By Alan “Lorax” Hirsch – ahirsch@dcn.org
Community and political groups have been removed from their longstanding tabling location along the C Street sidewalk at the Davis Farmers Market and relegated to an isolated, unshaded section of Central Park. The change, made without input from any community organizations, took effect on April 22, 2025. Groups immediately expressed concerns that the new location would see little foot traffic, making their outreach efforts ineffective. The city manager the told 30-plus people that do the volunteer tabling should just give market manager’s idea “a try.”
Related Vanguard Article: “Farmers Market Forgets It Is About Community”
The results from the first week of this so-called experiment are in: failure.
At 11 a.m. — peak shopping time — only three people were seen visiting the seven community tables that had set up in the new location, an unshaded and unpaved area of the park near B Street. Shoppers using wheelchairs and families with strollers told organizers the area was no longer accessible. The number of tabling groups was also cut in half: just seven participated, compared to an average of 14 per week the previous month. Volunteers say there’s no point in showing up if no one is coming by.
This outcome is especially striking, given that the city-sponsored César Chávez Day event on April 26 — with music and tables nearby — should have increased traffic in the area. On a typical Saturday without such an event, foot traffic is expected to be even worse. The new location also intrudes on the children’s play area, making it a poor fit for tabling activity.
I’ve passed out flyers and lawn signs at the old C Street location for years. My logs show I would routinely distribute 60–120 flyers and 30–50 lawn signs in a single Saturday morning — reaching 300–500 people. The contrast is stark. The photo at left shows crowds at the old site in October 2016, where you can see the head of a Hillary Clinton cutout at the Davis Democratic table in the background.
City Claims Free Speech Rights Were Leased Away to Market, Inc.
City officials have claimed in emails that they bear no responsibility for free speech rights in Central Park or along the C Street sidewalk — because those spaces have been leased to the Davis Farmers Market Alliance, Inc. for 30 years in a no-bid contract. According to this logic, public speech is now regulated by a private entity. Yet the city still polices the park, regulates alcohol consumption on-site, and defines in municipal code the types of individuals who should sit on the Market, Inc. board. These inconsistencies raise serious questions about whether the city has truly relinquished all authority — or if it is simply passing the buck.
More troubling is the silence from the City Council. Why aren’t councilmembers standing up for small community groups that rely on access to the market to reach the public? The Davis Farmers Market Alliance board is self-perpetuating and entirely unaccountable to voters. With 26 years left on its lease, the city claims it has no leverage — an assertion that many believe won’t hold up in court.
Community members are now organizing to speak at the Tuesday, May 6, City Council meeting. Residents are encouraged to submit comments by email or voicemail:
citycouncilmembers@cityofdavis.org
Meanwhile, the Farmers Market board does not publish agendas or meeting minutes, announce its meetings, share financial reports, or provide a public-facing email for input. With no transparency and no public oversight, it’s no wonder many feel that community access to Davis’s most public gathering place is slipping away.
Editor’s note: I spoke with Alan this morning and he still wanted this piece run as he believes that things haven’t gone back to the way they were.
“that things haven’t gone back to the way they were.”
In what way?
Maybe Alan H will explain
Or maybe it’d be better to see how next Saturday goes, and then comment ?
Personally I feel the rhetoric in this piece is a bit over-the-top, though I agree with some of the points. I wasn’t sure how Trump fit into the last piece either, even as I agreed with the piece overall.
Though I don’t feel free speech was or is threatened at the market itself, I feel the narrative needs to be changed regarding what is threatened.
The Free Speech area is very cool and very Davis, and was and will hopefully continue to be very accessible. It’s a great area for causes of all kinds, sane and wacky, I/you agree and I/you disagree with, any sides of the political spectrumus. And it’s along the main path! Just like in real estate, just like with a vegetable booth, success is all about location, location, location!!! Free speech would still ‘exist’, technically, if it were relegated to a back corner that people would have to intentionally go to, but in reality many people fewer people would pass by.
So applause to the Farmer’s Market for reversing their decision, for whatever reason. Now keep it that way!
Thanks . . .
Per the article in the local paper, the number of organizations wanting to table has grown to 27 on some days. There will be a limit on how many booths will be able to set up along C street so that clear access for people to pass is maintained. Once the allotted spaces are filled, organizations will be directed to set up under the Sycamore trees. The area needs to be friendly, if organizations expect people to not avoid the area. No one likes being followed and video’d by transphobic activists to create content for their social media posts.
see my comment below. this is design issue- I believe the free speech/community area synergy with the market is not appreciated by Market Manager who has suggest to me it just move to another time of the week.
My thesis is farmer Market management has forgotten about community.
I’m so happy to see that Beth has her free speech area back.
Go Beth, speak your truth.
I wonder how much her interactions have hurt rather than helped her cause
Have you wondered how much the interactions of some of Beth’s detractors have hurt rather than helped their cause?
I haven’t seen any evidence of it.
That doesn’t surprise me that you would look past that.
I go by evidence-based evaluations.
In addition, she gets up there – council, DJUSD – yelling and screaming about some random thing, do you think most people are side with her or are repelled by her?
Look at Beth’s social media pages, if you want to see those who support her. (It’s a pretty massive number of people, as I recall.)
But it’s actually an irrelevant question, in regard to free speech.
Historically, change often occurs as a result of people speaking in opposition to a local majority view. (See the civil rights movement, if you want an example of that. Or gay marriage, etc.)
And when you have someone who won’t back down even in the face of outright hostility, including violence and property destruction (as Beth has experienced at the hands of the local “tolerant” crowd), what you’re seeing is most likely a long-term change agent.
I support her, even though I don’t agree with some of her comments/positions.
Nor do I view anything she’s said as “hate speech” – as Bapu seemed to describe it after she spoke at the council. (The time she was interrupted by an audience member, as well.)
And one thing that has changed “for sure” (already) is the local library’s policy regarding “allowed terms” (that can still be found in any dictionary, in any library in the U.S.). Normal language that the librarian attempted to ban, essentially in the name of “tolerance” or “inclusion” (or whatever other innocuous-sounding phrase is used to try to control speech).
If there was ever a more-blatant example of the reason that someone like Beth is needed, I haven’t seen it at least. So do I support her regarding that? You betcha.
This isn’t something I’ll forget, as it was an embarrassment for the city itself.
Exactly Ron, Beth has more people on her side of this issue than local progressives want to admit.
How do I know, I use evidence based evaluations.
I looked at Beth’s social media pages and found most of her followers were not in Davis. Many were people that had no social media footprint (bots/trolls). She continues to attend local events but it appears solely for the purpose of creating material for her social media posts. She follows people with her camera even after people tell her to stop filming them, that they don’t want to talk to her or they try to walk away. She doxes minors on her sites and won’t remove them even when requested. Her accounts on several sites have been suspended due to her misbehavior and she is posting only on X currently. I tried to engage in a reasonable manner with her and she just repeats stuff even though she’s been given factual information or explanations otherwise. She eventually started doxxing me to her social media connections and her followers started online attacks, so I stopped all engagement.
Yes – I believe that a lot of her followers/commenters are from across the entire country.
But what I’ve noticed is that those making comments opposed to her (on her own Facebook page, for example) are “anonymous” accounts. Often times, making rather obscene comments. (Normally, Beth responds to those by asking a question – or doesn’t respond at all.)
But I’ve pretty much stopped reading her Facebook posts, as I’m already familiar with all of the “legitimate” arguments that are put forth by Beth or those opposed to her.
And I guess I’m not really that interested in the issue, itself. If young people want to self-mutilate via a supportive medical industry, and/or with the support of their parents, who am I to stand in their way? Have at it, I say. Not my problem, though I suppose it makes health insurance costs rise for everyone else to some degree. Nor is it my problem if those born as males compete with those born as females (which is not as big of an issue as the medical interventions, themselves).
” If young people want to self-mutilate via a supportive medical industry, and/or with the support of their parents, who am I to stand in their way?”
that’s an egregious description for someone who claims not to care?
You “noticed”, that huh? :-)
But when you come right down to it, it’s none of my business. Other than perhaps keeping an eye on what’s occurring at institutions (e.g., schools – and more importantly – funding and regulations surrounding the medical industry). There was a video awhile ago, showing a hospital official subtly discussing (presenting to an audience of medical staff) the money to be made via sex reassignment, while simultaneously (and not-so-subtly) suggesting that staff who have any concerns regarding that should find other employment.
I’d also probably feel differently, if I “suspected” that a school district was encouraging my child to view gender (or more importantly – sex) as “fluid”.
Seems to be sort of a fine line between acceptance vs. subtle encouragement.
Ron, it sounds like your concern centers less on individual choices and more on what you see as institutional influence—particularly in schools and medical systems. I think it’s fair for people to want transparency when it comes to what’s being taught or incentivized, but it’s also important to question whether there is there evidence that schools are encouraging children to view gender as fluid, or are they creating space for kids who already feel that way to be safe and accepted?
Yes, David.
There’s that fine line I referenced.
Personally, I doubt that schools are actively encouraging transgenderism, but I don’t know how/why it even came up in the first place. Then again, is Anoosh employed there, as a contractor? (I don’t know the answer to that, but she seems to have some kind of connection with the school district. And if she’s involved, I’d definitely question it.)
Nor do I actually know why anyone needs “confirmation of their identity”. I also flat-out don’t believe that kids need to see others that “look like themselves” in order to pursue or succeed in given fields.
You’d think it would be enough to just teach the skills that students need to know, and discourage kids from picking on each other – regardless of their own prejudices.
It’s usually students themselves who create problems for other students. (Most teachers don’t.) But my guess is that such problems occur a lot less often in a place like Davis.
i will write an article about this for tomorrow.
suffice to say i have photographic evidence that on , 6-2-2018 there was space for 39 community groups in community geoup/free speach market area… In subsequent years Market Manager and city has squeezed free speech/community area by adding bike rack and extending vendor areas into free speech area north of rest rooom…The market manager used the squeezing as excuse to move us off C street.
i think the sudden enforcement of city code on lottery and claim there are not enough space is made up excuse to move and control free speak groups. the agenda here is control, not suppression, I believe, but still results are the same.
i have no doubt some shoppers have complained about acticity-and politics in community ares- I kept a log of complaint i receive ech week from Trumper who walked during Trump 1- 4-8 a week, I know Trumpers have complained to market manager about the progressive political tabling during Trump 1- and this upset Market manager who sent an employee down the block to complain sto me she was hearing I was being “rowdy” ( i keep contemporanous log of every week I table).
Market Manager also claim some families in play area don’t like all the dense activity in free speach zone. Again the crowding is a design issue. And there is no way to know how many complaints and their true motivation. But even if we take this seriously. there are many playgrounds (even in central park) and times to choose from to fit parents sensibilities about things, (shelter children from political disagreement/safe space? You might be offended by your children being exposed to gay rights ) but there is only one community group time and place in the city each week.
Law of land is first amendment rights, not safe spaces, take precedent in the public square,
But there is a compromise: there are many other playgrounds and times for those who want their children to avoid politics, so we can share the beloved community of Davis between us.
hope this helps.
Alan H: I’m really impressed by your reporting/uncovering of the issue behind this, as well as your subsequent comments.
I wouldn’t be surprised if your reporting (articles and comments) is primarily what led to the correction of this situation.
You also largely/appropriately focus on the issue, rather than the content of the free speech.
Ron: hi complement from a critical thinker like you. Vanguard comment zone is not a “safe space”, its an “accountable space. ”
I hope you will enjoy my next piece on farmer market where I begin to explore safe spaces vs free speech zones.
I am sure you & other here will vet it thoroughly–that how i refine my arguments.. or change my mind.
The Farmers Market is certainly a less edifying place without the Flat Earth Society’s booth
The flat earth folks is a place to test your sophistry- as compared to science.