UC – Legislature Starting to Get the Message
While this will probably not go down as a great week for either UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi or the State Legislature, there are signs that the message of the student occupy movement, that has focused mainly on issues like the affordability and future of public higher education, has gotten through.
Whether anyone can do anything about it is another question.
UC Davis issued a release late this week that UC officials have “expressed disappointment but no surprise in this week’s $100 million ‘trigger’ cut in state funding.”
“This additional cut will exacerbate the fiscal challenges the university faces in the current year and place additional stress on the quality of education provided to UC students,” President Mark G. Yudof said in a letter to UC advocates.
“The state previously lopped $650 million in UC funding for 2011-12 – and UC responded by raising tuition,” the release stated. “That will not happen this time, with UC having declared that it will use short-term bridging strategies to cover the additional $100 million cut this fiscal year. These strategies primarily involve drawing upon surpluses from UC payments toward employee health and welfare plans.”
“While we certainly understand the ongoing fiscal challenges the state faces, we are requesting that this latest reduction be considered a one-time cut to UC’s budget and not made a permanent reduction,” Yudof said. “We will ask to have this funding restored to UC at the beginning of the next fiscal year (July 1, 2012).”
UC is now lobbying the governor to refrain from additional cuts to higher education – but, as we know, the governor has little discretion as to where to find large cuts.
“Faculty and staff have sacrificed, and our students in particular have given more than their fair share,” President Yudof said. “Moreover, as we move forward, we will continue to work closely with state officials to develop a long-term revenue plan that will give the university much-needed financial stability.”
In their discussions this week, the issue of funding for higher education played a key role – which is undoubtedly something that will make the occupied participants pleased.
“The root to all of this, frankly, is the underfunding of higher education,” said Assemblymember Block who was one of the organizers of the joint hearing.
“Budget cuts have been horrible, and, frankly, we are only dealing with the resources that the taxpayers of California give us,” the assemblymember said. “Higher education has absorbed the brunt of the burden already.”
Chancellor Katehi hit on this point, as well, in her prepared remarks.
“Our students are increasingly frustrated and angry about reductions in state support for higher education,” the chancellor said. “They are frustrated and angry about repeated tuition increases. They are worried about how they will repay their loans and find jobs when they graduate.”
Assemblymember Mariko Yamada, a member of the Higher Education Committee, issued a news release in which she said the protests “were born out of outrage and hopelessness that many feel are due to the increasing disinvestment in higher education.”
Arizona Sheriff Cited For Racial Bias Against Latinos
Some see Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio as a hero, standing up and holding the line against the influx of illegal immigration. But others have criticized “America’s Sheriff” for trampling the rights of many, while playing to the cameras.
This week, the Justice Department joined the latter group, issuing a strongly-worded critique that accused the sheriff of practicing “unconstitutional policing” by unfairly targeting Latinos for detention and arrest and retaliating against those who complain.
The inquiry began in June of 2008, lasted more than three years, and ended with a 22-page report that finds “reasonable cause to believe that MCSO (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office) engages in a pattern or practice of unconstitutionally policing,” including that the command staff, supervisory staff and deputies engage “in racial profiling of Latinos; unlawfully stops, detains, and arrest Latinos; and unlawfully retaliates against individuals who complain about or criticize MCSO’s polices or practices.”
The report finds, “The absence of clear policies and procedures to ensure effective and constitutional policing, along with the deviations from widely accepted policing and correctional practices, and the failure to implement meaningful oversight and accountability structures, have contributed to a chronic culture of disregard for basic legal and constitutional obligations.”
They add, “In addition to the formal findings noted above, we have identified three additional areas of serious concern that, while not warranting a formal pattern or practice finding at this time, require further investigation.”
These include the following: “First, our investigation revealed a number of troubling incidents involving MCSO deputies using excessive force against Latinos. Second, we observed that MCSO has implemented its immigration enforcement program in a way that has created a ‘wall of distrust’ between MCSO officers and Maricopa County’s Latino residents – a wall of distrust that has significantly compromised MCSO’s ability to provide police protection to Maricopa County’s Latino residents. Third, we have expanded our investigation to encompass a review of serious allegations that MCSO failed to investigate a large number of sex crimes.”
“We find a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos at MCSO that reaches the highest levels of the agency, supervisors of MCSO’s police operations,” they add.
Not only that, but the department interfered with the inquiry, prompting the government to file a lawsuit that compelled the sheriff and his deputies to cooperate.
The sheriff, who is 79, brushed off criticism as politically motivated.
He was particularly unhappy that, as a result of the findings of discrimination, the federal government would no longer allow sheriff’s deputies to check the immigration status of inmates in their custody.
“This is a sad day for America as a whole,” Sheriff Arpaio said. “We are proud of the work we have done to fight illegal immigration.”
More on Race
Our column last week, “Discussing Race” triggered a good discussion, though like most, it got a little bit off course. Back in 2009, the City of Davis ran a “Diversity and Discrimination Survey.” Unfortunately, it was not a random poll and therefore we can only take the findings as somewhat suggestive, if only because they are so stark.
In response to the question, “I have felt I was discriminated against in Davis within the past year based on my race” – 64% of Blacks and Hispanics and 51% of Asians agreed. However, only 3 percent of whites claimed to have been discriminated against due to race while nearly 56% of them claimed to have experienced no discrimination at all.
More than 50% of those who had experienced discrimination said that they had experienced it in a Davis Business Establishment.
Clearly, a lot more work needs to be done on this research area, but the starkness of the responses between whites and the three largest minority groups are, at the very least, suggestive.
Tower Discussion – Whom do Members of the Board of Supervisors Represent?
Earlier this week, the Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to reject the appeal on the tower project. This, despite a strongly-worded letter sent from the Davis City Council urging them not to extend the permit to construct the tower.
The vote came despite the letter issued on December 7, following the council’s meeting last week, in which City Manager Steve Pinkerton wrote, “The City Council reviewed the project and approved a recommendation that the Board not support an extension of the permit to construct the tower based on the potential impacts to biological resources and the creation of aesthetic impacts associated with tower lighting.”
The city argued, “Despite improvements in the project design, the proposed project is inconsistent with the US Fish and Wildlife Services’ communication tower locational guidelines and will create a potential bird strike hazard due to the close proximity to wildlife habitat areas and bird migratory routes.”
And to the light pollution point, “The tower will decrease nighttime visual quality in a dark part of Yolo County. Towers should be located in lit corridors.”
The city argues, “The Yolo County Board of Supervisors should not support an extension of the permit to construct the tower based on (1) the potential impacts to biological resources associated with its proposed location and (2) the creation of aesthetic impacts associated with tower lighting.”
The two Davis representatives – Don Saylor and Jim Provenza – joined with their colleagues, despite the unanimous support by the Davis City Council and strong showing from the Davis community against the tower project.
Perhaps it would behoove Mr. Saylor and Mr. Provenza to remember exactly whom they represent – we’ll give you a hint, it’s the people who vote for you in the next election.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David:
Please listen to the very eloquent comments by Mr. Provenza at the end of the consideration of this item on Tuesday. Further, please listen to the exchange between Prozenza and Mitch Sears from the City of Davis.
Finally — based on these comments I will not hear any more nonsense from you about representing the whole county. You seem to be very situational on this issue — as in Davis representatives need to look at what only Davis wants on issues while the other Supervisors needs to look at what is best for the entire county.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
[quote]UC is now lobbying the Governor to refain from additional cuts to higher education – but as we know the Governor has little discretion as to where to find large cuts.[/quote]
I think the UC system’s credibility suffers when they ask the state not to cut funding at the same time they give top administrators bonuses…
[quote]More than 50% of those who had experienced discrimination said that they had experienced it in a Davis Business Establishment.[/quote]
My daughter experienced “discrimination” from several downtown business establishments as a teen. They didn’t seem to want her business, and automatically assumed she was a potential shoplifter. At least that was the sense she had. It caused her not to shop at certain stores downtown. She can choose where to take her dollars…
ERM
My kids also experienced what they perceived as discrimination in the form of suspicion at some businesses, and did just what you said.
I would make a distinction however. Being a kid is a discriminatory factor that one grows out of. One can never grow out of discrimination based on gender or race.
I need to modify my comment to include ” without extraordinary and sometimes surgical means”.
David – This doesn’t mention the 30+ Davis residents who came out to the meeting to support the tower. I call that a strong showing.
Provenza really did his homework. His understanding of the issue impressed me.
“David – This doesn’t mention the 30+ Davis residents who came out to the meeting to support the tower. I call that a strong showing.”
It’s beyond me why would anyone show up to a meeting to support an ugly tower that might significantly effect the nightscape on the border of our town unless they were organised by some entity or had a financial stake in the project? Are you saying these were just 30 random residents that had no skin in the game that showed up to back the tower?
Rusty – They were KDVS supporters.
[quote]Perhaps it would behoove Mr. Saylor and Mr. Provenza to remember exactly whom they represent – we’ll give you a hint, it’s the people who vote for you in the next election.[/quote]Provenza had already sold out to the coalition of El Macero/Willowbank NIMBYs that forced the tower to North Davis. Apparently, he can’t support two groups of constituents and chew gum at the same time.
The arguments from our “neighbors” responsible for moving the impacts to another part of town – if taken at face value – demonstrated that the tower was just fine in its original South Davis location.
Of course, IMO these arguments were self-serving BS, and the tower does not belong anywhere in our sphere-of-influence.
I’m sure Rexroad relished the opportunity to stick it to Davis.
Residents living in northeastern Davis purchased their homes in good faith and with the understanding that proper planning and enforcement of environmental regulations (such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for example)would protect them and their property from gratuituous urban blight. At no time were the project proponents (Results Radio)required to notify these residents of the imminent installation of a 365 foot radio transmission tower with continuous flashing strobe lights within the nearby Greenline Zone. The projected impacts of the tower on nearby residents are significant and obvious. They include:sad:1)continuous night time pulsating light pollution; and, 2)decreased property values. These issues should have been considered in a full CEQA analysis of the adverse impacts of this project. Results Radio prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration concerning these impacts based solely on the specifications of the light source (the bulbs) on the tower rather than on the impacts of the pulsating light on the nearby residents and their property. This failure of the CEQA process also highlights the failure of the representatives of these citizens to represent their concerns on this issue in a fair, honest, and thorough manner.
.
Jim Provenza is my hero. He stood up for what was right in agreeing with the unanimous Board of Supervisors decision to extend the permit for the radio tower. It was the Davis CC who showed cowardice. As one CC member said to me at the farmers market “It isn’t our decision anyway.” The Davis CC vote was a throw away and it left Provenza in a bad situation. For you to take that bait is shameful. As Matt Rexroad said above you should check out the record for yourself before interjecting ignorant opinions attacking someone who showed the integrity Provenza demonstrated.
Because of the vituperative nature of the opponents, I am hesitant to make any comment here about the radio tower, but on balance, I think this is a good project. Not because of its commercial aspects, but because I think communications in general is very important, and also because I think that KDVS needs the solid foundation it will provide.
Most of the opponents have completely ignored the technical issues that required placement of the tower in this location. As an amateur radio operator who is very interested in emergency communications, I have gone through similar compromises in establishing a repeater on campus to support emergency ham radio communications. Coordination with other broadcasting systems is not trivial.
I am also a strong advocate of “the environment,” including preservation of bird flyways and conservation issues. I have read a number of studies about the issue of bird kills by towers, and I believe that the elimination of guy wires will greatly reduce the risk to birds from this tower. I note that several commenters have asked for information about the bird kill rates for the existing 500 foot guyed tower not too far from the landfill, and no one has provided any information about this.
As to the lights, I doubt that anyone will even notice them after the tower is built (new technology does mitigate things, as Matt has repeatedly tried to point out). I have a neighbor with extremely obnoxious wind chimes, which have kept me awake for a while every time we have a north wind. Should I ask the City to shut them down?
All changes involve trade offs. I think the County has made the correct decision, and I suspect most Davis residents are completely neutral or are in support of the KDVS position.
“All changes involve trade offs.”
Do you mean like the trade off of switching the site to northeast Davis from El Macero?
“I suspect most Davis residents are completely neutral or are in support of the KDVS position.”
And you know this because?
What happens when the tower is built and it possively turns out that the lights are intrusive? Do we in northeast Davis get a do-over?
“possibly”
Rusty, I wouldn’t mind if that tower were literally built in my back yard, as long as I could put a few antennas on it. And how do you know that most Davis residents are against it?
You are certainly a fearful person. Do the street lights in front of your house keep you up at night? Sorry, Don, delete at will….
[i]And you know this because? [/i]
I don’t think most Davis residents know that their lives have already been significantly intruded upon by a tower that is 200 feet taller and a mile closer to houses than the one that is planned. I base this on casual conversations that I have had over several years and on my direct question of some folks opposing the tower at a recent Yolo County Planning Commission meeting – they were there to oppose the new tower, yet didn’t know there was already a tower at 102 and 29.
[i]I’m sure Rexroad relished the opportunity to stick it to Davis. [/i]
I have no idea about the BOS motivations, but fter the water fiasco that Davis had put Woodland through, surely no one will be surprised if we have to endure several sharp sticks to the eye from Woodland and perhaps, the BOS.
Isn’t ironic that not a single apologist for the radio tower has suggested that it be located at the original site south of El Macero. Results Radio had FAA approval for this site – and they didn’t have to lie or game the system to get it. And on balance, the site had less wildlife impacts.
All that was missing was BOS approval.
Why didn’t the BOS approve the original proposal? Because Provenza helped broker a deal to move the impacts to another part of town when El Macero/Willowbank NIMBYs raised a stink.
Apparently, these folks didn’t believe the BS about the lights that the applicant and the BOS is now trying to sell to North Davis opponents.
Here are the links:
Proposed Radio Tower in South Davis Generates Controversy
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3115:Proposed-radio-tower-in-south-davis-generates-controversy&catid=76:land-useopen-space&Itemid=99[/url]
In Search of and Alternative Radio Tower Location
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3139:in-search-of-an-alternative-radio-tower-location&catid=76:land-useopen-space&Itemid=99[/url]
The Davis City Council did the right thing.
Jrberg:
“Rusty, I wouldn’t mind if that tower were literally built in my back yard, as long as I could put a few antennas on it. And how do you know that most Davis residents are against it?
You are certainly a fearful person. Do the street lights in front of your house keep you up at night? Sorry, Don, delete at will….”
First of all Jrberg you need to improve your reading comprehension. You made the statement “I suspect most Davis residents are completely neutral or are in support of the KDVS position” and I asked “how do you know this?” I’ve never said that most Davis residents are against it. Secondly, I do have a streetlight directly in front of my house, it doesn’t bother me at all being that it doesn’t have a high powered white strobe light flashing away all night. And last of all, you don’t know sheeet about me so don’t make any assumptions about me being “certainly a fearful person”. Maybe we can meet sometime and you could look me in the eye and see if I’m fearful.
So tell me Jrberg, if this tower isn’t a problem and us northeast residents should just shut our mouths and accept it where were you when El Macero got it removed from their approved location?
“I suspect most Davis residents are completely neutral or are in support of…..
I think that this phrase, or some variant of it ,is used by posters of all political persuasions when what they are trying to assert is “most people either don’t care, or think the same way that I do about this issue.” Unless we have done a poll ( often questionable in itself as Elaine has pointed out), we have absolutely no idea what the majority think and are using this phrase as a means to bolster our own position. It doesn’t work. It is a distraction from the issues. And when argued back and forth by both sides, can be just plain annoying.
Anon –
Is there a reason that you think that the location south of El Macero was a better location than the landfill?
You’ve written extensively about how the new tower will destroy the night sky – isn’t that true for the El Macero location as well? And it seems that the El Macero location would be proximate to a greater number of houses (regardless of whether they are “in Davis” or in Yolo County?
Anon, your post prompts a couple of questions/points.
1) the two articles you linked are dated November 30, 2009 and December 15, 2009. Since it is very clear that the identified alternative location in those articles, what happened to you and all the other opponents between November 2009 and March 2010? Did you think the Council would not listen to you? Did you think the Open Space Commission would not listen to you? Did you go to sleep?
2) Provenza didn’t broker a deal with anyone. If any body pushed Results Radio, it was the County Planning Commission, and the record of their meetings will show that they simply said No to the Mace Blvd site and encouraged Results Radio to pursue sites with residents that were a whole lot less close to the proposed tower site’s 100 yard closeness to the Brooks Horse Academy and two residences. The Planning Commission did comment that the Landfill site did appear to be much less “residence impactful” and was worth pursuing on Results Radio’s part.
There was NEVER any meeting between Jim Provenza, Results Radio and El Macero or Willowbank residents. Jim kept his counsel throughout the process and only became involved when the Landfill tower came to the Supervisors on appeal in September 2010. So if you want to aim your venom at someone for their early involvement in this outcome, you need to pick someone other than Jim.
3) In response to my November 30, 2009 Vanguard article highlighting the strobe lights, Results Radio reached out to me to share the information about the patented “next generation” technology of the strobe lights they would be using. So the information presented in the November 30, 2009 Vanguard article proved to be hyperbole. It made for a great headline, but in the end it was wrong.
Shortly after the November 2009 article, Results Radio went further in their attempt to “sell” the South Mace Blvd project to the Board of the El Macero Homeowners Association and made a presentation to that Board. All the people present agreed that concerns about the strobe lights was a non-starter in terms of supportable opposition to locating the tower on Mace.
4) Both the November and December articles clearly document the efforts that were made to find a workable location in Solano County just south of the Mace Blvd location, so your snide comment on that score is another of your many comments that is not supported by the facts.
Matt, I know, what’s our problem as you infer? When we’re sitting outside at night and we’re distracted by the white strobing light all we have to do is cover the tower with the tip of our little finger. I’ll bet that those effected will be using their middle finger.
medwoman –
I agree that we’d all be better off if we stick with facts that are supported by hard evidence. I understand why the comment you reference might be annoying, but those of us who are relatively “middle of the road” about most things are tiring greatly of the extremists who happen to care significantly about certain issues. As you know, this trend is well demonstrated in state and national politics, and is causing a significant problem because the extremists are driving the nomination process for the general election. Those of us in the middle know we are in the majority, so do those who are the extremists. So, in this case, those in the minority are forced to make overly general statements about “residents of Davis”, “farmers are being screwed”, “North Davis residents” which have no basis in fact and are not supported by polls.
I don’t have a good answer for the problem, b/c I think proponents of an issue will almost always overreach to persuade,and therefore, those on the other side will also be forced to make statements that are probably true, but don’t have hard evidence to back them up.
In this particular case, you had a few environmental and NIMBY extremists who opposed the project, and few ardent supporters of the radio station who were in favor, and then you have all the rest.
[i]”This week, the Justice Department joined the latter group, issuing a strongly-worded critique that accused the sheriff of practicing “unconstitutional policing” by unfairly targeting Latinos for detention and arrest and retaliating against those who complain.”[/i]
This is the same Justice Department responsible for Fast and Furious, but Eric Holder was unaware of it?
It is clear from the decisions of Alberto Gonzalez under Bush, and not the actions of Eric Holder under Obama, that the Justice Department, as well as being filled with incompetents, is only a legal hit squad supporting the party in power.
[i]”I have felt I was discriminated against in Davis within the past year based on my race?”[/i]
Interesting… growing up in Dixon we used to talk about how shopping in Davis made you feel unwelcome. The town seemed less friendly… filled full of fluffed up wealthy elites and un-smiling, and seemingly always irritated, academics. I have friends in Woodland and Dixon that affectionately refer to me as the “stuck up Davis yuppie”.
My thinking on this is that the “racism” felt by some is actually just the same general level of unfriendliness felt by most outsiders… and if it wasn’t for all the insistence by others that it IS RACISM, it would more likely be considered general unfriendliness.
Davis is very cliquish and elitist. Those of us that have lived here a long time know others and often encounter each other. However, walk around the downtown and not that there is not a lot of eye contact and greetings being exchanged. It is a weird thing… the downtown still maintains this small-town charm, but it is Sacramento-esk in how people do not really connect with each other in their day-to-day encounters… unless they already know each other.
Most of this is probably general tribalism, not racism. Ask the same question of whites living in a city where they only made up 6% of the population, and my guess is that the survey results would be reversed.
Very well said Adam. For instance, putting rusty’s and Anon’s “relocate the tower back to the El Macero site” comment into perspective, there is one City of Davis residence within 2.51 miles of the approved landfill location. To put that fact into context, it is 2.51 miles from the proposed Mace site to Harper Junior High School and 2.51 miles from the proposed Mace site to the Richards Underpass. Drew an arc from the underpass to Harper and all the residences below that arc are closer to the Mace site than the one residence is to the landfill site. Never in the whole process did the Southeast Davis Coalition say they were speaking for all those homes below the arc . . . only the ones who took the time to be engaged and participate.
Matt, why did you have it moved? All you had to do was put up your finger and presto the tower is gone.
Another thing Matt, Anon and I aren’t saying to put the tower back in El Macero. The tower shouldn’t be located anywhere close to town. What disturbs me, as I don’t want to speak for Anon, are those that should just be happy it’s not in their backyard and leave it at that, not post 24/7 how it’s okay for it to be in someone else’s backyard.
@rusty49:[quote]What disturbs me … are those that should just be happy it’s not in their backyard and leave it at that, not post 24/7 how it’s okay for it to be in someone else’s backyard.[/quote]Bingo.
The opponents of the landfill have consistently stated that the tower is an urban use and should not be anywhere in the Davis sphere of influence. The City Council agreed unanimously that the tower should not be located at the landfill but, understandably, would not go as far as to invoke the Pass-Through Agreement.
Why is Matt Williams pushing so hard to justify his role in the relocation of impacts from his neighborhood to North Davis?
Is it simple NIMBY-guilt?
Is it reputation damage control? Matt obviously fancies himself as a thought-leader; and his tower position damages both his reputation and credibility on other issues.
Whatever it is, I agree with rusty49.
Adam Smith is absolutely wrong. There were no NIMBY’s opposing the project. I never heard a single individual arguing that the tower should be built elsewhere. As far as I am concerned, Results Radio should either stay in Sutter County or make due on the Yolo County and FCC-approved Dunnigan Hills (existing) tower.
In contrast, there were at least two NIMBY’s that spoke in support of the Results Radio project … Matt Williams and the resident attorney for the El Macero/Willowbank NIMBYs.
rusty49 said . . .
“Matt, why did you have it moved? All you had to do was put up your finger and presto the tower is gone.”
rusty the answer to that question is very simple. For the unfortunate people whose homes and businesses were within 100-200 yards of the tower location, they would have had to put up their whole arm and presto the tower would have been gone. Further, there are over 200 residences within 1 mile of the tower location. They would have had to put up their whole hand to achieve presto. Further, the horses who live and board at the Brooks Riding Academy 100 yards from the site don’t even have thumbs, nor is “presto” in their vocabulary.
Regarding your other suggestion, I think the posting history speaks for itself. I looked for your post as well, but couldn’t find it.
[quote]Anon
12/12/11 – 11:09 PM
…
Matt: so if he tower is so harmless put it back in your neighborhood.[/quote]
[quote]Michael Harrington
12/12/11 – 08:38 PM
…
Matt: so if he tower is so harmless put it back in your neighborhood.[/quote]
[quote]GreenandGolden
12/12/11 – 01:19 PM
…
Put it in El Macero! Dead Center of the golf course. It could off set green fees and lower the cost of cocktails in the club.[/quote]
rusty, two questions for you . . .
1) In all the conversations in all of your life, on any subject, how many of those directly (or even tangentially) included any discussion of how the landfill is part of your backyard?
2) If a Davis Realtor/Appraiser came to your house and you asked them, [i]”How much is my property going to be devalued as a result of the installation of the tower at the landfill?”[/i] what dollar figure do you think that Realtor/Appraiser will come back to you with?
Bottom-line, your answers to those questions will clearly show that there is that there is only imaginary harm to you from this tower, while there is real benefit to KDVS and all its listeners and all its advertisers.
“…there is real benefit to KDVS and all its listeners and all its advertisers.”
KDVS isn’t the primary beneficiary of this tower. It’s odd how the arguments in favor seem to be focusing on KDVS when the tower is being built by a for-profit station. The same station that bumped our own KDRT down the dial in order to bring us Adult Contemporary programming. Good news! We’ll have five hours a day (at least) of John Tesh!
Actually Anon, my opinion of Matt Williams has been raised by his seeing this through. He participated in the planning process and then stood by the negotiated settlement. I just wonder where was all this anti-tower sentiment during the planning process when Matt Williams was working with the stake holders to get a better project? I just don’t recall hearing it then, did I miss something?
[quote]”…there is real benefit to KDVS and all its listeners and all its advertisers.”
KDVS isn’t the primary beneficiary of this tower. It’s odd how the arguments in favor seem to be focusing on KDVS when the tower is being built by a for-profit station. The same station that bumped our own KDRT down the dial in order to bring us Adult Contemporary programming. Good news! We’ll have five hours a day (at least) of John Tesh! [/quote]
Don, I’m sure that a number of people in Yolo County will be very happy to have all of this John Tesh programming, whoever he is. But even though KDVS is not the primary beneficiary, they still could not build such an installation on their own, but will hugely benefit from the new antenna location.
I have maybe listened to KDVS three times in my 34 years in Davis, but I recognize it as a valuable resource for the students and community. If a for profit entity helps out this resource, for whatever reason, that is a worthwhile contribution.
Notwithstanding my own feelings about the strength of community support or opposition, I would certainly like to see an enumeration of the opponents to this project. If the vocal commenters have such data, please bring it forth.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”KDVS isn’t the primary beneficiary of this tower. It’s odd how the arguments in favor seem to be focusing on KDVS when the tower is being built by a for-profit station. The same station that bumped our own KDRT down the dial in order to bring us Adult Contemporary programming. Good news! We’ll have five hours a day (at least) of John Tesh!”[/i]
Not odd at all Don. The community connection to Adult Contemporary programming is probably well under 50%, so making the benefit to Davis advertisers on that station was greeted by a resounding thud, even though the advertising rates Results Radio has published in its materials was 10-times lower than what those advertisers have to pay on other Sacramento radio stations. I rarely pursue a particular point when a dispassionate look at the point makes its value subjective rather than objective.
On the other hand, there is a small minority of people in Davis who don’t give a damn about KDVS. Some are clearly more passionate than others, but if you went to UCD you have some identification with KDVS.
So with that said, what difference to the value to KDVS’s continuity/future does the ownership of the tower make? It doesn’t take the knowledge of a PhD Electrical Engineer to know that KDVS doesn’t have the necessary access to capital funds to build its own radio tower. The conversion from the guywired to guywireless design cost $170,000. So if KDVS has done its homework and found a partner, I say the more power to them.
Mr. Toad:[quote]… did I miss something?[/quote]Actually, you missed quite a bit.
After the opponents lost their initial appeal to the Board of Supervisors in Sept 2010, letters of opposition were filed with the FCC. In Nov 2010, the FCC denied Results Radio’s application to broadcast from the landfill. Although a NEPA challenge had been contemplated, this action by the FCC made the question mote.
Last summer, Results Radio withdrew their application for the landfill and applied instead to locate on an existing tower in the Dunnigan Hills. Shortly thereafter, the FCC attorney responsible for the landfill application called to inform the opponents that the controversy was over.
Predictably, the opposition demobilized.
Results Radio, however, had other plans. Using field data collected from the phony Dunnigan Hills “relocation,” they resubmitted their application for the landfill to the FCC and flew it in under the radar.
Using this scheme, all the records of opposition were flushed from the system. None of the previous opponents were notified that Results Radio had resubmitted. More disturbingly, both the attorney and the engineer responsible for the prior denial were replaced by their superiors. Under these new stewards, they submitted and got approval in about three weeks.
When the opposition discovered the subterfuge it was almost too late to file an FCC appeal, but one was successfully submitted on the day of the deadline.
At the next discretionary action by Yolo County, an appeal was also filed challenging the extension.
It would now be appropriate for the environmental community to once again seriously consider a NEPA challenge.
I will just add one more piece of the record to help you understand the type of business we are dealing with. The reason I bring this up is because of the patronizing lecture we got from the Board regarding the “messages” we send to the business community trying to do projects in Yolo County.
When Results Radio “relocated” to the existing Dunnigan Hills tower, they did not bother to get the required Yolo County building permit. Why? Because the “relocation” was only a temporary scheme intended to collect field data to allow Results Radio to exploit a loophole in the interference regulations that had led to the denial of their initial application to the landfill.
When the opponents blew the whistle on Results Radio, they claimed that it was an administrative oversight — and they applied for and were granted a permit for a transmitter that had been installed and removed weeks before. In written testimony to the Board, they stated “Results Radio applied for and obtained the legally required building permit for the temporary transmitter installed at the Dunnigan Hills location.”
At no point did they disclose to the Board that they obtained the permit after-the-fact. At no point did they disclose to the Board that they did this in response to their conduct being exposed by the opponents.
So coming back to the lecture from the Board regarding signals to new businesses … I think they have sent a clear signal that it is OK to engage in this type of behavior in Yolo County.
BTW Don, I’ve always thought that anything over 96 was in the “other world of radio programming” so moving down the dial was a step up in the world. Now if you can get below 92 you are in the high cotton.
Matt, KDRT didn’t want to move. We were forced to. It is not considered desirable for a radio station with an established reputation to have to move its signal. Davis Media Access didn’t consider it a favor in any sense, and you are, in this post, really stretching my credulity on this whole topic. I believe there was some compensation, but I don’t recall for sure.
(I say ‘we’ because I have hosted a garden program on KDRT since 2005; I now also host a jazz program.)
Don, I have no desire to stretch credulity. In all the markets I’ve lived in, the high numbered stations have been the “contemporary” stations with a mix of both adult and teen where you went to have your brain either eased or cleaned. the low numbered stations have been the “content” stations where you went to have your brain challenged or informed. That was the case in Philadelphia, Upstate New York, Dallas, Nashville and Atlanta. I’ve always thought of KDRT as an informative and intellectually challenging station. No insult to KDRT was intended.
So the license was denied because they needed interference data. So they got the data and then reapplied and were granted the license in three weeks. Seems to indicate that the issue was the absence of the data they collected in one day, in other words the denial was not based on any of your issues. The building permit oversight was corrected when they were called on it, yawn.
Before this happened you claim “Shortly thereafter, the FCC attorney responsible for the landfill application called to inform the opponents that the controversy was over. “
Seems like your problem is with the FCC lawyer. Although it does seem to suggest that either you did not understand the nature of the call or some grand conspiracy involving the FCC occurred. Which do you think?
You demobilized before the tower was actually built, bad move.
“bad move
Yep. We sure were naive to assume that the FCC and the applicant weren’t gaming the regulations.
And what kind of rubes would think that the staff and the Board of Supervisors would actually care about abuse of the county permit system in the process.