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

  • Two issues about Willowgrove Project need to be addressed

    [The following email by Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser was sent to the Davis City Council today and is posted to the Davisite at the request of the authors]

    Dear City Councilmembers,

    As you move toward final action on Tuesday on the Willowgrove project, which could provide new housing our community needs, we urge you to address two significant issues (both referenced in your new city staff report) that we strongly believe will undermine its chances of winning voter approval this November.  

    Fourth City Fire Station

    Last month, at a Planning Commission hearing on the Willowgrove project, a city planning staff member suggested the city has decided to build a fourth city fire station. For weeks city staff has since declined to answer specific questions posed to them about the city’s intentions. We believe this is an important matter for you to consider, given the findings of a city consultant in a 2018 study, that our community does not need an expensive fourth fire station the city cannot afford. 

    Additionally your new city staff report contains a strong hint city staff are still pursuing a four-fire station plan. Notably, it cites a fiscal analysis by BAE Urban Economics that analyzes the projected net operating costs to the city from just such a new fourth city fire station. Staff selectively cites a version of the BAE fiscal analysis that assumes the 15 year fiscal impact of such a  project “would be slightly negative at $190,422”. This is based on the assumption that other city residents gained from future new development projects would shoulder most of the costs of the operation of a fourth new fire station. 

    Why is this matter relevant to your consideration of Willowgrove?

    (more…)

  • Super PAC has now poured over 1.1 million dollars into ads supporting Eric Jones

    The latest venture-capital funded mailer is downright Orwellian

    By Roberta Millstein

    Mailer received 27 April 2026. Annotated by the author.

    Eric Jones’s campaign to unseat Mike Thompson in Congressional District 4 has repeatedly promised not to take money from special interests and PACs.  As I have already documented in detail (see earlier articles here and here), that promise is essentially meaningless.  A former partner of the Dragoneer Investment Group, Jones has received large individual donations and repeated campaign advertising funded by massive donations to the New Leadership Now Super PAC from his fellow venture capitalists, including a huge donation from the family of Dragoneer’s founder, Marc Stad.

    Expenditures for ads in support of Eric Jones’s campaign (mailers, TV, internet, etc.) from New Leadership Now currently exceed 1.1 million dollars, as this screenshot from the FEC website shows [UPDATE: over $1.33 million as of May 9, 2026]:

    (more…)

  • Eric Jones’s close ties to a Super PAC

    Jones criticizes Mike Thompson for taking PAC money, but is he being hypocritical?

    By Roberta Millstein

    Flyer in support of Eric Jones’s run for Congress, paid for by the New Leadership Now Super PAC

    Among the small deluge of flyers Davisites have received promoting Eric Jones’s candidacy for Congressional District 4, some may have noticed that one was different from the others: It indicated that it was paid for by a group called “New Leadership Now.”  Who is New Leadership Now, and what sort of connection does it have to Eric Jones, if any?  This article aims to shed a bit of light on these questions.  It is a follow-up to my earlier article discussing the direct campaign contributions from Jones’s former venture capitalist co-workers and other individuals from the high tech industry.

    New Leadership Now is registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as a Super PAC.  What is a Super PAC?  Wikipedia has a helpful definition:

    Independent expenditure-only political action committees, commonly known as super PACs, are a type of political action committees (PACs) in the United States. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are legally allowed to fundraise unlimited amounts of money from individuals or organizations for the purpose of campaign advertising; however, they are not permitted to either coordinate with or contribute directly to candidate campaigns or political parties. However, in practice, restrictions on such coordination are considered flimsy and poorly enforced.[1]

    The unlimited expenditures coupled with not really knowing if the committees are actually coordinating with candidates make Super PACs controversial.  Eric Jones has touted his campaign as “Powered by People, Not Special Interests: Not a Dime from Corporate PACs”[2]  What I will describe below casts some serious doubt on that slogan, however.

    (more…)

  • What does “No on Measure V” really stand for?

    By Matt Williams

    For Davisite readers, the following is a response to an Alan Pryor post that made the following accusation, “Grass Roots” is not an accurate description of the opposition to Village Farms. How do you spell “NIMBY”? It is not spelled “Grass-roots”! (see https://nextdoor.com/p/9nSwSrmBTckW/c/1585068648?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=1776984857876&share_action_id=a32ff6cd-07c2-4764-a989-a686060c125a)
     
    Alan, is there a reason you are deploying the “If you can’t address the message, attack the messenger” tactic?  There are very few NIMBYs in No on Measure V.   That is very clear in the unifying principles of No on Measure V, which were just yesterday presented to DTA, the DJUSD teachers union, and are anything but NIMBY, specifically:

    (more…)

  • Who is Eric Jones, the candidate seeking to unseat Mike Thompson in Congress?

    And who is funding his campaign?

    Four mailers and a canvasser handout…. so far.

    By Roberta Millstein

    With the increasingly regular appearance of glossy mailers from Eric Jones’s campaign seeking to replace Mike Thompson as the representative for Congressional District 4 (which includes Davis), I thought it might be helpful if I shared what I have learned about Jones’s background.  I haven’t seen anything inaccurate per se in those mailers or in his ballot statement,[1] but what is there seems quite partial and thus misleading with respect to both his background and who is funding his campaign.

    To be clear, I am not a reporter and have never pretended to be.  What follows is all widely available information (I will footnote all of my sources) and I don’t think Jones is trying to hide any of it.  But he’s not really mentioning it either, and I think it might be relevant for at least some voters.

    Let’s start with Jones’s background because that sets the stage for his donations.  Jones graduated with an economics degree from Yale University and worked at JP Morgan in 2012.[2]  Shortly thereafter, he left JP Morgan for Dragoneer Investment Group; his LinkedIn page says that he was a “Dragoneer Investment Group Partner, Healthcare and Internet” for 12 yrs 7 mos, 2013 – Jul 2025.  Not long after that, in September 2025, he declared his candidacy.  His LinkedIn page also says that he is a Founder of the American Dream Institute, 2024 – present and a Principal of The Rachel and Eric Jones Foundation, 2021-present.  The year 2021 is also the year he (partially) relocated from San Francisco to Napa, making him eligible to run in what is now (since Prop 50) District 4.[3]  Jones has never held public office and still has a home in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights.[4]

    (more…)

  • Fall Ballot Measure Would Open the Door to 3 Percent Down Payments to Buy New Davis Housing

    By Dan Carson

    A $25 billion statewide bond measure headed for the November 2026 ballot could pave the way for middle income Davis families to purchase new homes in Village Farms Davis with only a 3 percent down payment via an innovative new statewide program that would create no cost burdens for City of Davis or California taxpayers.

    Backers of the measure have already submitted 920,000 signatures to send the California Middle Class Homeownership and Family Home Construction Act to the voters, well in excess of the 546,652 signatures needed to qualify it for a November 3, 2026 vote. About 2,300 registered voters in Yolo County signed petitions to send the measure to the voters.

    “We are excited about this promising new ballot initiative,” said Sandy Whitcombe of the Yes on V campaign. “If it passes, this program could be the key for the many young families who can afford monthly payments for a modest home but haven’t been able to save up tens of thousands of dollars for a 20 percent down payment —  a goal post that keeps moving further away from them as home prices increase. Village Farms Davis was designed with a diverse mix of new housing options for the missing middle, and it appears most of the homes would qualify for this downpayment assistance.” 

    The full text of the measure can be found via the link below. It would authorize the issuance of new state revenue bonds that would be sold to spur the development of additional housing within the financial reach of middle income families.

    (more…)

  • No on Measure V campaign at April 4th Farmers Market

    (From press release) The No on Measure V campaign will be at the Farmers Market tomorrow, Sat. April 4th, with literature and lawns signs and  volunteers to meet with Davis residents wanting more information. The campaign now  has a website, NoOnMeasureV.org posted with information about many reasons to vote NO on Village Farms on June 2nd.

    Village Farms is a proposal for a 1,800-housing unit project on 498 acres, at Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Rd. It is the largest project ever proposed in Davis, with the worst impacts and it would  impose costs on Davis residents.

    The project housing would be unaffordable particularly to local workers and families with young children. The vast majority of the project would be housing priced at $740,000 – $1.34 MILLION  per the BAE fiscal report which means a monthly housing payment of at least $6,000 to cover the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, CFD, and other fees.  Families with young kids cannot afford this so the project will not bring hundreds of kids as the School District believes, and therefore it will not help the schools as claimed.

    The developer is not responsible for building the affordable housing , except possibly 100 apartments in the last phase of the project 10+ years into the development.

    Concerns also include toxics, including carcinogenic PFAS’ “forever chemicals” leaking from the adjacent Old Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage Treatment Plant into the project site. Vapor intrusion can result exposing future residents to these carcinogenic chemicals. The project also has high levels of could toxics including neurotoxic toxaphene and lead on the proposed Heritage Oak Park site where kids would play.

    (more…)

  • 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…)

  • Who will really pay for the Affordable housing at Village Farms?

    By Matt Williams

    I learned something very interesting in the last few days that gave me an incredible sense of “Here we go again!” Specifically, where is the $6 million Affordable Housing contribution coming from?

    Alan Pryor has said on the Vanguard that the $6 million is coming from the developer, but is it? Or is it actually going to be coming from the taxpayers?

    The history of the Cannery tells us that there is a very good chance that the taxpayers will end up footing the bill for the $6 million. But because Village Farms is so sketchily defined/described, there is no way to know.

    Cannery was much better and more completely described/defined, but one year after the documents had all been signed, they came back to the City saying they “needed” $12 million more cash. City Council negotiated the $12 million down to $8 million … and then imposed a 30-year Mello-Roos Tax on the Cannery residents, with the taxpayer total payments of which amounting to more than $21 million taken out of those taxpayers’ pockets.

    There is nothing in the Baseline Features or the Development Agreement for Village Farms that tells Davis voters whether there will be a Mello-Roos levy (often called a CFD), and/or how large the Mello-Roos levy will be.

    To add insult to injury at The Cannery, the City Council never asked the developer what value the City would be getting back in exchange for the $12 million being asked for, or the $8 million eventually given. Unfortunately, the City got zero dollars of value in that Cannery situation.

    We have no way of knowing what might happen in the case over Village Farms. This is just one more way this project is not ready for prime time, and the only logical vote on Measure V is “No.”

  • Celebration of Abraham Raises Over $2300 for Joshua House Hospice

    (From press release) On February 1, 2026, the more than 130 members of the interfaith community of Yolo County were welcomed by Khalid Saeed to the beautiful new Woodland Mosque & Islamic Center for the annual Celebration of Abraham. This year’s theme was Returning to Abraham: Reflections in Courage. Abraham is a major character is all three Abrahamic traditions: Jewish, Christian and Islamic.

    The theme also reflected the site of the first Celebration of Abraham 2003 was at Holy Rosary Church in Woodland. Father John Boll (retired), who hosted the first Celebration in 2003, was this year’s first speaker and he presented the biblical story of Abraham beginning God’s call for him to leave his birthplace in Ur “into a land that I will show you.” (Genesis 12:1, HBFV)—the promised land. Rabbi Leah Julian, Director of Education and Youth at Congregation Bet Haverim then spoke. She said the ancient Rabbis saw Abraham as a man of great faith and courage and she cited stories of Abraham’s stand against prevailing idol worship, his courage to do the unpopular thing (smashing idols) and on some occasions, Abraham even stood up to the ultimate authority for what he believed was right. The Rabbi ended her speech with a heartfelt appeal for community unity through caring with courage. The third speaker was Imam Riaz Ahmed Quadri who leads the Woodland Mosque congregation. He noted that Prophet Ibrahim, as he is known in the Islamic faith, was one of 124,000 prophets that have been sent to mankind. In Islam, Ibrahim is called God’s friend and he was known for turning away from falsehood which took great courage at the time. He is a true example to follow where he turned to faith over fear.   After their prepared remarks, the Micheal Hirsh moderated the speakers responding to questions from the audience.

    (more…)