Opponents of Village Farms Davis have made numerous misleading and/or outright false claims about the Project and its supposed adverse environmental impacts on Davis and its residents. Their allegations are made without almost no quantitative supporting data from independent, verifiable 3rd-party sources to support their claims. Unfortunately, these naysayers instead rely on speculation and innuendo to attempt to disparage and denigrate the proposed Project.
This article is the first in a series that will present detailed information that factually refutes each of these untrue “myths” and false allegations made by project opponents . This first article summarizes the false claims and provides a brief summary response followed by a more in-depth discussion refuting some of the allegations that require additional information to refute them. Subsequent articles in the coming weeks will further address some of these false claims in much greater detail.
I am writing concerning Item 4B for tonight’s City Council meeting — specifically the changes to Davis’s noise ordinance. The changes would eliminate the concrete, objective measurement of too much noise — a decibel level — and replace it with the subjective determination of which sounds are “ordinary and reasonable.” Left unclear is who is to make this determination, when such people would be available, and on what basis they would decide.
As I understand it, the objective standard of a decibel level is being removed not just from public playgrounds, parks, and schools, but also from the regulations concerning sounds from animals, power tools, and vehicle repairs. Thus, these proposed changes will affect every citizen in Davis.
And let’s be clear. This is a quality of life issue, yes, but it is more than that. Loud sounds have demonstrated physical and psychological harms on people and animals.This is a public health issue. Speaking personally, I find loud noises extremely debilitating. I can’t think properly, much less get any work done.
Also, these changes will have people keeping their windows closed and using their A/Cs, unnecessarily wasting energy — and then still not really preventing exposure to the worst sounds.
Yet despite the potential for serious harm, these considerable changes are poised to be passed without a staff presentation, without input from commissions, and without discussion of concerns raised by Davis’s citizens.
I urge you to send this proposal back to the drawing board.
North Carolina District 4 candidates, Nida Allam holding a slim lead (on the left) and Valerie Fourshee incumbent (on the right)
We have seen it in New Jersey and Texas, and now we will see it in North Carolina. The next bellwether primary election takes place on March 3rd; the damage of being a progressive except for Palestine (and progressive except for single-payer and except for rubber-stamping appropriations bills) may end the career of incumbent Valerie Foushee in North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District. Fourshee was a latecomer to the 2022 election, using AIPAC and Cryptocurrency donations of $2 million, knocking out the local favorite by 4,000 votes.
Nida Allam, former Vice Chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party and current Durham County Commissioner, returns with more experience and a small donation campaign budget that exceeds Fourshee’s this time around. She promises “to build a brighter future for the Research Triangle, where our democracy works for all of us, and everyone has access to a living wage, affordable healthcare, a great public education, and a livable planet.”
Unlike Allam, who rejects corporate PAC money, Foushee has historically accepted donations from pharmaceutical and health product interests and from defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. In 2024 and 2025, she has cast votes that align more with an establishment-centrist position than with that of a fighter.
Foushee supports expanding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), she has not championed Medicare for All. Foushee voted for the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, which provided over $26 billion in aid (all of which has been distributed), using the excuse that the Act included $1 billion in aid for Gaza (of which only a fraction has been distributed*).
The race between Allam and Fourshee brings into focus the important transition from incremental hand-wringing Democratic leadership and the energy of the next generation. Should Allam win, it will further momentum for the coalition of 6 organizations dedicated to departing from big-money politics, a coalition willing to tax bloated excess in our society so that we can afford healthcare, education, and housing.
…doesn’t just unwind what the government already did to UCLA — it sets the rules for what the government can’t do going forward to any part of the UC system.
He continues:
The modified order, filed February 13, 2026, does two remarkable things. First, it forces the government to follow the law before it cuts university funding. Second — and this is the real teeth — it means that if the government freezes or restricts UC funding without completing every required procedural step, the university can go straight to court and seek enforcement of the injunction. The government would be in violation of a federal court order, and the remedy is immediate. Universities don’t have to start from scratch with a new lawsuit; the injunction is already in place.
Note the word “universities” — not just UCLA, not just the UC, but universities. Thus, Lynch points out “this injunction is a roadmap for every university currently facing the same playbook.”
This strikes a major blow against Trump’s attempts to illegally control the free speech and operation of universities in the U.S. Are you listening, University of California? Thanks to your faculty, students, and staff who risked speaking out, you don’t have to capitulate to Trump’s demands anymore. I — and many others — urge you to stop.
This is a BFD. And it shows that fighting back can work.
On Tuesday, February 3, 2026, the city council approved eliminating all noise decibel limits for every city park, all school grounds, barking dogs, non-commercial power tool use and vehicle repair in neighborhoods. The council did this under the guise of a Consent Calendar “clean-up” item buried among changes to nine different ordinance chapters. The subheading was “Remove outdated and unenforceable provisions–noise limitation.”
Consent Calendar items are reserved for items deemed “routine and non-controversial” that “require no discussion.” This is not where one would expect a major overhaul of the Davis municipal code’s noise ordinance. During public comment at the February 3 meeting, we alerted the council to the magnitude of what staff had placed on the Consent Calendar and asked the council to pull the item for discussion. They did not. Agenda Item 4D passed unanimously with no public input on the noise section (other than ours), and no staff presentation.
Ordinance amendments require two “readings.” The first reading is to receive input, the second reading is for the staff to present revisions if legitimate issues arise during the first reading. Staff have placed the second reading on the Consent Calendar for the upcoming February 17th meeting as item 4B. The meeting starts at 6:30 pm. No staff presentation is planned, no public input is invited – though comment must be accepted, as always, at the start of the meeting under General Public Comment.
The changes have not been reviewed by any city commission. They should go to the Planning Commission, at a minimum. It’s unclear who the staff are that did the work on this. No experts or analysis is cited in the vague 168 word explanation for this radical new approach to city noise management. The short explanation of changes makes references to ambient noise making accurate readings difficult, ambient noise creating prosecution issues for the Yolo Superior Court, and the need for consistent application. These make no sense in the context of what’s being approved.
The city’s stated reasoning for these alterations is that because the city “has grown larger and traffic has increased locally and on highways” it is now “more difficult to take accurate noise readings.” Really? Says who? We are very familiar with the various noise studies and exchanges with the city’s consulting sound engineers since 2019, and are deeply aware of the literature. Not once have we heard a consultant posit that ambient noise levels were making it difficult to take accurate measurements. This is a complete canard, invented by unidentified staff to deflect argument and justify the gutting of huge swaths of the ordinance.
The subheading also indicates the amendment addresses “unenforceable provisions.” There’s nothing unenforceable when something exceeds a limit. Try telling a traffic officer this the next time you are pulled over for speeding. If anything, abandoning decibel limits for subjective police officer or city determinations makes enforcement more, not less, challenging. What’s easier and more defensible than enforcing an explicit limit?
Announcing a free Author Event at the Avid Reader for Exploring the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument Region, Thursday, March 19, 6:30-7:30 PM, with Davis co-author Bob Schneider, 617 2nd St, Davis.
Written by Marc Hoshovsky, Peter Schiffman, Bob Schneider, and Tim Messick, Exploring the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument Region is a newly released guidebook that helps you explore and learn about this extraordinary yet under-recognized region in our own backyard. Located in the northern Coast Ranges between the Central Valley and the Pacific Coast, this region has world renowned geology, extraordinary biodiversity, and rich cultural history, a story unlike any other in California. It is a wild expanse of steep canyons, ancient subduction zones, uplifted ocean crust, extraordinary biological hotspots, and traditional home to many Native peoples—all within a short drive of the Bay Area and Sacramento. In one day’s drive, you can get sweeping views of Clear Lake from Bartlett Mountain Summit, pick up rocks formed on the ocean floor, drive through spectacular wildflower displays in Bear Valley, see tule elk and bald eagles, and soak in historic Wilbur Hot Springs.
(From press release) Yolo County residents can join “Pizza and a Movie Night” on Feb. 17 from 5-8 p.m. at Woodland Community College to learn more about civic engagement. The free event is sponsored by AAUW of Davis, Indivisible Yolo and the Yolo County Leage of Women Voters, and includes pizza and a 90-minute documentary from 2024 called “The Deciders.” The event also will include small-group discussions where attendees will learn more about their role in governing policy, the importance of voter registration and timely ballot return, and opportunities for advocacy in 2026 elections. Discussion leaders will answer voter registration and election participation questions.
Seating is limited with priority registration offered to students at Yolo County high schools and Woodland Community College. For more information and to register: http://bit.ly/49sOy8L.
“We all share the same goal of taking the important message of active civic engagement in democracy directly into our community,” said Michelle Famula, president, Yolo County League of Women Voters. “Together we support a democracy in which every eligible voter has the desire, right, knowledge and confidence to exercise their voting rights.”
The event will center around the film, which showcases how active voices in a working-class community impacted government policy and improved lives. Organizers say they especially hope to engage youth newly registered to vote, busy working households, college students and recently arrived county residents to help ensure higher voter turnout in the fall.
Members of United Way’s Free Tax Prep team help a client sign in to have her taxes prepared in 2025. The program is now open for the current tax season.
(From press release) Yolo County residents and those throughout the Sacramento region are eligible to file their taxes for free through United Way California Capital Region’s Free Tax Prep program that runs through April 15. Households that earned less than $68,000 in 2025 can file for free, and trained tax volunteers will help maximize cash back from state and federal credits, including the federal and state Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC and CalEITC). United Way’s Free Tax Prep program saves participants an average of $200 in preparer fees. The program provides free tax help virtually and in person in multiple languages and locations across Amador, El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo counties. United Way recommends filing as early as possible to receive tax credits sooner. For more information or to sign up: www.YourFreeTaxPrep.org or call 2-1-1.
This year, the local United Way is partnering with Yuba-Sutter-Colusa United Way to offer its Free Tax Prep program in Colusa, Sutter and Yuba counties as well. For services in that region, call 844-546-1464.
“At United Way, we believe every family deserves the dignity and peace of mind that comes from financial stability,” said Dr. Dawnté Early, president and CEO, United Way California Capital Region. “Our Free Tax Prep program is more than a service, it’s an opportunity for our community to keep more of what they’ve earned and to build a stronger foundation for the future. When we remove barriers and open doors, families thrive – and when families thrive, our entire region grows stronger together.”
[The following was sent to the Davisite for posting]
February 2, 2026 To: Mayor Donna Neville and Council Members Fr: David J. Thompson, Affordable Housing Advocate Re: My Suggested Changes to Exhibit E Affordable Housing PIP Report
Could you please address these questions and concerns before tonight’s final City Council vote on the second reading regarding Village Farms?
Due to a number of issues I have located I have made the following suggestions by section number on the “Affordable Housing” agreement:
1) Section 2. General Clarification, All 360 units are to be “deed restricted permanently affordable”. However, in Section 5. Which provides specific detail, the term ‘deed restricted permanently affordable’ is missing and should be included in Section 5.
2) Section 4.1. Do not understand why requirement of 18+ acres has been reduced to 16 acres?
3) Section 4.1. I have previously stated to the Council that the closer to transportation and shopping center the sites wins extra points in the funding competitions. Not knowing where these parcels will be should have been set by now to ensure the sites gets highest extra points for location. Why will the siting be unknown when the citywide vote occurs?
4) Section 5. ’80 ownership units for moderate income households…’. I have previously provided you with an analysis why this is not likely possible with a Limited Equity Housing Cooperative. The only other option is to do a condo which I think is equally difficult for much the same reasons. How does the city plan to get the ownership units built?
5) Section 5. I would suggest you allow for these 80 units to be also done as rentals which are a more feasible, of value and a likely option. They could be delivered much earlier. The likelihood of acquiring funding for moderate income ownership housing is a long shot at best.
6) So the City may well be left with NO affordable housing and land use dedication which will not be developed in the near future, or perhaps ever.
7) Section 6.C. Given the trend in financing low-income housing $2 million may not be enough at $20,000 per unit to complete the subsidy funding of the initial 100 units. What are the additional dollars per unit Mercy Housing is asking for per unit at Bretton Woods?
8) Section 7.2. For me and perhaps for others, the section below definitely confuses me.
Screenshot is from Professor Jemma DeCristo’s posting on X (formerly Twitter) in October 2023. It was deleted within a few days of its original posting.
[This article was originally published by the SF Chronicle and then the Times of Israel. It is re-posted here with permission of the author].
By Reuven Taff
On Jan. 10, a synagogue in Jackson, Miss., was torched — a stark reminder that antisemitism is not just words in a hateful social media post but continues to be a threat with real-world consequences.
But just as last month’s Hanukkah massacre at Australia’s Bondi Beach exposed with brutal clarity the consequences of unchecked antisemitic incitement, the events in Jackson should provide further evidence that there’s a connection between violent attacks and the rampant, incendiary online rhetoric directed at Jews. History has shown that ignoring such threats risks emboldening perpetrators, normalizing antisemitism and making Jewish communities less safe.
This context makes UC Davis’s handling of American Studies professor Jemma DeCristo’s now-deleted Oct. 10, 2023, social media post on X all the more alarming.
Just three days after Hamas’ deadly rampage that killed at least 1,219 people and the kidnapping of 251 hostages, DeCristo wrote that
“one group of ppl we have easy access to in the US is all these zionist journalists who spread propaganda & misinformation … they have houses w addresses, kids in school … they can fear their bosses but they should fear us more.”
Her words were accompanied by emojis of a knife, a hatchet and three drops of blood.
That post left Jewish students, faculty and families scared, isolated and angry — yet the university’s response, after a nearly two-year investigation, amounted to little more than a slap on the wrist.
Davisite 