Unfortunately in yesterday’s Davis Enterprise, she made a glaring error that a few of our readers caught and alerted us to.
In recent years, the discussion about senior housing in Davis has become elevated. Several local seniors have formed a group called Choices for Healthy Aging, or CHA, to advocate for more senior housing options in Davis.
The group is working closely with Davis Neighbors, the owners of a 383-acre property at Covell Boulevard and Pole Line Road, to design a home-ownership community for seniors on a portion of the site. Critics, however, say the claim that there is not enough senior housing in Davis is a ruse to pressure the city and its residents to support a developer-driven project.
The implication of this is that seniors independently formed the group CHA as an advocacy group for more senior housing options in Davis. In fact, CHA is merely an astroturf group, created by the Covell Village developers to create the appearance of a grassroots movement. The group is not “working closely with Davis Neighbors,” the newest euphemism for the Covell Partners, as they try to rebuild their tarnished image from Measure X. The group was formed by them and operates under them, and we have proof.
Back in June, the Vanguard intercepted an email from Lydia Delis-Schlosser who is the Project Coordinator for Davis Neighbors, aka, Covell Partners, aka Yes on Measure X. Notice the phone number at the bottom of the email.
Now, here is a post card someone sent us from CHA that was sent out to much of the Davis Senior Community.
Notice at the bottom, they have a phone number and notice that it is the same phone number as Ms. Delis-Schlosser was using in her email.
Moreover, in June we called the number and it was Ms. Delis-Schlosser’s voice and the message identified itself as both Davis Neighbors and CHA. The connect there is unmistakable. CHA is nothing more than a front group for Davis Neighbors, giving the impression that there is a large grassroots movement pushing for Covell Village to be brought back as senior housing.
Unfortunately, the Davis Enterprise has now fed into the perception and attempted to legitimize CHA as a group working with the Covell Village developers rather than accurately portraying them as being formed by the Covell Village developers. It’s a complete fraud and a sham being perpetrated on the voters and residents of Davis. It’s a full on astroturf campaign being waged here in Davis and unfortunately, the Davis Enterprise does not have the guts to call it for what it is.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
DPD: As usual for the Vanguard, you show us the evidence. I don’t know how you do it on the small income stream that the Vanguard produces for you and your family.
Well, thanks for a prime exhibit for us to use against them on the “No on Halloween IV” campaign.
You know, all I can say is that the CV partners are so arrogant that they would not even bother to rent an extra phone line to lead credance to the fraud perputated on the public that CHA is not their astroturf front group.
It’s the same mentality as when they called me a stooge of Sacramento developer Steve Gidero in a full page D.E. ad in October 2005; the “bogeyman Gidero will git u if u don’t vote for CV” letter on supervisor’s letterhead by Helen Thompson (did the Board of Supervisors ever sanction her for that trick?); the gross failure to properly disclose campaign expenditures; etc. etc.
The whole thing annoys me. It is going to consume huge amounts of precious staff, CC, city commission, and volunteer time that we really should be spending on making the city a better place, volunteering in the schools, building more habitat in the area, spiffing up the parks, etc.
But oh, no, we are going to have to spend a year to pop their dream of a billion dollar project, which in reality is only a nightmare for the City.
So be it. We are ready.
So what else is new? CV II is dead upon arrival, CHA notwithstanding. Be interesting to see if city staff helps or hinders the CV II campaign. Thus far, city staff seems to be hindering it – not allowing the stacked deck Senior Housing Strategy Committee Souza proposed get off the ground. Wonder if the new strategy of a “senior survey” will be an honest attempt to find out what seniors want, or a veiled attempt to push Covell Village II by “stacking the questions”?
Anon: You call it CV II, when in fact Whitcomb and friends have lost 3x. The Nov 05 J vote on Measure X was the third time it was knocked down.
There were two times that it lost in the planning process in the 1990s, before my 2000 election to the CC. Then, in 2001, Ken, Sue and I voted to remove the “urban reserve” GP designation back to ag uses only. That kicked CV into high gear, and they ran Ted and Ruth as a twofer. That set the stage for CV III using up huge amounts of staff, CC, commission, and volunteer resources for 2-3 years, culminating in the 60/40 knock down in Nov 05.
So I call the January 2010 application CV IV, or Halloween IV to remind us of what these people are capable of doing (the Helen Thompson/Gidero boogeyman tactic that backfired on them), and to honor the brilliant piece of fullpage ad work done by Bill Ritter on Halloween (the boogeyman ad in the DE that made fun of CV and its supposed boogeymen roaming around the city).
Hey Gidero and your Davis developer friends that you did that takeout campaign with for 4 days to knock down my re-election in 2004: be careful of what you wish for: you got Steve Souza and Saylor, but you also got Sue as Mayor (thousands bullet voted for her because they did not know what to make of your telephone B.S. about me, and you freed me up to pay attention to and fund much of the No on X campaign a year later. I did not have to listen to speed bump disputes for hours and hours at CC meetings, and was able to put the law firm back in action.
Mike, I am sure glad that you did not win. Your attitude “I did not have to listen to speed bump disputes for hours and hours at CC meetings” says everything about how you feel about this community. Technically, the Gidaro accusations may have lost votes, but if you were the public servant you believe you were, it would not have lost you the election. Your hatred for people in this community resonates loud and clear in your messages here.
“Mike, I am sure glad that you did not win.”
I’m sure this city is better off having Souza or Saylor than Mike Harrington–you really believe that?
I do now that I know how Mike really feels about the people of this community.
I don’t get that sense. I think Mike’s a bit bitter with what happened with Gidaro in 2004 an I can’t really blame him for that. People close to him say that he could have worked harder in 2004, but still… If you really believe we’re better off with Souza or Saylor than Mike, then you really aren’t a progressive. I know a lot of people who don’t like Sue personally, but most of them prefer her to Vergis or Levy or some other pro development candidate.
To Just Sit Back and Listen: hatred? Put your name out there, my friend. DPD: this is exactly what I am talking about.
The CC job is mostly voluntary, especially for those like I was who have no aspirations for higher office. I choose how I wish to spend my time. I choose where to put an hour of my life. I did the CC thing because I was asked by 3 Mayors to do the job so Julie did not have to run again. Speed bumps are important. But for me, if I am going to spend an hour of my life, I want to get the maximum impact. So knocking down CV produces that maximum effect. No additional sprawl, no need to spend hours on speed bumps, right?
Do I hate CV personnel? Of course not. Do I think they are basically trying to kill the best parts of this community for cash for their heirs? Yes. Is it a power struggle between them and the progressives? Yes. It’s really unfortunate, but they want governmental approval for sprawl development, and we do not. It’s only personal when they tie up thousands of hours of volunteer time to present the governmental approval of their plans to make the next generation filthy rich.
Whitcomb asked me in April 2000 what I thought about his CV plans (the plan I saw was 95% the same as Measure X). I said it’s too dense, too much traffic.
I asked where is the 2/1 outboard, on-site land mitigation that Mark Spencer, Eileen Samitz and others were proposing to be added to the new General Plan?
He said giving it up on-site was land thievery by the public. OK. I respect that. It’s his land. It’s a free world.
But nine years later, it’s still nice farmland up there. And with the new Halloween IV coming into the ER “Dead Before Arrival,” it will remain farmland for at least another nine years.
David Greenwald writes: [quote]For the most part, the Davis Enterprise’s new beat writer for the city has done a very good job of staying out of the fray and reporting in an even-handed method.[/quote]Why am I not surprised that David Greenwald has no criticism of the Enterprise coverage of Wildhorse Ranch project, but suddenly criticizes Enterprise reporting of a perceived rival project?
Virtually no reporting of the fiscal issues I raised concerning the fact that the project only breaks even by virtue of a 15 year one-time payment band-aid which leaves the deficit intact after 16 years, no reporting of the high drama of the Wildhorse Ranch developer trying to wiggle out of his much promoted promise to avoid the land dedication option of the affordable housing, no reporting of Steve Souza’s comment that the developer only about $2.5 million for the 25 acres (the Grande site, about 1/3 the size, was appraised fo over $5 million, according the a former school board member. Hence, one would THINK that the project could at pay at least as large a onetime unit fee as other recently approved projects).
The biggest story was Parlin campaign manager Bill Ritter using his three minute public comment time to personally attack me.
Yes, according to the Vanguard, the Enterprise reporting was even-handed until the topic of the perceived rival project comes up.
How will the Vanguard be reporting on the massive Parlin II development in West Davis, which Mike Harrington and Parlin consultant Maynard Skinner tried so hard to move up the priority list while serving on the Housing Steering Committee. Stay tuned.
Sue, you were not at the Housing Committee Meetings. You never showed up once that I can remember. Maynard and I did not try to move Parlin up. That is flat wrong. He and I often voted against the other’s votes.
The meetings were taped. Every single one of them. You are not working, Sue, so why dont you go get the tapes of the meetings you are talking about? I’m always here, working, so bring them by so we can listen together. Hmmm… I won’t hold my breath.
What I did try to do was to force the land owners with the exterior border parcels to disclose the quantity, quality, and location of the 2/1 mitigation land that they would offer the city per the General Plan. However, the C.V. consultants on the Committee (there were at least 3) blocked my attempt to force the mitigation disclosures.
Your personal attacks on DPD and the Vanguard are unwarranted, and reflect badly on you.
As to Northwest Quadrent around the Sutter Hospital, that one is not on the agenda at this time. Stick to what is before us.
I have offered Sue multiple opportunities for center column space on the Vanguard. That offer stands for anyone on either side of the Measure P divide.
To Sue who said: “The biggest story was Parlin campaign manager Bill Ritter using his three minute public comment time to personally attack me.”
I was in CC chambers when Bill spoke. I probably would have used my speaking time to point out positive aspects of the project, but what Bill said was right from his heart, and right on the money. What you did at the Finance and Economic Commission meeting was a gross violation of CC procedures. Like I have said, I have attended two CC meetings this year, and the Finance and Budget Commission, and your antics are terrible. Your screaming at Ruth at the last meeting was …. embarrassing. Only Steve’s polite Point of Order that it was question time to staff, not motion and discussion time, saved the situation from degenerating into a complete brawl on the dais. What you did was wrong.
You know, as liaison to the Commission, your JOB is to tell them what is coming up. All of you should have asked staff and the CC to send the Parlin financial materials to the Commission. But you said NOTHING, Sue. Then, on 7/28, you woke up at 1 am, and started pounding the heck out of others for your own malfeasance. Just do your job.
DPD: don’t hold your breath. She completely failed to interact between the Commission and the CC when the Parlin Wildhorse project was submitted to Planning very early this year. That communication would have taken her 15 minutes for emails, and CC member comments to ask the CC to refer the finances to the COmmission for study.
So why would she spend hours now to write a piece that merely serves as evidence of how she failed to do her job as liaison to the Finance and Budget Commission? Talk about bad process? Could have been avoided, Sue, but 15 minutes of your time.
Talk about project financial model developed by BAE Economics (a good firm in my opinion) and left over from 2005 CV days? Not a peep from Sue for 4 years, then she melts down at 1 am on July 29th???? Go ahead, Sue, write that piece.
Mike Harrington: I am relying on reports from other members of the steering committee that you argued to move up Parlin’s huge proposed development in the Northwest Quadrant.
I will check back with them and write a retraction of they cannot confirm this.
Hmmmm….do I really want to be a “progressive” right now?
Hmmmm … sometimes I think “regressive” might be a more appropriate term.
Have the developers said they didn’t help organize the seniors? I was under the impression that this was an unconcealed fact. Put another way, the developers would have to be pretty arrogant to invite anti-growth wackos to senior housing meetings at their office, and expect their support role to go unnoticed!
So you have lied by saying that the developers have tried to act like they have nothing to do with CHA.
If that’s the case, its you who expose yourselves as the low lifes, isn’t it, by maliciously trying to falsely paint people as frauds for merely trying to do some political organizing?
If the point is that the CHA members are “puppets” of the developers, that is utterly absurd. The members of CHA have repeatedly stated that they are not puppets of the developers. Are the seniors being paid (like this newspaper and Mike Harrington are being paid by the Yes on P people)? No.
And so what if the developers are helping to organize seniors who want appropriate housing in Davis? When you demand that they face a Measure J vote, do you not expect them to act in the political sphere?
And if they don’t help organized seniors, who will? The City? This should have been done 10 years ago.
Seriously, is there something wrong with mobilizing an important political constituency to advocate for an issue that will have a huge impact on their lives?
Is there any doubt that senior housing needs are a legitimate issue as the baby boomers retire? No. Would you rather have no discussion of the topic. I say the developers, if they did organize the seniors, are doing seniors and the City a valuable service.
Vincente: [i]”If you really believe we’re better off with Souza or Saylor than Mike, then you really aren’t a progressive.”[/i]
I don’t consider myself a “progressive” or a part of any faction in Davis. Thus, I wonder: What are the top 10 things a person must believe in or act on or stress in his agenda to make him a “progressive”?
And what is the relationship between this supposed faction and [i]”progress”[/i]? The implication of the term seems to be, the self-titled Progressives know where our community ought to be going, and they are doing what it takes to get us there. Would that be the progress?
And if so, isn’t that circular logic, in that a different faction might have a different vision, and its belief in getting there would be “progress” to it, no?*
A side note to the intra-factional bickering: I find it funny that true believers in various factions are always trying** to dictate the ideology in a way which excludes potential allies. Yet when they exclaim their positions, they contend that their views are the popular views; and that the country or the state or the city is really in line with their positions. Maybe one fact which keeps me outside of factional politics is my own certainty that most of my views are not in line with a majority.
*On the other hand, so-called Conservatives who believe in free-market economics — what originally was called [i]liberalism[/i] — don’t seem to be conserving anything. So maybe these are just names without any inherent value?
**For example, liberal Democrats like Stephen Souza and Ruth Asmundson are written off by some Davis [i]Progressives[/i] as “right-wingers” or “conservatives” or “tools of developers,” et cetera. The far-right conservatives similarly are always trying to remove moderate conservatives from their faction.
Rich, in this town, it’s nearly all a struggle over border control. The border developers want governmental approval to upzone their land for huge profits. Others in town dont want it. We live in a land of private property, and the struggle goes on every day in every city in the country.
What I like about the on-site, outbound mitigation requirement (“The Spencer Doctrine” to some of us) is that it seals off the outer edges of the city, since the mitigation land is permanent ag, open space, habitat. No city streets, services will be run through those parcels, so the city is effectively and legally land-locked. Sort of like SF is surrounded and cannot grow anymore. We do it, but with public benefit lands. The developers still make a small killing, but the public gets this huge benefit.
I like how it would end the political fights in certain areas of the city, since the private land outside the public benefit land cannot develop, since they cannot get city services and roads to come out to their parcels. So the land outside the public benefit parcels hugely drop in value due to the speculative portion is gone from the FMV.
CV partners have never figured this out, or even to come within a bat’s chance of getting broad support for a workable project … I tried to tell Whitcomb 9 years ago, but he thinks that the public benefit land donation in exchange for the right to develop the city edge parcels is “land thievery.”
Also, if you really look at the water supply to the city, we are near to being maxed out. Parlin Wildhorse is certainly going to be the last project without a lot of water system upgrades.
Rich: Actually it was intended as a bit of a dig that might flesh out the person who was posting the comment. There were two possibilities, one being someone aligned with Sue who would consider themselves a progressive who would be aligned with Harrington for philosophical reasons but opposed for personality based reasons or the other someone probably not ideologically aligned with Harrington. It appears from the response, it was the latter. So my mission was accomplished using an ill-defined but commonly used term. You have a good vocabulary but sometimes you take words too literally and miss the point of rhetoric for rhetoric sake.
[quote]Rich, in this town, it’s nearly all a struggle over border control. [/quote] I wonder if we will ever reach a point where we, say, have a defined urban limit line that virtually everyone who lives in Davis agrees upon. (I think the best way to accomplish this is by building a bucolic park which wraps around Davis.) If that consensus develops, then a new chasm will probably form over densification within the ULL.
I would guess that the progressives would then mostly become “pro-growth,” with the understanding that if we don’t rip up small single story buildings and build up, Davis will become even more expensive for renters and for new home buyers. That would mean a very different Davis.
On the other side of the equation would be the “conservatives,” opposed to changing the character of Davis and not too concerned about how much it costs other people to live here.
All of that presumes, of course, that hundreds of thousands of immigrants* from foreign countries move into California every year and have a lot of babies once they arrive.
*The Census data ([url]http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/foreignborn.htm[/url]) reveals we have about 10.76 million immigrants in California, composing 26.9% of our state’s population.
@Mike Harrington – as per usual, your aggrandizement of personal and “progressive” victories are not just exaggerations but often misleading and flat out false.
Re: on-site, outbound mitigation requirement, why not tell the public how it really went down?
1) Spencer et. al. were a well-meaning group of activists who spent a lot of time, under City auspices, to create a land mitigation ordinance for developers… but they never moved it past “idea” phase
2) John Whitcombe and the other partners who own the Covell site AGREED to 2:1 mitigation, as suggested by Spencer et. al., in their development agreement aka Measure X
3) City Council did NOT pass the 2:1 mitigation ordinance before OR after the Measure X vote.
4) The “progressive” leadership allowed the ag. mitigation ordinance to die…
5) Last year, the current Open Space & Habitat Commission resurrected the 2:1 Ag Mitigation Ordinance and quietly got the unanimous support of the City Council… because of their tireless, behind the scenes, non-political gamesmanship… we now have an amazing 2:1 Ag Mitigation Ordinance
So, Mike Parlington, stop taking/giving credit where credit is NOT due… well, basically stop talking about things you don’t know anything about
Also, if you’re so concerned about 2:1 ag mitigation… Why don’t we have a discussion about how Wildhorse Ranch doesn’t really have 2:1 mitigation and that the mitigation lands they’re offering are really low quality as envisioned by the ordinance… OR is that why Parlin didn’t fight to ensure that the Open Space & Habitat Commission reviewed their project?
To Davis Truth, Mike Parlington, Long Timer Resident of University Rice Lane, or Whoever You Are:
I’m glad you bring up the 2/1 ag mitigation for Parlin.
Staff directed Parlin to purchase and donate about 50 acres of development rights from parcel(s) in the rectangular section between Davis and Woodland.
Also, Parlin agreed to a voluntary purchase (not sure if in fee simple, or development rights) of another 15 acres of special area where the habitat is especially good. I think it’s for Swainson’s Hawks, but I am not sure, as the 90% GHG reduction is what got my interest in this project.
In contrast to those donations, Nightmare on Lewis Street was refusing to donate a single acre of ag, open space, or habitat to the city to make up for the loss of the 100 acres at the old Hunt Wesson site. (Most of that land was vacant open space.) In other words, their local political consultant and “volunteer” organizer was pushing for dense, traffic-jamming residential development on 100 acres, yet is turning around and attacking Parlin without reason or logic. Now, Mrs. Mike Parlington, I know that you strongly supported maintaining the current zoning on Hunt Wesson, and I am with you on that.
I hope this has clarified the issues you raised. However, sitting in your current position with the city, you should know all about the mitigation measures that Parlin has taken.
To Davis Truth:
One more thing. Like your failure to brief the Finance and Budget Commission as CC liason, you have also apparently failed to brief the Open SPace Commission of this project’s status and timing, or even ask the CC to formally refer it to those commissions. I don’t remember you making a single sound about review by either Commission until you melted down at 1 am on July 29, throwing knives at everyone but the person in the mirror. Again, do your job.
I know I’m chiming in a little late here, but just got back from a week’s vacation. After reading all the posts above, I just have to say that it’s no wonder the Ruth Asmundsons and Don Saylors get elected in this town. The so-called “progressives” seem to spend more time childishly name-calling, finger pointing, and playing “he said, she said” than working together towards their common goals. Grow up, people! I almost dispair that the future of Davis is falling through your hands like sand…
To DAvis Truth:
Parlin IS dedicating ag land mitigation at the required 2:1 ratio PLUS mitigation for Swainson’s Hawk habitat loss at the required 1:1 ratio. The CITY determined the location of the mitigation lands. The CITY determined that, because of the already paved areas of the WHR site (homes, barns, out buildings, roads, etc.) that 10 acres are NOT suitable as Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat, so that only 15 acres were to be mitigated. This was The CITY’s determination, not the developers. Parlin is dedicating a total of 67 acres of land to mitigate for loss of farm land and hawk habitat and the land location was determined by the CITY.
Check your facts if you want to get out the “truth”.
[quote]The CITY determined that, because of the already paved areas of the WHR site (homes, barns, out buildings, roads, etc.) that 10 acres are NOT suitable as Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat, so that only 15 acres were to be mitigated. [/quote]I claim no expertise about the ecological needs of birds of prey. However, I can say, as a regular walker along the gravel path east of the horse ranch in question, there were a large number of Swainson’s Hawks (or maybe Red-Tailed Hawks) hanging out nearby all this summer, presumably eating squirrels and rabbits which live there.
[img]http://robmckayphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/swainsons-hawk-72.jpg[/img]
Yet even if no hawks ever hunted in the WHR area, why should the City of Davis have a policy (if we do) of providing for the “foraging habitat” of these birds? Everywhere I go in Yolo County, the power lines and telephone lines are replete with Swainson’s Hawks. Our county is overwhelmingly agricultural; and nowhere do we lack rodents for the hawks to forage on. The idea that we need to mitigate for the loss of a few acres of a horse ranch for the Swainson’s Hawks seems unnecessary to me.
I did a little Googling on this topic, and now know that the Swainson’s Hawk is listed as a threatened species by the Calif. Dept. of Fish & Game. However, that listing goes back to 1983, long before Argentina changed its pesticide laws*, and long before we realized that the Swainson’s Hawk is in fact abundant. (It is not listed as threatened by anyone other than California.)
* From Wikipedia: “A major cause of Swainson’s Hawk population decline was pesticide use in its wintering grounds of Argentina. Farmers there were using pesticides (DDT and monocrotophos) to control grasshopper and locust infestations, and the Swainson’s Hawks were ingesting these pesticides in several different ways, but mainly by gorging themselves on the insects as they lay dying. The U.S. has worked with Argentine farmers to resolve this problem.”
Rich Rifkin:
Googling can only get you so far, and can easily mislead. Swainson’s hawks have declined sharply across their geographic range, which is why they are listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. They appear abundant around Davis because the area of absolute highest abundance of nesting Swainson’s hawks is between Davis and Woodland. The poisoning that happened in Argentina didn’t affect our Swainson’s hawks because our hawks migrate to Mexico for the winter, and not to Argentina. I think the main reason for our hawks’ decline has been habitat loss.
You think there’s plenty of foraging habitat in Yolo County for Swainson’s hawks, but actually most of the land is not very productive. Fortunately for Swainson’s hawks, Yolo County is big on alfalfa hay production. Outside alfalfa fields, Swainson’s hawks have to work hard to make a living, which is why we often see them along roadways where they forage the grass-covered road verges and highway medians (our gutters, in other words).
The hawks you see perched on power lines and power poles are usually red-shouldered hawks (power lines) and red-tailed hawks (power poles). Swainson’s hawks usually perch on trees and tend to avoid power poles and power lines (they use them occasionally).
To sum up, urban sprawl and commercial and industrial developments are major threats to our Swainson’s hawks, and so is the Army Corps’ proposal to knock down trees along levees in our region. I argue that the mitigation ratios remain inadequate, including the 2:1 ratio, because they still result in a net loss of Swainson’s hawk habitat.