If Tuesday was supposed to be a show of force of community outrage, the council ought to be far more concerned with complaints about the Pacifico property in south Davis than West Davis Active Adult Community (WDAAC). Civil rights Attorney Mark Merin was caught in traffic and never appeared, and the push back was less than a handful of citizens, with a few also coming to support the project.
Alan Pryor noted that Mark Merin, a very prominent civil rights attorney, filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Davis and David Taormino, the developer. “This lawsuit alleges that the proposed restrictive West Davis Active Community on the city of Davis on the November 6 ballot, which advertises its purpose as a planned community, taking care of our own, is being challenged in federal court, because it will perpetuate racial imbalance and discriminate against minorities by restricting sales to people in Davis or have a connection to people in Davis.”
He referenced the Vanguard article entitled, “How White Is Davis” and said, “the answer is very very white indeed.” He said, “It showed that over 80 percent of the 55 and older population is white Caucasian and only four percent were Hispanic. Compared to Woodland where less than 65 of the over 55 population is white and over 30 percent are Latino.
“This disparity is also evident in home ownership rates. Overall Hispanics were less than six percent of all home owners in Davis in 2010 – a rate less than four times that in California… and more
than five times less than Woodland,” he said.
He said, “This raises the obvious question, does the taking care of our own, Davis-based buyer program, constitute implicit, exclusionary, racism because buyer preferences are extended to pre-existing, predominantly white Davis residents while denying buying opportunities to other ethnic minorities residing elsewhere?”
Don Lotter, born and raised in Davis, came with his wife to support the project. He explained that he recently worked overseas for six years in Tanzania, where he met his wife, who is from Tanzania.
“I really want to stay in Davis,” he said. He noted that many of his peers from high school live in Woodland and Vacaville because they can’t find or afford housing in town.
Juliette Beck, a member of the Sierra Club, spoke out against the project.
She said, “It is a real dismay to be looking at a development project that replicates the worst types of suburban sprawl in our community. In this day and age, this project does not belong in a place like Davis. If we’re going to meet our carbon reduction goals, we cannot afford a project like (WDAAC) that is sequestering people in a quadrant (of) currently undeveloped land, away from the downtown core, with very little connectivity to our downtown facilities and our downtown core, where we can have walkable communities.”
But Ron Glick pushed back, “I keep hearing about how if you built the senior thing downtown it would be better, but you know, Jason’s (Taormino) project is really close to the hospital, it’s really close to Safeway, it’s close to a lot of amenities. Depending on where you put this thing, in this fantasy place downtown where it’s going to be housed, it might be greater distances to all of these amenities than a project here past the hospital.”
Mr. Glick also noted that if there is a problem with the language of West Davis that is discriminatory, the problem is in the language of Measure R itself.
“This idea that there is some sort of problem with the project because they are trying to meet the internal needs for housing in Davis, as stated in Measure R,” Mr. Glick stated and pointed out, “If there is a problem with the language coming out of Measure R that makes the proposal discriminatory, then doesn’t Measure R discriminate? That is what is the crux of the issue here.”
He added that he hoped the plaintiff and his attorney amend the complaint to take on Measure R itself “because it is discriminatory.”
Jason Taormino, representing the developers, said that the “theme of our development is that taking care of seniors is a worthy endeavor.”
He said that the project will bring housing to Davis, 80 percent of which would be for seniors. “We’ve heard for decades that seniors have needed specific housing and that’s what we’re aiming to provide.”
Mr. Taormino stated, “To suggest that we have created a program to exclude people from our community, I wanted to come down tonight and say that’s not the case. We know that we can’t create a program based on the zip code, so we came up with the broad outline of a program that said if you’ve ever been to a Davis public school – you’re in.
“If you work in Davis – we have about ten thousand people that come to Davis and don’t live here every day, you’re part of the preference program. If you’ve ever gone to UC Davis or work at UC Davis, you’re part of this program,” he said.
He said that they were asked “can you create something based on the community need – and that’s what we came up with.”
He responded, “To call us racists and to say that we’re trying to block people’s civil rights, is a step too far here.
“We have a community value that we want to take care of people in our community – and seniors are an important part of our community,” he said.
Vince McLaughlin, who is interested in downsizing in a residence at WDAAC, explained that he was a career attorney for 35 years as well. He said, after reading the complaint, he believes the complaint “is bogus.”
He explained, “The reason it is bogus (is) it’s based on the assumption that because there were restrictive covenants in this town in 1924 and 1950 – relating to transactions 70 and 100 years ago – that it necessarily follows that we have a disproportionate number of white people, that our planning decisions are based on racist principles and then therefore you jump to the conclusion that this project discriminates against minorities and perpetuates segregation.
“It’s ridiculous,” he said. “It’s a non-sequitur.”
David Thompson from Neighborhood Partners said, “All our professional lives have been committed to inclusivity.”
He argued that a no vote on L because of this would have “harmful impacts on low to extremely low-income Davis seniors – a number of whom are racial minorities.”
He noted that social security usually pays about $12,000 per year. “The rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Davis is $1270 (a month). Most of our seniors cannot afford to live in town once they retire.”
Mr. Thompson pointed out that 27 percent of the total units at the project are set aside for low or extremely low income seniors.
He further pointed out that this is the largest plot of land set aside in Davis for low income housing and the largest number of units in a single project for low income housing in Davis.
Finally Rik Keller, a project opponent, spoke.
He said that the project is based on the Measure R provision of “an adequate housing supply of internal city needs. It seems like the definition of internal city needs has somehow gotten lost.”
He noted that the term was mentioned in the 2007 General Plan update as a means to “provide housing needs for the local workforce.” He said it addresses policies for moderate and low income housing for the local workforce.
Mr. Keller said, “Measure R is a very inclusive ordinance.”
He said, “I think of myself as for more inclusive affordable housing. That’s what I want to see developed when we move into our agricultural land.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
(Editor’s note: This article incorrectly referred to the Pacifico complex with its original name, Pacifico Student Cooperative Housing. Pacifico is not a cooperative, and we apologize for any confusion or incorrect association with local housing cooperatives.)
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
How many in total spoke against the project?
I quoted everyone who spoke on the issue. I believe it was only Alan Pryor, Juliette Beck and Rik Keller.
Obviously this whole fake racial issue has no traction with the people of Davis or they would’ve shown up in mass. I don’t believe that WDAAC will win the vote but it won’t be because of any perceived racism or long ago past discriminatory practices. Not even the usual far left activist whackos bothered to appear.
I largely agree with your comment – not sure I predict that L will lose the vote, but I’m not seeing traction on this issue for a variety of reasons that I will explain in a forthcoming piece.
Does this all kind of put you in a tough spot David?
Not really
This is funny. Lawsuit press release only happened on Monday morning. But an anonymous Davis Vanguard commentator has the steaming hot take that there is no “traction” because there wasn’t a giant group at the City Council meeting on Tuesday night. Meanwhile: Sac Bee article on Tuesday, KCRA TV coverage on Wednesday, Davis Enterprise article on Wednesday…
Sorry, but I don’t think Davisites are going to buy what’s trying to be sold to them.
BTW, David “largely” agreed, he said he’s not seeing any traction either.
One thing that I’m failing to understand is how David can simultaneously be concerned about the treatment of persons of color in Davis, while simultaneously taking no position on a development that he acknowledged will not increase diversity, and will be occupied by seniors. (I seem to recall that David lamented the fact that the dominant population of Davis is getting older, as well.)
Hell, Howard opposes more developments than David does! (Nishi 1.0., and WDAAC – per his comments on here.)
Keith O: I don’t see any indication that Davisites are buying into what the developers of WDAAC are trying to sell them. Even in bubble of the “Developer’s Vanguard,” it has been tough to find anything more than tepid, hedging support. That’s definitely a lot different than the norm.
The developers sure printed up a lot of tote bags saying “Taking Care Of Our Own” to give away though!
(Not to mention that WDAAC is essentially a suburban-style/sprawling, peripheral one-floor development.)
Also in reference to my 6:40 p.m. comment above, isn’t this essentially the exact opposite of what David usually advocates for?
Perhaps “no position” is about the closest that David gets to opposing a development, these days. 🙂
I have to admit reading your comments and chuckling. In general, I learned early on that taking strong positions are counterproductive. I have therefore only actually supported very few project and only opposed a few projects. By doing that it allows me the freedom to call it as I see it. I see both strengths and weaknesses with this project. 150 affordable units is the largest set aside for affordable housing – I’m trying to get data on the expected breakdwon of that housing. On the other hand, developing on the periphery is to me problematic, it’s low density, and the kind of development that should be of the past. The developer argues that it’s the type of houses people want to move into, but then how do you move the needle so that the public understands that peripheral, single family subdivisions are of the past? It’s a quandary. Also, regardless of the breakdown of the single family for sale homes, I’m not convinced that this project, if it ends up drawing existing residents, actually makes the community less diverse. So those are a number of factors, and right now, I don’t have one factor that tips the scale and would rather simply be able to call it as I see it at this point.
Rik, read my post, I don’t think WDAAC is going to pass just as I don’t believe the people of Davis are buying into Davis is racist and too white.
People paid a premium to live in Davis because they like it the way it is. If they wanted to live in an affordable community they could have done that, but they did not.
To think they will vote to pay higher taxes to transform Davis into the kind of community they paid extra to avoid is ludicris.
Maybe someone can form a group with the reparations people and the Shah of Iran/Czar/Chinese Emperor restoration groups and have a convention somewhere other than Davis as we don’t permit hotels here.
David said: “I’m not convinced that this project, if it ends up drawing existing residents, actually makes the community less diverse.”
Two points: First, the Buyers program also gives a preference to seniors who once attended DJUSD or UCD, both whiter demographics than current residents, and to seniors who are relatives of current residents, who, at best, would likely match current demographics. Second, is not making the community less diverse really where we want to set the bar for major new housing developments?
Things to consider….
First – it’s not clear that pulling from a UCD population is going to be less diverse than the overall population. UCD now is much more diverse.
Second – you have the 150 affordable units which should be much more diverse than the current population.
Third – if they end up pulling mostly existing residents, it’s not going to change the city’s demographics at all. Then it’s a matter of how diverse the backfill population is.
So I don’t know what the answer is. I think a key question is really whether the developers are correct that there is a sizable population in the city that lives in large SFH’s that want to downsize.
“Second, is not making the community less diverse really where we want to set the bar for major new housing developments?”
Some people may not have any goals in racial quotas at all.
Yes, but we’re talking about primarily seniors who attended UCD long ago, not current students. Same with former DJUSD students.
Jim – The only people talking about “quotas” are you and, of course, the people behind WDAAC, who have set quotas for non-seniors and for people without connections to Davis.
“set the bar”
English
Verb
To set specific standards or expectations.
Sounds like quotas to me.
“Quota” Noun – A limited or fixed number or amount of people or things, in particular.
What limited or fixed number or amount has anyone set in terms of race? Again, it’s only WDAAC that has set quotas.
Eric,
“it’s only WDAAC that has set quotas”
We agree on that
“To call us racists and to say that we’re trying to block people’s civil rights, is a step too far here.”
I have no reason to believe that Jason Taoromino, or anyone else involved in this project is a racist. I do not believe that they are “trying to block people’s civil rights. However, I do believe that it is important to separate intentions from possible outcomes. I also do not believe it is a “non sequitur” to realize and state that policies from the past can continue to perpetuate inequalities in the present.
I have, to date, taken no stand on this project.
Tia is correct. The suggestion that anyone is being accused of racism is what is bogus—a transparent attempt to portray the developers and decisionmakers as falsely accused victims. Attorney McLaughlin seems not to understand the concept of disparate impact. The fact is, given the current significant racial imbalance of Davis’ population, particularly among seniors, a local seniors buyers preference disadvantages non-white seniors. That’s the indisputable impact even if not the intent.
Clearly, despite his claimed experience, Vince McLaughlin has no acquaintance with the massive amounts of case law regarding Fair Housing law, locational preferences/restrictions and disparate impacts. Disparate impact claims do not require “Intent” of discrimination, just the effect. He also apparently did not hear Jason Taormino admit in the meeting that restrictions “by zip code” are illegal.
Rik is correct that “Disparate impact CLAIMS do not require “Intent” of discrimination” and Rik would be free “CLAIM” that someone building an apartment in the (~90% White) state of Maine is a racist that picked that state to avoid renting to people of color…
Ken A: have you done any actual reading on disparate impact case law? Do you know the types of statistical analysis that are done for them?
“a number of whom are racial minorities.” 0 is “a number”
“Most of our seniors cannot afford to live in town” Did he offer any data to support this statement?
David starte out by writing “the council ought to be far more concerned with complaints about the Pacifico Student Cooperative Housing property” but does not mention it again.
We are getting close to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS that the (city owned) Pacifico has been more than half vacant (in a town with a sub 2% vacancy rate most of those years).
Back in 2010 the Enterprise wrote: “Pacifico, a 112-bed co-op at 1752 Drew Circle in South Davis, has a 63 percent vacancy rate and the building is deteriorating due to the lack of revenues” and every year the place just looks worse and worse (and the people sitting out back that you see from the bike train doing drugs keep looking scarier and scarrier).
Since the city owns the place it is tax exempt and no one is paying the ~$50K/year in property taxes that would be coming in if it was sold and no one has ever given me a good reason why the city does not hire a management company that could easily rent the place and gross about half a MILLION in rent every year.
It is sad to read that the city keeps looking for more ways to get money from taxpayers (like more charges for parking) but can’t be bothered to pick up the phone and call a management company that could easily fill the place with paying renters and cut a BIG check to the city every month.
P.S. Former Mayor Robb posted a while back that there were plans to do something (including changing the name to “Symphony”) but it is sad that things are moving so slowly that the city is missing out on millions and millions of rent revenue…
Yeah, that was weird.
WTF, “Symphony”?
Yes, on both counts…
Ken, et al – I have no argument with the underlying concerns you’re sharing here, but want to point out that Pacifico is not a cooperative. It is neither resident owned nor resident controlled (since 2011, when it was determined to have failed as a co-op, and Yolo County Housing assumed control of the property). Pacifico had serious problems from its inception, some of which are documented on DavisWiki (poor design, etc). As a professional who works with cooperatives locally and across the country, I feel obliged to correct the record here.
Ben, thanks for the info and sorry if I confused anyone be quoting David who started this post by calling the place a Cooperative and quoting the Enterprise that called it a co-op in 2010.
As a “professional who works with cooperatives locally” any idea why someone has not been able to get the city to allow them to fill the place with people paying rent?
I know it has a “poor design” but as a “poor college kid” I lived in a “loft” where I had to climb a ladder to get to my “room” and I’m sure the place could easily be full of people paying rent with decent management if the rooms were priced right.
Ben, and Ken, this is my error, as I was searching for the full name of Pacifico, and this was all I found. Ben, didn’t realize this was what your text was about yesterday! It appeared to me that this was the full name of the complex, but that it is changing hands and purpose, but could find no new name. Is it simply called Pacifico now, but has no online profile? I understand that many consider it a failed co-op…and my understanding is that it is the complex in South Davis, on Drew – is that correct?
cathy a
P.S. Thank you, Ben, for clarifying EVERYTHING, as usual!
Yes.
One of the most telling comments was from Rik Keller who pointed out that the General Plan defines “internal needs” as a means to “provide housing needs for the local workforce.”
The Taorminos have tried to completely own this term by otherwise claiming, with absolutely no supporting evidence, that meeting the City’s internal needs means providing retirement homes for local seniors and then use this to justify their Davis Based Buyers Program.
I surprised David Greenwald, who has expressed a deep concern for truth in this campaign, has not called them out on this obvious misstatement.
Since Alan is reading today I’m wondering if he can post the “recent” developments in town where the developers donated land “and” built affordable housing that he keeps posting about…
I would need to see Rik’s reference… I’m a little skeptical that the only defined internal need in the General Plan is for housing for the local workforce. That would seem to defy common definition.
Providing housing for seniors is a specific goal in the General Plan.
Section IV, Chapter 4, p. 180.
The quoted policy refers to “senior citizens and other special needs populations.” Housing that meets the needs of seniors (e.g., smaller, accessible, affordable, proximity to public transportation) does not have to mean housing, like WDAAC, that excludes other special needs populations (e.g., non-seniors with disabilities) and other households with similar housing needs (e.g., first-time home-buyers, families with children). The policy also refers to “housing and care” choices. WDAAC does not provide housing and care (as is provided by, for example, assisted living homes, or continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs)).
Do you think the policy really contemplated exclusionary, seniors-only enclaves?
I think the General Plan is permissive, not restrictive. It states a number of different goals for housing for various demographics. It doesn’t say every housing development has to contain all of them.
There’s a difference between not meeting all needs and explicit exclusion of others with similar needs.
Don: where is the phrase” internal housing need” in that excerpt? There are city policy documents that use that phrase, but you haven’t quoted one of them.
I think this project is restrictive, not permissive.
I think the General Plan permits restrictive projects. See New Harmony, for example.
Rik knows far more about this than I do, so he can respond for himself. But in perusing the General Plan, I think it’s pretty clear that local workforce housing was, if not the only internal housing need, the primary internal housing need identified by the Council. For example, from page 47:
And I see he did respond as I was writing this.
[If the following is too long as a comment, please publish as an article.]
The following is a summary of the legislative history and policy context by which the phrase “internal housing needs” came to be in Measure R in 2010 as an update to the 2000 Measure J language. Measure R is codified in Davis City Code Article 41.01 CITIZENS’ RIGHT TO VOTE ON FUTURE USE OF OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS (Ord. 2008 § 3, 2000; Ord. 2350 § 3, 2010). [http://qcode.us/codes/davis/view.php?topic=41&showAll=1&frames=off]: “The purpose of this article is to establish a mechanism for direct citizen participation in land use decisions affecting city policies for compact urban form, agricultural land preservation and an adequate housing supply to meet internal city needs…”
I find it amazing and/or disingenuous that the people involved in this (including David Taormino speaking out against the Middle Income Ordinance back at that time) have chosen to forget this history and context and are trying to use a broad and nebulous definition of “internal housing need” applied to Measure R that apparently means whatever they want it to mean for a particular project.
See City of Davis 2007 General Plan Update, Chapter 1. Land Use and Growth Management, p. 47 [http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Plans-Documents/GP/004-01-Land-Use-and-growth-Managment.pdf].
Selections and my emphasis below:
“Studies of Internal Housing Needs. In October 2002, appointed a subcommittee to study internally-generated housing needs. The Council wanted to consider providing housing opportunities for the local workforce as the primary reason for city residential growth….” [p. 47)
“In March 2003, the City Council reviewed an “Internal Housing Needs Analysis” prepared by Bay Area Economics (BAE). This study analyzed the City’s share of housing needs based on local employment growth, UCD growth, and “natural” growth through 2015. The study accounted for the new housing planned by UCD on the main campus and in the new neighborhood west of Highway 113.”
“In October 2004, the City Council reviewed a “Middle Income Housing – Needs, Impacts, and Options” analysis by BAE. This study analyzed the need for middle income housing, the public benefits and potential impacts of a middle income housing inclusionary requirement, and the public benefits and potential adverse impacts on protected classes from establishing a preference for local workers to purchase or rent local housing. The study found that a middle income inclusionary housing requirement would result in a reduced opportunity for developer profit compared to building and selling market rate units. The study and follow-up analyses found that the developer would not need to subsidize the middle income costs through the construction and pricing of the market rate units in the project unless the project had unusually high development costs and few housing units to absorb these costs.”
In February to March 2005, City Council reviewed a final phase of the analysis, an evaluation of available program options to implement a middle income inclusionary requirement. On March 8, 2005, the City Council adopted an updated resolution directing staff to implement an annual City growth guideline of 1% based primarily on internal housing needs. The Council also adopted a resolution regarding key issues of a middle income housing requirement and a local employee preference system that would be utilized in the sale and re-sale of inclusionary housing units.
The Middle Income Ordinance, adopted by the City in 2005 and codified in City of Davis Code Article 18.06 MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING [http://qcode.us/codes/davis/?view=desktop&topic=18-18_06-18_06_010] was indefinitely suspended in 2009. Selections and my emphasis below:
“1) The City of Davis is interested in providing housing that is affordable to its local workforce as well as other underserved households. A study of middle income housing needs, impacts, and options completed for the City of Davis found that the Davis housing market is not providing adequate ownership housing opportunities for middle income households. Middle income households cannot afford to purchase even the least expensive market rate housing being developed and cannot qualify for affordable housing units provided for low and moderate income households.
“(2) The City of Davis is using its vested powers to provide for the housing needs for all economic segments of the community and the local workforce in particular.”
“(6) The city council finds that the middle income housing requirement project would not discriminate against protected classes including minorities, disabled, elderly and families with children. The effect of the project would be to divert housing production that most likely would have been affordable to higher income households and instead require developers to restrict the sales of those housing units to households qualifying as “middle income.” Discrimination based on income is acceptable when it serves a public purpose such as facilitating the ability of households to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing that otherwise could not. The data in a study of middle income housing needs, impacts and options shows that:
The Davis Chamber of Commerce brags about killing the Middle Income Ordinance provisions in 2009: “Ultimately, we were successful in helping to get the Middle Income Ordinance suspended indefinitely.” [http://www.davischamber.com/uploads/2/4/6/9/24698775/board_positions_1999_to_present_updated_feb2016.pd
The ordinance states: “18.06.090 Suspension of middle income housing requirement. The middle income housing requirement detailed in this article is suspended. The city council shall review and assess future need of this requirement in June 2011. (Ord. 2345, 2009)”. I don’t know whether that re-evaluation ever happened by June 2011.
You also need the context that in 2002, there were a lot of folk who wanted to pull up the drawbridge, widen the moat, and add crocs/gators/piranah… the “internally generated” thing was to pacify the drawbridge vs no drawbridge folk… a ‘collaboration’/compromise, if you will…
Context can be everything…
The “internally generated” thing, as you put it is the actual meaning behind the phrase “internal housing need”. And it is embedded in City policy. It has a specific meaning referring primarily to workforce housing.
Are they all dead?
I don’t know why the premise of the article is that “Tuesday was supposed to be a show of force of community outrage.” Word is just getting out about it. There might be a small set of die-hard DV readers, but it is not a regular destination for most. The press release for the lawsuit just went out on Monday and the lawsuit, to my knowledge has not been served yet,. There was an article in the Sac Bee about it, no article in the Davis Enterprise that I know of yet, and KCRA TV covered it today. . Attorney Mark Merin was apparently delayed in traffic from speaking before the Council last night but is planning to attend next Tuesday night.
When a lot of people do show it’s branded “the usual suspects”, “those with free time”, and the “silent majority with kids and jobs” are invoked as not having shown up.
Spinnin’ Wheel Spin and Spin . . .
The article says the following about one of the WDAAC supporters:
The article doesn’t mention that Mr. Lotter also said he wanted to stay in Tanzania but couldn’t get enough work there because of the local exclusions on outsiders. It is unclear how Mr. Lotter thought that anecdote was an argument for the “Taking Care of Our Own” program for the WDAAC that is also explicitly designed to exclude outsiders. He also did not explain how his peers who currently can’t afford Davis existing market rate housing would be able to afford market rate new housing in the WDAAC project. regardless of whether they met the local residence requirements.
Are you saying the local residence preference is moot? It’s about economics/affordability?
Should we cap what housing costs, to be “equitable”? Sales/rentals both…
Guess I could live with that… no house sold for over $300,000… no “bed” rented for over $500/month…
I understand that the prospect of free or very cheap stuff brings certain people out in force.
Did Don happen to explain why he was more deserving of this than the other people who would like a cheap place in Davis?
Check out this “legal opinion” provided by Building Industry Association attorney Bruce Inman in January 2018 . This is a textbook example of how propaganda efforts start: spread misinformation, dissemble, and hope people forget history.
“The phrase “an adequate housing supply to meet internal city needs” is not further defined in Measure R and was not defined in Measure J, the voter-approved predecessor measure passed in 2000. We believe the voters’ decision to not include a definition of this phrase is recognition that the “internal city needs” is a concept that may change over time.” –Bruce Inman [https://davisvanguard.org/2018/01/legal-opinion-letter-city-legality-davis-based-buyers-program/
The truth of the matter is that ballot language is purposely streamlined, and the phrase “internal housing need” had a specific meaning in City of Davis policy and legislative history starting around in 2002 and leading up to the adoption of Measure R in 2010.
Are you accusing Bruce Inman of:
Know him professionally… over 20 years… you libel/slander the man…
And Bruce may represent BIA, but he also has been a good resource advising for stopping inappropriate discrimination… I know… have the t-shirt…
1) I am accusing him of exactly what I said: purposely ignoring the legislative and policy history of the phrase “internal housing needs” in an attempt to justify this particular project as meeting the Measure R policy directive. Whatever else he might have done or not in his career is irrelevant to that point.
2) you have a very strange definition of libel/slander
“very strange definition of libel/slander” Disagreeing does for most people on here.
The context of the quote? Cite?
The quote from Mr. Inman? If that’s what you mean, I provided a link right next to it. The context was a “legal opinion” on the legality of locational preferences/restrictions that, amazingly, failed to cite a single case about that topic.
Seems like today, in this political climate, we are seeing a sort of apogee in the exploitation of claims in the area of social justice / identity politics-sanctioned victim group “hate, discrimination, intolerance, harassment”, etc. to move forward a political agenda. It seems that the nation is starting to wake up to the giant mess caused by a small army of rattle-brained Baby Boomer socialists professors, political operatives ready and willing to burn everything down to gain something personal or ideological, and a media that gleefully publishes click-bait on spurious and unsubstantiated accusation in these areas.
I think the end is going to have to be a redux of the old slander laws and standards where people can be slammed with civil liability for originating and repeating unsubstantiated claims without evidence. Same with claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Given the magnitude of harm these claims can cause the accused, the accuser must absolutely understand the sever risks he/she will face if the claims are made without sufficient evidence.
I think anyone even inferring that someone else’s words and actions are racist or that even have a negative racial bias should be wide open for being hammered with a civil libel suit if they lack sufficient evidence to back that claim.
Does someone claiming I filled in the boxes on their social-justice bingo game count?
Good one Alan. LOL
Funny you say that Jeff, just today I heard that a fired announcer is going to court against ESPN because of wrongful termination and being branded a racist.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fired-racially-charged-comments-venus-142319361.html