By David M. Greenwald
We will probably never know why the UC Davis College Republicans and their Attorney Matt Rexroad actually forced the city to go to district elections. As most readers know, I actually support it, but there is one clear downside, and it has the potential to get ugly at times—instead of nine candidates for three spots this year, we have three winner-take-all districts, which means to win you have to defeat your opponent and that can mean attacks.
That’s what happened this week. It started on Tuesday, as the Davis Enterprise ran a letter from former Mayor Mike Corbett. “We need new blood” and the letter recounting a litany of mistakes or criticisms of past council actions over the last seven or so years.
Truth be told, there is validity to a number of the criticisms—although one councilmember said the letter was about 30 percent correct. I think that figure is more in the eye of the beholder and a lot of them are subjective rather than objective assessments.
For example, the vote to approve the Cannery without a required grade-separated crossing at F Street. There is a grade-separated crossing there—it was a bit of a fiasco to get there. But there is also the issue of the CFD, which he noted “surrendered $8 million in cash to the Cannery developer, and received $0 value in return. That raised parcel-related taxes to the Cannery residents by over $21 million. The Cannery residents are now paying what the developer should have paid.”
That was a big deal in 2014. It was fully discussed in the public. And there was a 3-2 vote to approve it—which I very strongly disagreed with.
The letter also notes that “the controversial, possibly illegal, BrightNight lease of city property that excluded public and commission input.”
Not sure I would go to “illegal,” but definitely a fiasco and subjectively okay.
I did find it more than a little ironic that Mike Corbett would write that they “chose to put the Davis Innovation and Sustainability Campus project on the ballot without first updating the general plan…”
They put Nishi on the ballot without updating the General Plan and Mike Corbett campaigned for it in 2016. At our candidate forum, he sat next to Tim Ruff and helped argue the yes side. Not sure why suddenly now he would have objections to the process he seemed to have little problem with in 2016.
However, I received information that there were allegations that were serious and also completely false.
I woke up the next morning early as usual and had an email in my box from Alan Pryor. The request was to publish the attached article if the letter from Mike Corbett was not reposted in the Enterprise.
Alan had sent the article noting that by 9:30 pm the letter had been removed. He had copied the text, repeated it. Most of the article was okay, but the title accused the Enterprise of “censorship” and repeated the false allegation, but he did ask an important question, “Why was the article retracted?”
Fair question. I wrote Alan to let him know on the basis of the information I received, I could not publish the article. I never got a response to him.
Then I set about finding out from the Enterprise why they pulled it. Tried to call, but couldn’t get a human. So then I emailed Sebastian Onate, the editor. Never got a response.
And yes, I think that was inappropriate by Sebastian, who I don’t know because he has never reached out and has also never returned my emails (which have not been many). It didn’t stop him from writing a critical commentary about our fundraiser last year without talking to us about it.
Even if he deemed that he couldn’t comment or that their editorial decisions were private—which would be a fair response—a courtesy email would have been appropriate.
Instead, they pulled the letter by Alan Pryor’s count at 9:30 pm on Tuesday and it wasn’t until 11 am on Thursday that they issued a correction.
The correction posted September 3 at 11:13 a.m. reads: “On Tuesday, Sept. 1, The Enterprise posted on its website a letter to the editor that made unsubstantiated accusation of wrongdoing against an unnamed City Council candidate. While we strive as much as possible to maintain the letters section as a forum for open debate, posting this letter constituted a failure to apply our usual standards of fact-checking and fairness to any material that goes on our site. For that failure, we apologize to our readers.”
A lot of effort would have been spared had they simply pulled the letter down and replaced it with the “for the record” correction.
Truth be told, I don’t blame the Enterprise for printing the letter from the former mayor. I would have. They did the right thing pulling it when it was shown to contain a potentially inaccurate allegation in it. I would have done the same.
But no one knew why the letter was pulled, which led to rampant speculation and further allegations. As much as I had my differences at time with former Editor Debbie Davis, she was always very accessible and responsive to questions and she received a fair amount of criticism—sometimes rightly, other times unfairly.
In fact, I would argue that the lack of communication played to detriment of the Enterprise because, even though they acted responsibly in pulling the letter, their lack of communication fueled speculation during a time when there is too much of it.
I worry that in a time of very very serious problems—COVID, economic collapse, national strife—our community has real problems that it needs to solve, like housing, long-term fiscal sustainability, quality of life. And if our campaigns start devolving into attack campaigns reminiscent of national politics, we will lose our ability to come together to solve these pressing issues.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“A Commentary That Wasn’t; Hints of Attacks in District Elections; a Fumbling By a Local Blogger/Reporter…”
‘Nuff said….
The only candidate who has been on the CC for seven years is Lucas so we can figure out who he is criticizing. Corbett also has a Guenther sign in front of his house where Lucas owns a condo in the back. Bitter times on B St.
Lucas voted against the BrightNight deal so its misleading to criticize Lucas by implication because the CC passed it.
As for Alan Pryor, its odd that that he would ask you to print a letter if The Enterprise did not capitulate to his demand to repost Corbett’s letter. You wonder if he warned The Enterprise that he would get you to print a letter unless … Or as I would threaten when I was growing up “I’m going to tell my mother.”
This article was so con-voluted and danced around what was going on, I read it and had no idea what it was actually about. Enterprise lack of communication? A vague city council member? Bad council decisions? Editorial policy? Printing false allegations? Did anyone print anything? Letters were printed but weren’t? My brain hurts, another cup of coffee, no – now my brain is on fire . . . I think RG explained it better than DG did. An article about something we never saw? Can we just dig up the d*mn letter so we can judge it for ourselves? Maybe that ‘other blog’ will print “unsubstantiated allegations” (I haven’t checked).
Was a bit of fiasco to get there? That’s an understatement . . . it’s still a fiasco to get there . . . because it doesn’t connect what the original plan was supposed to connect . . . it was a cheap, deceptive knockoff based on implied promise of an included connection to H Street tunnel that was never actually in the baseline, but was used to sell the project.
And how does that connect to a local paper’s editor not responding to a local blogger on email? Could someone call the fire department – my brain is still on fire.
For all the World – I never demanded anything from the Enterprise nor even had any communication at all with them about this. I would never, ever do anything remotely resembling what Mr. Glick alleges.
For David – I demand you repost both my letter and Corbett’s letter or I’m warning you that I will get the Enterprise to print a letter unless…
Ha!
Demand??? Followed by a vague/veiled threat?
Methinks you’re in a ‘hole’ (rabbit, or otherwise)… I respectfully suggest you put your shovel aside, and stop digging…
If David ‘caves’ to your demand, I’ll teach him a lesson by… (see how silly [at best] that is?)
Or, more succinctly, Alan M said it best… “Ha!”
I actually think he was attempting to be funny
I actually think he was funny – thus the “Ha!”
Not how WM interpreted my “Ha!”
But my brain is still on fire. Where is DFD?
I agree David, most of us got it.
Bill, were you not able to see Alan’s tongue firmly planted in his cheek? I think you are letting your personal animus/spite for Alan get in the way of the good Christian teachings that you hold so dear.
“I never demanded anything from the Enterprise nor even had any communication at all with them about this.”
Okay Alan. But why ask David to post something if the Enterprise didn’t repost something? Why not simply ask Davis to post something. Why was it conditional?
Recently, he didn’t “ask” he made a “demand”… I see a big difference between the terms… must have involved someone Alan P supports… but that’s just supposition, as the actual text has been suppressed… just alluded to by Alan P and DG…
So we have a “story”, not ‘transparent’, generating some passion, and a lot of speculation… reminds me on “tabloid” coverage of “news”… [reminds me of an old cartoon, where the character says, “I know a secret I won’t tell, I won’t tell, I won’t tell…”]
Again Bill, I think you failed to see Alan’s tongue firmly planted in his cheek. Here too, I think you are letting your personal animus/spite for Alan get in the way of the good Christian teachings that you hold so dear.
My article to David was submitted for publishing with the note that if Corbett’s letter was reposted, then my article was moot and therefore there was no need to publish my article at all. It was NOT a “demand” to David to publish my letter if the Enterprise did not republish Corbett’s letter. Sorry, but no deep state conspiracy here.
I did not take it as a demand.
Your choice… but Alan P posted what he posted…
Your words, Alan… they are of record…
Bill, now for the third time you appear to be not able to see Alan’s tongue firmly planted in his cheek. Give it a rest.
“Truth be told, there is validity to a number of the criticisms—although one councilmember said the letter was about 30 percent correct. I think that figure is more in the eye of the beholder and a lot of them are subjective rather than objective assessments.”
Redacting the controversial point, here is the letter, a screen capture of which was in the letter that Alan Pryor sent to The Vanguard.
I agree that the eye of the beholder portion is correct – tried to make that point in the commentary.
Thanks Matt for doing some actual reporting.
From reading the letter I don’t see what was so objectionable to not publish it.
That’s not actual reporting, it’s called reposting. I chose not to. But I’m okay with it as redacted. He redacted the objectionable part so of course you don’t see anything objectionable.
Why did you redact anything? Did you have Mike Corbett’s permission to do so?
Because he knew I would have removed it with the redacted part in. I had already made that editorial decision.
So just to clarify: this letter has been edited and reposted in revised form without the permission of the author?
That is correct and one reason I didn’t repost the letter.
No that is not correct.
Why?
Alan, read Don’s comment … “So just to clarify: this letter has been edited and reposted in revised form without the permission of the author?” There are four components of Don’s comment. Three of them are prima facia correct. That only leaves the third as a possibility for making his comment “not correct.”
Did you have Mike Corbett’s permission to edit and repost his letter on the Vanguard?
Sorry, Matt… ‘redactions’ are not ‘transparency’… folk should take responsibility for what they write for publication.
I know what Mr Corbett did when he was on CC… and, as a developer, using his influence as a former CC member… and it includes, [redacted X 10]… hope you find that ‘transparent’…
Thanks for posting the repost, MW.
But . . . the story seems to be the redacted part. This is kinda turning into the childs game “I know a secret”. We are reporting and discussing something, but no one will say what it is we are talking about. Is it so terrible to print something a former mayor said, even if it’s “wrong” ? Isn’t that on him, not those who report on it?
That would be called Libel, that’s why you remove false and maligning statements.
I’m thinking the same thing Alan, it’s already been out there so to speak until it got redacted.
But it’s objectionable, like we’ve never read anything objectionable in the Enterprise or the Vanguard?
You guys are too much. There is a difference between objectionable and false. If we knowing print false information even about a public figure, we would be liable. Please stop this.
Not necessarily the same thing. “Maligning” statements are made quite often in the articles and comment section.
You left out the “false” part of the equation. Look up the law on libel.
If you include the one redacted point, former Mayor Corbett included 9 points in his letter. For the council member’s statement that “the letter was about 30 percent correct” to be accurate, six of the nine points the former Mayor made need to be incorrect.
Let’s step through the points one by one
David has already addressed the Cannery grade-separated crossing point when he said “There is a grade-separated crossing there—it was a bit of a fiasco to get there.” My personal opinion is that David is being generous to the Council. I will point both Davids and Vanguard readers to David’s own words in his 2018 article Commentary: The Cannery Folks Are Abusing Process at This Point when he said,
.
The Cannery CFD point is 100% accurate. I would love to hear any arguments that believe otherwise.
My homework thus far on the Cannery affordable housing relief has found mostly murky water. So let’s give the council member a “hit” on that one … pending further research.
The next point regarding Trackside is 100% accurate
The next point regarding the controversial nature of the BrightNight vote is 100% accurate. The legality or illegality of the vote is a matter that the courts will have to decide.
The DISC point is 100% accurate as written. As David has pointed out there are consequences associated with waiting for the completion of an update to the general plan. Some people in Davis (like David) believe those consequences are problematic. Other people in Davis believe those consequences are the logical result of City Council’s often repeated decision not to proceed with a General Plan Update.
To the best of my knowledge, the Climate Action Plan point is accurate as written
And we all know that the “failure to set enough money aside for repaving our streets, leaving them in the poorest condition of any town in Yolo County” point is accurate.
Bottom-line, it is very, very,. very hard to imagine how the council member who spoke to David can find 6 of the 9 points in the letter that are inaccurate.
By the same token as several of the other points, a renewal of J/R is premature until there is a review/update/re-write of the General Plan.
Hard to justify ‘having it both ways’…
Actually Bill, the law is very clear vis-a-vis the requirement to put the renewal question on the ballot. That legal reality is independent of the status of the General Plan.
Further, the decision regarding the renewal of Measure J/R does not incrementally add to the community the way that a development proposal does. It can be said to be akin to “holding in place” which could easily be called the first cousin of “waiting for”
JMO
Yeah… for 10 years… point understood, but not agreed to…
Why isn’t Mike speaking for himself?
Maybe he’s wise enough not to read or participate on the Vanguard.
Well said Alan.
With that said, here is a question for Sharla, “Who do you think is speaking for Mike?”
Is it too early to label this “Corbettgate” ?
Perhaps… he needed better ‘plumbers’…
Wonder if we’ll see the ‘full tape’… or was it ‘inadvertantly erased’? Anyone named Rosemary, and/or Woods working for the Emptyprize or the VG?
“At least one of the candidates, while on the council, invested in a development that would obviously have to go before the Planning Commission and City Council.”
That member recognized it was a mistake and walked away from that same investment when it became controversial and long before it came before the CC for a vote. That member chose public service over potential monetary gain.
When the vote finally went down that member”s vote wasn’t needed as the project had more than enough yes votes.
If that member had continued with the investment there would have been no conflict of interest anyway if they had simply recused themself from participating in the vote.
So much for the concept of ‘redaction’… like putting a tassel on a nipple… you can still see 99% of the breast… not much left for imagination…
Bill, the point Ron G is commenting on was/is not the point that was redacted.
OK…
Corbett’s letter, at least what we can see of it, has an odd premise. He doesn’t call out individual CC members by name or their individual voting records. Instead he issues a summation of votes he didn’t agree with and concludes that the incumbents should be voted out whether or not they have a voting record on any particular issue Corbett agrees with. He seems to want to hold members accountable for decisions made whether they were in the majority on those votes or not.
In my mind that is an odd way to evaluate elected officials. Personally I prefer to add up the things I agree with and the things I disagree with for each candidates voting record and then decide if each individual has earned another term.
Ron, Mike Corbett states his premise at both the beginning of his letter “We need new blood” and at the end of his letter “By any terms this is the worst track recorded of any council I have seen in the past. We desperately need new blood.”
What I see is a cohort of individuals who are seeking to elect a slate to the council to replace those that they perceive as ‘pro-growth’. It’s largely the same group that signed the letter about commissions a few weeks ago. Some of them are running, others are supporting those who are running. That’s all fine. What I don’t like is the imputation that there is corruption on the part of the incumbents.
There are differing visions for how and where Davis should grow. Two of the incumbents, and one of those running in South Davis, have supported housing growth and economic development. Some running against them have opposed those things, at least as manifested in projects brought forth over the last few years.
I would think it would be enough to focus on those differing visions and to explain in a positive fashion what a challenger would do differently with respect to housing issues, economic development, fiscal challenges, and the more recently-evolving issues of policing and diversity.
You don’t need to attack the integrity of public officials to get elected in Davis. This is a town where a positive message can prevail.
Hmmm… guess we’ll see… reminds me of a CC member who ‘stole’ the Mayor position, years ago… DN-P was up for it (by long-standing tradition)… but one CC member prevailed on his ‘cohorts’ to nominate, and elect him… Jerry Adler and DN-P tried to stop it, but the CC member prevailed, on a 3-2 vote… that incident (and yes, was present in the Council Chambers @ the time) is the reason why they changed the rules about who would be Mayor… guess he was the Master of Ceremonies… no innuendo there…
Seems to me that dissatisfaction with the process extends beyond that group (e.g., if you look at all who were concerned). I can think of a couple right-off-the-bat who aren’t what I’d call “slow-growth”.
Nor would I put Mr. Corbett in that group. Nor all of the other people concerned about The Cannery, etc.
Nor all of the members of the various commissions, including the planning commission.
Nor the people concerned about the Bright Night lease, Mace Mess, etc.
Rare agreement with Ron. This is not a growth-oriented push, it’s a “good government” push
Really? Mike Corbett was part of the Covell Village team… big time…
Hence, not part of the “slow-growth” group that Don referred to.
Then again, “membership” in that group is fluid.
For example, some might support The Cannery, or Nishi, or WDAAC.
Or some of those.
Personally, I think that Covell Village was the most clear “dividing line” of all proposals – so far. I so enjoyed watching that go down to defeat, and couldn’t believe that ANYONE would vote for it.
Though DISC is the most growth-inducing, and probably the most harmful environmentally.
A few points about the CFD Corbett complains about. Just like the grade separated crossing that there would be a CFD was in the developer agreement for Cannery. The dispute was about how big the CFD should have been. After push back from the CC minority and the public I think it was reduced from around $20 million down to $8 million.
The more crucial vote was the one to build the Cannery in the first place. That was a 3-2 vote with Lucas voting yes. So if you live at Cannery and like it without Lucas’ support you wouldn’t be living there.
Regarding the CFD, someone else (also) told me that this had always been planned. (I don’t know anything else about that.)
The Cannery was also presented as an “alternative” to Covell Village. Seems like a good trade-off, in that respect. Given that it was also a redevelopment project.
I kind of like The Cannery, and the little so-called farm, there.
I’m not sure why some (who generally support housing developments) have a problem with The Cannery.
With the exception of the bicycle/pedestrian crossing, and maybe the amount of the CFD.
I believe there was also some controversy regarding counting the “granny units” as Affordable housing.
But, I wasn’t paying much attention at that time, so I’m not familiar with all of the controversies.
Anyhoo – it’s certainly designed primarily for families. Or at least, Bay Area families. 😉
“Really? Mike Corbett was part of the Covell Village team… big time…”
The irony is that we often hear people ask why Davis stopped being innovative after Village Homes got built almost 50 years ago? Yet when the architect who built Village Homes tried to build Covell Village it got shot down by that chokehold on peripheral development Measure J.
Vote no on Measure D.