Commentary: Davis Is Not Having an Identity Crisis

Beer Bar Stock

beer-bar

A terrible tragedy occurred three weeks ago on September 20 in the early morning hours at KetMoRee. The young and promising life of Peter Gonzales was taken and the Davis community was justifiably shaken by this tragedy.

Despite this tragedy, the community has not leaped to drastic measures, instead turning to careful and measured response. The Vanguard next week (Wednesday, October 14 at the Davis Police Station) will be hosting a forum and community discussion that hopefully will be another step to allow us to figure out our path forward.

Unfortunately, it seems not everyone is moving forward in such a measured and thoughtful approach. Yesterday’s Sacramento Bee front page story casts Davis in a less than favorable light, “Davis struggles with identity amid recent violence.” The Sacramento Bee loves to paint Davis as a sort of odd-duckling in the region – focusing on its quirks and eccentricities rather than its charm and grace.

Davis is struggling with no identity crisis. We are what we are. We are host city to a world-class university that is on the cusp of greatness. The Bee recently covered UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi as she began laying out the vision for the 21st Century.

At the same time, Davis has probably not ever lived in a bubble. While this remains one of the safest communities, our identity has at times been tied with tragedy. There was the 1980 kidnap murders of UC Davis sweethearts that was finally resolved in a 2012 conviction of Richard Hirschfield. There was the killing of Thong Hy Huynh in 1983, which among other things led to the creation of the Human Relations Commission.

More recently we had the brutal double homicide of an elderly couple by Daniel Marsh in 2013, and the murder-suicide by Joseph Hein back in March.

These events do not define the community. Sacramento and other areas of the region have far more crime, violence and murders than Davis.

That the Sacramento Bee would cast Davis in such a confused light is not surprising, given their long-term view of Davis as a provincial, self-absorbed community that has quirky rules like noise ordinances, growth restrictions and, of course, the toad tunnel.

What is disappointing is that Davis’ mayor –without the consensus of the city council backing him – would buy into this notion.

In front of Mishka’s, Mayor Wolk told the Bee, “This is Davis and we’ve got a problem here… We can’t just move on like nothing happened here. We’ve got to see what’s going on and what we can do about it.”

But do we have a problem here? That is one of the questions we have and continue to ask. When the Vanguard received the list of calls for service at KetMoRee it listed 525 since 2010. That’s about two calls a week.

But a vast majority of these calls were minor, including flagging down the officer, public contact, follow up and drunk in public.

There were 11 calls for battery, three for assault, two for rape, one for assault with a deadly weapon and, of course, now the murder. That is 18 violent crime calls in five years, or just over three a year. While that is 18 too many, I am not convinced that that constitutes a crisis of identity for the city.

But the Bee plays this up, calling it “a tale of two Davises.” By day, one populated with UC Davis students, “an increasing[ly] studious and high-achieving bunch,” while by night, the Bee writes, “an increase in nightlife options over the past five years has turned the bucolic ‘Bicycle Capital of America’ into a party destination for young people in greater Yolo County and beyond.”

The Bee writes, “Police say concern is concentrated on the G Street corridor between First and Third streets, where several restaurants and bars morph into dance clubs that draw heavy traffic on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.”

Mayor Wolk, who graduated in 1995 from Davis High, “remembers when Davis had a quieter – if not quirkier – reputation. This city of about 66,000 residents once was the punch line on ‘The Daily Show’ for financing a ‘Toad Tunnel’ that would prevent amphibians from getting squashed by cars on Pole Line Road. Fights occasionally would break out at downtown bars, but the idea of guns and knives being drawn was foreign to a place where farmers markets remain among the biggest social gatherings.”

For the mayor, “(Downtown) has changed in many ways for the good, but in some ways for the not-so-good in the horrific death that occurred… I think things were kind of bubbling, but the murder was the final straw. And it’s a matter of time before it happens again if we don’t do anything.”

The Bee juxtaposes the drop in violent crime citywide from 265 in 2004 to 84 in 2014 against the rise in attacks downtown, which they say “coincides with nightclubs opening in the G Street area, including late-night club scenes at KetMoRee, Tres Hermanas and G Street Wunderbar.”

They cite 39 incidents of “serious crime” downtown, distinguishing that from 20 violent offenses which include six weapons violations and two gang-related incidents. So, for all of the talk about the increase in “gang-related” activity, we are talking about two gang-related incidents, which includes the murder.

And, in fact, reading their numbers, the numbers are going down even in the supposed problem area of downtown. In 2014, there were 54 incidents in the downtown, and 65 in 2013.

Assistant Chief Darren Pytel gave the Bee a similar quote to what he gave the Vanguard, “We haven’t seen a significant increase in the number of calls, but we’re seeing changes in the types of calls… We’re seeing more violence, fights and weapons cases – knives, pipes, display of firearms.”

One of our panelists next week will be Sergio Saenz, the owner of Tres Hermanas. He told the Bee he is shutting down the nightclub portion of the popular Mexican restaurant at the end of October. He related the story of a patron last year who pulled a knife on a bouncer after being kicked out of the facility.

Dan Wolk summed up his thoughts: “We shouldn’t be approving another nightclub without having this community conversation… I have to be honest: I don’t think we should have more of these nightclubs downtown. If we’re going to have nightclubs, it can’t be the status quo. You’ve got to have more security. You’ve got to have more limits.”

Again, I completely support the need for community discussions. But we need to keep this stuff in perspective. Violent crime overall is down in Davis – and down rather dramatically over the last ten years. Even in the downtown, it appears – despite concerns – that the incidents have actually declined over the last two years.

Finally, Davis is not struggling with an identity crisis. There is a real world out there and, really, Davis has known this for a long time.

I have another concern, as well, as I have expressed. Right now, while drinking is apparently down, you can see on Thursday through Saturday during the late night a steady stream of students walking down Russell to the downtown. That means that, even if they get intoxicated, they are on foot rather than in cars.

If you shut down the night scene in Davis, and push those students to neighboring communities, you may end up slowing down the downtown violence while increasing the frequency of drinking while driving.

Whatever decision we make should be based on data and reasoned decision-making.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

180 Comments

  1. purpleal

    I like music, I like dancing, I like people having a good time and I would like Davis to be a sophisticated town.  But you can have most of  that without having clubs and bars open late at night.  I have noticed that even a very small town like Winters has a nice music scene when I have been there at 10 or 11pm.  What time do they close down?

    We need a curfew in Davis.

    1. Frankly

      LOL. Winters vs. Davis?   Davis has 72,000 people and 30,000 of them are college students.  If you close the bars at 11 they will party elsewhere in Davis and drive to other communities to find fun.

      There are people in Davis that have a conflict of interest with reality.

  2. zaqzaq

    They need to create a downtown bar owner’s association to work with the city (and police) to better regulate what is  happening downtown to include security issues.  Maybe a common private security company that manages all of the bouncers at the establishments that use the same standards would make the downtown safer.  This may lead to fewer intoxicated individuals getting into these establishments.  Are the police conducting bar checks on a regular basis by going inside and observing what is happening in these establishments?

    1. wdf1

      BP:  Sacramento has its own night life problems as evidenced by the stabbing of the hero Spencer Stone two days ago.

      Maybe a Davis Enterprise reporter can get on that story and get a picture of Mayor Kevin Johnson standing in front of that bar and make the headline, “Sacramento struggles with identity amid recent violence.”

      1. Barack Palin

        Or just use the photos of a couple weeks ago of Mayor Johnson giving accolades to Stone with the title “Local hero survives French train terrorism just to come home and almost die in Sacramento night scene”.

  3. Tia Will

    “This is Davis and we’ve got a problem here… We can’t just move on like nothing happened here. We’ve got to see what’s going on and what we can do about it.”

    Whatever decision we make should be based on data and reasoned decision-making.

    I see nothing antithetical in these two statements and nothing disappointing in the Mayor’s reaction. The “problem” that we are discussing is not just this single tragedy. It is not just the escalation of weapons and/or gang related activity which are numerically admittedly small. For those of us who live in the adjacent communities, there is a much larger and ongoing problem which is not being addressed and that is the impact on our day to day lives.

    My house thankfully is further removed from the scene than some, and yet my partner is negatively affected nearly every Thursday night during the time of year when the nightclub scene is most raucous. The disruption is the music and shouting, sometimes exuberant and playful, and sometimes obviously a reflection of anger and frustration which on several occasions at 2-3 in the morning have caused us to question whether or not to call the police. All incidents have been resolved without need for police intervention, at least by the sound level as heard in our house. But 2-3 in the morning is not a good time to be assessing whether or not the sounds you are hearing are just youthful drunken high spirits or whether they are sounds associated with an impending violent crime especially when you have to get up at 6 in the morning to go to work. Homeowners closer to the scene are treated not only to the sounds, but also awakening on some days to the detritus of the previous nights revelry in their yards including condoms, vomit, and more rarely human excrement from those too inebriated to realize that they are not in an appropriate venue for these activities, or worse yet so impaired as to be unable to refrain.

    I applaud the action of Sergio Saenz ( and will be frequenting his business) due to this proactive step on his part.

    From my point of view as a homeowner and essentially a captive, if passive participant, in the sound portion of the late night/ early morning activities, I would argue for at least one simple step to help the nearby homeowners. This would be a request to either curtail the nightclub portion of the business on Thursday in respect to those of us who have early morning work starts on Friday and/or consider an earlier closing time ( even 12 midnight would help) for those of us close enough to be directly impacted by the sounds which cannot be contained but which are very disruptive of the sleep  and therefore the day time functioning of some.

  4. Tia Will

    Reading the suggestions of others, I see what look like some very reasonable suggestions with attempts to accommodate both the needs of business owners and others in the community. It is my hope that all who have constructive ideas ( or just questions) about what steps could be taken will bring them to the community forum on Wednesday night.

  5. Misanthrop

    The mayor is correct, whenever you have a murder you have a problem and cause for time to stop and reflect upon if there is anything that needs to change.

      1. Alan Miller

        The last five murders weren’t the end game of a pattern of escalating violence due to a clearly identifiable cause.  What would you have done, banned parrots from Davis?  Jeeeez . . .

        1. David Greenwald

          So let’s see you have the death of six year old Tatiana Talamantes who parents had been in family court for years over custody disputes and there were active complaints about abuse. I don’t recall consternation or interest in the community on that tragic death which was in my view completely preventable with a competent family court system.

        2. Alan Miller

          I don’t recall consternation or interest in the community on that tragic death which was in my view completely preventable with a competent family court system.

          No argument there . . . but is your argument that because the community wasn’t up in arms over a murder due to an issue you care passionately about, we have no right to be up in arms over a murder due to an issue others care passionately about?

          I believe we all have our calling, and I support your goal of being critical of and seeking to improve the family court system.

          1. David Greenwald

            I juat think it’s a bit of selective outrage and it bothered me that no one seemed to care about Tatiana.

        3. hpierce

          David, your concept that not enough people were upset about Tatiana is WRONG.  However, my sense is that you blame “the system” for 95% of that tragedy, the community/family for 4.9% of that, and the mother 0.1%.

          I’d use much different %-ages/rankings.  #1 mother; #2 family/friends who either missed warning signs, and/or were silent when it went to #3, “the system”.  From what you’ve shared in the past, I’d think you’d understand the rankings.

           

           

        4. Davis Progressive

          i don’t know if he’s wrong or not, but i seem to recall that there were not a lot of comments when he ran those articles as compared with marsh or this one or the stand off from spring.

          i think you also misplace the concept of fault.  i don’t know if the mother was insane or not, but when you have a situation where there are flagged problems in the courts, the court system ignores those problems, and a tragedy occurred, regardless of fault, we should have been able to save that little girl with a better family court system and didn’t.

        5. TrueBlueDevil

          Alan, if the New Years Eve couple were better with a knife, or better at running someone down, we could add 2 murders to the recent list.

          Trying to control a psychotic break is one thing, we can address that. Creating and nurturing a nightclub scene that caters to out-of-town gang members is another.

      1. Misanthrop

        How do you know? Dan Wolk’s behavior seems appropriate to me. If he did this to aid his assembly campaign it would be horribly cynical.  Do you think that everything Dan does is to aid his political campaign? You honestly believe that he has no sense of responsibility as a community leader and is only exploiting this tragedy for political gain? Are you that cynical?

        Reading more comments It seems to be a number of you that want to dismiss his actions as a campaign stunt. Are you all that cynical? I find it sickening to even think such a thing of any community leader. I also find it sickening to find people here making such accusations.

        1. Davis Progressive

          “Do you think that everything Dan does is to aid his political campaign? ”

          yes

          “You honestly believe that he has no sense of responsibility as a community leader and is only exploiting this tragedy for political gain? Are you that cynical?”

          i am that cynical.  i’ve watched enough meetings where he’s completely disinterested and heard his colleagues complain about his lack of preparation.

  6. Michael Harrington

    I agree with Dan Wolk:  we have a problem with the rapidly growing size of the late night bar scene.  Don’t let Blondies in unless there is a major analysis of what the City’s recent push to allow these booze joints to proliferate in order to generate sales tax for city funding purposes

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      I agree. And did I read it right, were there two rapes inside KetMo? Really?

      I think we still need to know the breakdown of who the troublemakers are, college students, or outsiders?

      1. Frankly

        You mean us old farts, or us core-area resident old farts protecting our selfish interests over the interests of others.

        I get your point though… to hell with those college kids and what they want.

        1. Don Shor

          Life was so difficult for those of us who were college students before there were all these nightclubs downtown. We just had to sit at home and drink, I guess.

        2. Frankly

          That resonates with me.  I was working full time after high school and worked my way through school.  But during my 20s I played in a Davis area rock band and played many of the Davis venues and lots of fraternity and sorority houses.  This was in the 80s.

          In high school and during my 20s young people were always looking for a place to congregate and socialize.  And they liked to drink and dance.  It really has not changed much over the last century.  The difference for Davis is a large growth in the number of 20-somthing population and not enough venues.

          The solution for this “problem” of out of town thugs coming here is more cops walking that four block area every Thurs-Sat night.

        3. TrueBlueDevil

          We had social groups, Mr Bs, The Grad, Rec Pool parties, and frats. We had 20,000 students and craziness was rare.

          Now we have 30,000 students and we have bedlam three nights a week?

          Maybe this is a cultural shift, the entitled generation along with the gangs and outsiders. I never had the need at 1:30 to scream like a caveman, I never sought out fights or violence, and neither did my friends.

        4. Frankly

          TBD – I think you are over-romanticizing the past.  There were fights and drunk people 30 years ago.  There were just fewer people.  And the downtown is still the same footprint in terms of these venue.

          I do think there are more weapons.  The police confirm this.  But I think some of that has to do with the region around us growing in population and population of the class of people prone to thuggish behavior.

          As the Bay Area has gotten more and more expensive, more low income people are moving to the greater Sac area and into near-Bay Area communities.

          Low-income = greater crime (in general)

          And as you and I like to point out the mass of illegal immigrants in California only exacerbates the crime problems and low income problems.

          One thing that worries me… liberals are pushing for a weaker military and weaker law enforcement at exactly the wrong time.  We are doing the classic over-steer and risking a great reduction in personal safety.  We should be investing more into nation defense, building more prisons and hiring more cops.

        5. Tia Will

          Frankly

          My son is college age and doesn’t see the need to get so drunk as to throw up in the neighbors yards, defecate or leave condoms on their lawns for “fun”. I guess that must making him a precocious “old fart” in your eyes ?

  7. Alan Miller

    Davis is struggling with no identity crisis. We are what we are.

    That statement actually doesn’t mean anything.

    Your obsessive struggle to justify the murder as just aberration to an otherwise downward trend in crime in Davis is pathetic and completely inexplicable and nonsensical.  There has clearly been a pattern of escalating violence due to the nightclub scene. Your argument reminds me of the argument of a utility company that I was fighting that was trying to build a coal-fired power plant in the Smoke Creek Desert in Nevada next to a wilderness area. Their argument was that the smokestack scrubbers were not necessary because the air was so clear that they could pollute it and it wouldn’t violate federal standards! (We won — it wasn’t built)

    I am not calling for an end to the night scene downtown.  I am hoping the ABC shuts down Ketmo’s alky license, Tres Hermanos, the other major “scene” is shutting down (thanks Sergio, I’ll start eating at your restaurant again after banning it since the nightclub opened years ago), and at this point from the description of Blondies Vacaville coming out I hope the City Council blocks Blondies.  Maybe there was a reason they passed an ordinance that blocks only Blondies — maybe they saw what was coming and want a calmer downtown.

    Thank you Mayor Wolk and other councilmembers who see the harm the nightclub scene is doing to downtown.  Some say students will  go elsewhere.  Often students will go to what is offered, and if the scene is mostly deafening thumpa-thumpa and expensive drinks, that’s where they will go.  There is other, less stabby, nightlife in Davis, and with the nightclub scene being phased out, other scenes will come to take their place.

    I will be on your panel on October 14th as the representative for the adjacent neighborhood affected by the nightclub scene.  Thanks for the kind invitation.  Although I must say it is rather slow in arriving in the mail.

    1. Cecilia EscamillaGreenwald

      “Often students will go to what is offered, and if the scene is mostly deafening thumpa-thumpa and expensive drinks, that’s where they will go.  There is other, less stabby, nightlife in Davis, and with the nightclub scene being phased out, other scenes will come to take their place.”

      Where will they go?  Neighborhood parties.  The other scenes that will come into play will be more partying and drunkenness in adjacent neighborhoods, urinating on lawns and increased complaints to the DPD. My concern is also increased DUIs.  I’ve turned in several DUIs.  I hope there is good discussion about expectations and security.

       

       

        1. Don Shor

          You make it sound as though there’s a fixed ‘demand’ for drinking and partying, and that there is a need to provide ‘supply’ for that. Fact is, nightclubs create demand, and draw people from out of town. So they increase the problem. Yes, partying will continue in neighborhoods and at frat houses, but there’s no evidence that closing or curtailing nightclubs would increase that.

          1. David Greenwald

            I don’t think there is a fixed demand. I think there are groups of students who seek to drink and entertain themselves in a certain atmosphere and if they have one outlet closed they will seek another.

        2. hpierce

          Fact is, nightclubs create demand”.  if “fact”, suggest you provide evidence, citations.  I get ‘logical supposition’, or ‘opinion’.  

          I’ve only done the “night club scene” in Davis once.  On my 21st birthday, when friends, a pair of twins (yeah, know that is redundant) offered to be my designated driver/fellow partier (one took one role, the other, the other), and since they were both cute, I accepted.  Kinda’ remember going to the UCD football game later, but have no direct recollection who the opponent was (think it was Humboldt State), and have no clue as to the final score [and, no, I didn’t].  Know we did Blakes, not so sure on the other two.  Did realize mixed drinks and I did not get along real good.  Didn’t ‘lose my cookies’ tho’.

          1. Don Shor

            if “fact”, suggest you provide evidence

            Sure. People driving from Vacaville to go to nightclubs in Davis, then stabbing someone to death.

        3. Davis Progressive

          “Then there is no evidence that it will “push drinking into the neighborhoods.”

          but is that because it won’t or that we lack evidence that it will?

        4. Mark West

          DS: “You make it sound as though there’s a fixed ‘demand’ for drinking and partying, and that there is a need to provide ‘supply’ for that.”

          I think it is pretty silly to try to deny that the demand exists. The fact that some businesses try to meet that demand should not be surprising to anyone.

          DS:  “Fact is, nightclubs create demand, and draw people from out of town.”

          The nightclubs do not create the demand, they provide a service in an attempt to fulfill that demand. The fact that people come from out of town to enjoy that service indicates that those customers are receiving something desirable by driving to Davis.  I thought one of the goals of economic development was to bring people to town to spend money, but then again, maybe not.

          DS: “Yes, partying will continue in neighborhoods and at frat houses, but there’s no evidence that closing or curtailing nightclubs would increase that.”

          You may be correct that there is no ‘evidence’ to support the contention, but that would be only because no one has bothered to collect it.  It simply makes sense that if one service is shut down, the others would likely find new customers. The existence of the nightclub scene has certainly not stopped the neighborhood parties (at least not in my neighborhood) but shutting them down will likely lead to an increase, at least in the short term until some other outlet is found.

          1. Don Shor

            I thought one of the goals of economic development was to bring people to town to spend money, but then again, maybe not.

            The goal is increased revenues. If the associated costs of enforcement, and impacts on other merchants exceed the revenues from late-night party-goers, this seems counterproductive.

            I think it is pretty silly to try to deny that the demand exists.

            Yeah it would be. Good thing nobody said that.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        Or maybe we reduce the outsiders who come to town to party.

        College students have social groups, Rec Pool Lodge, The Grad, responsible establishments, the Greeks, movies, non-booze events, etc., to occupy their weekends.

        I don’t think we should cultivate gangs, murders, and rapes (were 2 rapes committed inside KetMo?) because we are fearful we might have a few more DUIs.

        I spent several summers in Davis with far fewer parties and bars. As single men we are actually able to watch movies, go to the gym, play tennis or basketball, have a BBQ, and not act like a drunk caveman in heat. It is possible. There are more than 2 options.

        1. David Greenwald

          How do you know the crimes were committed by people from outside the community? One alleged rape that occurred outside Tres for instance was a UCD student.

      2. Alan Miller

        I’ve only done the “night club scene” in Davis once . . .  Did realize mixed drinks and I did not get along real good.  Didn’t ‘lose my cookies’ tho’.

        I lost my cookies in Chico.  We were drinking at a friend’s apartment.  Later I remember being upside down in a bar with bells ringing, another bar by the railroad tracks, at some point being awakened by cops behind the Burger King, sans cookies.

        My point is, if Chico didn’t have such a banging night scene back then (1985), we probably would’ve stayed in and consumed much less alcohol, but we instead went bar hopping to the point of alcohol poisoning.  I rarely did that in Davis, but Chico was happening for the late night alcohol scene.

        Point is, demand for over-drinking is created, and so is travel to and from the place of drinking.

        Do I have a scientific study?  Oh, F— off.

      1. hpierce

        David, you wrote, “Again, I completely support the need for community discussions. But we need to keep this stuff in perspective. Violent crime overall is down in Davis – and down rather dramatically over the last ten years. Even in the downtown, it appears – despite concerns – that the incidents have actually declined over the last two years.

        And, yet you ask, “Where is the data to support you (sic) contention that this is part of a downward trend in crime in Davis?”.

        Huh? I must have missed a nuance…

        1. Davis Progressive

          he listed the stats in the article.  violent crime is one-third of what it was a decade ago and even downtown crime is down over the last two years.

        2. hpierce

          Yeah DP, that’s why I wondered about David’s challenge to another poster.  David questioned evidence of a “downward trend”, yet at least twice David noted a “downward trend”.  Duh…

        3. hpierce

          “it may be same words to denote the exact opposite meaning.” Wow!  How stupid of me!  How could I have missed that nuance?  Thank you for setting me straight.  Appreciate that.

    2. Mark West

      “Your obsessive struggle to justify the murder as just aberration”

      Aberration:  Noun:  a departure from what is normal, usual, or expected, typically one that is unwelcome.

      I don’t see anyone trying to justify the murder, and the fact is, it was an aberration.

       

      “I am not calling for an end to the night scene downtown.”

      Yes you are, consistently and at high volume.

       

      “I am hoping the ABC shuts down Ketmo’s alky license”

      No evidence has been presented to the public that the restaurant violated the terms of their liquor license. Sounds like you are making this personal.

       

      “I will be on your panel on October 14th as the representative for the adjacent neighborhood”

      I thought the goal was to have a rational discussion.

        1. Alan Miller

          “I am not calling for an end to the night scene downtown.”
          Yes you are, consistently and at high volume.

          I am hoping for elimination of the night club scene, not the night scene.  Big F—ing difference.

          I thought the goal was to have a rational discussion.

          I’ll give you that one.

  8. hpierce

    There are “root causes”.  Seems the focus is how ‘they play out’… Cecilia and Alan have opined on different ways they play out.  Fine.  Doesn’t deal with the root causes.  Banning existing/proposed “night clubs” does not make problems go away.  Facts appear to be, in the most recent tragedy, all of the participants were from out of town, and the ‘night club’ happened to be the venue.

    Hopefully, the forum will not just be a recitation of “position statements”/”talking points”.  Hopefully, more ‘light’ than ‘heat’…  although “heat” is better for selling papers and/or getting hits on blogs.

    Same thing on the gun thing.  And, of the murders/attempted murders of late in Davis (and the new attack of the “hero” in Sac) knives, other means (not guns) have been the predominant means.

    1. Alan Miller

      all of the participants were from out of town, and the ‘night club’ happened to be the venue.

      Because the gang bangers couldn’t get into Sophia’s on Tuesday for trivia night.

  9. oopsididitagain

    As a parent of 2-20 year old college students Who will be turning 21 in a few short months. I must say That SOME of the responses have been startling. Since the age 16 my daughters have been going to Sacramento, and at 18 SF and San Jose Vacaville to go dancing and see shows. Driving with their friends due to the fact that there is a lack of ability to do this in Davis. I know I’m not the only parent that worries every time their children get in a car to leave town in search of something fun to do. Thank God for the fact that they have good heads on their shoulders. But not everyone does.

    My saving grace in growing up here was A) business owners that provided a place for us to go, IE; The Graduate for All age Dancing.  Was there drinking in the parks ,churches ,behind the mall? HELL YES. Was there fights in the parking lot Hell yes. But If the doorman saw that we were underage and under the influence we wernt allowed in. So we hung outside. As soon as it was over We walked,Skateboarded biked home. As soon as That option was no longer available guess what we did Did? Did we stop drinking? Nope Did we Stop dancing? Nope Did we stop Fighting? Nope we just drove to Sacramento to do it. Should we have been driving? Nope but if you look at REALITY Young People do some petty silly things. B)  Was the DAVIS POLICE DEPT.  They knew us all by name, and took time to talk to us. The one would even get the sense that they cared for us. I had my keys taken by an officer I wasn’t driving but he knew my car was in the parking lot and I was in No shape to drive. Came back 4 hours later gave me a sobriety test and returned them. I would be sneaking out my window at the age of 15-16 in the middle of the night To have Officers shine their spot lite on me and say Adler get you ass back inside. If you look at the Number of Davis Officers as well as other Departments,That were Davis Youth, the number is huge. Why is that? I think because of the relationship that we had with the Officers.

    I am very curious of all the posters on this link, How many of you were raised here?  what was your experience like? For I do believe that they are the best judges.

     

    1. Frankly

      Thank you for this.

      I think there are a percentage of posters on this site that are:

      1. Too old to remember what it was like being 20-something.

      2. Were nerdy academic anti-social types while attending college… and still are.

      3. Don’t care because their selfish interests trump everything else.

      4. Are Victorian era prudes that have a conflict of interest with the reality of Davis population, density and demographics.

      And a few of the posters own all four.

          1. Don Shor

            It’s all part of the drinking culture.

            Numerous other factors affect drinking behavior among college students. These include biological and genetic predisposition to use, belief system and personality, and expectations about the effects of alcohol (Sher et al., 1999; Zucker et al., 1995). In addition to individual student characteristics, the size of a student body, geographical location, and importance of athletics on campus are also associated with consumption patterns as are external environmental variables including the pricing and availability of alcohol in the area surrounding a campus (Chaloupka and Wechsler, 1996; Chaloupka et al., 1998; Leichliter et al., 1998; Nelson and Wechsler, 2001; Presley et al., 1996a, 1996b; Wechsler et al., 1994, 1997, 1998, 2000a, 2000b).

            http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/NIAAACollegeMaterials/TaskForce/Factors_04.aspx

        1. Frankly

          I understand that alcohol consumption per capita in Davis is actually down.

          One simple idea I suggest is to demand that the bars provide free ice water when requested.  I have a family member that serves on the Yolo County kangaroo court thingy and says that this is a common problem… that the bars charge for water and so the patrons don’t get it and get another alcoholic beverage instead.

          I think that the city should not do an ordinance, but should just talk to the bar owners and suggest this.

          I am working on a VG article that is the history of prohibition and the things we learned about alcohol and drinking from that period.  A lot of the same reactions and arguments I see on the VG are the same that were used by those that got prohibition passed.  It did not work out well then, and those same arguments should be rejected today for similar reasons.

          The goal is responsible drinking, not teetotalism… because the former supports reality and the latter is an unattainable utopian dream.

          1. Don Shor

            I understand that alcohol consumption per capita in Davis is actually down.

            Probably because the population is aging. But I can’t prove that.

            One simple idea I suggest is to demand that the bars provide free ice water when requested. I have a family member that serves on the Yolo County kangaroo court thingy and says that this is a common problem… that the bars charge for water and so the patrons don’t get it and get another alcoholic beverage instead.
            …The goal is responsible drinking, not teetotalism

            I agree. Reducing binge drinking and alcohol abuse usually involves cooperation between businesses, city leaders, and the university. If there was a task force established to promote responsible drinking, and business owners would cooperate in setting a goal of a safer environment, restricting hours and permits would not be necessary.

          2. Matt Williams

            Frankly said . . . “I understand that alcohol consumption per capita in Davis is actually down.”

            I’m having a hard time wrapping my hands around how anyone would have the necessary data to support that argument. Using myself as an example, how would anyone know what my consumption of alcohol is, or was? Is the measurement alcohol purchases within the City Limits? How does that account for the alcohol sold to Davis residents at Costco or Total Wine, both of which sell a substantial amount of alcohol to Davis residents.

        2. Frankly

          I would be on that task force.  I am an expert on responsible drinking!  I would like to teach everyone that can drink and likes to drink how to do so responsibly.

        3. wdf1

          Frankly:  I would be on that task force.  I am an expert on responsible drinking!  I would like to teach everyone that can drink and likes to drink how to do so responsibly.

          Are you suggesting that alcohol will be served at task force meetings so that you can demonstrate and teach your responsible drinking?

        1. Don Shor

          Frankly is so concerned about the profit margins of a handful of downtown alcohol purveyors that he is blind to the other consequences of their business behavior.

        2. Davis Progressive

          but i think he is right that this group of people is overwhelming on the gray side – myself included.  but i try to see the world through the eyes of my daughter and her peer group.

      1. Alan Miller

        I think there are a percentage of posters on this site that are:
        1. Too old to remember what it was like being 20-something.
        2. Were nerdy academic anti-social types while attending college… and still are.
        3. Don’t care because their selfish interests trump everything else.
        4. Are Victorian era prudes that have a conflict of interest with the reality of Davis population, density and demographics.

        Y’know Frank Lee, you nailed it.  When people talk about me, they always say, “Yeah, Al, that Victorian prude who’s selfish interests trump everything else, and above all, he’s a prohibitionist who doesn’t remember what it was like to be 20-something.”

    2. hpierce

      Wasn’t raised here, but have been in the community for over 40 years.  Dances were semi-frequent in the dorms and some student-oriented apartments, frats and sororities [mid 70’s] (early-mid 70’s).  Between all of those, kinda’ remember you could find a dance on any given Friday or Saturday night.  Didn’t go much, the “two-left feet thing”.  Concerts @ Freeborn pretty regularly (variability of ‘types’… semi-often attended).  Don’t remember much for the teenage non-UCD crowd.  Usually @ HS, but maybe 3-4 times/year.

      Our kids seldom did, nor seemed to often seek, the concert/dance thing.

  10. Anon

    Vanguard: “Despite this tragedy, the community has not leaped to drastic measures, instead turning to careful and measured response. ”

    Yet the Vanguard in a recent article chastised this same community it lauds for being careful and measured for jumping the gun and “doing something, anything”.  Which is it?

    One of our panelists next week will be Sergio Saenz, the owner of Tres Hermanas. He told the Bee he is shutting down the nightclub portion of the popular Mexican restaurant at the end of October. He related the story of a patron last year who pulled a knife on a bouncer after being kicked out of the facility.

    So apparently an owner of one of these nightclubs is closing it down because he feels it is warranted – as a result of things consistently getting out of hand.  That says a lot about the current nightclub situation, from someone who lives it every weekend, and it says a lot about his character for standing up and doing what he feels is best for the community.

    Assistant Chief Darren Pytel gave the Bee a similar quote to what he gave the Vanguard, “We haven’t seen a significant increase in the number of calls, but we’re seeing changes in the types of calls… We’re seeing more violence, fights and weapons cases – knives, pipes, display of firearms.”

    Clearly Asst. Chief Pytel feels there is a problem growing in this town, and I personally trust his judgment over that of the Vanguard.

    For the mayor, “(Downtown) has changed in many ways for the good, but in some ways for the not-so-good in the horrific death that occurred… I think things were kind of bubbling, but the murder was the final straw. And it’s a matter of time before it happens again if we don’t do anything.””

    I applaud Mayor Wolk for taking a stand on this issue, and pointing out the obvious.  How many bodies have to pile up before the Vanguard will concede that something needs to be done about the nightclub/bar issue here in town?  Bringing in the death of a child abuse victim is irrelevant, where the context is far more complicated and involves completely different issues (family dynamics, domestic violence, ineffective gov’t agencies, best interests of the child policies, etc.), than the nightclub/bar situation we are talking about here.

  11. Frankly

    This point was made by another poster and I think it warrants further exploration and discussion.

    I had made the point that the outside element is coming to Davis for the large congregation of college girls.

    My son, bless his 20-something heart, disputes that.   But I think he is somewhat biased on this opinion as are a lot of kids that grow up in a town and wonder why people from the outside would want to come to it.

    However, when I asked him if he thought that bad guys are coming here because there are a lot of kids with money that would by drugs, he thought about it for a minute and then said “probably”.

    I asked one of my young employees living and working at our SoCal location about the same.  His response was “absolutely”… that the drug dealers send their minions to the bars in the more affluent areas and these people are tightly wound and ready to react violently in conflict.

    If this is true and it is the explanation for why thugs come here.  Then we have been marching down the wrong path for keeping the downtown safer for the residents of our community.

    And we have also wrongly target the business owners for the problems, when it is the fault of a community that seeks to consume illegal recreational drugs.

    It would be very interesting to hear someone in law enforcement comment as to their suspicion for why those six Vacaville gang members would come to Davis.  If for the girls and college town party life, there is not much we can do about it (unless we implement the prudish Footloose approach) other than increase the cop presence downtown.  But if for the marketability of drugs, we should be looking at this problem in a whole different light.

    1. Anon

      Don’t you think the nightclubs are offering a venue to not only provide a target rich environment of young drunk females, but drugs as well?  My problem is not necessarily with the nightclubs per se, but what might be going on in them.  Having lingerie parties, having unprofessional staff, failing to provide enough bouncers, having bouncers that actually promote violence, are all very real concerns for me, if DavisWiki and Yelp are any indicators.  And apparently they are not far off, if the reaction of the owner of Tres Hermanas is representative of what is going on.

      Would you want your daughter in one of the Davis nightclubs, where girls are encouraged to dress in a little less than nothing for free drinks?  Sorry, but I don’t think objecting to that is being prudish – it is using common sense.  I read an article on the internet this morning about a Harvard girl who claimed to be date-raped.  She got horribly drunk, was taken by her date back to his place, and allegedly raped.  What amazed me was her attitude – she should be able to get falling down drunk and not fear being raped.  Never did it enter her head she should never have placed herself in that situation to begin with.  If you call that being a “prude” with Victorian values, then I’m proud to wear that moniker, and would definitely have some choice derogatory names for you (said tongue in cheek)!  LOL

      1. Frankly

        and would definitely have some choice derogatory names for you (said tongue in cheek)!  LOL

        I bet you would!

        Don’t mean to be derogatory.  I value your opinion, but don’t agree with it in this case.

        I care about the over-all well-being of all people… but especially young people.  I think I am consistent making that point.

        I think you arguments could be transported back in time and fit right in.  Adults have always lamented the behavior of young people as being socially unacceptable and morally reprehensible.  And the kids have always responded by drawing a square to represent the adults… and then go do what they want to do anyway… possibly even with more vigor knowing that the adults disproved.

        I have 20-something sons, but a lot of my adult friends have daughters about the same age.  One weekend up at our cabin with a large group of family friends, all the men and boys were told to stay outside while the females went in to the cabin and they shut all the window and put on music.  About an hour later my wife came out with a red face and a look of incredulity while shaking her head.  The 20-something and younger girls in the group, upon request, had demonstrated to the adult females the dance style called twerking (the current dance craze at the time) and the type of hip hop music they liked.  The dancing style and the lyrics were/are basically pornographic and highly suggestive of sex acts.

        My wife told the adults with the daughters “I’m so sorry.”  They all laughed.

        For better or for worse (probably both) every generation seems to shed more and more cultural norms of sexuality stigma.  The 1920s seem to get the ball rolling.  The 50s and then the 60s took it another order of magnitude higher.  The 90s disco era was where open and casual sexuality and dance nightclubs really took off.

        I’m sorry, but the points you make are really weak attempts to paint KetMoRee in a darker light than reality would support.  KetMoRee is providing services to paying customers demanding what are basically normal services.

        As a practical conservative I gave up a long time ago fighting the social conservative battle.  We are so far down the path of much looser social “rules” for human sexuality that calls for a return to more conservative values might as well be shouting at a wall in a windstorm.

        1. Alan Miller

          KetMoRee and Tres Hermanas have created a terrible atmosphere downtown 11pm -2am Thursday to Saturday.  Too bad it took Sergio having a knife pulled on one of his employees to shut down his part of night club scene.  I will be eating there again, I may even make a point of eating there on November 1 and telling them why. I wish Tres Hermanas a long and profitable tenure as a flourishing Davis restaurant.

          Ketmo management isn’t phased to reconsider their contribution to the deterioration of Davis downtown even by a murder.  I think that says something about their morality.

        2. Frankly

          KetMoRee and Tres Hermanas have created a terrible atmosphere downtown 11pm -2am Thursday to Saturday.

          A large percentage of the community population would disagree with you about a “terrible atmosphere” since they frequent the downtown to enjoy it on those days and times.

          But you know what opinions are like… and, most people have one.

          1. Don Shor

            A large percentage of the community population would disagree with you…since they frequent the downtown to enjoy it on those days and times

            A very, very tiny percentage. Get real.

        3. Frankly

          A very, very tiny percentage. Get real.

          I would venture a guess that more in the community support it than oppose it.

          Olds against the youngs.  With the libertarians and some more liberal olds supporting it almost with the majority of the youngs.

          Don’t let the volume of noise confuse your judgement here.

          Get smart.

          1. Don Shor

            You’ve changed your math.

            A large percentage…since they frequent the downtown to enjoy it on those days and times

            is very different from

            more in the community support it than oppose it.

            Your first statement is obviously false. The percentage who “frequent the downtown” for the nightclub scene is a very tiny percentage of the Davis population, of the student population, or even of the drinking-age student population. Your numerator is much much smaller than your denominator.

            Hard to say what “more in the community support.” Probably less crime, would be my guess. Fewer murders would probably be high on the priority list. A smaller number of gang members frequenting Davis bars.

        4. Frankly

          “large percentage” is subjective not absolute.

          Although a better term would have been “significant percentage”

          It would be cool to survey the population and ask the questions.

          What existing services downtown do you like or not like, and what else would you like to see downtown?

           

        5. KSmith

          Good points.

          Before my time, but I believe I recall from seeing documentaries about how Elvis’ pelvis waggling and thrusting was considered quite beyond the pale during the late 50s (?), to the point where TV shows would only show him from the waist up. It seems like an apropos parallel to twerking, which causes pearl-clutching for the Boomers and older (but not so much for Gen X or millenials).

          And surely you meant “70s disco era” and not “90s.”

      2. KSmith

        “She got horribly drunk, was taken by her date back to his place, and allegedly raped.  What amazed me was her attitude – she should be able to get falling down drunk and not fear being raped.  Never did it enter her head she should never have placed herself in that situation to begin with.”

        This is very blame-the-victim-y. Being drunk (even falling down drunk) doesn’t give the male in the equation the right to rape her. -Nothing- justifies rape. Yes–she probably shouldn’t have gotten that drunk without having a friend around, but still should not expect to get raped even in that situation.

        1. Edgar Wai

          Pointing out that a victim’s expectation is wrong is not necessarily blaming the victim. In any case, regardless whether the victim’s expectation was correct, they have the right to be angry about the crime.

          The dynamic is similar to trespassing.

          Say you have a house in downtown. Regardless whether you expected that someone could come park at your driveway, you have the rights to be angry when that happens.  And even if you know that it could happen, and it happens frequently, you have the rights to remain angry each time. You don’t have to put up a fence and make a gated entry for your driveway. You could just concentrate on copying down the license plate numbers, calling the police, etc. How you want to deal with it is your choice. If your neighbor says to you, “Your driveway is wide-open. Why are you angry when people park there? Don’t you expect it to happen by now? You should put up a gate like I do,” you have the right to be angry at your neighbor too.

          You know that those people who trespass your property are wrong, they should be punished. Even though you understand that your neighbor is not trying to say that it is okay for people to park at your wide open driveway, you have the rights to be angry that your neighbor is telling you to change when it is someone else who is breaking the law and trespassing your property.

          You are so angry that your neighbor is not as angry as you are by the fact that people are willfully breaking the law. You don’t want to put up a fence to prevent it, you want to catch and punish all those law breakers.

    2. TrueBlueDevil

      I think the young hot college girls are one draw, they are known as naive and cute. And its the party scene. Anyone ever say, “Hey, let’s go party in Vallejo or Elk Grove?” No.

      In my college days we heard about Old Sac and went a few times, but it never seemed to have the right concentration of places to go. We weren’t out to have dinner or buy t-shirts. It was girls and drinking. We learned to dance because that’s what the girls liked.

      My guess is that selling drugs is a minor issue. A prof on campus tells me his students tell him this – that some crime goes unreported, Sac outsiders come to jump ‘rich college kids’ with iPhones and iPads and laptops, and are threatened to not report the crimes near campus.

      He also said that “cheap drinks” are a draw for the unsavory crowd.

      1. Frankly

        It was my initial thought that the girls were the attraction, but after talking to my son and others to get their opinion, I started challenging it for gang members.

        Now this will probably get me in trouble, but I think there is a thing with females in general having some attraction to bad boys.  Would gang members get attention from the college girls?  UCD is a math and science college.  The kids attending are some of the most academically gifted.  Would they really pay attention to a guy with a face tattoo and maybe a high school diploma for his max education achievement?

        Cheap drinks are available in Vacaville.  KetMoRee has a $10 cover charge and the drinks are not cheap there.   And don’t forget the gas to drive here and back.

        Maybe it is the girls.  Maybe it is the iPhones, iPads and purses.  Maybe it is the drugs.  Maybe it is the thumpa, thumpa music that Allan Miller hates.  Maybe it is the concentration of people in a small downtown.   Maybe it is all of the above.   But if we don’t know, how do we actually solve the problem?

    3. Matt Williams

      Interesting and thoughtful post Frankly.

      A similar conundrum has been discussed with respect to the national War On Drugs, which has focused much more heavily on disrupting the supply side of the illegal drug marketplace, while almost completely ignoring the demand side of the market especially the white color portion of the demand.

    4. Alan Miller

      it is the fault of a community that seeks to consume illegal recreational drugs.

      Communities don’t consume drugs, Frank Lee, people do.  You also mentioned “illegal”, as in “the prohibition of”.

  12. Michael Harrington

    I am one of the few of you who has pretty much straight through lived and worked in the downtown since 1995.

    The late night bar scene has exploded in 20 years. It’s my experience, night after night.

    If the City wants to have people living downtown, this appalling late night drunkenness and crime have to be stopped or mitigated.

    I totally support Mayor Wolk’s views expressed above.

    1. Alan Miller

      The late night bar scene has exploded in 20 years. It’s my experience, night after night.

      As someone who has lived downtown or within two blocks of it for 31 years, I double mega dittos this comment.

      If the City wants to have people living downtown, this appalling late night drunkenness and crime have to be stopped or mitigated.

      Who wouldn’t to listen to thumpa-thumpa-thumpa on the first floor of their mixed-use SoDoSoPa loft, and step into a plot of puke in the morning?

  13. DanH

    Imagine Davis nightlife establishments in the same way we look at any other area and business defined economic zone within the city. We have shopping zones. We have high density housing zones. We have innovation parks. We also have a nightlife industry located within a few blocks of G Street between 2nd and 3rd streets. For the sake of argument I’ll name this previously unlabeled zone the Davis Regional Inebriation Park (DRIP).

    DRIP relies on the local student population for most of its customers. Local patronage is limited by age 21 restrictions. Most UC Davis students are undergraduates under the drinking age and do not patronize DRIP. DRIP is an economic zone that increasingly relies on regional support from the young adult clientele over the age of 21. DRIP draws patrons from I-80 corridor communities that are located within a reasonable driving range of Davis.

    The Davis community is discussing choices regarding the continuance and future expansion of DRIP. Do we continue the status quo with DRIP or do we make it a safer place? Do we continue the unacknowledged expansion of DRIP? Will DRIP become more important as a revenue driver for the city? What are the benefits and risks that DRIP offers to patrons, employees and the community of Davis?

    The participants in this discussion play different roles and have different powers.

    The City of Davis and Davis City Council wield considerable but limited power over DRIP. The city allows these businesses to operate under a conditional use permit. Cities can issue other permits applicable to nightlife establishments. San Francisco has a plethora of nightclub/dance club permits ranging from dance hall keeper permits to building permits. City council can work with state legislators to introduce needed legislation at the state level.

    The Davis Police Department is very limited in its ability to make changes in DRIP policies. However, DPD has information resources and crime prevention expertise required for making good public policy decisions. Their participation in the discussion is essential.

    DRIP businesses have a great deal of power to make voluntary changes that will reduce risks and maximize benefits they bring to the community. Voluntary changes will involve considerable effort and financial investment from the club owners. Establishment of a local nightlife association that can work with the city and police department is a must.

    Individual Davis citizens have the least power to influence DRIP polices if they remain indifferent to the issues at hand. Davis citizens can swing considerable clout if they make their voices heard by local government.

    New York City had considerable success improving safety and community relations with its nightlife industry. NYC and city council worked together with the local nightlife association, the police department, citizens and state legislators to make some real changes that mattered. The State of California passed legislation in 2011 that requires nightclub security personnel to undergo a 16-hour training course to obtain a PSO license. Guard Cards don’t make it in the California nightclub business anymore. The PSO idea resulted directly from NYC best practice advocacy found here in Best Practices for Nightlife Establishments.

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_prevention/Best-Practices-Nightlife-2d-Ed-2011.pdf

    Let’s take a look at the risks and benefits the not-so-imaginary DRIP offers the Davis Community. A safe, clean, regional nightlife destination that isn’t a public nuisance will require considerable effort from the business community, club operators and the city.  The likelihood that such a destination can be established in Davis is not certain.

  14. Anon

    Frankly: “I have 20-something sons...”

    That explains a lot – and I truly don’t mean to be snarky in making that comment.  When you have daughters (I have two), you view things from a very different perspective (I also have one son).

    Now let’s take your statement “For better or for worse (probably both) every generation seems to shed more and more cultural norms of sexuality stigma.”  I would argue that more and more young girls are being convinced to dress provocatively, engage in risky behavior, etc. to their detriment.  (In my opinion the porn industry has done a good job of selling itself as legitimate business to the country’s detriment.)  Engaging in such behaviors puts these girls in greater physical danger, is damaging psychologically, and is bad for society as a whole.  If we encourage girls to dress in next to nothing in exchange for free drinks, what kind of a message are we sending to our young people?  Take your clothes off and you get free things?  You think it is Victorian prudery to not want to send such a warped message?  Really?  I raised my daughters to think better of themselves than that.  I don’t want them to be thought of as a target rich environment for sex.

    1. Frankly

       I raised my daughters to think better of themselves than that.

      I don’t doubt that.  And I’m sure they will make up their own minds in consideration of your good parenting as to what is appropriate nightclubbing behavior.

      For me I guess this comes down to my libertarian senses as to how far we should go telling a business how it can or should operate because of moral judgement.  These business pay A LOT of taxes.  They have A LOT of rules they already have to follow.  They pay A LOT for their business insurance.  They are not involved in any business practices any different than other similar venues throughout the US.

      Your arguments line up pretty closely to those that led to prohibition.  A sorry chapter in US history… something that should have provided us some pretty strong and long-lasting lessons for what not to do again imposing strict morality on others that don’t agree.

      If we encourage girls to dress in next to nothing in exchange for free drinks

      Have you walked downtown at these times to see what young people are wearing these days?  Remember hot pants and miniskirts in the 1960s?

      Take your clothes off and you get free things?

      You are going to hyperbole here.  No business in Davis is doing this.   Now, it might be going on in the private parties that would expand should the restaurants be forbidden to be nightclubs.

      I just think it is wrong to attempt to legislate strict morality outside of existing norms.  It does not work in a free country.  You can teach it like you have done for your daughters and me my sons.  And then they will make up their own minds.

      1. Tia Will

        Frankly,

        For me I guess this comes down to my libertarian senses as to how far we should go telling a business how it can or should operate because of moral judgement.”

        Surprisingly enough, I happen to agree with you about the dangers inherent in dictating business practices based on moral judgement. However, that is not the issue for me. By the time a woman has reached age 21, I believe that she should be able to decide for herself what is and is not appropriate attire and demeanor.

        However, these businesses do not contain the activities which their businesses promote within their own walls. The music they provide can be heard in the surrounding residential area right up until closing time at around 2 am every night Thursday – Sunday am.  The participants in the revelries then disperse into the surrounding neighborhoods, sometimes soberly and quietly returning to their vehicles, with which I have no problem. But sometimes yelling, screaming, laughing, shrieking and otherwise engaging in activities that are highly disruptive to those who may have to get up early to go to work. Now you have noted that this is why you don’t live in such a nearby residential area. But what of those who purchased their property many years before the downtown became a nightclub scene. Should no consideration in your libertarian world be given to their property rights and their already well established lifestyle just so that these club owners can continue to expand their operations ?

        That is why I greatly prefer voluntary mitigating steps by the business owners. I have recommended and continue to suggest Thursday closure ( since most people work Friday but are off on the weekend and thus would have more time to recover the lost sleep), and/or earlier closure times, say perhaps midnight as opposed to 2 am with respect to the sleep patterns of the neighbors. I would also recommend that those who profit from the inebriation of their patrons would also consider some kind of financial compensation,  or better yet a clean up crew for the surrounding homeowners just as they pay for people to clean up their own establishment. While I do not live close enough to get the brunt of the condoms, vomit, urine and occasional excrement left behind by the “celebrants”, I know that I would feel considerably better about these businesses if they were to offer to defray the cost and unpleasantness of the clean up by providing this service.

         

    2. Tia Will

      Anon

      We clearly had a different take on how to educate our sons and daughters. I also raised my daughter to think better of herself. But I made sure that I raised my son to think highly of both himself, and all the women he encounters. Young women would have no incentive to dress skimpily if it were not for the fact that many young men have been taught that it is ok to ogle. I strongly believed that the perspective with which we raise our children should entail the same sense of responsibility, duty, obligation and commitment to appropriate behavior regardless of their gender. I held my son and my daughter to the same standards. I have heard many, many patient’s state that they worry more about their daughters than their sons. I worried every bit as much about my son as my daughter. The rates of male on male violence far exceed either female on female violence, or stranger male on stranger female violence. Most of the “violence” perpetrated against women in our society is done by a family member or intimate partner. This is a different albeit no less important  set of problems.

    3. hpierce

      Somewhat amusing… 40 years ago, many young ladies dressed provocatively.  So much so, know of many male college students thinking the female co-eds were after their MRS degrees.  The dress hasn’t changed all that much (shades of degrees) in 40 years.

      Agree with most of your post, except the ‘porn’ thing.  “Barbie” was already part of the culture (for better or worse), ‘free love’ was a mantra, Playboy and Penthouse were avail at most stores, and we called the movies at Westlane XX or XXX.  This is not a new problem, but I agree it is a problem.

  15. Anon

    Frankly: “For me I guess this comes down to my libertarian senses as to how far we should go telling a business how it can or should operate because of moral judgement.

    Okay, I’ll bite.  How far are you willing for these Davis nightclubs to go?  Can they have female strippers?  Inviting females to wear lingerie in exchange for free drinks is getting pretty close to that line IMO.  Businesses will always push the envelope if they feel they can get away with it and it makes money.  For instance it is my understanding The Graduate invited male strippers (Men of Exotica) to dance at its establishment.  Shall we allow our town to have its own red light district in the quest for freedom from business regulation?  Where do we draw the line?

    Secondly, we regulate business all the time, for various reasons.  For instance ABC sets all sorts of regulations for businesses that sell liquor.  We are going to see if KetMoRee followed its ABC’s (pun intended).  It is a matter of where citizens choose to draw that line, as DanH put it so well.  I would guess that Davis does not want the nightclubs to proliferate, nor turn violent and unsafe for patrons, nor want a red light district in this town.  If you want to be around more unregulated nightclubs, I would suggest you might want to move to Las Vegas.  See how you like the atmosphere.  Many people I know don’t care for it.  Why?  They feel uncomfortable being around sex merchants, the street littered with these hawkers’ business cards.  One might want to visit for the novelty, but one might not want to live there.

    Have you walked downtown at these times to see what young people are wearing these days?  Remember hot pants and miniskirts in the 1960s?

    These girls are instructed to wear LINGERIE for free drinks.  I don’t see girls prancing around town in lingerie.  Please post a pic of at least 10 different girls wearing lingerie walking down the street in Davis.  Not PJ’s, LINGERIE – there is a difference!  Remember, the bouncers are the one’s who get to decide whether the outfit the girl is wearing rates a free drink.  Can you imagine where that is going to lead?  In other words the lingerie has to be sufficiently skimpy to rate a freebie.

    Secondly, why would we as a city want to encourage young girls in our fair city to undress to obtain free drinks?  What kind of message does that send – young girls should be encouraged to numb themselves silly to be male sex toys?  All in the name of “free enterprise”?

    Anon: “Take your clothes off and you get free things?”

    Frankly: “You are going to hyperbole here.  No business in Davis is doing this.”

    Hit a nerve, did I?  How do you know what goes on in the Davis nightclubs all the time?  Asking for girls to come in lingerie to obtain free drinks is asking girls to take more clothes off than is normal everyday wear in order to get alcohol gratis.  How do you know how far the bouncers take it?  From reading DavisWiki and Yelp, it doesn’t sound pretty.  (Glad to see you at least have some standards!)

    Frankly: “I just think it is wrong to attempt to legislate strict morality outside of existing norms.”

    “Strict morality”?  You seem to have a pretty loose definition of “strict morality”.  And I suspect if you had daughters, you would not want them frequenting nightclubs that have lingerie nights, nor would you want them to get so drunk they are not in control of themselves or the situation.  Frankly, because I know you are, it sounds like your attitude is one of shrugging your shoulders and saying “boys will be boys”.  Easier to say if you have no daughters.  But why would you want your sons to engage in such risky behavior?  Boys are not immune from the dangers of over drinking, carousing, and irresponsible sex.  Why in heaven’s name would you want to encourage irresponsible behavior?  Wouldn’t you rather your sons frequented a nightclub that was properly regulated so that bouncers are not encouraging bad behavior, that is relatively safe for everyone?  You seem to be so ideologically driven to protect business at all costs, that it blinds you to the very real dangers of unregulated business.  I’ll ask again, how many dead bodies have to pile up before we need to do something.  Give me a body count that would be unacceptable to you…

    1. hpierce

      There is, in my opinion (I know someone hates the shorthand for that), a big difference between what I would tell/compel/encourage my children [both male and female] to do (or not do), and what I would compel/legislate other children to do (or not do).  My daughter never would have considered participating in a lingerie night.  Young men need to be responsible, as well.

      Another “fact” that folk seem to miss is that not only do adults have the right AND responsibility to behave well, but that in “nightclubs” there is much wink-wink, nod-nod, where those under 21 are admitted [particularly, attractive young women… that has been true for 40 years or more ]when they should not be.  Not sure the extent to which Davis businesses “look the other way”, or accept false ID’s, but am pretty damn sure it happens.

      But, at the end of the day, our reaction is to an event that did not include a “lingerie night”, and would not have been avoided by perfect “carding”.  The perps appear to be “thugs” (or dregs, inhuman, etc.).  Time and evidence will tell.

      1. Anon

        One point.  It may be that the lingerie parties or the bartenders serving pretty girls free drinks that is drawing thugs from out of town.  It represents a target rich environment that may not be well regulated.  And that is really my point.  Your noting bars/nightclubs not really enforcing the age limit for drinking is a perfect example.

    1. Frankly

      And many, many, many more problems created.  Especially the banning of manufacturing having the Jack Daniels distillery within city limits employing thousands of people. (sarcasm detector should be switched to on).

      Really though Clem prohibition didn’t work.

      1. hpierce

        Frankly, someone needs to see humor/irony/sarcasm when it presents itself… please think Red Skelton, and one of his personas.  Am blanking on the name of the seagull, which was another one… just looked it up… Gertrude and Heathcliff… my bad, seagulls.

      1. Tia Will

        BP

        When I go out to dine I almost always have a beer.”

        I think that they key phrase in your sentence is “a beer”.  I do not know of anyone who has a problem with “a beer”. Not even my completely alcohol abstinent mother objected to anyone over 21 having “a beer”.

        The objection is drinking to the point that inhibitions are lowered, judgement is suspended, aggressions rise and dangerous ( violent or aggressive sexual ) or disgusting behavior ( public urination and defecation ) occur. I suspect that you would not have strong objections to reasonable steps being taken to stop these activities from occurring in your front yard.

  16. Frankly

    How far are you willing for these Davis nightclubs to go?

    As far as what is typical for nightclubs.  I don’t support moral trend-setting in Davis… on either side.

      1. Frankly

        100% agree with this.  I am talking exclusively about Anon’s demand that the City do something to satiate her interests for a higher moral bar than is common.

    1. Anon

      To Frankly: “Typical nightclub”?  That could literally mean anything.  Las Vegas nightclubs have strippers and nude shows.  Nightclubs in other places are known drug dens.  Other nightclubs are known for providing target rich environments for sex predators.  I suspect some nightclubs are very well run, providing a safe environment for everyone to have fun, without strippers, underage drinking, over drinking, and drugs.

      “Moral trend-setting”? Disallowing strippers, underage drinking, over-drinking, drugs is “moral trend-setting? If that is what you call “moral trend setting”, I’m all for it.

      1. Frankly

        Lots of college towns our size, in fact most if not all, have restaurants that turn into nightclubs at night.   Most, if not all, don’t allow under-aged drinking, nor have strip clubs.

        I am against legislating morality that sets a trend… either higher or lower morality.

        For example, I would be against an attempt by the city to give rights to a business to open a strip club in town based on a moral argument that the owners have the right, and people that want to go to a strip club have that right… because this would be moral trend-setting.

        Once a thing is accepted, you need to find another way to satiate your demands for greater or lesser morality other than through the political process.

        1. Don Shor

          So, logically then, before we had nightclubs in town, you would have opposed allowing them here because they weren’t here already?
          This makes no sense.
          There are strip clubs in West Sac. They’re perfectly legal, tax-paying businesses meeting a consumer demand. So if one of those owners decided to open a second business here, fifteen miles away, you would oppose that? But if it was already here, you’d support it?
          Talk about flexible morality.

        2. Frankly

          Don, I’m sorry you are not able to grasp what are very simple points.

          Look at all other college towns 60K to 120k people and where the college is reasonably large and you will note that they ALL have bars and restaurants and nightclubs.  They have those things because the population of the city WANTS the services.

          It is common.  It is standard.

          Once it is mainstreamed, I don’t support prudes or extremists demands to legislate morality above or below what is already mainstreamed.

          Do you want religious people to legislate their higher morality onto existing Roe-v-Wade standards?

          What I prefer other than the moral arguments is acceptance of the standard and then working together to tweak and improve them.

          But Anon keeps making the moral argument.  Demonizing business practices that are common and accepted.   Demanding that the city take drastic measures as a moral trend-setter.

        3. hpierce

          Talk about ‘logical’, Don… seems you support the moratorium and possibly even pulling/non-renewal of permitted night-club uses in the Core, and certainly no more additions to that use.  Fine.  I could easily live with that… but where were you when the City was encouraging/promoting that type of use, over the last 8-10 years, even “giving up” public sidewalk right-of-way to accommodate fences to meet ‘restaurants’ desire to sell alcohol in greater quantities, to more patrons?  The fences/railings were only necessary to meet ABC regs.  I pushed against that trend, but was brushed aside.

          I also make a differentiation between a “bar” (think ‘Cheers’, or the old Club on G Street), and a “night club”.  The former is generally a “watering hole”, where folk meet and socialize with strangers and/or friends.  Most “bars” I know of (primarily second-hand) have staff who know their patrons, and cut them off when appropriate.

          “Night-clubs”, on the other hand (at least in Davis, as I understand), are oriented to pack as many people together as possible, and sell as much ethanol as possible.  They play to the ‘lose all your inhibitions’ mind-set.  Party hardy!  [but wear earplugs if you don’t want premature hearing loss!]

          I’d have no problem if all the “night-clubs” disappeared from Davis.  I do believe that Blondies is being singled out unfairly, in the aftermath of an incident that occurred on other premises, other owners.

          Night clubs are to bars as “mosh pits” are to dance floors.

          And, yeah scares the hell out of me that I’m leaning towards what I think I understand Frankly’s views to be..

           

          1. Don Shor

            Talk about ‘logical’, Don… seems you support the moratorium and possibly even pulling/non-renewal of permitted night-club uses in the Core, and certainly no more additions to that use. Fine.

            I support the moratorium, am dubious about adding Blondie’s to the existing mix given the neighborhood complaints and crime issues, but support the current business owners and city leaders (and the university) working together to try to make a safer and healthier downtown environment. I don’t favor pulling any current permitted uses unless violations have been found, and that would be an ABC action rather than a city action.

            but where were you when the City was encouraging/promoting that type of use, over the last 8-10 years, even “giving up” public sidewalk right-of-way to accommodate fences to meet ‘restaurants’ desire to sell alcohol in greater quantities, to more patrons?

            How would I have known that the city was encouraging or promoting that? But the bottom line seems, from the first-hand evidence we have from neighbors and police data, that nightclubs are or can be a problem, while bars and restaurants are less so.
            I’m pretty laissez faire about what’s permitted until there’s a problem. Then I support cooperation by interested parties and actual stakeholders first to see if there are ways the mitigate the problems.

        4. KSmith

          “Night clubs are to bars as “mosh pits” are to dance floors.”

          #notallnightclubs  #notallmoshpits

          Having had direct experience with this quite a few times, mosh pits are pretty harmless. Most of the ones I’ve seen have been more of the 80s style “slam dancing.” I’ve only ever seen one mosh pit get violent with one idiot throwing elbows.

          This smacks of a generational difference that Frankly seems to be addressing in his recent posts.

        5. Frankly

          And, yeah scares the hell out of me that I’m leaning towards what I think I understand Frankly’s views to be..

          Haha!  Nothing to be afraid of.  It is just strongly fiscal conservative / social libertarian. I think most people are that way.  I just work hard to be consistent with it.  Difficult decision are always needing shades of gray analysis, but there should be a framework of consideration for what is reasonable and standard.  I am always in favor of individual solutions to problems instead of government solutions to problems.

          I think the reactionary activist mindset and approach is way overblown in this nation… people making careers out of it and becoming President.  It is almost like we have become entitled to getting our way simply by protesting and throwing a tantrum… or to gain and retain political power by leading those that do it for us.  And then once power is obtained, to hell with standards and traditions and to hell with what the majority wants.  Once these people get power they can do what every the hell they want to do!

          It is interesting to me how much liberal progressives in Davis laud the Scandinavian countries.  Interesting that those cultures seem to run much more logical and measured without nearly the level of emotional reactions and outbursts.

          I would like us to calm down, evaluate and then come up with incremental improvements from agreement within the community instead of screaming that the sky is falling and demand that we need drastic moral trend-setting from our government.

  17. Tia Will

    Frankly

    Do you want religious people to legislate their higher morality onto existing Roe-v-Wade standards?

    What I prefer other than the moral arguments is acceptance of the standard and then working together to tweak and improve them.”

    Then I trust that we will be hearing strong support from you for the activities of Planned Parenthood since you seem to feel that moral arguments should not influence business decisions once the business has become standard practice. Abortion is not only within standard  medical practice, but as practiced at Planned Parenthood is well within the all legal standards. And yet you did not strongly stand up for them as you are for the local businesses. Why is that ? Could it be that your libertarian tendencies are trumped by your own moral judgements but you do not believe that Anon’s morals should be considered equal to yours ?

    I would further argue that most college communities have a nearby Planned Parenthood. Should that be used as sufficient justification for all Planned Parenthoods ? Maybe we should then encourage one to locate here and take some of the burden off the student health center which currently has a one month waiting list for placement of a Nexplanon unlike in my Kaiser office where I provide same day service for this placement.

    1. hpierce

      Uh, Tia… you do know that there was a Planned Parenthood in Davis, right?  Used to be in the Oak Tree shopping center.  Guess they moved to Woodland.  Have to assume that was a “business decision”.

      1. Matt Williams

        Some questions Frankly based on your statement above …

        — What line items does the government fund Planned parenthood for?

        — How does that line item funding differ for Planned Parenthood than it does for any other healthcare provider providing the same line item services?

        — If the government funding is taken away from Planned Parenthood for the government-funded services they provide, should the government also remove funding from all healthcare providers who provide those services?

        When you provide answers to those questions you will see that in this particular situation you are speaking from ignorance Frankly.

        1. hpierce

          I’m betting Frankly knows enough about how accounting methods can show pretty much what you want them to, and won’t rise to the bait when the ‘hook’ is so apparent.

          1. Matt Williams

            Its not accounting methods pierce. It is reimbursement rules. From a healthcare payor perspective, Planned Parenthood is a provider of services just like all the rest of the providers of the same services. The rules of reimbursement apply to them universally. A Pap Smear is a Pap Smear is a Pap Smear. A Fertility Test is a Fertility Test is a Fertility Test. A Cancer Screening is a Cancer Screening is a Cancer Screening. Reimbursement from the government for those services happens on a transaction by transaction basis. Accounting methods don’t enter the picture any more than accounting methods enter the picture when McDonalds provides you with an order of French Fries and you reimburse them for that transaction.

            Not a “hook” . . .

        2. hpierce

          Matt… with all due respect… “billing” is an accounting tool… hard to prove which services are “A” when they really are “B”… particularly with lax/nominal oversight.  C’mon.

          1. Matt Williams

            pierce, with all due respect, there is a big difference between billing and accounting (the way you described accounting). Accounting, as you have described it, is a solo endeavor that is internal to an organization. Billing is not a solo party endeavor the way accounting is. It requires a minimum of two parties . . . in healthcare, three parties because the patient receives an EOB. As a result there is an outward and visible audit trail in the billing transactions of healthcare providers that can’t be obscured the way you are alluding to vis-a-vis internal accounting. Bottom-line, it is explicitly easy to prove which services are “A” and which services are “B.” C’mon right back attcha.

          2. Don Shor

            The rationale of the extreme right, based on the lies in the videos, is that Planned Parenthood should not receive any federal funds because the organization provides abortion services. The majority of PP’s federal funding is via Medicaid (75%) and Title X, a family planning program which primarily serves low-income Americans. “The overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood’s services involve screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections, as well as providing contraception.”
            If the extreme right followed this logic, every hospital and every health clinic which provides abortions would logically also have federal funding cut off.
            That would throw health services for American women into total chaos and disarray. It would harm people. It would obstruct reproductive services, treatment for venereal diseases, and a host of other crucial medical services. It is one of the stupidest, most malign suggestions that has ever come out of the hard right. It is metaphorically an assault on basic health care for women. And yet we have people like Frankly, who purports to be pro-choice, toss it out breezily as though it would have no repercussions to tens of thousands of his fellow citizens.

          3. Matt Williams

            Well said Don. Tying back to the back and forth hpierce and I have been having, the Medicaid funding is provided by the government on a transaction-by-transaction basis.

            Here is the government’s own description of Title X.

            Title X: The National Family Planning Program

            For more than 40 years, Title X family planning centers have provided high quality and cost-effective family planning and related preventive health services for low-income women and men. Family planning centers play a critical role in ensuring access to voluntary family planning information and services for their clients based on their ability to pay.

            Family planning centers offer a broad range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods and related counseling; as well as breast and cervical cancer screening; pregnancy testing and counseling; screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs); HIV testing; and other patient education and referralsi.

            Title X Providers

            The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Population Affairs (OPA) oversees the Title X program. OPA funds a network of nearly 4,200 family planning centers which serve about 4.5 million clients a yearii. Services are provided through state, county, and local health departments; community health centers; Planned Parenthood centers; and hospital-based, school-based, faith-based, other private nonprofits.

            Title X staff are specially trained to meet the contraceptive needs of individuals with limited English proficiency, teenagers, and those confronting complex medical and personal issues such as substance abuse, disability, homelessness or interpersonal and domestic violence.

            Title X Mission

            Title X assists individuals and couples in planning and spacing births, contributing to positive birth outcomes and improved health for women and infants.

            In addition to clinical services, Title X also funds the following program supports aimed at improving the quality of family planning services:

            — Training for family planning clinic personnel through five national training programs that focus on clinical training; service delivery; management and systems improvement; coordination and strategic initiatives; and quality assurance/improvement and evaluation
            — Family planning research and evaluation to improve Title X service delivery and inform the broader reproductive health care field
            — Information dissemination and community-based education and outreach

            Cost Effectiveness of Family Planning

            Title X provides significant cost savings to taxpayers. In 2008, every every public dollar spent on contraceptive services yielded an estimated $3.74 in savings that would have been spent on Medicaid costs related to pregnancy care and delivery and to infants in their first year of life.

            Significantly, this figure does not include savings realized from the prevention and treatment of STIs and avoiding and detecting reproductive cancers. These calculations also do not measure the broader health, social or economic benefits of enabling women to time or prepare for their pregnancies.

            Program Policy

            OPA sets the standards for publicly funded family planning services in the U.S. The Title X statute, regulations and guidance offer patient protections by requiring that programs are voluntary, confidential and include a broad range of contraceptive methods. Program guidelines establish standards for the delivery of services based on the most current evidence.

        3. Frankly

          Last year PP took in $1.145 billion in revenue.  41% of that (or $528.4 million) was from the federal government.

          PP has $1.447 in net assets which isn’t extraordinary since this 1-1 ratio of annual revenue to net assets is pretty common with well off non profits.  However, it points to the fact that PP is “well off”.

          PP does not report on the actual expense per service category that I can find. In 2014 they say they provided 10,590,433 client services.  That is pretty impressive.

          Now most of these client services are pretty simple things like handing out birth control kits.

          The big services are abortions (327,633) and amazingly contraception reversals (2,131,865).  This second one is a head-scratcher, because: one – I had no idea this would be such a demanded service; and two – why the hell aren’t the bible thumpers happy about this?

          But I have two problems with the federal dollars.

          The primary problem I am having is that Obamacare has saddled many businesses and individuals with higher costs so that low income people can get this type of care.

          The second problem is that the government is paying for abortions… legislated morality.  The should be funded from private donations.

          Lastly, this is a well-heeled non-profit that is paying big bucks to managers.  It can operate more lean and it can reduce its service offerings because of Obamacare.

          1. Don Shor

            … so that low income people can get this type of care.

            Yes. Via Medicaid. Through Planned Parenthood as the provider.

            The second problem is that the government is paying for abortions…

            False. That is against the law. It is false. Your statement is false.
            You and the hard right should think about what you are advocating. The serious disruption of provision of medically necessary reproductive services to millions of your fellow citizens. Think before you advocate something this stupid. Stop aligning yourself with this stuff. It is killing your party. It would be very harmful to women and low income Americans.

          2. Matt Williams

            Frankly said . . . “The second problem is that the government is paying for abortions… legislated morality. The should be funded from private donations.”

            No Frankly, the government is not paying for abortions. On September 30, 1976 Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which put limitations on Medicaid coverage of abortion, allowing it only in the cases of rape, incest, or if the mother’s life was physically endangered. In 1979 and 1981, those two exceptions were eliminated. In 1979, abortions performed if a mother’s life was endangered were no longer allowed, and in 1981 abortions performed due to rape and/or incest were denied.

            That is the law of the land.

        4. Frankly

          Note that the $528.4 million includes GRANTS from the federal government as well as medicaid reimbursement.  I cannot yet find a breakdown, but I remember hearing somewhere that PP gets over $300 million in grants. It is the grants and only the grants that I have a problem with.

          1. Don Shor

            Regarding grants, from the site “conservative review.com”:

            During fiscal years 2013 and 2014, federal databases indicate that Planned Parenthood received:

            A total of 268 grants from HHS amounting to $103.6 million, which went directly to regional affiliates or local facilities for “family planning,” as well as services such as HIV treatment and prevention. Within that sum, Planned Parenthood affiliates also received $655,192 in 2013 and $511,399 in 2014 to act as “navigators” to help enroll people in Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges.

            Sixteen grants from the Department of Agriculture, totaling more than $10.2 million, to affiliates and locations in New York, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and California, all through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

            Nine grants from the Justice Department to state affiliates totaling $912,916, through grants for assistance to victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse, and the STOP Violence Against Women program, which funds various financial, material, and educational services for victims.

            Two grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency totaling $143,670, to Planned Parenthood’s Washington, DC affiliate for emergency preparedness training. FEMA justifies these grants claiming that abortion clinics are “at high risk of terrorist attack,” and to Planned Parenthood: Shasta-Diablo, Inc. (a facility in California) for “critical infrastructure and key resources protection,” which the Department of Homeland Security defines as preparedness for emergencies such as terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

            Four additional contracts—three between the National Institutes of Health and Planned Parenthood Federation of America totaling $70,063.

          2. Matt Williams

            That is correct. As Don noted yesterday a substantial portion of the grants are under the Title X program, which is described below. Is there anything in that description that you object to?

            Title X: The National Family Planning Program

            For more than 40 years, Title X family planning centers have provided high quality and cost-effective family planning and related preventive health services for low-income women and men. Family planning centers play a critical role in ensuring access to voluntary family planning information and services for their clients based on their ability to pay.

            Family planning centers offer a broad range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods and related counseling; as well as breast and cervical cancer screening; pregnancy testing and counseling; screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs); HIV testing; and other patient education and referralsi.

            Title X Providers

            The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Population Affairs (OPA) oversees the Title X program. OPA funds a network of nearly 4,200 family planning centers which serve about 4.5 million clients a yearii. Services are provided through state, county, and local health departments; community health centers; Planned Parenthood centers; and hospital-based, school-based, faith-based, other private nonprofits.

            Title X staff are specially trained to meet the contraceptive needs of individuals with limited English proficiency, teenagers, and those confronting complex medical and personal issues such as substance abuse, disability, homelessness or interpersonal and domestic violence.

            Title X Mission

            Title X assists individuals and couples in planning and spacing births, contributing to positive birth outcomes and improved health for women and infants.

            In addition to clinical services, Title X also funds the following program supports aimed at improving the quality of family planning services:

            — Training for family planning clinic personnel through five national training programs that focus on clinical training; service delivery; management and systems improvement; coordination and strategic initiatives; and quality assurance/improvement and evaluation
            — Family planning research and evaluation to improve Title X service delivery and inform the broader reproductive health care field
            — Information dissemination and community-based education and outreach

            Cost Effectiveness of Family Planning

            Title X provides significant cost savings to taxpayers. In 2008, every every public dollar spent on contraceptive services yielded an estimated $3.74 in savings that would have been spent on Medicaid costs related to pregnancy care and delivery and to infants in their first year of life.

            Significantly, this figure does not include savings realized from the prevention and treatment of STIs and avoiding and detecting reproductive cancers. These calculations also do not measure the broader health, social or economic benefits of enabling women to time or prepare for their pregnancies.

            Program Policy

            OPA sets the standards for publicly funded family planning services in the U.S. The Title X statute, regulations and guidance offer patient protections by requiring that programs are voluntary, confidential and include a broad range of contraceptive methods. Program guidelines establish standards for the delivery of services based on the most current evidence.

        5. Frankly

          Matt and Don.  Good work on this.  Thanks for educating me.

          I think the last primary remaining monetary issue that I side with Republicans on is the accounting practices for ensuring that ALL of the government grant money covers the true expense of services not opposed by religious groups because of the need for separation of church and state.  For example, is any of that money supporting the administrative costs for providing abortions or birth control?  But after reading what you two have written here and after doing some more investigation on my own, I am much, much less in opposition to PP getting government grants (note that this is a fundamental issue with me because I want a much smaller government).  For me to support any government grants for PP I will need to research more to assess the actual social benefits derived relative to their mission.  For example, handing out birth control kits is wonderful, but have they actually reduced the number of out of wedlock and unwanted births?   And, I am really surprised about the number of contraception reversal procedures.  I need to understand more about that too.  Frankly, I am not so sure I want to see that subsidized in low income circumstances.

          Now, as for the fetal tissue business, we will have to agree to disagree with this.  My view on this is that it is too barbaric and insensitive to a significant percentage of the American population and PP should be restricted from doing it as a condition of their federal grants and/or medicaid payments because of the point of separation of church and state.  Unless they can absolutely separate this business from that which receives federal dollars, I am strongly opposed to it despite the obvious medical/social benefits that might be derived from the tissues.

          Ideally PP would have a separate entity and keep separate books for the business that provides the services opposed by many people based on clear, standard and accepted religious beliefs.    They don’t, and that is problematic because of the need to separate the church from state and state from church.

          But my opposition to their use of federal dollars has been cooled a great deal after learning more.

          1. Matt Williams

            Frankly said . . . “I think the last primary remaining monetary issue that I side with Republicans on is the accounting practices for ensuring that ALL of the government grant money covers the true expense of services not opposed by religious groups because of the need for separation of church and state.”

            I support you in that desire for accounting practices that support accountability. That is fiscally responsible.

            I’m not a comfortable with the second part of your statement above. As written it opens the door for a “throw anything against the wall to see if it will stick” initiative by some of the religious groups. Some way to assess the validity of the opposition is conspicuously absent from what you propose.

        6. wdf1

          Frankly:  For example, handing out birth control kits is wonderful, but have they actually reduced the number of out of wedlock and unwanted births?   

          Not birth control kits the way you have in mind, but Colorado’s Effort Against Teenage Pregnancies Is a Startling Succes:

          WALSENBURG, Colo. — Over the past six years, Colorado has conducted one of the largest experiments with long-acting birth control. If teenagers and poor women were offered free intrauterine devices and implants that prevent pregnancy for years, state officials asked, would those women choose them?

          They did in a big way, and the results were startling. The birthrate among teenagers across the state plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school.

          There is also evidence to show that “abstinence only” sex education, which means not discussing any birth control because abstinence is considered enough, has failed to reduce teenage pregnancy where those sex ed programs occur.

      2. KSmith

        “I think the last primary remaining monetary issue that I side with Republicans on is the accounting practices for ensuring that ALL of the government grant money covers the true expense of services not opposed by religious groups because of the need for separation of church and state.  For example, is any of that money supporting the administrative costs for providing abortions or birth control?”

        I’ll give you (and the religious right) the abortion exception. From what I know (and what has been pointed out in this thread so far) no federal dollars are being spent on abortions.

        The religious right does not, however, get to say that no federal dollars go to contraception. It shouldn’t matter that contraception is against “clear, standard and accepted religious beliefs.” I don’t see how “separation of church and state” supports your argument to -not- cover contraception. It would seem that “separation of church and state” would be an argument -for- covering it, to not have those who do not subscribe to certain religious beliefs be subject -to those- religious beliefs.

        Plus, this oddity (the contraception thing) seems to fly in the face of your previous professions throughout this thread that you don’t want to legislate morality to be more liberal or more conservative. Contraception has been a huge part of the culture since the 1960s. Sexual mores have changed (as you, yourself, have pointed out several times already in this thread), and have pointed out that this is just how things go so decisions shouldn’t be made to protect someone’s “Victorian-era” prudery.

        Are you also going to say that no federal dollars can go to abstinence-only sex ed programs, which is currently the practice? Those programs are based on religious beliefs, so better get rid of them because separation of church and state.

        And then there’s also the point that the religious right seems to conveniently ignore (and it seems to be because they just want to monitor everyone else’s crotches and not mind their own business): that more widely-available, convenient, long-acting contraception would -greatly- reduce the number of abortions (I think Tia has pointed this out time and time again), which is a goal that both the left and right can get on board with.

        1. Frankly

          My personal opinion is to help pay for free contraception.  I support some of my tax dollars going there for obvious reasons.  I think bible-thumpers are stupid to oppose it.  But I support their freedom to follow their religious convictions and not be forced to have their tax money spent on things that they believe to be immoral… and this has been a common and standard and accepted position in this country.  Nobody should have a right to free contraception that others are forced to pay for against their morality… again in the context of what has been a standard practice.

          And don’t throw out the slavery and racism false moral equivalents.  Those were both aberrations resulting from the fact that the nation was forming and the governing documents were being created at the very time the practice of slavery had become mainstreamed.  But in the end, those very documents justified the abolition of slavery on what were the standard moral principles that were the basis of our founding.

          What if the government gave money to non-profits that helped fund the purchase of guns for low income people and provided gun safety training with a goal of helping to keep these people safe in the urban areas where gun crime is rampant.   What if the government gave out free plastic bags to homeless people to keep all their belongings dry? These would inflame your liberal “religious” senses would they not?  Keep government out of legislated morality.

  18. Anon

    Don Shor: “I support the moratorium, am dubious about adding Blondie’s to the existing mix given the neighborhood complaints and crime issues, but support the current business owners and city leaders (and the university) working together to try to make a safer and healthier downtown environment. I don’t favor pulling any current permitted uses unless violations have been found, and that would be an ABC action rather than a city action.

    Spot on!  My sentiments exactly.

    Frankly: “Once a thing is accepted, you need to find another way to satiate your demands for greater or lesser morality other than through the political process.

    So we should have accepted ethnic segregation in business and not used the political process to change it, because it was an accepted business practice at one time – NINA; Whites Only?  Red light districts should be kept that way because it was the established business practice to have rampant prostitution, strip clubs and the like?  Opium dens existed at one time too, so that should not have been changed either?  What an asinine argument.  The law and gov’t regulations are not static, they change all the time through the political process, constantly adjusting for current circumstances.  The law allows for just such change.  Do you really believe what you write?  I don’t mean that as snarky, but the above statement you made makes absolutely no sense.

    It is fine to believe we should keep the existing Davis nightclubs as is, because you don’t feel there is enough danger present to warrant a change (and I am free to vehemently disagree with that viewpoint).  It is even okay if you feel strip clubs in Davis would be a community asset. (Again, I am free to vehemently disagree.)  But to posit the idea that political processes should not be used to change business practices is nothing short of anarchy.  Let business rule, and the public be damned?  You should read the book “House of Cards” by William D. Cohan, that describe business practices that will turn your stomach.   If you want no gov’t control, I suggest you move to an island somewhere, all by yourself.

  19. Anon

    Frankly: “Difficult decision are always needing shades of gray analysis, but there should be a framework of consideration for what is reasonable and standard.  I am always in favor of individual solutions to problems instead of government solutions to problems.

    Whose framework?  What is reasonable?  What is standard?  Individual solutions resulted in segregation; women denied the vote; blacks denied the vote, etc.  It took changing laws to stop segregation (altho it is still going on under the radar), give women and blacks the right to vote.  Your logic escapes me.  You don’t seem to understand the basic tenets of our founding fathers and the U.S. Constitution.

    1. hpierce

      “You don’t seem to understand the basic tenets of our founding fathers and the U.S. Constitution.”  Well, our founding fathers were just that. Men… many of whom owned slaves. They OK’d slavery (with a generous time limit to import more slaves), and even allowed slave states to count 3/5th of each slave as ‘citizens’ for the purposes of voting in the electoral college, apportioning seats in the house of representatives.  Actually don’t believe the new country would have adopted a Constitution with women suffrage or without slavery.  I like to think we evolved, but we can’t really credit the ‘founding fathers’ or the Constitution for that.  History says differently.

  20. Anon

    Frankly: “I would like us to calm down, evaluate and then come up with incremental improvements from agreement within the community instead of screaming that the sky is falling and demand that we need drastic moral trend-setting from our government.

    I don’t see anyone “screaming the sky is falling”.  Who is asking for “drastic moral trend-setting”?  See Don Shor’s comment above – it is neither “moral trend-setting” nor “screaming the sky is falling”.  It is just common sense and expressing a point of view.  Are you the only one who is allowed to express a viewpoint, without being accused of hysteria?  Anyone who doesn’t agree with your world view is somehow “over-reacting”?

  21. Anon

    Frankly: “I am against legislating morality that sets a trend… either higher or lower morality.

    So businesses that sold child porn or snuff films, which at one time were not specifically illegal, they should have been allowed to continue running their businesses “as is”?

  22. Frankly

    Anon: “I don’t see anyone “screaming the sky is falling”

    Then moral equivalency arguments:

    “So we should have accepted ethnic segregation in business.”

    “Whites Only?”

    “Red light districts”

    “Opium dens”

    “businesses that sold child porn or snuff films”

    “You should read the book “House of Cards” (I read it before you did I am sure)

    So Anon are you sure you are not saying the sky is falling over Davis having nightclubs?

    I think the libertarian view is lost on you.  I don’t have a problem with communities coming together to self-regulate morality accept when the result of the community rules being material harm to others.  But generally when government inserts themselves into morality, they cause great material harm.

    Let’s go back to prohibition as a truly morally-equivalent example instead of all the unrelated hyperbole you throw at me.

    Ironically it was the “Woman’s Christian Temperance Union” that was a primary force in the Temperance movement to make alcohol manufacturing and sales illegal in the nation.  I will save the full explanation of this disaster in our national history caused by these women on their moral crusade (many say it led us to the Great Depression), but suffice it to say… it was a great mistake.

    It was a great mistake because the people wanted a drink and it was standard and common that people could get a drink and be allowed to drink.  Wine is in the Bible for heaven’s sake.  Dancing, socializing, drinking… and yes, wearing revealing clothing.  Get with the times.  All of this stuff is normal and accepted whether it fits your personal moral code or not.

    Instead of prohibition we should have worked together with distillers and bars to make it safer.  That is what we eventually did after we corrected the great failure of that attempt at legislated morality.  That is all we have to do in Davis… a college town like many other college towns where the young people go to dance, socialize and drink late into the evening hours as us old fogies are asleep.

    1. Tia Will

      Frankly

      “material harm to others”

      You keep side stepping the issue of the material harm that is being inflicted on others for the profit of the owners of these businesses. Sleep deprivation three nights weekly, yard damage and defilement certainly sound like “material harm” to me.  One might argue, as you have, that the best solution is not to choose to live in this area. That might apply to me. But how does that apply to the people who have lived here for decades, far longer than the “night club scene” has infringed on their lifestyles ? No respect for their longevity in the neighborhood, their peace and their property ?  Is it really all about business profits ?

      1. Frankly

        Too bad you don’t support more peripheral retail where business can provide these normal and customary services to our younger community members that want them and have a right to expect them without so much downtown congestion.

        But I might support a Thursday noise curfew so the older downtown residents can get some more night night time on a work night.

    2. hpierce

      “(many say it led us to the Great Depression)”  Perhaps on a given Thurs-Sat late evening at Ket-Mo or Tres.  Otherwise, have not seen any reputable source saying/documenting a causal link.  Perhaps a ‘casual link’.  Spelling can very much nuance expression.

  23. Tia Will

    Frankly

    You said that you did not favor legislated morality on either side. Then you followed with:

    The second problem is that the government is paying for abortions… legislated morality”

    If the federal government pays for other legal health services but does not pay for abortion ( which it does not) how is this not legislated morality in favor of those who disapprove of abortions over those who favor the right to choose ?

    Once again, it seems that you dislike “legislated morality ” only when it is not in support of your moral stance.

  24. Tia Will

    Frankly

    to our younger community members that want them and have a right to expect them without so much downtown congestion.”

    I am unaware of any consumer having a “right” to expect the provision of any given service they might want in a specific location of their choice.

    1. Frankly

      “right” to expect the provision of any given service

      No.

      “right” to expect the provision of all standard and customary service

      Let’s look at it this way.  Those that demand we abolish or significantly restrict the nightclub business are the selfish extremists, because it would be standard and customary in a city of 72,000 with 30,000 college students to have several nightclub venues.

      Just like it would be standard and customary in a city with a high population of sprout and tofu-eating health-conscious people to have several health-club venues.

      Just like it would be standard and customary in a city with a high percentage of gray haired people to have several senior housing venues.

      Your demographic is not the only one living here Tia.  You frequently get on a soapbox about your Utopian ideas for communitarianism, but then become a very direct and aggressive critic to anything that impacts your specific personal lifestyle interests.  You might want to change your moniker to “Frankly2” and drop the utopia rants.

  25. Anon

    Frankly: “Let’s go back to prohibition as a truly morally-equivalent example instead of all the unrelated hyperbole you throw at me.”

    You mean “inconvenient truths” I throw at you that you are having difficulty refuting?

    Frankly: “So Anon are you sure you are not saying the sky is falling over Davis having nightclubs?

    Not once did I ever say “the sky is falling over Davis having nightclubs”.  The only thing I have advocated for is to press the “pause button” until we (public, law enforcement, ABC, City Council) can have a proper investigation/community discussion on the subject.

  26. Anon

    Frankly: “I think the libertarian view is lost on you.

    YOUR libertarian view is certainly lost on me – it isn’t logical or defensible.  Generally my view is the gov’t often interferes where it shouldn’t, does a terrible job where it does regulate, and refuses to regulate where it should.  But I would not take the position that the gov’t should take a completely hands off approach in regard to regulating business.  And neither should you favor that position, based on what you read in “House of Cards”.  Bad business practices are bad for all business.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for