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

Category: Trustworthiness

  • Who Pays the Price in Davis Schools?

    By Jasmine Pettis

    At a time when Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) is asking families to consider closing neighborhood schools, one question remains unanswered: Have District leaders fully examined their own spending before asking the community to absorb the consequences?

    The answer appears to be “no”. Recent salary data shows that DJUSD’s superintendent received more than $427,000 in total compensation in 2024, with several central office administrators earning well over $200,000 annually. At the same time, the District is discussing the drastic step of school closures as a necessary response to budget pressures.

    DJUSD families have been told in Board Subcommittee meetings that there is “no fat left to trim.” That claim doesn’t hold up.

    The two realities of rising administrative compensation and proposed school closures demand scrutiny. Allow me:

    (more…)

  • The billionaire venture-capitalist backed Super PAC supporting Eric Jones cites faulty time travelers

    Mailer funded by the Super PAC “New Leadership Now.”

    Or maybe they just lie?

    The latest mailer funded by the “New Leadership Now” Super PAC boldly declares: “In 2019, House Democrats voted on impeachment. Mike Thompson voted No.” One big problem: Thompson in fact voted YES in 2019 — check, e.g., Wikipedia.

    So, what’s their evidence? Next to the above blatantly false claim — I want to say “blatant lie” — there is a footnote citation. Take a look at the footnote in tiny print and you will see two citations from… wait for it… 2017!! So, apparently, those news sources were time travelers who knew that Mike Thompson would vote “no” in 2019, except they were apparently very bad time travelers (or maybe they were very bad crystal ball readers??) because he voted “yes”.

    You will probably need to click to read these, but the first date 12/6/17 and the second is also 12/6/17

    Sorry to be sarcastic here, but this is really bad. Bad bad bad. And if Jones doesn’t denounce this blatantly false claim (i.e., lie) in his name, that’s on him.

    (more…)

  • Village Farms Davis: Why I Differ With Councilmember Deos

    By Greg Rowe

    This article responds to the endorsement of the Village Farms project by Councilmember Linda Deos, published by The Davisite and the Davis Vanguard on May 9. Deos was appointed to the planning commission during my tenure as chair.  While dealing with many complex planning issues and projects, Linda impressed me as thoughtful, articulate and deeply caring about her community. It was therefore with pleasure that I subsequently endorsed her city council candidacy. 

    I continue to applaud Linda’s council performance, and share her concern that Davis must become a viable, vibrant home for new residents without losing its soul and core values. Along with Mayor Donna Neville, Deos had the demanding task of negotiating the development agreement (DA), ballot baseline project features, and other legal documents for the Village Farms Davis (VFD) project.

    Among Linda’s reasons for endorsing VFD are the grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings of F Street and Pole Line Road, and preservation of the 47-acre alkali playa wetland habitat.  As explained below, these project components are not due to any benevolence or authentic community commitment on the part of the developer (North Davis Land Company, LLC).  These requirements were, in fact, imposed on the developer as a condition of placing the project on the June ballot. In the case of the alkali playa wetland habitat, specimens collected in the 1950s by UC Davis faculty and historical aerial photography clearly demonstrate that the existence of this rare habitat should have been known to the developer.

    (more…)

  • Pro and con arguments concerning Village Farms in the Wary One

    By Roberta Millstein

    This isn’t an article so much as it is a pointer to two other articles in The Wary One. As most Davisites know, Bob Dunning left the Davis Enterprise (and his Wary Eye column) for Substack and his reborn newsletter The Wary Eye in 2024 — Bob tells the story here.

    As a special feature, Bob solicited two new essays on Village Farms, free and open to everyone, no subscription needed. I was the person he asked to write a “no” essay, even though (as I made clear in my essay) I am not working on the “no” campaign. I focused on the question of affordable housing and whether the project is well-designed for our climate crisis. The “yes” essay was written by Sandy Whitcombe, one of the developers of Village Farms.

    I very much appreciate the opportunity to guest write for The Wary One and also appreciate his willingness to try to engage the community in discussion. (In honor of Bob, the previous sentence does not end with an exclamation point).

    You can find the two essays here: https://www.thewaryone.com/p/today-we-present-two-essays-on-measure/comment/258381824

  • The Future of Davis is Rooted in Community: Why I Support Village Farms

    By Linda Deos

    As a member of the Davis City Council, my primary responsibility is to look toward the horizon. I am constantly asking: How do we preserve the soul of the city we love while ensuring it remains a viable, vibrant home for the next generation? Since the initial planning application for Village Farms was submitted in April 2023, I have engaged deeply with the details, the data, and—most importantly—the residents.

    Over the last three years, this project has undergone rigorous public scrutiny, environmental review, and repeated refinement. After witnessing this collaborative process and reviewing the robust commitments secured in the project’s Baseline Features, I am proud to support Measure V. Village Farms Davis is not just another housing development; it is a meticulously planned extension of our community values.

    (more…)

  • Lack of transparency in the relationship between DJUSD and Village Farms developer

    Screenshot

    By Elizabeth Coolbrith

    I am a parent with two children in DJUSD schools, and I’m sharing this focused update because Davis voters deserve to see some specific information that hasn’t been laid out clearly in one place. This goes to the heart of transparency and illuminates an aspect of the relationship between DJUSD leadership and the Village Farms developer. Now that these documents are public, I feel a responsibility to share them.

    Two pieces stand out:

    First, there is long‑term developer funding of DJUSD entities tied to Village Farms developer John Whitcombe and Tandem Properties, who have been major funders of DJUSD through the Tandem Foundation. Public records show roughly $40,000 a year in donations to Davis schools for over 20 years, totaling close to $500,000 as of 2023. These generous donations are legal. But they can create the appearance of a very close, ongoing financial relationship between this developer and the district.

    Second, newly released public records include an email from the Village Farms development team asking DJUSD to keep Measure V communications off email.

    (more…)

  • It’s A “May” Day for Village Farms

    Words Do Matter

    By David Thompson

    To: Citizens of Davis on May Day
    From:  David J Thompson. Affordable Housing Advocate
    Re: Recent words used by or about Village Farms

    Text in recent mailer from Village Farms reads as follows:

    “Davis Needs Housing – Village Farms is the Answer, Housing for All…construction of 360 Permanently Affordable Homes.”

    140 high density rental apartments very low-income families (max income family of 4 = $31,450)

    140 high density rental apartments low-income families, (max income family of 4 = $83,900).

    80 permanently restricted for sale units for moderate income families (max income for family of 4 = $136,800.

    As a long-time co-developer of affordable housing in Davis, I see a real problem in getting these units being built except  possibly as high density apartments with a very hard to get substantial subsidy. These will not be single family homes and there is no subsidy for this income group.

    These “360 Permanently Affordable Homes” imply houses, however 280 of these units would be apartments, not houses only for lower income qualified residents. Also, this developer is not building any of these affordable units except he “may” build 100 lower income affordable rental apartments in the last phase (Phase 3) in 10 years or more down the road. But he “may” not. Let me explain this disingenuous affordable housing “plan”.

    (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…)