The Students Respond –
The Students Respond – He writes:
“DAVIS DEM DAMES DIG DOLLARS …”
And then continues…
“My first thought, as I took their literature, was how refreshing it was to see college students giving up their Sunday afternoon to advocate for a cause … if we had more such bright-eyed volunteers think of how much better this world would be … turns out they weren’t volunteers at all, though they did volunteer that the developer of Wildhorse Ranch had hired a number of campus Young Democrats to push this project …
I guess passion for a cause comes with a price these days, in this case 15 bucks an hour … and no matter how you slice it, that’s a lot of pizza for an afternoon’s work …”
He’s going to claim alliteration for the use of all “D’s” for his little title and argue that he didn’t mean anything by it.
The bottom line here is that he is completely insulting to women in this remark and dismissive of the possibility that these people need to earn a living.
The two women themselves respond to Bob Dunning in a letter to the Davis Enterprise, arguing in part that the column is insulting to women:
“This past Sunday, Bob Dunning wrote a column that singled out a group of politically active women. It is insulting toward many of the young democratic women who read the article, some of whom are now deterred from working on any campaign for fear of getting called a ‘dollar digger’ in a newspaper.”
Mr. Dunning also implies deception when he suggests he was led to believe that they were volunteers only to find out that they were paid.
The students however inform us that they never claimed anything other than paid workers.
“To set the record straight, we never said we were volunteering. We told Mr. Dunning point-blank we were not. We informed him that we chose to work with Yes on Measure P and we both support the project. We are getting paid, but it does not change the way we are voting. “
The pizza remark along with “dig dollars” is equally insulting.
They write:
“Furthermore, while the stereotype of a college student’s diet consisting of pizza is humorous and creates frequent amusement for all, the reality is that a lot of students are working to pay their way through school. When considering the cost of tuition, books, housing, and food (pizza or not), it is hard to turn down an opportunity to make $15 an hour for a month and a half.
Between the two of us, we are facing cuts on scholarships and student loans, and are being forced to take leave from school for lack of financial resources.
This job is not permanent. Even if it were, by the end of the year we would make only about $28,000. With this salary we would qualify for low-income housing in Davis, something that 20 percent of the project we are working with would provide.
In closing, we both volunteered for the Obama campaign. We worked hard, missed school, got doors shut in our faces, all without pay. The only difference now is that rather than volunteering for two hours here and there, we work 20 hours to make rent; which, by the way, cannot be paid in pizza slices.”
As I understand it, the students actually underplay the dilemma somewhat. These are students who are trying to put themselves through college, their parents apparently lost their jobs, someone told me one of the parents lost their home due to foreclosure.
This isn’t about earning a little extra pizza money, this about being able to afford to go to school.
Let me make this point because it came up during the original column. I do not think there is anything wrong with paid labor for campaigns. As I suggested, Obama did it, the Vanguard did it and many other campaigns have done it or will do it. Oftentimes campaigns have both volunteers and paid workers to get the job done. But if that is the point that Dunning is making here then perhaps he could have avoided insulting the students. The idea that they are DAMES (what woman is not offended by the term “dame”?), that they are digging for dollars–which implies any number of demeaning things, is a complete and total insult.
“Digging for dollars” implies that they are demeaning themselves or defiling themselves in order to gain excess profit much as the term “gold digger” implies an individual who is defiling themselves in order to gain wealth through a relationship. It further suggests that they are “whoring themselves” in order to make enough money to have luxuries (i.e. pizza).
My wife had to work to put herself through school and she considers this demeaning. Like these women she had to at times have three jobs while taking classes, completing internships and volunteering in the community. At times she had to take a leave for a quarter to work full-time. As a result it took her considerably longer to complete her education. Bob Dunning’s remarks are particularly hurtful and insensitive. Apparently he never took the time or cared to find out the full story.
This is another example of him being a lazy and insensitive columnist who hides behind his column and never takes responsibility for the hurt he inflicts on others. All the while he is on Catholic Radio preaching about the love of Jesus. I wonder how Jesus would have chosen to treat these women. Mr. Dunning and the Davis Enterprise owe the students an apology.
Again this is not about Measure P. This is about Bob Dunning disrespecting students and women in this community. His column crosses the line of basic decency. I personally call on the No on P campaign to condemn it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I appreciate the use of the term “whoring themselves”.
Whether or not one is for or against Measure P –
“Wild Whore’s Ranch”
-it is all too amusing.
Sometimes I think I’m reading the Davis Onion.
The only thing missing from the flattering picture above would be a series of parallel line segments marking his height in in feet and inches.
Surprising that someone at the DE did not catch that title.
As a supporter of No on P, dont hold your breath that we will condemn Dunning. He treats others like we treat our opponents, so why would we diss him?
[i]what woman is not offended by the term “dame”?[/i]
Dame Elizabeth Taylor ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Taylor[/url]) doesn’t seem to mind.
David
I think you are over the top this time. You have escalated the issue to new heights or depths by YOUR use of language. Just wish the discussion could stick to issues directed to project, but in saying that I admit my No vote is based primarily on my perception of process and ballot manipulation. Bring on the election.
Come on, David! Jeez! Yes, Dunning can be a jerk from time to time, but you are WAY overreacting to his comments. Insensed and outraged? Chill, big guy! Dunning doesn’t write news stories or even an editorial–he writes home-spun comedy. You been to a stand-up comedy night at Bistro 33 lately? EVERYBODY gets insulted–women, men, gays, straights, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, fat people, skinny people, you name it. Whatever happened to your sense of humor?
I bet Dunning’s pizza comment had to do with the prior UCD Campaign controversy having to do with Measure X proponents offering pizza as an inducement to vote, and the lawsuit that followed. He was making a joke!
Calling him “vile and depraved” makes you look like an idiot and wonder if you’ve been working too hard lately…
I think the whole town should be required to take nonviolent communication classes. http://www.cnvc.org Peace
David:
Perhaps you should change the name of your blog to the “Davis Yes on P” Blog. We NO on P folks have to put up with constant bias from you, a town newspaper that is generally pro-development and now this? Lighen up here.
I think I have tried to be polite despite my strong opposition to this project. I think its legitimate to point out that we are being outspent 90 to 1. Its also legitimate to point out that neighbors in Wildhorse have been told that this is a done deal.
One of the issues here is money and being outspent 90 to 1. Dunning writes his columns to get readers to read them (i.e., he likes controversy) but the point that these collge “Democrats” are being paid (by a developer who has donated to the Republican party) is relevant.
Phil: It is unfortunate that you have once again interpreted this issue in terms of Yes on P campaign, despite my explicit comments that this has to do with the disrespect of two young women. I cannot believe you are condoning Dunning’s comments. Was it not less than a week ago you were crying foul over the fact that the LWV were excluding a woman from the panel? Now have comments like DAMES DIMING DOLLARS and you are condoning it. You have every right to complain in a political sense about the paid volunteers and discrepancy in spending, that can be done without attacking these students, don’t you think?
David, every day the Yes on P campaign commits another error. Today you have done it again. Each error is another step towards defeat or to put it another way death by a thousand cuts.
I’m not on the Yes on P campaign. And frankly this has nothing to do with Yes on P, this has to do with the disrespect for women.
David:
“And frankly this has nothing to do with Yes on P, this has to do with the disrespect for women
WOW! Would you have the same level of “outrage” if these women were passin gout flyers for Target campaign, or Jeff Riesig?
Just last week, you questioned if I “cared” about any other any issue than the Measure P campaign; then yesterday, your story about when Davis is sleeping, stated Davis has more important issues facing its future than the P campaign; and you start your Friday morning with a hit piece on Dunning (which indirectly is related to his ongoing criticism of the Yes on P campaign)? Where is the hypocrisy here?
Bob Dunnning has been ridiculing the Yes on P campaign process (NOT WOMEN) from day one here (including using pollsters from Grand Rapids Michigan asking Davis citizens if they prefer having a “local developer”; the whole “really affordable” claims, the campaign flyers “printed on soy-based, ultra-recycled, sun washed” paper, etc), they deserve some ridicule and I’m glad that there is more than one journalist in town who isn’t afraid to expose it.
We have now heard that Bill Ritter and the Yes on P campaign is trying to use PTA meetings as a venue to register voters for this election, which has outraged local PTA members, one of whom has sent an e-mail to Bob Dunning about it (on which I was cc’ed); if Dunning writes a piece on this, will you then slam him for being against teachers/PTA?
Keep the attacks coming on Dunning coming David, PLEASE; because his humorous exposure of the Yes on P campaign follies has been a lighting rod for No on P support (I can tell you, our donations are way up in the last week!)
“The only thing missing from the flattering picture above would be a series of parallel line segments marking his height in in feet and inches.”
The photo above doesn’t look much like Dunning at all these days. If you want to see what Matt Rexroad will be like in about 20 or so years, check out:
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/archive_pdfs/2009/20091004/pdfs/A7.pdf[/url]
😉
This has nothing to do with the Yes on P campaign. Those of you who think so are fooled.
This is about the columnist Bob Dunning the Catholic Radio host who speaks of good Christian conduct all the while getting away with talking poorly about people in the local newspaper.
Do I or anyone else take him seriously? Absolutely not. However, that is how idiots like Bob get away with this. The couch their terms in articles and then have people like a previous poster defending him.
What a city this is! You make comments like, “You been to a stand-up comedy night at Bistro 33 lately? EVERYBODY gets insulted–women, men, gays, straights, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, fat people, skinny people, you name it. Whatever happened to your sense of humor?”
Just because insults at the bottom of the barrel are couched as “humor” does not make them okay.
If Davis is a supposed educated community I would hate to see what a dumb community is like. UCLA would have been a much better choice.
Some blogger I read from time to time appears to have no sense of humor. So now for something completely different ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1leDAwjtto&feature=related[/url]): Barack Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize? WTF?
Others have undeservedly been given this award. Even other American presidents. But this quick? At least when Woodrow Wilson wrongly won the NPP, the League of Nations, for which he was honored, was not yet an abject failure, and the Treaty of Versaille had not yet set the world on a course for a second world war.
Austen Chamberlain won the Prize, but it’s not completely fair to blame him for the peace failings of his younger brother, Neville. … Henry Kissinger won the award for peace in Vietnam, despite having delayed the “peace” needlessly for 5 more years of war. Kissinger won the NPP the same year he helped engineer a major coup in Chile. … Sadat & Begin shared the award, despite the fact that Sadat helped launch two wars and had a horrible personal history in WWII and Begin was a lousy SOB terrorist, himself … Rigoberta Menchu won the NPP, based on her autobiography, later to be found largely false … Arafat won the NPP despite the fact that he was his whole life Yassir Arafat …
So maybe Obama, who has done nothing for peace, doesn’t look so bad, yet. (Next week he escalates our nonsensical war in Afghanistan.)
“Just because insults at the bottom of the barrel are couched as “humor” does not make them okay.”
I agree. In this case it’s bad humor to target poor students (more so because of the economy and the recent rise in student fees) in a college town.
“We have now heard that Bill Ritter and the Yes on P campaign is trying to use PTA meetings as a venue to register voters for this election, which has outraged local PTA members, one of whom has sent an e-mail to Bob Dunning about it (on which I was cc’ed); if Dunning writes a piece on this, will you then slam him for being against teachers/PTA?”
I’ve heard that claim and was told it was inaccurate. But aside from that point, my complaint is not that Dunning criticized paid labor is his use of the term “DAMES DIG DOLLARS”–that’s the complaint. I argue that that is sexist. You apparently have no problem with it.
“WOW! Would you have the same level of “outrage” if these women were passin gout flyers for Target campaign, or Jeff Riesig? “
I’m not sure Greg, I’ve never seen Dunning do that about someone I on the other side.
Regarding laziness, and not checking one’s facts, I found the line “someone told me one of the parents lost their home due to foreclosure” particularly illuminating.
I took DPD’s comments as not specific to Measure P.
I dont think it’s right to trash students who need to pay for school, while working for a project they believe in.
I did not endorse Dunning’s choice of words which I would not use, but your outrage seems to be quite one-sided here. If Dunning supported P would you be this outraged? I think not.
DPD: Dunning is not a journalist, nor has he ever claimed to be one. Most everyone recognizes that he’s is a hack who tries to work as little as possible while still being able to feed his family. He loves to draw people into this kind of public cat-fight that has the potential to increase Enterprise readership. Davis voters realize that their populist Measure J vote(P) is a “jewel” to be protected and used as they witness,on a national scale,their lives being controlled by political/corporate power and money. THIS is the issue at hand for the Davis voter!!
David:
Your blog has repeatedly slammed Sue. One could also say that is sexist since smart or forceful men are considered powerful, but a women who acts that way is a b%&ch. Perhaps you should do a piece on that.
“Insensitive”?…maybe, but “vile and depraved”? Come on , David, this is not really about Bob poking fun at these particular students, is it? I have been really impressed with how you have handled Bob’s ad hominim attacks on you in the past, but I don’t think he ever called you names. Even this web site warns against name calling.
This is not 1971 and I am not insulted by the term ‘dames’. It was clearly intended to be humorous. It was not mean spirited like his attack on your ad for the Vanguard was.
Bob is always going go after inconsistencies, and since human beings are consistently inconsistent, he has an endless supply of material. The self righteous tone peculiar to Davisites is irresistible to him.
Bob worked his way through college and law school, and is hardly an elitist. He is a good friend of mine, as you are, and he’s as good a Catholic as I will ever be, and you know that I work pretty hard on it. But I have to admit that I am inevitably inconsistent in living out my beliefs.
We all know that paying people to gather signatures for political causes is common practice. In fact Bob’s own wife did it (years before she met Bob) when she was a flat broke college student. But I do find it a little odd that the ‘No on P’ campaign has the money to do this. At first glance, it would seem as though the money grubbing developers would be the ones to pour money into a project that will make them money, not the community members who oppose the project.
In general, I have always stereotyped anti-development or even ‘slow growthers’ as being pure and idealistic in their motivation. I would have never suspected that anyone working to defeat P would have been paid anymore than my family and I have been paid to leaflet various neighborhoods or ‘get out the vote’ for our candidates or causes. We have always volunteered our time. I didn’t know that Obama workers had gotten paid. I’m glad to know it, because I was puzzled at the level of ignorance shown by the Obama worker who came to our door before the election.
But to get as incensed as you are about this silly column is just beneath you, David. These college students have not been slandered or harmed in any significant way that I can see. It certainly seems like a better job than I was ever able to get when I was working my way through college. My parents didn’t help me because my dad was going through bankruptcy at the time. The economy in the 1970’s was far worse than it is now, and the standard of living was much lower. There are too many real victims in the world to get on your high horse about these college women. (I assume no one will object me calling them women).
This is just a sophmoric attempt to make Dunning the issue, and divert attention away from a substantive discussion of the main point.
Phil: DPD has not repeatedly slammed Sue. The word “slammed” implies done without justification. I know the rules and procedures and how a CC member does the job, and Sue deserved whatever DPD has written, good or bad. What is different now, then when I was on the CC, is that we now have a DPD and Vanguard that actually track the CC member conduct and report about it. If Sue wants to avoid the negative reports, then she should do her job properly with good process.
To the Yes on P leadership to date: interesting how you white professional, privileged males are supporting the jokes and attacks on these young college working women. Disgusting.
Especially you, Greg, a mental health professional.
Christine:
The No on P campaign has very little money and is ALL VOLUNTEER. Dunning’s columns was about the Yes on P hiring folks to go door to door, NOT the No on P.
Wow…
Okay, first off- Bob Dunning wrote a good column that was both funny and appropriate. There is a unique problem in Davis of people who have not only lost their sense of humor, but take offense where none is given. Lighten up Francis!
Second- David, we all understand that you have backed yourself into an corner about this whole “Yes on P” so I can vote “No on J” convoluted nonsense- but its just silly. Its a bad project, the dollars don’t work and who cares what the Sierra Club thinks? Seriously… This isn’t the Supreme Court, you are allowed to back-off when you realize you made a mistake.
Wow…
Okay, first off- Bob Dunning wrote a good column that was both funny and appropriate. There is a unique problem in Davis of people who have not only lost their sense of humor, but take offense where none is given. Lighten up Francis!
Second- David, we all understand that you have backed yourself into an corner about this whole “Yes on P” so I can vote “No on J” convoluted nonsense- but its just silly. Its a bad project, the dollars don’t work and who cares what the Sierra Club thinks? Seriously… This isn’t the Supreme Court, you are allowed to back-off when you realize you made a mistake.
Phil: winning or losing is not about the money. I dont like to see community campaigns playing the victim against “big bad rich developers.” You dont need to do it. The election is about ideas, about visions for community planning. CV went down because it was a project that was not right for Davis. The result was not about who had money, or not. No on X knocked it down for well under $100,000. If CV comes back with what I hear is coming, then 12 of us with under $100,000 can easily knock it down, too.
The struggle for No on P is that the Parlin project on its face is a nice little project for Davis. You guys can be upset about the process, but I will say from what I know that the Parlin company was not responsible for the last minute rush. I am not blaming anyone. But all of you have to recognize that Sue did nothing to engage herself with the process for the project until July 28. I only say that because she herself, and all of you, has chosen to make her conduct (and yours, for the attacks on Sierra Club and LWV) part of the debate.
If the project goes down, in my view it will be mostly because voters in Davis are in a sour mood about just about anything, due to the economy. On its merits, the Parlin Wildhorse really should be approved by the voters.
If it is not, then all of us will have learned something.
Mr. Harrington:
Before this election, I had never met you, never spoke with you and certainly never voted for you! If you want to get into personal attacks on me (like you have done with Sue and Eileen Samitz in the past) so be it, but don’t write things like you did yesterday that say, “I wish you guys would post positive, forward-looking comments” and then today write, “interesting how you white professional, privileged males are supporting the jokes and attacks on these young college working women” HOW IS THAT A POSITIVE, FORWARD LOOKING COMMENT MIKE?
Since you bring up my “professional, privileged” status, I will tell disclose to all readers, I have donated $500 to NO on P and countless hours of my time walking, tabling, etc. I have NO financial associations from any developers, never have, and have not donated to any City Council campaigns before (including Sue’s).
So Mike (since you are also a “white professional” male attorney), can you please disclose to the readers if you have ANY financial associations with Parlin Development (a question that you have avoided many times before) or you can simply state “DECLINE TO STATE”; did Parlin donate any money to your failed re-election bid?
Mike, it was you more than anyone else that caused the process to be short circuited by your words that were spoken into Mr. Monfared ear. Councilmembers Greenwald and Souza were trying to get the process extended, have the commissions review the project and put the vote off to a later date. Take some responsibility for your actions instead of blaming others.
Mike:
“Winning or losing [in politics] is not about money”
Have you followed American politics lately? Its all about money. So far Davis voters have been savvy enough to avoid the blitz by developers but don’t kid yourself into thinking it can’t happen here.
Money matters in political campaigns these days, and it gets worse every year. Goldman Sachs was Obama’s largest campaign contributor–you don’t think that mattered?
If you would like to have a public debate of the topic:
“Money does not matter in politics”
I will be happy to debate you and take the opposite side (after this election is over). Perhaps David can sponsor it on his radio show.
Greenwald,
You’re out of your lane! WITF do you get off calling Dunning names. The gloves are off to your hypocricy, and is in direct violation of any protocol you established on this BLOG. No one like’s a Johnny come lately POS!
WHR is a nice little semi-green project that simply isn’t needed. Davis voted several years ago to grow at the slowest speed permissible, which is essentially what we’re doing. Building a decent 200-unit project when 2000 other units are already approved and in the pipeline is NOT growing at the slowest speed permissible. That’s what the yea or nay is about in my book.
As for tying a defeat of WHR to a defeat of a Measure J renewal, this is silly. A defeat of WHR would be a strong indicator of Davis’ slow-growth preferences, which will also result in a reaffirmation of Measure J and a defeat of Covell Village II.
Several years in the future, a project like WHR may be perfect–just not now.
Also:
[i]that they are digging for dollars–which implies any number of demeaning things, is a complete and total insult.[/i]
It could have been worse, David. He could have said that they have blood on their hands.
I’m now leaning toward voting No on P.
So is the term Dame derogatory?
When looking up the question I found this:
[quote]Dear feminists who have no skill and make their living by criminalizing normal behavior as since you have no real skill, you are otherwise unemployable and need to shake people down.
The term “dame” is not a derogatory remark. It is used by old fashioned classy men to describe old fashioned classy women.
If you are so foolish as to lecture me or any one else about the “improper” use of this term, then you can enjoy the life you’ve chosen of shaking people down for made up crimes which is nothing more than a parasitic existence, as long as you know FULL WELL YOU WILL SACRIFICE A REAL LIFE WITH A REAL GUY AND ANY SEMBLANCE OF REAL LOVE OR AT LEAST FRIENDSHIP.[/quote]
Source: Captain Capitalism Blog ([url]http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2009/03/dame-is-not-sexist.html[/url])
Since Greg brought up the topic of disclosure …
David Greenwald failed to mention in his article that two members of the Vanguard Board of Directors are officers in the Davis College Democrats. They are:
Don Gibson – President
Alya Kapahi – Vice President of Finance
Given the obvious political alliance, David’s indignation should be taken with a grain of salt.
To the broader issue of financial disclosure, here is a summary of information pulled from this blog …
Parlin and its affiliates are giving money to the following parties:
(1) Mike Harrington – Leases office space to Parlin Development and two consulting groups working on WHR
(2) Ritter & Associates – Consulting group of Bill Ritter, progressive political activist, now working for Parlin
(3) The Vanguard – Online advertising via the Yes on P campaign
(4) Individuals associated with the College Democrats – Paid workforce supporting the Yes on P campaign
This is just what’s now in the public domain. The extent to which there are hidden financial dealings and quid pro quos is an open question.
In my opinion, one of the main points that Dunning was inartfully addressing is how pervasive the influence of developer money is in this campaign. The fact that this conduct is being engaged in by “progressives” (with the support, enablement, and participation of this blog) creates a level of cognitive dissonance unprecedented in Davis political history.
I do not think that there is anything wrong with hiring and paying students for their time. Not ever. Not with them facing a 32% increase in tuition over the Spring and Fall quarters next year.
However, I would think that walking door to door to distribute brochures is different than knocking and talking door to door. I would hope that the students would believe in what they are saying. It seems like the two students that Dunning talked to did in fact believe in the project, but it is understandable that he didn’t like the fact that he was talking to students who were being paid. Remember that these students probably won’t still be in town to feel any effects, positive or negative, if the project is built. If students are going to sign on to local campaigns where there are long term effects on the outcome, they are going to have to overcome the opinion that they should not be involved.
That Dunning insulted them is just so….petty. I read their letter in the Enterprise and that should have been enough. There was no need to make it a bigger issue, David.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology | 1996 | T. F. HOAD |
dame †female head or superior; as a form of address or title; †mother, dam XIII; (arch.) lady of the house XIV. — (O)F. :- L. domina fem. corr. to dominus lord.
Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: dame
Pronunciation: d m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English dame “a woman of rank or authority, lady,” from early French dame (same meaning), from Latin domina “mistress, lady,” feminine form of dominus “master, owner” –related to DAMSEL, DOMINATE, 2DON, MADAM, MADONNA, PRIMA DONNA
: a woman of rank, station, or authority: as a archaic : the mistress of a household b : the wife or daughter of a lord c : a female member of an order of knighthood — used as a title before a given name
[i]It is used by old fashioned classy men to describe old fashioned classy women.[/i]
Actually, it is used to describe knighthood for women, just as “Sir” is used for men. That’s why Elizabeth Taylor is Dame Elizabeth Taylor. She became “Dame Commander of the British Empire” in 1999, which is to say, she was knighted.
You’re right that Bob Dunning is sexist, but so are many of the men in Davis. If you call them on it, they go nuts – like racist white folks who are called racist. Dunning isn’t funny, smart or interesting, so it’s always been a mystery to me that people read him. His column belongs on the sports page, if anywhere. Life’s too short, even to make comments about him on this blog. Bye.
Two quotes from David Greenwald:
” I personally call on the No on P campaign to condemn it.”
“Phil: It is unfortunate that you have once again interpreted this issue in terms of Yes on P campaign, despite my explicit comments that this has to do with the disrespect of two young women.”
David, you could at least try to be consistent within a single thread.
Where did these busy No on P people come from, all the sudden? The several leaders who live up there close to the project, in Wildhorse? Never seen them before, wont see them after this. Why are they so suddenly concerned about city process, fine-line workings of commissions, whether a project pencils out or not in 15 years? It’s the affordable housing …. they dont want “them people” living close to their big box homes … it’s disguised NIMBYism, with the focus on socio-economic discrimination. Some of those same opponents were around during the Moore Village Affordable Housing process, and the hatred and distrust was thinnnnlllly below the surface …. One could make the argument that the citywide experienced progressive leadership who clearly are whipping those Wildhorse NIMBYs into a frenzy are playing on those fears of the poor … the poor kids .. moving into that neighborhood. Want to know who someone really is? Watch how they behave when they are afraid ….
[quote]Two quotes from David Greenwald:
” I personally call on the No on P campaign to condemn it.”
“Phil: It is unfortunate that you have once again interpreted this issue in terms of Yes on P campaign, despite my explicit comments that this has to do with the disrespect of two young women.”
David, you could at least try to be consistent within a single thread.[/quote]
He is being consistent. It is just like the McCain bit from last year when his supporters were shouting terrorist and he was called on to condemn. It was not his fault that his supporters were screaming terrorist, should not have weigh upon people’s voting decision, but it was rightly condemned by McCain. Same here. Greenwald is saying this is not a matter of Yes of P, it’s a matter of decency. I’ve read this enough to see him call out people he agrees wiht at times.
“You’re right that Bob Dunning is sexist, but so are many of the men in Davis. If you call them on it, they go nuts”
Just for the record, so are many women!
whaddya know. the woodfin hotel in emeryville paid for uc davis college republicans to come and harass woodfin workers and their families while they were on the picket line (even put them up in the hotel) about two years ago after voters passed measure c to give hotel workers a sustainable wage. going to uc davis can be lucrative.
He said: DAMES DIG DOLLARS implying that WOMEN of PRIVILEGE ARE somehow prostrating themselves for money to buy pizza. It’s not the word DAMES but the entire sentence. It’s funny? Really, some of you need to look at your sense of humor if there is anything humorous about this.
Truth squad:
How about being truthful and stating your name?
Te No on P campaign has folks from all over Davis–all unpaid volunteers. People like Nora Oldwin and Mark Siegler, who were very active in CV and Target and do not live in WH.
I have supported the No on CV campaign and voted against Target (and so did Greg). I also have testified against over 25 Wal-Mart Superstores in California and several Home Depots. We have stopped many of them. As I have blogged elsewhere I have also prepared numerous fiscal impact reports for cities and the state; my wife works I have a small child. My wife told me it was time to get involved in my own community.
I have seen other cities succumb to enormous pressure to develop. I don’t want that to happen here. Of course if a project is nearby one is more interested–how many folks here are looking at what is happening in Woodland and West Sac and speaking out? We all have more ties to our neighborhoods –that is how a functioning community works, so having an anonymous blogger (with the ironic name “truth squad”) calling us NIMBYs is quite unfair.
We do not want to be railroaded and are tired of name calling. How about responding to actual arguments instead of slinging mud and not even using your name? As for the poor kids, if their parents can afford $450-$550k houses they are probably OK. Only 15 apartments (out of 191 units)are for very low income folks (23 for low income but at close to market rents according to City) so that this argument is total hogwash. The real truth about WHR is that it isn’t affordable.
AS I said the other day, if you are going to call someone out and use ad hominem arguments, please use your name!
“AS I said the other day, if you are going to call someone out and use ad hominem arguments, please use your name!”
You suggested that David wouldn’t react to this story if it involved No on P workers, by the same token I see people call out David and Mike Harrington by name all the time hiding behind pseudonyms and I have never once seen you object. Perhaps you can put your money where your mouth is.
While everyone’s attention is thoroughly diverted onto the sexism debate, this little tidbit from today’s Enterprise …[quote]Yes on P also reported $15,126 in unpaid bills, including $15,000 for campaign services from Bill Ritter of Ritter & Associates. Expenditures for Yes on P total $89,897. The disclosure statements report … money spent from Aug. 19 to Sept.19.[/quote]This is for one month only. I don’t know if any prior disclosure statements filed have been filed.
Questions:
1. When Souza and Greenwald were trying to get the process extended for proper commission review, why did Haystek, Saylor and Asmundson not support them?
2. Were representative for “No on P” invited to make a presentation to the UCD Student Democrats?
3. Were representatives of “No on P” invited to make a presentation to the Yolono Group and MotherLode Chapter of the Sierra Club? In my opinion, notice in the paper is insufficient?
[i]I have supported the No on CV campaign and voted against Target (and so did Greg).[/i]
Phil: Did you vote against Wildhorse itself, and if so, what would Greg Sokolov think of that?
oh please, lets please focus on real issues.
I am against any anonymous ad hominem attacks on anyone. I do not have time to police the entire blog.
Ya, Phil! Dont like someone anonymously commenting on motives of your neighbors, and here you are, endorsing it when it’s done to others whose views are not in agreement with yours? Maybe you and Greg should get a taste of the medicine more often.
Poor WH folks: dont you see? Most of No on P is all about a power struggle set up by Eileen and Sue between them and others who think there is a better way to conduct progressive business in this town? Pawns. In a game that only E & S has any import to everyday lives.
Wouldn’t we all love to have a cam and audio in the No on P board room with those two, and you WH types: the bickering, fighting, breakdowns …. seen it all, over and over. Now you W.H. folks can have it all, and E & S, to yourselves!
Amen. Lets focus on the issues and stop the name calling.
What about attacks on people who are not involved in blogging (so are probably not aware of the attacks place on the Internet) by people who state their names?
Can’t we all get along?
Gawd… I can’t remember the last time I bothered to read Dunning. I mean – why? Today’s Vanguard article and most of the comments are really vapid, much like Dunning’s columns.
To Anonymous blgger: Ya Phil King:
Eileen’s mother died today–how about a little respect.
I think the power struggle is obviously between the Ritter/D.Greenwald alliance and elements of the “old guard” that don’t like the new order they are trying to architect.
Please offer Eileen our condolences on her loss. I’m not sure of course how one would be expected to know that this loss occurred.
Time to clean house. I’d start by evaluating your editorial policies with your board of directors. There seems to be a crisis of confidence in the information on this blog. I’d take this as a sign to evaluate policies while the issue is still small enough to deal with. Next time (the bigger issues), paid operatives could destroy this blogs credibility completely.
Clean house: From what I’ve been reading, there doesn’t seem to be much credibility worth saving with respect to land use issues. Regarding editorial policies, it’s pretty clear that The Vanguard = David Greenwald and David Greenwald = The Vanguard. The “Board of Directors” is a formal requirement for his non-profit aspirations, and there is no evidence that they have any power/influence when it comes to content or editorial standards. The Vanguard’s alliance with “paid operatives” appears to be quite deliberate, with the blog serving as a willing platform for astroturfing by Parlin and its associates.
Nancy:
Re “Were representatives of “No on P” invited to make a presentation to the Yolono Group and MotherLode Chapter of the Sierra Club? In my opinion, notice in the paper is insufficient?”
That is the SC process. Incidentally, it is the identical process the SC used when they supported the oppose position for the Covell Village project. No complaints that time. The local group followed the same process all Groups follow.
If you are interested in change, then please become active in the local Group. They really need people. There are roughly 1800 members in the Yolano Group, but only about 10 of them are actively involved in all the issues the Group takes on.
I am so very sorry to hear that Eileen’s mother died. Eileen told me she had been ill, but appeared to be recovering. This is so very sad for Eileen and her brothers.
Maybe we can lay down our arms for the rest of the day and stop taking potshots at one another?
[quote]only about 10 of them are actively involved in all the issues the Group takes on[/quote]How many were actively involved in the endorsement decision?
Just as before DPD, w the Provenza debacle, you are allowing Dunning to bait you, and he has succeeded. Expect more of the same from Dunning on this WHR issue. You’ve given Dunning the opening he was looking for.
By the way, I voted NO ON P, but I cannot stand Bob Dunning. I vote on issues on an individual basis, not based on my political affiliation or how either Dunning or Greenwald think. I listen to what developers have to say, then make up my own mind.
I voted NO ON P because:
1) It is not affordable
2) Is does not provide “affordable workforce housing” as advertised
3) The solar panels make it too expensive
4) It will result in a net fiscal negative to the city in 15 years
5) The process by which it was approved was flawed
6) The statements on the YES ON P flyer are misleading
7) To vote “yes” on P sends the message to future developers to rush the process, then put misleading info in campaign literature, bc the voters are too stupid to pick up on it
8) It is too dense, and does not allow for children to play in their own yard
9) We have enough housing in the pipeline or on the market
10) ITS THE BAD ECONOMY STUPID!
I find all personal attacks offensive, whether directed to named or anonymous individuals. Mike Harrington’s attacks have been particularly vicious, so I stopped reading his comments a while ago.
To the students who were paid to pass out Yes on P literature – you are free to earn a living. If you wish to be paid by Parlin or Whitcomb, that is certainly your right. Just beware it might come back to haunt you. Lloyd Bridges hyped some investment firm that turned out to be a scam, and was sued and lost. He spent much of the rest of his life paying the victims of the fraud perpetrated by the sleazy investment firm. Bridges predicament is a cautionary tale…
I am the Vice President of Communications and one of the young women who talked to Mr. Dunning in a civil manner only to be called a dollar digger. I would like it to be clear that I am not speaking on behalf of the club, but as an individual. I find it disconcerting that while I have been at work today, a discussion has been carried out concerning myself and my friend in which many people said that we weren’t understanding the humor of Mr. Dunning’s article. It is not easy to be a young woman involved in politics, especially when you are attacked for working on a campaign that you believe in.
I have already written a letter to the editor and I won’t repeat those points, but I would like everyone from both sides of the aisle to give hard working young women equal respect. The article may have been intended to be humorous, but please, if you can, put yourself in our position and realize that there is no humor in being accused of selling your opinions and your body.
I will debate you on the issues any day, but please leave the attacks on the students out of the debate.
People are missing the mark on this one. Those women were insulted, and it should not be taken lightly. Any mention of taking it as a clever joke is truly outrageous and irresponsible. All those individuals who object to this report are either blindly defending Bob Dunning or true imbeciles.
Under no circumstance, can behavior like this be tolerated-it should be brought to light in order to discourage it. (Public scorn, if you will)
As a recent college grad, I find this behavior idiotic and petty. I worked to pay for my tuition, often times for causes I was very passionate about.
Lets not confuse wit with clever stupidity.
There is nothing like a dame,
nothing in the world,
there is nothing you can name,
that is anything like a dame.
To Think Before You Write who said: “Mike Harrington’s attacks have been particularly vicious.”
Like … what? My pointing out that the project was filed in August 2008, yet Sue and friends said nothing and did nothing about commission review, economic model review, participation in the discussion until … when? 1 am on July 29?
Like … all the meetings that the developer had that almost no one showed up for?
Like … maybe you just dont want ANYTHING approved by a J vote? Now, if you said it, then I would respect you for that.
Like … Greg admitted on behalf of No on P that they knew all about the Sierra Club meetings and chose not to participate?
Like … Greg admitted that they knew all about the LWV long-time policy on fair, balanced panels, but chose to bow out and blame the victims, the volunteer Board of the local LWV?
Like … two of your leaders took over a F & B Commission meeting, including a sitting CC member, and warped the vote on second motion for the desired result?
Like … the CC majority (and I hope Lamar) was ready to sanction Sue for her conduct before she resigned in a snit?
Like … what else?
Like, you call long time respectable local community and business leaders LIARS because you disagree with their views?
Like, most of your donors and supporters are within yards of the project … (so, what is that all about)?
Maybe you think you can create reality from repeating lies and garbage enough.
Looking forward to November 4.
I’m a big supporter of the Davis Dems. Bob Dunning has been writing his column since way before I came to Davis. He has a sharp sense of humor. I have been his target many, many times, and it always hurts. Yet, I have to admit that I sometimes find my self laughing when he pokes fun at others, particularly when I secretly agree with him. I guess that is human nature.
Davis Dems: Don’t get discouraged. Politics is rough and tumble. When you are in the public arena, you are a target for attacks, ridicule and humor. Eventually, you develop a (somewhat) thicker skin.
Then you will be prepared to go out and fight for universal health care, social justice and protection of the environment.
Re: Mike’s tirade.
Amazing. Just amazing.
Yep. Amazing that I am so correct. Wish the law office were so simple.
Re: Mike’s tirade
Pitiful. So pitiful.
If you want a personal chat, give me a call. I am sure that readers of this Blog would probably appreciate your calling me at the office and staying off the Blog with the personal stuff.
Mike
Just to put Mike’s comments into perspective …
he has three seperate revenue streams from tenants that will be significantly impacted by the outcome of the Measure P vote.
But the question is does he have three separate revenue streams and would he after the election. First, Talbott has been there for years and will continue to be regardless of the outcome. Second, Ritter and Parlin actually work out of the same ofice, so I’m not sure who the third is. And it’s unclear that once a project is improved Parlin would remain there. So Talbott will be there regardless and Parlin would likely be gone regardless, that puts Mike’s finances, such as they are significantly less impacted by the outcome as you imply.
Mike Harrington has never answered the question about whether he is an investor in one of Parlin’s and White Rock’s many LLC’s.
Mike Harrington, are you or are not an investor in any Parlin-related LLC?
So why does it matter if I have Parlin as a tenant? Or Bill Ritter? Or UPTE, the union where Eileen sits on the Board? Since I get money from her union, does that impact how anyone would vote on Measure P?
Don’t vote on personalities; vote on the merits of the project. That land and any buildings on it will be there long long after all of us are dust in little boxes over at the Davis Cemetery.
Let’s say I was being paid $1 billion to push Measure P on the Blog. (I am not, so don’t get excited.) How would that fact change the merits of the project? Not one bit.
I considered issues one by one on the City Council. Same as I do as a litigator.
I suggest that all of you curious cats pay attention to the merits of the project.
I think the underlying analysis for the 5.5 metric tons of GHG emissions would not be so boring and tiresome as the personal attacks that go on this Blog all the time.
Does anyone have the city staff analysis, as to how they arrived at that number? Pdf report available?
Thanks!
Mike
A. Anonymous why do you choose to ask that question of Mike with your true name?
B. What difference does it make, Mike’s only role has been comment made on a blog that is read by perhaps a few thousand people? It’s not like he’s a voting member of council like he once was.
Yes! I am not a CC member. I dont serve on any commissions. I am NOT a public person like an elected official. I post here, and that is about all I ever do around town in terms of politics.
Mike
Hey, “Observer” this is my moniker; find your own. Mr. Greenwald, you are taking PC to a new height: “Killing Fields” for squirrels, now feminist outrage. You started a good thing with this blog, but you are becoming nothing more than silly. Dunning is, at times, funny: you aren’t. Oh, and by the way, “P” is not a good idea.
Your FCOI would not be noteworthy if you weren’t such an aggressive partisan. I am surprised that, as a practicing attorney and former member of the City Council, you don’t elect to keep a much lower profile.
I just reviewed the Dunning column and cannot find any justification for your baiting charge.
(1) Neither Greenwald or the Vanguard were mentioned (by name or insinuation).
(2) Greenwald has clearly stated that he is not part of the Yes on P campaign.
(3) There was no specific “hot button” that appeared to be specifically designed to provoke a response from Greenwald.
Accordingly, I think it is fair to put responsibility for the escalation of this sideshow at Greenwald’s feet. That’s not to excuse Dunning, but he certainly wasn’t baiting Greenwald … and any damage resulting from this story was self-inflicted.
Mike Harrington has never answered the question about whether he is an investor in one of Parlin’s and White Rock’s many LLC’s.
Mike Harrington, are you or are not an investor in any Parlin-related LLC?
[quote]You’re right that Bob Dunning is sexist, but so are many of the men in Davis. If you call them on it, they go nuts – like racist white folks who are called racist. [/quote]I wonder if I call someone, say Sherrill Futrell for example purposes only, a complete dimwit retard narcissist, would she go nuts? In case Sherrill Futrell would go nuts if I called her a dimwit retard, I won’t do that. I’ll just let her comment explain her reasoning prowess.
TO: To Mike: Your comment is a good one as to my independence. As was quoted to me by someone in the room when it was said in about 2003-04 when my re-election was targeted by certain area developers: “We have to get rid of Mike and get our boys in. He is not controllable.” They did the take-out campaign that put Steve into office, and made Sue Mayor because of the bullet voting by liberals who did not personally know me.
The developers’ “boys” were Steve and Don, and the rest is history as they say.
Whatever. I took a little rest, and it was fun spending a little time and money helping to take down X in the fall 2005, and I will be ready to do it again in the next year or two.
The reason I say what I want, and voted the way I thought best for the city, was that 95% of my cases are not local. If I had had a local law practice, I would have been dead long ago. The CV “boys” are very punitive, and I have heard many many stories by local businesses that they wanted to help with the border control and other progressive causes, but the CV people would end referrals of customers. It’s common knowledge. CV thinks it’s their turn. If you need proof of their desperation, look at their false campaign disclosures that the state FPPC forced them to update.
You should have heard the ghastly business manipulation stories in 2004-05, leading up to Nov 05. If you remember the famous Boogyman letter that Helen Thompson wrote, that had the same flavor of threats and intimidation and fear experienced by many local small businesses.
Frankly, I dont view myself as all that partisan. It’s clear what is best for the city, in my opinion, and I think I have consistently held to that view. I never, ever voted with my finger in the air. And I take the legal cases I want, and the political causes that lead to a better city.
I am totally convinced that Measure P is best for this city. I am sorry some of you do not share that view, but we will see how it all turns out!
[quote]Mike Harrington has never answered the question about whether he is an investor in one of Parlin’s or White Rock’s many LLC’s.
Mike Harrington, are you or are not an investor in any Parlin-related LLC?[/quote]Every time someone asks this question, Mike Harrington deflects the question. He answers: “So what if Parlin and Ritter are my tenants?”, or “I have not been paid to run the campaign”.
He never answers: I am(or was) or, I am not (or ever have been)an investor in any White Rock or Parlin-related LLC’s.
Why not?
“(3) There was no specific “hot button” that appeared to be specifically
designed to provoke a response from Greenwald.”
No, he hitched his wagon the Dame Dem Diggers’ tarnished star.
Sorry, what I just posted should instead read:
No, he hitched his wagon to the Dame Dem Dollar Diggers’ tarnished star.
I mean, come on, saying you believe in a cause which you are paid to espouse is pretty cheesy. I did that work for one week, for a dollar a signature, in San Francisco in the early 1990s and quickly became disgusted when I got to reading the fine print on the petitions I was getting signed. Granted, maybe these women students weren’t exactly soliciting signatures, but they have a very tough case to make saying they “believe” in some developer’s scheme to build housing they won’t be able to afford for quite some time to come–by which time, no doubt, they’ll be busy building their own developments. Oh, wait, I get it, they believe, alright, in the almighty dollar is all–and this work is training, can’t say internship. They’re learning the sacred tasks involved in anointing the dollar.
Given the amount of blogging that Mike Harrington has done on this issue a full disclosure of his financial interest in this development is in order.
Perhaps he has nothing to hide; perhaps he does.
He has repeatedly dodged the question while impuning other’s motives.
Dunning rocks!
Greenwald? Let’s just say that as an editorialist Greenwald couldn’t hold Dunning’s jockstrap!
The “NO on P” campaigners are all grassroot, earnest and honest citizens who are fighting for their cause without monetary compensation.
Most of the “YES on P” campaigners have to be paid.
I think that says it all.
All of you know that the CV partners and friends and supporters have a vision for Davis as a bustling city of 150,000. They want the population for their business interests, and they think those people are needed to fill the Mondavi Center, etc. and make Davis a more cosmopolitan place to live?
That vision is really what the No on X people are fighting.
Kelsey didn’t seem to find Dunning to funny. What do you say to her? Lighten up? As someone with no dog in this fight, I find the attitude of you and others on the No on P side a bit insensitive yourselves. It’s easy for you to perhaps dismiss David’s concerns, but Kelsey’s too?
Oh please, Dunning said nothing in his article that was over the top. The pro “P” backers are just looking for something to latch onto because Dunning has had it right all along about this project and and the pro “P”
backers can’t stand it. Get on to some real issues and quit trying to create a controversy out of nothing.
Rich Rifkin has just proven Ms. Sherrill Futrell’s statement. Very inappropriate to respond the way he did. He should keep it professional.
Two columnists from the Enterprise on the personal attacks: Dunning and Rifkin. Dunning attacking young college girls working hard and Rifkin attacking a member of the community. They are columnists and have put themselves out there to be agreed or disagreed with, but to go after members of the public? Very low? Yes indeed. Very low.
Especially given the fact that Christine has let us know that Dunning’s wife has worked as a paid political volunteer when she was in college. Hypocrisy? Yes.
Apparently you have blinders on. The students involved were complaining, yet you dismiss their complaints with some wry comments.
Wow, I find it unbelievable how far the comments here have swerved away from the point. The fact of the matter is that this man blatantly called two young women whores simply because they are earning money. I cannot fathom the fact that so many of you seem to think this is ok. And since there seems to be so much misinformation, let me try to clear some things up.
I know the two women that Dunning attacked, and I know that they are passionate and dedicated to what they believe in. They have done more work for Democratic politics in their time at college than most people can ever claim to have done. As for students needing to be paid to believe in the cause, that is entirely false. Yes, students are being paid, but that does not change the fact that every single person I know walking for the campaign believes in it. Did it ever occur to any of you that right now, students can’t afford to give up all of their evenings and weekends without some sort of pay? Our state and our university system has let us down and forced us to scramble to stay in school. Although it sounds harsh, for many students the reality is that we must take as many extra jobs as we can get to simply continue our education. And if that makes you a whore in Davis, then I have never been more disappointed in what was supposed to be an “enlightened” town.
Thank you for the post this is the point I have been trying to make for some time with little success. The No on P people seem far more interested in protecting their precious campaign than for what happened to these students. To make matters worse, most of them do not like Dunning at all, and yet they’ll defend him here or at least try to shift the discussion. I came into this discussion neutral on P, but the taste in my mouth right now is not good.
“Wow, I find it unbelievable how far the comments here have swerved away from the point. The fact of the matter is that this man blatantly called two young women whores simply because they are earning money.”
OK, I have gone back and read the article a second time, please point out to me where he “blatantly called two young women whores”. I must have missed it some how.
Well let’s see, I believe the term “dollar digger” charmingly connotes that these young women will do anything just to be handed a few bucks. I guess that throws in a lovely connection to strippers as well. I’m glad to know that as a young woman living in Davis, I could also be freely insulted for trying to earn a living and then be patted on the head and told that I “just don’t get” the humor involved. How wonderfully patronizing.
Face it, Dunning is our Rush Limbaugh and the Enterprise is our Faux News/EBI Network . . . they are infotainers who push whatever for media sales . . . best way to change that is to flip the channel or buy a better paper!
To UC Davis Student – I can see that you will take any statement and stretch and distort it to make whatever point it is you are trying to convey. He never used the term “dollar digger” and certainly did not blatantly call the two women whores. Why you are sensationalizing this I do not know. Did you read the article, or are you only going by what was reported in this blog?
The headline is the only mention of “Dames”, “Dollar”, or “Dig”. Maybe he wrote that, maybe he didn’t. I don’t use the word “Dame” I find it old fashion pretty much like “Gal”. I do not equate it to a blatant whore. If he had used that term we would not be having this conversation.
I think the objection is to the fact that he is implying that they have sold themselves out for money–which is what is to be a whore. That notion is compounded by his choice of words “dames” “dig” “dollars” Maybe itself completely an unfortunate coincidence and he was merely trying to be clever, but maybe he’s suggesting that they are digging for dollars and therefore defiling themselves. That was my interpretation and it seems the students as well. I don’t get the need for the No on P to defend Dunning, throw him under the bus and move on.
Funny how one can interpret and change the actual words of an article to fit their agenda. Very weak indeed, I think sad says it best. I get the feeling that most of these anti Dunning posts are all coming from the same source using many different names, just a way to try and reinforce the dung that they’re spewing.
To: To Skip – I do not deny that one can read what you said into what Dunning wrote, but to say what UC Davis Student said that Dunning blatantly called them whores is just ridiculous. If you make a statement about a woman working for money does one automatically think you are calling her a whore? Please.
Don’t know if the No on P statement was directed at me or not. I’m not with that group or Yes on P either. Don’t know why you threw that in.
Measure P question:
Regardless of whether Measure P housing will be truly affordable to the stated target consumers or not, if new houses are brought onto the market, would that not depress local housing prices in other parts of Davis?
I could imagine housing prices in other parts of Davis being lower because some Davis residents could buy up, and there would be more housing supply on the market.
wdf, good post and you hit the nail right on the head. With over 2000 already approved homes coming on the market in the coming years this project is ill advised at this time. Wildhorse Ranch will help create a home glut which will depress everyone’s home values. The other projects we can’t vote on, but thankfully we’ll have a say on Wildhorse. Vote “NO” on “P”.
And these 2000 new homes don’t even include the new Spring Lake homes only a few miles outside of Davis down Rd. 102.
NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR MEASURE “P”
Hi wdf,
In my opinion (for what it’s worth) Davis housing prices are more affected by the regional housing supply — the Davis/Dixon/Woodland/West Sac market supply — than by a small increase in the local supply of houses. I think expensive townhouses attract a particular demographic, and a large percentage of the buyers are likely to be new to Davis. And I think that macro economic trends are a big factor in regional housing prices.
Building expensive townhouses is not a particularly efficient way to increase the supply of affordable housing locally.
Don,
I disagree, Davis is its own unique market and I believe that local communities don’t have that much to do with our home values. Most that gravitate here know that they could buy cheaper in surrounding communities but they want to live in Davis because it’s a great place to live. Let’s keep it that way and stop the sprawl and overcrowding. Don’t let the developers take away our uniqueness and make Davis just like any other town.
Like politics all housing markets are local.
My mom didn’t think dame was an insult. Of course she was born in 1923 and is opposed to gay marriage and marijuana legalization.
Got to say it. At the market this morning. Angry privileged professional whites in Yes on P booth who dont want anyone living next to them who have a lower socioeconomic status. And there was Sue, whipping those NIBYs (all living within blocks of the horse ranch) into a frenzy for her own political purposes.
The rest of the No on P coalition are people who would vote down ANYTHING outside the current border of the city.
So there you have it: the angery ones who have never voted for Sue or progressive politics in their lives, and who helped put the developer coalition into power, fighting off a developer with the assistance of people those angry whites would never ever be seen with on a normal day.
“It’s all happening at the Market, I do believe it’s true.”
What a contrast said: “Got to say it. At the market this morning.”
Your description is all too confusing for me. Was this your intent? I was there today and the talk at the No on P booth was pretty straight forward.
2000 homes are enough in the pipeline for now. The WHR project has some nice green features but they have been hyped to levels that have NEVER been documented by facts. The project is at best fiscal neutral and most likely will be a drain on the city in the future.SO….. why should we approve this project NOW when we have already met our SACOG fair-share numbers and we are looking at a massive current unsold housing inventory, projected to almost double when mortgage rates are reset at unaffordable rates for those who were suckered into buying at initially ridiculously low or zero %. Add to this, the Spring Lake new homes that are already well along in construction, just up the road, that will further saturate the regional unsold housing inventory.
…..Perhaps you meant the NO on P booth rather than the Yes on P booth. I guess that you became a little disoriented as you appear to have been choking on your own bile.
Have they started to serve spirits at the Saturday Farmer’s Market?
If Measure “P” passes you’ll see the restart up of Covell Village in fairly short order. It’s time to send another message to the developers.
Vote no on “P”
Bottom line: Bob Dunning is a jerk, Mike Harrington is a shill, and David Greenwald is a dupe. The more I learn the more I think Sue Greenwald is the only sane civic leader in this town!
In reading over these 125! posts, I am struck by more than a few posters who mistakenly launch an attack against “Yes on P” when the context of their tirade strongly suggests that it is really directed against NO on P. Is this just the confusion of the poster or a deliberate attempt to co-opt some No on P votes by confusing the reader/voter about what a vote Yes on P or NO on P represents?
Yes, No whatever on P!
What I am starting to see with the white WH neighborhood attacks on the project’s affordable housing is that J actually might be a vehicle used to keep minorities out of town, or at least the perception that they might come with the afordable housing. Dick Holdstock was against J for that reason, I remember?
Getting beyond P and Nov. 3, we will see if the hard-core zero growth progressive wing aligns with the white racist WH NIMBYs and shuts down this small project. If they are successful, J needs to be changed. it will be a new day in this city.
Do you see it, DPD?
Also, I am wondering if the low income housing bar would take a shot at the J renewal. It would be tempting … because a loss of P is all about stopping afforadble housing that people of color can live in.
Sue and the white liberal professionals in league with white privileged NIMBYs who hate the affordable housing aspect of this project? A loss of P would probably provide strong evidence to be used to attack J as a white ghetto community tool to shut out the poor and people of color.
This line of reasoning is now becoming obvious … and I am sure that the affordable housing advocates will most likely look at suing to stop a J renewal.
Keith: “If Measure “P” passes you’ll see the restart up of Covell Village in fairly short order.”
Actually, if you’ve this blog, Covell Village is going to submit their application in January, regardless. Whitcombe has come out against the project for what it’s worth.
“Whitcombe has come out against the project for what it’s worth.”
Why would he do that? Business rivalry? It seems like he would want to develop a similar rationale for any project that he proposed as has been presented for the WHR project.
Anyone read the front page of the Enterprise this morning about how home sales and prices have slumped in Davis over the last 5 years and continue to slide. Oh yeah, we really need to add 191 more homes to the mix of 2000 already in the pipeline. Let’s see how low we can drive Davis home values.
Everyone needs to vote on Nov. 3 and they need to vote….No on “P”….
I would first like to dispel the claim that all of the posts in support of myself and Alex are written by the same person. We are busy college students and we don’t have time to follow this blog throughout the day. Thank you UC Davis Student for your posts.
To address “writer”. “I mean, come on, saying you believe in a cause which you are paid to espouse is pretty cheesy.” You do not know me personally and therefore are unable to know what I do or do not believe. This is one of the reasons why Mr. Dunning’s article was insulting; he challenged the validity of my beliefs. I only work for campaigns and elected officials who I support and who I believe in. If I wasn’t being paid I would volunteer for Yes on P for a few hours during the week as opposed to the twenty hours I put in as a paid campaign worker. We all support Measure P, not because the developer bought our support, but because we’ve looked into the issue and support the Yes campaign.
Finally, regardless of whether or not you personally find Mr. Dunning’s article insulting, it was insulting to myself and all of the young women who I’ve spoken with who have read the article. Until you know what it’s like to be a young woman and face the sexism found in society every day, from getting whistled at while riding your bike or waiting at a bus stop to not being taken seriously by older men in a professional setting, you can not understand what elements of the article are insulting.