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

Category: Money

  • Setting the Record Straight – Part 1

    Myths vs. Facts about Village Farms Davis

    by Alan Pryor

    I. INTRODUCTION

    Opponents of Village Farms Davis have made numerous misleading and/or outright false claims about the Project and its supposed adverse environmental impacts on Davis and its residents. Their allegations are made without almost no quantitative supporting data from independent, verifiable 3rd-party sources to support their claims. Unfortunately, these naysayers instead rely on speculation and innuendo to attempt to disparage and denigrate the proposed Project.

    This article is the first in a series that will present detailed information that factually refutes each of these untrue “myths” and false allegations made by project opponents . This first article summarizes the false claims and provides a brief summary response followed by a more in-depth discussion refuting some of the allegations that require additional information to refute them. Subsequent articles in the coming weeks will further address some of these false claims in much greater detail.

    (more…)

  • Another 2026 Progressive Coalition Winner

    By Scott Steward

    North Carolina District 4 candidates, Nida Allam holding a slim lead (on the left) and Valerie Fourshee incumbent (on the right)

    We have seen it in New Jersey and Texas, and now we will see it in North Carolina. The next bellwether primary election takes place on March 3rd; the damage of being a progressive except for Palestine (and progressive except for single-payer and except for rubber-stamping appropriations bills) may end the career of incumbent Valerie Foushee in North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District. Fourshee was a latecomer to the 2022 election, using AIPAC and Cryptocurrency donations of $2 million, knocking out the local favorite by 4,000 votes. 

    Nida Allam, former Vice Chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party and current Durham County Commissioner, returns with more experience and a small donation campaign budget that exceeds Fourshee’s this time around.  She promises “to build a brighter future for the Research Triangle, where our democracy works for all of us, and everyone has access to a living wage, affordable healthcare, a great public education, and a livable planet.”

    Unlike Allam, who rejects corporate PAC money, Foushee has historically accepted donations from pharmaceutical and health product interests and from defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. In 2024 and 2025, she has cast votes that align more with an establishment-centrist position than with that of a fighter. 

    Foushee supports expanding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), she has not championed Medicare for All. Foushee voted for the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, which provided over $26 billion in aid (all of which has been distributed), using the excuse that the Act included $1 billion in aid for Gaza (of which only a fraction has been distributed*). 

    The race between Allam and Fourshee brings into focus the important transition from incremental hand-wringing Democratic leadership and the energy of the next generation.  Should Allam win, it will further momentum for the coalition of 6 organizations dedicated to departing from big-money politics, a coalition willing to tax bloated excess in our society so that we can afford healthcare, education, and housing.

    (more…)

  • Trump administration drops its attack on the University of California

    By Roberta Millstein

    This is a quick followup to two earlier articles.

    In “Trump’s Attacks on the University of California (and higher education more generally)” I explained how the administration’s “Demand” letter sought a $1.2 Billion “settlement” from UCLA for allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action. 

    Then, in “Coalition of faculty unions prevails against Trump’s attacks on the UC,” I explained that 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 — that 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.

    That temporary court order is now permanent in the wake of the Department of Justice dropping its appeal of the federal court order.

    As Brian Lynch explains, the order:

    …doesn’t just unwind what the government already did to UCLA — it sets the rules for what the government can’t do going forward to any part of the UC system.

    He continues:

    The modified order, filed February 13, 2026, does two remarkable things. First, it forces the government to follow the law before it cuts university funding. Second — and this is the real teeth — it means that if the government freezes or restricts UC funding without completing every required procedural step, the university can go straight to court and seek enforcement of the injunction. The government would be in violation of a federal court order, and the remedy is immediate. Universities don’t have to start from scratch with a new lawsuit; the injunction is already in place.

    Note the word “universities” — not just UCLA, not just the UC, but universities. Thus, Lynch points out “this injunction is a roadmap for every university currently facing the same playbook.”

    This strikes a major blow against Trump’s attempts to illegally control the free speech and operation of universities in the U.S. Are you listening, University of California? Thanks to your faculty, students, and staff who risked speaking out, you don’t have to capitulate to Trump’s demands anymore. I — and many others — urge you to stop.

    This is a BFD. And it shows that fighting back can work.

  • Yolo County Residents Can File Taxes for Free Through United Way

    Members of United Way’s Free Tax Prep team help a client sign in to have her taxes prepared in 2025. The program is now open for the current tax season.

    (From press release) Yolo County residents and those throughout the Sacramento region are eligible to file their taxes for free through United Way California Capital Region’s Free Tax Prep program that runs through April 15. Households that earned less than $68,000 in 2025 can file for free, and trained tax volunteers will help maximize cash back from state and federal credits, including the federal and state Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC and CalEITC). United Way’s Free Tax Prep program saves participants an average of $200 in preparer fees. The program provides free tax help virtually and in person in multiple languages and locations across Amador, El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo counties. United Way recommends filing as early as possible to receive tax credits sooner. For more information or to sign up: www.YourFreeTaxPrep.org or call 2-1-1.

    This year, the local United Way is partnering with Yuba-Sutter-Colusa United Way to offer its Free Tax Prep program in Colusa, Sutter and Yuba counties as well. For services in that region, call 844-546-1464.

    “At United Way, we believe every family deserves the dignity and peace of mind that comes from financial stability,” said Dr. Dawnté Early, president and CEO, United Way California Capital Region. “Our Free Tax Prep program is more than a service, it’s an opportunity for our community to keep more of what they’ve earned and to build a stronger foundation for the future. When we remove barriers and open doors, families thrive – and when families thrive, our entire region grows stronger together.” 

    (more…)

  • 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…)

  • Village Farms Needs To Be Fixed

    By Elaine Roberts Musser

    I am trying to keep an open mind about Village Farms, a new housing development proposal for northeast Davis.  But try as I might, there are a couple of new concerns that have surfaced which really bother me.

    I am disturbed at two of the features being suggested for Village Farms: to wit, a fourth fire station and a city run down payment program.  Our municipality is in so much financial trouble, that it is short more than $2 million a year just for pavement management alone. The estate of a deceased Davis citizen was just awarded a whopping $24.2 million because of the city’s negligence in not properly maintaining its trees.  We face similar financial risks because of our neglect of other city infrastructure.

    The harsh reality is the city cannot afford a $3.4 million annual hit to its budget to pay for operating another fire station. Nor can it afford the cost of construction of a new fire station, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars. Similarly, the city cannot bear the expense of running a down payment program for housing, and who knows at what expense?

    (more…)

  • Letter concerning the Lumberyard Revised Affordable Housing Plan

    [The following letter was shared for posting to the Davisite by the author]

    October 12, 2025

    Dear Mayor Vaitla, Social Services Commission Chair Sverdlov, Planning Commission Chair Weiss and to all the council and commission members and Community Development Director Sherri Metzker.

    I saw last week in a recent Davis Enterprise the city’s public notice re

    The Lumberyard Revised Affordable Housing Plan.

    The core elements of the revision are as follows;

    The number of units will drop from 226 units to 205 units

    A reduction of 21 units

    However, the number of bedrooms will increase from 322 to 444

    An increase of 122 bedrooms and therefore at least 122 more people at one person per bedroom but many more if any of the bedrooms allow 2 people

    If various fees are based upon people and vehicle usage, then the project will; 

    Reduce project income to the city by about 10% 

    While increasing the number of noncontributing municipal users by 37+%.

    It appears to me therefore that the reduction of 21 units, the city will have a measurable loss of project-based income to cover the long-term costs while substantially subsidizing and increasing dollars spent on the wear and tear on the city.

    I would like one of you to pose this question to the Community Development Director;

    (more…)

  • Antisemitism and Trump Defunding UC

    By Alan Hirsch, Chair Social Justice Committee

    As the Social Justice Committee of Davis’s Congregation Bet Haverim, we cannot be silent as we witness the cultural appropriation of antisemitism by voices in our country that pander to and promote bigotry, racism, and intolerance. We challenge Trump’s claim he is protecting Jews by slashing University scientific research, both at UC Davis and academic institutions throughout the country. $8 Billion in cuts in university grant funding from the National Institute of Health for cancer and other bio-medical research is not even plausibly related to fighting antisemitism.

    We object to stripping students and faculty of the right to free speech and court hearings in the name of antisemitism, particularly as part of deportation and visa issuance/renewal processes. Students have been arrested at home and on the street with no transparency as to why they are being held or deported, and in certain cases with the implication that they are being punished for their constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

    We affirm that as Jews we support diversity and the right to freedom of inquiry and dissent, as we ourselves so long dissented in Christian and Muslim religious-majority-societies where we have lived.

    We affirm a core Jewish value is  to welcome the stranger. Therefore, we challenge the mistreatment and extrajudicial deportations and family separation of refugees and those seeking asylum on our shores from repressive regimes in Asian, and Central and South America.

    (more…)

  • On Education, Accountability, and the Price of Pretending: Part One

    By David Taormino

    It has often been said, sometimes in reverence and other times in jest, that the Davis Joint Unified School District is “doing the Lord’s work on Earth.” And perhaps, in part, that is true. There is no higher calling than the education of our children—no greater trust than that which we place in those who shape young minds.

    But let us not, in our admiration, lose sight of the facts.

    The School District, noble though its mission may be, is also a business. It employs administrators, staff, and teachers, all of whom depend upon the continued operation of schools—regardless of whether the children who fill those classrooms live in Davis or are brought in from elsewhere. This is not criticism. It is recognition of reality. But reality, too, must be subject to the rule of law.

    That is why I have filed suit—on behalf of myself and future homeowners of Palomino Place—to challenge the District’s newly-adopted fee on new development. The total for a 2,000 square-foot home now exceeds $10,000. This fee, and the rationale for it, strain both legal boundaries and public trust.

    The Law Is Clear—and It Is Not Being Followed

    (more…)

  • Clarifying the Realities of Downpayment Assistance in Davis

    By Barbara Clutter

    In their August 11 piece in The Davisite, Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser rely on a preliminary report from the City’s Fiscal Commission subcommittee on Downpayment Assistance to argue that Davis should align with existing state programs, such as CalHFA (CA Housing Finance Agency), which assisted 30,000 California homebuyers in 2025. Carson/Musser point out that only two of those recipients were from Davis, implying a missed opportunity for our city. However, what they do not acknowledge is the underlying reason so few Davis residents qualify for CalHFA is the high cost of housing. Families working under CalHFA's income limits generally find that qualifying housing is virtually nonexistent in Davis, making the program largely inaccessible in Davis.

    Musser and Carson also highlight SB 417, a proposed $10 billion statewide housing bond measure which would primarily fund rehabilitation of infrastructure and existing housing. While it earmarks $1 billion for downpayment assistance, no community is guaranteed any of these prospective funds, even if the bond measure is passed in 2026.

    (more…)