By Long Davis
(Editor’s note: this letter was sent anonymously and was apparently sent to the council in addition to the Vanguard)
As usual, the developer democrats of the city council rubber stamped a big development, like Target and continues to use the Mace Ranch area as a dumping ground for big growth.
I wanted to let you know some of the consequences. First is my pledge to vote against you in all future elections and primaries. That will include actively supporting and voting for your opponent.
After years of being a loyal democrat and liberal, I am done. For good. I am going to religiously vote against any and all city and state ballot measures since they are all about screwing regular 
people like me and benefiting career politicians. After years of supporting money for schools, parks, affordable housing, raises for city employees and teacher, bike lanes, libraries, you name it I am now going to vote against it.
You wonder why people go for trump and leave liberal policies you have the answer in this typical corrupt Davis liberal nonsmart growth, environmentally bad development approved through the usual Davis rubber stamp and the career politicians like yourself.
Congratulations, Establishment Democrat!
So what about that required the letter to be anonymous?
It was sent without a name?
When one comes out against the liberal establishment and hints at supporting Trump policies they have to be careful when living in Davis.
I think “establishment Democrat” was meant to particularly cutting. I would rule out DiFi as the author.
Maybe you will get an anonymous letter suggesting eminent domain proceedings against a certain trailer park…
Could happen
The letter could happen, eminent domain proceeding against a trailer park would not be legal
That is not what Palo Alto thinks.
They may have more power as a charter city
Oh please Keith, exactly what do you fear is going to happen ?
Is someone going to say something nasty about conservatives or 45 supporters on the Vanguard ? Probably. That is their right and I don’t recall your defending me when I have been called any number of derogatory terms for my very far left ideas. Are they going to encourage boycotting a business ? Possibly, but is that not also within their rights? Are you afraid of calls for the lynching of conservatives as we recently have seen for black liberals? Afraid that someone will run you down with a car as happened to Heather Heyer ?
Just what is your concern and evidence of a realistic possibility of its happening locally ?
First of all my post was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But since you brought it up….
Actually I have at times defended you.
Well Frankly I recall a conservative commenter on here who backed off posting for a while because he said that happened to him.
During the Milo dispute when I backed Milo’s right to free speech I had a commenter who appeared to be looking into my Facebook account and doing Internet searches on me and posted:
I never said that something like the drastic occurances that you cited are going to happen, but in a town where conservatives are outnumbered probably 4 or 5 to one they have to mind their p’s and q’s at the risk of being shunned by some of the less open minded liberals.
I think there’s a lot of Davis voters now coming to the same conclusion.
Because we’re building housing though? I understand the anti-tax wing of the city (which is fairly small btw), but housing a motivator?
I’m just saying in general. I’ve talked with several people in my community and many of them say they’re tired as homeowners of being asked to foot the bill through parcel taxes.
I came to that conclusion 20 years ago.
I can’t imagine why anybody is giving this letter any credence whatsoever.
No reason to believe that. It’s anonymous.
The Vanguard has given credence many times to anonymous sources. Why is this any less creditable than others?
I just found it interesting that that was someone reaction to housing proposals. They took the time to send it to the council members and me. But they also concealed their identity.
Why was this worth publishing? It’s a vague, marginally coherent rant against an unclear target (no pun intended).
I found it interesting as I explained above. Other people probably don’t find it as interesting.
Which proposal in particular is the letter to objecting to? It doesn’t say.
The email came with the title “Sterling Development”
Ah, that wasn’t clear to me before.
My bad – I originally kept the email title as the article title and then modified it.
I believe the pun was intended.
Ok, whatever. Target had already been approved when I got here.
It’s not anonymous. Long is a good friend of mine. A bit cranky at times.
“As usual, the developer democrats of the city council rubber stamped a big development, like Target and continues to use the Mace Ranch area as a dumping ground for big growth.”
Not only are the claims vague, at least one is inaccurate. Target was not “rubber stamped” by anyone. It was a product of a very close vote of the citizens of Davis. No matter how much I opposed it, this was a majority vote, not something done on a 3-2 vote of the city council.
It wasn’t even rubberstamped — it was promoted actively by two sitting councilmembers at the time. They approached Target Corporation and urged them to locate here. Approved by a 4-1 vote of the council and then unanimously put on the ballot.
I also thought this was a rather poorly-written letter. However, the underlying thought behind it (e.g., Mace Ranch as a “dumping ground” for large-scale developments) and the fact that Democrats aren’t immune to supporting ill-advised developments (while simultaneously failing to control costs) is spot-on.
The letter also reflects a level of dissatisfaction with the overall direction of the council regarding development and its impacts, which is shared by others.
Care to clarify what you mean? No mention of MR in the letter…
Howard: You must have missed this, from the article:
Ironically, the letter doesn’t mention Sterling (and yet there’s a photo of it).
At this point, I’m more concerned about the possibility of an MRIC campaign, as well as what I fear might essentially become a densified/large homeless shelter (far from downtown/services), at Fifth and Pena. (Something that might have been better at the Families First site, which already included facilities that might have housed services – until they were destroyed.)
In general, I’d prefer Affordable housing to be included within proposed developments, rather than creating separate, large-scale structures in outlying neighborhoods.
Only an ignorant person would say that Sterling is part of Mace Ranch… big surprise there!
As for,
The property was not part of ‘Mace Ranch’… ever…
As to MRIC … will have to concede the word “area”… was not focused on minutiae…
Some of the developers are the same, but only some… your lack of knowledge and nit-picks are duly noted…
Please note that MRIC was not mentioned… so we get back to my comment, and now I see your “extrapolation”, and apparent motivation.
Hey, I didn’t put the photo there, or write the article. But, I would disagree with your comment that someone who doesn’t know the exact boundaries of Mace Ranch is “ignorant”, except in a general manner – regarding lack of knowledge.
Another series of points (of no apparent importance), from you.
Of all the things to leave the Democratic party over, though….