RM say: "No one at the Davisite receives any money for their involvement with the Davisite."

This makes us morally superior :-|

I had to laugh at KYE's response "I find this kind of personal question in an open forum distasteful" but then proceeds to comment.

And then there's WS's comment where he spews his usual 'right winger' and it's the Republican's fault bullshit.

On the Vanguard's website IRS filings go through 2020, so where's 2021 and 2022?
I doubt it's because of a lack of IRS funding.

I found this link about 501c3 reporting requirements.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-are-nonprofits-finances-public-information-28028.html

Question

I work for a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. Are its financial statements available for public viewing -- especially regarding management salaries?

Answer

Indeed. Nonprofits are required to submit their financial statements and other information -- including the salaries of directors, officers, and key employees -- to the IRS. (For information on who is considered a key employee, see IRS Form 990 and its instructions.)

The IRS and nonprofits themselves are required to disclose the information on Form 990 to anyone who asks. Nonprofits must allow public inspection of these records during regular business hours at their principal offices.

I wondered if the Davis Vanguard 501c3 info would pop up on Google but I didn't find them, but this Davisite story did pop up:
https://www.davisite.org/2018/07/irs-complaint-against-vanguard.html
Does anyone know if anything ever came of the complaint? I have always found it hard to believe that a "political" site like the Davis Vanguard could be a 501c3.

"Nonprofits must allow public inspection of these records during regular business hours at their principal offices."

And if they don't, the public is permitted to jam their foot in the door.

"Anyone that knows well educated "kids" in their 30's today knows that most of them are childless"

SOD I think you hit on something here. Maybe the problem is Davis is too educated and liberal to produce enough children to fill its bloated oversized school system.

It might be time to face reality and downsize.

The Vanguard regularly violates federal nonprofit laws, but my guess is that they are such a small-time rinky-dink operation, that the IRS hasn’t bothered to investigate despite well-documented complaints like this from 2022:

New IRS Complaint Against Non-Profit Davis Vanguard News Service: ‘It is unfair and illegal for the Vanguard to receive tax-free status and revenue to develop a website and then use that website to campaign for/against certain candidates’
https://californiaglobe.com/articles/new-irs-complaint-against-non-profit-davis-vanguard-news-service/amp/

And this:

Attorney Says Non-Profit Davis Vanguard News Service ‘Continues to Violate’ Despite IRS Complaint
https://californiaglobe.com/fr/attorney-says-non-profit-davis-vanguard-news-service-continues-to-violate-despite-irs-complaint/amp/

R Keller wrote:

> my guess is that they are such a small-time rinky-dink operation,
> that the IRS hasn’t bothered to investigate

The reason that they have not been instigated is that they are not conservative. Like BLM David could take Vanguard $$ buy a house in El Macero and fill the garage with gold Rolls Royces and as long as he keeps writing about the "school to prison pipeline" and how every UCD student of color is afraid to "drive while black or brown" in Davis he is good to go.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups#:~:text=In%20a%20legal%20settlement%20that,applications%20for%20tax%2Dexempt%20status.

I hope you all had a wonderful "Taking Tuesday". Was anyone able to convince the Davis Vanguard to write them a check?

Shweeeeeeeee!!!!

"Greenwald’s most recent salary . . . he makes sure to keep it below the threshold that would make him from ineligible for his subsidized housing, but he makes sure to gets lots of non-salary compensation from the Vanguard"

Non-salary compensation? DO TELL !!!

SUBJECT: "Commentary: Davis Isn’t the Only Place with a Housing Mess, But Emulating Others Doesn’t Seem Viable" by David Greenwald in the Guard of the Van on November 30, 2023

"I keep asking the same question . . . "

You also keep writing the same article.

"A few months ago I asked one of the chief opponents of housing how the city can expect to meet state requirements. The simple answer they gave was do what the large coastal cities do."

I believe David is referring to me with that comment (referenced in the article that Alan M. referred to, above).

The "problem" is that David is making an incorrect assumption regarding what this actually means.

What it actually means is that cities along the coast are going to submit plans that will never come to fruition. And that they will likely continue "re-using" those unrealized plans in future housing elements.

"Penciling-out" would be even less-likely in a place like Davis.

As David himself noted, the new owners of Trackside apparently can't even make housing "pencil out" (as already approved), even though they only paid $2 million for the entire property!

And then there's University Mall, where the owners abandoned housing altogether, as well. Really? There's no "demand" for housing right across the street from UCD? (I guess not - at the level of return that would make it "pencil out".)

A more-relevant question is whether or not the state intends cities (outside of the coastal areas) to continue sprawling outward. Is that their goal? And, do they look at cities that are surrounded by farmland as "targets"? (Seems highly unlikely that the answer to those questions is "yes", or that this is codified anywhere.)

Watch how this all changes in the future, as folks like Newsom, Wiener, and Bonta "move on" (out of the loop).

And if they actually have any significant success in the meantime, watch the reaction - especially from folks living in wealthier coastal communities. (See Proposition 13, as an example of what happens when government officials fail to heed the concerns of the populace.)

Newsflash: It's expensive to live in California.

Unless you live in Venice Beach. In a tent.

RO say: " . . . the populace may never become sufficiently "riled up" to remove control from the state."

I'm riled.

Join Our Neighborhood Voices, who's goal is to remove control from the state, mainly by state initiative. They are having a meeting tonight on Zoom 7-8pm for those interested:

https://t.e2ma.net/click/a76c7m/m0hqrakc/a7mx59b

"There has never been a more important time to stand up for your neighborhood. All across California, corporate developers are using a loophole called the “Builders Remedy” to bulldoze single-family homes and build high-rise projects in their place — all while leaving local representatives and neighbors like you powerless to stop it. These Builders Remedy projects are increasing traffic, raising taxes and displacing our neighbors – but we are fighting back."

Thanks for the correction, Rik.

For what it's worth, I view you as a person who is actually interested in Affordable housing, and I respect you personally. As I do with others who comment on here.

I don't expect any two people to share the exact same views, regardless.

But make sure you put on some steel-toed boots, the next time you visit the Vanguard's offices if your foot is going to be in the doorway. :-)

RK say: "But Greenwald is too dumb to realize the dumbness of it all"

Now THAT is a statement.

Unfortunately, David Greenwald is not "dumb" at all - he writes in an effort to "convince" others.

That's why he doesn't present a complete picture (regardless of the issues that he latches onto).

He's likely aware of what David Thompson, Rik, myself, and others have pointed out (including the mayor of San Francisco). In fact, I'm pretty sure that David Greenwald himself has acknowledged this reality:

The push by the state to force cities to grow will (for the most part) fail.

But I would add that any "success" that the state does have will likely lead to the demise of the state's control.

San Francisco in particular is LOSING population - which is causing housing prices to undergo a significant correction. One might expect that YIMBYs would welcome would welcome that reality. (That is, if they were trying to present an honest argument.)

Of course, most of these types also purposefully ignore the connection between jobs and housing, which is why they supported developments like DISC.

Business interests (e.g., the technology industry) are financially supporting the YIMBYs. As such, they have a vested interest in forcing growth.

In other words, they're straight out "growth monkeys", and will latch onto any reason to support growth even if it conflicts with their own arguments. No amount of "brainpower" can overcome the obvious conflicts in their own arguments.

Just more wishful thinking from Greenwald. He REALLY wants someone to legally challenge Measure J. Meanwhile, he still doesn’t understand the basics about how meeting RHNA numbers in Housing Elements works.

The City of Davis is proposing rezoning a number of properties at the minimum density required (20 units/acre) that meet the minimum size threshold (0.5 acres per parcel), so they meet State of CA requirements to count as available for low-income housing. It’s as simple as that.

The City wouldn’t be able to count development proposals for the various Measure J annexations in this round anyway because they are simply proposals. That doesn’t mean there are any grounds for challenging Measure J because of “constraints” in this HE round—there aren’t really, because the City is able to more than meet RHNA requirements by simply rezoning 20-something acres.

My prediction: this third draft of the HE gets approved by HCD. The City could have gotten it approved in the 1st round if they hadn’t appointed a developer-friendly Housing Element Committee, and had their sh*t together in the first place. Instead, they had a terrible process that bypassed a robust public participation component and that produced a bad product.

This is all a dumb paper-pushing exercise anyway. Meanwhile, the City of Davis has sat on its hands for years in terms of actually addressing affordable housing policy that would produce actual affordable housing units, as opposed to the free-market fantasies of Greenwald, McCann, Tim Keller, and others that if you only removed all regulations and expanded Davis 2 to 3 times its current population, it would be an affordable housing paradise.

As for what the City should be focused on if it was actually interested in affordable housing, see: Comments on Inclusionary Multifamily Rental Housing Ordinance Review
January 17, 2023
https://www.davisite.org/2023/01/comments-on-inclusionary-multifamily-rental-housing-ordinance-review.html

And: Recommendation to the Davis City Council for Changes in Davis’ Affordable Housing Ordinance
June 27, 2023
https://www.davisite.org/2023/06/recommendation-to-the-davis-city-council-for-changes-in-davis-affordable-housing-ordinance.html

I laugh even louder when I read "if rents were a little lower the "homeless" would be living in apartments and not under the new bike ramp to Olive Drive". P.S. My left of center friends always get mad at me when I point out that the poor and the homeless always seem to find money for booze, cigarettes and tattoos. They also spend a lot on spray paint (the "homeless" living under the Olive bike ramp recently "decorated" their "home" painting the concrete bike ramp and the fence behind it using a LOT of paint)...

From today's "school crisis" article in the Vanguard:

David: The problem as I have attempted to explain many times over the last five years, is that approach won’t work because it doesn’t solve the problem which is the actual decline in enrollment.

You can "explain this" as many times as you want, but the decline in enrollment would not be a problem if the school system itself was right-sized to match the actual needs of the community.

David: The permanent solution or at least the long term one (since permanency does not exist in this world) is to plan for housing so people with families can afford to move here and people can afford to move here or live here when they start families.

What you're suggesting is that the community has to grow to meet the desires of an oversized school district.

You also seem to be claiming that the size of the school system is "permanently fixed", while also noting that nothing is permanent. How does that make any sense?

There's another problem with your "solution" as well. Unless housing turns over frequently, families age-out of the system in a relatively short period of time. This will occur with new housing, as well.

Woodland (which has no "shortage" of new housing) is also experiencing declining enrollment in much of the pre-existing city, due to families ageing out of the system. In fact, this is occurring throughout most of California, and it is not a "problem" except for those who "resist change".

David: The second problem with this approach is that declining enrollment is not the reason why we have a parcel tax. The parcel tax is in place primarily because the school district is disadvantaged by the state funding system which prioritizes (and btw, rightly so) school districts with higher percentages of low income and disadvantaged students.

The parcel tax is in place because the cost for each student EXCEEDS the amount received by the state. And yet, your solution is to add "more" students (each of which increases the structural deficit).

The parcel tax would go farther (resulting in MORE MONEY FOR EACH STUDENT) if there were fewer students, since it is not dependent upon the number of students.

In addition, by "poaching" students from other districts, you're essentially acknowledging that you don't care about the students and school systems in those other communities. By enrolling them in Davis schools instead, you're not only depriving other communities of state funding, you're also ensuring that less funding is provided by the state due to the difference in state reimbursement levels that you described.

David: The reason why closing a school is not going to help the problem is that the issue of declining enrollment is an ongoing process.

Why is it a "problem" that this is an "ongoing process"? Again, the size of the school system is not permanently "fixed" - except in the eyes of those who resist change.

David: The problem in essence is not that the schools are too large, it’s the relative population is slowly declining year over year—and removing out of district transfers and reducing the size of the schools won’t do anything to stop that.

Your claim is downright bizarre.

Again, you're claiming that there aren't enough students for a school system that is TOO LARGE in comparison to the community's actual needs. And your "solution" is to keep feeding that system, rather than having it adjust to meet the actual needs of the existing community.

David Greenwald does not allow free speech on his blog, but he does allow trolls to attack others.

So when one has something to say in opposition to his advocacy, it's better to do so where it's actually allowed.

Some believe that David Greenwald has influence (e.g., with local politicians). And since he's presenting one-sided views (and not providing a complete analysis), there is no "balance.''

If you think that only "conservatives" oppose Greenwald's development advocacy, you're sadly mistaken. Ask R. Keller, if you don't believe me. His foot is probably still healing to this day, as a result of Greenwald closing his door on it when challenging the availability of the Vanguard's tax returns. :-)

Regarding the library's illegal shutdown of free speech, I must have missed the meeting when self-proclaimed progressives decided to oppose free speech. (Not just at libraries, but also at college campuses.)

No SOD, David must have moved out of that house, because as KS says, he is living rent free in my head. I just wish he'd stop waking me up at 3:00am so he can write the next crappy housing article in the Vanguard. Can we compromise on 5:00am, David? After all, the rent IS free.

Comment from Richard McCann, in regard to the fake "school crisis" mentioned above:

But further, anyone proposing to close schools (especially multiple ones if we shut off the 1,000 interdistrict transfers) MUST propose which specific schools will be closed and then go to every public meeting that discusses those closures. If they are unwilling to do that then they are just poseurs with no legitimate standing in the discussion.

Happy to do so - but truth be told, it doesn't matter "which" ones to me. Nor does it matter to anyone else (except for a relative handful of parents/teachers at a given school).

To paraphrase Spock (Star Trek), "the needs of the many (the community at large) outweigh the needs of the few."

Just name the time/place where this will be discussed.

But perhaps the school district can arrive with independently-arrived (objective) financial analyses, at those meetings, showing an honest accounting of the resulting cost savings. As well as "which" schools they'd recommend for closure based upon the community's actual needs. (Yeah, right.)

The interdistrict transfers are less of a concern than the ongoing campaign regarding "sprawl for schools".

KS say: "What happened to your vaunted "free speech" stance?"

I haven't banned anyone, nor censored anyone. The very few rules are posted. As per these rules, I took out the names of a few of the people WS targeted on a few comments months ago, so people could see what WS was doing, but the targets not named. Nothing more.

If I didn't do this, this page would break down to the same sort of vacuous, childish, vile name-calling that is found on Beth Bourne's Facebook page.

As for your speculation about WS's intent, I was asking WS to clarify as it wasn't clear. Why are you speculating on another person's intent? Let them respond.

Free speech has consequences and from what I understand, the local M4L chair is experiencing it in spades right now.

Seems to me that the local library is the entity that is feeling the brunt of it, as a result of their own actions.

"Beth Borne never threatened anyone."

She "threatened" people just as much as you fragile right wingers claim WS "threatened" her and her ilk.

At the August Woodland Joint Unified School District board meeting, she spewed a load of nonsense about how for the "parents, teachers, librarians, and therapists" who indoctrinate "children" with gender ideology "your time is coming."

You are all hypocrites. But sure, lose your shit over WS's basically anodyne comment.

The community laughs at people like you. Simping for neo-fascism, basically.

Don Shor (from todays' housing advocacy article in the Vanguard:

A member of the audience asked “How can we maintain that small town feel and still deal with our housing issues?”

The reply? “That small town feel is a euphemism for a segregated community.”

(I would say that the Davis-connected buyer's program at WDAAC was a far better example. Which, for "some reason", did not seem to raise the hackles of some of the self-proclaimed progressive housing advocates.)

I'm SURE its just a coincidence that we were talking here on 11/27 and 11/28 about the Vanguard not posting its IRS filing as legally-mandated, and then the documents magically appeared on the Vanguard website in the past few days.

The filings from 2021 and 2022 are both here now: https://www.davisvanguard.org/about-us/irs-filings/

Interestingly, the metadata for the 2022 filing shows the PDF was created the morning of Friday 12/1/2023, Just 4 days after Al's Whatever Thingy or Whatever It's Called called attention to this matter.

The filing raises more questions that it answers though.

First of all, Davis Greenwald and the Vanguard are apparently living RENT-FREE. The 2021 Form 990-EZ filing shows Line 14: "Occupancy, rent, utilities, and maintenance" of $11,255. But the 2022 filing has a blank there. And the 2022 Form 199 California Exempt Organization 2022 Annual Information Return filing to the state of CA (none provided for 2021) also shows a blank for Part II, line #15 "Rents" expenses.

So, there's a big question about who paid Greenwald's office rent in 2022 what they are got in exchange for it, and why this isn't accounted for at all. RENT-FREE.

The salary issue is even more messy. In 2021, Greenwald claimed he worked an average of 100 hours per week and reported compensation of $25,100 total, While I am not arguing that his time is worth any more than $5.02/hour (assuming 50 weeks worked per year), that's still a screwy figure.

However, by 2022, his time was apparently worth even less, as he claimed to work an average of 40 hours/week for a total compensation of $5,300. That's $2.65/hour.

He also supposedly paid Secretary Michelle Lagos $4,200 total for an average of 40 hours/week per year ($2.10/hour), which certainly seems like an egregious labor law violation at the very least.

No other employees are listed in Form 990-EZ or in CA Form 199, Statement 1, Part II, Line 11 "Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees and Key Employees". But under Part II of that same form he claims $41,277 in "Other salaries and wages" paid out. There is no indication who these were paid to. Apparently this wasn't paid to "key employees".

Perhaps Robert Canning who comments here occasionally and who is is listed as an (uncompensated) Treasurer for the Vanguard has a better idea about where is money is disappearing to?

Cross-referencing with the Form 990-EZ, that states under "Salaries, other compensation, and employee benefits": $55,392. And then another $43,172 paid for "Professional fees and other payments to independent contractors." There is no indication anywhere in the documentation who might be receiving these payouts.

Among other things, I also found out the Vanguard operated at a deficit of $13,542 in 2022, which explains things like them recently begging for emergency donations to "meet payroll".

Things that aren't explained though include stuff like no breakdown of their total revenue in 2022 of $138,510 (down substantially from $158,278 in 2021). Where did this $ come from? Is he illegally claiming his advertising revenue as not subject to tax? (note: The IRS views advertising as taxable trade or business activity for nonprofits). Who are his main supporters pushing his pro-development real estate interests agenda? At least the 2021 filing had a Schedule B attached to the Form 990 showing amounts from major contributors for $5,000 and up (though the names/addresses were blacked out. The 2022 filing posted doesn't even have this.

See this article for a previous call for the Vanguard to Provide transparency in its funding sources:

"...we advocate that the Davis Vanguard (and any other non-profit news outfit) adopt the Institute for Nonprofit News’ “Ethics & Practices Policies”, particularly with respect to donor identity and funding transparency: "As a nonprofit, we will avoid accepting donations from anonymous sources, and we will not accept donations from government entities, political parties, elected officials or candidates actively seeking public office.""
https://www.davisite.org/2019/04/davis-enterprise-chastises-city-council-and-davis-vanguard.html

In short, the Davis Vanguard's long-delayed posting of IRS filings demonstrates some very questionable business and accounting practices, and large chunk of expenditures and receipts that are not explained. This should not be surprising for a publication that routinely violates federal nonprofit regulations and nonprofit journalism ethical guidance. David Greenwald runs it like a sweatshop content-farm, exploiting the labor of an army of poorly-trained unpaid interns to produce the vast majority of its articles, most of which are heavily plagiarized from unlinked sources using falsified byline location information (see this describing some of these practices: https://www.davisite.org/2019/04/a-problem-with-the-davis-vanguards-citation-practices.html)

But hey, at least it's RENT FREE!

But hey, at least it's RENT FREE!

Man, that guy lives everywhere, rent-free. Even in other people's heads (as someone else noted).

In his "Giving Tuesday" plea for more money to be spent on unknown budget items because his anonymous donors are apparently not giving him enough these days, David Greenwald states "For nearly 15 years, the Davis Vanguard has been training the next generation of progressive lawyers and journalists..." https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/11/support-the-vanguard-on-givingtuesday-2

What Greenwald's "training" (he's not actually a journalist and has no formal journalism training or educational credentials himself) consists of: apparently encouraging unpaid student interns to plagiarize full articles from legitimate news and other sources without attribution or links to the original source, and for the student intern to fake their location in the byline. Here's a link on how unethical the latter is:
"Datelines must be honest, and bylined writers must be where they say they are."
from The AFP Ethics Code of Editorial Standards and Best Practices https://www.afp.com/communication/chartes/12_april_2016_afp_ethic_final.pdf

The Vanguard takes this warning from the NYU Journalism Handbook for Students: Ethics, Law and Good Practice and turns it on it head as its core business model!
"CARDINAL SINS: PLAGIARISM: Journalists earn their living with words, and plagiarism—using someone else’s words as if they were your own—is, simply stated, stealing. It can take many forms. At its worst, plagiarism can be copying and pasting an article off the internet and slapping your own byline at the top. Or subtler: Lifting a quote from a wire service story or taking credit for another person’s idea."
https://journalism.nyu.edu/about-us/resources/ethics-handbook-for-students/nyu-journalism-handbook-for-students/

Here's one such example from the Vanguard from today, but they publish plagiarized articles with fake locations in the bylines every single day, usually multiple of these per day:
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/12/nij-report-impact-of-false-or-misleading-forensic-evidence-on-wrongful-convictions/

In this case, the author, Yana Singhal, is listed as a "Vanguard Court Watch Intern" and has a byline location of "WASHINGTON, DC" in the article. I can almost 100% guarantee that this location is not where the author actually wrote the article today, unless the Court Watch program just got a giant cash infusion to fly its unpaid interns around the country.

Now: did this Vanguard intern actually do any reporting for this article? Oh, dear reader, need you ask? There are no links to any sources that might have been used, but a simple Google search of some of the quotes turns up this article published over a week ago: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/impact-false-or-misleading-forensic-evidence-wrongful-convictions

Here's the original text of the plagiarized article starting from the 2nd sentence:
"As of 2023, The National Registry of Exonerations has recorded over 3,000 cases of wrongful convictions in the United States. Organizations such as The Innocence Project work to free the innocent and prevent these convictions, so far exonerating 375 people, including 21 who served on death row.

Dr. Jon Gould of the University of California at Irvine has claimed that faulty forensic science is partly to blame for some of these convictions.[2] As one of the architects of research that assesses the impact of forensic science on wrongful convictions, he has cited flawed eyewitness identification, confessions, testimony, police and prosecutorial conduct, defense lawyering, and forensic science as factors related to wrongful convictions."

And here's the Vanguard plagiarized version that copied the original almost word-for word (but then also doing some "interesting" things like falsely directly quoting someone who had been paraphrased in the original article):

"The National Registry of Exonerations has recorded over 3,000 cases of wrongful convictions in the United States, but different organizations have helped to overturn these convictions, according to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). “The Innocence Project,” notes the NIJ, has exonerated “375 people, including 21 who served on death row.”

However, “faulty forensic science is partly to blame,” according to Dr. Jon Gould at UC Irvine, who notes factors that can lead to wrong convictions include “flawed eyewitness identification, confessions, testimony, police and prosecutorial conduct, defense lawyering, and forensic science.” "

The rest of the Vanguard "article" goes on to steal entire passages from the original article.

Is this what Greenwald thinks "training the next generation" of lawyers and journalists" consists of?: teaching them to violate sacred journalistic principles. lie, and steal material directly from others.

That this particular article I chose at random among dozens published in the last month that have egregiously plagiarized and used fake bylines did so at the expense of the original author, the National Institute of Justice... well as the great poet Alanis Morrisette once said:
"And isn't it ironic?
Don't you think?
A little too ironic
And yeah, I really do think"

I wonder how David was able to get around the CA minimum wage laws and pay his Secretary $2.10 an hour? I also wonder if he has proposals for his unpaid interns on file with the CA Division of Labor Standards Enforcement?

"In California, unpaid internships are legal. However, employers have to comply with both state and federal laws in order to host an unpaid intern. Federal guidelines require that the internship benefits the intern, not the employer. California requires employers to submit a proposal for the internship to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) for approval."

SUBJECT: "Guest Commentary: My Critique of Village Farms" [Today's Van Guard]

Nobody cares what you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqC9iA9pnFQ

And to follow up on a previous statement, while California and federal employment law and guidelines provide for unpaid internships, the primary beneficiary has to be the intern, not the "employer". And for example, the interns cannot perform work that any other employee would be expected to perform.

Given that Greenwald uses his army of interns to produce a huge volume of the articles he publishes, this is a clear violation. They are pumping out massively plagiarized "articles" with falsified byline locations. He is either providing terrible training to the interns in proper ethical journalistic practices or is not providing guidance at all--either way, that is not fulfilling the primary educational and training goals for legitimate unpaid internships.

Doing any of these things once is grounds for immediate termination in a legitimate journalistic organization (and a strong likelihood of never being able to secure a job in the field again), but it's the basic business model for the Vanguard. We all know that Greenwald could never get a job at a real news organization, and he is ensuring that his interns will never be able to either.

"I supposed Greenwald can value his own time at whatever he wants (and $2.65/hour is certainly a lot more than most of us would value his time)"

I'm glad I read this at night and not early in the morning when I'm having my coffee. I would've needed a new keyboard.

Once you're done with your spreadsheet, make some use of it and send it in a group email to all of those who were plagiarized, and suggest they file a class-action or joint lawsuit against the Vanguard. Then maybe the people of Davis could all wake up from our long, dark, underbelly nightmare.

Comments are closed so that no one can ask Greenwald why he doesn’t pay his “interns,” but exploits their names/images/likenesses for his craven fundraising pleas.

The just-posted Vanguard 2022 IRS filings show a big drop-off in revenues from 2021. And this latest post hints that revenues have declined even more in 2023.

interestingly, Greenwald claims a “shoestring budget of $160,000.” But his 2022 IRS 2022 filing shows total revenue of only $138,510 vs expenditures of $152,052. He was unable to provide even a basic breakdown of where the vast majority of that money went, and he provided no transparency whatsoever about his revenue sources.

He has to be praying for a Measure J campaign that he can advocate for to try to boost his revenues.

Just happened across the following:

"S.F. schools likely to cut 900 jobs as district faces $400 million deficit"

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sfusd-budget-job-cuts-18547236.php

And yet, some still claim that there's a shortage of teachers despite a significant STATEWIDE decline in enrollment.

To which I would imagine that the teacher's union would prefer to say, "more sprawl for all".

From today's Vanguard housing article:

Part of my reason for writing yesterday’s column is my frustration over the failure of the Davis community to engage and step up to solve OUR problems.

It's not likely that you're going to get agreement regarding what those problems are, or if they're actually problems in the first place.

I recall now a conversation I had on here with a member of the former group (do not want to solve) who suggested that Davis do what large cities on the coast are doing. I assumed at the time, they meant, fail.

Probably referring to me. But it's not the cities that will fail - it's state officials who will. The problem being that they're trying to force something (mostly on behalf of their business allies) that cities don't want, and which doesn't pencil out.

It's the goal itself that's a problem. In fact, the goal actually hasn't been defined (other than to "just grow, baby").

The irony of course is that San Francisco’s failure is actually adding to the valley’s problem.

If one is going to make that argument, then why should the valley accommodate San Francisco's "problem"? Especially since remaining in San Francisco and the Bay Area is the most environmentally-friendly alternative, and is where the jobs are (or were?) located.

Does the state actually want to force sprawl, instead?

So is the suggestion from said commenter for the city of Davis to force the state to come babysit for them?

If they think they have the manpower and ability to take on cities across the state in a declining housing market (and also aren't worried about backlash), then go ahead and try. Seems to me that we're already about halfway through the current round of failed housing targets in the first place.

So rather than look to San Francisco, maybe Davis should look to the other side of the causeway.

Not sure if you noticed, but Sacramento sucks. You could probably fit 10 San Franciscos inside of its sprawling boundaries.

Though it has always had relatively affordable housing in parts of the city.

But for those who think that Sacramento is doing a good job and is accommodating their "need", my suggestion would be to move there. Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?

(At least Sacramento is not the worst city in the country, and has good access to some nicer areas.) But most newcomers probably look in Roseville, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, Elk Grove, Natomas, etc.

Sooner or later Davis is going to have to cross the peripheral gauntlet or risk losing Measure J.

Again, I would ask if the state's goal is to force sprawl outside of city limits. I ask because that was never the state's plan. Perhaps that question needs to be asked in court if any entity tries to challenge Measure J. Hopefully, any potential court challenge will drag on for years, regardless. And won't necessarily result in any immediate peripheral approvals, regardless.

If Measure J (and similar measures in other parts of the state) are really that vulnerable, some entity would eventually challenge them regardless. I'd suggest not operating out of fear, and be ready to defend it. In the unlikely event that it's eventually overturned, I suspect there will be a backlash the likes of which haven't been seen before.

Regarding San Francisco's apparent resistance to forced growth, I believe that some of the supervisors behind that are YIMBYs, themselves. (Would have to look into that.)

Ultimately, cities and organizations throughout the state might increasingly need to band together to take on state officials. United we stand, as they say. (That is, if the housing downturn doesn't increasingly lay bare the state's failure in the first place.)

I think the following is what David is referring to, in regard to The Chronicle's article (to follow the "lead" of San Francisco). Below is another perspective, regarding that:

"Planning Commission agrees to end public input on many housing developments

Narrow 4-3 votes ends the ability of community activists to call out unscrupulous landlords and speculators.

The density bonus plan, under State Sen. Scott Wiener’s SB 35 and SB 423, allows for streamlined approval and additional density for housing that includes a modest percentage of affordable housing, below what San Francisco until recently required.

Since almost every developer building market-rate housing in the city is going to use that bonus, the commission in essence gave the department staff the ability without public input to approve any new market-rate project.

Several speakers pointed out an essential problem: The law doesn’t allow this sort of approval if the property had tenants living in it who were evicted or otherwise forced out—but San Francisco has no way to track that information."

https://48hills.org/2023/12/planning-commission-agrees-to-end-public-input-on-many-housing-developments/

Just happened-across the following, as well. I must be on a "housing market" feed, on the Internet.

"I had resigned myself to renting for life in California, but I asked a financial planner about another idea: moving somewhere I can afford to buy"

Right - you need a financial planner to tell you that, apparently. Did they also advise you to give up avocado toast? :-)

Though comparing Los Angeles with "California" in general is not valid in the first place.

But glad to see that you mentioned state income taxes as a factor, as well.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/i-had-resigned-myself-to-renting-for-life-in-california-but-i-asked-a-financial-planner-about-another-idea-moving-somewhere-i-can-afford-to-buy/ar-AA1lym8v?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=NMTS&cvid=c907e818ad724d43b5dae2e3a99b92c7&ei=23

One more housing article, which shows how "effectively" rent control can work (in my opinion, at least). The guys in these two apartments certainly lived to a ripe old age, without getting priced out of S.F.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/rent-controlled-apartments-18540894.php

South of Davis:

Pretty sure that the guys in that article appreciated rent control ($800/month, in a good location).

If the goal is to prevent existing residents from getting priced out, I don't know of anything more effective than rent control. And it doesn't seem to have dragged down San Francisco, since it's been in effect for decades at this point. (Unlike the more-recent problems that San Francisco has been experiencing.)

Although dinners at nice restaurants, ski trips, and cars cost more, those type of purchases might be viewed as more of an "option" than a "necessity". Though one could argue that folks can always move to a cheaper locale as an option, too.

I suspect that about half of Davis residents moved from a more-expensive locale.

The only new vehicle I bought (and still have) cost less than $10K - brand new.

Well, the corporate YIMBYs aren't going to like this:

"The number of people living in California fell below 39 million this year, according to new census estimates, the lowest count since 2015."

https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/population-exodus-2023-18566180.php

Now, what's all this talk about accommodating a "need", in a state that's LOSING population? Let alone trying to encourage them to move to new sprawl, within the state.

Just goes to show that no matter how many laws the a-holes in Sacramento attempt to pass on behalf of their corporate masters, you can't fight "change". Nor should you "fear it", as folks like David Greenwald, Scott Wiener, and UCD's own Chris Elmendorf apparently do. (Perhaps the latter has time to think about this when commuting FROM San Francisco to UCD.)

(Haven't used "corporate masters", before. Thought I'd change it up.)

Interestingly-enough, New York had a larger population drop than California, by percentage.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/population-exodus-2023-18566180.php

Well, that's five comments from me in a row, when including the comment in the other article. Now six.

Just call me "Walter", I guess.

Ron, I'm obviously living in David's head rent free!

The real problem, is that even with you living free in other people's heads, and their living rent free in yours, there is STILL a fucking housing crisis! Go figure!

And the war between Beth Bourne (and her supporters), vs. David/Kendra (and their supporters) continues to heat up (on both the Vanguard, and Beth's Facebook page).

Good - that ought to keep David occupied for awhile.

But it is a perfect example of what occurs online, these days (purposeful misrepresentation of others' comments). In other words, a great big waste of time, convincing no one of anything.

But I don't think that any of these comments are going to stop the lawsuit against the library, which underlies the most important issue. That issue is not dependent upon David's claim that Beth is losing (local) support.

From today's (and yesterday's) "Beth-Bashing" article in the Vanguard.

Though you could also insert "support sprawl", or "free the criminals who harm others" in place of Beth:

David: "People were like, if you think the best idea is to ignore it, why do you keep reporting on stuff? Well, I’m not in the same position as an activist. My job is to cover what’s happening."

Did you actually believe that about yourself and the Vanguard, when you typed it - repeated twice at this point? If so, your lack of acknowledgement regarding what you actually do is far more concerning than your activism, itself.

Seems unlikely that even David's supporters would agree with his self-analysis regarding what he does, and what the Vanguard is.

RO, I had the very same *say what?* reaction to DG saying his job is to report the news, as his excuse for not practicing what he preached. Even worse, he then goes on to say the job of the Vanguard is activism, which conflicts with what he just said about his job being to report, and since the job is activism, he should stop engaging with BB. I seriously wonder if his mind is unraveling.

I did send a contribution to the Vanguard today, and earmarked it for DG to go in for surgery to have his head removed from his ass. If another 175,000 of you donate a dollar like I did (the processing fees are probably higher), then the cranial-rectal detachment surgery could be a success. Give today to the Davis Vanguard!

And as for New Year? Bah Humbug. You thought 2020,2021, 2022 and 2023 were bad? 2024 will be the year some angry bozo detonates a nuke. That'll change the world.

"except for a few brave souls who try to correct the more blatant misinformation."

If Don Shor is talking about Beth's FB page several of the her most vociferous detractors are hardly brave souls as they post under fake aliases.

The greatest, if you enjoy the spectacle of unlikable, narcissistic extremists from both 'sides' of the issue trying to destroy each other with words, while trying to shut down the other 'side' from being able to use words.

Fun! Fun! Fun!

Seems to me that this is par for the course in just about every political blog, and every comment section in media these days.

Except (for the most part) the Davisite. (Though we do go after the Vanguard on here.)

In any case, I'm glad that I quit commenting on the Vanguard, at least. And there's no way I'm going to start commenting on Beth's Facebook page.

It does seem as though there's some very unhappy people in the world. And most of the anger seem to be of the "first-world" variety (no actual suffering which explains their unhappiness.)

Reminds me of road rage - people getting upset with others for no actual reason.