For the second time in a month, Susan Rainier has filed a lawsuit against a development in the city of Davis. This time it is filed against Lincoln40. The city received a letter on Thursday, dated April 12, notifying them of the action.
Last month Ms. Rainier filed a suit against Nishi, along with Colin Walsh.
In a letter from the Sacramento-based firm, Soluri Meserve, they write, “Petitioner Susan Rainier intends to file a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (the ‘Petition’) under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act., Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (‘CEQA’), against the City of Davis (‘City’).”
The letter notes: “The Petition challenges Respondent’s March 13, 2018 decisions, and all subsequent actions, in approving: a General Plan amendment; Gateway / Olive Drive Specific Plan amendment; development agreement; affordable housing plan; lot merger; and other associated entitlements purporting to authorize the Lincoln40 development project, which includes a 249,788 square-foot multi-family residential building, parking areas, and various amenities (the ‘Project’).”
It concludes: “The lawsuit will be based on violations of CEQA and other claims, as discussed more fully in the Project’s administrative and environmental review proceedings. The exact nature of 
the allegations and relief sought is described in the Petition that Petitioner plans to file on April 12, 2018.”
At the March 13 meeting, Mayor Robb Davis noted that the city wasn’t even required to submit an EIR for the Lincoln40 project, because as a Transit Priority Project it was exempt from the need to do an EIR. The city however, in an abundance of caution, went the extra mile to do an EIR on the project, hoping to avoid litigation.
Clearly that decision did not work bear the fruit that was hoped.
However, as the mayor pointed out, the litigation comes with a cost to the community itself.
The mayor explained, “I think that gets to this council’s willingness to be transparent and staff’s desire to be transparent. I think those are important qualities but they do add costs that mean that we can’t do other things.”
He said, “I think we need to consider the burden that we place on any project and what it means. It bothered me a little bit over the weekend.
“As a disclosure document it’s something that we can be proud of,” he added. “But does it really serve our community when we’re not required to – and it adds costs that otherwise could be going into a few extra beds.”
In the previous lawsuit, the petition challenged council’s February 6 decision on CEQA grounds, arguing that “members of Davis Coalition for Sensible Planning are residents of the City of Davis and have personal, community and environmental interests that are directly and adversely affected by the City’s approval of the Revised Project and issuance of the Notice of Determination (‘NOD’).”
In an email to the Vanguard, Ms. Rainer stated, “My concerns are clearly stated in the No position on the ballot.”
She argued, “It is not fit for human occupation.” Ms. Rainier added, “It would be a fabulous place for (a) sun-tracking photovoltaic array that would be in the Community Choice Aggregate portfolio. Being bound on all sides by freeway and railroad would prevent theft and hook up to PGE high power (which) is right there.”
She asked, “Would you live there? Would you want your children living there?” She pointed to studies of childhood asthma and exposure to traffic.
She pointed out that the Community Health guide from the ARB (Air Resources Board) “[c]alls for sensitive buildings (housing) a minimum of 500 feet from freeway – Oops – that would be the railroad – that is even more toxic.”
The petition argues on CEQA grounds, “The City’s failures, set forth in this Petition, constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure and CEQA” and that they have “no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. If the City’s actions regarding the Revised Project are effectuated, Petitioner and the environment will be irreparably harmed.”
What was received on Thursday, at the deadline for filing notification of a suit, was a letter. In a few days, we should have a copy of the petition itself.
See related articles:
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It would be interesting to see what the average payout is in lawsuits that pretend to care about air quality, water quality, traffic, or something on the endangered species list that ends (and the people stop caring about air quality, water quality, traffic, or something on the endangered species list) after the developer gives them cash…
The city hasn’t given any payouts in CEQA lawsuits. There was a small payout in the hotel conference center, but that was by the developer. Everyone else has been challenged and the city has prevailed.
My response to Ms. Ranier
“It is not fit for human occupation.”
There are humans living there now. Do you have plans for where to relocate them ? Because the Lincoln40 developers have been instrumental in helping them to find alternative housing.
““Would you live there? Would you want your children living there?”
Yes and yes. I do live in the area. Although my own children are grown, I would not have hesitated to raise them here and certainly would not have minded them living for four years in this location as college students. I deliberately chose to locate near the downtown area when it was time to downsize. I live within 1 block of the Lincoln40 development as the crow flies. When assessing risk it is important to look not only at the theoretical risks but also at the actual demonstrated risks of any location. There is no increase in ER presentations for either asthma nor COPD for the stretch along I-80 and the tracks from Vacaville to West Sacramento per the county epidemiologist.
The other environmental health risk that Ms. Ranier does not mention is the decreased miles driven by every student who does not have to commute from a distant site to campus. This translates to fewer cars on the road thus lessening the pollution and fewer hours for each individual being exposed to said pollution. To be objective, both sides of the equation must be considered.
Tia: I believe you are mistakenly referring to comments cited in the article regarding Nishi (not Lincoln40). (Both are discussed, but are not well-differentiated in the article.)
As a side note, a more applicable “comparison” (regarding miles driven) might be to compare an on-campus location, vs. an off-campus location. To quote you:
“To be objective, both sides of the equation must be considered”. 🙂
And actually, that would go for air quality and expense to the city, as well. (Off-campus, vs. on-campus.)
Ron
I believe my comments to be applicable to both sites as well as all the residences along Olive Drive as well as the residences immediately north of the tracks including those which border the tracks in OED. The epidemiologist looked at all of the areas immediately adjacent to the tracks and found no spikes along the entire corridor from Vacaville to West Sacramento.
Note, these is a different consideration than the data gathered by Dr. Cahill which I am not referencing at all in this comment ( I am not discounting it, just not mentioning it here).
“As a side note, a more applicable “comparison” (regarding miles driven) might be to compare an on-campus location, vs. an off-campus location. To quote you:
“To be objective, both sides of the equation must be considered”. ?
David has addressed this previously in the data he presented with regard to mode of transportation compared to distance lived from campus. I believe that this data is adequate for sake of comparison.
That is not the comparison I was making: (Off-campus, vs. on-campus housing.)
You, like David, are making an entirely different comparison.
Again, though – you blended the comments made regarding Nishi, with those of Lincoln40. There are not “humans living” at Nishi, now.
That’s extremely unkind Ron… homeless folk who currently live on the Nishi property are indeed human beings…
I don’t think most people are aware that there are homeless people camping on the Nishi property.
Thanks, Don. You are correct, that I was unaware.
I suspect that many homeless people stay in less-than-ideal environments.
Don…
More’s the pity…
Yet, some people who don’t know what they’re talking about, make ‘definitive’ posts… if you sense a double entendre, regarding certain “experts” who cite the ‘unique’ risks of elevated freeways (either misrepresentation, or convenient distortion)… well, you understand real well…
Howard: No, I really don’t understand your point.
I have, however, witnessed the “politicization” of the air quality issue. (And, it seems to be originating primarily from the supporters of the proposal, at this point.)
There’s very little hope of uncovering the “truth”, on here.
Ron
“There are not “humans living” at Nishi, now.”
Sorry to have been unclear. That part of my comment referred only to the Lincoln40 location since there are people living on that site.
The epidemiological part of my comment refers to the entire corridor.
I believe that Dr. Cahill (and others) have pointed out some unique site characteristics at Nishi. In the absence of testing at the site itself (as unanimously recommended by the Natural Resources Commission, I understand), epidemiological conclusions regarding the “corridor” (in reference to Nishi) may be inaccurate/irrelevant.
“I believe that Dr. Cahill (and others) have pointed out some unique characteristics at Nishi. ”
And there aren’t any real differences between Lincoln40 and Nishi in terms of air quality issues. Dr. Cahill is incorrect on this point.
David: That’s an opinion, with no scientific support presented here. (It’s pretty difficult to objectively conduct scientific research, via communications on a politically-oriented blog.)
In fact, most or all of the analyses (whether it’s fiscal, environmental, or otherwise) become “politicized”, on here. And ultimately, that’s unfortunate for anyone seeking the “truth”.
That’s a cop out. And it’s not an opinion.
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/03/commentary-inconvenient-truths-air-quality-expert-cahill/
Dr. Cahill actually edited conflicting evidence out of the LA Times article he was passing around because he was telling everyone that the elevated roadway at Nishi made things worse when the scientific evidence is opposite: “It’s also preferable to live near a freeway that is elevated above or sits well below your home. That vertical separation can help disperse pollutants. At-grade freeways, where lanes sit at the same level as surrounding buildings, are worse because they put vehicle tailpipes right next to people’s lungs.” That’s from the LA Times. If that’s correct, then Nishi actually should have better air quality than Lincoln40. And we know from Tia, there is nothing to suggest health problems from living along East Olive.
“Passing around” a newspaper article is not scientific research, either. And should not be judged as such.
You’re missing a key point here – the research as reported by the LA Times conflicts with the story that Cahill is tell with regards to the unique problem of Nishi.
Regarding the newspaper article, only Dr. Cahill would be able to address the concern you brought up.
In general, I have witnessed situations in which scientists get “caught up” in political arguments, which ends up diluting their actual, scientific-based concerns. And, that can end up feeding into those with vested interests who seek to “prove” otherwise. (Scientific concerns regarding climate change might fall into this category.)
Perhaps Dr. Cahill’s approach (in which he does not engage very often on a political blog) is ultimately the best approach. Already, casual statements seem to be magnified, dissected, and perhaps misrepresented. (For example, suggestions regarding the best use of the land in question.) Ultimately, this is not an appropriate forum to conduct recommended scientific research.
Ron: Let’s review this discussion.
Ron said: “I believe that Dr. Cahill (and others) have pointed out some unique site characteristics at Nishi.”
David: “And there aren’t any real differences between Lincoln40 and Nishi in terms of air quality issues. Dr. Cahill is incorrect on this point.”
Ron: “That’s an opinion, with no scientific support presented here. ”
So I then present support for my point. The evidence that Dr. Cahill cites is the elevated section of Nishi which the scientific evidence disagrees with.
I add: “You’re missing a key point here – the research as reported by the LA Times conflicts with the story that Cahill is tell with regards to the unique problem of Nishi.”
Your response is: “Regarding the newspaper article, only Dr. Cahill would be able to address the concern you brought up.”
That’s not true. I’m showing you that the evidence that you relied on in your first comment: “Dr. Cahill (has) pointed out some unique site characteristis” is not backed by science and you are relying on that information and your only response is that only Dr. Cahill would be able to address the concern. So the information you are relying on to make that comment is in question and yet, you have no answer for it.
David: I realize that it’s a reasonable question to ask. However, I’m not in a position to provide an “answer” for it. Neither are you. One might have to engage in a lengthy, technical discussion to understand the reasons for Dr. Cahill’s conclusions.
In the meantime, discussing a newspaper article (in which the scientist that you’re challenging has apparently not responded to you) is going to lead to a one-sided “conclusion”, which may, or may not be applicable for this particular site. (I’m going to assume that Dr. Cahill is aware of it, but believes for whatever reasons that the point does not apply at Nishi.)
Have you asked him? And, perhaps more importantly, is there ever a point at which you’d acknowledge the need for the recommended study?
I’m not discussing a newspaper article.
I’m discussing him deleting evidence from the newspaper article that he widely disseminating that he disagreed with. And I’m discussing the extent to which that evidence debunks the notion that Nishi is substantially different from East Olive. You raised the point that he has cited unique sit characteristics at Nishi, and I believe this evidence that he has attempted to conceal debunks that point.
David: Dr. Cahill “deleted” a published newspaper article (that he was simultaneously “widely disseminating”), thereby “concealing it” for anyone interested in looking it up? Wow – he’s even more “powerful” than I thought!
Nice work, in finding this secret/concealed article. Never let it be said that the Vanguard fails to “dig deep”, regarding undercover work. 🙂
Suggest you ask him your question. (But, I’m not sure that you’re interested in objective, science-based responses. If that’s the case, it might be better for him to not respond, rather than get dragged through the political muck even further.)
You seem to be ignoring what’s going on here. He presented an opinion, and said, here, read these articles that backed those opinions. He attached pdfs of the articles but the LA Times article had sections that were omitted that disagreed with them. If you don’t see the problem here, I’m not sure what to say.
Kinda like Cahill “facts”.
Ron
It is true that Dr. Cahill has pointed this out. It is also true that he has provided no evidence other than theoretical speculation on how this might be significant and his theoretical concern has not been substantiated by others with expertise in similar fields.
Maybe so, not sure. But (in general), it’s difficult to provide evidence, without conducting a recommended study.
Yup.
Recommend by . . . drum roll please . . . Cahill!
It’s difficult for me to believe that Dr. Cahill’s recommendation is self-serving. Others cited (such as Dr. Salocks) are not air quality experts.
Really, I’m not seeing any justification for not doing the study (as recommended even before Nishi 2.0) arose.
Lots of excuses, for the most part. That, and “noise” regarding other sites, newspaper articles, and whatever else.
Again, what I’m responding to is a lack of objectivity on here. (Not so much, regarding the results of a study that hasn’t been done.)
“It’s difficult for me to believe that Dr. Cahill’s recommendation is self-serving. ”
Why? You don’t know him.
Just from what I gathered, regarding reading and communicating with others about him and his situation in life. (For example, I don’t think he’s motivated by money.) An older professor without connections to the property itself, who’s studied this stuff for years, and who just gave away another significant property to UC Davis:
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/cahills-donate-200-acres-to-ucd-for-open-classroom/
Sounds like a pretty good guy, even if laymen disagree with his conclusions on a blog.
Conversely, you just “speculated” about what Eric meant when he said that the “students will rise” (elsewhere in this comment section).
Also, you also seem to be speculating regarding the motives of those who initiate lawsuits.
Lots of “speculation” on here, but very few “scientific studies”. Hell, you haven’t even responded to Todd’s point (regarding filters), so far.
There is a famous axiom, used for office signs… “My Mind is MadeUp… Don’t Confuse Me With Facts!”… its corollary is “When You Wish to Create Doubt, It’s OK to Make Up ‘Facts’…”
Re: Nishi:
Yes, I would have lived there without any hesitation when I was a student. My concern with respect to my children would be the unhealthy lifestyles of many of the other residents that they would be exposed to. But as to the location, I would consider the proximity to the Arboretum and easy walking distance to town to be excellent tradeoffs for the increased roadway pollution. Just as I made lifestyle decisions in my choice of a career, my long-term exposure to the exhaust from small engines, being surrounded by orchards which are sprayed a dozen or more times each season, a daily commute, the food and beverage choices we make.
What bothers me about this is the use of the legal process to seek to overturn decisions by publicly elected officials who have reviewed projects that have previously gone through commissions. Like the attempt to get the Chancellor to intervene, this is disrespectful of the electoral process and of representative democracy. The plaintiffs and other Nishi opponents seek to have a judge impose their risk assessments on everyone else.
Without expressing any opinion whatsoever on the merits of any pending litigation, I have to disagree with this general statement. Local municipalities have broad discretion in exercising their land use authority. But the courts’ role is to ensure that local government does not violate the law, exceed its authority, or abuse its discretion. It can be frustrating, and it’s not always the most efficient or expeditious system; but this is part of the checks and balances that are a vital part of our representative democracy.
I think the problem here is that they are using the courts as an extension of the political system rather than a check against abuse of discretion. The court rulings that we have had bear that out. the problem is this adds time and cost to the process and the people that suffer are those that are most vulnerable.
You may be right; but that gets to the merits of the particular action. I was addressing the more general assertion, which I believe was an overstatement.
I think there is a BIG difference between someone who has spent their life working for clean air filing a lawsuit to stop something that they really think will change air quality and a people that want to stop development to keep local rents and real estate values high to reduce the number of working class adults and people over 30 without advanced degrees they don’t like living in “their” town…
“it’s difficult to provide evidence, without conducting a recommended study.”
True as written. However, the study in question has been recommended only by Dr.Cahill backed by those who oppose Nishi. Others with expertise in both fields similar to that of Dr. Cahill and those whose expertise is in other areas do not feel that further study is necessary. These include individuals who have no personal stake at all in this issue.
Tia: I’ve seen a great deal of “disagreement” presented, by those with no scientific experience studying air quality. As far as I know, Dr. Cahill (and others concerned about air quality at Nishi) also “have no personal stake at all in this issue”.
As a side note, air quality has not necessarily been my primary concern, regarding Nishi. I started commenting on this article primarily due to the “unclear” reference that you acknowledged, regarding your citation from the article above.
And really, this article primarily concerns Lincoln40, not Nishi. Not sure why David is bringing up Nishi, in the article above.
No personal stake in a development doesn’t mean people don’t decide to take it personally. The air quality non-issue is a political point for people who want to stop construction at Nishi and at Lincoln40 and probably anywhere else they don’t want to see a development. Their motives aren’t really all that important.
Ron
“the “unclear” reference that you acknowledged, regarding your citation from the article above.”
I did not acknowledge any unclarity in what I wrote. I think it was perfectly clear that I was referencing the folks currently living on the Lincoln40 site. What I “apologized” for was what was perhaps confusing to you, or did not suit your frame of reference. I had not taken the homeless into account and so if any “acknowledgement” is due, it is to them, not to a reader who perhaps chose to conflate issues I was not addressing.
“I’ve seen a great deal of “disagreement” presented, by those with no scientific experience studying air quality.”
And you have chosen to make no reference to the expertise of others such as Don Shor with regard to “green” mitigation, to the epidemiological studies done by an expert, to the public health expertise of Robb Davis who has reviewed both the studies & the epidemiological evidence. While I agree that the Vanguard is not the place to resolve scientific issues, it is certainly a place for both experts and the lay public to state their opinions based on the evidence presented….. as well as that evidence being ignored in order to cherry pick data.While I have no problem with a lay person expressing an opinion and ignoring other data, I strongly object to a scientist not taking all factors into account.
When I spoke with Dr. Cahill in person about this issue, I asked directly and clearly about his thoughts on the epidemiological data, and what I received is what I have received from many. A shrug followed by a subject change. Again, completely reasonable for a lay person. Not so for a subject matter expert.
Tia: Again, the quote from Susan Rainier that you cited was in reference to NISHI, not Lincoln 40. It’s not only “unclear”, it’s incorrect (regarding your specific responses regarding those citations).
And, as you’ve repeatedly done in the past, you’ve failed to acknowledge that on-campus housing may also be a valid comparison point.
Also – NONE of the folks you referenced above are air quality experts.
As a side note, the Natural Resources Commission apparently UNANIMOUSLY recommended conducting an on-site air quality study.
I actually don’t have any conclusion, regarding air quality at Nishi. However, I have concluded that discussions on the Vanguard are not helpful in uncovering the truth. (Mostly because there are folks who seem to support the proposal, regardless of air quality concerns.)
> there are folks who seem to support the proposal, regardless of air quality concerns.
Regardless of frogs, gnomes and milk as well.
Well, if it’s approved, let’s hope that there’s no endangered frogs on the property. (I think we can do without the gnomes, though. They’re kind of creepy, anyway.)
My main concern is probably the long-term fiscal impact. (That’s why I’ve repeatedly noted that I’m not the best one to discuss air quality, since it hasn’t been my primary interest. Even fiscal matters can become complicated and difficult to discuss on a blog)
I just allowed myself to get sucked down into the rabbit hole, today. (In fact, this article is supposed to be about the Lincoln40 lawsuit.)
Some folks then went on to discuss motives behind lawsuits.
Ron
Why are you determined to “make me say” what we all know. Yes, on campus housing is a valid comparison point….and it also happens to be an issue over which the city has no determination. So what exactly is your point ?
I also noted that you mentioned to David several times that he should speak directly to Dr. Cahill. Well, I did just that and he shrugged off any suggestions that his concern is not demonstrated epidemiologically. In my experience, unbiased experts do not simply blow off the expertise of others with a shrug but will engage in a conversation about why they do or do not believe the other’s point is reasonable. This, along with other factors lead me to believe that Dr. Cahill is not interested, for whatever reason, in looking beyond his narrow field of expertise in considering what is actually quite a complex issue. I have stated this before with no response at all from you.
Well, because you consistently ignore that option, as you did today. And, I’m pretty sure that you’re aware that the city may have options (since it’s been discussed multiple times, along with references), regarding the possibility of pursuing an agreement with UCD.
The root cause of the student housing crisis (and its impact on students, other residents, and the city at large) has not actually been dealt with. This has led to an unstable planning environment, for the city. Essentially, semi-permanent “crisis planning”, which has negative consequences. Another commenter once used the phrase “cascading series of crises”, resulting from such an approach (regarding a somewhat similar issue.)
Regarding communicating with Dr. Cahill, it’s commendable that you made an attempt. However, unless responses are gathered and published, all we’re left with is some unanswered questions, speculation, and (sometimes) even character assassination (not from you).
Look at the effort that was expended today, just to refute some of the simple points I brought up (which others have previously noted). Might it be possible that Dr. Cahill does not want to subject himself any further, to repetitive, politically-oriented attacks regarding his work and expertise? Might there be a better forum, to actually conduct and analyze scientific research? (Assuming that a study is actually performed.)
Tia, I am curious why epidemiological studies of populations living in close proximity to I-80 in Davis do not support general CARB guidelines on siting residences near freeways. Can you entertain some reasons why this is so?
I have not researched on my own CARB’s support for this position; I regard it as credible perhaps for the main reason that it’s a state agency that’s NOT saying “nothing to see here, folks”; i.e. Capitalism etc. generally motivates a less restrictive directive – in this case developers prevail over landlords, though both benefit from from chronic housing insecurity.
(On a related note, I’ve sort of given up on my repeated argument that the mitigation in regards to interior air quality in the Nishi EIR is impossible to fulfill; this is inspired by Dr. Cahill but as far as facts are concerned references the filtration properties of the filters mentioned by Dr. Salocks, the consultant for the Nishi developers, as what will be used in HVAC systems in housing there.)
Just to clarify, are you stating that Dr. Salocks is a consultant FOR Nishi? (In other words, is he part of the development team?)
I had assumed that he was an independent source, unconnected to the development itself.
He is not
Thanks for the clarification.
OK. I was mistaken about the role of Dr. Salocks. Thanks.
“…The building design incorporates a state-of-the-art indoor air filtration system (MERV 13) that will eliminate most of the airborne particles” – Guest Commentary by Dr. Charles B. Salocks in the Vanguard, February 5, 2018.
“Mitigation Measure 4.3-5c. The air filtration systems on all residential buildings and buildings in which people work shall achieve a minimal removal efficiency of 95 percent for UFP (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 0.1 microns – 0.1 μm – and smaller). – Nishi Gateway FEIR, pg. 201.
MERV 13 filters are not rated for 0.1 μm.
Todd: I’m going to “guess” that no one will address the point you made. Let’s see . . .
Hi Todd,
That is a reasonable question and one to which I do not have an answer. I suspect that the answer may lie in wind patterns, but that would be pure speculation on my part. What it isn’t is the lack of inability to detect hot spots of increased asthma or COPD prevalence because those are detected in West Sacramento. Early on, during Nishi 1, I had thought that it might be that you didn’t see an increase because the entire corridor is similarly affected, however, that clearly is not the case because of the West Sac spike.
Don might have some thoughts about this.
To clarify, it’s misleading to take a response regarding a given site, and then proceed to respond to it as if it applied to an entirely different site without explanation. (Doing so creates confusion and can “discredit” the person who is being quoted. Especially if they may be wisely choosing to stay off this blog.)
Anyway, that’s how I (once again) started going down the rabbit hole (also known as “commenting on The Vanguard”), today.
I also really “like” the comment implying that I’m “unkind”, for not knowing about the homeless folks at the Nishi site. Thanks again to Don, for appropriately responding to that.
This is why it’s not improper:
Yeah – how “stupid” of me. The map “proves” that the two sites are one and the same. Never mind that one cannot see the lane reductions near Nishi, the elevated freeway, and whatever other factors that were brought up. (Again, I’m not the best-qualified to discuss those things – even among us laymen.)
Has Dr. Cahill even raised concerns about Lincoln40? If not, then why not? What about New Harmony?
It’s really unfortunate (for both the Vanguard, and the “truth”) that you apparently cannot entice Dr. Cahill into responding. I can only guess that he must be smarter than me, as demonstrated by him making that choice. 🙂
Yet you still do raise those issues multitudinous times… go figure…
As I recall, Tom Cahill gave New Harmony a ‘pass’… not heard on Lincoln 40… as to “… if not, why not?”… suggest you ask Tom Cahill that… following your suggestions to others to ‘consult’ him… some might find this tiresome…
Right now, am more concerned about what is happening in Syria… talk about air quality concerns!
Perhaps Tom Cahill can compare what has been happening to air quality in Syria this past week, vis-a-vis Nishi… (yeah, expecting moderation, big time, but needs to be said…)
As do others, on here (including you). Seems like most of the folks with more knowledge may have grown weary of repetitive arguments, and are no longer commenting. If you actually noted the content of most of my comments, I’m not taking a position regarding air quality (other than noting that there appears to be an effort by some to downplay concerns). And yet, folks still engage with me (probably because no one else is “left” to point out what’s already been brought up).
And yet, this was supposed to be an article regarding Lincoln40.
Why would I ask? Others (not me) have repeatedly suggested that the sites are essentially the “same”, despite the differences that have already been repeatedly pointed out. That’s how that comment came up in the first place.
One must BE the rabbit hole.
I’m starting to feel that way. Actually, I just watched a Bugs Bunny cartoon, last night. (Now that’s one guy who can really mess those trying to get him.)
By the way, is no one going to point out my insensitive comment regarding gnomes?
The students will rise.
Eric: Is that a “threat”? If so, some might (inappropriately) fail to support student housing for example, since their numbers (and voting power) would increase. Some may fear that student concerns (in general) do not always align with those of other residents (or the city at large), for example.
Already, the rental market is overwhelmingly student-oriented. Some have pointed out that non-students are being displaced, as a result of continuously accommodating UCD’s plans. Are you not concerned about that?
Seems to me that students and other residents have some common concerns, such as adequate student housing on-campus, along with an agreement between UCD and the city to ensure that students (and others) are not so impacted in the future by UCD’s unilateral decisions.
If your goals are entirely/solely aligned with student concerns (and not so much the city at large), I’m wondering how successful you will be.
We seek and have continued to advocate for harmonizing all citizens in Davis, but we are especially concerned for our youngest citizens that do not have adequate representation in our local government for a city that is over 50% renters and students (they drive our economic purchasing power downtown, advance world-class knowledge and research for our town, and will establish the future families of Davis as in decades past). I have been so inspired by the hundreds of student organizers over the last few months that have been activated over the housing crisis, and my sentiments reflect my excitement for their refreshing contributions to our city’s policy discussions to come. I would encourage you to speak with some of these student leaders next week at the Housing Summit; hope to see you then. 🙂
Eric: I appreciate your positive message, but I think you (and perhaps some of your supporters) have a very different vision for Davis.
I can’t help but think of the similarities to the “YIMBY” movement. A movement that I abhor (and appears to be sponsored by corporations that don’t want to pay their workers enough to live in a given location). Instead, they’d rather have cities and existing residents bear the impacts, with no end in sight.
Sometimes, I wonder if some of the younger folks even understand the way things “used to be”, regarding uncontrolled growth/development (and the effort that went into changing that situation, locally). (Actually, you don’t have to look very far away, to see that situation still in effect.)
And again, I’ve consistently noted a failure (by some) to deal with the root cause (UCD) of the problem, locally.
Great point Ron. There’s more than just student causes in this town.
Maybe the town’s non students will rise.
Funny thing is the older residents will vote for sure, but will the students turn out?
I don’t know if the students will turn out, but I definitely don’t want to antagonize them. Ultimately, I think it’s better to seek common ground (as in “5,300 acres” of it) as suggested above. 🙂
Ron, you’re on fire today.
” There’s more than just student causes in this town.”
Have you seen his endorsement list? Pretty eclectic group including Rochelle Swanson, Will Arnold and Ted Puntillo.
Maybe so David, but I didn’t make the statement:
No. But you are making more out of it than Eric intended
David: How do you know what he intended?
(As a side note, I believe you’ve made similar comments.)
Since the project wasn’t required to do an EIR, will the lawsuit negate its overall approval by the Council? Does Susan Rainier believe that her voice/vote has more value that others in the community? How are these lawsuits being funded? Do these repeated and now expected lawsuits undermine our local government process and shut down the willingness to engage in urban planning and local problem solving? Is this a calculated campaign designed to sew distrust in our civic leaders and planning staff and wear down the community so they give up on engagement? If each project will end up being approved or disapproved in a courtroom somewhere, why get involved at all? Won’t there always be someone who doesn’t get their way?
Nothing says professional writing like the word “Oops”.
I would be interested in seeing some objective measurement of air quality showing that a railroad (with maybe a dozen diesel engines passing on a busy hour) is “even more toxic” than a busy freeway with THOUSANDS of gas and diesel engines passing by on a busy hour…
> I would be interested in seeing some objective measurement . . .
. . . oops.