of bringing peripheral projects before the voters were discussed, one public comment again stated that vinyl chloride was in the groundwater beneath the old Davis landfill and the proposed site for the Village Farms Davis project.

    “The parcel itself has so many problems. It has toxics in the north end from the land fill site. The old land fill site was not lined so there is vinyl chloride leakage from the old land fill and it’s substantial. Vinyl chloride does not go away.”

    These claims of vinyl chloride and other toxic compounds in the groundwater were based on data from the early 1990s though 2005 which showed some intermittent groundwater contamination (including some tests showing the presence of vinyl chloride) in shallow groundwater test wells beneath the old landfill and immediately to the south beneath the then proposed Covell Village project. These earlier monitoring well test results were reported in the EIR issued in the Covell Village EIR issued in 2005 and are further discussed below in the section entitled Summary of Well Monitoring Findings.

    These reported findings were considered important at the time because, as stated above, the Covell Village project proposal included a new deep well on the project site to provide drinking water capacity for the proposed project and connecting into the City’s potable water supply network. Concerns were expressed that the shallow water contamination could worsen and impact the deep aquifer from which potable water would be drawn. Potentially compounding the problem was the discovery that the groundwater plume was migrating from the landfill toward the south and southwest in the direction of the proposed Covell Village project.

    Annual testing of the monitoring wells subsequently occurred in the period since the Covell Village EIR from 2012 – 2019. These later tests showed a substantial reduction in groundwater contamination in the intervening years and the report from consulting engineers engaged by the City to evaluate the groundwater contamination showed the following results;

    1. NO Vinyl Chloride was found at all in any sampled groundwater from 2012 – 2019 nor were there ANY other VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) or metals found in any of the test well samples above the EPA's Primary Maximum Concentration Levels (MCLs) for drinking water.
    1. There were some measurements of nitrate (probably from past agricultural fertilization on the site) in the monitored wells that were in excess of Primary MCLs and some other naturally occurring minerals (selenium, manganese, and sulfate) that were intermittently in excess of Secondary MCLs but not hugely in excess of other well waters in the area.

      However, these are NOT a human health concern because the groundwater beneath the Village Farms Davis project site will NOT be pumped and used for drinking water purposes. Instead, the project will rely on City of Davis municipal drinking water supplies as delivered to the rest of the City.

    1. The plume of groundwater beneath the former landfill site and the proposed development project site was most recently determined to be moving toward the northeast away from the Village Farms Davis project site as a result in changes in groundwater extraction rates in the area. Thus, even if there was very unlikely leaching from the landfill site future in the future it would NOT migrate in the direction of the proposed development project.
    1. Based on the sampling results from 2012 – 2019 indicating no detectable amounts of vinyl chloride and no amounts of volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOCs) or heavy metals in excess of established EPA MCLs, it was recommended that the City discontinue annual testing and request a No Further Action letter from the Regional Water Board thus confirming the area is no longer considered a threat to groundwater contamination.

    These later test monitoring results from 2012 – 2019 are also further discussed below in the section entitled Summary of Well Monitoring Findings.

    (more…)

  • “The Fun Habit” Author at Avid Reader

    !!RuckerAvid Reader Bookstore to host Mike Rucker (who grew up in Davis) author of "The Fun Habit" Thursday January 12, 2023 at 6pm. Avid Reader is located at 617 2nd Street Davis, CA.

    <<From Press Release>>

    “Far from being just a feel-good exhortation or collection of fun activities to embark upon, this title brings an in-depth, science-backed exploration of happiness, through the lens of having fun.” — Library Journal

    "This cheerful debut trumpeting the importance of joy…is a fittingly entertaining guide."
    — Publishers Weekly

    "Psychologist and fun lover Mike Rucker has written an enjoyable treatise on the art of bringing more play and joy to life." — Shelf Awareness

    “Rucker’s book is full of sound, sensible, and sometimes surprising suggestions for creating space for renewal, connection, and joy.” —Psychology Today

    It’s hard to deny the fact that most people want to be happy. But doesn’t it feel like the harder we try to find happiness, the more elusive it becomes?

    Until recently, Dr. Mike Rucker had spent most of his life engaged in the pursuit of happiness. Yet even when all his happiness “boxes” were checked—he was married with kids and a successful career, well-traveled, physically fit— he didn’t feel all that happy. It wasn’t until Mike suffered two back-to-back personal losses that it began to dawn on him how much energy he had been expending grasping for an ideal life and criticizing himself when it seemingly always fell out of reach. In focusing on a lofty, abstract concept, he had discounted day-to-day pleasures—in particular, he had neglected to have fun.

    (more…)

  • A Failure of Equity – Racist and Ableist Bike Share Returns to Davis

    E6a0ce4fef1b41a4a3839f8c0e6cd132At the city council meeting tonight a pilot for e-bike and e-scooter share will likely be approved – and will start by September. 

    Bike share and scooter share are great things, despite all sorts of issues. Electric assist makes these "micromobility" devices even more of a joy. More and more bike share systems offer e-bikes, sometimes exclusively. Scooter share was always electric.

    But as with Jump bike share – which ended in Davis a little over two years ago – the minimum age limit for use for bikes will be 18. Once again this age limit makes it racist.
     
    Why is it racist?
     
    It's simple: Youth have fewer mobility choices, even more so if they're members of economically-vulnerable households. Brown and Black people are over-represented in these households. There's no minimum age for using the type of bikes supplied by Lime. There's no formal impossibility for parents and guardians to take legal responsibility for necessary contracts. Therefore… it's arbitrary… and this means it's racist. It's doesn't mean that the City Council is racist. It means that unless we change their minds they are making a racist decision tonight.
     
    Once again the speed is limited to 15 mph assistance without any evidence that this has any benefits for safety. Nor only does this make the bikes less competitive with automobiles, the speed assistance limit below what state law allows is biased against less strong people who might find it harder to get their bikes over 15 mph. This is probably ableism, yes?, or something else which City documents and various statements of the current City Council would naturally disavow.
     
    Many other cities have much less racist and ableist systems
     
    There's no minimum age for the use of type 1 e-bikes, which will be the type supplied by Lime. The minimum required for use of an e-scooter in California is possession of a learner's permit, and being 16. However the Lime-supplied pilot requires a minimum age 18 for that as well. That's two years when kids can drive a car most of that by themselves before they can use bike share or scooter share in Davis. Bike share systems all over California and the USA allow users under age 18 (For example the system in Philadelphia allows 16 year-olds to use their e-bikes and 14 year-olds their "acoustic" bikes.) But we're the USA cycling capital! (Perhaps it's time to change our official City logo – to purge this anachronistic and anti-egalitarian high-wheeler bicycle from our community imagery?).
     
    A major innovation that Davis can make here is by replacing the age cut-off with one based on peers. This is because the majority of youth have friends that are in the same grade. Not everyone in the same grade is the same age: We see this manifested when some high school students can get licensed before their friends. 14 would work – nearly everyone that age is tall enough to ride the Lime bikes – but connecting it with entrance to high school would still be much better than the current situation. See details below – this will get many on bikes at age 15.  And then on e-scooters at age 16! Voila! Bikequity!! Fairscooterism!
     
    Another good – and perhaps still innovative – new feature is that the park in the street like a motorcycle thing is a clear part of the rules. (This was done spontaneously by many Jump users and almost went forward officially before the bike share system was removed from Davis and UC Davis due to COVID.) However there's still a huge amount of the contract and rules based on the idea that the bikes will need to be moved within 90 minutes if there are badly parked. (In the pilot it's allowed to park like this in Downtown, but it's not even clear that there will be a sticker on the bikes to advise people of this. It's not really intuitive.)
     
    The City Council has known about this issue for years
     
    In March 2019 – when I was a member of the Bicycling, Transportation and Street Safety (BTSSC) -  I created a lengthy report on the one year anniversary of bike share in Davis and UC Davis. I was able to initiate what became a unanimous vote to ask the City Council to ask its partners at SACOG – and the previous operator Uber/Jump – to consider lowering the age (and raising the weight limit). This sat on the long-range calendar until shortly after Uber removed the bike share system from Davis and UC Davis.
     
    The other day I confirmed with Lime and that neither the e-bikes nor the e-scooters will have a maximum weight limit. That's good – the newer e-scooters are generally considered to be more robust than those available just a couple of years ago.
     
    Oh, last time the DJUSD Board of Education was asked to support an under-18 age limit.. they were not interested. This may have been in 2019 – a partly-different board.
     
    What to do?
     
    Thank the City of Davis City Council for bringing back bike share and introducing scooter share, BUT:
    * Demand that they allow the use of Lime e-bikes from the first day of 10th grade, or even better the first day of summer before 10th grade.
    * Demand that – per state law – everyone 16 years old with a learner's permit be allowed to use Lime e-scooters.