Has anyone looked at the EIR item for the "Shriner's" project that the council has before them tomorrow night?

I glanced at the Shriner's item. On a more global scale, Tim Keller has oft talked about how Measure J makes actual inter-project planning impossible, so each project ends up being like it's own isolated proj-e-sac. I agree with this, but wouldn't a wise City still draw out a master plan for upcoming projects in order to find escape route, inter-connectivity, regional shopping ease, public transit and bike routes, etc ? Could not a generic grid be set up overall? Maybe I was good at 'wouldn't a *wise* city?' -- and answered my own question.

This is unbelievable. Now a business could face fines for calling in theft crimes to the Sacramento police.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sacramento-city-attorney-s-office-warned-target-it-could-face-fines-for-retail-theft-calls/ar-BB1pFAbK

"But DG points out crime statistics are down -- I wonder why ??? :-|"

Yes, that's why I posted this. Everyone knows that crime statistics has turned into a political wedge issue. So those advocating for Progressive justice and those currently in power, Democrats, do everything they can to downplay the severity of the crime numbers.

I'm currently having a discussion with David on the Vanguard.

I think David overreacts and calls too many things a crisis where most others might use the term a problem.

How do you all feel about this?

Don't forget the student enrollment problem and the City budget problem.

Are there any other problems I'm leaving out that the Vanguard calls a crisis?

How about the retail theft crisis?

Or, the ongoing fiasco in Oakland - including 14 people shot on "Juneteenth"?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/oakland-crisis-residents-say-it-s-worst-19544058.php

Hey KO. Are you demolished yet? :-|

I'd be glad to provide two examples of something that David calls a "crisis", but actually aren't:

1. The "housing crisis". (It doesn't exist. Anyone want to take me up on that - other than the usual "I can't afford it" while working as a barista in a place like San Francisco, or while experiencing severe mental illness and addictions?)

Is anyone claiming with a straight face that (assuming they're a functioning adult) they can't find housing that they can afford anywhere in the country? If that's what they're claiming, than this would indicate a problem "other than" regulations such as Measure J.

Again, many of the people in Davis moved FROM more-expensive areas TO Davis.

What is the actual data that's being used to support the claim that there's a housing shortage (locally, regionally, statewide, or nationwide)?

2. The "school crisis". (The result of a declining school-age population combined with a district that refuses to right-size.)

Note the relationship between these two examples. Both of which are related to the fact that the state is no longer growing - which the development activists aren't happy about.

Oh, did I not mention the world in which David Greenwald has the power to declare a 'crisis' instead of describing a problem? It's called David Greenwald's World of Delusion, where he reins as the ultra-progressive ruler of all that is that right and relevant!

His world anthem goes like this:

Ol' David Greenwald had a blog
D.E.I. D.E.I. Oh!
and on his blog he wrote on housing
D.E.I. D.E.I. Oh!
With Crisis here, and Crisis there
Here a Crisis, there a Crisis, everywhere a Jesus Crisis!
Ol' David Greenwald had a blog
D.E.I. D.E.I. Oh!

Ron wrote:

> Is anyone claiming with a straight face that (assuming they're a
> functioning adult) they can't find housing that they can afford
> anywhere in the country?

David and others in the "housing crisis" camp are trying to convince us that the "crisis" is so bad that MORE than 10% of "college students" are "homeless" (the same way the "climate crisis" camp have kids today convinced that we got the same amount of rain every year and it was never over 100 degrees in Davis before "climate change")...

https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/04/students-are-taking-the-housing-crisis-into-their-own-hands/student-homelessness/

https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/04/students-are-taking-the-housing-crisis-into-their-own-hands/student-homelessness/

For all the talk about David Greenwald being “ultra-progressive,” the irony is he’s never offered or supported actual progressive/liberal solutions to the so-called “housing crisis”. Instead, he is firmly in the camp of the conservative, laissez-faire crowd who think that if we just removed burdensome regulations and let the developers do whatever they want, we’d be living in an affordable housing paradise.

He is, of course, also against the burdensome governmental regulation of activities of nonprofit organizations, which is why he has had adverse findings by the IRS against him because of his violations of non-profit rules and evading taxes.

This is probably the most straightforward comment I've ever seen from Matt Williams. A portion of which is pasted below:

In Davis (and other college/university towns) the largest component of local housing demand comes from UCD, and the near nonexistent jobs growth in Davis has not produced additional demand for housing. HCD understands those statistically clear realities of Davis’ local housing demand, but they ignore those realities in looking at housing unit supply and housing unit additions within the City. In effect they are handing Davis the unfunded mandate and then tying Davis’ arms behind its back. It is time to punch that bully in the nose, not roll over with ones legs in the air.

I'd do it myself, if I had any power to do so. But it takes a group effort - in conjunction with other cities which have had enough of Scott Wiener, Rob Bonta, and Gavin Newsom (not to mention Cecilia Aguiar-Curry - who somehow isn't even questioned regarding this, but has been in full support of the bullies). As long as people automatically select Democrats, they have no reason to change (and will continue relying upon the business interests which fund them).

One thing I have learned over the years is that it takes a group to take down an entrenched "bully" - as Matt puts it.

Davis cannot do this by itself, nor can any individual city. There has to be a coordinated group effort.

Of course, the other factor working against the bullies is that no matter how many laws they pass, they're still going to fail unless they learn to do so some "blue-collar" work, themselves. Consisting of much more than ceremonial shovels of dirt. (Not a chance of that, for sure.)

https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/07/applicant-withdraws-north-covell-project/#comment-479493

Ron wrote:

> As long as people automatically select Democrats, they have no
> reason to change (and will continue relying upon the business
> interests which fund them).

Sadly almost everyone identifies as a Democrat will keep voting for Democrats no matter what they do even if they are senile and dumb as a box of rocks or if they sleep with their (self described) "best friend's" wife and go out to eat at fancy restaurants and send their kids to fancy private schools when most Democrats who used to work in locked down restaurants were stuck in their one bedroom apartment cashing unemployment checks while their kids shared a single Android phone to go to "zoom classes" at their locked down public school. The people that identify as Republicans (and more often than not "Christians") are just as bad and will get behind a twice divorced narcissistic sociopath who bangs porn stars and has shown he is s big liar since he not only didn't "build a wall", but he didn't he didn't "get Mexico to "pay for it". Every year I see more and more people realize that ALL politicians and ALL of the mainstream media are lying to us to I have some hope...

South of Davis:

Your 8:46 PM post gives me such hope for humanity!

:-)

As George Carlin once said, maybe it's not the politicians who suck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVXekzwkz10

Check out this photo from today's rally. Apparently, Trump got hit by a grazing shot on his ear.

What you're looking at is only going to help him, politically. (Do you suppose he'll say, "honey, I forgot to duck"? (Reference to Reagan.)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/13/politics/gallery/in-pictures-trump-injured-at-pennsylvania-rally/index.html

"Trump most likely won the election yesterday."

Amazing how the guy they hired was such an amazing shot he was able to hit his ear, then kill someone else to make it look like he was a lousy shot, and then be eliminated himself to cover up the trail. Brilliant campaign strategy I say :-|

ACM, is that what conspiracy theorists are saying?

Ron wrote:

> This has got to say more about America than anything else I've seen:

The article Ron linked to says that the Chinese are making and selling the Trump shirts and they are also making all the red MAGA hats (that I have only seen outside Davis). I bet the Chinese would not hire an American company to produce red Make China Great Again hats...

P,S, When I read that Biden wants to settle things in the "Battle Box" I pictured hundreds of MAGA wearing nut balls chanting "Two men enter one man leave" outside the "Battle Box".

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-politics-joe-biden-doald-trump-video-in-fresh-gaffe-joe-biden-refers-to-battle-box-as-ballot-box-6108245

KO say: "ACM, is that what conspiracy theorists are saying?"

I just went with and outrageous theory and pretty much figure it would be floated. More recently I've heard the SS are in on it since over 2 minutes passed between when he was spotted and when Trump was shot.

Though I doubt doubt the conspiracy, how in the hell does that happen. It's as outrageous as how in the hell did Hamas get over the border undetected in multiple places, and IDF didn't respond for many many hours. Some of these lapses seem beyond comprehension. I still haven't heard a good explanation for the Israel one. "They took us by surprise" is pretty lame, and "troops were elsewhere" is pretty lame when you consider the size of Israel. And two minutes? I'm not conspiracy-headed in either case, but how how how -- in either case?

From the article that SOD posted:

Biden: "And now I want to hand it over to the president of Ukraine, who has as much courage as he has determination, ladies and gentlemen, President Putin," he said, referring to Zelenskyy while speaking on the sidelines of the NATO Summit in Washington."

"He then quickly corrected himself and said, "President Putin, you're going to beat President Putin, President Zelenskyy. I am so focused on beating Putin."

I'm confused, as I understood that Biden intended to beat Medicare.

I'm sure that very few actually want to see a politician get shot. But if forced to make a "choice", I suspect that some Democrats would secretly prefer it to be Biden, rather than Trump.

"Honey, I forgot to duck." (Sorry "honey", but I forgot your actual name.)

Stockdale might have said it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk53qOhq40M

My friends on the left agree with University of Virginia Assistant Professor Sethunya Mokoko who says the entire assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump was a "staged event for sucker" while my friends on the right are saying that when a veteran Secret Service guy reported a "guy with a gun on a roof" his radio was turned off as punishment when his DEI hire "girl boss" heard him assume the gender of the "person" with the gun... P.S. To Ron, you must hang out with "nicer" people than I do since I would guess that the majority of people I know on the left do want Donald Trump to get shot (and die) but to be fair I'm guessing that the majority of people I know on the right would be happy if Hillary Clinton was shot (and died). I hope we can go back to the days when most of us had no idea if our friends voted Democrat or Republican (or voted at all)...

P.S. To Ron, you must hang out with "nicer" people than I do since I would guess that the majority of people I know on the left do want Donald Trump to get shot (and die) but to be fair I'm guessing that the majority of people I know on the right would be happy if Hillary Clinton was shot (and died).

I'm sure that some people do want that (in the abstract), but fewer when you remember what that actually looks like (e.g., Kennedy).

Then there's the impact on their families.

In any case, I suspect that some Democrats would prefer it if Biden was given the same treatment as "Stockdale", in regard to this skit from SNL. I remember it when it was first shown, and found it quite amusing:

https://vimeo.com/658162658?cjdata=MXxOfDB8WXww&utm_campaign=5250933&utm_source=affiliate&utm_channel=affiliate&cjevent=3134101f431611ef822a236f0a1cb828&clickid=3134101f431611ef822a236f0a1cb828

Since Trump is already assumed to be the president-elect, it will be interesting to see what happens if Biden actually beats him (again). THAT's when there'd likely be riots.

It now costs over $60K/year to send a kid to Menlo, Castilleja and the Woodside Priory on the Peninsula. With so many public schools in blue areas of CA spending more and more time on "gender" and getting over the moon excited every time a kid says he or she is "trans" or "non-binary" (or is a "they") I would not be surprised if the demand for schools that won't push your kids to abandon traditional gender roles soon pushes the cost of private schools over $100K/year. P.S. Lots of politicians (and my friends) are OK with allowing abortions and surgical sex changes for 14 year old kids without any parent OK and I have never got a good answer to why if they trust the 14 year old kids to make good decisions why they don't allow them to also decide if they want a tattoo, nose ring or 12 pack of beer...

So today, David Greenwald claims that it's a "myth" that developers are powerful, due to Measure J and other regulations.

Well, who do you think is trying to undermine Measure J via a threat of potential lawsuits (or from developer-supported YIMBY politicians who have weaseled their way into office) in the first place? (Besides David Greenwald?)

Who do you think helped put YIMBY politicians into office - and who are predictably attempting to undermine CEQA, oppose rent control, force cities to build housing via totally unrealistic and unsupported "goals" by issuing threats if they don't comply? Despite the fact that their developer friends aren't building anyway, in this environment? (Except for continuing sprawl.)

Who do you think set up cities to fail, so that YIMBY politicians can then gut regulations and remove control from the cities that they're supposed to be representing?

Who do you think is the source of claims regarding a "housing shortage" in a state with a declining population?

"For somebody who fancies himself an expert on politics, he sure demonstrates a lack of awareness and knowledge."

I don't believe it's a "lack of awareness and knowledge". I believe David's choice in reporting is purposeful. He is well-aware of who is supporting YIMBYs and proposals such as "California Forever", the well-funded lobbying which goes on at the state capitol, the sprawl which is continuing throughout the region despite the drop in state population, etc.

He is also aware of the declining school population throughout the state, while simultaneously lobbying for Davis to single-handedly reverse that trend.

He puts out one-sided, misleading (and sometimes false) information which support his position. For example, his claim that closing down a school won't save money and/or would "damage" the system. His "source" for that claim, of course, is the self-interested school district itself.

He claims to be supportive and concerned about Measure J, while constantly claiming that it will be overturned unless it's gutted (his actual goal).

That's how you know that he's not "lacking awareness and knowledge". His major in college was political science, as I recall.

If anything, David is the embodiment of "awareness" regarding how to push an agenda, whether its his pro-development position, social justice, etc.

"I wonder if he is as 'aware' of nonprofit law as he seems to believe his lawyers are."

That's yet another case of "political spin". David is not going to tell you if the Vanguard is actually facing a serious threat. Instead, he's going to claim that "opponents are trying to destroy democracy", or something to that effect. I believe he's already made a similar claim. And the reason for that has to do with fund-raising.

Gee, this all sounds so familiar (at a national, or any level) at this point. Maybe it was always that way. But no, this doesn't cause people to become cynical. :-)

Let's be "clear" here - there's good guys, and there's bad guys. The good guys are always those who agree with you (or make-believe that they do).