Category: Uncategorized

If you’ve been paying attention, you might be wondering just exactly what to believe these days – are we dealing with fact or fiction? Disinformation? Marketing or just good-old-fashioned propaganda?

There is no better season to witness this phenomena than an election season. By the time you have read this letter (submitted, but not printed in the Enterprise), you will have already casted your vote but the feeling is likely still present.

Case in point: Measure H

Will it be a traffic-easer or clustermess of epic proportions? Planet-savior or climate nightmare? The future of Green Development(™) or the latest corporate ‘Greenwash’? Will I get a free pony?

The Yes campaign says that it will ‘advance environmental sustainability’, ‘combat climate change’, and be a ‘carbon-free development’. The only concrete information on their website about this is a 100% renewable energy commitment (for the shell buildings).

The No campaign cites an estimated 12,000 extra cars on the road, a net 5% INCREASE in carbon emissions in Davis, and that ‘carbon neutrality’ can only happen via purchasing of offsets, instead of…you know, actually figuring out how to do sustainable development.

Dan Carson, a member of the City Council in Davis, took it upon himself (with legal fees from Measure H campaign funders) to sue members of the No on H team and lost badly in court. To me, this is a totally inappropriate, unethical, and undemocratic behavior by an official elected to serve the people.

Yolo County and the City of Davis have both passed Climate Emergency Resolutions, boldly setting goals to be fossil-free and climate-positive by 2030 and 2040, respectively. In reality, we’ve seen close to 2 years go by without significant progress towards climate drawdown or ecological restoration. Even with everything going on in the present moment, it still makes me wonder me how an emergency response can be put on the back-burner like that.

The recent 4-1 approval by the Yolo County Board of Supervisors of a new 30 year extractive gravel-mining project in the Cache Creek Watershed, the lifeblood of Yolo County, makes me wonder if we are being handed more false promises and rose colored sunglasses.

Thank G-d for Juliette Beck running for Yolo County Supervisor, who does not just put in lip service, but is present in addressing the urgency of this moment and helping to steer us into meaningful ACTION. She was the only candidate in her race to vocally oppose the mining project. I have the upmost confidence in her leadership ability, experience, and drive as a mother to include us in a viable way forward.

The time for action is now and it requires our participation and critical thinking.

Thank you -David Abramson

(From press release) DiSC developers, led by Frank Ramos of Ramco Enterprises, poured $317,503 into the Yes on H campaign in a single day last week, bringing total developer contributions to the campaign committee to more than $600,000 in less than five months. The only other major donor to the campaign is Buzz Oates, Ramco’s partner in the development.

Yes on H expenditures have included:

• $123,00 to Spafford and Lincoln, a public relations and campaign management firm based in Davis CA. Spafford has been hired by developers of several major Davis projects in the past. Their role includes providing paid influencers, door-to-door solicitors, and phone bankers misrepresenting themselves as volunteers.
• $28,000 in direct payments to individuals actively campaigning publicly for DiSC. These are people who have tabled at the Farmers Market, and written letters and solicited support from local political parties, civic organizations, Parent-Teacher Association groups, and news and social media outlets.
• $45,000 to KMP Strategies. Their website describes their work as reaching “stakeholders where they are.” “Where they are” includes “on their phones, in their mailboxes, in their homes, in between songs on their playlist, or through those they trust.”

• $89,503.34 for lawyers from 2 separate law firms to prosecute Councilmember Dan Carson's lawsuit against the No on Measure H ballot statement signers and to represent the Developers before the City Council, City Advisory Commissions, and during other public events.

(more…)

This is Al’s Corner – A Place to comment on Local Stuff, free from the censorship of biased people. 

Free speech rocks!  Recent happenings at Netflix & Twitter give hope that Cancel Culture in the U.S. is dying.  Recent happenings in Davis local media . . .  not so much.  Al’s Corner is a place to speak your mind on all things Davis, even as other local forums become more exclusive, more moderated, and more noisier echo chambers that don’t welcome dissent, recognize humor, or allow ‘incorrect’ opinions.  That’s why I created Al’s corner — comment here on local media content and comments, without having to deal with the Thought Police.

The simple rules at Al’s Corner are:

• Doxx no one;

• No personal attacks on individuals who aren’t public figures [wider but not unlimited berth for public figures; i.e. you can insult their leadership skills or judgement, but not their weight];

• No critical comments on stuff known to be written by children; i.e. those 17 and under – everyone else is an adult.

WHEN YOU COMMENT: 

• Post the Subject clearly;

• Reference the source, article title, and date if commenting on an article from another source;

• If you are quoting a comment from another source, further note the comment author and time of posting. On the rare occasions I mod a comment, I’ll email the commenter, explain why, and the commenter can repost.  I will NOT disappear your comment, tell you to figure it out yourself, and then give you advice on when to plant your azaleas.

NOTE 1:  Comments are published when I get around to it!   You are not being censored; rather, I have other priorities besides your comment.  This also means it won’t be a real-time conversation, so post accordingly.   

NOTE 2:  If someone posts something insensitive/offensive and not directed at an individual, they are their own worst enemy and can hang themselves with the noose of their own words in full view of God and their fellow human beings.

I’ll refresh with a new Al’s Corner space once-a-week-ish, or as needed when things get cluttered.  Enjoy expressing yourself at Al’s corner.  It’ll be a gas.

— Al, of Al’s Corner  (gasoline tanker not included)

By Larry Guenther

The Old East Davis Neighborhood Association (OEDNA) requested that the Trackside Appellate court decision be reviewed by the California State Supreme Court. Some were critical of our decision due to the long odds. We were quite aware of the odds, and thus the decision not to review the decision comes as no surprise. We believed, however, that enforceability of City planning documents was a battle worth fighting.

This was a fight for public awareness and enforceability of city planning documents – Statewide. For people to believe in the law, it must be enforceable. With the publication of the Trackside decision, the current City Council can interpret planning documents, approved by previous City Councils, to mean whatever they want them to mean – with no repercussions.

We make plans to create certainty. OEDNA participated robustly in creating the Davis Downtown and Traditional Neighborhood Guidelines to gain certainty for developers and for residents. This decision negates that certainty. So what, then, is the purpose of moving forward with any city planning documents? The Downtown Plan, the General Plan, the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, or any other plan? The details of those plans – those things we fight for and that we believe have teeth – have no teeth.

Who loses out? The residents of our City, and of every City in California. Because with this decision, all California city planning documents have become uncertain.

Larry Guenther is President of the Board of the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association.

Amanda Long and her daughter (Courtesy photo)

(From press release) Soroptimist International of Davis awarded a record $20,000 in funds in 2022 through its signature Live Your Dream: Education and Training Awards for Women.

Women are encouraged each year to apply for the awards if they are the primary wage earners for their families, and need financial assistance to further their education or training. Recipients have often faced hardships or challenging circumstances.

This year, SI Davis gave a boost to six women, with cash awards ranging from $1,000 to $5,000. These unrestricted grants may be used to offset costs that a scholarship wouldn’t, such as child care, transportation or other financial obligations that hinder a woman’s ability to reach her goals. Soroptimist International of Davis members remain in contact with the recipients, offering them mentorship and support.

The top 2022 recipient is Amanda Long, a UC Davis microbiology student who commutes from Citrus Heights so her 9-year-old daughter’s school and day care won’t be disrupted.

Long is a first-generation college student but hopes not to be the last. As she nears graduation, the single mom told Soroptimist members that she’s “becoming someone who my younger self would never had thought possible. … I can see the effects that my education has on my young daughter.”

Long is looking for work as a clinical lab scientist, and plans to eventually apply to graduate school. She’s been studying antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and hopes to continue in that area. The award is being used to pay for transportation costs.

(more…)

(From press release) A goal of Yolo County Farm Bureau (“YCFB”) is to preserve and protect prime farmland that is fundamental to the ability of Yolo County farmers and ranchers to provide a safe, reliable supply of food and fiber.

Pursuant to that objective we have evaluated the DiSC 2022 102- acre development, proposed on the east side of Mace Blvd, north of Interstate 80. This proposed project is pending decision by the City of Davis electorate at the June 7 election.

This development would convert prime farmland into business and residential uses. YCFB has carefully considered the City of Davis project file, including submittals and the letter filed by Yolo County (12/6/21). YCFB board members have driven to the project area, looked at the project perimeters and current uses of adjacent lands.

We comment at the outset that County correspondence emphasizes that the DiSC 2022 developers here have sought to annex and develop farmland that is completely outside the City of Davis “Sphere of Influence.” This area has not been included in a relevant LAFCo area suitability review. Thus, necessary studies have not taken place: the bottom line is that appropriateness of this use on this property has not been independently, publicly evaluated. This project does not deserve public support because it is an “opportunistic” conversion of farmland. It is not a carefully planned transition that we define as: Urban growth is considered but impacts on the agricultural lands and economy are included from the inception of the process, and are part of the equation.

For our purposes, we are looking at the direct loss of 102 acres of very prime land and the impacts of the urban use on adjacent farming. This acreage is an important part of the necessary farming base that supports our equally critical agricultural infrastructure—the vendors and manufacturers of supplies, inventories and equipment. The more farmland that is lost—Yolo County is less able to keep its farmers and ranchers operating.

Many interested in farmland preservation focus on “Mitigation” and what ratio—ag land turned into urban uses—to land that must be “preserved” for agriculture is appropriate. The various concerned and interested groups speak in terms of 3-1 or 2-1. We point out that every acre of prime farmland lost to urbanization is permanently lost. There is a loss of farmland no matter what ratio is used. Thus, we oppose this project because 102 prime acres are permanently lost.

(more…)

For Immediate Release  – April 19, 2022

From No on Davis Innovation and Sustainability Campus – No on Measure H

Re: Carson lawyers file motion seeking to deny legal fees to opponents of the Davis Innovation and Sustainability Campus (DiSC) after his lawsuit failed to substantively change the No on Measure H ballot statement

_____________

Councilmember Dan Carson revealed this week that he intends to go after Davis residents in court again.

In court documents filed late Monday, Carson said he wants the six residents who signed the ballot statement against Measure H to pay his attorney's fees even though his lawsuit seeking to water down their No on H ballot argument was largely unsuccessful.  Carson is demanding fees despite the fact that Dan Ramos, the developer behind the Measure H DiSC project, has already admitted publicly that he footed the bill for Carson's lawsuit.

The Attorney for the No on Measure H campaign Beverly Grossman Palmer stated, “As I previously indicated, it is very unusual for a sitting councilmember to sue over a ballot argument.  To seek fees against his own constituents for defending their right to present their views to the voters would be even more shocking, should Councilmember Carson file this threatened motion for attorney's fees.”

 Roberta Millstein, one of the authors of the ballot statement challenged in Carson’s lawsuit stated, “Carson’s developer backed lawsuit will have the effect of stifling Davis’s long tradition of engaged citizen participation. Who will want to sign a ballot statement in the future if a developer can fund a punitive lawsuit against them? Carson's lawsuit sets a terrible precedent.”

Alan Pryor, Principal Officer of the No on H campaign and one of the authors of the ballot statement stated, “Fortunately, Carson’s opposition brief is unlikely to be successful because it is clearly in the public interest for Davis voters to be able to write truthful ballot statements advocating against developments.” A judge is scheduled to hear the arguments from both sides on April 29^th at Yolo County Superior Court.

The DiSC project is an outdated freeway offramp project that will put 12,000 additional cars on Mace Blvd. every day and increase greenhouse gas emissions by the City of Davis by 5%. The citizens of Davis already voted down the first iteration of this project less than 2 years ago.

Carson sought to have more than 80 words of the 300-word ballot statement against Measure H stricken. On March 30, 2022 Yolo County Superior Court Judge McGuire overwhelmingly ruled against Carson, making only 2 small changes suggested by the No on H campaign itself. One change simply modified the type of unit used to express the amount of greenhouse gases that would be produced by the project – similar to expressing a value in dollars rather than cents. The other change involved the following paragraph, which Carson had asked to be deleted:

“The Developer has made almost no binding commitments and has no viable ways to improve this traffic mess. Their only promise is to develop a Traffic Demand Management Plan if the project is approved. But figuring this traffic mess out later is not a plan!”

 The judge let the first and third sentences of that paragraph stand as they were; the second sentence changed the word only and it now reads, "They promise to develop a Traffic Demand Management Plan if the project is approved" – at best a slight change in meaning from the original.

 In dismissing Carson’s claims the judge also found the following arguments against DiSC were neither false or misleading:

“Rejected only 19 months ago by voters, DiSC is back. But it is still an autocentric, freeway-oriented, downtown–threatening project. It still has overwhelming traffic and environmental problems, and it is still non-compliant with the City of Davis General Plan.”

 Indeed, during the hearing, Carson's lawyer admitted that DiSC 2022 would not be compliant with the City of Davis's General Plan as it exists today.

The judge also let the heading, "Unmitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions" stand, as well as the statements, “Locally we are reeling from the debilitating impacts of drought and terrifying wildfires caused by dramatically increasing carbon emissions” and “DiSC alone will increase the City’s carbon footprint by almost 5%, completely derailing the City’s ability to meet its carbon-neutral goal by 2040.”

The No on H Campaign believes Councilmember Dan Carson has grossly overstepped his role and blurred the lines between his elected office and his personal advocacy for a development project.

PARODY – see note below

Vote for the Bee Wash to approve the Davis Bee Ecosystem because it enhances and advances more of what we love about our city.

Bee Wash gives voters in Davis an exciting opportunity to:

• build affordable housing for the next generation of Davis’s beneficial insects; 
• protect endangered species and permanently preserve nearly two acres of wild land;
• provide good bee jobs close to home, for UC apicology graduates and others;
• produce more sweet internship opportunities for Davis high school and college students;
• preserve Davis’s quality of life without raising the price of honey.

Bee Wash is supported by residents, business leaders, students and environmentalists, because it advances Davis’ community values and provides opportunities for everyone. Bee wash will build on Davis’ commitment to bold environmental and agricultural leadership by attracting next-generation companies focused on solving the world’s greatest challenges, like climate change, food supply, and water scarcity. And Bee Wash will be a carbon-free model for California, requiring 100% renewable power onsite.

Bee Wash will improve existing trails and add new bike and pedestrian paths and a safe overcrossing of Mace Boulevard for flying insects. An objective, independent study confirms that flying will reduce commute times near the Mace/I-80 interchange by up to 3-1/2 minutes.

Bee Wash improves the amenities that matter to Davis. It creates new greenbelts and trails, native habitat, and soccer, softball and other recreation fields — all at no cost to taxpayers. Bee Wash brings millions of dollars a year to the City budget and for support of Davis schools, while generating $29 million in one-time revenues to fix our infrastructure and help pay for a new South Davis bee hive, honey library and community center.

Bee Wash is endorsed by the entire City Council, the Davis Chamber of Commerce and UC Davis student associations. Learn more at Beewash.com VOTE YES on Bee Wash!

Signers:

Gloria Beekeeper – Mayor of Davis

Pamela G. Honey – Founder Marrone Bio

Joseph “Buzz” DiNunzio – DJUSD Trustee

Gerald Beeswax – Member, Valley Clean Energy Community Advisory Committee; Member, Davis Utilities Commission

Ruth Uy Honeycomb – Former Davis Mayor

******

Parody notes: This article is based on images used for the proposal for the car wash at 480 Mace Blvd and text of the Yes on H (DISC 2022) ballot argument.

The campaign has retained Dynata, a Texas marketing firm, to repeatedly call thousands of Davis voters over and over until the phone is answered.

By Alan Pryor

Who is Dynata?

Numerous Davis citizens have reported receiving a "push poll" survey telephone call concerning the proposed "DiSC 2022" project from a firm headquartered in Plano, Texas whose caller ID otherwise identifies the company as "Dynata" from either Hayward or Oakland in the Bay Area. Dynata (https://www.dynata.com/) is a privately-owned online data collection company owned by two private equity firms, Court Square Capital Management and HGGC. ("DiSC 2022" is a 102-acre proposed mixed use business park that would be constructed on prime farmland outside the current City limits, just north of I-80, the Ikeda fruit stand, and the City water tank, and just east of Mace Blvd.  It will be Measure H on the June ballot).

According to their website, "Dynata, LLC… and their parents, affiliates and subsidiaries world-wide (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Dynata”) provide sampling solutions and technology for survey research, providing clients with access to consumer and business-to-business respondents via internet, telephone (both fixed/landline and wireless/mobile), postal and multi-mode methodologies."

But the firm is poorly thought of by both consumers and peers in the survey research industry.

(more…)