For all of the talk of NIMBYISM it is plain old land use policies that saved the residents of Plainfield from having a Prison Re-Entry Facility in their backyard. Their research efforts were exactly correct with regards to the issues of that site.
I figured this was a done deal around the time Supervisor Helen Thomson pressed the representative from CDCR about the infrastructure and how CDCR evaluates the process.
According to the representative CDCR does its own site assessment, it determines the costs of what needs to be done which includes the feasibility of the location given the budget that they have. Some sites could be ruled out because they are too costly to build on. And that is really what it came down to for the airport site. Sure they could deal with issues of flooding, roads, electricity, and water. Sure they could figure out how to deal with the issue of emergency service when the firefighter from West Plainfield indicated how taxing it would be to have a facility of this size on their property.
But at the end of the day, these issues all had to be resolved which meant more money would be needed. And the representative made it clear to all that if the CDCR chose the site and if they were going to be the only one building on that site, then they were going to have to pay the entire bill.
Right then I knew that the airport site was out. Of course it took hours of discussions and public comment for the decisions to be made.
Some very general comments that I think are important to make. First, I understand people’s frustration about these issues and the way they arose seemingly at the last minute. But there were a number of people at this meeting that were downright rude and made unfounded accusations. Supervisor Rexroad posted a few of the more rude and threatening comments on his blog. A number of those people were from the actual city of Davis. That kind of conduct does not reflect well on this city. We all have strong views and strong concerns, but frankly that is counterproductive. I know when I get rude posts on the blog or rude comments in emails to me, it completely discounts the point that the individual is trying to make.
Second, I agree with many about concerns about the process. Richard Livingston made these comments well during public comment yesterday. I think Supervisor Mike McGowan handled it well. He initially interrupted Mr. Livingston, but then apologized for doing so. He acknowledged that there were concerns about the process and communication and I think handled it pretty well.
That leads me to my next point, Supervisor Duane Chamberlain. I respect this man on a number of fronts. He is one of the most passionate protectors of farmland and county open space there is. However, he did not serve his constituents well yesterday. First, he had to recuse himself because he farms land around the airport. He did this very reluctantly and unnecessarily, in my opinion, pushed this issue to the brink of legality with his refusal to step aside.
Several of his constituents complained that their representative was not involved in the process. They felt disenfranchised. I do not blame them. But frankly I think it is his own fault. He could have handled this situation much better and perhaps should have given up working on that land in order to be a more effective spokesperson for his constituents on such an important issue. The county is still apparently dealing with legality with regards to these matters, but he did eventually turn over the gavel to his colleague Mr. McGowan.
Supervisor Mike McGowan who represents West Sacramento had no real stake in this battle, which made him the perfect Supervisor to chair the meeting. I thought he did an outstanding job. He was a calming influence during a turbulent meeting. He was able to really diffuse tensions rather than ratchet them up. I thought he was outstanding.
In fact, I was impressed as a whole with the Board of Supervisors I thought they asked a number of very good questions. They really pressed CDCR on points about retaining control of this process. I think there is a legitimate concern that this could morph into something else.
There are still discussions to have in fact on these points. One of the key provisions is the future use of the re-entry facility. Can this be converted into a prison down the line and what recourse does the county have to prevent that from occurring? I already mentioned the development agreement mitigations that are needed included waste water management, power, and gas lines issues. Finally, the question of how many people might be served by this facility and which people.
From the CDCR’s perspective this has to be 500 people. Five hundred (500) people means it serves people from outside of Yolo County.
Serious questions arose about the type of people who would be housed by such a facility. For instance, according to CDCR level four offenders could be housed there. Of course, they would have to meet specific criteria such as not being problematic inmates, eligibility for parole, and other criteria, but they could under those conditions wind up there. CDCR did however say that this was not meant to serve mentally ill prisoner populations.
Supervisor Helen Thomson was concerned that there not be sexual predators or pedophiles housed at this facility but CDCR could make no such promises.
A common refrain from the public was that the county sold out the public for $30 million. Many in the public questioned the usefulness of such a facility. Some called it basically an experiment.
I am supportive of the concept of the re-entry facility. I think that the current system has failed us. We have basically created a prisoner factory that turns inmates into career criminals. And I think we need to look for ways to avoid that.
Yet the more I think about it I have to agree with Davis City Councilmember Sue Greenwald’s comments. First, having rehabilitation in the last year of a prison term probably does not make the most sense. If we want rehabilitation, why not work on it throughout the term?
Second, as others have suggested, this is basically a tool by which to relieve overcrowding. Instead of releasing prisoners directly to the population, they prop up those releases with a year of training. Do not get me wrong, training is important and the ideals here are good, but at the end of the day, this is indeed an experiment. We do not know that this will work. And yet somehow the state has been convinced to put billions into this project under the guise of rehabilitation–a guise that amounts to largely untested assumptions.
Third, many of the people who are supporting these re-entry facilities are opposed to Proposition 5 and efforts of that sort. This is where we can make a huge difference in the prison system. Not everyone who breaks the law needs to be thrown in prison. It is not clear that doing so helps make us safer as a society, nor is it clear that it helps those people thrown in prison become better people.
What is clear is that we are locking up a lot people who are not especially dangerous to the population in jail. It’s clear that the system from the courts to the jail cells are clogged with these cases, and we would probably have plenty of room in the system if we just dealt with these kinds of cases differently.
In other words, during the course of listening to the testimony from the public, questions from the County Board of Supervisors, and answers from CDCR, I changed my mind on this issue. I think there is a real concern that once we sign this over, we lose control and an amorphous state agency gets its hands on a facility in our county. At the end of the day, I don’t think $30 million is worth handing over control to the state. More to the point, I question using further resources to back up what I see as a broken corrections system.
Madison is indeed the least bad location of the three selected by the county here, but the people of Madison have in a way been sold out for expediency and for $30 million. I hope in a few years we do not look back on this and regret it.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
DPD,
Tell us about the motions, and votes.
DPD,
Tell us about the motions, and votes.
DPD,
Tell us about the motions, and votes.
DPD,
Tell us about the motions, and votes.
DPD: Were the people of Madison there and organized? It would seem that their vulnerability in addition to being ‘the least worst’ may have proven the deciding factor? It seemed last night at the DCC that the Supes. may well NOT go forward with this at all?
DPD: Were the people of Madison there and organized? It would seem that their vulnerability in addition to being ‘the least worst’ may have proven the deciding factor? It seemed last night at the DCC that the Supes. may well NOT go forward with this at all?
DPD: Were the people of Madison there and organized? It would seem that their vulnerability in addition to being ‘the least worst’ may have proven the deciding factor? It seemed last night at the DCC that the Supes. may well NOT go forward with this at all?
DPD: Were the people of Madison there and organized? It would seem that their vulnerability in addition to being ‘the least worst’ may have proven the deciding factor? It seemed last night at the DCC that the Supes. may well NOT go forward with this at all?
They seemed to be out in lesser numbers, but they were there. I was given the sense before even this week that supes were leaning towards Madison as the best location (or least bad). I don’t have a sense that the Supes will not go forward with this, I think they most assuredly will.
They seemed to be out in lesser numbers, but they were there. I was given the sense before even this week that supes were leaning towards Madison as the best location (or least bad). I don’t have a sense that the Supes will not go forward with this, I think they most assuredly will.
They seemed to be out in lesser numbers, but they were there. I was given the sense before even this week that supes were leaning towards Madison as the best location (or least bad). I don’t have a sense that the Supes will not go forward with this, I think they most assuredly will.
They seemed to be out in lesser numbers, but they were there. I was given the sense before even this week that supes were leaning towards Madison as the best location (or least bad). I don’t have a sense that the Supes will not go forward with this, I think they most assuredly will.
Why would they choose Madison, where it is a terrible flood zone?
These facilities should go next to or near existing prisons. They should not be situated in rural areas, impacting farmland, nor should they be placed in or near existing communities that are not already impacted by the existence of a penal facility.
Why would they choose Madison, where it is a terrible flood zone?
These facilities should go next to or near existing prisons. They should not be situated in rural areas, impacting farmland, nor should they be placed in or near existing communities that are not already impacted by the existence of a penal facility.
Why would they choose Madison, where it is a terrible flood zone?
These facilities should go next to or near existing prisons. They should not be situated in rural areas, impacting farmland, nor should they be placed in or near existing communities that are not already impacted by the existence of a penal facility.
Why would they choose Madison, where it is a terrible flood zone?
These facilities should go next to or near existing prisons. They should not be situated in rural areas, impacting farmland, nor should they be placed in or near existing communities that are not already impacted by the existence of a penal facility.
The state will have to mitigate against the flooding, there are ways to do that. If the cost is too much to mitigate the flooding, then the state will eliminate the site. Part of the problem here is that the process is being done almost backwards.
The state will have to mitigate against the flooding, there are ways to do that. If the cost is too much to mitigate the flooding, then the state will eliminate the site. Part of the problem here is that the process is being done almost backwards.
The state will have to mitigate against the flooding, there are ways to do that. If the cost is too much to mitigate the flooding, then the state will eliminate the site. Part of the problem here is that the process is being done almost backwards.
The state will have to mitigate against the flooding, there are ways to do that. If the cost is too much to mitigate the flooding, then the state will eliminate the site. Part of the problem here is that the process is being done almost backwards.
“Why would they choose Madison, where it is a terrible flood zone?
These facilities should go next to or near existing prisons. They should not be situated in rural areas, impacting farmland, nor should they be placed in or near existing communities that are not already impacted by the existence of a penal facility.”
First off, the Board already slated Madison for additional development under the general plan. I think this was a huge mistake due to the flooding issue but the Board thought otherwise.
As to the second contention that: “nor should they be placed in or near existing communities that are not already impacted by the existence of a penal facility.”
I guess that means that it goes in Woodland right? In other words if a community is already burdened with the cost and social impacts of a jail/prison facility then by all means pour more on. What a pathetic, self-serving line of reasoning. So much for spreading the burden eh? Just leave me alone and stick it somewhere else. That has been the clarion call of this entire debate. What a sad reflection of the public’s mind-set.
“Why would they choose Madison, where it is a terrible flood zone?
These facilities should go next to or near existing prisons. They should not be situated in rural areas, impacting farmland, nor should they be placed in or near existing communities that are not already impacted by the existence of a penal facility.”
First off, the Board already slated Madison for additional development under the general plan. I think this was a huge mistake due to the flooding issue but the Board thought otherwise.
As to the second contention that: “nor should they be placed in or near existing communities that are not already impacted by the existence of a penal facility.”
I guess that means that it goes in Woodland right? In other words if a community is already burdened with the cost and social impacts of a jail/prison facility then by all means pour more on. What a pathetic, self-serving line of reasoning. So much for spreading the burden eh? Just leave me alone and stick it somewhere else. That has been the clarion call of this entire debate. What a sad reflection of the public’s mind-set.
“Why would they choose Madison, where it is a terrible flood zone?
These facilities should go next to or near existing prisons. They should not be situated in rural areas, impacting farmland, nor should they be placed in or near existing communities that are not already impacted by the existence of a penal facility.”
First off, the Board already slated Madison for additional development under the general plan. I think this was a huge mistake due to the flooding issue but the Board thought otherwise.
As to the second contention that: “nor should they be placed in or near existing communities that are not already impacted by the existence of a penal facility.”
I guess that means that it goes in Woodland right? In other words if a community is already burdened with the cost and social impacts of a jail/prison facility then by all means pour more on. What a pathetic, self-serving line of reasoning. So much for spreading the burden eh? Just leave me alone and stick it somewhere else. That has been the clarion call of this entire debate. What a sad reflection of the public’s mind-set.
“Why would they choose Madison, where it is a terrible flood zone?
These facilities should go next to or near existing prisons. They should not be situated in rural areas, impacting farmland, nor should they be placed in or near existing communities that are not already impacted by the existence of a penal facility.”
First off, the Board already slated Madison for additional development under the general plan. I think this was a huge mistake due to the flooding issue but the Board thought otherwise.
As to the second contention that: “nor should they be placed in or near existing communities that are not already impacted by the existence of a penal facility.”
I guess that means that it goes in Woodland right? In other words if a community is already burdened with the cost and social impacts of a jail/prison facility then by all means pour more on. What a pathetic, self-serving line of reasoning. So much for spreading the burden eh? Just leave me alone and stick it somewhere else. That has been the clarion call of this entire debate. What a sad reflection of the public’s mind-set.
“What a pathetic, self-serving line of reasoning.”
Let us back up a second before we start calling names here. I think there is a logic to the statement that goes beyond the simple label of self-serving.
Let’s face it, communities do not want prisons built. We can label that as NIMBY–but why should they want a prison built? There are any number of legitimate reasons to oppose the construction of new prisons anywhere. That’s not self-serving necessarily. If you oppose a new prison in Davis but support it in Madison, then perhaps you have a point. But I think calling names basically short-circuits thinking and that doesn’t help anyone here.
Second point, I think there is a logic to building where the facilities already exist from a cost standpoint, a security standpoint, and a marginal cost-benefit ratio standpoint.
Let’s face it, the cost to Madison in social costs and risk is far far higher than building an additional wing in Woodland where a prison already exists. How can you discount that out of hand.
Seriously, this NIMBY stuff is intellectual laziness. Move past it. You can label anything as NIMBY, but that doesn’t address the question that follows, do they have a legitimate point.
“What a pathetic, self-serving line of reasoning.”
Let us back up a second before we start calling names here. I think there is a logic to the statement that goes beyond the simple label of self-serving.
Let’s face it, communities do not want prisons built. We can label that as NIMBY–but why should they want a prison built? There are any number of legitimate reasons to oppose the construction of new prisons anywhere. That’s not self-serving necessarily. If you oppose a new prison in Davis but support it in Madison, then perhaps you have a point. But I think calling names basically short-circuits thinking and that doesn’t help anyone here.
Second point, I think there is a logic to building where the facilities already exist from a cost standpoint, a security standpoint, and a marginal cost-benefit ratio standpoint.
Let’s face it, the cost to Madison in social costs and risk is far far higher than building an additional wing in Woodland where a prison already exists. How can you discount that out of hand.
Seriously, this NIMBY stuff is intellectual laziness. Move past it. You can label anything as NIMBY, but that doesn’t address the question that follows, do they have a legitimate point.
“What a pathetic, self-serving line of reasoning.”
Let us back up a second before we start calling names here. I think there is a logic to the statement that goes beyond the simple label of self-serving.
Let’s face it, communities do not want prisons built. We can label that as NIMBY–but why should they want a prison built? There are any number of legitimate reasons to oppose the construction of new prisons anywhere. That’s not self-serving necessarily. If you oppose a new prison in Davis but support it in Madison, then perhaps you have a point. But I think calling names basically short-circuits thinking and that doesn’t help anyone here.
Second point, I think there is a logic to building where the facilities already exist from a cost standpoint, a security standpoint, and a marginal cost-benefit ratio standpoint.
Let’s face it, the cost to Madison in social costs and risk is far far higher than building an additional wing in Woodland where a prison already exists. How can you discount that out of hand.
Seriously, this NIMBY stuff is intellectual laziness. Move past it. You can label anything as NIMBY, but that doesn’t address the question that follows, do they have a legitimate point.
“What a pathetic, self-serving line of reasoning.”
Let us back up a second before we start calling names here. I think there is a logic to the statement that goes beyond the simple label of self-serving.
Let’s face it, communities do not want prisons built. We can label that as NIMBY–but why should they want a prison built? There are any number of legitimate reasons to oppose the construction of new prisons anywhere. That’s not self-serving necessarily. If you oppose a new prison in Davis but support it in Madison, then perhaps you have a point. But I think calling names basically short-circuits thinking and that doesn’t help anyone here.
Second point, I think there is a logic to building where the facilities already exist from a cost standpoint, a security standpoint, and a marginal cost-benefit ratio standpoint.
Let’s face it, the cost to Madison in social costs and risk is far far higher than building an additional wing in Woodland where a prison already exists. How can you discount that out of hand.
Seriously, this NIMBY stuff is intellectual laziness. Move past it. You can label anything as NIMBY, but that doesn’t address the question that follows, do they have a legitimate point.
“Madison is indeed the least bad location of the three selected by the county here, but the people of Madison have in a way been sold out for expediency and for $30 million. I hope in a few years we do not look back on this and regret it.”
I recall a few years ago that the Rumsey Indians and the county had agreed to widen (or at least improve) Highway 16 from Madison to the casino. Yet, I don’t believe any of this work has been done. Does anyone know where the road imporovement situation stands? Is it years away?
My experience in the Madison area in the last few years is that the casino traffic (from 505 to Esparto) is far too much for their current infrastructure. I would think that adding the prison there will only make that congestion worse. (It will be on the west side of 505?) Is a part of the prison plan to immediately widen Hwy 16? or to wait until the Highway is improved all the way to Brooks?
Unless the roads are greatly improved ahead of time, I would also think that during the actual construction of the prison and during the period new flood protection is built the lives of Madisonians will be made much worse having to deal with casino traffic and with the construction traffic on top of that.
“Madison is indeed the least bad location of the three selected by the county here, but the people of Madison have in a way been sold out for expediency and for $30 million. I hope in a few years we do not look back on this and regret it.”
I recall a few years ago that the Rumsey Indians and the county had agreed to widen (or at least improve) Highway 16 from Madison to the casino. Yet, I don’t believe any of this work has been done. Does anyone know where the road imporovement situation stands? Is it years away?
My experience in the Madison area in the last few years is that the casino traffic (from 505 to Esparto) is far too much for their current infrastructure. I would think that adding the prison there will only make that congestion worse. (It will be on the west side of 505?) Is a part of the prison plan to immediately widen Hwy 16? or to wait until the Highway is improved all the way to Brooks?
Unless the roads are greatly improved ahead of time, I would also think that during the actual construction of the prison and during the period new flood protection is built the lives of Madisonians will be made much worse having to deal with casino traffic and with the construction traffic on top of that.
“Madison is indeed the least bad location of the three selected by the county here, but the people of Madison have in a way been sold out for expediency and for $30 million. I hope in a few years we do not look back on this and regret it.”
I recall a few years ago that the Rumsey Indians and the county had agreed to widen (or at least improve) Highway 16 from Madison to the casino. Yet, I don’t believe any of this work has been done. Does anyone know where the road imporovement situation stands? Is it years away?
My experience in the Madison area in the last few years is that the casino traffic (from 505 to Esparto) is far too much for their current infrastructure. I would think that adding the prison there will only make that congestion worse. (It will be on the west side of 505?) Is a part of the prison plan to immediately widen Hwy 16? or to wait until the Highway is improved all the way to Brooks?
Unless the roads are greatly improved ahead of time, I would also think that during the actual construction of the prison and during the period new flood protection is built the lives of Madisonians will be made much worse having to deal with casino traffic and with the construction traffic on top of that.
“Madison is indeed the least bad location of the three selected by the county here, but the people of Madison have in a way been sold out for expediency and for $30 million. I hope in a few years we do not look back on this and regret it.”
I recall a few years ago that the Rumsey Indians and the county had agreed to widen (or at least improve) Highway 16 from Madison to the casino. Yet, I don’t believe any of this work has been done. Does anyone know where the road imporovement situation stands? Is it years away?
My experience in the Madison area in the last few years is that the casino traffic (from 505 to Esparto) is far too much for their current infrastructure. I would think that adding the prison there will only make that congestion worse. (It will be on the west side of 505?) Is a part of the prison plan to immediately widen Hwy 16? or to wait until the Highway is improved all the way to Brooks?
Unless the roads are greatly improved ahead of time, I would also think that during the actual construction of the prison and during the period new flood protection is built the lives of Madisonians will be made much worse having to deal with casino traffic and with the construction traffic on top of that.
“Why would they choose Madison, where it is a terrible flood zone?”
This may be a naive question, but has there ever been a serious flood in Madison? I recall quite a few times Cache Creek swelling over its banks, but I don’t remember it ever getting as far as Madison.
The creek itself is about 1.2 miles north of the town. So presuming the land rises north and south at an equal plane, Cache Creek would either have to get to be about 2.4 miles wide to hit Madison, or a channel of some sort would have to direct the overflow in the direction of Madison. If it is the latter, then it wouldn’t seem like such a difficult engineering problem to redirect that potential overflow away from the town.
“Why would they choose Madison, where it is a terrible flood zone?”
This may be a naive question, but has there ever been a serious flood in Madison? I recall quite a few times Cache Creek swelling over its banks, but I don’t remember it ever getting as far as Madison.
The creek itself is about 1.2 miles north of the town. So presuming the land rises north and south at an equal plane, Cache Creek would either have to get to be about 2.4 miles wide to hit Madison, or a channel of some sort would have to direct the overflow in the direction of Madison. If it is the latter, then it wouldn’t seem like such a difficult engineering problem to redirect that potential overflow away from the town.
“Why would they choose Madison, where it is a terrible flood zone?”
This may be a naive question, but has there ever been a serious flood in Madison? I recall quite a few times Cache Creek swelling over its banks, but I don’t remember it ever getting as far as Madison.
The creek itself is about 1.2 miles north of the town. So presuming the land rises north and south at an equal plane, Cache Creek would either have to get to be about 2.4 miles wide to hit Madison, or a channel of some sort would have to direct the overflow in the direction of Madison. If it is the latter, then it wouldn’t seem like such a difficult engineering problem to redirect that potential overflow away from the town.
“Why would they choose Madison, where it is a terrible flood zone?”
This may be a naive question, but has there ever been a serious flood in Madison? I recall quite a few times Cache Creek swelling over its banks, but I don’t remember it ever getting as far as Madison.
The creek itself is about 1.2 miles north of the town. So presuming the land rises north and south at an equal plane, Cache Creek would either have to get to be about 2.4 miles wide to hit Madison, or a channel of some sort would have to direct the overflow in the direction of Madison. If it is the latter, then it wouldn’t seem like such a difficult engineering problem to redirect that potential overflow away from the town.
Good article DPD. Glad you changed your mind. The problem is always that nothing in life is truly free. There has to be a cost-benefit analysis at the end of the day.
1) Why isn’t rehab going on from day one in the prisons?
2) Why should we give up county control to the state of a re-entry facility that could very well morph into an overflow prison housing the worst of the worst?
3) Why should rural areas bear the brunt of having this facility in their back yard, when urban areas near current prisons is far more suitable?
Where I part company with you is in how this has been handled. If this facility ends up in Madison, and the folks there do not want it and are not supportive, then the Bd of Sups sold Madison out for $30 million dollars – bc they cannot get there fiscal act together (I think?)
Here is what I want to know: Does the county gain $30 million from this deal to use as they wish? Or is the $30 million to build the facility? I’m not quite sure I understand to what extent the county will gain from this project – but I will bet my bottom dollar the benefit is there.
Good article DPD. Glad you changed your mind. The problem is always that nothing in life is truly free. There has to be a cost-benefit analysis at the end of the day.
1) Why isn’t rehab going on from day one in the prisons?
2) Why should we give up county control to the state of a re-entry facility that could very well morph into an overflow prison housing the worst of the worst?
3) Why should rural areas bear the brunt of having this facility in their back yard, when urban areas near current prisons is far more suitable?
Where I part company with you is in how this has been handled. If this facility ends up in Madison, and the folks there do not want it and are not supportive, then the Bd of Sups sold Madison out for $30 million dollars – bc they cannot get there fiscal act together (I think?)
Here is what I want to know: Does the county gain $30 million from this deal to use as they wish? Or is the $30 million to build the facility? I’m not quite sure I understand to what extent the county will gain from this project – but I will bet my bottom dollar the benefit is there.
Good article DPD. Glad you changed your mind. The problem is always that nothing in life is truly free. There has to be a cost-benefit analysis at the end of the day.
1) Why isn’t rehab going on from day one in the prisons?
2) Why should we give up county control to the state of a re-entry facility that could very well morph into an overflow prison housing the worst of the worst?
3) Why should rural areas bear the brunt of having this facility in their back yard, when urban areas near current prisons is far more suitable?
Where I part company with you is in how this has been handled. If this facility ends up in Madison, and the folks there do not want it and are not supportive, then the Bd of Sups sold Madison out for $30 million dollars – bc they cannot get there fiscal act together (I think?)
Here is what I want to know: Does the county gain $30 million from this deal to use as they wish? Or is the $30 million to build the facility? I’m not quite sure I understand to what extent the county will gain from this project – but I will bet my bottom dollar the benefit is there.
Good article DPD. Glad you changed your mind. The problem is always that nothing in life is truly free. There has to be a cost-benefit analysis at the end of the day.
1) Why isn’t rehab going on from day one in the prisons?
2) Why should we give up county control to the state of a re-entry facility that could very well morph into an overflow prison housing the worst of the worst?
3) Why should rural areas bear the brunt of having this facility in their back yard, when urban areas near current prisons is far more suitable?
Where I part company with you is in how this has been handled. If this facility ends up in Madison, and the folks there do not want it and are not supportive, then the Bd of Sups sold Madison out for $30 million dollars – bc they cannot get there fiscal act together (I think?)
Here is what I want to know: Does the county gain $30 million from this deal to use as they wish? Or is the $30 million to build the facility? I’m not quite sure I understand to what extent the county will gain from this project – but I will bet my bottom dollar the benefit is there.
Actually, the Madison area has been flooded a number of times. Whenever there are a series of storm systems hitting the area over a short period of time, this general area floods. There has been at least two or three floods over the past ten years when it has been so bad as to force the closure of I-505.
Actually, the Madison area has been flooded a number of times. Whenever there are a series of storm systems hitting the area over a short period of time, this general area floods. There has been at least two or three floods over the past ten years when it has been so bad as to force the closure of I-505.
Actually, the Madison area has been flooded a number of times. Whenever there are a series of storm systems hitting the area over a short period of time, this general area floods. There has been at least two or three floods over the past ten years when it has been so bad as to force the closure of I-505.
Actually, the Madison area has been flooded a number of times. Whenever there are a series of storm systems hitting the area over a short period of time, this general area floods. There has been at least two or three floods over the past ten years when it has been so bad as to force the closure of I-505.
CountrySunshine,
Thanks for answering that. I wonder, nevertheless, if, while there have been floods in the general area, the town itself (where the houses are) has flooded? I would guess yes (based on what you said), but I don’t recall that occuring.
Either way, if the prison is going to be built in that area, it would make sense to first build some kind of flood walls to protect the town and the prison.
CountrySunshine,
Thanks for answering that. I wonder, nevertheless, if, while there have been floods in the general area, the town itself (where the houses are) has flooded? I would guess yes (based on what you said), but I don’t recall that occuring.
Either way, if the prison is going to be built in that area, it would make sense to first build some kind of flood walls to protect the town and the prison.
CountrySunshine,
Thanks for answering that. I wonder, nevertheless, if, while there have been floods in the general area, the town itself (where the houses are) has flooded? I would guess yes (based on what you said), but I don’t recall that occuring.
Either way, if the prison is going to be built in that area, it would make sense to first build some kind of flood walls to protect the town and the prison.
CountrySunshine,
Thanks for answering that. I wonder, nevertheless, if, while there have been floods in the general area, the town itself (where the houses are) has flooded? I would guess yes (based on what you said), but I don’t recall that occuring.
Either way, if the prison is going to be built in that area, it would make sense to first build some kind of flood walls to protect the town and the prison.
Please put the center in Davis! The people in Davis need to help these poor souls out and see what real crime feels like.
Please put the center in Davis! The people in Davis need to help these poor souls out and see what real crime feels like.
Please put the center in Davis! The people in Davis need to help these poor souls out and see what real crime feels like.
Please put the center in Davis! The people in Davis need to help these poor souls out and see what real crime feels like.
“Please put the center in Davis! The people in Davis need to help these poor souls out and see what real crime feels like.”
Not in my back yard!!!
“Please put the center in Davis! The people in Davis need to help these poor souls out and see what real crime feels like.”
Not in my back yard!!!
“Please put the center in Davis! The people in Davis need to help these poor souls out and see what real crime feels like.”
Not in my back yard!!!
“Please put the center in Davis! The people in Davis need to help these poor souls out and see what real crime feels like.”
Not in my back yard!!!
Doug Paul Davis said…
“What a pathetic, self-serving line of reasoning.”
Let us back up a second before we start calling names here. I think there is a logic to the statement that goes beyond the simple label of self-serving.
Let’s face it, communities do not want prisons built. We can label that as NIMBY–but why should they want a prison built? There are any number of legitimate reasons to oppose the construction of new prisons anywhere. That’s not self-serving necessarily. If you oppose a new prison in Davis but support it in Madison, then perhaps you have a point. But I think calling names basically short-circuits thinking and that doesn’t help anyone here.
Second point, I think there is a logic to building where the facilities already exist from a cost standpoint, a security standpoint, and a marginal cost-benefit ratio standpoint.
Let’s face it, the cost to Madison in social costs and risk is far far higher than building an additional wing in Woodland where a prison already exists. How can you discount that out of hand.
Seriously, this NIMBY stuff is intellectual laziness. Move past it. You can label anything as NIMBY, but that doesn’t address the question that follows, do they have a legitimate point.
9/10/08 10:08 AM
Of course you think NIMBYism is intellectual laziness. You subscribe to it lock, stock and barrel.
Yes, there is some logic to locating a new facility next to an adjacent one but without doing a real assessment there is no way to know if it makes fiscal or planning sense. For example, if it were placed next to Monroe Detention Center (the jail) it would also now be placed immediately adjacent to the community college, Pioneer High School and the site for a new middle school, not to mention the new homebuyers who recently moved to the area. Does that make sense?
Also, Woodland is struggling with wastewater issues, would it make sense to burden their infrastructure just because they stepped up to the plate and accepted a noxious use the first time around?
You subscribe to this logic because you’re part of the “Davis is an island” mind-set. Get off it. It has to go somewhere. Someone is not going to like it. That’s life.
And all we hear from guys like you is more NIMBYism with all sorts of fancy justifications for it.
Pathetic.
Doug Paul Davis said…
“What a pathetic, self-serving line of reasoning.”
Let us back up a second before we start calling names here. I think there is a logic to the statement that goes beyond the simple label of self-serving.
Let’s face it, communities do not want prisons built. We can label that as NIMBY–but why should they want a prison built? There are any number of legitimate reasons to oppose the construction of new prisons anywhere. That’s not self-serving necessarily. If you oppose a new prison in Davis but support it in Madison, then perhaps you have a point. But I think calling names basically short-circuits thinking and that doesn’t help anyone here.
Second point, I think there is a logic to building where the facilities already exist from a cost standpoint, a security standpoint, and a marginal cost-benefit ratio standpoint.
Let’s face it, the cost to Madison in social costs and risk is far far higher than building an additional wing in Woodland where a prison already exists. How can you discount that out of hand.
Seriously, this NIMBY stuff is intellectual laziness. Move past it. You can label anything as NIMBY, but that doesn’t address the question that follows, do they have a legitimate point.
9/10/08 10:08 AM
Of course you think NIMBYism is intellectual laziness. You subscribe to it lock, stock and barrel.
Yes, there is some logic to locating a new facility next to an adjacent one but without doing a real assessment there is no way to know if it makes fiscal or planning sense. For example, if it were placed next to Monroe Detention Center (the jail) it would also now be placed immediately adjacent to the community college, Pioneer High School and the site for a new middle school, not to mention the new homebuyers who recently moved to the area. Does that make sense?
Also, Woodland is struggling with wastewater issues, would it make sense to burden their infrastructure just because they stepped up to the plate and accepted a noxious use the first time around?
You subscribe to this logic because you’re part of the “Davis is an island” mind-set. Get off it. It has to go somewhere. Someone is not going to like it. That’s life.
And all we hear from guys like you is more NIMBYism with all sorts of fancy justifications for it.
Pathetic.
Doug Paul Davis said…
“What a pathetic, self-serving line of reasoning.”
Let us back up a second before we start calling names here. I think there is a logic to the statement that goes beyond the simple label of self-serving.
Let’s face it, communities do not want prisons built. We can label that as NIMBY–but why should they want a prison built? There are any number of legitimate reasons to oppose the construction of new prisons anywhere. That’s not self-serving necessarily. If you oppose a new prison in Davis but support it in Madison, then perhaps you have a point. But I think calling names basically short-circuits thinking and that doesn’t help anyone here.
Second point, I think there is a logic to building where the facilities already exist from a cost standpoint, a security standpoint, and a marginal cost-benefit ratio standpoint.
Let’s face it, the cost to Madison in social costs and risk is far far higher than building an additional wing in Woodland where a prison already exists. How can you discount that out of hand.
Seriously, this NIMBY stuff is intellectual laziness. Move past it. You can label anything as NIMBY, but that doesn’t address the question that follows, do they have a legitimate point.
9/10/08 10:08 AM
Of course you think NIMBYism is intellectual laziness. You subscribe to it lock, stock and barrel.
Yes, there is some logic to locating a new facility next to an adjacent one but without doing a real assessment there is no way to know if it makes fiscal or planning sense. For example, if it were placed next to Monroe Detention Center (the jail) it would also now be placed immediately adjacent to the community college, Pioneer High School and the site for a new middle school, not to mention the new homebuyers who recently moved to the area. Does that make sense?
Also, Woodland is struggling with wastewater issues, would it make sense to burden their infrastructure just because they stepped up to the plate and accepted a noxious use the first time around?
You subscribe to this logic because you’re part of the “Davis is an island” mind-set. Get off it. It has to go somewhere. Someone is not going to like it. That’s life.
And all we hear from guys like you is more NIMBYism with all sorts of fancy justifications for it.
Pathetic.
Doug Paul Davis said…
“What a pathetic, self-serving line of reasoning.”
Let us back up a second before we start calling names here. I think there is a logic to the statement that goes beyond the simple label of self-serving.
Let’s face it, communities do not want prisons built. We can label that as NIMBY–but why should they want a prison built? There are any number of legitimate reasons to oppose the construction of new prisons anywhere. That’s not self-serving necessarily. If you oppose a new prison in Davis but support it in Madison, then perhaps you have a point. But I think calling names basically short-circuits thinking and that doesn’t help anyone here.
Second point, I think there is a logic to building where the facilities already exist from a cost standpoint, a security standpoint, and a marginal cost-benefit ratio standpoint.
Let’s face it, the cost to Madison in social costs and risk is far far higher than building an additional wing in Woodland where a prison already exists. How can you discount that out of hand.
Seriously, this NIMBY stuff is intellectual laziness. Move past it. You can label anything as NIMBY, but that doesn’t address the question that follows, do they have a legitimate point.
9/10/08 10:08 AM
Of course you think NIMBYism is intellectual laziness. You subscribe to it lock, stock and barrel.
Yes, there is some logic to locating a new facility next to an adjacent one but without doing a real assessment there is no way to know if it makes fiscal or planning sense. For example, if it were placed next to Monroe Detention Center (the jail) it would also now be placed immediately adjacent to the community college, Pioneer High School and the site for a new middle school, not to mention the new homebuyers who recently moved to the area. Does that make sense?
Also, Woodland is struggling with wastewater issues, would it make sense to burden their infrastructure just because they stepped up to the plate and accepted a noxious use the first time around?
You subscribe to this logic because you’re part of the “Davis is an island” mind-set. Get off it. It has to go somewhere. Someone is not going to like it. That’s life.
And all we hear from guys like you is more NIMBYism with all sorts of fancy justifications for it.
Pathetic.
Re Flooding in Madison
CalTrans is fixing the flood problem and working on Hwy 16. The DOT website has the outline of the project, but it doesn’t say when it will be finished:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This State Transportation Safety Improvement Project on State Route 16 in Yolo County, between the town of Brooks and Interstate 505 (approximately 12 miles), will bring the current roadway design to current standards by constructing 12-foot wide lanes, 8-foot wide shoulders, 20-foot wide clear recovery areas and improve sight distances, excluding the main street areas of the towns of Capay and Esparto.
PURPOSE AND NEED
A safety evaluation was performed on this segment of State Route 16 in 2001, resulting in the initiation of this project. The majority of State Route 16 is currently a 2-lane highway with shoulders measuring 3 feet or less. The objective of this project is to reduce the number and severity of accidents on State Route 16, by minimizing the impacts of driver error.
Improvements being considered for this project include:
*8-foot standard shoulders and provisions for a 20 foot clear recovery zone
*Left-turn pockets and right-turn lanes at various public roads
*Horizontal and vertical curve improvements at several locations
*Improved sight distances
*Improved flood protection for the highway and the Madison area (Partnership with County of Yolo)
Re Flooding in Madison
CalTrans is fixing the flood problem and working on Hwy 16. The DOT website has the outline of the project, but it doesn’t say when it will be finished:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This State Transportation Safety Improvement Project on State Route 16 in Yolo County, between the town of Brooks and Interstate 505 (approximately 12 miles), will bring the current roadway design to current standards by constructing 12-foot wide lanes, 8-foot wide shoulders, 20-foot wide clear recovery areas and improve sight distances, excluding the main street areas of the towns of Capay and Esparto.
PURPOSE AND NEED
A safety evaluation was performed on this segment of State Route 16 in 2001, resulting in the initiation of this project. The majority of State Route 16 is currently a 2-lane highway with shoulders measuring 3 feet or less. The objective of this project is to reduce the number and severity of accidents on State Route 16, by minimizing the impacts of driver error.
Improvements being considered for this project include:
*8-foot standard shoulders and provisions for a 20 foot clear recovery zone
*Left-turn pockets and right-turn lanes at various public roads
*Horizontal and vertical curve improvements at several locations
*Improved sight distances
*Improved flood protection for the highway and the Madison area (Partnership with County of Yolo)
Re Flooding in Madison
CalTrans is fixing the flood problem and working on Hwy 16. The DOT website has the outline of the project, but it doesn’t say when it will be finished:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This State Transportation Safety Improvement Project on State Route 16 in Yolo County, between the town of Brooks and Interstate 505 (approximately 12 miles), will bring the current roadway design to current standards by constructing 12-foot wide lanes, 8-foot wide shoulders, 20-foot wide clear recovery areas and improve sight distances, excluding the main street areas of the towns of Capay and Esparto.
PURPOSE AND NEED
A safety evaluation was performed on this segment of State Route 16 in 2001, resulting in the initiation of this project. The majority of State Route 16 is currently a 2-lane highway with shoulders measuring 3 feet or less. The objective of this project is to reduce the number and severity of accidents on State Route 16, by minimizing the impacts of driver error.
Improvements being considered for this project include:
*8-foot standard shoulders and provisions for a 20 foot clear recovery zone
*Left-turn pockets and right-turn lanes at various public roads
*Horizontal and vertical curve improvements at several locations
*Improved sight distances
*Improved flood protection for the highway and the Madison area (Partnership with County of Yolo)
Re Flooding in Madison
CalTrans is fixing the flood problem and working on Hwy 16. The DOT website has the outline of the project, but it doesn’t say when it will be finished:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This State Transportation Safety Improvement Project on State Route 16 in Yolo County, between the town of Brooks and Interstate 505 (approximately 12 miles), will bring the current roadway design to current standards by constructing 12-foot wide lanes, 8-foot wide shoulders, 20-foot wide clear recovery areas and improve sight distances, excluding the main street areas of the towns of Capay and Esparto.
PURPOSE AND NEED
A safety evaluation was performed on this segment of State Route 16 in 2001, resulting in the initiation of this project. The majority of State Route 16 is currently a 2-lane highway with shoulders measuring 3 feet or less. The objective of this project is to reduce the number and severity of accidents on State Route 16, by minimizing the impacts of driver error.
Improvements being considered for this project include:
*8-foot standard shoulders and provisions for a 20 foot clear recovery zone
*Left-turn pockets and right-turn lanes at various public roads
*Horizontal and vertical curve improvements at several locations
*Improved sight distances
*Improved flood protection for the highway and the Madison area (Partnership with County of Yolo)
First of all – the 30 million dollars is slated to goto the county to add a pod to the existing monroe jail facility.
Second – THere is no place in Yolo county for this facility – all of these so called reentry facilities should be intergrated into the existing state prisons so rehabilitation can begin from the time an inmate begins his sentace. What good results can come from an inmate doing a 20 year sentance if you allow the first 19 years to harden the inmate and then try to fix him in the last 12 months.
No one wants this in Yolo COunty. THE Supervisions should dump the whole idea. I know that the resident of Madison are organizing and have already retained legal representation for next week if the Sups go through with approving the Madison site.
First of all – the 30 million dollars is slated to goto the county to add a pod to the existing monroe jail facility.
Second – THere is no place in Yolo county for this facility – all of these so called reentry facilities should be intergrated into the existing state prisons so rehabilitation can begin from the time an inmate begins his sentace. What good results can come from an inmate doing a 20 year sentance if you allow the first 19 years to harden the inmate and then try to fix him in the last 12 months.
No one wants this in Yolo COunty. THE Supervisions should dump the whole idea. I know that the resident of Madison are organizing and have already retained legal representation for next week if the Sups go through with approving the Madison site.
First of all – the 30 million dollars is slated to goto the county to add a pod to the existing monroe jail facility.
Second – THere is no place in Yolo county for this facility – all of these so called reentry facilities should be intergrated into the existing state prisons so rehabilitation can begin from the time an inmate begins his sentace. What good results can come from an inmate doing a 20 year sentance if you allow the first 19 years to harden the inmate and then try to fix him in the last 12 months.
No one wants this in Yolo COunty. THE Supervisions should dump the whole idea. I know that the resident of Madison are organizing and have already retained legal representation for next week if the Sups go through with approving the Madison site.
First of all – the 30 million dollars is slated to goto the county to add a pod to the existing monroe jail facility.
Second – THere is no place in Yolo county for this facility – all of these so called reentry facilities should be intergrated into the existing state prisons so rehabilitation can begin from the time an inmate begins his sentace. What good results can come from an inmate doing a 20 year sentance if you allow the first 19 years to harden the inmate and then try to fix him in the last 12 months.
No one wants this in Yolo COunty. THE Supervisions should dump the whole idea. I know that the resident of Madison are organizing and have already retained legal representation for next week if the Sups go through with approving the Madison site.
Anonymous:
“Of course you think NIMBYism is intellectual laziness. You subscribe to it lock, stock and barrel. “
Evidence please–you’ve cited none.
“but without doing a real assessment there is no way to know if it makes fiscal or planning sense”
That’s true, that was actually the problem with all of the proposals though–part of the problem with this entire process–no studies.
“For example, if it were placed next to Monroe Detention Center (the jail) it would also now be placed immediately adjacent to the community college, Pioneer High School and the site for a new middle school, not to mention the new homebuyers who recently moved to the area. Does that make sense?”
That would be true except for the obvious problem that it is true regardless of whether you build a new facility or not.
“Also, Woodland is struggling with wastewater issues, would it make sense to burden their infrastructure just because they stepped up to the plate and accepted a noxious use the first time around?”
I’m going out on a limb here to guess that there would be far fewer issues related to service and infrastructure by expanding the facility in Woodland (remember they are already expanding it anyway) than by creating a new one somewhere else.
While I appreciate you trying to raise actual issues here beyond the simple label of nimbyism, none of your points address the core problem with the current sites.
“You subscribe to this logic because you’re part of the “Davis is an island” mind-set. Get off it. It has to go somewhere. Someone is not going to like it. That’s life.”
I agree someone is not going to like something. That however is not the end of the story, you still have to justify the change.
“And all we hear from guys like you is more NIMBYism with all sorts of fancy justifications for it.”
My “fancy justifications” have not come close to be refuted by you. Tell me something what is the difference between a “fancy justification” and an actual reason not to do something? Is it perhaps related to whether you agree with me or not?
That’s why these labels are of little use, you can either argue the logic or you can’t, the labels are no substitute for lack of evidentiary support.
Anonymous:
“Of course you think NIMBYism is intellectual laziness. You subscribe to it lock, stock and barrel. “
Evidence please–you’ve cited none.
“but without doing a real assessment there is no way to know if it makes fiscal or planning sense”
That’s true, that was actually the problem with all of the proposals though–part of the problem with this entire process–no studies.
“For example, if it were placed next to Monroe Detention Center (the jail) it would also now be placed immediately adjacent to the community college, Pioneer High School and the site for a new middle school, not to mention the new homebuyers who recently moved to the area. Does that make sense?”
That would be true except for the obvious problem that it is true regardless of whether you build a new facility or not.
“Also, Woodland is struggling with wastewater issues, would it make sense to burden their infrastructure just because they stepped up to the plate and accepted a noxious use the first time around?”
I’m going out on a limb here to guess that there would be far fewer issues related to service and infrastructure by expanding the facility in Woodland (remember they are already expanding it anyway) than by creating a new one somewhere else.
While I appreciate you trying to raise actual issues here beyond the simple label of nimbyism, none of your points address the core problem with the current sites.
“You subscribe to this logic because you’re part of the “Davis is an island” mind-set. Get off it. It has to go somewhere. Someone is not going to like it. That’s life.”
I agree someone is not going to like something. That however is not the end of the story, you still have to justify the change.
“And all we hear from guys like you is more NIMBYism with all sorts of fancy justifications for it.”
My “fancy justifications” have not come close to be refuted by you. Tell me something what is the difference between a “fancy justification” and an actual reason not to do something? Is it perhaps related to whether you agree with me or not?
That’s why these labels are of little use, you can either argue the logic or you can’t, the labels are no substitute for lack of evidentiary support.
Anonymous:
“Of course you think NIMBYism is intellectual laziness. You subscribe to it lock, stock and barrel. “
Evidence please–you’ve cited none.
“but without doing a real assessment there is no way to know if it makes fiscal or planning sense”
That’s true, that was actually the problem with all of the proposals though–part of the problem with this entire process–no studies.
“For example, if it were placed next to Monroe Detention Center (the jail) it would also now be placed immediately adjacent to the community college, Pioneer High School and the site for a new middle school, not to mention the new homebuyers who recently moved to the area. Does that make sense?”
That would be true except for the obvious problem that it is true regardless of whether you build a new facility or not.
“Also, Woodland is struggling with wastewater issues, would it make sense to burden their infrastructure just because they stepped up to the plate and accepted a noxious use the first time around?”
I’m going out on a limb here to guess that there would be far fewer issues related to service and infrastructure by expanding the facility in Woodland (remember they are already expanding it anyway) than by creating a new one somewhere else.
While I appreciate you trying to raise actual issues here beyond the simple label of nimbyism, none of your points address the core problem with the current sites.
“You subscribe to this logic because you’re part of the “Davis is an island” mind-set. Get off it. It has to go somewhere. Someone is not going to like it. That’s life.”
I agree someone is not going to like something. That however is not the end of the story, you still have to justify the change.
“And all we hear from guys like you is more NIMBYism with all sorts of fancy justifications for it.”
My “fancy justifications” have not come close to be refuted by you. Tell me something what is the difference between a “fancy justification” and an actual reason not to do something? Is it perhaps related to whether you agree with me or not?
That’s why these labels are of little use, you can either argue the logic or you can’t, the labels are no substitute for lack of evidentiary support.
Anonymous:
“Of course you think NIMBYism is intellectual laziness. You subscribe to it lock, stock and barrel. “
Evidence please–you’ve cited none.
“but without doing a real assessment there is no way to know if it makes fiscal or planning sense”
That’s true, that was actually the problem with all of the proposals though–part of the problem with this entire process–no studies.
“For example, if it were placed next to Monroe Detention Center (the jail) it would also now be placed immediately adjacent to the community college, Pioneer High School and the site for a new middle school, not to mention the new homebuyers who recently moved to the area. Does that make sense?”
That would be true except for the obvious problem that it is true regardless of whether you build a new facility or not.
“Also, Woodland is struggling with wastewater issues, would it make sense to burden their infrastructure just because they stepped up to the plate and accepted a noxious use the first time around?”
I’m going out on a limb here to guess that there would be far fewer issues related to service and infrastructure by expanding the facility in Woodland (remember they are already expanding it anyway) than by creating a new one somewhere else.
While I appreciate you trying to raise actual issues here beyond the simple label of nimbyism, none of your points address the core problem with the current sites.
“You subscribe to this logic because you’re part of the “Davis is an island” mind-set. Get off it. It has to go somewhere. Someone is not going to like it. That’s life.”
I agree someone is not going to like something. That however is not the end of the story, you still have to justify the change.
“And all we hear from guys like you is more NIMBYism with all sorts of fancy justifications for it.”
My “fancy justifications” have not come close to be refuted by you. Tell me something what is the difference between a “fancy justification” and an actual reason not to do something? Is it perhaps related to whether you agree with me or not?
That’s why these labels are of little use, you can either argue the logic or you can’t, the labels are no substitute for lack of evidentiary support.
Anon 7:03
So are you saying there is no justifiable (non-NIMBY) reason for a Davis area site to be rejected?
Anon 7:03
So are you saying there is no justifiable (non-NIMBY) reason for a Davis area site to be rejected?
Anon 7:03
So are you saying there is no justifiable (non-NIMBY) reason for a Davis area site to be rejected?
Anon 7:03
So are you saying there is no justifiable (non-NIMBY) reason for a Davis area site to be rejected?
Regarding Madison flooding, the flood waters come from Willow Slough and the neighboring fields. During severe storms, water runs down the streets of Madison, sandbag floodwalls not withstanding. The SR-16 safety improvement would reduce flooding in Madison by retaining the flood waters in fields upstream from Madison behind the raised roadbeds of SR-16 and the access roads to the north of SR-16. They would basically flood farm fields to spare the town. Some of those farmland owners are less than enthused. But not to worry, the safety improvement is moving at a snail’s pace. The good folks in the Capay Valley that complained about safety don’t like the plan to change the grade and cut the trees along SR-16. Caltrans is hesitant to move unless they have complete acceptance. I believe that Caltrans has yet to start the EIR. If Caltrans does start on it, the valley folks plan to file a lawsuit.
Madison is in a flood plain and never should have been built. It wouldn’t have been built if the Vacaville and Clear Lake Railroad could have reached agreement with the then town of Cottonwood. But they didn’t reach agreement and the railroad established Madison and Cottonwood passed into history. Madison has been flooding ever since. It will be interesting to see how the problem is finally corrected. But corrected it must be, as the county has plans to add 1300+ homes and highway commercial businesses out near I-505 (between SR-16 and the prison site). The county maintains that they need the tax revenue that commercial development would provide. Locating the prison near Madison will let the state pay for part of the needed improvements. We certainly wouldn’t want the developers to pay full cost.
JRH
Regarding Madison flooding, the flood waters come from Willow Slough and the neighboring fields. During severe storms, water runs down the streets of Madison, sandbag floodwalls not withstanding. The SR-16 safety improvement would reduce flooding in Madison by retaining the flood waters in fields upstream from Madison behind the raised roadbeds of SR-16 and the access roads to the north of SR-16. They would basically flood farm fields to spare the town. Some of those farmland owners are less than enthused. But not to worry, the safety improvement is moving at a snail’s pace. The good folks in the Capay Valley that complained about safety don’t like the plan to change the grade and cut the trees along SR-16. Caltrans is hesitant to move unless they have complete acceptance. I believe that Caltrans has yet to start the EIR. If Caltrans does start on it, the valley folks plan to file a lawsuit.
Madison is in a flood plain and never should have been built. It wouldn’t have been built if the Vacaville and Clear Lake Railroad could have reached agreement with the then town of Cottonwood. But they didn’t reach agreement and the railroad established Madison and Cottonwood passed into history. Madison has been flooding ever since. It will be interesting to see how the problem is finally corrected. But corrected it must be, as the county has plans to add 1300+ homes and highway commercial businesses out near I-505 (between SR-16 and the prison site). The county maintains that they need the tax revenue that commercial development would provide. Locating the prison near Madison will let the state pay for part of the needed improvements. We certainly wouldn’t want the developers to pay full cost.
JRH
Regarding Madison flooding, the flood waters come from Willow Slough and the neighboring fields. During severe storms, water runs down the streets of Madison, sandbag floodwalls not withstanding. The SR-16 safety improvement would reduce flooding in Madison by retaining the flood waters in fields upstream from Madison behind the raised roadbeds of SR-16 and the access roads to the north of SR-16. They would basically flood farm fields to spare the town. Some of those farmland owners are less than enthused. But not to worry, the safety improvement is moving at a snail’s pace. The good folks in the Capay Valley that complained about safety don’t like the plan to change the grade and cut the trees along SR-16. Caltrans is hesitant to move unless they have complete acceptance. I believe that Caltrans has yet to start the EIR. If Caltrans does start on it, the valley folks plan to file a lawsuit.
Madison is in a flood plain and never should have been built. It wouldn’t have been built if the Vacaville and Clear Lake Railroad could have reached agreement with the then town of Cottonwood. But they didn’t reach agreement and the railroad established Madison and Cottonwood passed into history. Madison has been flooding ever since. It will be interesting to see how the problem is finally corrected. But corrected it must be, as the county has plans to add 1300+ homes and highway commercial businesses out near I-505 (between SR-16 and the prison site). The county maintains that they need the tax revenue that commercial development would provide. Locating the prison near Madison will let the state pay for part of the needed improvements. We certainly wouldn’t want the developers to pay full cost.
JRH
Regarding Madison flooding, the flood waters come from Willow Slough and the neighboring fields. During severe storms, water runs down the streets of Madison, sandbag floodwalls not withstanding. The SR-16 safety improvement would reduce flooding in Madison by retaining the flood waters in fields upstream from Madison behind the raised roadbeds of SR-16 and the access roads to the north of SR-16. They would basically flood farm fields to spare the town. Some of those farmland owners are less than enthused. But not to worry, the safety improvement is moving at a snail’s pace. The good folks in the Capay Valley that complained about safety don’t like the plan to change the grade and cut the trees along SR-16. Caltrans is hesitant to move unless they have complete acceptance. I believe that Caltrans has yet to start the EIR. If Caltrans does start on it, the valley folks plan to file a lawsuit.
Madison is in a flood plain and never should have been built. It wouldn’t have been built if the Vacaville and Clear Lake Railroad could have reached agreement with the then town of Cottonwood. But they didn’t reach agreement and the railroad established Madison and Cottonwood passed into history. Madison has been flooding ever since. It will be interesting to see how the problem is finally corrected. But corrected it must be, as the county has plans to add 1300+ homes and highway commercial businesses out near I-505 (between SR-16 and the prison site). The county maintains that they need the tax revenue that commercial development would provide. Locating the prison near Madison will let the state pay for part of the needed improvements. We certainly wouldn’t want the developers to pay full cost.
JRH
JRH — good stuff. Thanks.
FWIW, I was up in Brooks, Guinda, Rumsey this summer and noticed some signs along the highway which expressed opposition to widening the road. I assume that the opponents up in the Capay Valley own land which will be taken by eminent domain. What I didn’t notice up there was any sign of CalTrans.
JRH — good stuff. Thanks.
FWIW, I was up in Brooks, Guinda, Rumsey this summer and noticed some signs along the highway which expressed opposition to widening the road. I assume that the opponents up in the Capay Valley own land which will be taken by eminent domain. What I didn’t notice up there was any sign of CalTrans.
JRH — good stuff. Thanks.
FWIW, I was up in Brooks, Guinda, Rumsey this summer and noticed some signs along the highway which expressed opposition to widening the road. I assume that the opponents up in the Capay Valley own land which will be taken by eminent domain. What I didn’t notice up there was any sign of CalTrans.
JRH — good stuff. Thanks.
FWIW, I was up in Brooks, Guinda, Rumsey this summer and noticed some signs along the highway which expressed opposition to widening the road. I assume that the opponents up in the Capay Valley own land which will be taken by eminent domain. What I didn’t notice up there was any sign of CalTrans.
Aside from the question as to whether or not to build a Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Center in Yolo County, clearly the Madison area is neither an appropriate nor acceptable location for such a facility if it is to be constructed. The Madison site is currently covered under a Williamson Act contract. Additionally, despite other issues of insufficient infrastructure, building the facility in a rural location, such as Madison, over a more preferable urban setting establishes a much greater carbon footprint for this location just based upon the transportation issues alone. Another aspect that is clearly being ignored is that the selection of the Madison site runs counter to environmental justice concerns. This area serves as a community for a Yolo County migrant worker population, whose collective representation in this matter is conspicuously being overlooked.
Aside from the question as to whether or not to build a Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Center in Yolo County, clearly the Madison area is neither an appropriate nor acceptable location for such a facility if it is to be constructed. The Madison site is currently covered under a Williamson Act contract. Additionally, despite other issues of insufficient infrastructure, building the facility in a rural location, such as Madison, over a more preferable urban setting establishes a much greater carbon footprint for this location just based upon the transportation issues alone. Another aspect that is clearly being ignored is that the selection of the Madison site runs counter to environmental justice concerns. This area serves as a community for a Yolo County migrant worker population, whose collective representation in this matter is conspicuously being overlooked.
Aside from the question as to whether or not to build a Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Center in Yolo County, clearly the Madison area is neither an appropriate nor acceptable location for such a facility if it is to be constructed. The Madison site is currently covered under a Williamson Act contract. Additionally, despite other issues of insufficient infrastructure, building the facility in a rural location, such as Madison, over a more preferable urban setting establishes a much greater carbon footprint for this location just based upon the transportation issues alone. Another aspect that is clearly being ignored is that the selection of the Madison site runs counter to environmental justice concerns. This area serves as a community for a Yolo County migrant worker population, whose collective representation in this matter is conspicuously being overlooked.
Aside from the question as to whether or not to build a Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Center in Yolo County, clearly the Madison area is neither an appropriate nor acceptable location for such a facility if it is to be constructed. The Madison site is currently covered under a Williamson Act contract. Additionally, despite other issues of insufficient infrastructure, building the facility in a rural location, such as Madison, over a more preferable urban setting establishes a much greater carbon footprint for this location just based upon the transportation issues alone. Another aspect that is clearly being ignored is that the selection of the Madison site runs counter to environmental justice concerns. This area serves as a community for a Yolo County migrant worker population, whose collective representation in this matter is conspicuously being overlooked.
This is not really in disagreement to your point but it is interesting to note that county plans for expansion of Madison in the next general plan:
“§ Madison community expansion (3,655 residents, 1,305 units, and 116 job-producing acres)”
This is not really in disagreement to your point but it is interesting to note that county plans for expansion of Madison in the next general plan:
“§ Madison community expansion (3,655 residents, 1,305 units, and 116 job-producing acres)”
This is not really in disagreement to your point but it is interesting to note that county plans for expansion of Madison in the next general plan:
“§ Madison community expansion (3,655 residents, 1,305 units, and 116 job-producing acres)”
This is not really in disagreement to your point but it is interesting to note that county plans for expansion of Madison in the next general plan:
“§ Madison community expansion (3,655 residents, 1,305 units, and 116 job-producing acres)”
To Anon on 9/10/08,
Why should anyone need to “Feel what Real Crime is Like”? How about this one for you. I hope you get cancer of the skeletal system and then you’ll know what REAL pain is!
Some of us who live in Davis grew up where real crime was and we appreciate the lack of it here. I choose not to have crap in my backyard but I would vote to have it in yours. Sound fair enough? Grow up.
To Anon on 9/10/08,
Why should anyone need to “Feel what Real Crime is Like”? How about this one for you. I hope you get cancer of the skeletal system and then you’ll know what REAL pain is!
Some of us who live in Davis grew up where real crime was and we appreciate the lack of it here. I choose not to have crap in my backyard but I would vote to have it in yours. Sound fair enough? Grow up.
To Anon on 9/10/08,
Why should anyone need to “Feel what Real Crime is Like”? How about this one for you. I hope you get cancer of the skeletal system and then you’ll know what REAL pain is!
Some of us who live in Davis grew up where real crime was and we appreciate the lack of it here. I choose not to have crap in my backyard but I would vote to have it in yours. Sound fair enough? Grow up.
To Anon on 9/10/08,
Why should anyone need to “Feel what Real Crime is Like”? How about this one for you. I hope you get cancer of the skeletal system and then you’ll know what REAL pain is!
Some of us who live in Davis grew up where real crime was and we appreciate the lack of it here. I choose not to have crap in my backyard but I would vote to have it in yours. Sound fair enough? Grow up.