DDD -- So true. Deserves a whole article.

And "Bike Lane" ? I assume you mean "Multi-Purpose Lane":

• Bikes
• Temporary Double Parking
• Contractor Parking
• Delivery Van Parking
• Giant Leaf Pile Storage
• Garbage & Recycling Can placement on Garbage Day (and a few days later in some cases)
• Daily queue line for parents dropping off or picking students up at Davis public schools.
• Storage for chunks of asphalt chunks that have exfoliated from J Street
• Temporary Traffic Signs (Including 'Share the Road' blocking the bike lane)
• Others?

Perhaps we could discuss the effect of the road construction on Road 102, and how that "temporary" situation would compare with the "permanent" impact of Covell Village II.

Approximately 15 minute delay, a couple of days ago. People behind me were turning around after awhile.

Might also discuss how WAZE impacts this, now and into the future (in regard to accessing both I-80 and I-5). At times, lots of drivers on Road 29 waiting to get onto Road 102.

Normally, I view traffic congestion as "appropriate punishment" for those ignorant-enough to continue supporting sprawl. Until it impacts "me", at least.

Oh, and how that destruction of Lagoon Valley between Fairfield and Vacaville, for what will essentially be a new "mini-city"? (Which seems to be related to I-80 expansion, in that area.) Thanks, Vacaville leaders!

https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/industrynews/construction-starts-on-large-vacaville-housing-commercial-project/

The article mentions Genentech as an "example" of something they'd presumably like to see there, but it conveniently leaves out the fact that Vacaville can't even hold onto Genentech, itself.

https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/genentech-close-plant-near-sacramento-bay-area-18138323.php

This, my friends, is a perfect example of the reason that something like Measure J is needed - everywhere. The people who (somehow) get elected (or even run for office in the first place) are not the same type of people whom they supposedly represent. Just ask Scott Wiener's constituents, whom are given a "choice" between him or a Republican, I assume. Same with Newsom.

" what's a "rubric" ?"

I have no effin' clue.
And I refuse to put myself through the aggravation of reading DG's article to find out.

From Vanguard article: "His friends and family called him “Peanut” and described him as a loving father, brother, cousin, and friend."

https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/08/letter-the-shooting-and-killing-of-ryant-bluford/

Response from Matt T:

"Bluford was a violent, convicted child rapist who was shot by police after he attempted to fire at them with an illegally owned handgun. This was not an upstanding family man who was protesting his community’s oppression, and it’s insulting that you’d try and portray him as such."

(Aw, c'mon now - don't say that about "Peanut".)

KYE continues:

Keith Y Echols October 1, 2023 at 8:46 pm

Quote from KO: "There’s always the possibility of it being a false flag operation in order to try and discredit M4L."

KYE say: That’s such stupid load of garbage (as there is ZERO evidence that any of this is a false flag….ZERO).

That is true. There is zero evidence that it is a false flag. Because there appears to be zero evidence of who it is at all.

The culprit could also be God, the Devil, Elvis or my 3rd Grade teacher.

That is not true, because all four of those people are dead. Unless your third grade teacher is alive :-| :-| :-|

I have no way to prove it but…hey I can just say stupid things and say imply that it’s a plausibility to stupidly attempt to cloud the issue and the the likely culprits.

Go right ahead.

In the end, it is irrelevant. Once the person is caught or not, the issues will continue. It will not matter if they are aligned with the far-left extremists or the far-right extremists. They are simply a narcissistic, pitiful criminal whose life will be all but ended by their crime. Or they'll get away with it. But the issues will remain regardless, without the ability to throw blame on one side or the other for bomb threats. But discussion of the issues? Impossible, when both sides are ultra-dogmatics who's best tactics are to demonize the 'other side'.

I guarantee there is one group of people who haven't ruled out a false flag: the FBI

Because they aren't stupid

Tim Keller: "I haven’t ever heard anyone admit that they just don’t want any growth at all… (Outside of Ron O, who also advocated for population control )"

(From article - Sunday Commentary: Will the Rubric Be Helpful or Harmful to City’s Ability to Produce Housing?)

I don't know what Tim Keller is referring to. Population "control" (whatever that means) isn't even an issue in a state that's losing population on its own.

The YIMBY and state's efforts to force growth are failing, despite all of the laws that they've recently passed. And the more it fails, the less the state will be able to try to force it and the more foolish they'll look. They're already the "boys who called housing crisis", in a state where housing costs are going DOWN at this point.

Last time I checked, most attorneys and politicians don't have the skills to build housing in the first place. They can only issue decrees while standing on developer-supplied soapboxes.

But I do find it amusing that those who support the destruction of Measure J are suggesting that the city do so in order to prevent the state from doing so. Is this supposed to be a compelling argument?

I also find it amusing that they're advocating for the destruction of Measure J when there's pending proposals seeking to gain approval via Measure J. If I was someone like the owner of Covell Village Act II, I wouldn't be too happy about an effort to dismantle Measure J, when I'm simultaneously preparing a Measure J campaign.

And the city itself would look incredibly foolish if it approved a campaign to dismantle Measure J if there's also a Measure J proposal on the same ballot. In which case, it would be a simultaneous "two-fer" attempt, in which both proposals would likely be rejected. (Hilariously, at that.)

>> And "Bike Lane" ? I assume you mean "Multi-Purpose Lane": <<

(You got a lot of them, and....)

* guest parking, even over-night
* storage for anything that once blocked the travel lane... pushed safely out of the way into the bike lane
* Hiding place for police to catch stop-sign violators (yesterday motorcycle cop parked in bike lane on Cantril Drive).
* Handy place for city trucks to park if there is shade.
* Handy place for police to pull over and talk on their cell phones.
* Pretty much any yard-work company anywhere.

I see that David is continuing to try to "sell" the claim that college degrees are automatically valuable, on the same day that Biden released a plan to cancel $9 billion of the $1.7 TRILLION in student debt. (See link, below.)

Gee, what's the effect of the borrowers NOT paying this money back? Is this one of those situations where the Fed would then just "print money" to make up for it?

In any case, some prognosticators are claiming that this amount of debt will also further impact the economy and housing market, as borrowers are forced to pay back their remaining debt - which restarted this month.

Regardless, it's the wrong comparison to use (college, vs. no college). A more meaningful comparison would be to compare specific degrees, vs. specific trades. (Along with the cost to the public to subsidize each path.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/as-student-loan-payments-resume-biden-cancels-9-billion-in-debt/ar-AA1hFOK2

So, I see that the Vanguard is once again claiming that eliminating parking also eliminates cars. Onsite parking is actually a mitigation to ensure that new developments partially-offset the impacts that they bring to a city - the same as previous developments were required to do.

I grew up in a dense city (much denser than Davis), never had access to onsite parking, and yet always had a car. As do most of the residents of that city to this day, I suspect.

Now, maybe having "no parking" can theoretically be justified at the massive student dorms proposed for downtown (e.g., Hibbert's, the theater site, and ACE). Of course, we could talk about how the elimination of the businesses that previously occupied those sites is a LOSS for Davis in the first place (as well as losing the sites themselves to primarily housing), but that's a different topic.

Getting back to parking, the elimination of it in Davis will likely cause even more families (in particular) to pursue developments in Woodland, and commute to UCD. As such, I'm failing to see the "net gain" regarding any particular goal to be accomplished via the elimination of onsite parking. (Not to mention turning the entire downtown into a massive dormitory, even more than what's already been occurring.)

At what point are city leaders going to start pushing back on the state, as other cities are doing? When are they going to band-together with those cities? Or is Davis going to continue to be one of the cities which ask the state (while bent-over), "thank you sir, may I have another"?

In reference to my earlier comment above, I don't know why Richard is commenting on an issue "outside" of Davis (elsewhere in Yolo county) in the first place, as that would seem to be a "disqualifying" factor to even comment (based upon other comments he's made).

And then we have Walter, who (based upon his other comments) is opposed to Affirmative action, including a statement that whites cant "cut the mustard" regarding college enrollments (compared to Asians, I assume). (Words to that effect.).

And yet, he apparently has no problem with the governor announcing his intention to limit his selection to a black woman:

Walter Shwe October 8, 2023 at 3:16 pm
"The “best qualified” is solely in the eyes of the beholder."

And then we have David himself piping up, with the following comment:

David Greenwald
October 8, 2023 at 5:32 pm
"Couldn’t that be one qualities he was looking for in a candidate?"

To be clear, this isn't "one" of the qualities Newsom was looking for. It was an announced SELECTIVE FACTOR.

Last time I checked, skin color and gender are not "qualities" in the first place in regard to a job, nor is it legal to make selections (e.g., college or a job) based upon that. One of the functions of the EEOC is to ensure that such discrimination doesn't occur in the first place.

https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices

How politicians like Newsom and Biden can get away with this is beyond me. Perhaps no one has initiated a complaint or legal action (so far).

As I recall, one of the previously-announced candidates for this position (who wasn't selected by Newsom) but is a black woman stated that Newsom should not pick some (other) black woman as a "caretaker" of the position. Pretty sure that she was implying that SHE should be selected, instead.

This same type of thing happened when Kamala Harris was selected as VP. That is, I recall the mayor of SF implying that she should be selected (as a black woman), over the Hispanic candidate whom Newsom ultimately selected.

"San Francisco mayor blasts California Governor Gavin Newsom for not picking a black woman to take Kamala Harris' Senate seat"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9081659/Californias-1st-Latino-US-senator-brings-cheers-anger.html

How much more refreshing would it be if ALL of these candidates simply stated that no one should be selected based upon skin color or gender, and that they have NO INTEREST in being selected based upon those characteristics? Especially since they're trying to use it to their personal advantage, at the expense of some OTHER person of color? (Which I find hilarious, by the way.)

"If I'm reading between the lines correctly"

I have a hard enough time even reading the Vanguard much less trying to read between the lines.

But yes, I think your interpretation is correct.

"If I'm reading between the lines correctly . . .

I don't think you are, for the most part (e.g., regarding communism). Look at the last sentence: ". . . building housing at a rate that can allow housing prices to track with incomes."

This is a market-based argument, the same one that developers and their YIMBY friends put forth.

One problem with it (other than massive sprawl, and a failure to examine the "cause" of housing demand in a given locale in the first place) is that governments ALREADY ALLOW unfettered growth to occur in most locales, and yet - it's still not creating AFFORDABILITY for some.

Largely for the same reason that costs for groceries, utilities, gasoline and other costs have risen so much over the past few years - outpacing wage growth.

It also ignores issues such as demographic changes (e.g., the aging of the population). Those folks generally aren't looking for housing.

But the author that David is quoting puts forth even more-ridiculous arguments (against ADUs), essentially arguing that it creates a "two-tier" social structure/class system. As if those living in ADUs are not able to access social interactions in the neighborhood (which is absurd on its face).

But my guess is that most ADUs are primarily used for family members/guests of the primary home in the first place, and are not rented to the general public.

The reason that ADUs are more popular than wholesale leveling of neighborhoods is because the individual homeowners themselves view it as an opportunity. However, ADUs also have a negative impact on neighborhoods as a whole - just like any other density project. And homeowners themselves are able to "shortchange" their neighborhoods by pursuing ADUs, without mitigating or paying for the cost of their impacts - just like any other developer. The difference is that they view this as "doing it to themselves" (while simultaneously ignoring the impacts on their neighbors).

Richard McCann (from same "ADU" article referenced above):

"Instead we must be realistic about what we’re trying to achieve."

"What" we're supposedly trying to achieve hasn't been defined in the first place, much less how to get there.

I'm guessing that the majority of people don't even think there's a problem to be "solved" in the first place (other than to find a way to permanently purge YIMBYs from the system - which indeed would largely solve the "problem").

In reference to my comment above, I'd suggest the following "introduction" if you have to meet in-person regarding a potential enrollment, candidacy for office, job opportunity, etc.

"As you can plainly see, I am white. Five years or so ago, you might have also automatically presumed that I'm male, but I realize this type of conclusion is now "up for grabs". (Unlike skin color.)

If I haven't already lost you, I will now (also) apologize for my sex, gender identification and sexual orientation."

In the latest "no shit" news, the Vanguard is announcing that the DA won't be pressing charges against Beth Borne for publishing 900 names, and doing so without including any additional information (e.g., locale, instructions to harass anyone, etc.).

Now, maybe if she published 901 names . . .

What a crock.

If anyone considered something like that "criminal doxxing", I'd compare that to what the Vanguard encourages against its perceived opponents - repeatedly.

And from what I recall in viewing Beth's Facebook page, there actually was doxxing/postings of Beth's personal information, which I considered to be more serious than a list of 900 names.

But truth be told, I didn't pay much attention to any of that, nor was I interested in looking at 900 names.

I do hope that Beth is not done with challenging the library's infringement on free speech - which ultimately extends beyond this particular issue.

SUBJECT: "Restraining Order Hearing Delayed in Bourne Case" [Today's Mavis Mansplard]

Walter Shwe October 24, 2023 at 1:02 pm

Apparently Davis NIMBYs want Davis frozen in time. Nothing can be done until those NIMBYs are overridden. I have pointed out who some of those NIMBYs are.

So . . . you have listed people who have stated views on a subject that disagree with, a list of those who disagree with your righteous, dogmatic beliefs.

Reminds me of someone else in town.

Maybe Davis needs a restraining order against WS. Stating his views could insight others to call in a bomb threat. I mean, unlikely as fuck, but it could happen :-|

Ron asks:

> And do people actually believe David's claim that he supports Measure J?

I actually do believe that DG supports Measure J (since almost everyone I know with other views similar to his are measure J supporters), and I'm pretty sure if anti-development people bought more ads on his site than the pro-development people he would be happier come out harder in support of Measure J.

RO, DG had this gem to conclude his article in the V-hole today:

"That could be a basis for a challenge to Measure J from a private entity. The question is who would be the one to file it? Of the four possibilities, this one at least right now seems least likely."

That's how the article ended. And then he went to sleep, or something. What the F does that last sentence even mean, as in: who F is "this one"? The shitty writing continues.

As for Measure J, your analysis of the ridiculousness of DG's "Vote Yes or Lose It!" campaign and his clear opposition to Measure J and wish for someone to come in and destroy it while claiming to support Measure J is clownish. It's mega-clownish.

I'm not even anti-growth. I have opposed Measure J and all it's iterations since the beginning. I voted for most Measure J projects. Barely for some.

But I think I'm done. The attitude and tactics of the Council, David Greewald, Taroamamaminoson, the ex-Councilperson from West Davis who I won't dignify with a name and and most of the developers in this town have worn my ass out. I voted for Covell Village, but it would take a miracle for Rochelle to convince me to vote for Village Farm Mudhole or whatever it's being called now. Mostly the Vanguard sucks (and everyone knows it!) so anything DG advocates for I'm against, even if he advocates for babies and puppies. If so, I'm against babies and puppies :-|

And Covell Mudhole . . .

Yeah, y'all have worn my ass out.

From today's Vanguard guest article, regarding the national debt:

"But the federal government is the monopoly issuer of dollars, and since 1971, when Nixon “closed the gold window,” the government can issue as many dollars as it needs at will, without waiting for more gold."

Is the author actually putting this forth as a "solution"?

And if it actually is a solution, why not just continuously print sufficient money to retire the debt - regardless of how much the government spends?

"It must be “spend first, then retrieve some dollars in taxes.” What do we call the dollars spent, but not retrieved in taxes? Answer #1: The dollars in your wallet or savings account. The dollar financial assets of the population. Answer #2: national “debt.”

"Both answers describe exactly the same thing."

For that matter, why not just print enough money to eliminate all taxes, as well?

Sounds like a plan! :-)

https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/10/commentary-no-dollars-do-not-grow-on-billionaires-the-national-debt-panic-debunked/

I see that the Vanguard is largely still avoiding the Israeli/Gaza conflict, despite the fact that it's roiling across university campuses. Can't help but think that the Vanguard may be avoiding this because it actually doesn't want to delve into controversial issues, in which "both sides" might be considered progressive.

In any case, it's not being ignored in other media, as noted in the article below.

But I have a question: Why is it that "both sides" can exist relatively peacefully in the U.S., but not in Israel? How is it that such separation occurred in what is now Israel, and why can't this be addressed?

Does Israel only consist of Jewish people, at this point?

Could it be that the U.S. is actually the greatest country on earth, regarding the variety of people from across the world that it has historically included? (In regard to people who are already here.)

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/israel-hamas-college-student-18446004.php

RK say: "From the latest in the Vanguard today, it looks like Greenwald’s developer buddies haven’t been kicking in enough money. There’s a desperation post begging for $700 by tomorrow in order in “make payroll.” "

Even the developers may now be seeing the Vanguard as a liability. The cowardliness of the topics-not-chosen are glaring: nothing on student protests at UCD on Israel-Palestine, nothing on the assistant professor making death threats to Jewish journalists and their children, nothing on the Riley Gaines talk being cancelled by Eventbrite. Despite the fact these are smoking hot Davis-based issues. Could it be that these issues are too scary to take on? That they may offend developer dollars? That in the fear comes the demise? Davis was once oddly described by a certain blogger as having a "dark underbelly", but it appears the Davis Vanguard has a soft, white underbelly.

Beware the ides of November. The end of the Vanguard is nigh.

RK say: "If he’s this desperate, what’s the plan to make his payroll next month? And who’s on the payroll besides him anyway? Certainly not the “interns” who he exploits for content generation."

I love the old pictures of interns past. That picture is so old, it's in black and white :-|

As the almost-full-moon heads towards they Berryessa Gap in the western hills, everyone is Davis awaits the sunrise to receive the answer to the question that's been our minds for the last 24 hours . . .

Did the David Vanguard make payroll?

. . . and the followup question:

Who is the idiot who enabled that to happen?

I saw that Ron. I wonder if everyone that sold a house during the specified time period can now go back and recoup some of the commissions?

Keith - regarding the potential recouping of commissions, I believe this is what the $1.8 billon dollars will go toward. (Well that, plus the cost of the attorneys, of course.)

Would have to look at the details/timeframes to confirm who the "plaintiffs" are.

But all I can say is, it's about f*king time that someone took on those excessive commissions. Some in the industry believed that the Internet alone would have caused more disruption by now.

From reports I've seen, this may contribute to a massive decrease in the number of real estate agents, as well.

SUBJECT: “Opinion–Free Palestine: On Palestinian and Asian Solidarity” [Yesterday's VoidGuard]

The following piece was submitted through the Vanguard’s Berkeley Student Publication and represents the views of the author and not necessarily that of the Vanguard and its editorial staff. The Vanguard invites robust but respectful dialogue on this and all topics.

Walter Shwe November 3, 2023 at 1:04 pm

Israel doesn’t give a hoot about innocent Palestinian civilian lives in Gaza and the West Bank including scores of babies.

Robust? FAIL

Respectful? FAIL

Bolding the word 'babies' ?: PRICELESS

David Greenwald: "While I support the Shriners and all five of the peripheral projects, I think we have to recognize that all of them have impacts."

Let's be honest, here. There is no scenario in which voters approve all five proposals anytime soon.

"David Greenwald: "I will say this: if this is the approach we are going to see, Measure J may well be unworkable. I’m not there yet, but this is getting closer to pushing me into that camp."

David "might not" support Measure J? (Unlike his position, now?)

But more importantly, who cares what David claims to support support (or oppose)? Does he actually believe this has any influence?

Does he view his "claimed support" as some kind of bargaining chip, in a contrived, continuing game in which he is the only participant?

https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/11/monday-morning-thoughts-the-battle-for-housing-in-davis-is-already-underway/

Not sure if there's a paywall behind the following, but I see that our "own" local trail (Cold Canyon) made the list of the "Bay Area's Best" hiking trails. Solano county is considered part of the Bay Area, so I guess it qualifies.

(The article calls it the "Homestead, Tuleyome Peak, and Blue Ridge Loop" trail.)

I concur - it's a great hike/loop, with pretty spectacular views from the ridge. A challenging loop, and not one you want to do in the middle of a summer day. (I once witnessed a helicopter rescue, for someone who collapsed on the trail.)

https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2023/best-bay-area-hiking-trails/

And by the way, thanks to Tuleyome for obtaining additional property, if one wants to add another "loop to the loop". (Annie's Trail, as I recall. Which also includes a giant rock outcropping, from which one has an even more-expansive view.)

But yeah, the "regular" loop is one of the better-hikes around. A loop, which is approximately 5 miles (with significant elevation gain.)

And I'm pretty sure I've seen some Native American grinding rocks in this area, as well. (I think this is documented, as well.)

In reference to R Keller's comment (in regard to the "other" Keller), I have no respect for those who advocate for something like DISC while simultaneously claiming an existing "housing shortage".

Nor do I have any respect for those like David, who claim to be worried about future housing targets from the state - which haven't even been established at this point.

Especially when folks like David repeatedly fail to acknowledge that cities near the coast (which are the actual targets of the state's efforts) aren't expanding outward. And yet, they (somehow) claim that Davis needs to pursue sprawl.

David is essentially stating that the only way to save Measure J is to vote "yes" on all five peripheral proposals. Or as Henry Ford once reportedly said, "you can have a Model T in any color you want - as long as it's black."

"You see how this stuff works? People go from high home prices to lower home prices."

You see how this stuff works? David Greenwald knows how stuff works, and lets us know it.

So people move to places with lower home prices. Well I'll be darned, Mable.

So prices rise, and less people move here. I'll be darned, Mable.

But if you lower prices by pumping massive tax dollars into 'affordable' housing restricted to 'low-income' people, then you make the remaining housing higher cost, you drive out the working poor who can't find housing by making that stock costlier and less available, but you make a small dent in the disproportionate something something something.

Mabel. Listen to Mr. Greenwald.

Just happened-across the following article, and noticed this quote:

“The reality is we’re a growth-oriented city. There’s a lot of new housing, new commercial and new retail coming into the city just because of our location within the Inland Empire of Southern California,” Butler said. “And we feel like if the development happens under the new standards that we are applying as a city, which are higher standards, that will be better for everything.”

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/ca-city-jurupa-valley-palmer-oak-development-18488527.php

Wait a minute - I was told by development activists that Davis is the city that has "higher standards", and that development should therefore happen in Davis rather than anywhere else.

SUBJECT: "Commentary: Harrington Letter Repeats Faulty Information on School Financing" [Today's Davis Vanguard! Yay!]

In comments:

Don Shor November 16, 2023 at 10:09 am

If you oppose the district’s policy, lobby them or run for the school board. Don’t harm the students.

I call for Harrington to run for school board, so he can have a more direct and effective path to harm students :-|

SUBJECT: "Guest Commentary: More Starter Homes for Purchase" [Today's Davis Vanguard!]

EK say:

"Tell the Davis City council that you support expanding the supply of for-purchase affordable homes.

I don't :-|

Urge them to press our developers to radically increase the number of starter homes in their planned developments.

I won't :-|

Let the council know you support funding the housing trust fund with significant and stable funding from the general tax revenue measure we anticipate the city will propose for the November 2024 ballot.

No :-|

Let them know that you support your tax dollars being used for programs like a city-wide Down Payment Assistance program.

Nope :-|

And finally, vote YES on the 2024 revenue measure.

Read my ass cheeks: NO new taxes :-|

So in today's "housing shortage" article, David brings up Trackside (and claims that the city still "has a problem").

And yet, an investor group apparently purchased that entire property for $2 million - with the entitlements that the council approved. It's perhaps unfortunate that the neighbors weren't able to get together, and purchase it themselves.

Given that there are no city restrictions "in the way" of pursuing the already-approved redevelopment at Trackside, how is that David and other YIMBYs continue to point at non-existent restrictions as hindering redevelopment? There's no NIMBYs around preventing that approved redevelopment, at this point.

What are YIMBYs to do, when there's no scapegoat to point at anymore?

Could it be that this is actually evidence of a lack of demand for housing, at the price that developers are willing and able to build it?

Perhaps David needs to take this up with the Federal Reserve, regarding interest rates. Or perhaps David and others need to stop looking at the ability to purchase a house as a "right".

Or perhaps it's evidence that Davis has "too much" housing, and that Davis needs to tear down some existing housing. That's a joke, son. :-)

It does appear that housing prices are dropping. I've noticed several with price cuts, among these 57 properties listed for sale in Davis:

https://www.zillow.com/homes/davis,-ca_rb/

:We're still here, NIMBY and proud"

Based upon the results (e.g., council approval of Trackside, as well as the makeup of the council itself), the "local NIMBYs" should be kicked out of the national NIMBY club in disgrace.

You call that being a NIMBY? Well, maybe an "unsuccessful" NIMBY at least. :-)

Next thing you'll be telling me is that the head of the local chapter of the Sierra Club supports sprawl (e.g., the 400-acre Covell Village, Act II).

After getting their bootys kicked the last time they tried that, regarding a much smaller proposal in a different location. (Which is also being proposed for development, again.)

Another article that popped up for me. I make no claims to being a "math whiz", but the following sentence still seems strange to me:

"On average, home buyers paid 23% above the national average."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/majority-of-americans-regret-buying-a-home-more-than-half-in-worse-financial-shape/ar-AA1k2bRE?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=042f991f032b4800bfd898ada274332e&ei=16

It seems according to the Vanguard just about everything is a crisis or a calamity.

Maybe that's how he gets clicks?

Just came across the following article, which describes a push by the National Association of Realtors to convince Congress to give homeowners a "tax credit" to sell their houses.

Which begs the question: Does this group have any scruples whatsoever?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/it-s-time-for-a-tax-credit-for-home-sellers-to-prod-owners-to-list-their-houses-realtors-say/ar-AA1kj3Ue?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=bc29988697134bb19760f9fac6301249&ei

Well KO, you know the response from their mod and 'Defenders of the Vanguard': "It's a private blog" #saidinaninnyvoice#. My response is:

"Fuck You! How about living in the spirit of the first amendment and having discussions, instead of censoring thoughts you don't like."

Emphasis on the "Fuck You".

I happen to agree that Gary May should be removed. "They" want him removed for not being progressive enough, such as censoring and banning conservative speakers -- oh, so progressive! I, on the other hand, want him removed for lying about who is causing violence on campus, lying about Charlie Kirk and not retracting like The Bee did when shown (not that I'm a fan of Charlie Kirk, but I am a fan of reality). And this ultra-cringe instagram video should be enough for removal, a crime in itself:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cv0o9ydt0xP/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=NTYzOWQzNmJjMA%3D%3D

WTF? Why are there articles dated 11/23 in the Davis Vanguard ? I thought Thanksgiving was the one day that David Greenwald gave us a break from his incessant, decarceral, sprawl-inducing, leftie, progressive blog-rants. Do we really need this 365 ? Isn't 364 more than enough?

Well, I see over on Beth Bourne's Facebook Page, which is becoming a haven for the most inane/insane postings from both extremes of those issues, there is a fresh post, and Walter Shwe has made an off-topic slam on Trump supporters which makes sense only in a narrow-minded-focus world of 'all Republicans evil, all NIMBYS evil, all of these are Trump supporters', then a typically, oddly inappropriate emoji.

Is it Thanksgiving? . . . seems online in Davis just another day.

Is there even a FUCKING TURKEY? :-|