Save the dates for The Davisphere 2023 concerts
Rebranding at UC Davis: New Mascot is the Ca$h Cow$!

Welcome to Al's Corner - "Pouring Gasoline on the Dumpster Fire of Davis Politics" - April 2023

image from

Welcome to April, fools.

Al's Corner is about free speech.  Especially speech you don't like.  If you delete posts because you don't like them, you're an asshole. 

If the shoe fits, wear it.  On your asshole.  An asshole shoe.  Do they come in pairs?

Bon Ami says, "Hasn't Scratched Yet".  At Al's Corner we say, "Haven't Moderated Yet".  Though some day we will, but it will be on principals, not politics.  Someone blatantly violates the rules.  But unlike 'Disappearing Donny', we'll let you know what you did wrong, not simply disappear your comment into a progressive void.  (Full Disclosure:  I once had to moderate one of my own comments - and yes, I did inform myself of it.)

The 'topic' for this month is "Stomping Davis, Crushing Locales".

Based on a March 30th comment in the Davis Vanguard by Dave Hart:  "I’m tired of the emotional and knee jerk negative reaction of those, particularly on the fringe of town next to proposed new development. I would love to see these locales get crushed and I’m starting to feel that way about Davis. I can’t believe I’m saying it, but yeah, we need to be stomped on for being so intransigent and narrow."

Crush & Stomp your fellow citizens, those usual suspects, so intransigent and narrow.  Oh Davis YIMBYs!

Carry on . . .



I see the 5 comment rule worked to perfection on yesterday's Vanguard candidate questions article.

Here's the only comment the entire day:

"Moderator March 31, 2023 at 7:16 am
Five comment rule is in effect for this article."

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: “Council Long Range Growth Subcommittee Recommends Council Consider Measure J Ballot Measure For November 2024” [Oavis OanGaurd, 2day]

“Peripheral development should have minimal traffic impact and emphasize non-fossil fuel transport.”

“Peripheral development should further the City’s habitat, agricultural, and open space conservation goals.”

“Peripheral development should accelerate the City’s goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2040.”

KO: "Is it just me or does anyone else think that peripheral development would only serve to worsen all of these things?"

It's not just you. It's all very Orwellian. Truth is Fiction. DG returns to his 'they have to go somewhere' BS. The world is not Davis. Not everyone has to live in Davis. There is NO F*CKING WAY building this peripheral housing is going to result in minimal traffic impact, have an effect on non-fossil fuel transport, further City habitat, agricultural, and open space conservation goals, or accelerate the City’s goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2040. This is all bullshit.

The only way to cure to our fossil footprint is a mass die-off from a severe pandemic. We tried that one and even that didn't work.


Well Alan, at least they didn't say that all this new development could save the planet.

But give em time, the push is just getting started.

Ron O

"Flock safety cameras" - never heard of them, before.

But I take it that those whose views mirror the Vanguard's wouldn't appreciate solving crimes this way:

Personally, I think we need more cameras everywhere - LOTS more.


Keith April 2, 2023 at 8:06 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I posted this comment yesterday that has been deleted.

Keith April 1, 2023 at 5:48 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

"Is Davis some kind of “center of the universe” place?"
Ask any YIMBY or YIYBY, they’ll tell you exactly that.

I followed up asking:
"Since the terms NIMBY, YIMBY and YIYBY have been determined by the Vanguard to not be derogatory why was my comment removed?"

That post got deleted too. So am I to take it that using the terms YIMBY and YIYBY are not acceptable to the Vanguard when I see the term NIMBY often used on the Vanguard? Otherwise why would my comment get removed?

Alan C. Miller

Why? Vanguard hypocritical shitiots

Ron O

"Otherwise, why would my comment get removed?"

I think we figured this out a long time ago:

The reason is that they don't give a sh*t about their own policies. Blatantly so, for that matter.

In fact, that's largely what gave birth to Al's Corner (and even the Davisite, itself).

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: “Vanguard Weekly Council Question: Week 7 – Critical Issues” [Swavis Swanguard, 2duuuy]

RO: "As I’ve often heard on here, maybe folks need to stop “fearing change”. "

As they said on That 70's Show: "BUUUUUUUURRRN!"

THEY only say 'stop fearing change' when they want US to EAT SHIT. When WE want THEM to EAT (THE CHANGE) SHIT, they don't want to swallow. The shit that is.

More Hippo Crissy.

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: “Commentary: Is This a Viable Path? If Not, Will the State Step in and Force the Issue?” [Xavis Xanguard, Xday]

Keith Olsen April 4, 2023 at 6:09 am

I have pointed out that Measure J has never actually been tested head on in the courts as to whether a required voter approval process is constitutional.
But if Measure J causes projects with potentially hundreds if not thousands of affordable units to be delayed, backed up, and ultimately defeated, will HCD or even the Attorney General step in to start challenging Measure J?

David, aren’t you a supporter of Measure J? Would you be against Measure J being tested in the courts or challenged by the state?

David Greenwald Post authorApril 4, 2023 at 6:50 am

My point is that if there isn’t a path to housing, the state will come and change things. My column can be read as a warning to the community that the current path is likely to have consequences.

Keith Olsen April 4, 2023 at 6:54 am

But you do support Measure J?

David Greenwald Post authorApril 4, 2023 at 6:56 am


Keith Olsen April 4, 2023 at 7:27 am

I thought so but when I read your articles it seems as though you are against it. Thanks for clarifying.

What a load. 'I'm against restricting new housing development, but I support Measure J'. It's almost like DG is running for City Council. Great, now I won't be able to keep food down for a month.

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: "Council Rejects Hearing Appeal on University Mall" - D.V.guard, Same Day as Today

Read that article. I was there last night. The biggest clust*rfuck of technicalities b*llshit I have ever seen at a council meeting. Clearly some on the council were frustrated by that as well.

If I am reading what happened correctly -- and I may not be -- could not a citizen who is not on the council still file that appeal in their own name, thus avoiding the issue with a council-member doing so? If that is correct, wouldn't it be pretty easy to find someone willing to do so? Heck, if someone else fills out the paperwork, I'll do it!

*Did I put those asterisks in the right place?

R Keller

AM: someone *could* have, but the deadline is now passed.

And I heard that Vaitla’s appeal was filed two days late anyway. It certainly read like someone did it in haste and didn’t do their homework—it didn’t identify any actual actionable flaws in the Planning Commission process/decision and just had some vague hand-waving in the direction of vision statements in the General Plan.

Alan C. Miller


Nevermind .. . . . . . .... .

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: "The Public and Council Needed To Know About HCD’s Letter Prior to Tuesday’s Meeting", [D.Flansplard2day]

KE say, "Roseville takes more of a partnership approach to their relationship with developer/builders."

And is a suburban, auto-centric Hellscape :-|

Ron O

Alan: Even residents of Roseville seem to have their limits:

These residents are wasting their time and energy, in the absence of something like Measure J. But you can be sure that a measure like that wouldn't even reach the ballot, in Roseville.


This didn't get posted on the Vanguard, I wonder why, did I hit home?

Keith April 8, 2023 at 7:02 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

My View: Pundits Run the Risk of Over-Analyzing the First Card of the Hand
Yeah, unlike the Vanguard that never over-analyzes.

Said no one ever.

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: "Police and District Attorneys Don’t Want to Give Up Harmful Traffic Stops – Opponents to Traffic Stop Reforms", [DavisPlansplard, twoday]

. . . it probably would be better not to use the term “safety” at all in either case. It would avoid the pitfalls of language distinctions.

You know what else would avoid the pitfills of language distinctions? Discontinuing publication of the Davis Vanguard.

This would also help avoid the spreading of crap ideas like not having police pull people over for mechanical violations.

Roberta L. Millstein

Greenwald sez, "A Lot of Things Don’t Add Up from Tuesday"

Who knew?

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: "A Lot of Things Don’t Add Up from Tuesday", [D. Danguard 4/niner]

DH say say, "A development proposal will paint a target on the back of the city council complete with ad hominem attacks that they are in the developers’ pocket, that they are corrupt, and associate the hated development with the bad judgment of how to use taxes. Hatred of the development will be used to whip up hatred of taxes measures and every other issue the council might be in favor of including whether we should celebrate Mother’s Day. It’s all a package when it comes to shooting down development. Everything the council touches will be used as fuel for the anti people. They have no scruples and no ethical limits on negative campaigning. The tax measures alone will be hard enough to secure a yes vote let alone pairing it with the third rail of peripheral development. I get where the council is at. My only wonder is why anyone serves on the city council.

Paint a target? Attacks? By who? In what form? Why? Hatred? Used by who? Judgement? "Anti People?" -- are those like "Ant People" who can carry many times their own weight? Negative campaigning with no scrooples? Ever heard of Dan Carson or his funders?

"The tax measures alone will be hard enough to secure" -- you talk as if raising taxes is a good thing, automatically, and what, we must fight those who oppose taking more of everyone's money, for what? YOUR civic cause? We all know the spigot of spending never closes. You get where the council is at? Please, explain it to us. Where is the council at? Because I think A Lot of Things Don’t Add Up from Tuesday.

We do share one common view: why would anyone serve on the council? But YOU know, because you 'get where they are at' :-|

Alan C. Miller

Would someone PLEASE tell Alan Pryor that Route 42, Yolobus, no longer goes anywhere near Covell Farm Village !!!

SUBJECT: "Village Farms Project Submitted, Attempting to Address an Acute Need for Family Housing in Davis" [Today's Slavis Slamguard]

AP Say, " . . . and Yolobus access to Woodland and Sacramento as well as to the other YoloBus stops in Davis ."

Not so much . . . (Borat)

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: "Village Farms Project Submitted, Attempting to Address an Acute Need for Family Housing in Davis" [DVGurd, some day or other]

Todd Edelman April 11, 2023 at 12:31 pm

I wish we could use the “Grammarly Remedy”, which prohibits the use of misdirecting nomenclature such as “Village Farms”, as the reality is that it would be “Former farms, not villages”. Let’s see who attacks me for being negative for that one…

Walter Shwe April 11, 2023 at 6:18 pm

Developers get to choose what they call their proposed developments. It’s just too bad you don’t like it. Become your own developer and you get to choose your own name.

Todd, the answer is "Walter Schwe". It is Walter Schwe who later attacked you for that one.

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: “TWITTER WAR: House Judiciary GOP Tweets Hearing About Manhattan DA’s ‘Pro-Crime’ Policy – DA Responds with Tweet Data Showing Opposite” [DV2day]

Walter Shwe April 12, 2023 at 4:09 am

Bragg conclusively proves that House Republicans are liars! 👍

'All Republicans are liars! Big thumbs up to my own point! Democrat = good; Republican = bad'

The world according to Shwe :-|

Roberta L. Millstein

Many of WS's comments simply lack content. "I like this" or "I don't like this," no reasons given. This one is basically the same. Who cares?

Ron O

At first, I thought Walter S. was a "bot". But since he (periodically) puts more thought into his comments, I'm now thinking that he's (at least) a product of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

And soon, "he" will be beating us all at the game of chess. (Actually, that occurred a long time ago at this point, didn't it?)

Alan C. Miller

RM: "Many of WS's comments simply lack content. "I like this" or "I don't like this," no reasons given. This one is basically the same. Who cares?"

SUBJECT: “Memphis Council Passes ‘Driving Equality’ Ordinance After the Death of Tyre Nichols ”

Walter Shwe April 13, 2023 at 3:18 am

This is an excellent ordinance despite what conservatives might think.

Why, what ever do you mean, RM ?

Roberta L. Millstein


Alan C. Miller

Fletcher the Frog had better keep an eye peeled over his shoulder. Just sayin'

Do frogs have shoulders?

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: “Sunday Commentary: As the District 3 Special Election Winds Down, Who Has the Advantage?” [Quavis Quanguard, tooday]

Walter Shwe April 16, 2023 at 5:32 am

Regarding retail in Davis, the ship has largely, but not totally, sailed on that issue. For decades Davis has essentially had a giant “you’re not wanted here” billboard on full display. Both developers and retailers got that messagee loud and clear. They have placed their bets elsewhere on neighboring cities. They have executed a strategy I call ‘everywhere but Davis.’ These retailers and restaurants include Raley’s, Costco, Walmart, Best Buy, Lowe’s, Home Depot, Crumble Cookie, Mod Pizza and Red Robin.

When I arrive in a strip mall in a new town and I see a Crumble Cookie, I think to myself, "I have arrived, I am in heaven", and when there's a Red Robin within eyeshot from the Crumble Cookie, I know I will be crowned Jesus Christ by afternoon. And as Jesus, I will save the tax base of all cities with a Raley’s, Costco, Walmart, Best Buy, Lowe’s, Home Depot, Crumble Cookie, Mod Pizza or Red Robin.

-- Jesus over & out


They have executed a strategy I call ‘everywhere but Davis.’

That's very clever.

Ron O

Regarding retail, it seems to me that some of those "complaining" about Davis not having enough retail are the same ones complaining about the retail redevelopment of University Mall.

(As a side note, I'm not sure why this comment is appearing in bold text, as I have not marked it that way.)

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: " 3 thoughts on 'US Senators Urge U.S. Dept. of Justice to Investigate Expulsion of Young, Black Tennessee State Legislators' " [Yavis Vanguard, Sonday]

Walter Shwe April 16, 2023 at 4:53 am . . . Thanks to racist Tennessee Republicans . . . #snip#

Keith Olsen April 16, 2023 at 6:53 am The five senators said, in their letter . . . #snip#

Moderator April 16, 2023 at 9:36 am

Comments closed.

WHAT the WHAT ???!!!???!!! Two people comment on an article yesterday, and 'The Mod' closes the comments? It continues to amaze me that the Davis Vanguard increasingly publishes articles on national politics, while continuing with its decades-old policy of not allowing comments on national politics. So . . . just give your biased opinion, then close comments at 9:30 a.m. ??? Seriously? How far is that spintery stick of hypocrisy shoved up the Vanguard's ass?


Alan, what's head scratching is Shwe's comment "Thanks to racist Tennessee Republicans . . ." was allowed to remain posted but almost all of my comments challenging that assertion were pulled or not posted.

What I have found is that those who think the same as the Vanguard get much more leeway in what comments are allowed than those who don't.

Alan C. Miller

KO, I read what WS referenced, and none of the comments struck me as racist. I'm happy to be shown otherwise. They were anti-Democrat, yes. They were against the bull-horn wielders, yes. And nearly the same number of legislators voted against the black-appearing persons as the white-appearing persons, sans a couple of votes. So at most those specific couple of legislators could be suspected of having a racial motive, and maybe it wasn't -- that's speculation, but nonetheless much hay was made of the color of the skin of those bounced and those not bounced -- by a couple of votes. This appears to be similar to the characterization of the words of Charlie Kirk calling for violence against transgender persons, when the actual quote was not (unless you interpreted it that way), but the characterization was made, and the characterization, not the actual words, are what made the news. This was so not-the-truth that the Sacramento Bee had to retract its quoting of the characterization-as-fact and apologize to Charlie Kirk. This seems the case here on the racism calls, yet what spooks me is that persons like WS just go along with the article's conclusions as fact. It's like Opposite World.

Do understand, I am neither defending Charlie Kirk's values nor claiming there isn't racism among legislators in the American south. My complaint is that, more and more, characterizations of words are being unquestioningly distributed as the facts themselves. That is dangerous to our society.


Here's one of my comments that weren't allowed by the powers that be at the Vanguard in response to Shwe's assertions:

Keith April 16, 2023 at 7:20 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Please outline which actual statements that were made by Republicans in the state legislature were racist. Now I said actual statements, not implied or dog whistle which the left often has to resort to in order to put forward false racist allegations.

***Now tell me what was wrong with my comment here that it deserved to get pulled?

Alan C. Miller

***Now tell me what was wrong with my comment here that it deserved to get pulled?

What's "wrong" with you comment is that it would have started a discussion that could have cast doubt on the Vanguard political viewpoint. And that is strictly verboten!


"What's "wrong" with you comment is that it would have started a discussion that could have cast doubt on the Vanguard political viewpoint. And that is strictly verboten!"

And that's the bottom line. They will make up excuses for censoring but it all comes down to political bias. Over and Out.

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: “As the District 3 Special Election Winds Down, Who Has the Advantage?”

Walter Shwe April 17, 2023 at 1:50 am

There should be a Walmart store and Amazon distribution center in every city. That’s an excellent idea for a change coming from you.

Is this guy for reals? Who wants either of those? Where would we site these two places in Davis?

Sonoma Raceway posts their events schedule online. I found it in seconds. You are simply unwilling to plan ahead. They don’t have events going on every day and time of the year.

This can't be a real person.

"coming from you", "you are simply unwilling to plan ahead" -- why the smarmy personal attacks? What's the purpose? What's the point?

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: "Commentary: A Bit of Magical Thinking on Housing", [You Know Where From, April 20, 2023

" . . . some have reacted with bemusement to the rash of projects."

Rash is a good description. A human subdivision is like a rash on the skin of the Earth. And I am not bemused. There's nothing funny about half-a-dozen giant new subdivisions around Davis. Elk Davis. Davis Orange County. [And this from a guy who is against Measure J :-| ]

I would argue that some see the writing on the wall as far as the state is concerned.

Not sure why you would have to argue about people hallucinating graffiti.

Is there really a huge demand for housing in Davis?

Are housing prices high? Does the Pope shit on a commode?

For those arguing that the current fiscal climate is a bit cloudy

For those about to rock, we salute you.

most observers believe

Who are these observers? Should they be rounded up and arrested for voyeurism? I want their names. Now.

Had we planned better, we might have used that time to enact smart housing principles and avoided the problems we now face with the housing crisis.

And if my aunt had balls, they'd be my uncle. Wait, that old ditty doesn't really work anymore, does it . . . :-|

Poll after poll has shown California voters concerned with housing affordability.

Poll after poll would also show California property owners concerned with keeping their property values high and, for those with rental properties, keeping rental prices high, and reducing regulations on landlords.

. . . a poll . . . found that 31% of respondents thought housing affordability was the most important issue California needs to address, followed up closely by homelessness at 29%.

And what most of them meant by the issue of 'homelessness' was: getting the so-called homeless away from our homes and places we used to enjoy going to. At least those of us defined by plant store owners as 'heartless' feel that way.

some will argue, the last two Measure J votes perhaps cast doubt on whether Davis voters really see housing as a huge problem.

Some who? And why are they arguing? And WTF?

While a fair point, I think it’s a bit tricky to read into the last two Measure J results.

So you set up a false, bullshit argument about how you perceive 'some' to view things, and then tear down your own bullshit perceptions. Wonderful. 'Logic is White Supremacy!' Or something. Well, no need to worry about that here.

Taken together it would seem that the voters are willing to support housing projects, but not at the expense of things like traffic.

So in other words, NOT support. Unless of course the developers can appeal to Davis' own blind stupidity of itself, and tout their projects will be good for SENIORS, CHILDREN, THE POOR, THE UNDER-PRIVILEGED, PUPPIES and/or GREEN ENERGY.

one of the flaws of a voter project is that the people allowed to vote, almost by definition, tend to be people who already live in Davis and thus already have housing.

It's not 'almost' by definition, it's actually by definition. I believe what you are saying is the 'flaw' is that the 'people of the world' don't get to vote -- instead of evil, selfish, rich Davis landowners. What you are touting as the 'cure' to the 'flaw' is called communism and it always ends in dictatorship. See world history.

it also greatly impacts the environment in increased traffic and VMT.

More houses in Davis will also increase the VMT of people leaving Davis to go elsewhere. How does this balance out? Who the fuck knows? One thing is for sure: more housing away from core destinations leads to increased VMT.

For those who claim to oppose housing for environmental reasons—how do you square those two things?

What two things?

There is a reason why the modern push for housing is linked with the notion of dense, transit-linked infill as a way to reduce VMT.

And low-density suburbs are infill? Also, the notion of usable local transit in Davis much beyond what we have -- that notion is a joke. Most especially when building low-density suburbs.

The question at this point is how the city can possibly meet its HCD/RHNA mandated housing—especially affordable housing.

I don't give a rats ass if it doesn't. Said as a card-carrying member of the Neighborhood Voices Coalition.

Here I continue to be disappointed in the response from the city.

Softball . . . too easy.

I would argue that there is a huge demand in Davis for more housing. And second, I would argue that some see the writing on the wall so far as the state is concerned.

You said that already. Earlier in the article. And no, it wasn't worth repeating. Late night, Mr. G?

There are of course those who still believe that we don’t need to worry, that the state will lose interest, that the communities will push back, but I think those voices both in Davis and across the state are in the slim minority—as backed by the polling I cited earlier.

They are called land owners and home owners. And they ain't no slim minority. Nor do they lack political power. Enough? Who knows in this weird state.

I continue to believe that getting the housing we need will require changes to how we do housing.

Tell us, how do we "do" housing now?

I also believe at some point—maybe sooner rather than later—HCD and the state will come in to take our Measure J.

Maybe so. Also quite possible the rebellion you poo poo gets the Neighborhood Voices petition passed. The tension in the room rises.

I think the city council would like to find a middle path between the current course and a course where there is no Measure J in Davis.

That and $4 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

I continue to support a “mend it, don’t end it approach.”

I continue to believe that sounds great . . . and sucks great.

I think we can get some sort of high affordable exception to be supported by the voters.

AGAIN: If you say it's good for SENIORS, CHILDREN, THE POOR, THE UNDER-PRIVILEGED, PUPPIES and/or GREEN ENERGY, Davis voters are stupid enough to pass it. Mark my words.

Something that would give the developers the certainty they need that they won’t spend millions on a project that won’t happen,

Failing to see the purpose in a Measure J that provides 'certainty' to developers. That's the same as no Measure J. Bend it, don't spend it! Lend it, don't pend it! Tend it, don't jend it! Or something.

but something that gives the community back a higher percentage of affordable housing than they are getting now.

Because that's what we are care about :-| :-| :-|

Will the voters go for it? The future of Measure J might ultimately depend on that. Stay tuned

Stay tuned my ass.

Roberta L. Millstein

I would argue that there is a huge demand in Davis for more housing.

There is amazing ambiguity in this sentence.

First, where is the demand coming from -- to what extent is it from people who would like to locate in Davis specifically (job at UCD, etc.) and couldn't find housing, perhaps having to find it elsewhere, and to what extent is it from people with Bay Area salaries who would like a place convenient to the freeway (where they can telecommute most days)? The latter sort of person filled much of the Cannery, a housing development that was heavily advertised in the SF Chronicle, among other Bay Area venues (so it is not by accident that this happened). The difference matters because it's one thing to try to house folks for Davis, to do "our share," and quite another to be a release valve for other areas of California.

Another way it is ambiguous is, does it refer to the surveys where Davisites say that housing is a concern for them? Because that can mean very different things to different people; not much can be gleaned from people checking a box on a survey (you have to actually talk to them, and who is doing that?)

And finally, does it refer to the 5 housing projects that have now been put forward as applications or pre-applications to be considered under Measure J? Because that is more of a measure of a prediction about being able to make money than anything else -- which ties back to the other two questions about what will Davisites likely approve and will this housing sell, whoever it is sold to.

As a relevant data point, I had a chance to chat with some folks from the Cannery the other day, and you can bet (regardless of where they moved from), they are very, very concerned about the prospect of the traffic brought on by 1400 housing units next door (Village Farms). Right or wrong, hypocritical or not, that's the situation.

Roberta L. Millstein

On the topic of Bay Area residents moving to this region of California, the SF Chronicle had this to say (

The fastest growing county from 2020 to 2022 was San Benito, which is just south of the Bay Area. But six of the nine next fastest growing counties were in Northern California in the areas surrounding Sacramento. These counties — Amador, Calaveras, San Joaquin, Placer, Yolo and Yuba — all grew by more than 1.5%.
From 2017 to 2021, the data show that while 20% of the new residents who moved within the U.S. to these six northern inland counties came from nearby Sacramento County, about one-third came from the Bay Area. Outside of Sacramento County, Alameda, Santa Clara and Contra Costa counties were the top three counties of origin for these residents at 11%, 6% and 5%, respectively.

People are moving inland for cheaper housing prices and they’re leaving the Bay Area to find them, said Eric McGhee, a demographics researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California. This migration pattern pre-dates the pandemic, but remote work flexibility has made it easier to move somewhere else while still keeping a Bay Area job.

“The thing that’s been changing in California a lot over the last few years is the really remarkable cost of housing in California as a whole, but also in the Bay Area in particular,” McGhee said. “That’s liable to make people want to try and figure out an arrangement somewhere cheaper, that’s preferably not too far away from where they were before if they can help it.”

Ron O

Roberta: In reference to that citation from the Chronicle, I'd point out that by purposefully accommodating those fleeing the Bay Area, the result is both more environmentally-harmful AND is the opposite of what the state had in mind regarding its housing mandates.

Ron O

"Under the plan approved Tuesday, switching from gas to electric appliances would be voluntary for homeowners for three years, after which an assessment will determine what carbon-reduction goals have been met.

During those three years, the focus will be on educating the public and incentivizing the switch to electric."

And "after" this period of "educating the public", I assume that the appliance police will be entering residences and tearing-out appliances.

Meanwhile, some will complain about the cost of housing (which is directly impacted by such conversions), while the council will simultaneously continue to promote more carbon-emitting sprawl.

And they'd do so with a straight face, seeing no irony in any of this - while simultaneously claiming that they're reducing greenhouse gasses.

Now that, my friends, takes some cahunas to try to pull that off.

Alternatively, the state may just approve rate increases for gas usage, to the point where one essentially has "no choice" but to convert.

(Of course, electric rates have also been going up, perhaps to pay for all of the wildfire lawsuits that PG&E has endured.)

At some point, it might make more sense to live "off the grid" - even in cities. But, I'm sure they'd find a way to come after that, as well.

Alan C. Miller

I have a well-digging company going deep at my house right now. They are drilling well below the water table, searching for pockets of natural gas. I hit one of those babies, and I'm set for generations, and I'll fuel the neighborhood when California turns off our gas lines.

I love natural gas. I'm starting a new organization called Anti-Cool-Davis. It's not called Warm Davis, because this idea of 'meeting our carbon goals' is a tick on an elephants back as to what GLOBAL warming is all about. Until India, China, Russia, Congo, etc. reverse their contributions, which are like the elephant's leg or trunk of global warming, I'm not going to spend ten's of thousands and tearing everything out and up to do a symbolic gesture.

To be balanced, R.Mc. says there are $20k in rebates to take care of this stuff. Well, you first, and I'll get around to in about four decades, a bit after my life expectancy. The face of Anti-Cool Davis is Alan C. Miller, and don't y'all forget it. Our motto: "I love natural gas; after all, it's natural!"

Alan C. Miller

Our secondary motto, to paraphrase/quote a friend, "The Davis City Council will Take My Gas Stove when they Take it Out of My Cold Dead Hands !!!"

Ron O

Alan: Is "natural" gas the same thing as "organic" gas?

Never mind - don't answer that, as I think it would lead to a different subject.


"At some point, it might make more sense to live "off the grid" - even in cities."

At some point Californians might come to their senses and vote out Democrats.

I can hope...


I wonder how many of the people pushing this electric appliance conversion have gas appliances now and will have to convert at a huge cost, especially if their appliances aren't wired for 220?

What's the over/under bet?

Ron O

Some truly insane comments on the Vanguard today, along with heavy-handed moderation (not posting comments, with no explanation, no relationship to policy, and no relationship to reality).

Worse than usual.

That's apparently what happens when:

1) You (openly and freely) don't give a sh*t.
2) Your board doesn't give a sh*t.
3) Your advertisers don't give a sh*t.

Apparently, a lot of fear of honest discussion on there. Even more so than with their usual promotion of housing and development.

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: "Student Opinion: Incident CalFresh Reduction and Food Desertion in Los Angeles County" [2daysdavisvanguard]

I kept wondering what the heck this article was -- until I realized the author is using the wrong term. I believe the headline and correct phrase should be "Food Desertification", as in 'creating food deserts', i.e usually-urban-and-lower-income areas where you have to travel a long distance to get food or at least healthy food (my definition as I understand the term).

Food desertion, I believe, would be the act of abandoning food.

Do I have this Wright? :-|


I posted this in response to a comment by David Grennwald:

Keith April 24, 2023 at 10:51 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

" I agree with the need to turn down the temperature in the room and find common ground."

How do you find common ground when the Vanguard often suppresses views from commenters it may not agree with?

Ron O

To reinforce the point that Keith made, many of my comments regarding DJUSD and the transgender issue article were not posted. To a degree that is unprecedented even by Vanguard standards.

I didn't bother saving most of them, as I didn't expect them to remain unposted, and I don't care about the issue as much as some other issues.

However, it would be more interesting (and "honest") if an article was posted which describes what medical transitions actually consist of. It's downright gruesome (and is eligible for payment by Obamacare).

If an environment is created which encourages young people to go down that path, it's "problematic" (to employ a word that's so often used by some).

The amount of vitriol and purposeful misrepresentation of others displayed by some commenters in that Vanguard article was also unprecedented. The only possible reason I can see for that is that they felt unnecessarily threatened.


"The amount of vitriol and purposeful misrepresentation of others displayed by some commenters in that Vanguard article was also unprecedented. The only possible reason I can see for that is that they felt unnecessarily threatened."

What I don't understand Ron is why the name calling and personal attacks are allowed in the first place when it's against Vanguard comment rules. Then when someone is attacked and they try to respond their comments or rebuttals often aren't allowed. If the responses somehow broke comment rules then the initial attacks shouldn't have been posted in the first place.

Ron O

Keith: The "reason" it's allowed is because they (Don Shor, and David Greenwald) don't care about the Vanguard's own rules. At this point, they don't even try to deny that.

And neither does the Vanguard's board.

This is the reason that so many hate the Vanguard, and so few bother to comment on there. In other words, it's not simply due to the one-sided presentation of issues.

Alan C. Miller

Yeah, Ron & Keith. To paraphrase Marjorie Taylor-Greene from a few days ago:

"The Vanguard sucks! . . . and everybody knows it" :-|

Ron O

It does suck, Alan.

Perhaps that's what happens when you try to turn a blog into a business.

Fortunately, there's now the Davisite - which welcomes a broader range of views (with respect). And isn't trying to create a business out of it.

Alan C. Miller

I can't even imagine deleting people's postings for expressing their views. To feel the need to protect people from other people's views, or even to believe you have the power to do that, what sort of mental illness is that? I have yet to delete a single post (sans one of my own). I'm sure it will happen some day, but it will be based on the written guidelines, which are based on principles, not politics or deteriorated mental function.

But hey, the Vanguard is sponsored by Fletcher the Frog!

No conflict of lily pads there :-|


" it will be based on the written guidelines, which are based on principles, not politics"

I can't tell you how many times I've emailed David Greenwald or posted on the site and asked that they moderate according to their posted rules and not their political biases.


Here's another perfect example of the biased Vanguard moderation.

Walter Shwe April 26, 2023 at 4:58 am
This demonstrates that a certain group with axes to grind enjoys lying about San Francisco violent crime. It’s not Democrats that have engaged in this reprehensible practice

Keith April 26, 2023 at 6:50 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

It’s Democrats and Democrat policies that have turned SF into the cesspool that it is now.

So what's wrong with my response that has since been deleted? What Vanguard rules were broken? It all comes down to bias.


More comments deleted, I guess they think only their comments count.

“you are carrying and forwarding a very alt-right message from a group that has close connections with Ron DeSantis, The Proud Boys, Libs of Tik Tock, etc.”

Oh no, not Ron DeSantis.

I’ve never heard of the Proud Boys doing a story hour like the “Drag Queen Story Hour” like we’re seeing pop up everywhere.


And this:

Don Shor April 27, 2023 at 2:45 pm
From what I’ve seen (periodically watching some of the conservative commentators on YouTube), “Libs of Tik-Tok” is not an anti-gay site.
You must be kidding me. Do some research before you post next time.

My response which was deleted by the moderator, and who is the moderator? One guess.

Keith April 27, 2023 at 3:53 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I did some research and according to its founder Wikipedia is not to be trusted:

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”

Ron O

Keith: Below is my response to Don, in regard to that same comment from him. (By the way, I could do without the admonishment from him, as it's usually incumbent upon the commenter to put forth references, not the reader. Along those same lines, how many people "research" what other people claim?)

I challenge anyone (including Don) to describe how my comment below supposedly broke Vanguard commenting policy. Or how yours did.

(To Don:) "No – I wasn’t kidding, though I’ve never looked up any information about them.

A description on Wiki shouldn’t necessarily be taken as a factual definition. But from their activities listed (just skimmed though them), it appears to be more of a site opposed to transgender medical interventions for minors, and anyone or anything that they view as encouraging it. (Especially teachers or medical personnel.) Looks like they view drag shows presented to children in a particularly-negative light.

Unfortunately, attracting some other negative aspects to it.

I previously attempted to post a link on here regarding a hospital in Tennessee (in regard to medical interventions for minors) which was quite disturbing, but it wasn’t allowed.

Other than the negative aspects that it attracts, I’m thinking that “Libs of Tik-Tok” might actually be shedding some light on the situation. There’s a reason this is getting attention (along with reactions one way or another).

Ultimately, videos speak for themselves. The only thing I’ve seen are videos that have been posted by the creators themselves, but “gathered and rebroadcasted” via Libs (through conservative commentators). And again, some of them actually are disturbing (or amusing, or both)."


Yes Ron, it's hard to have a fair discussion when the person you're debating with has the power to censor your comments.


Two knife wielding murders in Davis parks a few days apart, I doubt that they're not connected.


Here's yet another comment that wasn't allowed on the Vanguard even though it broke no rules:

"Go rail at them. I’m not here for it."

There's railing occurring on both sides of this issue, I feel some of the remarks directed at Beth Bourne are uncalled for and over the top.

Ron O

Keith: "There's railing occurring on both sides of this issue, I feel some of the remarks directed at Beth Bourne are uncalled for and over the top."

There's really only "railing" occurring regarding those who feel unnecessarily (and extremely) defensive regarding the issue. Not sure where that's coming from.


Ron, apparently one can now have their Vanguard comment deleted if in the opinion of the moderator it was not relevant or argumentative.

Talk about a subjective moving target. That would include a very high number of current comments.

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: “My View: Really? The DA Is Considering the Death Penalty in the Serial Killer Case?” [TODAY! DVG]

DG: "More and more we see that many young people can in fact turn a corner and end up doing a lot of good."

Most of us start with how best to protect the public, then consider such notions. You do the opposite.

DG: "It can never erase the past and many live with the specter of their crimes for the rest of their lives."

And some create new memories. I'm more concerned with our ability to erase their future, so additional innocent futures are not erased.

DG: "But that is a question for another day and debate for another time."

Disingenuous lie. Let me translate your statement for you: "This was my main point, and I won't let anyone challenge it because I'm afraid of dissenting opinions, so I'll declare that debate for another time, when in reality we'll just delete opposing comments on that topic."

DG: "The sooner the DA gets the death penalty off the table, the sooner we can get back to honoring the lives of David Breaux and Karim Najm."

OK, not a Boomer

DG: "I am increasingly against LWOP"

Increasingly? Seems to me you were fully there a long time ago.


Alan M (in response to David Greenwald): "Most of us start with how best to protect the public, then consider such notions. You do the opposite."

That's for sure.

By the way, we need a new (May) installment of Al's Corner.

Walter Shwe

I see a clear pattern of many of the comments here being nothing more than pity parties about the Davis Vanguard and even people like me. This is truly pathetic.


Hi Walter, welcome to a site where everyone can discuss issues on even ground where the rules are applied equally without needless over moderation regardless of your political affiliations.

Ron O

Glad to see Walter commenting on here. I submitted a comment on the Vanguard "inviting" him to do so, since he mentioned this site. (However, it appears that the comment was not posted.)

"Al's Corner" is not limited to bitching about the Vanguard, though that has predominated. And the reason for that is primarily due to the way that the Vanguard is moderated.

Alan C. Miller

Good morning Mr. Shwe. I see a clear pattern of many of the comments made on the Vanguard being nothing more than . . . :-| :-| :-|

Here at Al's Corner we are all about the big rave pity parties re: the Davis Vanguard, and even about people like you (or so you say).

My name is Alan Miller. I am truly pathetic, and may I add: heartless (somebody added that, who was it . . . ?). I sell moss and fungi and live near Woodland in a fake barn. I moderate a blog.

I have never deleted a comment. Not once. Well, except one of my own.

The one rule we have here is: never tell people they live in Woodland. Other than that, everything is fair game.

And remember, I live in Woodland. Keith lives in Woodland. Ron lives in Woodland. Colin lives in Woodland. Todd lives in Woodland. Roberta lives in Woodland. David lives in Woodland. Don lives in Woodland. Highbeam lives in Woodland. The mayor of Davis lives in:

Shout it to the mountaintops, people!!!! WOOD LAND

But never tells anyones heres they lives be in Woodland.

You have been cursed, Mr. Shwe. Simply by allowing yourself to post here, just once, you are forever doomed by the evil witch of reality (may a house fall on her sister!) You are now on a three-year path, upon the end of which, come 2026, you will be slightly more conservative. Perish the thought :-|

Should you or any of your progressive friends fail to grasp reality by 2026, Al's Corner will disavow any knowledge of your existence, and delete all your posts.

This blog will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, Walter.

Ron O

Alan: I figured that everyone on your list lives in (or has a connection to) a McMansion just outside of Davis city limits, adjacent to a golf course.

Or, in El Macero, Dixon, etc.

But none of those possibilities are the focus of articles (on here, or on the Vanguard). Or more accurately, should NOT be.

It never was about that, nor was it about disclosure. Nor should anyone be fooled into thinking that disclosure is the actual goal of those making such comments.

Of course, if the Vanguard adhered to its own commenting policy, the Davisite might never have been created.

One other difference: The Vanguard is a business, the Davisite is not.

Colin Walsh

I was born in Woodland.

Ron O

May 7, 2023 at 2:26 pm
The two speakers are not credible. Colin Wright’s assertions have already been discredited and Allie Snyder is a representative of Moms for Liberty – a far right political activist group, funded by far right donors, that is working to elect far right representatives. There is no other information about Allie Snyder that I can find. I’m not sure she even lives in Davis.

(Apparently, personal attacks and attempts to dox are still encouraged on the Vanguard. Several examples in that article, actually.)

Alan C. Miller

"Colin Wright’s assertions have already been discredited and Allie Snyder is a representative of Moms for Liberty – a far right political activist group, funded by far right donors, that is working to elect far right representatives."

RO: The doxxing was creepy enough, but not what disturbed me the most. What disturbed me was the one-truth single-mindedness, or should I say simple-mindedness. i.e.:

1) 'The speaker's assertions were discredited' - and that's that, apparently! Good enough for SC. And SC's um . . . followers?

2) MFL is . . . label as 'far right', demonization complete. No nuance. Mission complete.

True believers and their tiny tiny brains.

Alan C. Miller

Yes, Colin was born in Woodland. Be where were you conceived ?

Ron O

Alan: I agree. A substantial portion of the Vanguard's arguments (including those from its supporters) consist of attacking the credibility of the source, whether it's an individual or organization.

Rather than actually engaging in debate of the issue(s).

Maybe that's enough for some people, but I'm becoming less-and-less impressed by this form of non-debate.

Ron O

Nordstrom Rack is coming to University Mall. Great news.

Ron O

Another comment that the Vanguard hasn't posted, while allowing another (subsequent) comment from the moderator himself to be posted.

Ron O. May 13, 2023 at 6:59 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

This statement is not based on reality: “They’re living somewhere, already, and there’s no reason to assume they’d move out of wherever they’re living”

What part of that is not based upon reality? It’s a factual statement. You’re claiming that they don’t already live “somewhere”?

Interestingly-enough, I’m reasonably sure that a certain UCD professor (who is essentially a YIMBY leader) lives in a more-expensive locale than Davis (San Francisco), and commutes to Davis via Amtrak. The reason being that he seemingly talks about this commute, in his public comments.

But as far as the points you brought up:

1. It was my suggestion to first start with that very point, assuming that the goal is for the city to provide housing for new faculty and staff. First, start with the net, projected increase going forward. (This would have to account for those leaving, as well.) I have yet to see any numbers regarding that.

2. Relevance?

3. This is (no doubt) one of the most incorrect assumptions you’ve made. Once newcomers have made their choice (e.g., comparing what’s already available in Davis vs. surrounding cities), that choice is not easily (or inexpensively) “undone”. Some may do so, but conversely – some may move out of the city to nearby cities as well. Again, you’d need to project the net projected change, regarding this. And once again, it would be an estimate – though you can probably compare the number of people who moved from nearby areas to The Cannery, to start with. And then determine if they actually are staff/faculty, at UCD.

Your entire assumption here is also dependent upon folks ignoring pre-existing housing, in favor of something “new”. Mello Roos also plays a factor regarding such decisions.

Alan C. Miller

SUBJECT: “Commentary: Video Release Does Not Quell Calls for Justice in Killing of Banko Brown” [DVG Today]

Walter Shwe May 19, 2023 at 9:05 am

DA Jenkins, the Chronicle, Senator Wiener and Supervisor Peskin must have either not all seen the same video footage or Jenkins’ definition of self-defense varies significantly from the commonly accepted definition.
Log in to Reply ↓
Ron Oertel May 19, 2023 at 9:39 am

I was surprised as well, when I watched the video. I saw no real justification for it, OR for the physical confrontation prior to the actual shooting. In fact, I understood that guards (these days) are pretty much instructed to NOT engage in such confrontations – partly because of results like this.

May 19th, 2023, a day that will live on in infamy: Walter Shwe and Ron Oertel agree on something

Alan C. Miller

Exciting comment day at the Davis Vanguard (Monday 5/22). Thrilling.

Maybe David Greenwald should consider writing an article on HOUSING to generate some interest :-|

Alan C. Miller

Moderator May 22, 2023 at 12:33 pm

Five comment rule is in effect.

Oooooo scary! Live by the moderator. Die by the moderator.

Kelvin Williams

Will there be a new June 2023 Al's Corner post sometime soon? And if so, may I humbly suggest, for somewhere in the lead-in, an applicable line by a folk hero: "This town needs an enema."

Maybe even an affordable, walkable, multi-family enema.

In other news, thank you for the gas on the dumpster fire. I can only read so much about local politics without going crazy, and it looks like I'm in good company there.

Ron O

Here's some of what's been allowed to be posted in response to comments I've made on the Vanguard, over the past few days:

Richard McCann: "Sometimes Ron O argues for market mechanisms to work and then other times he argues for restricting supply or demand to manipulate market prices to control the growth that interferes with his drive south down Poleline."

(This is what I'd label as a "lie", from someone appointed to a city commission no less. So far, I haven't even bothered to post a response on the Vanguard, nor do I know if they'd allow me to.)

Walter Shwe: "Ron refuses to believe anything that doesn’t align with his completely rigid No Housing Anywhere view with the exception of his own house. He refuses to believe any objective statistics or new media reports, just his own completely subjective anecdotes and guesses."

(My response was totally deleted, in that it's not even retrievable. And since I didn't expect it to be deleted, I didn't save it this time. All I said was to "let me know when you have any objective statistics", and that those statistics require analysis.)

Walter Shwe May 19, 2023 at 4:56 pm
"A troll is Internet slang for a person who intentionally tries to instigate conflict, hostility, or arguments in an online social community. Platforms targeted by trolls can include the comment sections of YouTube, forums, or chat rooms.

(When I repeated Walter's quote a couple of days later in response to something that Walter said to someone else, it was not posted.)

Make of this what you will. In my opinion, this is why the Vanguard is despised. And a reason that I will never set foot in The Redwood Barn again. It actually has nothing to do with political views or arguments - it's the way that they treat those whom they don't agree with.

Again, let me repeat - the folks running the Vanguard are only interested in "slash-and-burn" politics. They're not actually interested in debate. Anyone contributing money or anything else to them is supporting that approach.

By the way, when are they going to post their "non-profit" tax returns for the most recent years?

This is the key difference between the Vanguard, and the Davisite. The Davisite would never allow these type of comments, much less delete the response to them. Well, that - plus (unlike the Vanguard), the Davisite is not a business.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)