Commentary: Torturous Site-by-Site Evaluation Process Consuming Tremendous Time and Energy
The council spent another nearly five hours going over the proposed locations for the Crown Castle communications array. The process was slow, arduous and painful.
The type of discussion that was taking place seemed much better geared for private negotiations that could then be brought back to council for final approval. But according to representatives to Crown Castle, this occurred after lengthy negotiations reached very little agreement.
At some point the council is going to move forward, but this has been a long and very arduous process, as the council went through each proposed cell tower location, on a site-by-site basis, in painstaking fashion.
Daniel Borenstein, a columnist for the Contra Costa Times, recently had an interesting piece on pensions and the CalPERS risk that he argues will put future generations at big risk. It makes some interesting points, but perhaps goes too far and falls apart on key points.
I remember the first time I saw the road maintenance report. It was a few years ago, but it was an eye-opener precisely because no one was talking about it. There is often a disconnect, I think, when we bring this topic up. Overall right now, the roads in Davis are okay, but they are a veritable patchwork – with the main thoroughfares utilizing the bulk of the funding and the side streets wearing and tearing.
My first experience as a graduate student in UC Davis’ political science department is now nearly 16 years ago. In a lot of ways it was an eye opener for me because the culture of research coming from a teaching college was very different.
Somewhere a Davis historian is breaking out the book to figure out the shortest lived Davis City Council campaign. This might take the cake.
We have had wake up call after wake up call this year. It actually started last fall, when the council was informed by city staff that, in effect, they would not be implementing the budget that was passed back in June.
As we noted yesterday, it is difficult to imagine a more baffling ruling than the one the Supreme Court issued earlier this week in which the majority led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a 5-4 decision, somehow concluded “that the search procedures at the county jails struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the needs of the institutions, and thus the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments do not require adoption of the framework and rules petitioner proposes.”
On Sunday, the Vanguard brought you a story about the letter we received from Kortny Ficke, Online Enforcement Assistant with the Collegiate Licensing Company. In a story so bizarre that many of our readers believed it had to be an April Fool’s joke, she requested that the Vanguard ask a poster using as his username the University’s mascot name, Gunrock, to “choose a different name?”
