Does the Davis Vanguard not add some detailed information about the issue because it's pending litigation?

To be clear, I don't seem to have an issue with my comments not being published in the Vanguard stories and I find some of the civil rights and legal articles interesting and useful.... But I don't understand why they are never any comments on them.

Tuvia asks:

> I don't understand why they are never any comments on them.

My guess is that the lack of comments is related to the small number of people interested in reading an article that David's unpaid interns cut and pasted from somewhere else.

P.S. Like so many "grassroots" aka "Astroturf" sites it is obvious that David is a working for someone rich that wants him around (probably to sneak in pro-development stuff in between all the left of center articles his interns plagiarize that nobody reads):
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/dark-money-2020-new-ways-to-hide-donors/

P.P.S. To the Anonymous developer making more than a dozen "Anonymous" donations in a row is not a great way to hide a donation (he could have just given the cash to David's friend Maria to donate in her name as big money donors have done in the past):
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2022/03/a-community-activist-ran-an-ie-against-reisig-in-2018-he-tried-to-charge-her-criminally-for-doing-so/

I don't get it? What's your point, Al? People donated money to support a local media outlet voice? why are the donors fools? Pls explain.

The link below shows the reason I'm generally aghast regarding development proposals.

Does anyone look at this (with its $1,250,000) "starting price" as anything other than a permanent blight on the coast?

(Other than the 70 future homeowners and Scott Wiener, who is now targeting coastal areas as well?)

https://www.newhomesmag.com/community/harbor-view-at-bodega-bay-new-homes-bodega-bay/

SoD wrote: "David's unpaid interns cut and pasted from somewhere else". I understand the "intern" thing, and on principle I don't support justifying internships due to college credit people are receiving, no matter the legal status of an organization if they are doing core work for that organization.

But please clarify "cut and pasted". Normally - and obviously - this is relatively easy to reference.

If we're going to criticize some entity, we need to do it from a position of strength and truth. You're being "anonymous", too? I accept that you might not able to not be, but it's not the strongest vantage point to comment on other anonymity, is it?

Ron O. - Can we tell how many people are reading these stories I mention (the ones not about BB nor the supposed "Out of Infill Apocalypse". )?

Here’s an example today in the Vanguard where the intern Cindy Chen faked a New York byline location (unless we think they Vanguard now has a budget fly its unpaid interns across the country to report), and then plagiarized an article published in the City Limits weekly. Unlike most of the Vanguard’s content theft, at least this “article” has the decency to mention the original source (even though it doesn’t provide a link to it).

Here’s a sample paragraph from the original:

“Afterwards, I filed a lawsuit against the city and the nine officers who violated my rights. The city recently agreed [link] to pay me $125,000 for what those officers did, but the officers themselves faced no punishment. They did not contribute to the settlement, they were not fired, and they were not disciplined.

And this is from the Vanguard:

“Afterwards, Lee said she sought a lawsuit against the municipality and the nine officers. While the city recently agreed [link] to compensate Lee with $125,000, the officers faced no discernible consequences, neither contributing to the settlement nor facing termination or disciplinary measures.”

The link is the same in both. The Vanguard intern did no additional research/reporting in the “article” and simply repeated the content in the original, substituting in synonyms and using quotes from the original.

This violates journalistic ethics in many ways. Since David Greenwald isn’t actually a journalist, he teaches this behavior. His exploited interns producing content for him on a daily basis are ruining their chances to ever get legitimate jobs in journalism—future employers would immediately disqualify them for such egregious plagiarism and theft.

Many of a Greenwald’s own “articles” follow this model: say somebody wrote a letter or posted an article, and then proceed to post the contents of the entirety of it without a link to the original and without any new language or reporting. He’s ripping off the intellectual content and production of others for advertising money.

https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/03/new-yorker-opines-bloated-police-budgets-dont-provide-safety/

https://citylimits.org/2024/03/22/opinion-bloated-police-budgets-dont-make-us-safe/

“Does the Davis Vanguard not add some detailed information about the issue because it's pending litigation?”

Just as a note: the IRS does not post information about its investigations. But, the Vanguard posted that the IRS made findings against it. They are trying to fundraise for legal fees to appeal. It is almost a certainty that the IRS findings, if upheld, would remove the Vaguard’s 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, and thus also be liable for back taxes and penalties.

At his poorly-attended fundraiser a few weeks ago, Greenwald confirmed that nonprofit law violations for campaigning for candidates is the issue. He also referenced the 60+ violations in this complaint that was filed with the IRS: https://californiaglobe.com/articles/new-irs-complaint-against-non-profit-davis-vanguard-news-service/amp/

And here is a follow-up: https://californiaglobe.com/fr/attorney-says-non-profit-davis-vanguard-news-service-continues-to-violate-despite-irs-complaint/amp/

And here is the 36-page documentation of the alleged violations:
https://californiaglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Davis-Vanguard-21.10.18-Appendix-A-1.pdf

But "speak of the devil" (social justice-related articles), I see that there's a letter to the Davis city council (published in the Vanguard), opposing facial-recognition technology.

For what it's worth, I support technologies that result in the identification of those harming a given community, and look forward to seeing more of them implemented.

R. Keller wrote:

> Here’s an example today in the Vanguard

I want to thank R. Keller for the clear long answer to Tuvia. I was just going to tell him to "Google a section from any Vanguard intern article to find where they cut and pasted if from"

My guess is that nothing will happen to David since I've noticed that people that post thing that agree with the politics of the people that appoint the judges can do pretty much anything they want (left wing political blogs that violate the law tend to get a pass in blue states and right wing political blogs that violate the law tend to get a pass in red states)

P.S. To Tuvia, I think I have seen you recently use both Todd and Tuvia, do you still use both names or have you decided to use just Tuvia

In regard to David's article regarding his apparent support for the elimination of "parking minimums", how does that align with his support for (more) single-family sprawl?

Does he think that single-family sprawl "won't" include parking (e.g., garages and driveways) - regardless of what the law eliminates as a requirement?

Going back five years: here’s documentation of the same plagiarism and theft of content practices from the Vanguard (see the comments too). Since then, I’d be surprised if there was a single day when there wasn’t plagiarized/stolen content on the Vanguard:

https://www.davisite.org/2019/04/a-problem-with-the-davis-vanguards-citation-practices.html

The student is apparently learning from David Greenwald that “professional writing” consists of simply rewriting existing content produced by others under your own name without even providing a link to the original source material.

Hell, do they even need to do THAT, anymore? Why not just use AI?

For that matter, I'd suggest awarding college degrees to AI instead of students. After all, AI is going to be doing a lot of the work, anyway.

And let AI pay off those students loans, as well.

So, it does appear that the lawsuit that the Vanguard is facing is related to a perception that the Vanguard essentially endorsed Jeff Reisig's opponent, per one of the comments at least. (I share that perception, though not the rest of the comment.)

In fact, I don't think that's the only local candidate for office that the Vanguard essentially "endorses".

“We cannot let retaliation by our current D.A. for truthful reporting succeed, nor can we allow the only source of in-depth local news to be silenced.”

https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/04/thank-you-to-the-community/

My guess is that the $1 that Alan Miller contributed will ultimately put them over the top.

"Alan Miller’s $1 donation did get listed, although not his comment."

My comment was up for awhile, so my "fuck you" got through.

Though since my comment was removed, par for the course with the fucked-in-the-head unnamed Davis blog, I will be suing as an "anti-democratic force" to get my dollar back.

So today, David is engaging in his usual race hustling to justify sprawl. And yet, there was no opposition from him in regard to "Davis-connected buyer's program" at WDAAC. Instead, he criticized those who opposed that program as I recall.

What does that say about David?

That is a good question, Alan.

Though one thing it probably says is that there's a demand for "old-people" housing - the only segment of the population that's actually increasing.

There's a rumor floating-around that young people eventually become old people. I never believed it, until recently.

Roberta wrote:

> he keeps throwing around the dehumanizing term "Blacks"

Roberta may be surprised to hear that ~90% of the black people in the US also use the term "black" and "blacks" and just like ~90% of Latinos (and Latinas) hate term "Latinx" that only white liberal women (and the people afraid of them) use black people hate that liberal white women have decided to call them "BIPOC".

P.S, All my gay friends that came out in the 80's still call themself "gay" not LGBT (or LGBDTTTIQQA+++ or whatever the hottest new acronym the liberal white women have come up with for them...)

I find it "fascinating" that Roberta thinks anyone other than "liberal white women" (and the people who work with them and are worried about getting "cancelled" or "fired" by them) spend even a minute thinking about how liberal bloggers refer to People of Color (POC). If Roberta drives ten miles from Davis in any direction I'm sure she can spend the entire day day walking around and reading to David's blog to people (of all colors) and not have a single person tell her it is "dehumanizing"...

The term "Liberal White Women" is dehumanizing :-|

O.K., "Karen".

:-)

But Roberta's point that someone like David doesn't use the latest, most politically-correct racial terminology is spot-on.

Same with David's criticism of those who pointed out the problem with the "Davis-connected buyer's program".

Today, I see that David is continuing to claim that Davis will be "singled-out" for not meeting the state's future RHNA targets, while also failing to explain how cities near the coast (which aren't expanding outward) will meet them. Despite being asked that question many, many times.

The state is truly going to have its hands full, invalidating every urban limit line and any other restrictions on conversion of farmland, under this scenario.

David is also claiming that Measure J will be invalidated by the state, presumably so that some future council can approve every sprawling proposal that arises (beyond city boundaries - and not limited to Davis). But he's also implying that future councils have no choice but to approve them, regardless. So what are councils even needed for, under that scenario? And what good is Measure J, if the only choice is to vote "yes"?

What makes David think that a "revised" Measure J wouldn't be challenged as too-restrictive? And does a revised Measure J mean that councils would have no power at all to decline a proposal, under that scenario? (Again, going back to the question of why councils would even be needed at all?)

David is also noting that none of the proposals would actually address potential/future "affordable" RHNA targets in the first place - even if more than one was approved! So why approve them, if the purpose is to address RHNA targets?

For someone like David, wouldn't he prefer to see Measure J fall? His "concern" about Measure J's potential vulnerability (if there is any) strikes me as fake.

For that matter, wouldn't the state's own Williamson Act be targeted by Rob Bonta, using the same justification? After all, its purpose is to protect farmland from development.

"The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use."

https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa#:~:text=The%20Williamson%20Act%2C%20also%20known,or%20related%20open%20space%20use.

And was just pointing out the irony of people who are not black (or Black, or AA or BIPOC) feeling the need to tell others how to refer to people that are black.

P.S, I don't have "evidence" that over 90% of kids like M&Ms but "over" 90% of the kids I have been around in the last 60 years have liked M&Ms just like "over" 90% of the black people I have know and been around over the last 60 years are fine with the term black and blacks and don't care if anyone uses a capital B.

P.P.S. I wonder if Roberta cam provide any "evidence" that a large number of people (of any color who don't live or work on a college campus) would find David's post "dehumanizing"?

SoD: you seem confused about the difference between adjectives and nouns.

Perhaps this will clarify things. This is federal government policy (the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration and has nothing to do with college campuses):

“Black is the preferred term when referring to an individual’s race. The term should be capitalized and used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example: “Benjamin Robinson was a Black soldier in the U.S. Army.” Note that Blacks and the Blacks are both considered offensive and should not be used. Black people is the preferred plural form of Black.”

https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/lcdrg/appendix/black-person

Roberta: Do you hold those who post anonymously (or semi-anonymously) to a different standard than those who don't?

And is anyone actually "hurt" by anything that SOD said?

Personally, I find all kinds of inconsistencies and absurdities regarding the ever-changing "race/nomenclature guidance", but I haven't put forth any specifics here so far. But your point regarding someone like David using a somewhat "unacceptable" term is applicable, since he purports to be highly concerned about such things. (Even I knew the point you brought up, but missed it until you pointed it out.)

Hell, I essentially called David a "race-hustler", but you didn't object to that. :-)

For what it's worth, I do think he's concerned about such things. What about David's feelings? (Yeah, I'm kind of laughing as I type this, as he apparently has a pretty thick skin.)

"The bills are part of the historic 2024 Reparations Priority Bill Package introduced in February by the California Legislative Black Caucus.

“This is not a handout or a charity of any sort,” Bradford said Tuesday. “It’s what is owed, what is promised, what is 160 years overdue.”

So, I assume that any reparations provided to Black people will be promptly turned-over to the groups labeled as Native Americans. Or perhaps first to the Mexican/Spanish governments, who will then turn it over to Native Americans.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-reparations-bills-clear-first-state-senate-hearings-it-s-what-is-owed/ar-AA1nixRX?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c3f1b92aee8543ae866fa51605f6282a&ei=14

"Personally I think, given the city’s track record over the last nearly 25 years, it seems difficult to imagine that the city would prevail in a legal fight."

-- David Greenwald, some article in that boring, increasingly-irrelevant Davis blog that writes about housing over and over and has nothing new to say, *and* got busted by the IRS for violating it's tax-exempt non-profit status, Ha Ha!!! Burn!!!

"Personally I think, given Greenwald’s track record over the last nearly 20 years, it seems difficult to imagine that the Vanguard would prevail in a legal fight."

-- Alan C. Miller, Lord God King Bufu

ACM wrote "Personally I think, given Greenwald’s track record over the last nearly 20 years, it seems difficult to imagine that the Vanguard would prevail in a legal fight."

^ I came here to say this, but you beat me to it!

Here are the procedures that the Vanguard will have to follow to appeal the IRS findings against them for violating their nonprofit status.
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charity-and-nonprofit-audits-appeal-rights-and-procedures

The first level is administrative to the IRS Independent Office of Appeal. That does require that “Only attorneys, certified public accountants or enrolled agents are allowed to represent a taxpayer before Appeals”. But it wouldn’t be hugely expensive. Given the large amount of money that Greenwald is trying to grift, that appeal was probably already rejected and he has to now file a lawsuit in U.S. federal court.

Given the extremely low percentage of nonprofit violation cases that the IRS actually pursues for enforcement, they only go after cases when the evidence is overwhelming. So, yes, it is VERY difficult to imagine the Vanguard will prevail.

I wonder why Greenwald has tried to characterize the federal government going after him for his illegal activities and the tax money that he owes the public as “dark anti-democratic forces”? He is the one who had tried to subvert democracy by publishing advocacy for/against candidates and ballot issues, which violates what nonprofit organizations are allowed to do to continue to receive their publicly-bestowed tax-exempt status.

The developer listed in the article below (Tsakopoulos) is the same developer who essentially/indirectly threatened Measure J, when abandoning his proposal adjacent to Davis. (My interpretation, at least.)

I understand that this is the same developer would have benefited from the Woodland floodwall, as well. As he did in Natomas.

https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/04/akt-pulls-preliminary-application-for-pioneer-community-mast-plan-letter-questions-how-city-of-davis-will-comply-with-state-housing-laws/

So, here's what he's up to now:

"Why is this influential Sacramento developer pushing for sprawl south of Highway 50?"

"Angelo Tsakopoulos already has an ownership interest in thousands of acres of adjacent ranch land. The 87-year-old father of California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis is pushing for a 2,800-acre, 8,000-home complex that is not in any existing government-approved growth plan and is beyond Sacramento County’s urban services boundary."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/why-is-this-influential-sacramento-developer-pushing-for-sprawl-south-of-highway-50-opinion/ar-AA1nrDSZ?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=af0ff9a14b44431ab9163330368c45b9&ei=15

I believe this is the same development as the one described above (sprawl). And yet, described quite-differently in the article below.

So apparently, UCD is a promoter of sprawl?

Also sounds like a "done deal", to me. Good luck regarding the "workshop".

“Staff recommends that the city council consider the preliminary project review request from AKT and UC Davis for their ‘Community for Health and Independence’ conceptual annexation proposal and provide initial feedback,” city documents say. “This workshop provides an opportunity for early vetting of a potential future project currently located outside (the) city of Folsom boundaries and sphere of influence.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/folsom-el-dorado-county-consider-8-000-unit-housing-proposal/ar-AA1nx5DQ?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=3eab0420e34c44d6850b645f937d77b3&ei=19

Why is it that a social justice blog like the Vanguard isn't covering the widespread protests in support of Palestinians on campuses throughout the U.S.?

As well as elsewhere - such as on the Bay and Golden Gate bridges (resulting in their shutdown), and even at Google's headquarters?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/google-layoffs-israel-19418256.php

From today's Vlinplird, 2nd verse same as the first. (In other words I used to cite which housing article, but they are all the same):

But I think the approach was right—have a public fact-finding session. This is something the city should consider. But of course on housing.

But of course! On housing!

I think some believe that the public is well aware of pressure coming down from the state—but I’m not sure they are. As I have previously reported, I have seen long debates on NextDoor, for instance, that indicate much of the public isn’t aware of a lot of the changes to state law.

As you have previously reported, hardy har har. As you have previously ad naseum spewed more like.

While this doesn’t have to be city led, I think there would be an important level of gravitas if it were some sort of formal subcommittee of the council. Holding the meetings at various times and various locations would be helpful.

Deja vu: that feeling that you've been somewhere, or done something, before . ......

It could be used to jumpstart a General Plan update and also direct a public discussion over a possible Measure J amendment as well as a pre-discussion on the two remaining peripheral projects.

Deja vu: that feeling that you've been somewhere, or done something, before . ......

Here are some key issues that should be discussed:

State housing laws—including the Housing Element, the roll of HCD, RHNA, and of course changes to things like parking minimums

. . . and of course changes to things, like city policy-fed subsidy of developer profits at the expense of quality of life, increased traffic, and the inability to find a parking space.

The Housing Crisis—(a) statewide, (b) local, (c) Measure J and its 25-year impacts

Housing Crisis. Genocide. Housing Crisis. Genocide.

The issue of limited infill space along with the estimates for the 7th RHNA Housing Cycle

"The issue of limited infill space" --> Read this as "how to find more infill space - in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD" And believe me, when they find this 'new' infill space, it won't be in any of the rich neighborhoods in Davis, just like the 'respite center' was originally proposed to be near a neighborhood with homes about $100k more per lot than where it ended up, adjacent to Huntwood and Davis Manor neighborhoods. I'll bet any Councilmember $1000 that the 'new' infill space ends up in a similar place, rather than 'equitably distributed' into Stonegate Lake, North Davis Farms, College Park, Willowbank, etc. How do I know this . . . because that's what *always* happens.

Possible considerations for Measure J amendments

There is no such thing as an amendment to Measure J. There is only the simultaneous dismantling of Measure J, and the passing of a new Measure in its place. Good F**cking luck. (Note: I am in favor of ending Measure J.)

Discussion over the two proposed peripheral projects

meh

Meanwhile, in Marin county - I received the following notification:

Today we have crossed another milestone in the protection of our local agricultural land: the Marin County Board of Supervisors approved $2.9 million in grant funding from the Farmland Preservation Grant Program (Measure A), advancing the conservation of Hicks Mountain Belvedere Ranch and the Corda Family Ranch.

Large expanses of open spaces like this are essential, not only for biodiversity conservation and climate resilience, but for sustaining the local agricultural economy and the rural way of life for West Marin communities.

https://malt.org/land-protection/corda-family-ranch/

Does Scott Wiener, Governor Newsom, and Rob Bonta know that government money is being used to "keep other people out"? :-)

Some good news (for now, at least):

LA court strikes down controversial California law abolishing single-family zoning

“The decision confirms that most of these so-called housing affordability laws are a sham, and won’t result in much-needed affordable housing,” said Susan Candell, a Lafayette city councilwoman and proponent of the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative, which seeks to return local land use decisions back to cities."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-court-strikes-down-controversial-california-law-abolishing-single-family-zoning/ar-AA1nGjyL?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=3c415d297b7a4362a92078d0ac40aea6&ei=79