Dishonesty of Website Rises to a New Low –
What we know so far is that Joseph Whitcombe, the son of developer John Whitcombe has spearheaded the drive against R apparently by himself. He wrote the ballot arguments against it. He challenged the title of the Measure R ballot measure itself in court, representing himself in court against City Attorney Harriet Steiner. From the arguments he made in open court, it became very clear that it was him acting alone.
He argues that Measure R has not and cannot slow growth. If that is the case, why is a developer so worried about it? There have been two projects that have come forward to be voted on, both have been defeated. Since that time, the city has approved a number of infill sites, but the borders of Davis have not been expanded. Measure J/ R was not intended to “slow” growth, it was intended to allow the voters to decided where, when, and what projects to approve.
Several statements have caught the attention of those supporting the renewal of Measure J/ R.
For instance, Mr. Whitcombe questioned whether the “Yes On R” campaign represents Davis voters at large. “I think its reasonable to wonder if the people advocating Measure R, who have no school kids, and no elderly parents or grandparents in town, really have the interests of the City and schools at heart, or whether it might be some political agenda.”
On his website, the title of his article is “Signatories of argument in favor of Measure R have no school kids, Elderly relatives in Davis.” However, the article is missing.
This is not even an accurate depiction of several of the Yes on R representatives. Moreover it is beside the point. Elsewhere Mr. Whitcombe complains that the Yes on R campaign focuses on the messenger rather than the message, yet he does it here, to questionable effect and even more dubious accuracy.
Former Davis Mayor Ken Wagstaff said in a letter to the Vanguard, “The No on Measure R campaign is currently including a statement in its materials to the effect that my efforts on behalf of the Measure are based on “some kind of political agenda” and “its reasonable to wonder if (I) …really have the interests of the City and schools at heart” because I “represent no children in Davis.””
He called these false statements and pointed out that he has three grandchildren in Davis public schools currently in addition to both of his children attending Davis public schools in the past. He said, “When I was Mayor I worked hard to continue the tradition of cooperation and mutual support between the City and the schools.” He continued, “I ran for Davis City Council precisely because I had the interests of the City uppermost in mind. Over my term I achieved most of the objectives stated in my campaign, so I did not seek reelection.”
Furthermore, Measure R is not primarily about schools anyway according to Mr. Wagstaff. “It is about urban development on open space and agricultural land. It is about renewing Measure J, the “citizen’s right to vote on future use of open space and agricultural lands,” the former Mayor said. “The only “agenda” of those supporting Measure R is to insure that any urban expansion at the periphery of our community is ultimately decided by the voters.”
This is only the tip of the iceberg in the dishonest language of the No on Measure R campaign. There is an “article” on their website on the Yolo County Court Case entitled, “Yolo Court Lets Fraudulent Language on Measure R Ballot Remain.” The article is dated March 26, 2010.
The author, likely Mr. Whitcombe himself, writes:
“At the hearing, it was undisputed that this language is false for two reasons. First, Measure R does not apply to “open space.” Thus, some voters may vote for Measure R on the mistaken belief that it will tend to protect their neighborhood park, playfield, or other open space. In fact, the opposite is more likely, since Measure R will tend to focus growth toward such “open space.””
He continued:
“Measure R opponents argued that the ballot language was nothing more than false and misleading political propaganda, and should not be published in official voter materials. The City of Davis argued, and the court agreed, that regardless of whether the language will mislead voters, the false language should remain because it is only the “title” of Measure R.”
That may have been Mr. Whitcombe’s argument, but it was not undisputed and the court never made such a ruling. The court in fact found just the opposite, that there was “insufficient evidence of false or misleading language.”
While Harriet Steiner did argue that it was only a title, she also disputed the statement that it was false or misleading. As summarized by the Vanguard on March 26, Harriet Steiner said:
“that the ordinance and Measure J have been commonly known by this title, it has been known all along what it is called and what it means, and the voter pamphlet will reflect that. She said that the wording is clear, not misleading, not partial, not incomplete, not false, and not inconsistent.”
It is hard to imagine how Ms. Steiner could be MORE clear that she is in fact disputing that the ballot language was false and misleading. Neither the Judge nor the City agreed that the language was misleading, though they did argue that the title was codified in the original Measure J vote and contained at the beginning of the measure, “The Citizen’s Right to Vote on Future Use of Open Space and Agricultural Lands Ordinance.”
Mr. Whitcombe continued:
“Opponents argued that even if the false language were the “title” of Measure R (which they disputed), the fact that it will mislead voters should still require a change in the ballot language. The trial court refused to consider the effect of the false language on voters, and ruled that the language may remain on the ballot.”
In fact, the court ruled that there was no evidence that the language was misleading and that is why it ruled that the language may remain on the ballot.
Mr. Whitcombe appealed this decision, but the appeal was also denied.
It is in great irony that the article by Mr. Whitcombe is false and misleading as he charges that the ballot language is false and misleading. Mr. Whitcombe misrepresents both the position of the city and Judge David Reed in his statement. And in so doing, he attempts to mislead the voters.
The question at this point is whether John Whitcombe, who is trying to defeat the measure in order to build a senior housing development at the Covell Village site, will throw real money into the campaign and hire an actual campaign consultant. Right now all Joseph Whitcombe is doing is throw a bunch of false and misleading statements on a website and trying to oppose Measure R. That will not work and it does not reflect well on either Joseph Whitcombe or frankly John Whitcombe that he has run what is clearly an amateur hour campaign.
If this is the best the opponents of Measure R can do, I think they would be wise to pack up their tents and go home.
In yet another article entitled, “No Apologies from Whitcombe” the writer argues, ” In their rebuttal to the Ballot Argument against Measure R, proponents largely ignored the points advanced by its writer, Joseph Whitcombe, and instead chose to attack his credibility as a member of the Whitcombe family, who the proponents describe as a “developer” family. “
The author, again likely Mr. Whitcombe himself, goes on to argue that he is a credible member of the community. “Mr. Whitcombe, 41, is a lifelong Davis resident and attorney, is the principal broker of Whitcombe & Co. Realty in Davis. His wife, Elena Whitcombe, is a Family Practice physician with Sutter Medical Group and a director of the Peregrine School, a private school in West Davis. Mr. Whitcombe is also the son of John Whitcombe, a lifelong Davis resident who gained notoriety as one of 20+ investors in the Covell Village development, which failed at the polls in a Measure J vote in 2005.”
He continues:
“In an interview, Mr. Whitcombe responded to Measure R proponents’ charge that, as a member of the Whitcombe family, he did not have the community’s interests at heart in opposing Measure R.
“Look, my grandmother founded the Farmers Market and built the first swimming pool in Davis. My grandfather was a Council Member and Police Commissioner. My father and his friends and business partners like Bill Streng, Bill Roe, Bob Black, and Mike Corbett planned and built North Davis, Village Homes, the Davis Art Center, started some of the first solar energy companies in the world, and started Unitrans.” he said. “They founded the greenbelt system with Donna Lott. The list goes on. These people proposed and built most of the things that people in Davis are proud of. Really, if you don’t like them, you don’t like Davis. I’m not ashamed of my name, and I’ve got nothing to apologize for. I just wish the [Measure R] proponents would engage on the issues.”
Of course, Mr. Whitcombe misses the point as well. The problem that people have is not that the Whitcombe family is not from Davis or that it is credible and well-respected, but rather that it has a huge of amount to gain financially from the defeat of the measure. As these things go, that leads to people questioning whether the Whitcombes are simply looking out for the best interests of Davis rather than looking out for the best interests of their own bottom line.
I would also very politely suggest that if Mr. Whitcombe wants to claim that his family is reputable and well respected members of the community, he might consider doing them honor by not bearing false witness on his neighbors, in this case the pro-Measure R proponents, the city of Davis, and the Judge himself. The arguments outlined above have misconstrued, misrepresented, if not outright lied, about their position in the court case and the Judge’s ruling.
We will find out in the next week or two whether Mr. Whitcombe, that is John Whitcombe, is going to mount a serious campaign. Because if this is all they have to offer, they might as well not even bother.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It would make sense for some deep pockets local to spend some money to defeat R. If they can’t get their projects through and need to spend a bunch of money for election costs if it passes it is likely to be cost effective to try to beat it down.
I say vote no on R because I believe that increasing supply will make housing more affordable and Davis a more diverse and culturally richer place. I do not fear an increase in population in Davis nor do I think such an increase will degrade the quality of life here. As a great President once said, “You have nothing to fear but fear itself”
Machiavelli’s observation while not on-point has some relevance here with regard to the Whitcombe’s sense of arrogance and entitlement as THE most politically powerful Davis Establishment family. “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
“I do not fear an increase in population in Davis nor do I think such an increase will degrade the quality of life here.”
Really? Go take a drive through Elk Grove or Natomas sometime and see how much you like sprawl then report your findings back to us.
Rusty, he really doesn’t fear that. I tend to agree with you that quality of life would go down moving this from a relatively small city to a city of 100,000 to 150,000, but he doesn’t see it that way.
If Davis had pursued a trajectory of increased development from 2000 onward, that we would likely be seeing higher rates of foreclosure in Davis right now. As rusty49 says above, go drive through Elk Grove or Natomas to evaluate that.
I question the connection that Measure J necessarily led to the closure of Valley Oak. There are so many schools slated for closure all over California in the past couple of years, from all different kinds of communities (urban, rural, suburban, a variety of different demographic mixes) that it would be very hard to say that Valley Oak’s situation in Davis was uniquely a slow/no growth policy resulting from Measure J. Woodland pursued a more aggressive growth policy and still closed two elementaries.
You also have to account for a declining population of elementary age students as the “echo boom” population passes through.
I think that this article is unfair to John Whitcombe. You have to realize that the vast bulk of his inheritance is tied-up in the Covell Village site and measure J has prevented him from reaching his true potential as a local demi-god. John needs a condo in Boca, you can help him, vote no on R.
David, if you vote down Measure R and release the developers on Davis with a pro growth council Elk Grove and Natomas is exactly what we’ll end up with someday.
I agree.
Gunrock: I was wondering who would be the first person to call my article unfair, I didn’t really believe it would be you however.
Exactly Gunrock, what right do we have trying to keep our little town of Davis the great place it is to live now when developers have riches to make? You know, one can never be too wealthy.
How would bringing in a whole bunch of seniors somehow save our schools or our open space? This logic escapes me…
The Whitcombe No On Measure R website is reminiscent of the type of misleading and hyperbolic campaign that was run by the Yes on Measure X group which was also headed up by the Whitcombe constituency. Recall that Measure X was the Covell Village proposal that was on the ballot in 2005 and there was a number of memorable mis-behavior’s by the Yes on Measure X’ers. For instance there was “Pizza-gate” where the students were offered pizza for votes by Yes on Measure X-ers. This action was strongly criticized by all including the Yolo County Elections office (who had to step in). Also, what about the front page story of the Enterprise featuring a photo of the Covell Village developers gathered around a fire to sing “We Shall overcome” just days before the election? That incident spoke for itself and was rather insensitive given the civil rights relationship of that chant. But, clearly the developers did whatever they had to try to “overcome” us.
Well it looks like we are in for more of the same kind of campaigning by a group that is desperate to defeat Measure R for the renewal of Measure J. So folks, we need your help to make sure we protect our right to vote on projects proposed to develop either open space or ag land. Understand that Covell Village and Nishi are specifically mentioned in the Measure J ordinance and the Whitcombe developers are heavily invested in both. It is not hard to understand why they want to defeat measure R to renew measure J.
Please help the Yes on Measure R campaign to renew Measure J now by pulling up our modest website at http://www.YesOnMeasure R. We need your donations now and your volunteerism to help preserve Measure R. Pass the word to others as well. Click on the “card” option to print out and send in with your donation as soon as possible and volunteer if you can. As the Vanguard has mentioned, absentee ballots come out in two weeks which can mean the entire election. The total is up to 15,000 permanent registered voters. You can contact us at YesOnMeasureR@dcn.org.
David, with the greatest possible respect, your interpretation of the court case and the ruling is not very good. In particular, you completely misunderstand the context of the trial court’s “substantial evidence” ruling, which was merely an afterthought to the main ruling (trial courts always support their substantive rulings with a bunch of secondary, technical rulings).
I’ve posted the writ brief online (which you incorrectly characterize as an “appeal”), which describes the hearing in the trial court and the ruling and its various basis under the rules of appellate procedure, (i.e., the description has to be accurate or the author might be sent to jail).
If anyone feels inclined to form an opinion on these issues, I’d ask that they read the brief first (it was done in a great hurry, so excuse a few typos).
http://www.davis-ca-real-estate.com/MPA_Writ.pdf
BTW: Are you voting for Prop. 16, the “Citizens Right To Vote”?
Is there a URL for this website? What is it?
Joe (Whitcombe): With the greatest possible respect (and I really do mean this), would you please disclose your financial interests in all potential Measure J/R properties within the Davis planning area? This would include current holdings, options (if any), and properties for you are likely to inherit an interest at some point in the future. As the only visible leader of the No on Measure R campaign, it is important for voters to understand your potential financial conflicts of interest.
[quote]How would bringing in a whole bunch of seniors somehow save our schools or our open space? This logic escapes me…[/quote]Elaine: Great point.
My sincere apologies. In my post to Joe, I inadvertently indicated that he was the leader of the YES on Measure R campaign. I obviously meant the NO on Measure R campaign.
David … Please edit my first post an delete this correction. Thanks.
My initial two cents …
As far as I can tell, the No on Measure R campaign is being driven primarily by proponents of the Covell and Nishi properties.
The electorate is essentially being asked to open up development within the entire Davis planning area in order to let these two projects advance.
Seniors, school closures, and low income housing are being used as the main wedge issues.
I just noticed that I accidentally left off the .org on our website address for Yes on Measure R to support the renewal of Measure J in my posting above at 12:21 pm.
To get to our Yes On Measure R website just type in http://www.YesOnMeasureR.org on your browser.
Sorry for any inconvenience.
“…..what about the front page story of the Enterprise featuring a photo of the Covell Village developers gathered around a fire to sing “We Shall overcome” just days before the election?”
….as I remember it, the front-page Enterprise photo was actually more visually revealing than intended as it appeared to present the “godfather” of the “family” posturing defiantly while surrounded by his “attendants”.
Mr. Whitcombe,
We’re still waiting for your answers to Ishmael’s questions.
I have only met John Whitcombe one time and have no financial interest in any Davis real estate. Still I think it is well known that he is well to do and has interests in the area. That being said don’t you think you’re being rude to expect someone to disclose their finances in a comment section of a blog on the request of someone who won’t even post their full name? How about if you guys go first and post all your financial interests before asking him to do his posting. I mean how do we know you don’t have a financial interest in a property that will be hurt by expansion of the city on its edges?
Ishmael: If you want to know what Mr. Whitcombe owns, you can get that info from the Yolo County Tax Assessor’s Office:
Yolo County Assessor
http://www.yolocounty.org
625 Court Street
Woodland, CA 95695-3490
(530) 666-8135
And they have a website that tells if the taxes have been paid on a parcel.
toad says “increasing housing supply will make more affordable housing and Davis a more diverse and culturally richer place. I do not fear an increase in population in Davis”
If this is what you want your community to look like then move to elk grove. I lived their and counted the day that our family moved to Davis.
Elk Grove/Laguna is classic example of “developers gone wild”.
Developers control the city council and the councilmen dance to whatever tune the developers want to play that day.
Not in davis vote yes on R
Mr.Toad:
Nope. Not rude at all. The question is fair game because Joe Whitcombe, the only visible leader of the No on Measure R campaign, appears to be posturing himself as a concerned citizen and not a developer. While this may be technically true, the idea that he is without significant financial conflicts of interest lacks any credibility … and begs the question of public disclosure.
rusty says “David, if you vote down Measure R and release the developers on Davis with a pro growth council Elk Grove and Natomas is exactly what we’ll end up with someday.”
you are 100% correct. I lived in Elk Grove/Laguna and if Davis wants unplanned growth with commerical backing up to residential with no planning then vote no on R.
If you value what we have here in Davis vote yes on R.
what makes Davis looking like Laguana, Fairfield, vacaville ect. RIGHT. It may look right to the developers and real estate brokers but the only losers are Davis Homeowners
we have something special in Davis lets preserve it.
Barbara: Thanks for the info.
[quote]If you want to know what Mr. Whitcombe owns, you can get that info from the Yolo County Tax Assessor’s Office[/quote]
With regard to commercial property especially, it’s usually not that easy. It’s very common for investment property to be held by partnerships, corporations, LLCs, etc. with names that do not include the family names of the principals.
.
Jim: So is there any other practical mechanism you are aware of (short of voluntary disclosure by Mr. Whitcombe)?
Local news posted to No on Measure P web site in the last 48 hrs:
(4/13/2010) Watermelon Music Burgled
Can someone please explain to me how Measure J is connected to this piece of news?
Ishmael: If you run into partnerships, etc. that just adds extra steps to your search. Places to trace the info include Google, city finance departments to check business owners, the California Department of Corporations, the California Department of Real Estate, and sometimes a county office or two if the county does its own business licenses. If I don’t get the info I am looking for during any one particular call, I the person I am talking to 1) where else might I find this info, and 2) who is the old timer license wonk in your office who would know about the arcane info I am looking for. Good luck!
Local news posted to No on Measure P web site in the last 48 hrs:
Where is this web site?
Here you go: [url]http://www.helpsavedavis.org/[/url]
Oh Mr. Witcombe, you still havn’t answered Ishmael’s question.
“…Measure J/ R was not intended to “slow” growth, it was intended to allow the voters to decided where, when, and what projects to approve…”
Please. This is disingenuous at best. No matter how the measures are phrased, the intent is to slow growth. It detracts from your argument to include nonsense like this.
While people are asking for full disclosure, how about looking a little deeper for other reasons people support measure R? BTW, I don’t want Davis to grow either, but is it fair to limit a landowner’s ability to make money?
As a homeowner I benefit from limited growth because the city stays smaller and more desirable. Oh yeah and housing prices did not drop anywhere near the levels of surrounding areas.
On the other hand, it leads to a more stagnant, conservative and homogeneous population. It’s a city with a university, but it’s no longer a university city. Like it or not, Davis is a commuter city. Most people who work at UCD can’t afford to live here and most people who live here (not counting students) work outside the city.
But why should I care? My kids are grown, they already received full benefit of the Davis school system, the Davis bike lanes and the relatively safe community. I also have plenty of equity in my house, it’s easy to get from one end of the city to the other on bike or by car. It’s also nice that Woodland is so close and we can have the benefits of Costco and other big stores without polluting our city.
Down with the large landholders. They are only in it for the money. The proponents of measure J/R have more pure motives that have nothing to do with money.
“Is it fair to limit a landowner’s ability to make money”
WEll, these landowners bought land zoned for agricultural or other uses. They hope to make money by rezoning the land to residential. Measure J/R simply makes Davis citizens part of the process so that a City Council beholding to developers does not have the final say.
So perhaps one could rephrase–Is it fair for developers who hold Ag land to reap windfall profits when Ag land is converted meanwhile sticking Davis taxpayers with losses that typically occur with residential development in California (unless mitigated) ?