by Matt Williams
The Committee and the Planning Department Staff did a truly superb job of providing a wealth of information on huge 3 foot wide by 6-foot tall sheets, which covered all four walls of what had to be a 40-foot by 40-foot room. In the words of Rodney Robinson, “I can’t wrap my mind around all of this!” I am sure Rodney was not alone in those feelings.
To their credit, the Committee and Staff did their very best to anticipate that very reaction, and organized the workshop into five “Stations” each of which was designed to expose the participants to a “bite-size” portion of information, and build the participant’s knowledge (and hopefully enthusiasm) as they moved from Station to Station. Each Station was manned by as many as three of the Committee members, who shared information and answered questions.
Station Two built on the knowledge garnered in Station One. Interactive learning/participation with Committee members was supplemented by eight more 3 foot by 6-foot wall graphics. It was fascinating to watch the interactions at Station Two. As Committee member Mark Spencer said, “People didn’t stay in their burrows tonight.” No question was out of bounds, and based on the questions being asked at all the Stations, more than one Committee member echoed Kristin Stoneking’s comment that she “didn’t think that developers had been in evidence tonight.”
Reflecting on what he saw, Council member Don Saylor made the comment that, “You couldn’t have asked for more. The Workshop gave everyone the opportunity to build their knowledge at their own pace, before moving on to the next stations where they were given the opportunity to share their opinions.” Mayor Greenwald spent most of her evening at the workshop sharing her thoughts on housing in general and on some sites specifically … Nishi and Cannery most notably.
Stations Three and Four began the feedback process. The 14 Principles the Committee has used to guide their deliberations and site rankings were on display.
(1) Promotes a compact urban form, which allows for efficient infrastructure and services.
(2) Promotes overall proximity to existing community facilities including parks, greenbelts, schools and shopping (which reduces driving and its negative impacts).
(3) Promotes overall proximity to the downtown and UC Davis (which reduces driving and its negative impacts).
(4) Is capable of providing compact development and higher density housing, especially near community facilities (which reduces driving and its negative impacts).
(5) Preserves prime farmland and minimizes farmland conversion.
(6) Is adjacent to, or contributes to open space and greenway system connections.
(7) Provides adequate vehicular access and safety.
(8) Promotes pedestrian, bicycle and transit mobility.
(9) Is compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity.
(10) Is compatible with noise environment.
(11) Avoids health risks (such as exposure to particulates in close proximity to freeways).
(12) Preserves a small town feel.
(13) Promotes historic preservation.
(14) Advances (or at least does not harm) fiscal stability.
Each participant was given three sticky dots, which s/he could use to vote for their most important three Principles. Principles (1), (4), (5) and (8) appeared to have the most green dots.
For those participants who weren’t suffering from their own version of Rodney Robinson’s mind-wrap problem, Station Five was set up to get feedback on the wealth of topics not covered in Stations Three and Four. Some of those topics were:
- Overall housing directions,
- Trade-offs and strategies the community might want to pursue in meeting its housing needs
- Options for Housing Density and Intensity Near Downtown and Neighborhood Nodes
- Preferences for Housing Development Within the City as Compared to Peripheral Sites, and
- Thoughts on the one percent growth guideline adopted by the Davis City Council on March 8, 2005 (based on an estimated internal housing need report prepared by Bay Area Economics).
- “Not one single additional acre of farmland should be paved over in our life times!”
- “What does the Committee envision for the Anderson Transit Corridor?
- “The South Davis properties along I-80 shouldn’t be residential. The kind of High Tech companies we want to attract to Davis want Freeway access, which is one of the few positives those sites have to offer.
- “Davis is a wonderful community because of our values, our innovation and our welcoming hospitable character. To continue to be innovative, Davis needs a certain amount of growth, with the 498 unit RHNA number probably being too little growth, but the 2,300 unit 1% guideline number probably being too much growth.”
Submit your comments either at THE WORKSHOP OR, if you would like to take more time, please MAIL, FAX OR EMAIL your comments so that they arrive at City Hall by January 30, 2008 (next Wednesday), so that Staff can include your comments in the workshop report.
Please send your comments to Bob Wolcott, Principal Planner, City of Davis, 23 Russell Boulevard, Davis, CA 95616. Tel (530) 757-5610; Fax (530) 757-5660; Email Bob Wolcott. Thanks!
The comments form can be printed off by going to the city website
In closing I would like to echo the words of Committee member Lucas Frerichs, “I’m very, very encouraged by the turnout, especially in the rain. It exceeded all expectations, and is a great tribute to Davis.”
Matt, may I ask:
Who do you work for?
If you are self-employed, what is the nature of your business?
In what part of Davis do you live?
Other than your home, do you own land in Yolo County (directly or indirectly)?
Given that you comment publicly and frequently on this topic, it would be nice to know what your interests are. Thanks in advance for your response.
Matt, may I ask:
Who do you work for?
If you are self-employed, what is the nature of your business?
In what part of Davis do you live?
Other than your home, do you own land in Yolo County (directly or indirectly)?
Given that you comment publicly and frequently on this topic, it would be nice to know what your interests are. Thanks in advance for your response.
Matt, may I ask:
Who do you work for?
If you are self-employed, what is the nature of your business?
In what part of Davis do you live?
Other than your home, do you own land in Yolo County (directly or indirectly)?
Given that you comment publicly and frequently on this topic, it would be nice to know what your interests are. Thanks in advance for your response.
Matt, may I ask:
Who do you work for?
If you are self-employed, what is the nature of your business?
In what part of Davis do you live?
Other than your home, do you own land in Yolo County (directly or indirectly)?
Given that you comment publicly and frequently on this topic, it would be nice to know what your interests are. Thanks in advance for your response.
Thanks for the update, Matt. I’m glad somebody had a good evening; things weren’t much fun over at the school board meeting.
There’s a big difference between 498 and 2,300 units, which seems to be one of the key policy decisions to be made. I assume that, once the sites are ranked, that growth guideline is what determines how quickly they are developed.
Thanks for the update, Matt. I’m glad somebody had a good evening; things weren’t much fun over at the school board meeting.
There’s a big difference between 498 and 2,300 units, which seems to be one of the key policy decisions to be made. I assume that, once the sites are ranked, that growth guideline is what determines how quickly they are developed.
Thanks for the update, Matt. I’m glad somebody had a good evening; things weren’t much fun over at the school board meeting.
There’s a big difference between 498 and 2,300 units, which seems to be one of the key policy decisions to be made. I assume that, once the sites are ranked, that growth guideline is what determines how quickly they are developed.
Thanks for the update, Matt. I’m glad somebody had a good evening; things weren’t much fun over at the school board meeting.
There’s a big difference between 498 and 2,300 units, which seems to be one of the key policy decisions to be made. I assume that, once the sites are ranked, that growth guideline is what determines how quickly they are developed.
Curious said…
Matt, may I ask:
Who do you work for?
If you are self-employed, what is the nature of your business?
In what part of Davis do you live?
Other than your home, do you own land in Yolo County (directly or indirectly)?
Given that you comment publicly and frequently on this topic, it would be nice to know what your interests are. Thanks in advance for your response.
Curious, no problem. I work in Finance/Decision Support at UCD Medical Center. I live in Yolo County just outside the Davis City Limits, but in the City of Davis Planning Area.
Both my wife and I have only one property in California that we own or have interest in, either directly or indirectly, which is the home we live in.
My interests are to see (and in some cases help see) that our decisions about land use/housing are as wise as possible. We have come to love Davis since we moved here nine years ago, and feel that giving back to something that has given us so much pleasure is the right thing to do.
Curious said…
Matt, may I ask:
Who do you work for?
If you are self-employed, what is the nature of your business?
In what part of Davis do you live?
Other than your home, do you own land in Yolo County (directly or indirectly)?
Given that you comment publicly and frequently on this topic, it would be nice to know what your interests are. Thanks in advance for your response.
Curious, no problem. I work in Finance/Decision Support at UCD Medical Center. I live in Yolo County just outside the Davis City Limits, but in the City of Davis Planning Area.
Both my wife and I have only one property in California that we own or have interest in, either directly or indirectly, which is the home we live in.
My interests are to see (and in some cases help see) that our decisions about land use/housing are as wise as possible. We have come to love Davis since we moved here nine years ago, and feel that giving back to something that has given us so much pleasure is the right thing to do.
Curious said…
Matt, may I ask:
Who do you work for?
If you are self-employed, what is the nature of your business?
In what part of Davis do you live?
Other than your home, do you own land in Yolo County (directly or indirectly)?
Given that you comment publicly and frequently on this topic, it would be nice to know what your interests are. Thanks in advance for your response.
Curious, no problem. I work in Finance/Decision Support at UCD Medical Center. I live in Yolo County just outside the Davis City Limits, but in the City of Davis Planning Area.
Both my wife and I have only one property in California that we own or have interest in, either directly or indirectly, which is the home we live in.
My interests are to see (and in some cases help see) that our decisions about land use/housing are as wise as possible. We have come to love Davis since we moved here nine years ago, and feel that giving back to something that has given us so much pleasure is the right thing to do.
Curious said…
Matt, may I ask:
Who do you work for?
If you are self-employed, what is the nature of your business?
In what part of Davis do you live?
Other than your home, do you own land in Yolo County (directly or indirectly)?
Given that you comment publicly and frequently on this topic, it would be nice to know what your interests are. Thanks in advance for your response.
Curious, no problem. I work in Finance/Decision Support at UCD Medical Center. I live in Yolo County just outside the Davis City Limits, but in the City of Davis Planning Area.
Both my wife and I have only one property in California that we own or have interest in, either directly or indirectly, which is the home we live in.
My interests are to see (and in some cases help see) that our decisions about land use/housing are as wise as possible. We have come to love Davis since we moved here nine years ago, and feel that giving back to something that has given us so much pleasure is the right thing to do.
Matt…. did I miss this in your fine article?….what were the approx. numbers that attended last evening?
Matt…. did I miss this in your fine article?….what were the approx. numbers that attended last evening?
Matt…. did I miss this in your fine article?….what were the approx. numbers that attended last evening?
Matt…. did I miss this in your fine article?….what were the approx. numbers that attended last evening?
Thank you, Matt, for your disclosure.
You didn’t indicate where your home is, relative to the city boundary, so let me guess.
Let’s see. It is east, south or southeast of the City. Definitely south of I-80, I think. In or near unincorporated Willowbank or El Macero? Am I close?
Thank you, Matt, for your disclosure.
You didn’t indicate where your home is, relative to the city boundary, so let me guess.
Let’s see. It is east, south or southeast of the City. Definitely south of I-80, I think. In or near unincorporated Willowbank or El Macero? Am I close?
Thank you, Matt, for your disclosure.
You didn’t indicate where your home is, relative to the city boundary, so let me guess.
Let’s see. It is east, south or southeast of the City. Definitely south of I-80, I think. In or near unincorporated Willowbank or El Macero? Am I close?
Thank you, Matt, for your disclosure.
You didn’t indicate where your home is, relative to the city boundary, so let me guess.
Let’s see. It is east, south or southeast of the City. Definitely south of I-80, I think. In or near unincorporated Willowbank or El Macero? Am I close?
El Macero
El Macero
El Macero
El Macero
Anonymous said…
Matt…. did I miss this in your fine article?….what were the approx. numbers that attended last evening?
138 people signed the log. It will be interesting to see what the count of submissions to Bob Wolcott is.
Anonymous said…
Matt…. did I miss this in your fine article?….what were the approx. numbers that attended last evening?
138 people signed the log. It will be interesting to see what the count of submissions to Bob Wolcott is.
Anonymous said…
Matt…. did I miss this in your fine article?….what were the approx. numbers that attended last evening?
138 people signed the log. It will be interesting to see what the count of submissions to Bob Wolcott is.
Anonymous said…
Matt…. did I miss this in your fine article?….what were the approx. numbers that attended last evening?
138 people signed the log. It will be interesting to see what the count of submissions to Bob Wolcott is.
Thanks.. it will be interesting to see how many of the mail-ins moved Covell Village up to High as per Lydia’s explicit instructions.
Thanks.. it will be interesting to see how many of the mail-ins moved Covell Village up to High as per Lydia’s explicit instructions.
Thanks.. it will be interesting to see how many of the mail-ins moved Covell Village up to High as per Lydia’s explicit instructions.
Thanks.. it will be interesting to see how many of the mail-ins moved Covell Village up to High as per Lydia’s explicit instructions.
Matt Williams said:
“El Macero“
I imagine you and others out there are pretty happy with the way things are going with the Housing Committee. No new subdivisions proposed anywhere near you. (Not that there should be.)
Matt Williams said:
“El Macero“
I imagine you and others out there are pretty happy with the way things are going with the Housing Committee. No new subdivisions proposed anywhere near you. (Not that there should be.)
Matt Williams said:
“El Macero“
I imagine you and others out there are pretty happy with the way things are going with the Housing Committee. No new subdivisions proposed anywhere near you. (Not that there should be.)
Matt Williams said:
“El Macero“
I imagine you and others out there are pretty happy with the way things are going with the Housing Committee. No new subdivisions proposed anywhere near you. (Not that there should be.)
Wait! I thought this process had been “hijacked!” Or is the hyperbole becoming too thick in here?
Wait! I thought this process had been “hijacked!” Or is the hyperbole becoming too thick in here?
Wait! I thought this process had been “hijacked!” Or is the hyperbole becoming too thick in here?
Wait! I thought this process had been “hijacked!” Or is the hyperbole becoming too thick in here?
It was hijacked, but we took it back.
It was hijacked, but we took it back.
It was hijacked, but we took it back.
It was hijacked, but we took it back.
While I think the Steering Committee did an excellent job in devising this workshop, beware what comes next – a staff report analyzing public comment. Who gets to decide how much a comment is weighted in any analysis? I buried my comment sheet in the middle of the pack, so no one could pull it out if they happened to be aware of my views. Think I’m paranoid? I’ve seen the political process in this town corrupted too many times before, and not for the good of Davis. Remember the Covell Village fiasco, and the degree to which public comment was ignored?
While I think the Steering Committee did an excellent job in devising this workshop, beware what comes next – a staff report analyzing public comment. Who gets to decide how much a comment is weighted in any analysis? I buried my comment sheet in the middle of the pack, so no one could pull it out if they happened to be aware of my views. Think I’m paranoid? I’ve seen the political process in this town corrupted too many times before, and not for the good of Davis. Remember the Covell Village fiasco, and the degree to which public comment was ignored?
While I think the Steering Committee did an excellent job in devising this workshop, beware what comes next – a staff report analyzing public comment. Who gets to decide how much a comment is weighted in any analysis? I buried my comment sheet in the middle of the pack, so no one could pull it out if they happened to be aware of my views. Think I’m paranoid? I’ve seen the political process in this town corrupted too many times before, and not for the good of Davis. Remember the Covell Village fiasco, and the degree to which public comment was ignored?
While I think the Steering Committee did an excellent job in devising this workshop, beware what comes next – a staff report analyzing public comment. Who gets to decide how much a comment is weighted in any analysis? I buried my comment sheet in the middle of the pack, so no one could pull it out if they happened to be aware of my views. Think I’m paranoid? I’ve seen the political process in this town corrupted too many times before, and not for the good of Davis. Remember the Covell Village fiasco, and the degree to which public comment was ignored?
curious said…
I imagine you and others out there are pretty happy with the way things are going with the Housing Committee. No new subdivisions proposed anywhere near you. (Not that there should be.)
Yes, my wife and I and others in El Macero and Willowbank are pleased with the way the process has gone. However, we haven’t been passive observers. In 2005 and 2006 the developer owners of the 125 acres south of El Macero were in high gear promoting The Vineyards @ El Macero. Threough a balanced, open effort to educate and engage the residents of the neighborhoods directly affected by the proposed development. The end result is summarized in the following letter we delivered to City Council on July 10, 2007:
Dear Council Members and Mayor Greenwald,
Attached to this letter you will find a petition signed by over 600 Willowbank, Oak Shade, San Marino and El Macero residents voicing their strong opposition to any additional residential development on the prime farmlands of the area referred to in the first Attachment of the Pass-Through Agreement as the Southeast Quadrant of the Davis City Edge.
Those individual signatures are echoed by a second attachment containing the results of an El Macero Homeowners Association ballot completed and announced by the Homeowners Association Board on June 26th. The El Macero voters said NO to additional residential development in a 69% voter turnout, with 234 of the El Macero “rooftops” (83%) voting against the development and 48 of the “rooftops” (17%) voting for it.
As this Council and future Councils consider residential development in the Southeast Quadrant, we sincerely hope these clear messages by Davis and Yolo County voters will be central to your decision process.
The Tsakopoulos stem cell center proposal with all its related housing in the Southeast Quadrant provides an immediate opportunity for the Council to step up and say to all who will listen, “We hear our voters and are taking action accordingly.”
Very truly yours on behalf of the more than 600 signatories,
Matt Williams
Landon Scarlett
Even though we were able to get the Yolo County Supervisors to agree to no additional residential units in the Southeast Quadrant in the County General Plan Update, we knew that we couldn’t rest. The HESC had the responsibility of looking at that same area as part of its efforts. One of the many reasons the parcels on the East side of Davis were removed from further consideration by the HESC was because the developer/owners of the parcels saw our opposition and chose not to challenge it at this time.
Bottom-line, we have won a number of battles, but the war continues. Developers have virtually infinite patience.
curious said…
I imagine you and others out there are pretty happy with the way things are going with the Housing Committee. No new subdivisions proposed anywhere near you. (Not that there should be.)
Yes, my wife and I and others in El Macero and Willowbank are pleased with the way the process has gone. However, we haven’t been passive observers. In 2005 and 2006 the developer owners of the 125 acres south of El Macero were in high gear promoting The Vineyards @ El Macero. Threough a balanced, open effort to educate and engage the residents of the neighborhoods directly affected by the proposed development. The end result is summarized in the following letter we delivered to City Council on July 10, 2007:
Dear Council Members and Mayor Greenwald,
Attached to this letter you will find a petition signed by over 600 Willowbank, Oak Shade, San Marino and El Macero residents voicing their strong opposition to any additional residential development on the prime farmlands of the area referred to in the first Attachment of the Pass-Through Agreement as the Southeast Quadrant of the Davis City Edge.
Those individual signatures are echoed by a second attachment containing the results of an El Macero Homeowners Association ballot completed and announced by the Homeowners Association Board on June 26th. The El Macero voters said NO to additional residential development in a 69% voter turnout, with 234 of the El Macero “rooftops” (83%) voting against the development and 48 of the “rooftops” (17%) voting for it.
As this Council and future Councils consider residential development in the Southeast Quadrant, we sincerely hope these clear messages by Davis and Yolo County voters will be central to your decision process.
The Tsakopoulos stem cell center proposal with all its related housing in the Southeast Quadrant provides an immediate opportunity for the Council to step up and say to all who will listen, “We hear our voters and are taking action accordingly.”
Very truly yours on behalf of the more than 600 signatories,
Matt Williams
Landon Scarlett
Even though we were able to get the Yolo County Supervisors to agree to no additional residential units in the Southeast Quadrant in the County General Plan Update, we knew that we couldn’t rest. The HESC had the responsibility of looking at that same area as part of its efforts. One of the many reasons the parcels on the East side of Davis were removed from further consideration by the HESC was because the developer/owners of the parcels saw our opposition and chose not to challenge it at this time.
Bottom-line, we have won a number of battles, but the war continues. Developers have virtually infinite patience.
curious said…
I imagine you and others out there are pretty happy with the way things are going with the Housing Committee. No new subdivisions proposed anywhere near you. (Not that there should be.)
Yes, my wife and I and others in El Macero and Willowbank are pleased with the way the process has gone. However, we haven’t been passive observers. In 2005 and 2006 the developer owners of the 125 acres south of El Macero were in high gear promoting The Vineyards @ El Macero. Threough a balanced, open effort to educate and engage the residents of the neighborhoods directly affected by the proposed development. The end result is summarized in the following letter we delivered to City Council on July 10, 2007:
Dear Council Members and Mayor Greenwald,
Attached to this letter you will find a petition signed by over 600 Willowbank, Oak Shade, San Marino and El Macero residents voicing their strong opposition to any additional residential development on the prime farmlands of the area referred to in the first Attachment of the Pass-Through Agreement as the Southeast Quadrant of the Davis City Edge.
Those individual signatures are echoed by a second attachment containing the results of an El Macero Homeowners Association ballot completed and announced by the Homeowners Association Board on June 26th. The El Macero voters said NO to additional residential development in a 69% voter turnout, with 234 of the El Macero “rooftops” (83%) voting against the development and 48 of the “rooftops” (17%) voting for it.
As this Council and future Councils consider residential development in the Southeast Quadrant, we sincerely hope these clear messages by Davis and Yolo County voters will be central to your decision process.
The Tsakopoulos stem cell center proposal with all its related housing in the Southeast Quadrant provides an immediate opportunity for the Council to step up and say to all who will listen, “We hear our voters and are taking action accordingly.”
Very truly yours on behalf of the more than 600 signatories,
Matt Williams
Landon Scarlett
Even though we were able to get the Yolo County Supervisors to agree to no additional residential units in the Southeast Quadrant in the County General Plan Update, we knew that we couldn’t rest. The HESC had the responsibility of looking at that same area as part of its efforts. One of the many reasons the parcels on the East side of Davis were removed from further consideration by the HESC was because the developer/owners of the parcels saw our opposition and chose not to challenge it at this time.
Bottom-line, we have won a number of battles, but the war continues. Developers have virtually infinite patience.
curious said…
I imagine you and others out there are pretty happy with the way things are going with the Housing Committee. No new subdivisions proposed anywhere near you. (Not that there should be.)
Yes, my wife and I and others in El Macero and Willowbank are pleased with the way the process has gone. However, we haven’t been passive observers. In 2005 and 2006 the developer owners of the 125 acres south of El Macero were in high gear promoting The Vineyards @ El Macero. Threough a balanced, open effort to educate and engage the residents of the neighborhoods directly affected by the proposed development. The end result is summarized in the following letter we delivered to City Council on July 10, 2007:
Dear Council Members and Mayor Greenwald,
Attached to this letter you will find a petition signed by over 600 Willowbank, Oak Shade, San Marino and El Macero residents voicing their strong opposition to any additional residential development on the prime farmlands of the area referred to in the first Attachment of the Pass-Through Agreement as the Southeast Quadrant of the Davis City Edge.
Those individual signatures are echoed by a second attachment containing the results of an El Macero Homeowners Association ballot completed and announced by the Homeowners Association Board on June 26th. The El Macero voters said NO to additional residential development in a 69% voter turnout, with 234 of the El Macero “rooftops” (83%) voting against the development and 48 of the “rooftops” (17%) voting for it.
As this Council and future Councils consider residential development in the Southeast Quadrant, we sincerely hope these clear messages by Davis and Yolo County voters will be central to your decision process.
The Tsakopoulos stem cell center proposal with all its related housing in the Southeast Quadrant provides an immediate opportunity for the Council to step up and say to all who will listen, “We hear our voters and are taking action accordingly.”
Very truly yours on behalf of the more than 600 signatories,
Matt Williams
Landon Scarlett
Even though we were able to get the Yolo County Supervisors to agree to no additional residential units in the Southeast Quadrant in the County General Plan Update, we knew that we couldn’t rest. The HESC had the responsibility of looking at that same area as part of its efforts. One of the many reasons the parcels on the East side of Davis were removed from further consideration by the HESC was because the developer/owners of the parcels saw our opposition and chose not to challenge it at this time.
Bottom-line, we have won a number of battles, but the war continues. Developers have virtually infinite patience.
“It was hijacked, but we took it back.”
You hijacked the hijackers?
“It was hijacked, but we took it back.”
You hijacked the hijackers?
“It was hijacked, but we took it back.”
You hijacked the hijackers?
“It was hijacked, but we took it back.”
You hijacked the hijackers?
Matt
If you’ve lived here for nine years you know that Rodney Robinson and attorney Gerald Glazer basically sold out the Wildhorse Opposition Organization for $140,000 that they attempted to hide from WHOA members and the public. Just before the Appellate Court was likely to rule in favor of WHOA and force a new vote on the 800 unit Wildhorse Development, Robinson and Glazer petitioned the court on behalf of WHOA to drop the case. A successful appeal would not only have stopped the Wildhorse development, it would have given citizens the right to referend zoning decisions without also having to referend the General Plan. Robinson and Glazer can never make up for the the environmental destruction their greed caused the state because across the state, a lot of bad projects would have been stopped with the right to referend a zoning decision.
Given that Rodney escaped punishment and wont apologize for what he did, he should be ostrasized from Davis and environmental politics until he comes clean on his actions with Glazer and apologizes. After he settled with the plaintiffs to avoid trial, he still walked away with tens of thousands of dollars. He shouldn’t be rewarded more by being quoted in articles like this without reminding readers of his sordid past.
Matt
If you’ve lived here for nine years you know that Rodney Robinson and attorney Gerald Glazer basically sold out the Wildhorse Opposition Organization for $140,000 that they attempted to hide from WHOA members and the public. Just before the Appellate Court was likely to rule in favor of WHOA and force a new vote on the 800 unit Wildhorse Development, Robinson and Glazer petitioned the court on behalf of WHOA to drop the case. A successful appeal would not only have stopped the Wildhorse development, it would have given citizens the right to referend zoning decisions without also having to referend the General Plan. Robinson and Glazer can never make up for the the environmental destruction their greed caused the state because across the state, a lot of bad projects would have been stopped with the right to referend a zoning decision.
Given that Rodney escaped punishment and wont apologize for what he did, he should be ostrasized from Davis and environmental politics until he comes clean on his actions with Glazer and apologizes. After he settled with the plaintiffs to avoid trial, he still walked away with tens of thousands of dollars. He shouldn’t be rewarded more by being quoted in articles like this without reminding readers of his sordid past.
Matt
If you’ve lived here for nine years you know that Rodney Robinson and attorney Gerald Glazer basically sold out the Wildhorse Opposition Organization for $140,000 that they attempted to hide from WHOA members and the public. Just before the Appellate Court was likely to rule in favor of WHOA and force a new vote on the 800 unit Wildhorse Development, Robinson and Glazer petitioned the court on behalf of WHOA to drop the case. A successful appeal would not only have stopped the Wildhorse development, it would have given citizens the right to referend zoning decisions without also having to referend the General Plan. Robinson and Glazer can never make up for the the environmental destruction their greed caused the state because across the state, a lot of bad projects would have been stopped with the right to referend a zoning decision.
Given that Rodney escaped punishment and wont apologize for what he did, he should be ostrasized from Davis and environmental politics until he comes clean on his actions with Glazer and apologizes. After he settled with the plaintiffs to avoid trial, he still walked away with tens of thousands of dollars. He shouldn’t be rewarded more by being quoted in articles like this without reminding readers of his sordid past.
Matt
If you’ve lived here for nine years you know that Rodney Robinson and attorney Gerald Glazer basically sold out the Wildhorse Opposition Organization for $140,000 that they attempted to hide from WHOA members and the public. Just before the Appellate Court was likely to rule in favor of WHOA and force a new vote on the 800 unit Wildhorse Development, Robinson and Glazer petitioned the court on behalf of WHOA to drop the case. A successful appeal would not only have stopped the Wildhorse development, it would have given citizens the right to referend zoning decisions without also having to referend the General Plan. Robinson and Glazer can never make up for the the environmental destruction their greed caused the state because across the state, a lot of bad projects would have been stopped with the right to referend a zoning decision.
Given that Rodney escaped punishment and wont apologize for what he did, he should be ostrasized from Davis and environmental politics until he comes clean on his actions with Glazer and apologizes. After he settled with the plaintiffs to avoid trial, he still walked away with tens of thousands of dollars. He shouldn’t be rewarded more by being quoted in articles like this without reminding readers of his sordid past.
long menory,
Your post is the first time I’ve heard of what you have described.
I figured I would do some homework in order to be better informed, and Googled the two expressions “Rodney Robinson” and “Gerald Glazer.” The resultant article links were indeed interesting reading.
long menory,
Your post is the first time I’ve heard of what you have described.
I figured I would do some homework in order to be better informed, and Googled the two expressions “Rodney Robinson” and “Gerald Glazer.” The resultant article links were indeed interesting reading.
long menory,
Your post is the first time I’ve heard of what you have described.
I figured I would do some homework in order to be better informed, and Googled the two expressions “Rodney Robinson” and “Gerald Glazer.” The resultant article links were indeed interesting reading.
long menory,
Your post is the first time I’ve heard of what you have described.
I figured I would do some homework in order to be better informed, and Googled the two expressions “Rodney Robinson” and “Gerald Glazer.” The resultant article links were indeed interesting reading.
Matt…. I do not know what you found when googling. Partisan websites are notorious for creating self-serving narratives. I was around during the Wildhorse development agreement challenge although was not actually privy to the fracture of the Wildhorse development opposition. I do know that the story is a bit more complicated than what “long memory” has offered. I seem to remember something about Rodney personally putting up funds for a court challenge which was not supported by Kevin Wolf’s faction of the Wildhorse opposition leadership. This is a narrative that I remember floating about as to why Rodney felt that he could take the settlement for the case being dropped for the monies that he personally put up.
Matt…. I do not know what you found when googling. Partisan websites are notorious for creating self-serving narratives. I was around during the Wildhorse development agreement challenge although was not actually privy to the fracture of the Wildhorse development opposition. I do know that the story is a bit more complicated than what “long memory” has offered. I seem to remember something about Rodney personally putting up funds for a court challenge which was not supported by Kevin Wolf’s faction of the Wildhorse opposition leadership. This is a narrative that I remember floating about as to why Rodney felt that he could take the settlement for the case being dropped for the monies that he personally put up.
Matt…. I do not know what you found when googling. Partisan websites are notorious for creating self-serving narratives. I was around during the Wildhorse development agreement challenge although was not actually privy to the fracture of the Wildhorse development opposition. I do know that the story is a bit more complicated than what “long memory” has offered. I seem to remember something about Rodney personally putting up funds for a court challenge which was not supported by Kevin Wolf’s faction of the Wildhorse opposition leadership. This is a narrative that I remember floating about as to why Rodney felt that he could take the settlement for the case being dropped for the monies that he personally put up.
Matt…. I do not know what you found when googling. Partisan websites are notorious for creating self-serving narratives. I was around during the Wildhorse development agreement challenge although was not actually privy to the fracture of the Wildhorse development opposition. I do know that the story is a bit more complicated than what “long memory” has offered. I seem to remember something about Rodney personally putting up funds for a court challenge which was not supported by Kevin Wolf’s faction of the Wildhorse opposition leadership. This is a narrative that I remember floating about as to why Rodney felt that he could take the settlement for the case being dropped for the monies that he personally put up.
Wasn’t Glazer doing the legal work? The story was that he considered the court challenge a solo Robinson/Glazer effort, when Kevin Wolf’s faction withdrew, and felt that he could be remunerated for his work by the settlement.
Wasn’t Glazer doing the legal work? The story was that he considered the court challenge a solo Robinson/Glazer effort, when Kevin Wolf’s faction withdrew, and felt that he could be remunerated for his work by the settlement.
Wasn’t Glazer doing the legal work? The story was that he considered the court challenge a solo Robinson/Glazer effort, when Kevin Wolf’s faction withdrew, and felt that he could be remunerated for his work by the settlement.
Wasn’t Glazer doing the legal work? The story was that he considered the court challenge a solo Robinson/Glazer effort, when Kevin Wolf’s faction withdrew, and felt that he could be remunerated for his work by the settlement.
old timer,
There was a very good reason I worded my response as I did. I wasn’t in Davis at the time, and thertefore have little or no objective basis for “filtering” the information. long memory’s, post deserved a response. I chose to leave the interpretation of the material to the reader.
FWIW, I have hed the pleasure of teaching Critical Thinking to college undergraduates. In that course I used the movie The Usual Suspects to illuminate the danger of using a single source of information in making a decision. Your point about the self-serving nature of many Internet narratives fits that model well.
With that said, some of the information that appears to be out there regarding this specific issue, includes legal deposition transcripts, so for the thorough reader there appears to be enough information and pointers to information for a person who wants to get a sense of what happened.
I must say, I really didn’t think, “I can’t wrap my mind around all of this!” to get more attention than the many other statements quoted in my article.
old timer,
There was a very good reason I worded my response as I did. I wasn’t in Davis at the time, and thertefore have little or no objective basis for “filtering” the information. long memory’s, post deserved a response. I chose to leave the interpretation of the material to the reader.
FWIW, I have hed the pleasure of teaching Critical Thinking to college undergraduates. In that course I used the movie The Usual Suspects to illuminate the danger of using a single source of information in making a decision. Your point about the self-serving nature of many Internet narratives fits that model well.
With that said, some of the information that appears to be out there regarding this specific issue, includes legal deposition transcripts, so for the thorough reader there appears to be enough information and pointers to information for a person who wants to get a sense of what happened.
I must say, I really didn’t think, “I can’t wrap my mind around all of this!” to get more attention than the many other statements quoted in my article.
old timer,
There was a very good reason I worded my response as I did. I wasn’t in Davis at the time, and thertefore have little or no objective basis for “filtering” the information. long memory’s, post deserved a response. I chose to leave the interpretation of the material to the reader.
FWIW, I have hed the pleasure of teaching Critical Thinking to college undergraduates. In that course I used the movie The Usual Suspects to illuminate the danger of using a single source of information in making a decision. Your point about the self-serving nature of many Internet narratives fits that model well.
With that said, some of the information that appears to be out there regarding this specific issue, includes legal deposition transcripts, so for the thorough reader there appears to be enough information and pointers to information for a person who wants to get a sense of what happened.
I must say, I really didn’t think, “I can’t wrap my mind around all of this!” to get more attention than the many other statements quoted in my article.
old timer,
There was a very good reason I worded my response as I did. I wasn’t in Davis at the time, and thertefore have little or no objective basis for “filtering” the information. long memory’s, post deserved a response. I chose to leave the interpretation of the material to the reader.
FWIW, I have hed the pleasure of teaching Critical Thinking to college undergraduates. In that course I used the movie The Usual Suspects to illuminate the danger of using a single source of information in making a decision. Your point about the self-serving nature of many Internet narratives fits that model well.
With that said, some of the information that appears to be out there regarding this specific issue, includes legal deposition transcripts, so for the thorough reader there appears to be enough information and pointers to information for a person who wants to get a sense of what happened.
I must say, I really didn’t think, “I can’t wrap my mind around all of this!” to get more attention than the many other statements quoted in my article.
Matt…. I am reading through the depositions.. knowing the players it is fascinating reading!..the stuff for a good play.
Matt…. I am reading through the depositions.. knowing the players it is fascinating reading!..the stuff for a good play.
Matt…. I am reading through the depositions.. knowing the players it is fascinating reading!..the stuff for a good play.
Matt…. I am reading through the depositions.. knowing the players it is fascinating reading!..the stuff for a good play.
FYI, “long memory” who has posted in this thread is not the same person as the one who posted in a previous, related thread.
The whole WHOA story is full of misbehavior, posturing and political grandstanding. From what I can gather, Robinson was pretty much the only Wildhorse opponent left in the fight by the time the settlement was reached.
Settlement of lawsuits happens all the time. Probably less than 10% of environmental civil litigation makes it to trial. A settlement, by its very nature, indicates that both parties agree to it. However, it does not indicate that either party agrees that the other is “correct” – only that it is better to accept the terms and call it a day than to continue to accrue legal expenses and/or risk an unfavorable court decision.
My point is simply this: one should not draw any assumptions about the players in this significant piece of Davis land use planning history based solely on the fact that a settlement was reached. It was much more complicated than that, and the circumstances clearly led to significant political grandstanding by certain individuals.
In that respect, things have not changed much.
FYI, “long memory” who has posted in this thread is not the same person as the one who posted in a previous, related thread.
The whole WHOA story is full of misbehavior, posturing and political grandstanding. From what I can gather, Robinson was pretty much the only Wildhorse opponent left in the fight by the time the settlement was reached.
Settlement of lawsuits happens all the time. Probably less than 10% of environmental civil litigation makes it to trial. A settlement, by its very nature, indicates that both parties agree to it. However, it does not indicate that either party agrees that the other is “correct” – only that it is better to accept the terms and call it a day than to continue to accrue legal expenses and/or risk an unfavorable court decision.
My point is simply this: one should not draw any assumptions about the players in this significant piece of Davis land use planning history based solely on the fact that a settlement was reached. It was much more complicated than that, and the circumstances clearly led to significant political grandstanding by certain individuals.
In that respect, things have not changed much.
FYI, “long memory” who has posted in this thread is not the same person as the one who posted in a previous, related thread.
The whole WHOA story is full of misbehavior, posturing and political grandstanding. From what I can gather, Robinson was pretty much the only Wildhorse opponent left in the fight by the time the settlement was reached.
Settlement of lawsuits happens all the time. Probably less than 10% of environmental civil litigation makes it to trial. A settlement, by its very nature, indicates that both parties agree to it. However, it does not indicate that either party agrees that the other is “correct” – only that it is better to accept the terms and call it a day than to continue to accrue legal expenses and/or risk an unfavorable court decision.
My point is simply this: one should not draw any assumptions about the players in this significant piece of Davis land use planning history based solely on the fact that a settlement was reached. It was much more complicated than that, and the circumstances clearly led to significant political grandstanding by certain individuals.
In that respect, things have not changed much.
FYI, “long memory” who has posted in this thread is not the same person as the one who posted in a previous, related thread.
The whole WHOA story is full of misbehavior, posturing and political grandstanding. From what I can gather, Robinson was pretty much the only Wildhorse opponent left in the fight by the time the settlement was reached.
Settlement of lawsuits happens all the time. Probably less than 10% of environmental civil litigation makes it to trial. A settlement, by its very nature, indicates that both parties agree to it. However, it does not indicate that either party agrees that the other is “correct” – only that it is better to accept the terms and call it a day than to continue to accrue legal expenses and/or risk an unfavorable court decision.
My point is simply this: one should not draw any assumptions about the players in this significant piece of Davis land use planning history based solely on the fact that a settlement was reached. It was much more complicated than that, and the circumstances clearly led to significant political grandstanding by certain individuals.
In that respect, things have not changed much.
“It was much more complicated than that, and the circumstances clearly led to significant political grandstanding by certain individuals.
In that respect, things have not changed much.”
Reading portions of the deposition, It suggests that Rodney was the only one “left-standing” who would put his signature to the appeal. His claim that he felt very vulnerable “out there” by himself as he was being obliquely threatened with personal liability by the Duffel forces sounds credible. He claimed that there were “moles” in WHOA. While we KNOW Rodney and his “exhuberant” rhetoric,some players from WHOA ARE still attempting to shape the current Housing Element outcome. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
“It was much more complicated than that, and the circumstances clearly led to significant political grandstanding by certain individuals.
In that respect, things have not changed much.”
Reading portions of the deposition, It suggests that Rodney was the only one “left-standing” who would put his signature to the appeal. His claim that he felt very vulnerable “out there” by himself as he was being obliquely threatened with personal liability by the Duffel forces sounds credible. He claimed that there were “moles” in WHOA. While we KNOW Rodney and his “exhuberant” rhetoric,some players from WHOA ARE still attempting to shape the current Housing Element outcome. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
“It was much more complicated than that, and the circumstances clearly led to significant political grandstanding by certain individuals.
In that respect, things have not changed much.”
Reading portions of the deposition, It suggests that Rodney was the only one “left-standing” who would put his signature to the appeal. His claim that he felt very vulnerable “out there” by himself as he was being obliquely threatened with personal liability by the Duffel forces sounds credible. He claimed that there were “moles” in WHOA. While we KNOW Rodney and his “exhuberant” rhetoric,some players from WHOA ARE still attempting to shape the current Housing Element outcome. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
“It was much more complicated than that, and the circumstances clearly led to significant political grandstanding by certain individuals.
In that respect, things have not changed much.”
Reading portions of the deposition, It suggests that Rodney was the only one “left-standing” who would put his signature to the appeal. His claim that he felt very vulnerable “out there” by himself as he was being obliquely threatened with personal liability by the Duffel forces sounds credible. He claimed that there were “moles” in WHOA. While we KNOW Rodney and his “exhuberant” rhetoric,some players from WHOA ARE still attempting to shape the current Housing Element outcome. Readers can draw their own conclusions.