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

Category: Politics

  • Yolo County judge orders Councilmember Carson to pay the No on Measure H campaign $42,210 in legal fees

    Justice2(From press release) In a 16-page opinion, Superior Court Judge Daniel Maguire found that Davis Councilmember Dan Carson, the honorary chairman of the Yes on H campaign, failed to prove the majority of claims he made in a lawsuit targeting the six Davis residents who signed and submitted the No on H ballot argument. The named defendants were the five No on Measure H ballot statement signers (Roberta Millstein, Juliette Beck, Michael Corbett, Stephen Wheeler, and Darell Dickey) and the No on Measure H Principal Officer and ballot statement co-author (Alan Pryor). 

    This is the first time in Davis that an elected city official led a developer's campaign seeking to annex farmland into the city for a subdivision. The act of bringing this lawsuit was previously condemned in a statement made by six former Davis mayors.

    Those ballot-signers "achieved the greater share of success" in the lawsuit and should have most of their legal fees paid for by Carson, Judge Maguire wrote.

    The No on H campaign’s defense of their ballot arguments in the face of Carson’s challenge both protected No on H’s right to free speech and the public interest in receiving the No on H argument against the DiSC development. Judge Maguire states in his order, “Our society has a deep commitment to free speech, especially in political matters, and by defending their right to make their argument in their words, the Real Parties in Interest have also enforced an important right affecting the public interest.”

    "We thank Judge Maguire for his thoughtful consideration of the issues and are heartened that our grass roots campaign was vindicated and prevailed over deep-pocketed developers and politicians who tried to intimidate Davis residents with meritless litigation," said Alan Pryor, chair of the No on H campaign.

    (more…)

  • 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"

  • Reminder that next Tues June 7 is the last day to vote!

    SitemapfordiscThere are many ways to vote in addition to mailing in your ballot, including drop off boxes and in-person vote centers. This page has the details: https://www.yoloelections.org/voting/polling_place

    We are lucky to live in a place where they make voting easy, so be sure to vote! Locally we have Measure H, the DA race, the Yolo County supervisor race, and more. Plus the state stuff.

  • Letter: DiSC 2022 is a Trojan horse

    I strongly oppose the DiSC 2022 project and there are plenty of reasons why, including the plethora of false claims by the Ramos developers.

    First, the project will add 12,000 car trips daily to Mace Blvd., so it will increase traffic, not decrease it as they claim.

    Second, the fiscal analysis contains absurd assumptions and inflated projections, resulting in a fairy tale fiscal “benefit”.

    Third, while we are experiencing a serious drought and Davis residents will have to cut back on water use to conserve what we can, a large commercial park would significantly draw on our limited water resources.

    Fourth, the DiSC housing would be expensive and appealing to I-80 highway commuters. DiSC’s 460 housing units would not alleviate housing need but, instead would create more housing demand for the 2,500 DiSC employees and increase local housing costs. Further, DiSChas no mechanism to assure that any DiSC employee would live on-site, therefore creating even more traffic. The minimal number of “affordable units” will not all be located on-site. In fact, they may not materialize since the developer can opt to pay “in lieu” fees instead. Further, this housing is not geared for family housing. Who wants to raise their kids in a commercial/research park?

    (more…)

  • Sierra Club Endorses Juliette Beck for Yolo County Supervisor District 2

    Beck(From press release) After an extensive evaluation process by the Management Committee of the local Sierra Club Yolano Group, the Sierra Club Mother Lode Chapter Political and Executive Committees, and the Sierra Club Northern California Political Review Committee, the Sierra Club Yolano Group is pleased to announce the Sierra Club's official endorsement of Juliette Beck for Yolo County Supervisor District 2.

    We were convinced of our choice based on Ms. Beck's extensive and demonstrable commitment to environmental and social justice and her unwavering support for a just transition when addressing the impacts of climate change on the least fortunate of our citizens. Ms. Beck's  platform embraces a progressive, humane, and evidence-based approach which gives voice to historically marginalized citizens which aligns with the core beliefs of the Sierra Club.

    Why we are endorsing Juliette Beck for Yolo County District 2 Supervisor

    Juliette Beck is running to be the first woman elected to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors since 2006. Beck believes that with transformative climate leadership, youth empowerment, and a laser focus on health and community well-being, the county can build an inclusive economy and truly sustainable communities.

    As a mother, raising a fifth-generation Central Valley family with her husband Nick, Beck believes we can not simply hope that things will get better. She is running for Supervisor to create systemic change with opportunities for all Yolo County residents – especially children – to thrive.

    Her platform is based on the indigenous concept of “buen vivir” – to live well is to live in harmony with all of life.

    Climate Leadership

    (more…)

  • Misrepresentations of the Yes on H/Yes on DiSC campaign

    Yes-on-H-mailer-cropped-annotatedBy Colin Walsh

    The Vanguard published a guest commentary by Jackson Mills, “Debunking Deceptive Descriptions of DiSC in No on H Campaign Messaging,” on Tuesday morning. But it’s the commentary itself that is deceptive.

    Ironically Mr. Mills himself chooses to mislead people in his selection of an outdated illustration to lead the article. It is notable that the illustration used with this article is from the previous DISC proposal and is certainly not an accurate picture of the current DiSC proposal. The water feature in this picture is an idealized version of the drainage ditch that ran through the middle of the previous project (it also shows far more water than there ever would have been). The drainage ditch does not run through the project in the current iteration. And the drainage ditch certainly doesn’t support paddle boarding as depicted on the Yes on H mailers.

    The Vanguard has done nothing to address the Misrepresentations of the Yes on H campaign. Those claims have included such outrageous exaggerations and misinformation such as:

    Measure H “helps our community fight the housing crisis” – DiSC will have over 2,400 employees, and by the City’s own documents only 187 will live in the onsite housing. That adds over 2,200 additional people looking for housing in Davis, adding pressure to our already incredibly tight Davis housing market.

    (more…)

  • Davis LWV offers Pros and Cons on Measure H

    Sitemapfordisc

    This is the developer's provided "Land Plan," downloaded from the City's website here.

    (From press release) One side sees new jobs, housing, and city revenue. The other sees traffic gridlock, growing demand for housing, and exaggerated economic benefits.

    Davis voters will decide on June 7 whether to annex agricultural land for the Davis Innovation and Sustainability Center (DiSC 2022). This is a scaled-down version of a project defeated by Davis voters two years ago.

    To help voters decide for themselves how to vote on the new proposal, the League of Women Voters Davis Area has prepared a nonpartisan Pros and Cons on Measure H.

    In table form, the document provides a summary of the pro-and-con arguments on important issues: impact on city and school revenue, the environment, housing, jobs, traffic and impact on the downtown. An overview and history of the project also are provided.

    The document can be viewed at bit.ly/MeasureHProCon.

    More information about the Davis League — and a copy of the document — are available on the organization’s website at: lwvdavisarea.org.

  • 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! 😐

  • Don’t tax the sun

    Solarpanels(from press release) Despite clear public opposition to a Solar Tax and to making solar unaffordable, the CPUC announced last week that they are still considering a Solar Tax of between $300 to $600 per year for the average solar user, while also slashing the credit for the solar energy sent back to the grid.

    Because we were so successful at stopping their first Solar Tax, the CPUC is now trying to hide the ball by calling the tax by a different name. Their latest idea is to tax the solar energy you produce and use at home. The less energy you buy from the utility because of your solar, the higher the tax.

    This is like taxing people who hang-dry their clothing instead of running the dryer. It's absurd, it's intrusive, and it violates every principle of conservation and responsible citizenship. It contradicts everything the Newsom Administration says it is for: solving climate change, promoting clean energy, making solar more equitable, and keeping the lights on. We are also quite sure it is illegal.

    But, unless we speak out forcefully against this new Solar Tax proposal, it may very well become the new reality in California. Earlier this year, your voice helped to defeat the CPUC's first Solar Tax. We need your voice again, as loud as ever:

    (more…)

  • 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…)