By David M. Greenwald
I don’t disagree that there are ongoing problems in the area around Pacifico as detailed by a number of neighbors over the last few years, but the link to Pacifico itself has always been somewhat dubious. Just as important is the fact that Pacifico serves an extremely vulnerable population, and shutting them down creates a situation where there is not an obvious replacement.
On Tuesday, Chief Darren Pytel as well as newly-elected Councilmember Josh Chapman and Mayor Gloria Partida have done a good job dispelling some of these persistent rumors.
“I do hear the concerns of the citizens living in that area,” Mayor Partida said, and empathized with their experiences and how traumatic that can be when they feel their safety is at risk.
But she also pushed back on the notion that it has “been a terrible hotspot of all things lawless.
“We didn’t hear about any of those instances and any of those problems until the Yolo County social services decided they were going to put a navigation center on the site,” she said. “Suddenly everyone came forward.”
I was at the meeting at Montgomery Elementary’s packed library that night, two years ago, when citizens, many of them extremely angry at the navigation center proposal, hijacked the meeting from county officials and used it as a pulpit for general complaints about Pacifico—and also its vulnerable population.
It was an appalling meeting, though it was quickly overshadowed by what took place elsewhere that night. While we were at the meeting, we first got reports of shots fired on Fifth Street in downtown 
Davis, a lockdown and shelter in place order and, finally, later that evening, the tragic news about the death of Natalie Corona.
Gloria Partida referenced that night, noting that it was a “terrible juxtaposition of neighbors that were up in arms about how dare we try to put this center that is going to help people with mental health issues in their neighborhood and at that very moment there was a person with mental health issues that shot and killed this beautiful wonderful promising police officer.
“We didn’t hear anything about any of the issues that had gone for ten years until there was this possibility of there being this center on the site,” she said. She acknowledged this was not a good place for that center to go. “That doesn’t mean it’s not a good place for a well run and managed location for people who need housing.”
Probably the most powerful rebuke to the neighbors came from Chief Darren Pytel who forcefully pushed back on the idea that Pacifico is a crime hotspot or is driving crime increases in the city, or even in South Davis.
Chief Pytel noted that some “are trying to say that everything that is occurring in South Davis, everything bad that’s occurring is because of Pacifico.”
He disagreed.
He said, “That’s not really necessarily true—certainly the calls for service at Pacifico don’t bear it out. Nor are our contacts with actual residents at Pacifico bearing that out.”
He said there were increased calls for service at Pacifico, but “quite honestly we are dealing with increased calls for service all over town.”
He said he doesn’t discount that there is increased crime and disorder, “because there certainly is,” but “it’s really not Pacifico that’s really the root of the problem.
“I’ll be the first one to be concerned about increasing crime rates in town, but I don’t think this complex is the driver of it,” he said.
Is that convincing enough to dispel the notion that Pacifico is a big problem spot? It seems like we should be driven by data rather than the loudest voices in the room—especially when the vulnerable here, the residents of Pacifico, are themselves relatively voiceless.
Again0—I don’t want to dismiss the concerns about the neighbors. We definitely need to take steps to make sure that they are not experiencing safety risks and trauma. But it should be data driven.
Here Chief Pytel addressed the issue of drugs.
“We really aren’t getting any calls about overt drug use,” he said. “We’re certainly not arresting residents who are engaged in drug sales or things like that.
“We do have a pretty significant drug problem in Davis,” he acknowledged. “The price of methamphetamine dropped. We have a lot of meth users. We are dealing with a lot of heroin. This complex is not popping up on our radar as being one of the problems in town in terms of either sales or users.
“We’re not tracking anything going on there,” he said. There are no hotspots or reports of issues there. “I don’t think that the drug problem there is quite honestly different than a lot of other places that are seeing use.”
What I don’t think I fully understand is that, to a person, the council seemed to agree with the need to address the issue of housing for these vulnerable populations, and they acknowledged that they are not believing that Pacifico is driving the problem of crime. And yet their fix is not only to move for new management of Pacifico, which seems like a good move, but also to issue another RFP which could repurpose it—which may not be feasible or even necessary.
Why wouldn’t we see first if new management doesn’t produce a better outcome? Also if we are not convinced Pacifico is the driver of problems here, why would we expect new management to improve the situation? Or even a repurposed Pacifico?
That is the part I can’t wrap my mind around.
I agree with Josh Chapman’s comments as well, He said this is a much larger issue than just Pacifico, and he spoke to the obligation of those in the community to look after and care for vulnerable populations. He said that responsibility needs to be balanced against issues of safety for the neighbors.
He said the narrative has been spun in such a way as a choice between providing housing for at-risk members of the community and safety for the neighbors—and he believes we can have both.
“That isn’t a choice that I want to make,” he said. “I think we can do both.
“People who experience homelessness experience trauma, and it’s important to get them housed,” he said. He noted a 30 percent increase in homelessness, with 190 people unhoused. “To me it’s just not the time to pull that back.”
But again, I am wondering how the council action jibes with the world of each of the councilmembers.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
Why do I feel like I just read this same article two days ago?
This is a commentary, the other an article
What’s funny is that when I first started doing this, I put articles and commentary together, which people didn’t like. So I started adopting a policy of separating the two into separate articles. If we had an actual editorial page or opinion section, it would probably drive people less crazy but now I get people complaining about it being repetitive if I want to opine on things in the news.
Can’t win. Of course, the trend now is that I am writing fewer articles overall, doing fewer news stories and a higher percentage of mine are commentary rather than straight news reporting. Eventually, I will probably only be writing columns and reporters will handle the daily news stories. I used to write probably two or three articles a day myself, now it’s more like one and some days, none.
Hey, whatever floats your boat.
Seems to me that David is (more-and-more) attempting to turn this into a “normal” business, with others doing the work (and getting something in return, as well). It’s becoming a successful business model, requiring less hands-on work from David.
At some point, it may not require his participation at all – other than management.
Now you’re a comedian.
Not with this. 😉
David is able to use pre-law interns, who share his interest in criminal justice reform (and how that disproportionately impacts those of “color”) – which is suddenly “popular”, now. The broadened use of these interns (to write articles) has already changed the Vanguard.
The growth potential would likely go beyond local readership regarding that issue, assuming that interest in it is sustained. As of now, it still is. Actually, racial disparities is a huge issue (nationally), in mainstream media and politics. Some might say that we’re getting hit over-the-head with that message.
Just say: pretty good take, Ron.
Try to tell me, for example, that the poet featured at Biden’s inauguration was not “celebrated” partly due to her skin color. Not to mention the VP, herself (to a rather excessive degree, in my opinion).
Or, the changes on TV, commercials, and movies, regarding the vastly-increased use of “people of color”. As well as the “celebration” that TV news focuses on (even national news), regarding individual examples of success for people of color.
It all might have the feel of propaganda, to someone with a more cynical view.
This is right-up the Vanguard’s alley.
What does any of this have to do with the topic of this article? Seriously, please try to stay on topic.
I’ll put forth one more prediction, and will leave it at that.
The “peanut gallery” (of which I might be considered part of) will become less-important to the Vanguard’s success, as time goes on. And then, we’ll have to find something more productive to do. 😉
“Try to tell me, for example, that the poet featured at Biden’s inauguration was not “celebrated” partly due to her skin color.”
I would try to tell you to judge her by the content of her character rather than the color of her skin but I doubt it would cause you to have the appropriate reflection. Instead let me suggest that your analysis is shallow and reveals more about you than her.
” …to someone with a more cynical view.”
Oh who would that someone be?
It is not an observation regarding how “I” view her, or what she said. It’s a comment regarding the reason for the administration’s and media’s focus on her.
(Also, note that she apparently wrote that in response to the Capitol riot, I understand. Another “racial” issue, to some.)
(See above, regarding the reason for the focus on her.)
More accurately, there won’t be a peanut gallery.
Like Tuesday’s scramble, Wednesday’s over-easy and Thursday’s omelette — all eggs.
Because the DV lives under this fiction that if you type the same thing multiple times, you can make the scary boogie-man go away. Like the swiping of the wand of the fairy Godmother.
Perhaps you can comment on this article instead – https://davisvanguard.org/2021/01/yctd-representative-provides-update-on-recent-yologo-assessment/
I also was wondering why the new RFP at this point. It does appear the Council is being responsive to NIMBYism despite the fact that data do not support neighbors’ concerns. The action validates discrimination and exacerbates stigmatization.
From the Enterprise:
It appears that the Council has not decided to proceed with an RFP at this point; rather, they left that option open. So, my comment above, based on the above article, is not apposite at this point.
My understanding was that they passed the staff recommendation and that included the new RFP, but maybe the wording is such that it’s only an option rather than enacted. (Edit: looks like that’s the case).
Your low-brow NIMBY-shaming is a not a stepping-stone on the path to a community-wide solution that meets the needs of both the housed and the needy un-housed. The rest of my response is and forever-will-be here:
https://davisvanguard.org/2021/01/letter-criminals-without-roofs-vs-those-truly-in-need/
In light of the information from Pytel, do you think your comment still stands?
“NIM·By
/ˈnimbē/
noun
a person who objects to the siting of something perceived as unpleasant or hazardous in the area where they live, especially while raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere.”
You find the word to be low-brow and shaming. It is, however, a consistent way of describing a certain type of opposition. If it’s perceived as an insult and shaming, perhaps it’s because it accurately describes certain opposition that most would not want to own up to.
Not all opposition to services for homeless, supportive housing, etc. would be considered to be NIMBYism—e.g., opposition due to existing over saturation of such services in one area. But opposition based on stereotypes and presumptions about the population to be served are typically discriminatory and deserving of the descriptive label.
It is often the case that people get offended by exact language that accurately describes conduct rather than be reflective for how others perceive behavior that is less than flattering.
Using that definition (and nothing more implied), I don’t find this to necessarily be derogatory. I find it to be normal human (and other animal) behavior.
Show me a single example of the term NIMBY being used in a complimentary fashion.
You’d have about as much chance of seeing a real-world example of that as those who suggested Trump wouldn’t leave office.
It’s not complimentary but it’s not necessarily a pejorative, depending on the circumstances. Those opposing a highway that will divide their neighborhood can be referred to as NIMBYs, in a neutral sense. But those who cite bogus reasons (e.g., unsubstantiated claims that a program will impact property values or the character of the neighborhood) are NIMBYs as well, and the negative connotation is warranted. When neighbors oppose housing citing reasons that are contrary to fact or based on negative stereotypes, then it is simply an accurate shorthand description.
But even if it’s always a pejorative term, if it’s warranted, it’s appropriate to apply it.
Eric: You are applying your “own” (negative) definition, at this point. Beyond that which you originally cited. Thereby not only proving Alan’s point, but adding to it.
But not in the Davis Vanguard, because we are civil in our discussions here and do not use pejorative terms 😐
From the Vanguard comment policy:
KO, by this definition, NIMBY is only a pejorative if preceded by “no-growth” and followed by “farmland moat people”. Otherwise, everyone, feel free to pound people over the head with the term “NIMBY” as one might do a metal pipe.
Although, that is probably arguable and best settled by a lawyer. Does anyone know a lawyer who hangs out here who could parse the DV guidelines and come up with a legal opinion on this matter? 😐 😐 😐 😐 😐
NIMBY is a widely used term to refer to a type of opposition to proposed programs, projects, etc. HUD provides training materials on how to combat “NIMBY”: https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/nimbyassessment/?nimbyassessmentaction=main.dspnimbyoverview
In context, its meaning is understood. If people’s delicate sensibilities are offended by having their discriminatory attitudes and conduct called out, so be it. One could use a lengthy sentence or two to say the same thing captured by the word NIMBY. I choose to be more concise and will continue to use the term NIMBY, not as an insult, but as a descriptive term, if it applies to a particular situation.
“If people’s delicate sensibilities are offended by having their discriminatory attitudes and conduct called out, so be it.”
But it is OK for a local to use “low-brow.”
Define “OK”
There’s another n-word that is widely used as well to refer to . . . something. Doesn’t make it right.
Delicate sensibilities my arse. This is about respecting the concerns of people who will be affected by projects/programs near them. I have no problem with others giving a different opinion, no problem with disagreeing. Leading out the gate and disrespecting the concerns of others is no way to move forward on community issues.
I’m not talking about legitimate concerns. I’m referring to people who claim they will be affected based on stereotypes, speculation, and erroneous assumptions and asserted facts—the goal of which is discriminatory treatment in the form of exclusion or imposition of unwarranted restrictions.
Strange though there is usually no such distinction made.
Or possibly “legitimate” is in the eye of the beholder.
Often the beholder is defined by one who actually lives near the project/program, vs. on who doesn’t and takes to judging those that do.