Vanguard Takes Its Thanksgiving Break


Every year I take four scheduled days off – completely off.  Some years I may take Christmas off as well, but for the other 360 days the Vanguard publishes – each day, every day.  And that means that every day during the year, I get up at 3 am and write.  That’s a lot of work, 100 hour weeks, there are days like Monday where I’m out till 11 at meetings and sleep a few hours and get up to get the Vanguard out.  I love this job and I love helping people and serving the community – but it is a lot of work for not much compensation.

So this time of year we usually mount a fund drive and we will be seeking about $3000 in the month of December which will be launched on Monday (November 27).  You can help us out early by going to the main page ( and clicking donate.

You can especially help us a lot by becoming a monthly subscriber you can do that either from the donate button or the subscription button or by clicking here: .  This year we have gone from dire fiscal problems in May to reaching a point of near sustainability through the subscription program.

As a reminder we still have our subscription drive where you can enter to win out raffle by signing up to be a monthly subscriber.  We have had 10 already sign up that way, that’s another chunk of money that we are assured of getting each month that helps us pay our bills.  Details are here: .  We really need your help – the readers – they are the ones that make this work.

Thanks for reading and happy thanksgiving.

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


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

21 thoughts on “Vanguard Takes Its Thanksgiving Break”

  1. Tia Will

    Was too busy yesterday with my own family’s Thanksgiving celebration, so will just belatedly wish everyone a peaceful Thanksgiving weekend full of the quiet joy of appreciation of what we have and love.

  2. Howard P

    For those who believe we’ve always had a Thanksgiving, I offer

    Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter have been co-opted by commercial interests over the last 60-70 years.  Thanksgiving, in particular, also by the NFL and broadcasters… with copious commercials.

    I concur with Tia, as to the hope for all is that you and yours have a wonderful holiday, and I add, we think/act for the others who do do not have it so good.  Feeding the poor is as much of a Thanksgiving tradition as our ‘bountiful repasts’.

  3. Howard P


    Hope you and yous have had a great time off…

    Looking forward, the deal on selling the old City Hall bears some scrutiny…

    Davis built it, maintained it, and made improvements to it long before ownership was transferred to the old RDA.  Did the RDA “pay” the City for the asset (at then fair market value), and/or subsequent upkeep?  Did the RDA pass-through the rents to the non-City ‘entities’?  What is the City’s ‘cash-basis’?  Why does the City only get 21% of the “net” proceeds [what does that mean?], with the rest going to DJUSD, County, special districts, etc. ? (as reported by the Emptyprize)[and the Emptyprize had some ‘facts’ wrong in the article… PW/Engineering left the old building, to the Corp Yard, in 1977-78.]

    Right now, seems like only the City had “skin in the game”, and will get a pauper’s share of the gain.  Just saying…



    1. Don Shor

      Distribution of the RDA assets is set by the state laws that dissolved them. The city gained significantly over many years from the property tax revenues that were redirected to projects within the redevelopment district. Those funds were being backfilled, at least in the case of school districts, by the state. Other tax districts were affected by that redirection of funds, which is probably the basis for the distribution of the proceeds. So, no, it wasn’t only the city with “skin in the game” from the whole dubious process of creating and managing the RDA, and it isn’t only the city that should benefit from the sale and distribution of the assets.
      If there is some aspect of the management of rents and improvements that you have concerns about, I’d remind you that the city council members comprised the RDA board. It’s hard to think of a more blatant conflict of interest with respect to financial management of assets than having the same people managing both ends of the funding process. But that’s the way it was set up, the way it ran for years, and probably a big factor in why the RDA’s became such a source of questionable and corrupt practices in some areas.
      IMO it would be very challenging to analyze any of this sell-off process without fully analyzing how things went before. Not sure any of that would stand up to scrutiny.

      1. Howard P

        The pass-through agreement made the schools, etc. whole while it was in effect… that’s why it was called “the pass-through agreement”… it was only the “increment” that was passed through. The capital value was never reimbursed by those other entities…

        The “cost basis” comment remains as strong as ever…

        Your bias shows…

        I seek facts, not generality ‘spin’… if the facts show I am incorrect, will own up to that… maybe we need an “auditor”…

        1. Howard P

          Thinking more, perhaps it was only the County that was made whole… still think an ‘accounting’ is appropriate…

          Still don’t see why DJUSD should get a big share of the capital profit… maybe a missed share of ‘increment’, but not full value… DJUSD had no investment in the property before or after the creation of the facility. Only in the “tax increment”…

        2. Ron

          Howard:  Thanks for bringing up the concern.

          Regarding Don’s comments, I’m not seeing the “direct” connection, between the forced sale of a city-owned asset (with the city only receiving 21% of the “net” proceeds), vs. the redirection of property tax revenues.  Seems to be two separate issues.

          Here’s a link to the Enterprise article, which I wasn’t aware of (and will now read):

        3. Ron

          Based upon prior articles, I understand that the new law would have still allowed the city to keep this building for its own uses (rather than leasing it out).  Instead, I guess they’re happy to pocket a measly 21% of the proceeds.  (Yeah, they’ll get some revenue from future taxes, I guess.)

          Hope that the city doesn’t need other space, in the future.  (For which they’ll have to pay 100% of the cost.)

          Can’t help but think that the city might be allowing this to occur, partly to provide more funding for schools. (And once again, the city loses out.)

          I wonder how this is affecting other cities throughout California. The new law stinks, to say the least. (Did cities fight it?)

        4. Don Shor

          The pass-through agreement made the schools, etc. whole while it was in effect… that’s why it was called “the pass-through agreement”… it was only the “increment” that was passed through. The capital value was never reimbursed by those other entities…

          The pass-through agreement provided funds to the county and the county library. It did not, to my knowledge, reimburse funds to the school districts. The state backfilled the funds to school districts.

        5. Ron

          Seems ironic that the city can’t even keep its own historic city hall. (Actually, who “owned” it? The city, or the “successor to the RDA”? Are they one and the same? In other words, the city itself?)

        6. Howard P

          Actually Don, I have now perused the document… no pertinent info there… all my questions remain as originally stated…

          Will have to assume you posted that in ‘good faith’, and not as a ‘distractor’…

        7. Ron


          Thanks for providing the information.

          I suppose it doesn’t really matter (at this point) what anyone thinks about this.  Seems like it’s too late, for that.

          In this case, the problem originated at the state level, even if the city might have reacted differently.

          I did a quick, online search and found another city that was (apparently) negatively impacted by the state’s decision. However, I’m not seeing where cities revolted (in mass), regarding the state’s new law.


        1. Don Shor

          So, in IYO, I should sit down and shut up… OK…

          Did I say that? Seriously, could you please consider being less easily offended by things? I disagree with your concern about it and expressed my views. That’s all.
          Unwinding the RDA’s was very complex. Nobody’s going to be happy about the exact way it was done, because there were so many moving parts.

  4. Howard P

    Ron… your 7:53 post…

    I suppose it doesn’t really matter (at this point) what anyone thinks about this.  Seems like it’s too late, for that.

    Haven’t “heard the fat lady sing”… still requires approvals on the deal.

    Let’s give thanks for those who look to see what can be done in the face of potential ‘injustice’, even if it ends up ’tilting at windmills’… (my feeble attempt to stay on/get back on topic…)


Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

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