At tonight’s city council meeting, the council will once again be asked to give input to city staff regarding potential ways to address what some consider to be problems associated with panhandling in town.
According to city staff, “Panhandling, particularly in the downtown core but also prevalent in and around neighborhood shopping centers, has reached a critical mass that is having adverse effects on the community’s overall economic and social well-being.”
Panhandling itself is not illegal, indeed, it is considered, according to staff, a protected form of speech and therefore it cannot be banned. In general, “a person has a right to ask for, or show.” Instead, what the city has the ability to do is “to regulate the conduct related to panhandling, including the time, manner, and place of panhandling or solicitations in order to ensure the health, safety and well-being of the public.”
Staff believes that, over the past year, “there has been a visible uptick in individuals panhandling and/or ‘setting up shop’ in the downtown, in locations such as Central Park, G Street Plaza, E Street Plaza, and several spots in front of commercial properties.
“Panhandling has become particularly problematic with the departure of several downtown businesses, leaving vacant storefronts in the core, specifically the southeast portion of the downtown. Vacancies provide locations for individuals to sit and panhandle in unused doorways where they can also store personal belongings for long periods of time, often in the public right of way,” the report continues.
This has led to “sidewalk obstructions” that “can be dangerous to the passing public.” They also note problems with the public use of “alcohol, drugs, and concerns about sanitation and safety concerns because of potentially aggressive dogs.”
Staff writes, “These behaviors and concerns in turn cause other residents or visitors to avoid certain areas of the downtown or to avoid downtown altogether, causing economic hardship for local businesses.”
The Davis Chamber and Davis Downtown, along with individual businesses and residents, have expressed frustration with the situation to the city and have requested the council review options for potential solutions.
In a recent survey about downtown issues, which had approximately 1500 responses, panhandling and its effects on downtown were cited as the most pressing concern.
Currently there are a number of solutions that the city has at its disposal. Current state law prohibits “accosting” people in public places, and while “accosting” is a legal term, it includes behavior such as approaching or following pedestrians, using abusive language, unwanted physical contact, or the intentional blocking of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
The city can pass a local ordinance to deal with this, but it remains tricky as “truly aggressive panhandling can be difficult to spot and to prosecute unless objective or observable behaviors are included in the ordinance.”
The city can also prohibit panhandling within 50 feet of an ATM. By doing this, it protects the privacy and safety of people making financial transactions.
There are also service cards and social services available for those in need.
There are also miscellaneous enforcement options available. Staff describes, “While not directly related to panhandling, the City has several other ordinances to address inappropriate behavior, sometimes exhibited by individuals who are also panhandling. Possessing open containers of alcohol, public intoxication, littering, engaging in disorderly conduct, and lodging illegally are all currently against the law in Davis.”
Implicit in this discussion is the notion that current remedies are insufficient. The staff has therefore asked the city attorney to examine the legality of three other potential areas: a no sit/lie ordinance, expansion of aggressive panhandling ordinances, and prohibition of or regulation of unattended and abandoned property.
San Francisco, for example, has a “sit-lie” ordinance, called the Civil Sidewalk Ordinance, which prohibits sitting or lying upon a public sidewalk between 7am and 11pm, with exceptions for things like medical emergencies or persons using wheelchairs and walkers.
It is effective citywide, only on public sidewalks, and requires a warning before a citation may be issued. It was passed by the voters as Proposition L in 2010. It does not appear to have faced legal challenges and is still in good standing.
However, “other cities have faced legal challenge over similar ordinances.” Moreover, as staff notes, there are reasons to question the legality of this ordinance, as the Federal Department of Justice filed a statement of interest last year in an Idaho matter that argues “it is a violation of the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) to make it a crime for people who are homeless to sleep in public places, when there is insufficient shelter space in the City to provide an alternative.”
Staff notes, “Despite the DOJ position and the Jones case, California case law has generally upheld anti-camping ordinances (which are largely similar to sit-lie ordinances), even in the face of 8th Amendment or vagueness challenges.” Staff adds, “Taken together, it is fair to say that California case law appears to allow and uphold anti-camping and sit-lie ordinances, but there is a garden variety of legal challenges that could creep up if the ordinance is not narrowly tailored.”
The attorney recommends, if the council goes this route, that they make a Davis ordinance specific in location and time. In addition, “the City Attorney’s office recommends carving out exceptions for otherwise permitted activities, such as protests, parades, street fairs, etc., to prevent unintentional infringement on first amendment rights or other activities that may be allowed by the Davis Municipal Code.”
The staff report briefly discusses solicitation ordinances. Staff notes that the 2015 case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona has provided case law that “limits a government’s legal ability to restrict too widely. The Reed case appears to overrule any attempt to regulate or prohibit solicitation as a content-based restriction violating First Amendment principles, and other courts in the US have interpreted it as such.”
“The takeaway from Reed is that any expansion of a solicitation ordinance should be very narrowly tailored and framed in the context of physical conduct and location as opposed to solicitation,” staff writes.
There is also the issue of confiscation of personal items. Staff writes that “removing the property requires its own process. The City may lawfully seize and detain personal property left in public areas, but immediate destruction of such property is a violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments, and notice is required to protect due process.
“The City must then hold the property for a ‘reasonable’ amount of time and follow its written policy and procedure for handling the property. The City currently holds property for 90 days, which is consistent with state code for selling property at an auction. An ordinance regulating unattended property could allow for initial tagging or citations of the property (providing notice that the property will be removed if not claimed within a certain amount of time), and then subsequently authorizing the seizure and holding of the property for an amount of time before destroying or selling it. This is the procedure the City already uses to address other property.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
For more details CLICK HERE
Or fill out the form below to become a monthly subscriber
I am strongly in favor of any ordinance that is truly protective of individuals at risk of harm. I will support an ordinance that prohibits aggressive behavior of any type including “approaching or following pedestrians, using abusive language, unwanted physical contact, or the intentional blocking of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.” and within a given distance from an ATM since this could be interpreted as a form of intimidation if the person solicited were known to have drawn money out immediately prior to the solicitation.
However, I am not in support of any sit-lie ordinance. I see these laws as blatantly discriminatory. If an officer would not impose this against a person lying on a blanket in the park who had fallen asleep while listening to music at Farmer’s Market, then they should not impose it against the homeless individual who falls asleep on a random patch of grass or sidewalk downtown. These are laws aimed at a specific class of individuals, namely those who for whatever reason including addiction and/or mental illness have not become sufficiently proficient with the social/economic interactions that our society approves to provide for themselves in the manner approved by the majority. I see this as appropriate cause for assistance not discriminatory policing.
I do not believe that a caring society would further burden those who are at the bottom of our economic ladder in order to preserve the relative privilege of those who have achieved a higher station on that ladder. Instead of placing additional burdens on the weakest, I would like the city to take a very rigorous “housing first approach” to this very real problem.
” I would like the city to take a very rigorous “housing first approach” to this very real problem.”
Wouldn’t that require building houses, something you’ve continually opposed?
John Hobbs
Correction of fact. I have not continually opposed building of housing. I have criticized those projects that I do not feel represent an overall positive for our community, and supported those that I do see as an overall positive. I was as much in favor of Nishi as I had been opposed to The Cannery.
I also have consistently said that I would favor housing for those in actual need while opposing changing zoning and guidelines in order to build luxury apartments.
Some were in opposition to intended work force housing as part of the innovation parks, I supported the concept of mixed use projects.
If we are going to have a conversation, I would like it to be reflective of my actual positions.
The only solution is for those giving to stop answering to the downtown panhandler. The panhandler-giving minority of the public is the problem. And that won’t change. It’s like how we spend billions to fight drug-traffic-ing, but the problem is the small minority drug-using public. And that won’t change.
Not sure I agree with you. There are a lot of people downtown who have no place to go who just hand out there. First, I’m not sure they are there just to panhandle and second, not sure how you would get people in the public to not give.
I’m saying if no one gave, the panhandlers would not be in downtown Davis; I did not say homeless, a different but related issue, in that some panhandlers are in need and homeless. I also said the “giving” wouldn’t change much.
Borderline off-topic… I do not give money to ‘pan-handlers’… if someone appears to be homeless, and says they need money for food, I have often escorted them to the nearest restaurant (usually fast-food places) let them order their meal, and I pay for it. I rarely give $.
Yesterday, stopped by a local store to get a bottle of wine… I was approached by a ‘street-person’, asking for $ to get food… I escorted him in, he picked out a soft drink, and looked for something to eat… then he said, “can I get some alcohol too?” I said No. Because there was not a lot of food there, he picked out some jerky. Then at the counter, where they had mini-liquors, he asked again if I’d “buy him a ‘shot'”… ‘No’, was the answer… on the way out two of his “buddies” tried to hit me up for $. I politely said no (was out of cash at that point). I did not fear any of them, and they were polite, but a tad insistent. [not sure ‘insistent’ is the right word, but can’t think of a better one… but it was polite, and non-threatening]
When I decide (~ once a month) to go to In-n-Out Burger, if I see someone ‘pan-handling’ on the SW, I walk over and ask them if i can buy them lunch… most of the time they thank me, and we do it… several times, we lunched together… often when we did, we discovered we had another homeless ‘friend’ in common… a gentleman who was the ‘leader’ of a group of 3 other homeless gents, that a female friend of mine adopted… she brought them ponchos, socks, and other necessities… she even convinced REI and a local sports shop to either donate gear, or let her buy it “at cost”. I met the leader, Wes, and was scoping him out to see if my friend should feel safe around him and the ‘lost boys’… pretty sure he ‘returned the favor’. My gut, after talking with him for ~ 15 minutes, was that he was sober, no threat to my friend, and I wondered, given his history as he shared it, how he ended up being homeless… from what I could gather, part of it was PTSD (he ended up getting a ‘less than honorable discharge’ [his words] after serving in the mid-east.
My friend and I grieved when I subsequently found out, from the County Guardian, that he had passed a couple of months later, from a heart issue. As an indigent, with no family coming forward, despite attempts by the guardian to find family, he was cremated, and interred @ the indigent crypt at the Knights Landing cemetery. At the annual memorial (usually the Friday of the Memorial Day weekend) I attended and spoke regarding Wes, and all those in similar straits. Cass gave me a big hug, saying she couldn’t have said it better.
The point is, the homeless/panhandlers are not ‘monolithic’… any more than the rest of us are… there are even those pan-handlers (Roma?) who drive up to a shopping center in a maybe 3 year old minivan, better than the one we owned, get their signs out, and pretend to need help, and parade their kids out to gain sympathy (and $$). I’ve personally seen this, @ Oak Tree Plaza. There are those who are definitely suffering from addictions (why I do not give money) and mental health issues,of varying degrees.
Tia… providing housing should not be #1 in my mind… shelter when weather is severe, yes… #1 would be to identify if there is illness, particularly mental, addiction, or charlatanism. Providing for someone’s housing, without dealing with mental health and/or addiction issues, is futile, IMO.
Not addressing people sleeping in the Core is BS. Either we roust them or help them. Otherwise, it is like the ‘good Samaritan’ story, and we’d be like the first two travellers who passed by the man in distress. Tia, your “we should tolerate the sleeping” thing is a cop-out, particularly unless you feel the same about them sleeping in a planter strip 2-3 blocks away, in Old East, or Old North
Perhaps society should consider the homeless, whether addicted/alcoholic as another “unfunded liability”… but shelter alone is a palliative, not an answer. It should not be considered #1, except in severe weather, and the faith community is doing a fairly good job to address that.
Said my piece.
Howard
“Providing for someone’s housing, without dealing with mental health and/or addiction issues, is futile, IMO.”
First I applaud your willingness to provide practical support for those in need. You and I share the tactic of feeding those who are actually hungry but not being willing to provide cash which can be used to purchase harmful substances.
However, I do want to correct your incorrect interpretation that “housing first” means “housing only”. My understanding of “housing first” programs is that they provide housing in addition to additional supportive programs. The name does not imply that a full range of social service aide is not necessary.
Finally, I will stand by my statement about equal treatment under the law. If sleeping in public is not allowed, then that should be applied equally. If it is allowed for some, it should be allowed for all. Otherwise we are imposing a penalty for being poor, homeless, or both.
So, you say it’s ok for someone to bed down in the public street planter area in front of your house… fair enough…
Alan/David… giving money is a bad answer (agreeing with you Alan)… very bad… unless you want to buy off your conscience… that doesn’t work too well, either, if you really think about where the money will go…
I would urge the City Council to be careful here. It is extremely difficult to legislate out panhandling, and unwise, IMO, to take hard-line stances. I would much rather see discussion about how opportunity can be opened up so that people don’t have to panhandle. Whatever action is taken, it needs to be in alignment with our values as a city.
“Whatever action is taken, it needs to be in alignment with our values as a city.”
“Action” would not seem to be a Davis value. “Discussion” is, but there never seems to be much follow up.
John,
I think things have begun to change with Mayor Davis. He’s pushed for action. In fact, a new program related to homelessness will be unveiled soon… a program in which the city played a key role in developing.
John
I am wondering what actions you would favor from the city council ?
I would favor programs that offer some paid work opportunities OR a program where people can apply for a permit (maybe through the Chamber??) to receive donations in exchange for a service, such as playing music, hosting a chalking station for kids, art, etc. While not everyone would accept such offers, I think many would. If I have the choice to donate to someone who’s flying a sign or someone who’s offering a service on the street (music, art, etc), I’d definitely give to the person providing a service. I’d also still give to those who suffer from mental illness and aren’t able to do either of the other aforementioned options. So, in essence, instead of trying to legislate out panhandling, look for ideas that offer alternatives to panhandling.
As a pensioner on a tight budget, I don’t have a tonne of money to hand out, but having been close to homeless and broke a couple of times, I usually come up with a buck or two. I’m not religious, but I have read the Judeo-Christian holy books enough to know that charity is generally held as a virtue and standing in judgement of others, a sin. I am no longer surprised when someone responds to my small offering with “God bless you.” I respond “You have done it, in his stead.”
Please don’t give $… direct them to services (can provide you cards) and/or take them to a place to get food. Giving $ is usually (not always) “enabling”… not good…
All I said – and probably sloppily re-reading my comment – is that I don’t know how you will stop people from giving.
A lot of value judgement there. I would not be as comfortable imposing mine.
Yet you do… appears you value giving a buck or two to get a “blessing”… so who is the donation for?
That’s not charity… charity is to freely give, with nothing expected in return… except, perhaps, ‘kharma’… I give a lot, but not $ to pan-handlers… I prefer to feed them… judge that ‘value’, all you want…
I didn’t say anything about stopping people… all I said was “please”, as in please consider… did not recommend “impose” anything…
Both David’s and John’s retorts are summarily rejected… implies that all should give money… hope you both do as much as I do… else, you are hypocrites… talk about ‘value judgements’…
My original comment was not in response to you. What exactly have I said on this subject that could be construed as hypocritical?
10:56… a response to my post… at least looking at the ‘tiers’… you appear to have responded to my 10:51 post… and yeah, you hit one of my buttons… what else was I to think… look at the ‘track’… see also my 11:40 post, if it has not been removed… if it was removed, is because I had flagged it, as I was a tad perturbed… and was starting to have second thoughts…
“hope you both do as much as I do… else, you are hypocrites… talk about ‘value judgements’…”
Wow, what ever happened to doing as much as one can ? Surely you are not implying that if one does not match your giving precisely, they are hypocritical ? What if someone happens to give more than you do ? Surely that does not mean that you are being hypocritical ?
Tell me, what are those “our values”? The “Davis Way”, perhaps?
That’s a good question Alan. I suppose it’s from what I observe are the values, which is completely subjective. Personally, I’d love to see the city develop a Values Statement through community dialogue. But, for the time being, I’d say (and remember this is subjective), community values include things like:
Compassion
Inclusivity
Dignity and worth of individuals, regardless of state in life
The right to self-determination
Empowerment
For the time being (w/o an official city values statement), I guess identification of the values would be based upon what the council perceives as reflective of the community
Glad you bit.
I do not believe that we can define the values of the community. To do so would alienate those that do not share those values.
When one has a group formed through self-selection, it is much easier to come to consensus on the values of that group, as the selection process has brought like to like, some shared values that brought them together.
A City is not a group in that sense. Anyone can live here (if they can afford it, Lord knows). There should be no “community values” forced upon the city’s residents.
The values you list are largely civil rights and moral values, not really in need of being Davis values. Few would question them, as such. And then . . . what?
I look at charitable donations as an investment. Educational scholarships are an investment that directly impacts the recipient, but is also an investment into the future and stability of my community. Donations to the Food Bank, Community Meals, Food Programs, Emergency grants to keep the lights and heat on, mental health services, clothing closets, shower and short term storage facilities, etc. are likewise an investment that directly impacts the recipients, but serves to provide for the stability and health of the community.
I have more difficulty with giving cash to panhandlers as it makes the job of panhandling lucrative and supports a lifestyle in many cases, but doesn’t contribute to the safety and stability of the community. I learned this while living in Berkeley, where panhandling reached crisis levels and investigations showed that many panhandlers treated it as a job – some commuting in from apartments in neighboring cities. People think that they are doing good by these people in giving cash, but all they are doing is paying for this type of “business” to operate in the downtown area.
Point is, the challenge is huge. I’d submit the following are all true:
Homeless in storefronts hurts business.
Homeless in town hurts Davis image and therefore business.
The more people give, the more people come to Davis to panhandle.
Some panhandlers settle in Davis because of the giving.
Not all panhandler are homeless.
Not all panhandlers sleep in Davis.
Some panhandlers settle in Davis because of the giving.
Distinguishing who is who is no easy task.
Much giving goes to alcohol and drugs.
There are homeless who don’t spend money on alcohol and drugs.
Distinguishing who is who is no easy task.
Some believe you shouldn’t give because the money may go to alcohol and drugs.
Other believe you should give because the person may be truly in need.
Distinguishing who is in need is no easy task.
Are any of these statements not true?
“Homeless in town hurts Davis image and therefore business.”
There are homeless everywhere, I simply don’t understand how it hurts Davis’ image
Um . . . having homeless people in the foyer of a bank door doesn’t hurt Davis image in some people’s mind . . . maybe not in yours. And no, not every town has the same problem Davis has.
What town would you say doesn’t have this problem?
New York City
Zamora
I rest my case. Comparable cities, regional cities all have similar problems.
I doubt that, but then again I haven’t been everywhere, man.
But seriously, is your argument that since “all” similar downtowns have homeless people, therefore Davis’ “image” isn’t any different than any other town?
David
Not Lodi . Very few homeless people in Lodi and very few panhandlers . City has big hotel in downtown which is designated for homeless and city or state pays them $300 /month to stay in hotel . I know this from one guy to whom I gave ride few times from the Lodi Lake Park to this Hotel . Lodi is a similar size city as Davis without the UC Davis .
No my point is if you go to downtown Woodland, West Sac, Sac, you see homeless people lying around. So why is Davis a badge of shame that would harm business?
Alan
This is maybe is a problem but what can you do about ? Throw them in to prison or buy bus tickets for them and send them to Nevada in the same way as the Nevada does by busing mentally ill people to California ?
I find much truth in all of those…
David, I am baffled by the notion that just because something bad happens somewhere else its ok to have it happen here. The homeless actually are a problem in Davis, they are responsible for a huge percentage of the crime we experience in the town and greatly reduce the quality of life. I have seen their hobo camps all around our city (I mean I have actually walked through dozens of them), there are mounds of stolen bikes, piles of trash, heaps of broken liquor bottles etc. Just because you can find this in other cities doesn’t make it right. Davis has a reputation as a “safe” community for parents bringing their students to UCD, it has a reputation as a good community to raise a family- all of this is greatly diminished by the presence of these imported panhandlers. They need to go through whatever legal means available. Bravo to the city council for finally addressing this issue!
Mike Hart
“they are responsible for a huge percentage of the crime we experience in the town”
Your data to support this assertion ?
Tia
Now the burden of proof is on you . You have to provide the proof that Mark is wrong if you think he is wrong .
“David, I am baffled by the notion that just because something bad happens somewhere else its ok to have it happen here. ”
I’m baffled by that too because it’s not what I’m saying at all. The argument was made that this paints Davis in a light unfavorable, the reality is Davis is hardly alone.
“as it makes the job of panhandling lucrative and supports a lifestyle in many cases,”
Breitbart anecdotes do not truth make. There is no data to indicate that the “rich panhandler” is anything more than an aberration.
You’re coloring my comment to make it appear distasteful. Short-term panhandling in a crisis is different than a long-term practice that is a source of income to support a certain lifestyle. This is how it becomes a “business.” I personally don’t want to support this business activity. I do want to support activities that contribute to the health and safety of the community. It has nothing to do with protecting an image.
lu·cra·tive
ˈlo͞okrədiv/
adjective
adjective: lucrative-producing a great deal of profit.
It was your word of choice and it is a distasteful misrepresentation of the facts.
You are missing my point. I’m not going to argue with you.
John Hobbs: “Breitbart anecdotes” was your phrase of choice and is a distasteful misrepresentation of what Sharla said.
Actually, locally, in Davis there is…whether the data has been compiled, am not certain… ask anyone in Davis PD if Roma/West Sac-Sac/panhandling has any correlation… SUV’s: downtown, Oak tree Plaza… this is not a myth… haven’t seen it in the last 9 months or so, but it was pretty prevalent… they did not sleep on storefront stoops, tho’.
what do I think, not that anyone asked, NADA..
as Sharla and I very well know, back in the way kinder and gentler days of the 70s.. when Sharla was barely out of Davis elementary ( or something) and I was at UCD.. the PD.. as in DPD…. used to pass out free vouchers to those passing through town..
for motel rooms and
they also got free meal tickets at local joints….and some also got a bus ticket to their next stop.
most didn’t need the ticket… they were hitchiking or riding their bikes (peugeots, Raleighs or Harleys).. some found work on olive drive..
as I said.. unless the city wants to put their money where their mouths are.. they should do NADA>
In the meantime there is REAL news going on while the dodos chat about this topic..
RFK Jr is now Trumps new Director of Vaccine safety and Research Integrity..
.. omg now that is really going to make a difference.. listen up folks and get a clue.. 😉
[moderator] This is a courtesy note to let you know that any references to vaccinations or GMO’s will be removed without further notice. If they are not easily excised from the comment, the whole comment will be removed. Those subjects are off topic.
Marina
UC Davis has 5300 acres of land . Maybe Hexter is a generous human being and the City of Davis could work with him and get the piece of land from UC Davis to build the sanctuary town for the homeless people . Principles of Community . What do you think about .? You have your channels to to get to Hexter .
so dumbdumb lesson number 1 again for those who missed it all of the other times.. UCD is a land-grant institution..
Ralphie has no authority to set up a homeless camp, unless it is for homeless UCD students, staff and faculty…
It would take the likes of the Napo and the Regents to approve it…
And the Gov and Asst Gov as they also have some kinda roles..
[moderator] edited, off topic.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/robert-f-kennedy-jr-donald-trump-vaccine-commission/
“President-elect Donald Trump met with notable anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Tuesday, further stoking unfounded fears about vaccine safety and efficacy by asking the Democrat to chair a commission on the issue.
But the Trump transition says no decision has been made on setting up a commission on autism, despite Robert Kennedy Jr. telling reporters he was asked by Trump to chair a committee on vaccination safety.
“The President-elect enjoyed his discussion with Robert Kennedy Jr. on a range of issues and appreciates his thoughts and ideas. The President-elect is exploring the possibility of forming a commission on Autism, which affects so many families; however no decisions have been made at this time. The President-elect looks forward to continuing the discussion about all aspects of Autism with many groups and individuals,” said Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks in statement.
Kennedy, the son of late presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, told reporters after his meeting with Trump that the President-elect asked him to head a look into “vaccination safety and scientific integrity.”
The topic of the article is city of Davis panhandling policy. We give a little leeway, but getting into DQU and common core are not in the ballpark. Want to write about those things, then submit something, otherwise keep it in the realm.
I encourage the Davis City Council to take any and all steps available to them legally address this issue. I feel that the most appropriate step would be to utilize the defunct DQ University outside of town as a place where they could find shelter, food and counseling services. The public agencies would then have a single location where they could bring resources to deal with this ongoing problem.
Mike Hart
I would also support a plan that encompasses housing and a wide variety of social services in one location. I have not idea whether the DQ site would be available or appropriate. What it would likely be is isolating from the community as such not optimal if societal reintegration is a goal.
There is no bus/transit service to DQU… might serve as emergency shelter, but short of that, sounds more like a gulag/concentration camp kinda thing. Perhaps that is your point/goal? Get them as far as possible from Sierra Energy on Research Park Drive? Other businesses?
DQU is in the County, and the City has absolutely no control over the site…
wow the CNN mainstream misinformation stands while the real news is ignored. . .oh well.
I supported DQU back before it was formed.. it later became a hangout for native and other races to sit around and smoke pot and other ancient substances on the governments dime.
then I was like wt? why are WE spending our money on that nonsense..
but in more recent years I am understanding the importance of such cultural activities…
certainly so much better than the misinformation fed to the children under common core..
who then become doctors and cannot figure out why the children get sicker and sicker…
at least the native peoples are not harming anyone else…
in fact we should all get together at the council meetings and join hands and sing kumbaya…..
and at least.. they are doing something useful.. expanding their spiritual understanding… truly so much more valuable than the toxic fake knowledge in regular schools.
PS. the DQU is really not far by bike.. back in the day many of us used to ride our bikes to winters and back and that is just over half way..
This is off-topic. Panhandling, city of Davis. Stick with that.
“in fact we should all get together at the council meetings and join hands and sing kumbaya…”
Frankly, that’s like pitching to an empty batters’ box.
Jeff, come home………………
Daily? And still, that assumes you have a functional bike, and are healthy enough to go the distance… many homeless do not have one. Many have significant health issues… physical and/or mental.
How will they get food, water, sewage, heat, cooling, etc.? Who provides services?
Take off the aluminum hat and smell reality. Follow the reality. There is no money to follow…
Howard
Marina is an American adventurist and she travels in The Time Machine Around the World in 80 days .
I am just following up on the Dr. Tia and the HP suggestions.. of course when I follow up.. my stuff is off topic?
I thought there were some good suggestions.. hope the folks show up at the council meeting to present them..
I would bring incense but it is a little to far and all the flights have already left. 🙂
The ref always catches the retaliation, not the initial foul. So that’s all I can say.
You don’t have a first amendment right to post on here. Enough.
David… the truth is, you are correct… the ref (even great ones) might think they saw the foul (out of the corner of their eye… ‘on the ball fouls’ are a different matter), but once ‘alerted’ all good refs do manage to see and call the “pay-back” fouls. My reference is futball/football, also known as soccer. It is part of the game… and frustrates the heck out of the good referees… been there, done that, have 5 different jerseys.
But, once you have to call the “pay-back” one, a good ref remembers what preceded, and is more attuned to the ‘instigator’… can’t be called, but goes to “fool me once, shame on you… fool me twice, shame on me”…
yes…one of my dearest friends worked at accounts payable at UCD and later the travel desk…then they moved to Soda. Willie continued to ride his bike to and from the countryside past woodland.. every day for decades… on 102 and other more dangerous country roads.. in sleet,rain, flooding and so on .. literally for decades … until he was only a few years away from retirement. and then he go run over on the road.. never made it to retirement after many many decades… unlike the road to DQU, which does have real bike lanes, those country roads did not. in the early morning tully fog.. cars and trucks could hardly see him.
RIP WILLIE>.. .. was the last name Lopez? . … so many years gone now..
Willie never learned to drive.. na da a car.. .
buncha num nums on this list.. “what if they don’t have a bike”.. ” what if they cannot ride a bike”. . “who is going to provide food and shelter and water and.”
wtf do ya think?
the same folks who do now.. the city of Davis, the county of yolo, the state of CA and the Feds..
who else do ya think?
oh yeah the folks I donate to every year.. also … the nonprofits in town….
PS> Davis has a lovely paratransit service.. it used to be $1 per ride and now it is $2.. they will pick ya up at the residence and take you anywhere ya need.. shopping, doctor or dentist.. and then come back to get ya and take ya “home”….
really folks wtf is the problem with ya all.. we don’t even have fluoride in the water here.. truly…