Welcome to Al's Corner - A Place to Comment on Local Stuff - #1
May 17, 2022
WHEN YOU COMMENT: 1) Post the Subject clearly; 2) Reference the source, article title, and date if commenting on an article from another source; 3) If you are quoting a comment from another source, further note the comment author and time of posting. On the rare occasions I mod a comment, I'll email the commenter, explain why, and the commenter can repost. I will NOT disappear your comment, tell you to figure it out yourself, and then give you advice on when to plant your azaleas.
NOTE 1: Comments are published when I get around to it! You are not being censored; rather, I have other priorities besides your comment. This also means it won't be a real-time conversation, so post accordingly. NOTE 2: If someone posts something insensitive/offensive and not directed at an individual, they are their own worst enemy and can hang themselves with the noose of their own words in full view of God and their fellow human beings.
I'll refresh with a new Al's Corner space once-a-week-ish, or as needed when things get cluttered. Enjoy expressing yourself at Al's corner. It'll be a gas.
-- Al, of Al's Corner (gasoline tanker not included)
Welcome aboard, Alan! Great idea for a regular feature, and I hope to see people use it. I plan to!
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | May 17, 2022 at 01:20 PM
Thanks Alan. It 's so refreshing having a venue to comment on where one's expressions aren't judged according to some moderator's bias as we are more and more finding in today's political climate both nationally and locally to Davis.
Posted by: Keith | May 17, 2022 at 01:31 PM
Looks interesting. Will this be part of Davisite or separate from it?
Posted by: George | May 17, 2022 at 02:21 PM
Noise Ordinance/ Aroyo Park
The Parks Commission is revisiting the Zio Track yet again and their appears to be a stealth reinterpretation of the Noise ordinance by the city consultant. For back ground, a year ago the same consultants submitted a report that mis stated the noice ordinance. After that was caught city staff attempted to pass a new version of the noise ordinance without any commission review. It was pulled from the council agenda though before it was considered. Something weird is going on here.
Posted by: Colin Walsh | May 17, 2022 at 02:47 PM
SUBJECT: Response to George
Al's Corner, as currently conceived, is just what you see. It's a "space" (article) in the Davisite - where you can comment on any Davis subject, or anything in local media. I'll refresh it when it gets cluttered with a #2 . . . then a #3.
In future, Al's Corner could have it's own Website platform, eclipsing the Davisite, Davis Vanguard and the Davis Enterprise, with Alan Miller as the Mighty King, ruling the City of Davis with an iron yet gentle hand, having taken over and replaced the City Council with an Al-tatorship, after the glorious "War of the Alan's" in which Alan Miller and his Army of Mushroom Heads defeated the mighty armies of Alan Hirsch and Alan Pryor, and installing the Gleaming Golden Palace of Alan Miller on the site formerly known as Trackside. The palace, of course, being three stories in height, not four.
Or Al's Corner may just remain an article space in the Davisite.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 17, 2022 at 04:45 PM
SUBJECT: Noise Ordinance/ Arroyo Park (Colin Walsh)
I agree, that whole Arroyo Park zip line thing is just plain weird. I sometimes think the City of Davis hates it's former mayors and wants to torture them. I mean, they OK'd that horrific Mission-style-on-steroids thing on B Street right behind Maynard Skinner's place, obscuring his east-facing view with a 60-foot wall, now Krovoza has 24/7 sound-torture "ziiiip-ziiiip-zeeeeeeeeeeee!!!" of metal-on-metal and they try to -- not fix the problem -- but change the ordinance??? All you have to do is go to Arroyo Park and realize anyone nearby the Zip Line is going to hear this horrific noise for the rest of the their natural born lives. Common sense solution -- don't put it next to homes, eh, huh? No, do a noise study. Uh, huh. Who is running the asylum? Respect former Davis mayors!!!
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 17, 2022 at 05:04 PM
SUBJECT: Firearm-Related Homicides Reach an Unprecedented Level in the 21st Century
COMMENT: Scott Steward May 17, 2022 at 3:53 pm
LINK: https://www.davisvanguard.org/2022/05/firearm-related-homicides-reach-an-unprecedented-level-in-the-21st-century/#comment-465747
"More likely we are going to experience a Rittenhouse incident, where an out of state youth is convinced his (most likely a him/he) calling is to act as a martyr for the white nationalist cause and take out some concentration of black folks at a store or activists at a rally."
Have you ever seen an interview with Kyle Rittenhouse? To say you are mischaracterizing him is an understatement. Where did you get this idea about Rittenhouse? -- corporate left-wing media, I'm guessing . . .
"I continue to have faith that we will succeed in holding all forms of hate proselytizing accountable"
Definitely need to get the ACLU to stop Nazis from marching! Some of you will get that comment.
"We need dialogue between Law Enforcement, Black Lives Matter, PTA members, Yolo People Power, Church and Chamber leaders and a few others willing to focus on what to do about a mass shooter."
. . . and the local chapter of the N.R.A., and the Davis College Republicans . . .
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 17, 2022 at 05:30 PM
The Yes on H campaign has dumped thousands of dollars into some howlers of campaign mailers, but the one I received today made me laugh out loud. The Davis City Council is "fiercely opinionated, independently-minded, and often disagree"? OMG, they really are going after the low information voters, aren't they -- the ones who don't pay attention to what the City Council does? Because anyone who does watch knows that almost every single vote is unanimous, with a very rare dissent. I am also amused at the obviously staged photo of Mayor Partida arguing with Councilmember Carson, and further amused by the Yes campaigns belief that Partida and Carson would make DiSC more popular (especially Carson).
The flyer also continues the tradition of: 1) Not saying what the project is and 2) Not saying the name of the project (The Project Who Shall Not Be Named). All of their mailers are like this.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | May 17, 2022 at 05:56 PM
NO on CARSON
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 17, 2022 at 06:56 PM
10 comments already on Al's Corner. By golly I think Al's Corner already has more comments today than the Davis Vanguard.
Posted by: Keith | May 17, 2022 at 09:19 PM
If you live in a location where you can vote on these issues please:
Vote yes to recall Chesa Boudin
Vote yes to recall George Gascon
Vote No on Measure H
Posted by: Keith | May 17, 2022 at 09:27 PM
"By golly I think Al's Corner already has more comments today than the Davis Vanguard."
And most of them are from that guy at the Corner, Al ! Just as prolific as when he used to post on the Vanguard, before being BANNED like a copy of "The Art of the Deal" at a Davis College Democrats meeting.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 17, 2022 at 09:40 PM
You should have used this graphic which more directly references the Davis anti-egalitarian anachronistic bicycle.
https://alscorner.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/8a734b_bd358f8c3c95486c862ac00d794304df.jpg
Posted by: Tuvia ben Avrham Aharon HaCohen ve Sima Rivka bat Ze'ev HaCohen | May 17, 2022 at 11:30 PM
Quote from "AL", above:
"Just as prolific as when he used to post on the Vanguard, before being BANNED like a copy of "The Art of the Deal" at a Davis College Democrats meeting."
Seems to me that the Davis College Democrats would normally support a real-estate developer as the president of the U.S.
Posted by: Ron O | May 18, 2022 at 07:43 AM
SUBJECT: DV Article "Davis City Council Votes Unanimously to Adopt Military Equipment Ordinance"
Amazing that in the whole article it describes "this equipment" and "these items" but never describes what this "military equipment" is.
It's like when we're told that someone said something 'racist' but are never told what they said.
Kinda sorta.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 18, 2022 at 01:32 PM
Ron Glick thinks that it was OK for Councilmember Carson to take 3 minutes of Council time to talk about his developer-funded lawsuit against Davis citizens, because, Ron says, the Chair of the No campaign said mean things about Councilmember Carson: https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/letters/letter-open-letter-by-six-former-mayors/
Never mind that Councilmember Carson is supposed to represent citizens of Davis and support democracy, not sue them for their speech. Never mind that Commissioners are told *repeatedly* not to respond to public comment about items that are not on the agenda -- that it is a violation of the Brown Act to do so. Never mind that being criticized, even harshly, no matter how hard it is to hear, is part of what one accepts when one runs for public office.
What Ron Glick really seems to have missed is that the whole thing was staged. Dan Ramos showed up to give public comment, as did a few other DiSC supporters, surely not each independently choosing to do so when DiSC was not on the agenda. Councilmember Carson's remarks were clearly prepared, not off the cuff. So the "responding to the attacks" excuse was just a convenient excuse. He would have made his remarks anyway. I encourage anyone who thinks otherwise to watch the video recording of the meeting themselves.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | May 18, 2022 at 04:01 PM
SUBJECT: NO on CARSON
Yeah, RLM, mystery to me where RG is coming from on this one. Been saying similar 'defense of Carson' comments in the Vanguard for weeks, way to tie one's boat to a sinking ship. So six former mayors jointly authored/signed letter of concern, and they aren't worried about the 'decency' ? Or something ? That last paragraph actually seems to insinuate Carson isn't being decent -- as I read it, and then RG mentions the accusations of Carson being a bully, in his letter ???!!! Poor tactic as it reiterates the bully part. The letter is a bit of a backfire.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 18, 2022 at 04:47 PM
Interesting...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-waste-giant-Recology-made-millions-more-in-17177504.php
and they have a branch office right here in Tank Town.
Posted by: Rod Robinson | May 18, 2022 at 05:57 PM
ACM, good points -- I hadn't thought of all that. It's amazing that he made such a hash of it with so few words.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | May 18, 2022 at 08:07 PM
There's a very well-written article in the Davis Vanguard (that in itself should be news :-| ) this morning about the disturbing unraveling of the UC Davis Athletics program by a Paul Medved. The title is: "Guest Commentary: Danger – Bridge Out Ahead!". Slams both Katehi and May. A must read.
"Yet, because only 11% of the student body voted (falling short of the 20% needed to become “official”), campus administration declared victory. Seriously, right?" - Sounds grotesquely similar to Carson declaring victory in the ballot language lawsuit when getting a judicial pass on a tiny fraction of what he sued over. The spin sucks on campus; the spin sucks off campus.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 19, 2022 at 07:40 AM
Subject: Glick Letter to the DE
25 years ago Ron introduced me to Julia Butterfly Hill shortly after she had been living in a Redwood tree for a more than a year. I was able to interview her over her satellite phone while she was in the tree. It was one of the coolest things I got to do while I was running the Flatlander and I really appreciate Ron making that happen.
Today, I don't understand his attack on the 6 mayors who wrote about Carson's actions. I found the letter from the Mayors to focus on Carson specific actions rather than on Carson personally and ultimately it urge Carson to do better rather than suggesting he should resign, be recalled or something else extreme.
Ron seems to suggest there is some comparison of the president breaking actions speaking from the dais as an elected official and a member of the public speaking in public comment but these are 2 totally different things. Ron also overlooks Carson suing members of the public and leading a campaign on behalf of a developer all things the mayors called out. Indeed, the very actions that lead someone to call Carson a "Bully and a thug."
I find Glick's defense of Carson's bad behavior quite disturbing. He is defending the powerful in their attack on regular citizens of Davis. He is defending special interests in their campaign to ram through an environmentally questionable project. Rolling back the clock, it as as if he instead of recruiting Julia Butterfly, to join the efforts to save the redwoods Glick wrote a letter complaining that the activists were to mean to Charles Hurwitz while he tried to clear cut the redwoods.
Posted by: Colin Walsh | May 20, 2022 at 04:02 AM
Subject: Walsh Comments on Glick Comments
Much agree. First on Julia Butterfly Hill. I went to Sonoma County to hear her speak but actually went to recruit her to speak at the Whole Earth Festival. I was expecting a spaced-out hippie tree-sitter. Instead I found her one of the most articulate, level-headed and inspiring persons I had ever met. She came to Whole Earth, and I believe liked it so much she returned the next year (if memory serves, and sometimes it does not).
As for Glick's defense of Carson, that just puzzles me.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 20, 2022 at 08:09 AM
SUBJECT: Davis Vanguard Moderator Comment Today in article "Commentary: Measure J Turns Land Use into Political Campaigns"
COMMENT (Part 1): "If you are not registering with your First Name and Last Name, your comment will remain in pending and will not post."
What else will keep your comment from posting:
• The moderator doesn't like you.
• The moderator doesn't like your comment's political viewpoint.
• The moderator doesn't like that you've used humor to make a political point.
• The moderator fails to grasp that you've used humor to make a political point.
• The moderator perceives that you've insulted someone, even though that someone gets away with insulting people all the time and to a greater degree.
• You are banned from the Davis Vanguard and can't post there to save your life. [Not that posting there would save your life. In fact not posting there may save your life.]
• All of the Above
Comment (Part 2): "For any questions or problems please contact the site admin at info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org."
And if you get results such as I have gotten, he'll either not answer, or tell you if you can't figure it out yourself, he can't help you.
Happy commenting everyone!!!
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 20, 2022 at 11:54 AM
Alan M: "If you are not registering with your First Name and Last Name, your comment will remain in pending and will not post."
There's some ongoing suspicions that some on the Vanguard have not been using their *real* names in the first place.
Though now that so few comment on there, the possibility of this is also limited, or at least diminishing.
Posted by: Ron O | May 20, 2022 at 02:23 PM
ACM, you forgot:
• Your comments are too good at making David look foolish and so I am taking the slightest excuse I can find to ban you, even when people still commenting have done things that are far more egregious.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | May 20, 2022 at 03:09 PM
To be clear, I have not been banned (at least I wasn't the last time I checked), but I know two people who my above comment applies to.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | May 20, 2022 at 03:10 PM
SUBJECT: R.M. said, "Your comments are too good at making David look foolish and so I am taking the slightest excuse I can find to ban you, even when people still commenting have done things that are far more egregious."
My response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVG1q49yPaY
I'm sure the several hundred other people who have noticed this also know nothing, see nothing.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 20, 2022 at 03:28 PM
🤣
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | May 20, 2022 at 04:39 PM
Its simple, if the mayors had also condemned Pryor I would have had no problem but they completely overlook the provocation. The idea that a Councilmember can be personally attacked but can't respond is in my mind unfair. To demand strict adherence to the Brown Act and the rules under such circumstances is playing beat the devil where you attack someone and then attack them for defending themselves. Meanwhile you are all showing your own biases because you say not a single word about the Chairman of the No on H Committees rhetoric or tactics. I guess you are cool with that. Free Speech for me but not for thee.
P.S, Comparing Dan Carson to Charles Hurwitz? Hurwitz plundered thousands of acres of old growth redwoods. Carson went all in on a 100 acre business park.
Posted by: ron glick | May 21, 2022 at 08:48 AM
I just watched the meeting in question because Colin chided me for not doing so and basing my letter on published accounts. As a result I feel I have been duly punished by watching such an insufferable exercise in free speech.
Anyway I stand by my letter. In my opinion, what Carson did is unusual but it doesn't rise to the level of outrage that has been expressed about his break from traditional protocol. But hey its election season.
I do however find it ironic that so many supporters of Measure J now have so many problems with its unintended consequences. To that I would say beware of what you ask for.
Posted by: Ron Glick | May 21, 2022 at 12:17 PM
RG, thanks for your replies, but you still haven't addressed my original point. Now that you have watched the meeting in question, surely you can see that this whole thing was planned (Yes commenters followed Carson's obviously prepared remarks) and so Carson would have done that whether or not AP had called him a bully and a thug. AP gave him a convenient excuse to violate the Brown Act but it's a completely transparent excuse.
As for not being criticized during a meeting, it is in fact part of being an elected representative. If it's the particular words that AP used that you object to, then I would like to see the rules that the Council has that disallow such words. I'd be willing to bet that they can't disallow them without running afoul of the First Amendment. And I'd also be willing to bet that AP isn't the only one who sees a lawsuit from a sitting Councilmember against citizens who disagree with him as a bullying move. (Thug maybe not so much -- but is AP not within his rights to say that if that's how he sees things?) In fact, many people have condemned his actions, including quite a number of people who had been planning on voting "Yes" on the project. It really doesn't speak well for the developer or Councilmember Carson that they thought that this is how we do politics in Davis, and I hope that Davis voters give them a resounding response that says, no, this is not how we do politics in Davis.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | May 21, 2022 at 05:45 PM
I never objected to anybody's free speech I only lamented the low level of discourse that speech has reached in annexation campaigns. As for Carson violating the letter if not the tenor of the law I think everyone is making a much bigger deal out of it than is warranted whether his remarks were prepared or not. But I get it. Making hay with whatever you have is campaign standard operating procedure. A number of people talked about Measure H in public comment but only Carson gets called out by the mayors. So to me it looks like the Mayors were saying its okay to talk that way, personally attacking a sitting member, but its not okay for that member to respond. I don't think that is fair.
Posted by: Ron Glick | May 21, 2022 at 06:04 PM
Response to RG on Carson:
Not sure what the Charles Hurwitz reference is about.
"if the mayors had also condemned Pryor I would have had no problem but they completely overlook the provocation."
Pryor isn't a City Councilmember.
"The idea that a Councilmember can be personally attacked but can't respond is in my mind unfair."
Which is relevant, how? Those is the rules. But I've rarely if ever seen a City Councilmember attacked like that. Perhaps don't do egregious, outrageous, obscene things and you won't get verbally attacked by the public. Legal? I'm sure the City attorney would agree. But I don't want local elected officials that directly in the pockets of local developers. Sure he can say he's in favor of DiSC, that's his right. But what a tarnished thing to do to be head of the campaign, and what a bad move by the Yessies. Honestly, I may never have noticed, had he not sued over the ballot language, because . . . the developers couldn't :-| Yeah, OK, so that's the frosting on the cake. But to tell it like it is, I don't even see the cake, there is so much damn frosting.
"To demand strict adherence to the Brown Act and the rules under such circumstances . . . "
Let's have sloppy adherence and make an exception for Carson? Because he was verbally attacked as a public official? Methinks not.
" . . . is playing beat the devil where you attack someone and then attack them for defending themselves."
Again, try not doing obnoxious things as an elected official.
"Meanwhile you are all showing your own biases because you say not a single word about the Chairman of the No on H Committees rhetoric or tactics."
They aren't an elected official. So what do I care? AP don't be elected to represent people.
"I guess you are cool with that."
I'm cool with that.
"Free Speech for me but not for thee."
AP has free speech rights. Carson does too, just not in response at public comment. He can even be the head of the campaign for a development he just voted to put on the ballot, and then sue citizens over it on behalf of the developers.
He can do this under his first amendment rights . . . and . . . it is a really, really bad idea.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 21, 2022 at 06:34 PM
"AP has free speech rights. Carson does too, just not in response at public comment."
Actually not correct. According to the Institute for Local Government presentation on the Brown Act there is an exemption for limited response to public comment.
http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/brown_act_webinar__-_keeping_clerks_ahead_of_the_curve.pdf
See slide 18.
Posted by: Ron Glick | May 21, 2022 at 07:33 PM
ACM writes: AP has free speech rights. Carson does too, just not in response at public comment. He can even be the head of the campaign for a development he just voted to put on the ballot, and then sue citizens over it on behalf of the developers.
He can do this under his first amendment rights . . . and . . . it is a really, really bad idea
Exactly so.
And yes, commenters can talk about H in public comment, whereas Councilmembers can only talk about items on the agenda. Those are the rules. When I was on the Open Space and Habitat Commission, we were explicitly instructed not to engage with comments on topics that were not on the agenda. Over and over again. It's Brown Act 101 and Carson should know better. Partida sort of seemed to know better, but she didn't really stop him. Frerichs clearly knew better but the cat was already out of the bag.
Of course, Carson's speech at the council meeting is only one piece of the bigger problem: suing citizens for their speech in clear coordination with the developer (who showed up at Council that same day), taking developer money for a lawsuit, trying to recoup lawyer's fees even though he didn't pay for them in the first place. You say that we are just speaking about this because we are No on H, but I have met many people (as I said before) who find Carson's behavior objectionable even though they are (or were) Yes on H.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | May 21, 2022 at 08:18 PM
"Those are the rules."
Those are what you think the rules are but its not the law. The law has an exemption for limited response to public comment. So all this outrage about Carson responding to public comment is based on a lack of understanding of the law. As for the rest of your grievances about Carson my letter has nothing to do with those.
The key point of my letter, that seems to keep getting missed, is that the Measure J electoral process for land annexation is flawed and has brought this community to this bitter polarized place.
Posted by: ron Glick | May 22, 2022 at 03:54 AM
I'd hardly call a three minute obviously prepared statement a "limited" response.
Land use is political everywhere, particularly in CA. Measure J/R/D did not make it so. And no one forced Coucilmember Carson, in conjunction with the developer, to file a lawsuit against the citizens he represents. That was his own choice. He brought the community to this bitter polarized place. That's the point that you seem to keep missing.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | May 22, 2022 at 08:06 AM
SUBJECT: Comment on Comment by RG on Carson
"So all this outrage about Carson responding to public comment is based on a lack of understanding of the law."
Personally I don't much care about his responding to public comment nor general yammering about Brown Act violations. I've heard "Brown Act!" wailing for decades and never seen anyone win a lawsuit over it.
"As for the rest of your grievances about Carson . . . "
Yeah, those.
" . . . my letter has nothing to do with those."
Good to know :-|
"The key point of my letter, that seems to keep getting missed, "
This isn't about your letter, it's about Carson's actions.
" . . . is that the Measure J electoral process for land annexation is flawed . . . "
On that we much agree!
" . . . and has brought this community to this bitter polarized place."
I remember the old days before Measure J. It was a pretty bitter, polarized place back then, even with an occasional initiative drive on land use. That could have brought out a similar Carson action as the head of the committee on the NO side against the land use referendum.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | May 22, 2022 at 10:24 AM
"UBJECT: Comment on Comment by RG on Carson
"So all this outrage about Carson responding to public comment is based on a lack of understanding of the law."
Personally I don't much care about his responding to public comment nor general yammering about Brown Act violations. I've heard "Brown Act!" wailing for decades and never seen anyone win a lawsuit over it."
Alan, you're right. I used to conduct meetings that were covered by the Brown Act, and the first thing we learned in training was that there were no Brown Act police. Also, few political bodies adhere to it, especially the Davis City Council. But if followed, it is an effective guideline to keep public servants on the straight and narrow. When CArson chooses to use the dais for his personal rants, he IS violating the Brown Act, and it is appropriate to hold his feet to the fire for it.
Posted by: George Galamba | May 23, 2022 at 09:46 AM