City of Davis

I contemplated whether or not to let Dunning’s response this morning go.  I took an unusual step on Friday morning of asking Davis Enterprise Editor Debbie Davis to have the Davis Enterprise offer a public apology to the young ladies whom Bob Dunning chose to malign in his column last Sunday.  She artfully dodged that request, suggesting that Dunning himself would have a response to their letter in today’s column.  I was bracing for the worst.

His response comes across as part defensive and part denial.  There is no contrition.  To believe him, he was misunderstood.  Much of it represents an artful play on words in order to make insinuations without taking responsibility for them.

Earlier this week, when I wrote the column, “In Defense of the College Democrats,” I actually did not know the full background of the students who Bob Dunning was describing in demeaning language. When I was told the whole story, I became incensed and outraged at Bob Dunning.  This column is not about Measure P, it is about the insensitive, vile and depraved individual that is Bob Dunning.  I do not use these terms lightly and perhaps they are unfair.  Perhaps, Mr. Dunning is merely lazy, and does not bother to check his facts.

He writes:

The Vanguard has learned from multiple reliable sources that John Whitcombe is in the process of purchasing the Cannery Property adjacent to his current property that is the site of the failed Covell Village project, defeated by the voters of Davis in 2005 by a 60-40 vote.

City staff could not immediately confirm the purchase, however, they did acknowledge that they had heard rumors to that effect.  The Cannery Property has been vacant since the Hunt_Wesson plan shutdown in October of 1999.  The property was purchased in 2004 by Lewis Planned Communities.  Last December at the City Council Meeting, the Council had proposed a duel weight EIR looking at the developer’s mixed-use proposal for 600 homes and 11 acres of office space along with a separate proposal for a high tech business park for which the property which lies in the city and does not require a Measure J vote, is currently zoned.

A lot of stuff goes on during campaigns, much of it is regrettable and not good for the process.  So I am not at all surprised by the fact that the the College Democrats being paid to canvass has become an issue.  I’ve seen it discussed on this blog and of course it was printed in the Davis Enterprise by a certain columnist who I no longer read but somehow cannot avoid.

So let me tell you a story about the College Democrats.  For all the people who disparage our youth, this is a group that we should admire regardless of the side of the aisle we are on.  I have gotten to know a lot of the College Democrats and consider a number of them to be personal friends.  They are dedicated, hard working, and very active in building their club and their cause.  Moreover, I have entrusted two of them to be sitting board members for the Vanguard.

I voted against the Wildhorse Ranch project for two simple reasons: The project had not been sufficiently considerate of its neighbors, and more than 2,000 units of housing are already approved but remained unbuilt in Davis and at UC Davis’ West Village.

A building boom is already in the works, poised to begin as soon as banks start to lend again and the housing market picks up. I believe we have enough approved housing without Wildhorse Ranch.

Did anyone catch the promo piece on the opening of Target in Sunday’s Davis Enterprise?  The Target store of course was passed on the ballot by the narrowest of margin back in November of 2006.  At times, it has looked like the store might not come, but this year they pushed forward to be able to open in October.

No mention in the Enterprise in this article that this was built on a Superfund site that from what we discovered in December of 2008 is still active.

On November 3, the voters of Davis will have the opportunity to approve one of the most energy-efficient residential projects in Davis history.

The Sierra Club is not known for its support of housing developments, but we are urging you to vote yes on Measure P, the Wildhorse Ranch project, on November 3.

A letter to the Enterprise indicates that the Davis League of Women Voters have canceled the debate on Measure P.  They cite a policy to select “speakers to represent a balanced forum on ballot initiatives/ measures.”  Further they suggest that they were not “able to come to agree with the No on Measure P campaign group.”  Therefore, they decided there will be no League of Women Voters-sponsored debate on the matter.

John Moses, President and Jean Canary, Vice President and Moderator for the League of Women Voters conclude in their letter published in the Davis Enterprise:

The term astroturfing is the act of creating a small organization and making it appear to represent something popular for the purpose of promoting a particular cause.  It is a practice that is used by wealthy backers in order to create the impression that instead of a professional paid campaign backing a policy, there is actually a mass grassroots movement.

In the case of CHA (Choices for Healthy Aging) the plot is especially thick because it represents an effort at agenda setting.  Agenda setting is a term most common used in measure the effects of mass-news coverage, which argues that increased coverage and prominence by media sources increases the perception of the importance of the issue.  In this case, the astroturf campaign has been able to create an agenda for senior housing that was largely off the radar prior to the waging of the campaign.  The purpose hear is to create the perception of a mass movement for senior housing in order to push the latest proposal at Covell Village onto the agenda and eventually onto a Measure J ballot.

In 2003, the Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association (DACHA) was formed as a limited-equity cooperative.  The units were owned by a nonprofit corporation, DACHA, and member households of the organization occupy the individual units.  The individual does not own the individual unit, but rather the residents own the cooperative as a whole and possess the exclusive right to occupy one specific unit within the cooperative.

Those interested in living in these units buy a share into the cooperative which makes them a member of DACHA.  Each individual needed to buy a share and also make a month carrying charge toward the costs of the unit and the cooperative.  This is a limited equity arrangement, meaning they would buy into their share, and they would accrue interest but not really equity over time until the point in time that they would sell their unit, at which time they would get their original share amount plus interest.

For the most part, the Davis Enterprise’s new beat writer for the city has done a very good job of staying out of the fray and reporting in an even-handed method.  This despite that fact that at times, her newcomer status shows in her reporting.

Unfortunately in yesterday’s Davis Enterprise, she made a glaring error that a few of our readers caught and alerted us to.

On Tuesday’s City Council Agenda, Staff is recommending an ordinance and resolutions by the end of the year to place the renewal of Measure J on the June 2010 ballot for voter consideration with only technical edits and no provision for a business park exemption.

Back in June, the council was unanimous in support for the renewal of Measure J basically as is.  Council was divided on the sunset date which was ultimately determined to be in ten years–longer than staff and perhaps some of the council wanted, but shorter than the permanency that Councilmembers Lamar Heystek and Sue Greenwald would have preferred.