Gone now from the Change.org petition is some of the more damaging comments, such as, “Significant increase in ‘strangers’ in and around our neighborhood (just because it’s a Hyatt doesn’t mean only good/well intentioned people stay there).”
As we pointed out in yesterday’s column, the Change.org petition is not an isolated incident here.
On April 19, Jim Danzer, neighbor of the project, made a public comment at the Davis City Council meeting that struck a similar tone. He stated, “The city and past councils have already turned our community and that end of the town into our own Potterville with high density housing/low-income.”
On Tuesday, the petitioners attempted to do damage control – posting comments on the Vanguard in an effort “to counter the notion that any of the community responsible for the petition is racist, classist, or xenophobic. That is 100% an incorrect notion as the majority of those spearheading this movement and educating our neighbors are from mixed racial and socio economic classes. So that point needs to be put to bed.”
They added, “In our discussion of the project I would say a great majority, while unhappy with the structural design of new harmony, have no issues with the tenants or the fact that it is low income.”
In a later comment they wrote, “We also are revisiting the notion that the price per room is reflective of the clientele. That’s like saying rich people don’t do bad things.”
The neighbors spent the day removing comments from the petition site. They removed comments about why the hotel is “bad like New Harmony.” They also scrubbed references to “transient.”
The changing of the petition has led some to question the validity of the petition in the first place. Some are questioning the validity of a petition that is being signed by people living outside of the neighborhood, in some cases outside of the city, by people who have not a stake in the matter at all.
Moreover, if the petition is being revised while in progress – does it have any validity at all?
There were efforts to distance the petition from the comments of Jim Danzer, but his comment on the Davis Enterprise article was the first in which he wrote, “Greatly appreciate the article bringing attention to another attempt by the city and developers to make a money grab while ignoring the desires of our neighborhoods to maintain the quality of life that drew us to Davis. The article only touches the surface of the opposition that exists in the neighborhood and the commitment to defeating this unwanted and unneeded hotel.
“The article fails to recognize the outright dishonesty of the developers displayed at a recent neighborhood meeting. In addition, the Hyatt name belies the fact that this is not a high end hotel development but a mid level, long stay hotel with kitchenettes. This type of development does not belong in any neighborhood.”
Sources have told the Vanguard that Mr. Danzer made extensive negative comments at the 3rd neighborhood meeting and his talking points are reflected in and throughout the petition – namely – strangers, money grab, and the fact that Hyatt House is not high end.
Moreover, Jim Danzer is not the only leader in this effort. There are also the comments from Mike Angius.
In a March 23 letter that was copied to neighbors and the city council, Mike Angius writes: “Our house is on Benbow Court, and I am deeply concerned for those on Albany, Braddock Court, Donovan, and the surrounding neighborhoods. I cannot speak for my neighbors, but their (your) voices should be heard. Weren’t the infill projects enough of an assault on our respective neighborhoods?”
Two days later, on March 25, he wrote, “I would suggest that the Council spend time driving by the proposed site, then through the adjacent neighborhoods, paying close attention to the infill projects that (as I stated yesterday) have polluted the neighborhoods…”
He later added, “This neighborhood concern will continue to grow in intensity. There is nothing that can be said, or done that will appease the neighborhoods until the proposed project is rejected by City Council, if it even reaches that level. “
In a March 24 email to Robb Davis, he wrote, “You, as mayor pro tem, Mayor Dan Wolk, as well as the entire City Council, owes it to the tax paying neighborhoods and voting citizens to protect our interests. The city has allowed two infill projects to pollute our neighborhood in recent years.”
These are all in clear reference to New Harmony, described as “polluting” the neighborhood and an “assault.” He also makes it clear that there can be no compromise, noting “nothing that can be said, or done that will appease the neighborhoods.”
While the poster yesterday tried to push the issue toward the design of New Harmony rather than the tenants, the clear reference to strangers and the words “pollute” and “assault” seem to belie that effort to downplay previous rhetoric.
While the neighbors here have some legitimate concerns, the rhetoric here is clearly working against them. Councilmember Rochelle Swanson, who lives on a nearby street, is conflicted out of voting on this matter, but at least three other councilmembers expressed concern and outright disgust privately to the Vanguard for the rhetoric coming out of this matter.
Does anyone legitimately believe that a hotel that will be renting rooms in the range of $180 per night is going to become a magnet for criminal activity that would put neighbors on a wholly different block, which is not that accessible to the hotel, in danger?
From the perspective of police, even the low income development New Harmony has not been a consistent problem in terms of generating crime, with the police chief indicating that when there have been problems it is usually due to there being a problematic resident rather than a problem overall with the complex.
Many have attempted to bring Davis Diamonds into the discussion. We understand that the owners of Davis Diamonds are supportive of the hotel project. It should also be noted that Davis Diamonds chose to move into that location next door to New Harmony.
As a parent whose daughter attends Davis Diamonds at least 10 hours a week – we have never had a single problem in that location and can’t imagine that a hotel will generate problems.
From the perspective of the neighbors, they would be well advised to sticking with land use related objections – location, compatibility with the existing neighborhood, traffic and noise issues. Many of those can be resolved and mitigated during this process. But, at least by sticking to these points, we can avoid this unseemly conversation and focus on a solution.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
UPDATE from the petitioners:
“From the petitioners: We want to inform you and your readers that we are running the online petition, not the people you have identified in your articles.
While the people you identified are entitled to their opinions, they are not in line with ours, nor are they inline with overall sentiment of the numerous households we have spoken with as well as online petition signers. While they do live in our neighborhood and have been invited to our group meetings to express their concerns, they in no way represent the greater initiative, sentiments, or outreach we are doing to educate our neighborhoods.
We are absolutely against any comments or ill will towards any of our neighbors including new harmony. We will continue to remove any negative comments from our petition as we have been doing since the beginning.
We, the petitioners, are only trying to raise awareness and communicate the broader neighborhoods concerns and/or feedback about the proposed rezoning of the property in South Davis.
Due to the unintended negative connotation of the original wording of our petition we have made changes based on your and others feedback. These changes only clarify our position to focus on the impacts the rezoning will have on our neighborhood and the precedent it could set in future city council and planning commission decisions. Anyone wanting to remove their name from the petition can email us at rosecreekdavis@gmail.com “
How did the Vanguard obtain email sent to the Mayor?
It’s a public document – other than that, I won’t comment
Did you put in a request to obtain them?
Why would it matter?
Personally, I don’t understand why the DV took another swing at the bat here, unless it is to generate another 100+ comment thread… I see no opinions being changed, but perhaps heels dug in deeper… perhaps that IS the point…
My understanding is that the matter is currently scheduled for PC (that would be Planning Commission, not the other PC) on Aug 24. Should be entertaining viewing… mean to watch the replay. Too bad facts and logic will likely take back seat to emotions/rhetoric… but the latter is what will give it the entertainment value…
Why did I write another article on this – the implication was made that our story was based on a few comments, the information received in the emails shows that the sentiment goes deeper than a few stray comments. I consider this a pretty serious problem irrespective of the hotel issue. Some may disagree and that’s what the comment section is for and people including the neighbors are welcome to submit their own pieces in response.
Reply reminds me of an old Warner Brothers cartoon, where the character sings, “I know a secret, but I won’t tell, I won’t tell, I won’t tell…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnXZB9SkS44
That could be PRA, the Mayor could have shared it, the author of the e-mail could have shared it. If it was copied to another, they could have shared it.
You realize that any e-mails to or from an elected (or City staff), using the City e-mail address/server, is a “public record”, right? If you don’t understand that, don’t run for national public office… [yeah, ‘too easy’…]
I do not understand how your question is germane to the issues. But, doesn’t hurt to ask… no harm, no foul…
hpierce
“You realize that any e-mails to or from an elected (or City staff), using the City e-mail address/server, is a “public record”, right?”
I thank you for posting this. While I have frequently written to CC members using the public address, I had never given it a moments thought one way or the other. This is a potentially useful bit of information.
Why did you not publish the full email you cite in the blog post?
How many emails on this subject did the Mayor share with the Vanguard?
Are there other emails written to the Mayor on this subject that the Vanguard has in its possession but chose not to reference?
Does the Mayor make a regular practice of sharing email with the Vanguard, or do you have to request them?
Or did the Mayor just share the one email cited in the story?
The “games begin”!
The “games begin”!
Put on your hip boots and plug your nose.
Grok, you might find this article interesting.
https://davisvanguard.org/2014/07/krovoza-parrella-join-vanguard-editorial-board/
BP, did Practical move? We haven’t heard from him in a dog’s age.
BP
While some might find that article interesting, I think that it is important to note the date on it as the information contained is no longer current.
Matt, there’s information within that would be interesting to someone who hasn’t followed the Vanguard for very long.
BP, don’t be coy. What information within that would be interesting to someone who hasn’t followed the Vanguard for very long. Other than the Practical reference (which is an inside joke that you and I are the only two people on Earth who will understand), it is pretty dull stuff.
Matt, most newcomers to the Vanguard probably wouldn’t know that Robb Davis was a founding member of the Vanguard editorial board as the article points out.
Okay BP. Fair enough. Thanks for being explicit.
I’ll help you out Grok.
You can write a letter to the City. In the letter put Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code 6251 I am writing to request the following data which I understand to be held and/or accessible by your agency:
Any and all emails sent to or received by Robb Davis.
Then the City in a timely manor is required to send you all of Robb’s emails.
Yes, but did David put in a request? So far just crickets.
Barack has this exactly right. Did the Vanguard put in a request for email on the matter then cherry pick this one email? I think not.
If he asked for it then that is the request.
Sam, your overlooking a key point, how would David have known of the existence of this one email unless he was told about it by the Mayor or the sender, or he did a much larger request and cherry picked this one email. Either way the implications are not good.
David often relates that he obtained emails and other information through official requests. If he did indeed do that why wouldn’t he just say so instead of “It’s a public document – other than that, I won’t comment”?
David-Let me help you with tomorrows article. Start with the headline-Davis mayor works with local reporter giving him public information in order to push a zoning change to build a $160 per night crack den that will bring “strangers” into town that will drink $15 martinis and mingle with low income residents around children 24/7 all so developers can make billions.
NIMBY! Just keep distorting things until the project is killed. That is the Davis way to develop. Bring on that $3,000 parcel tax now. At this rate in a few years it is going to be $5,000 per year.
I will say this again: Robb Davis was not the source of the emails
Sam predicts David will have an article that says:
> that will bring “strangers” into town that will drink $15 martinis
Sam must be a new reader since David’s headline would probably say”
“that will bring low class, dark skin, foreign “strangers” into town that will drink $15 martinis” (since no one could possibly be opposed to a giant hotel in their back yard for anything other than “racist, classist, or xenophobic” reasons)…
You still have not denied the Mayor told you the emails exist.
If the Mayor is not the source, then how have you guaranteed they are authentic?
How many emails do you have on this subject?
Certainly I won’t be writing to Robb Davis after this.
Don’t worry, I hear that Robb has set up a private server outside of the City email system so that he can send and receive emails so that are not subject……this is just to easy.
I am surprised after it has been in the news for so long that people are unaware that all public officials communications and paperwork can be accessed by the public.
Yes I understand it’s possible to file a request for official’s email. However The mayor seems to have David on auto ccc.
You realize that he is a reporter that focuses on the City of Davis (and San Francisco) right? I am sure the first five phone numbers after his wife’s are the current city council members.
Yes but that doesn’t mean they need to forward everything the constituents send them in real-time.
Sam – you crack me up. Keep up the witty snark!
“ I hear that Robb has set up a private server outside of the City email system so that he can send and receive emails so that are not subject”
And I just heard that the Russians had hacked his emails and that Julian Assange was about to release huge amounts of his communications.
Ok, are we done with this now and could we please go back to the petition and/or city planning ?
David wrote:
> On Tuesday, the petitioners attempted to do damage control – posting
> comments on the Vanguard in an effort “to counter the notion that any
> of the community responsible for the petition is racist, classist, or xenophobic.
It is a sad day that even without saying a SINGLE thing that is “racist, classist, or xenophobic” you are still forced to “counter the notion” that you are not “racist, classist, or xenophobic”.
Like a left wing Joe McCarthy David’s “Greenwaldism” (where everyone is a “racist”) is not going to help us solve any problems…
Ignoring a problem doesn’t solve it either
It seems the root problem here are renters. If we could just get rid of all renters then Davis would be happier community. You seem to ignore this problem.
Everyone is racist. People who deny it look foolish. A charge of racism should always be met with some self reflection and humility. The best response is to try to understand what a person did or said that another person found offensive in order to try to be better.
Misanthrop, I am offended daily by people like you who accuse everyone except themselves of Racism. Understand that?
Tea spraying from mouth in uncontrollable stream – took out a small child on the other side of the room.
the spin is always fascinating….and the “games” are only just now starting..
fortunately for all, I am trying to stay off the DV today…only today left to get some deadlines done…gotta focus..
What she said.
Some “lower level” folks have a strong desire to maintain an almost sacred work/ life balance. These folks may not desire a home with a crushing mortgage or expensive vacations, cars, degrees, clothes or concerts. They may be serene with less material trappings. These folks want to live in your beautiful village, too, but probably can’t afford it.
Perhaps they live within walking distance of that new props ed Hyatt hotel. Perhaps they ride their bike near it. Perhaps they don’t see how that hotel will really add anything to their village
one typically gets docs through a leak in the office where the docs originate.
typically it is due to a “disgruntled” lower level (aka union represented) person…as usually those folks are disgruntled….or else they would not be lower level any more…and usually union represented are at the lower levels, if only by definition, the supervisors and managers are exempt….
in the case of our poor Chancellor Emeritus, she had someone on the Chancellors/ Provost’s staff who leaked to the Sac Bee
Even the Chancellor hadn’t seen the doc yet, and the Bee already had it and was publishing it….
It really didn’t matter, as since the NSA is now installed throughout the UC system, all is only a matter of moments now for the UC Pres to know who did what when…and so on…
the DV cannot reveal sources, or else there will not be any sources…
“in the case of our poor Chancellor Emeritus”
Now there is an oxymoron for you.
You crack me up. I am one of those disgruntled people who outed the theft and corruption of several people, including faculty, and their cohorts in upper management decided to keep them around at my expense. In fact the faculty member was elected or awarded Faculty of the Year just a few years later.
The UC system is now embedded with Google, so I guess the NSA is not too far away from that. Whistleblower Press Releases are put out every so often and I call the UCOP to ask them about my case, and they seem to not know anything. Bad for Publicity. And now the “poor Berkeley Chancellor” is out now too. Guess they are finally getting around to some of those sex predators?
“Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool.”
https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/
Our daily Godwin’s Law moment.
Yes, I know, but the rhetoric of pollution of the neighborhood was a irresistible draw.
Some of you are way overblowing this as is typical of the V.
BP wrote:
> Some of you are way overblowing this as is typical of the V.
I find it funny that David and Misanthrop can’t understand that the “only” reason many people don’t want the hotel is that they don’t want to look at a huge building behind their homes (and have people looking back at them). We live in Davis where sadly a small number of people are “racist, classist, or xenophobic” but just about everyone else are nice left leaning folks (who voted for a black president twice)…
If they hadn’t brought other elements in, there would not be a story here.
David wrote:
> If they hadn’t brought other elements in, there would not be a story here.
You say the people opposed to the hotel are “racist, classist, or xenophobic”
Please fill in the blanks (with the specific “other elements”):
1. The racist statement they made is ______________
2. The classist statement they made is _____________
3. The xenophobic statement they made is _____________
P.S. I personally know people (that happen to be left of both David and Tia) that signed the petition and don’t want a huge hotel on the site and I don’t get why David keeps beating the racism drum when we are talking about putting a huge hotel near a residential area…
Where did David say that?
Don wrote:
> Where did David say that?
Yesterday David wrote:
“While the petitioners never specified who those strangers were, there are racist, classist and potentially xenophobic implications within that sentence.”
I assume you see the difference between what you said and what I actually wrote
David wrote:
> I assume you see the difference between
> what you said and what I actually wrote
Yes or no question for David the people opposed to the hotel are opposed to it for “racist, classist, or xenophobic” reasons?
Depends on the person you’re talking about
He found what he thinks are real racists in Davis, so he shined a big spotlight on them with his big blog spotlight. Can’t let ‘wrong thinking’ go unpunished.
A few comments here:
1. I’m not going to share sources of information, it’s a good way to insure that I don’t get information. In fact, we set up Yolo Leaks specifically to provide people with an anonymous way to send documents or emails anonymously.
2. Robb Davis did not email me the emails
3. If you email a public official, if you email a government agency, those are public records and you have no expectation of privacy in your communication.
OK David, You are going to have to do better than that. You have implicated the Mayor as leaking cherry picked emails to the press to sway a public opinion on a matter that will have a significant impact on a neighborhood.
If you did not get the email from the Mayor, then how did you verify its authenticity before publishing it? Have you asked the sender for comment? You don’t mention it in the article.
If you requested the email, then either you new it existed because the Mayor or sender told you.
If you did a larger request and are cherry picking from the documents you received then your story is very misleading by omission.
If I am not right, please feel free to explain how you came to have this verified communication with the Mayor.
I have no response other than to state again the Mayor was not the source of the emails.
You have done nothing to prove the emails are authentic.
You have not denied that Rob told you of the emails existence.
You have not shown that you are not cherry picking from a larger pool of emails that you somehow have access to.
I have multiple sources to verify the authenticity of the emails.
OK, then publish the full email. Your quotes seem very selective.
Better yet publish all of the correspondence with any city council member on this subject that you received.
what’s your angle grok?
I guess I just keep wishing the Vanguard was a news organization, but at the end of the day I just have to remind myself that it is an opinion blog.
David posted cherry picked excerpts from old emails to the mayor obtained from an unknown source. He tried to tie them to the petition, but they were not sent by the people behind the rosecreek petition. It would be appropriate to post the full documents so the statements can be seen in context. He wont though, because that’s not in his interest.
Grok, as Robb Davis said in the article that Barack Palin linked earlier today, the Vanguard is a dialogue space, and the vast majority of that dialogue by you and me and all the rest of the people who post in the Vanguard is opinion. Can you think of any of your 200+ comments that have been news rather than opinion?
The opinions of the Vanguard posters ebb and flow. Eileen Samitz and Roberta Millstein and Alan Pryor and Ron … all made very effective use of this dialogue space to share their opinions about Measure A. The advocates for approval of Nishi also injected their opinions into the dialogue. That is what the Vanguard is all about . . . spirited dialogue.
With that said, the final six words of your comment above are ambiguous. Specifically you say, “. . . because that’s not in his interest.” In formulating that statement, what do you think David’s interests are?
Or, you could stop trying to deflect the conversation from the actual issue.
Grok… respectfully, I disagree with your assessment that David is trying to sway public opinion on this matter… I am more and more convinced he is motivated to “stir the pot” as it were… I really don’t know…
I do know that, at the end of the day, I care little, if at all, about the outcome of the proposal… I do care about how that outcome is decided. I would hope that it (decision) is based on facts and judgement… not emotions and innuendo/falsehoods. The DV’s approach appears to inflame rhetoric, with little or no light being produced. That is the DV’s perogative.
hpierce, I largely agree with you.
Actually, I think whoever told David about the email or sent it to him is trying to sway public opinion with cherry picked information. I do think David has some specific agendas that he likes to push, I agree that he is mostly just trying to “stir the pot” and gin up comments.
As to the Roscreek Neighborhood, I don’t live there but I would like to see the neighborhood treated fairly and I do think they have some valid points.
and with this I agree most of all:
Precisely and that’s why I feel it’s important to know the source.
hpierce
“I do care about how that outcome is decided. I would hope that it (decision) is based on facts and judgement… not emotions and innuendo/falsehoods.”
On this portion of your comment, I am in agreement. As for the remainder, I see a fine line between “inflaming rhetoric” and presenting for discussion a topic on which there are quite a variety of opinions.
I also note that your denial is overly specific
Did the Mayor tell you about the email?
Did he recite key parts of the email? Did he hand you a printed copy of the email? Did he fax you the email. Did he leave it in a secret drop location?
You have yet to deny that this information was provided to you by the Mayor.
Why does it matter where I got the email from? Frankly, it is inappropriate for you to ask about sources.
David… it is NOT inappropriate to ask! It would be inappropriate to expect/demand an answer… nuance.
Good point. Thank you.
I have in no way demanded that you expose your source.
I will insist however that you authentic the email your citing or retract.
Don’t forget to stamp your foot. That always works when mere petulance isn’t sufficient.
Jim, You will note that David authenticated the email by having 2 sources and after he posted that I stopped posting on the subject. His article was very sloppy and certainly raised unnecessary questions about his sources. It took David a while to clear it up, but after several tries, he did to a reasonable journalistic standard.
I note that David *said* he authenticated it by using 2 sources. What makes that statement more believable than his initial statement that it was legit? Don’t give up now!
Despite my sometimes poor opinion of some of David’s writing, investigation, and point of view, I do believe David is fundamentally honest. He has mostly done what he can do without revealing his sources. he should really publish the whole emails he cites to give context, but he may not be capable of it, or at the very least he is not going to.
I didn’t ask.
Grok, did you read the article that I linked above? You might find something interesting contained in it.
I did read the article. It is clear evidence of the well known and long standing cozy relationship between the the Vanguard and Mayor Davis, but I may be missing something beyond that.
I have never forwarded an email to David or the Enterprise or any other news source either electronically, on paper or in a secret dropbox location. I have never forwarded or otherwise sent a portion of an email to David (or any news source) by any means. I have never leaked information to David (or other news sources). I do not leak information to the press. I do speak on the record to David (and the Enterprise, Sac Bee and Sacramento Business Journal (did you see my attractive picture in the latter last week?)) and I do brainstorm ideas for community engagement with David (like I did this morning at Mishka’s at 7:00 am–maybe you saw us as you rode or walked past–although that is a bit early).
All my appointments with David and ANY appointment I make to meet with anyone on City-related business are placed on my City of Davis email account calendar.
(I do, periodically, send David angry early-morning texts when I read something in the VG I don’t like. He gets very defensive about this and never, ever backs down. Okay, maybe once or twice, but the guy is stubborn. I have supported the work of the VG even though sometimes I am very upset about things I read here. I have made no secret of that. Despite its flaws, I believe we need the VG. I wouldn’t call the relationship cozy–it is a more complicated than that. I would characterize my relationship with my wife as cozy, but I don’t have that kind of relationship with anyone else.)
If you have concerns about my emailing behavior, please call me at 530 564 9861 or email me on my city account rdavis@cityofdavis.org.
Robb,
I appreciate your candor. Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify It seemed out of character for you.
Not sure of your motives here, but David’s post above seems to be fairly complete – The emails did not come from Robb.
David Greenwald
August 17, 2016 at 8:08 am
I will say this again: Robb Davis was not the source of the emails
Of course, that depends on what the definition of the word “is”, is.
The changing of the petition has led some to question the validity of the petition in the first place. Some are questioning the validity of a petition that is being signed by people living outside of the neighborhood, in some cases outside of the city, by people who have not a stake in the matter at all.
Moreover, if the petition is being revised while in progress – does it have any validity at all?
These are valid points. The petition completely loses its validity if it is being edited and changed after its been signed. Further, several of the signers clearly don’t know the facts of the issue – they are protesting items like the height of the building, which is actually less than allowed by code, or attacking the commercial aspect of the proposal, when in fact the parcel and much of the area along Cowell as it faces 80 it is zoned for commercial activity. Finally, what the heck are people from out of town doing protesting a hotel in Davis. Why should anyone in Davis care what someone from North Carolina thinks about this hotel?
David:
This is not a comment regarding New Harmony. But, are you denying that the large-scale housing projects that were typically built in large cities (generally in past decades) have been an outright failure (in terms of crime/safety, for those living in them and for the host cities)? And, that this failure has continued to cause an (understandable) stigma regarding affordable housing (that exists to this day)?
Do you view my comment as “racism”?
I don’t view your comment in the same light as the comment about NH “polluting” the neighborhood.
David wrote:
> I don’t view your comment in the same light as the
> comment about NH “polluting” the neighborhood.
Did Rob send you a new e-mail where someone actually said NH is “polluting” the neighborhood (in the e-mail you reference above you just assume the person was talking about NH when they could have been talking about the new infill Kelly Moore paint store that opened in South Davis (like dry cleaners paint stores have a long history of actually “polluting” neighborhoods)…
Yeah… one can point to “the projects” back east… or one can point to Windmere, and many other projects in Davis that have been quite successful (can’t think of all the names, but one @ SW corner Valdora/Cowell; the one on Ohlone, s/ Cowell; Tremont Greens (?); many others…
Your point fails….
What happened in the 60’s and 70’s in the poorest sections of the rust belt big Cities [and relatively huge projects], should not influence a RATIONAL mind as to Davis’ experiences and potential. Yet, everyone has the God-given right not to be rational… feel free to follow your “vision”… however weird it may be…
And – in San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, etc. Closer to home, Stockton is a “lovely/safe” place, although I don’t know if there’s old-style housing projects, there.
Many of these projects still exist to this day. I wouldn’t want to walk through them. Are you that much braver than me?
Man, your comments sure get off-track quickly. Who said anything about my “vision”?
Fear is sometimes “rational”, sometimes not. What I’m saying is that old perceptions die hard, especially when there’s fear involved.
[moderator] Several comments have been removed; off-topic or violations of the Vanguard Comment Policy.
This is an update with a statement from the petitioners which has been appended to the bottom of the article:
“From the petitioners: We want to inform you and your readers that we are running the online petition, not the people you have identified in your articles.
While the people you identified are entitled to their opinions, they are not in line with ours, nor are they inline with overall sentiment of the numerous households we have spoken with as well as online petition signers. While they do live in our neighborhood and have been invited to our group meetings to express their concerns, they in no way represent the greater initiative, sentiments, or outreach we are doing to educate our neighborhoods.
We are absolutely against any comments or ill will towards any of our neighbors including new harmony. We will continue to remove any negative comments from our petition as we have been doing since the beginning.
We, the petitioners, are only trying to raise awareness and communicate the broader neighborhoods concerns and/or feedback about the proposed rezoning of the property in South Davis.
Due to the unintended negative connotation of the original wording of our petition we have made changes based on your and others feedback. These changes only clarify our position to focus on the impacts the rezoning will have on our neighborhood and the precedent it could set in future city council and planning commission decisions. Anyone wanting to remove their name from the petition can email us at rosecreekdavis@gmail.com “
David –
Did the ‘petitioners’ identify themselves to you, or are they choosing to remain anonymous?
They have asked to remain anonymous until after the planning commission meeting.
This seems like a pretty reasonable statement from the Rosecreek residents to me.
I can understand individuals reluctance to identify themselves considering the ill treatment they have received on the Vanguard for the last 2 days.
Such as the false statements, innuendo and personal attacks on named individuals by anonymous posters? Is that the sort of ‘ill-treatment’ that you are referring too, or did you have something else in mind?
Some posters here have legitimate reasons for masking their identities from internet search engines and the like. Some just use their anonymity to spread false information, innuendo, and personal attacks with impunity.
Their participation is entirely voluntary, as is yours and mine, unless you really are a paid shill. (I’d hire much better ones.)
dished out by you
Here is the link for the petition.
https://www.change.org/p/davis-city-council-petition-to-deny-hyatt-house-s-re-zoning-request?source_location=topic_page
http://i.imgur.com/LaJ9Kmo.gif?noredirect
“I find it funny that David and Misanthrop can’t understand that the “only” reason many people don’t want the hotel is that they don’t want to look at a huge building behind their homes (and have people looking back at them). ”
I do understand this position and support the residents concerns. What bothers me is that so often people raise issues of race and class instead of focusing on legitimate issues. I didn’t bring race and class into the discussion others did. I just call it out for what it is. It seems that the petitioners recognize their error. I find it funny that there are those on here who deny the racism that so many others can see.
Instead of the pollution from the daily commute of thousands of cars and noise going by? they may paint a nice mural on it, of field and farm workers that will blissfully transform their view to something tasteful, yet elegant?
The real travesty of this building is the highway is getting more and more constricted, and there is no room to expand to five or six lanes. Since there used to be a hotel just up by the dealers, which is not exactly thriving, we may see student housing or Motel 6 weekly rentals?
still struck by the language of pollute, assault and the fear that these high end hotels will attract criminal activity
From Marina’s post on yesterday’s article
Well, you can’t just post part of it for goodness sake.
the other thing that concerns me here is the conduct of grok – who seems to be taking to the art of character insinuation. bill habicht is a good example – why does it matter why bill would want to get involved in a development? it’s not illegal or even unethical. and you’re doing it behind an identity mask that allows you to have a huge advantage. my job requires i remain anonymous. but it also means i can’t use that anonymity in a way that it advantages my discourse. people demanding to know who the vanguard source is – why? what difference does it make? cherry picking? is there really a context in which those sentences quoted by the vanguard would be acceptable?
It could possibly make a big difference.
I say that even though I’m totally in favor of the project. I just don’t like the insinuations and politics that are being played.
“It could possibly make a big difference.”
Explain how.
Funny how you’re totally down with the character assassination of your neighbors.
” is there really a context in which those sentences quoted by the vanguard would be acceptable?”
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/userpro/12949/542a2d4ff09ed.jpg
Apparently for some.
The only things I posted about Pastor Habicht are on public websites that I presume he is aware of. they include the Hyatt house website, linkedin, and Davis Community church.
It is very strange to find a Pastor involved in 2 controversial development projects.
Since the Vanguard pursued the above story with very questionable tactics we have no way of knowing what has been omitted.
As to my identity – I would welcome the Vanguard only allowing posts by individuals with verifiable identities. After years of watching the nastiness on here when I chose to post I was clearly not going to do it under my own name.
David, is it possibly true that your landlord of your Davis residence is an investor in the Hyatt House proposed project? If not, my apologies . . .
Wow! Truly desperate.
Desperate, despicable, disgusting, one of those “d” adjectives….
No the landlord of my Davis residence is not an investor in the Hyatt project.
“How low can you go… ?” Expect to see more of the ‘race to the bottom’…
davisres, the last time I checked David and Cecilia and their three children were renting one of the DACHA (Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association) homes, and DACHA is absolutely NOT an investor in the Hyatt House project. According to the DACHA website, “DACHA is a limited equity housing cooperative registered as a nonprofit corporation under California law.”
Ironically five of the DACHA homes are on the very same Albany Circle that is adjacent to the greenbelt that is just south of the 2750 Covell Blvd. parcel where the Hyatt House is being proposed.
Further, anticipating the next character assassination question, the landlord for the Vanguard’s G Street offices is also NOT an investor in the Hyatt House project.
Can you also confirm or deny if they are considered “strangers”? Have they ever replied to a public records request? Have they been to a hotel bar? We need to get to the bottom of this!
NIMBY!
LOL you guys all truly crack me up….I had some choice cartoons to post, however I think the file sizes were too big…anyone know what the max file size for cartoons fmay be for posting on this site?
“I personally know people (that happen to be left of both David and Tia”
Well I have already seen the worst. I take umbrage ( at or to or with…..could never get this one straight) this statement. If you truly know anyone to the left of me, I demand to see the evidence !
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xnKbYqHvZPU/U3mZrCq1SAI/AAAAAAAAg_g/S6c2gauit5s/s1600/elizabeth-warren.jpg
B.P. – That’s pretty funny. More on-target that Biddlin’s photos, today. (Although I like Barack-Palin combo photo.)
“I personally know people (that happen to be left of both David and Tia”
Well I have already seen it. I take umbrage ( at or to or with…..could never get this one straight) this statement. If you truly know anyone to the left of me, I demand to see the evidence !
well, and I am now meeting some of the “newer” residents in my neighborhood….I knew practically everyone for blocks around at the time of Ricci/Woodbridge…but that was in the 80s/90s….and never met anyone at the DaCHA ….
of course, Dacha means “resort” in Russian…or cabin…even the poorest Russians under communism and before and since, went away to the Dacha in the summer….is this DaCha similar????
There is an aspect of this discussion that just doesn’t seem right as Davis controversies go. If you recall the VG discussions around Trackside, Sterling or Measure A, there were multiple neighbors of the projects posting in opposition, many of whom were posting under their own names. There were identifiable people viscerally opposed to the projects, and in some cases openly attacking the character and integrity of the developers, and they were doing so while signing their names. I may not have agreed with their opinions, but in many cases, there was no doubting the authenticity of the concerns.
That isn’t the case here. The opposition now is almost exclusively coming from anonymous posters of unknown origins, with the most prolific proclaiming not to be a neighbor of the project. We don’t have the same degree of visceral response about the projects negatives, the impacts on quality of life, or significant effects on the neighborhood. Really, all we have are half-baked complaints about zoning, some innuendo about sexual predators, and a few attempts at character assassination. There aren’t even any real attacks on the developers, sure a few shots at Bill H., but virtually nothing against Michael B., who has been somewhat of a lightning rod on this site and around town. This ‘controversy’ just doesn’t have the feel of a real Davis community fight.
This leads me to believe that the opposition is not being driven by neighbors reacting viscerally to the project, but is instead being pushed by someone with a vested interest, most likely financial, in having the project rejected. I suspect that is the reason those running the petition are choosing to remain anonymous. They are betting on the Planning Commission rejecting the proposal before they have to identify the persons or entities really driving the opposition. This all leads me to believe that the main opposition to this project is not the result of authentic concerns from the neighbors, but rather is ginned up, disingenuous BS being pushed by someone with an axe to grind.
Mark West wrote:
> but rather is ginned up, disingenuous BS being
> pushed by someone with an axe to grind.
Just about every apartment owner in town had a No on A sign on their lawn since more apartments means lower rents and higher vacancy rates.
I bet the other hotel owners in town are not happy about a new hotel since more hotel rooms in town mean lower average daily room rates and lower occupancy rates…