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

  • What are the guaranteed parts of the Village Farms project?

    Looking at Affordable Housing in particular

    By Roberta Millstein

    With the for and against ballot arguments for Village Farms and their rebuttals posted to the County’s website (as Measure V), and the campaigns starting to ramp up, I thought it was important to highlight what are technically known as the projects Baseline Features. These are available as part of the “Full Text of Measure V” on the County’s website, and I encourage Davisites to take a close look at them, but I wanted to point out a couple of things first.

    Most important to note is what it means to be a Baseline Feature. As the text of the Measure itself clarifies:

    Beyond the Baseline Project Features there are other additional requirements for the Project, including but not limited to, the mitigation measures set forth in the Village Farms EIR, and the Development Agreement that, while important to the Project, are not Baseline Project Features and may be modified with the approval of the City after the appropriate public process (emphasis added).

    Another way of saying this is to point out that only the Baseline Features are guaranteed parts of the project. Anything else can be changed with a vote of the City Council — and here one should keep in mind that membership of that future City Council could be somewhat or even substantially different from today’s City Council. Thus, anything that is not a Baseline Feature is not a guaranteed part of the project.

    And even then, it’s important to read the Baseline Features carefully, as some of us learned when Bretton Woods was able to jettison its promised memory care facility. Let me give an example that is tied to one touted feature of the project that is of great interest to many voters: Affordable Housing.

    The rebuttal to the argument against Measure V states that the project will have “360 units serving very low to moderate income households.” But is this true?

    (more…)

  • Rebuttals to for-and-against ballot arguments are now available

    Roberta Millstein

    In an earlier article, I posted the for and against arguments for the Village Farms project. The rebuttals to each of these arguments are now available on the County’s website, and I have pasted them below. Village Farms is subject to a Measure J/R/D vote of all Davis citizens and has been assigned as Measure V.

    Here is the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Village Farms that will appear on our ballots in June (the rebuttal to the argument against follows after that):

    (more…)

  • It’s Time for New Leadership for our CA-4 House Seat

    By Scott Steward

    Eric Jones at one of his Meet and Greets held throughout the District

    At this critical time, as we confront the destruction of our democratic institutions and equal representation under the law, we have a choice to make while we can still vote.  

    There is no need to worry that a Democratic primary challenge will eliminate all Democrats from our safely blue district race. In this year’s District CA-4 Congressional primary election on June 2nd (early voting starts on Monday, May 4th), we can vote for one of the two leading Democratic candidates: Mike Thompson or Eric Jones.  

    Mike Thompson, the 28-year incumbent, has shown that no amount of phone calls and letters will change his commitment to a system that “trusts the process.” Thompson’s politics will not allow him to raise taxes on gross excess (oil, drug, gambling, tech, and the weapons industries). He has and will continue to rationalize excessive profits and justify incarceration at home and $6 trillion (since 2001) in support of endless war. 

    (more…)

  • Ballot arguments for and against Village Farms now available

    By Roberta Millstein

    This post is to just let people know that the arguments for and against the Village Farms project are up on the County’s website. The rebuttals to the for and against arguments are due by March 3; I will post them at some point afterward. Village Farms is subject to a Measure J/R/D vote of all Davis citizens and has been assigned as Measure V.

    Here is the argument in favor of Village Farms, i.e., in favor of Measure V, that will appear on our ballots in June (the argument against follows after that):

    (more…)

  • The City’s handling of the noise ordinance: The good and the bad

    By Roberta Millstein

    The City’s handling of the proposed noise ordinance was good in some respects and quite bad in others.

    First, the good: At Tuesday night’s meeting, led by Mayor Donna Neville, the council agreed that the noise items weren’t an ordinance clean-up item and that they deserved a true staff report and separate consideration.  The noise ordinance (Chapter 24) items were pulled from the Consent Calendar and Item 4B’s noise ordinance “clean-up” will come to the council at a later date.

    I am grateful to the Council for hearing the Davis citizens who emailed and gave public comment concerning the noise ordinance.  (Previous Davisite articles about the proposed changes can be found here and here). 

    Now for the bad: This should have never been on the Consent Calendar in the first place, which is for noncontroversial items that do not need discussion.  I’m not quite sure how or why it was put there, or why the Council passed it unanimously at its “first reading” (Tuesday was the “second reading”), but to me it’s a continuation of a “trust staff implicitly” mentality.  I hope that this is a sign that the Davis City Council recognizes that it (the Council), not staff, is the responsible party who we voted for and that oversight is needed.

    Another concern is the way that comments emailed to Councilmembers were handled.  I received a reply from Barbara Archer, the City’s “Public Information Officer,” asserting (in essence) that the concerns I raised were not valid.  There are several problems with this:

    (more…)

  • 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…)

  • Proposed changes to noise ordinance need to be sent back to the drawing board

    [The following email was sent to CityCouncilMembers@cityofdavis.org]

    Dear City Councilmembers,

    I am writing concerning Item 4B for tonight’s City Council meeting — specifically the changes to Davis’s noise ordinance. The changes would eliminate the concrete, objective measurement of too much noise — a decibel level — and replace it with the subjective determination of which sounds are “ordinary and reasonable.”  Left unclear is who is to make this determination, when such people would be available, and on what basis they would decide.

    As I understand it, the objective standard of a decibel level is being removed not just from public playgrounds, parks, and schools, but also from the regulations concerning sounds from animals, power tools, and vehicle repairs.  Thus, these proposed changes will affect every citizen in Davis.

    And let’s be clear.  This is a quality of life issue, yes, but it is more than that. Loud sounds have demonstrated physical and psychological harms on people and animals.  This is a public health issue.  Speaking personally, I find loud noises extremely debilitating. I can’t think properly, much less get any work done.

    Also, these changes will have people keeping their windows closed and using their A/Cs, unnecessarily wasting energy — and then still not really preventing exposure to the worst sounds.

    Yet despite the potential for serious harm, these considerable changes are poised to be passed without a staff presentation, without input from commissions, and without discussion of concerns raised by Davis’s citizens.

    I urge you to send this proposal back to the drawing board.

    Thank you.

    Sincerely,

    Roberta Millstein
    Davis citizen

  • 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…)

  • Municipal Code “Clean-Up” Will Eliminate Noise Decibel Limits for All Parks, All School Grounds, Barking Dogs, Power Tools and More

    By Joe and Janet Krovoza

    On Tuesday, February 3, 2026, the city council approved eliminating all noise decibel limits for every city park, all school grounds, barking dogs, non-commercial power tool use and vehicle repair in neighborhoods. The council did this under the guise of a Consent Calendar “clean-up” item buried among changes to nine different ordinance chapters. The subheading was “Remove outdated and unenforceable provisions–noise limitation.”

    Consent Calendar items are reserved for items deemed “routine and non-controversial” that “require no discussion.” This is not where one would expect a major overhaul of the Davis municipal code’s noise ordinance. During public comment at the February 3 meeting, we alerted the council to the magnitude of what staff had placed on the Consent Calendar and asked the council to pull the item for discussion. They did not. Agenda Item 4D passed unanimously with no public input on the noise section (other than ours), and no staff presentation.

    Ordinance amendments require two “readings.” The first reading is to receive input, the second reading is for the staff to present revisions if legitimate issues arise during the first reading. Staff have placed the second reading on the Consent Calendar for the upcoming February 17th meeting as item 4B. The meeting starts at 6:30 pm. No staff presentation is planned, no public input is invited – though comment must be accepted, as always, at the start of the meeting under General Public Comment.

    The changes have not been reviewed by any city commission. They should go to the Planning Commission, at a minimum. It’s unclear who the staff are that did the work on this. No experts or analysis is cited in the vague 168 word explanation for this radical new approach to city noise management. The short explanation of changes makes references to ambient noise making accurate readings difficult, ambient noise creating prosecution issues for the Yolo Superior Court, and the need for consistent application. These make no sense in the context of what’s being approved.

    The city’s stated reasoning for these alterations is that because the city “has grown larger and traffic has increased locally and on highways” it is now “more difficult to take accurate noise readings.” Really? Says who? We are very familiar with the various noise studies and exchanges with the city’s consulting sound engineers since 2019, and are deeply aware of the literature. Not once have we heard a consultant posit that ambient noise levels were making it difficult to take accurate measurements. This is a complete canard, invented by unidentified staff to deflect argument and justify the gutting of huge swaths of the ordinance.

    The subheading also indicates the amendment addresses “unenforceable provisions.” There’s nothing unenforceable when something exceeds a limit. Try telling a traffic officer this the next time you are pulled over for speeding. If anything, abandoning decibel limits for subjective police officer or city determinations makes enforcement more, not less, challenging. What’s easier and more defensible than enforcing an explicit limit? 

    (more…)

  • Suggested changes to Ordinances for the Village Farms Project

    [The following was sent to the Davisite for posting]

    February 2, 2026
    To: Mayor Donna Neville and Council Members
    Fr: David J. Thompson, Affordable Housing Advocate
    Re: My Suggested Changes to Exhibit E Affordable Housing PIP Report

    Could you please address these questions and concerns before tonight’s final City Council vote on the second reading regarding Village Farms?

     Due to a number of issues I have located I have made the following suggestions by section number on the “Affordable Housing” agreement:

    Click to access 04E-Second-Readings-Village-Farms-Davis-Ordinances.pdf

     1)    Section 2. General Clarification, All 360 units are to be “deed restricted permanently affordable”. However, in Section 5. Which provides specific detail, the term ‘deed restricted permanently affordable’ is missing and should be included in Section 5.

     2)    Section 4.1. Do not understand why requirement of 18+ acres has been reduced to 16 acres?

     3)    Section 4.1. I have previously stated to the Council that the closer to transportation and shopping center the sites wins extra points in the funding competitions. Not knowing where these parcels will be should have been set by now to ensure the sites gets highest extra points for location. Why will the siting be unknown when the citywide vote occurs?

     4)    Section 5. ’80 ownership units for moderate income households…’.  I have previously provided you with an analysis why this is not likely possible with a Limited Equity Housing Cooperative. The only other option is to do a condo which I think is equally difficult for much the same reasons. How does the city plan to get the ownership units built?

     5)    Section 5. I would suggest you allow for these 80 units to be also done as rentals which are a more feasible, of value and a likely option. They could be delivered much earlier. The likelihood of acquiring funding for moderate income ownership housing is a long shot at best.

     6)    So the City may well be left with NO affordable housing and land use dedication which will not be developed in the near future, or perhaps ever.

     7)    Section 6.C. Given the trend in financing low-income housing $2 million may not be enough at $20,000 per unit to complete the subsidy funding of the initial 100 units. What are the additional dollars per unit Mercy Housing is asking for per unit at Bretton Woods?

     8)    Section 7.2. For me and perhaps for others, the section below definitely confuses me.

    (more…)