Target Related Items

I have about several separate things to write on Target today, so I’m combining somewhat different things into a single column.

Someone from the Don’t Big-Box Davis passed along this little nugget of truth. I swear you can’t make this stuff up. Target hired a sign waiver for election day on the corner of Covell and Pole Line. They paid that person $25 per hour. Talk about showing us where the priorities are. Obviously it was extremely important for them to win this election. And obviously much less important to pay their workers well as I don’t think they even pay their managers $10 an hour. This is likely twice as much as they’ll pay any employee at the new store. But to win the election, they’ll pay whatever it takes. In this case, $25 per hour to a sign waiver and over $300,000 overall.

I’m operating under the assumption that Measure K will be approved once the final votes are counted. It is however, worth noting that Measure K was ahead by 1200 votes after the pre-election day absentees were counted and ended up ahead by around 600 votes overall, so on election day, the No on K side actually got very slightly more votes. I still expect Measure K to win after the last votes are counted, but it’s worth noting anyway.

I have said this before and I’ll say this again, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the No on K folks–they faced tremendously long odds on this one. I know polls in June showed that Target would pass easily–60-40 range. I never quite believe those kinds of polls, but I tend to think that’s the case that Target was heavily favored in June. Most people in the end are not ideological about such things–especially the students who I am fairly certain pushed this over the top. I completely understand the reasoning of the students on this. The people I have a problem with are those who were swayed by the green Target campaign, that makes me sick. If you want a Target that’s fine, but let’s not pretend this is something other than a large corporation that practices exploitative policies on the environment and workers around the world. If you can live with that fine, but no amount of giving Target a green spin and a leed building is going to change what they are. I accept losing, I detest deception.

That leads me to my next point–the small businesses who are deadly opposed to Target and went public with that–I have tremendous respect for them. But my next question is to them–come next election are you going to continue (if you have in the past) to support Souza and Saylor for council or are you going to back the people who were on your side in this battle. Make no mistake here, part of what progressives wanted to preserve was the character of our city and the downtown is a huge part of that character. But if next election, those same small businesses are backing Souza and Saylor, then we’ll be having this fight again in a few years. For so many reasons, we need change on the council, hopefully the businesses of downtown will join us to fight those who gave us Target and Covell Village.

Finally, I wish I had had time to put this on before the election, just too much going on in this town leading up to the election. But even more reason to oppose Target, they are not very compassionate toward the disabled community. The disabled community often gets overlooked in these battles. Fortunately they have fighters like our own Anne Evans to advocate on their behalf. Here’s an article she wrote about how Target is being sued for not having accesible web site for the blind:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/11/06/18326960.php

The National Federation for the Blind, an organization that represents blind people, is suing Target Corp., because Target’s Web site is inaccessible to blind Internet users. Target’s argument is their Web site isn’t subject to the Americans With Disabilities Act, a 1990 law that requires retailers and other public places to make accommodations for people with disabilities. Target argued that the law only covered physical spaces. Making information technologies available to persons with disabilities is not only a matter of human rights, it also makes good business sense. Take aim at practices and policies by the Target Corporation that discriminate! Boycott Target!

Evans brought this up with the Human Relations Commission a few years ago pointing out that the city’s website was not blind accessible and the city at the insistance of the HRC made changes with their website to be accessible. This is a very telling thing, because, while Target is arguing that the law only covers physical spaces, it is not exactly difficult to make a website blind accessible. It is certainly not very costly and as they point out, it only makes good business sense to be able to reach a maximum amount of customers. So again very telling that Target would choose to fight this legally rather than make a change. To me that is inexcusable.

I will probably never shop at Target again, previously I might have gone to Target once or twice a year. I shop at Costco, good cheap prices, but they pay their employees extremely well and give them outstanding benefits. Wal Mart keeps their prices down by paying their employees very low and then browbeating their suppliers and threatening them to keep their supply end low. What Costco does is they sell one single national product per type. So the products have limited competition. So if you want to buy Ketchup, you can get one brand of Ketchup. And if you sell Ketchup to Costco, you know you’ll get a huge share of the Ketchup market and that allows you to sell it for much less and still make a worthwhile profit–because basically you sell more of your products. Then Costco (again unlike Target or Wal Mart) turns around and gives their employees huge shares of the profit and have one of the most progressive health care policies in the country. I wouldn’t want a Costco in Davis either, but it nice to have one in Vacaville that I go to a few times a year to stock up in bulk products.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Categories:

Elections

60 comments

  1. Councilman Souza and Saylor have demonstrated that they have no qualms about setting one Davis voting group against another in their quest to curry favor with the political “deep pockets” in Yolo county. Their overwhelming priority is personal political ambition. Councilperson Asmundson’s long career of volunteer service to Davis earns her the benefit of the doubt that her membership in the gang of three is the result of the “misguided” counsel of Saylor and the developer interests rather than personal political ambition. The Target issue, and the General Plan amendments “allowing” more big box retail, aggravate the tensions between the permanent Davis residents who view their city as their home and those UCD students who lack a more mature political vision and have no long-term investment in the quality of life in Davis. After living in Davis for nearly three decades now, I cannot remember the level of rancor and division that now exists in Davis local politics. This must be laid directly at the feet of this current council majority.

  2. Councilman Souza and Saylor have demonstrated that they have no qualms about setting one Davis voting group against another in their quest to curry favor with the political “deep pockets” in Yolo county. Their overwhelming priority is personal political ambition. Councilperson Asmundson’s long career of volunteer service to Davis earns her the benefit of the doubt that her membership in the gang of three is the result of the “misguided” counsel of Saylor and the developer interests rather than personal political ambition. The Target issue, and the General Plan amendments “allowing” more big box retail, aggravate the tensions between the permanent Davis residents who view their city as their home and those UCD students who lack a more mature political vision and have no long-term investment in the quality of life in Davis. After living in Davis for nearly three decades now, I cannot remember the level of rancor and division that now exists in Davis local politics. This must be laid directly at the feet of this current council majority.

  3. Councilman Souza and Saylor have demonstrated that they have no qualms about setting one Davis voting group against another in their quest to curry favor with the political “deep pockets” in Yolo county. Their overwhelming priority is personal political ambition. Councilperson Asmundson’s long career of volunteer service to Davis earns her the benefit of the doubt that her membership in the gang of three is the result of the “misguided” counsel of Saylor and the developer interests rather than personal political ambition. The Target issue, and the General Plan amendments “allowing” more big box retail, aggravate the tensions between the permanent Davis residents who view their city as their home and those UCD students who lack a more mature political vision and have no long-term investment in the quality of life in Davis. After living in Davis for nearly three decades now, I cannot remember the level of rancor and division that now exists in Davis local politics. This must be laid directly at the feet of this current council majority.

  4. Councilman Souza and Saylor have demonstrated that they have no qualms about setting one Davis voting group against another in their quest to curry favor with the political “deep pockets” in Yolo county. Their overwhelming priority is personal political ambition. Councilperson Asmundson’s long career of volunteer service to Davis earns her the benefit of the doubt that her membership in the gang of three is the result of the “misguided” counsel of Saylor and the developer interests rather than personal political ambition. The Target issue, and the General Plan amendments “allowing” more big box retail, aggravate the tensions between the permanent Davis residents who view their city as their home and those UCD students who lack a more mature political vision and have no long-term investment in the quality of life in Davis. After living in Davis for nearly three decades now, I cannot remember the level of rancor and division that now exists in Davis local politics. This must be laid directly at the feet of this current council majority.

  5. I can’t speak for other retailers, but IMO it is a priority to get a third vote on the city council, and to get greater retail representation on the city commissions.
    We have already set up an independent retailers’ group, since it is obvious that the Chamber and the DDBA don’t represent retailers or speak on our behalf. Many of our initial projects will focus on making locally owned businesses more visible and competitive. I can assure you that retailers are angry and feel very alienated right now from the council majority and from the local business organizations.

  6. I can’t speak for other retailers, but IMO it is a priority to get a third vote on the city council, and to get greater retail representation on the city commissions.
    We have already set up an independent retailers’ group, since it is obvious that the Chamber and the DDBA don’t represent retailers or speak on our behalf. Many of our initial projects will focus on making locally owned businesses more visible and competitive. I can assure you that retailers are angry and feel very alienated right now from the council majority and from the local business organizations.

  7. I can’t speak for other retailers, but IMO it is a priority to get a third vote on the city council, and to get greater retail representation on the city commissions.
    We have already set up an independent retailers’ group, since it is obvious that the Chamber and the DDBA don’t represent retailers or speak on our behalf. Many of our initial projects will focus on making locally owned businesses more visible and competitive. I can assure you that retailers are angry and feel very alienated right now from the council majority and from the local business organizations.

  8. I can’t speak for other retailers, but IMO it is a priority to get a third vote on the city council, and to get greater retail representation on the city commissions.
    We have already set up an independent retailers’ group, since it is obvious that the Chamber and the DDBA don’t represent retailers or speak on our behalf. Many of our initial projects will focus on making locally owned businesses more visible and competitive. I can assure you that retailers are angry and feel very alienated right now from the council majority and from the local business organizations.

  9. “The Target issue, and the General Plan amendments “allowing” more big box retail, aggravate the tensions between the permanent Davis residents who view their city as their home and those UCD students who lack a more mature political vision and have no long-term investment in the quality of life in Davis.”

    As someone who has lived in Davis since 1965 (albeit with absenses for college, grad school and some jobs out of the area), I think I qualify as a permanent resident. I don’t see the distinction that you do.

    In fact, other than with the students, I think the split in town is just the opposite of what you believe. I know hundreds of people in town who have lived here for 40 years or more. These long time residents are used to change in Davis, and on the whole favored Target. We remember the days when there actually were stores in Davis (Wingers, Montgomery Ward, etc.) where ordinary families could do their ordinary non-grocery shopping. In my neighborhood, filled with these people, the signs were overwhelmingly pro-Target.

    However, permanent residents who moved to Davis in the ’80s and ’90s tend to have a different view of Davis. A lot of them moved here from the Bay Area, which by then was terribly overcrowded and freeway-clogged. They saw Davis as an escape — a place that is small by design and a very different place from where they came from. Although their arrivals changed the town, their hope has been (generally speaking) to keep Davis frozen in time. That is, they form the largest bloc of the no growth, no change (CAVE) crowd. I think most of these folks opposed Target.

    All that said, I don’t want to leave the impression that the distinction is all that sharp. There are certainly many older residents who opposed Target and many newbies (who came here 25 years ago or less) who favored Target. But to the extent there is a distinction, I think most of the CAVE crowd has lived here well less than 30 years.

    “After living in Davis for nearly three decades now, I cannot remember the level of rancor and division that now exists in Davis local politics.”

    I was a pretty young kid when this was going on: but I know (as somewhat of an expert on Davis history) that there was quite a bit of rancor when Bob Black first was elected to the City Council in the ’70s. Whether that was worse than things are now, I don’t know. Jon Lofland, who has written quite a bit on Davis history, perhaps could answer that question.

    Moving forward, I’m sure there will always be some kind of political divide in Davis. That is natural in all democratic societies. However, I think things may calm down for a little while. Growth (and hence change) tends to cause the most angst; and other than the Hunt Wesson property being built out, I don’t see where we will have too much growth in the next five years. (After that, we will probably revisit the Covell Village development question. And that will again cause rancor.)

  10. “The Target issue, and the General Plan amendments “allowing” more big box retail, aggravate the tensions between the permanent Davis residents who view their city as their home and those UCD students who lack a more mature political vision and have no long-term investment in the quality of life in Davis.”

    As someone who has lived in Davis since 1965 (albeit with absenses for college, grad school and some jobs out of the area), I think I qualify as a permanent resident. I don’t see the distinction that you do.

    In fact, other than with the students, I think the split in town is just the opposite of what you believe. I know hundreds of people in town who have lived here for 40 years or more. These long time residents are used to change in Davis, and on the whole favored Target. We remember the days when there actually were stores in Davis (Wingers, Montgomery Ward, etc.) where ordinary families could do their ordinary non-grocery shopping. In my neighborhood, filled with these people, the signs were overwhelmingly pro-Target.

    However, permanent residents who moved to Davis in the ’80s and ’90s tend to have a different view of Davis. A lot of them moved here from the Bay Area, which by then was terribly overcrowded and freeway-clogged. They saw Davis as an escape — a place that is small by design and a very different place from where they came from. Although their arrivals changed the town, their hope has been (generally speaking) to keep Davis frozen in time. That is, they form the largest bloc of the no growth, no change (CAVE) crowd. I think most of these folks opposed Target.

    All that said, I don’t want to leave the impression that the distinction is all that sharp. There are certainly many older residents who opposed Target and many newbies (who came here 25 years ago or less) who favored Target. But to the extent there is a distinction, I think most of the CAVE crowd has lived here well less than 30 years.

    “After living in Davis for nearly three decades now, I cannot remember the level of rancor and division that now exists in Davis local politics.”

    I was a pretty young kid when this was going on: but I know (as somewhat of an expert on Davis history) that there was quite a bit of rancor when Bob Black first was elected to the City Council in the ’70s. Whether that was worse than things are now, I don’t know. Jon Lofland, who has written quite a bit on Davis history, perhaps could answer that question.

    Moving forward, I’m sure there will always be some kind of political divide in Davis. That is natural in all democratic societies. However, I think things may calm down for a little while. Growth (and hence change) tends to cause the most angst; and other than the Hunt Wesson property being built out, I don’t see where we will have too much growth in the next five years. (After that, we will probably revisit the Covell Village development question. And that will again cause rancor.)

  11. “The Target issue, and the General Plan amendments “allowing” more big box retail, aggravate the tensions between the permanent Davis residents who view their city as their home and those UCD students who lack a more mature political vision and have no long-term investment in the quality of life in Davis.”

    As someone who has lived in Davis since 1965 (albeit with absenses for college, grad school and some jobs out of the area), I think I qualify as a permanent resident. I don’t see the distinction that you do.

    In fact, other than with the students, I think the split in town is just the opposite of what you believe. I know hundreds of people in town who have lived here for 40 years or more. These long time residents are used to change in Davis, and on the whole favored Target. We remember the days when there actually were stores in Davis (Wingers, Montgomery Ward, etc.) where ordinary families could do their ordinary non-grocery shopping. In my neighborhood, filled with these people, the signs were overwhelmingly pro-Target.

    However, permanent residents who moved to Davis in the ’80s and ’90s tend to have a different view of Davis. A lot of them moved here from the Bay Area, which by then was terribly overcrowded and freeway-clogged. They saw Davis as an escape — a place that is small by design and a very different place from where they came from. Although their arrivals changed the town, their hope has been (generally speaking) to keep Davis frozen in time. That is, they form the largest bloc of the no growth, no change (CAVE) crowd. I think most of these folks opposed Target.

    All that said, I don’t want to leave the impression that the distinction is all that sharp. There are certainly many older residents who opposed Target and many newbies (who came here 25 years ago or less) who favored Target. But to the extent there is a distinction, I think most of the CAVE crowd has lived here well less than 30 years.

    “After living in Davis for nearly three decades now, I cannot remember the level of rancor and division that now exists in Davis local politics.”

    I was a pretty young kid when this was going on: but I know (as somewhat of an expert on Davis history) that there was quite a bit of rancor when Bob Black first was elected to the City Council in the ’70s. Whether that was worse than things are now, I don’t know. Jon Lofland, who has written quite a bit on Davis history, perhaps could answer that question.

    Moving forward, I’m sure there will always be some kind of political divide in Davis. That is natural in all democratic societies. However, I think things may calm down for a little while. Growth (and hence change) tends to cause the most angst; and other than the Hunt Wesson property being built out, I don’t see where we will have too much growth in the next five years. (After that, we will probably revisit the Covell Village development question. And that will again cause rancor.)

  12. “The Target issue, and the General Plan amendments “allowing” more big box retail, aggravate the tensions between the permanent Davis residents who view their city as their home and those UCD students who lack a more mature political vision and have no long-term investment in the quality of life in Davis.”

    As someone who has lived in Davis since 1965 (albeit with absenses for college, grad school and some jobs out of the area), I think I qualify as a permanent resident. I don’t see the distinction that you do.

    In fact, other than with the students, I think the split in town is just the opposite of what you believe. I know hundreds of people in town who have lived here for 40 years or more. These long time residents are used to change in Davis, and on the whole favored Target. We remember the days when there actually were stores in Davis (Wingers, Montgomery Ward, etc.) where ordinary families could do their ordinary non-grocery shopping. In my neighborhood, filled with these people, the signs were overwhelmingly pro-Target.

    However, permanent residents who moved to Davis in the ’80s and ’90s tend to have a different view of Davis. A lot of them moved here from the Bay Area, which by then was terribly overcrowded and freeway-clogged. They saw Davis as an escape — a place that is small by design and a very different place from where they came from. Although their arrivals changed the town, their hope has been (generally speaking) to keep Davis frozen in time. That is, they form the largest bloc of the no growth, no change (CAVE) crowd. I think most of these folks opposed Target.

    All that said, I don’t want to leave the impression that the distinction is all that sharp. There are certainly many older residents who opposed Target and many newbies (who came here 25 years ago or less) who favored Target. But to the extent there is a distinction, I think most of the CAVE crowd has lived here well less than 30 years.

    “After living in Davis for nearly three decades now, I cannot remember the level of rancor and division that now exists in Davis local politics.”

    I was a pretty young kid when this was going on: but I know (as somewhat of an expert on Davis history) that there was quite a bit of rancor when Bob Black first was elected to the City Council in the ’70s. Whether that was worse than things are now, I don’t know. Jon Lofland, who has written quite a bit on Davis history, perhaps could answer that question.

    Moving forward, I’m sure there will always be some kind of political divide in Davis. That is natural in all democratic societies. However, I think things may calm down for a little while. Growth (and hence change) tends to cause the most angst; and other than the Hunt Wesson property being built out, I don’t see where we will have too much growth in the next five years. (After that, we will probably revisit the Covell Village development question. And that will again cause rancor.)

  13. Using the Dunning lexicon is not a good way to endear yourself to me. I really dislike what giant chains have done to America. I remember driving across the country in 1980 as a kid and then driving across the country in 1998 as an adult and by 1998 all the towns are very similar in terms of the stores that are there. I dislike the way that giant chains treat their customers generally as commodities, their products are mass produced and inferior, the workers lack the expertise to actually know much about the products they sell, the workers are paid dirt and the manufacturers are practical slaves. To me it’s not progress to bring in a Target. It’s progress to create a locally financed venue to will provide the consumers with their needs while paying their workers a decent wage and not polluting the environment. That’s the kind of town I want to live in. Give me Davis-mart if we need a place to get our socks and underwear. That’s the type of vision and progress I want to see.

  14. Using the Dunning lexicon is not a good way to endear yourself to me. I really dislike what giant chains have done to America. I remember driving across the country in 1980 as a kid and then driving across the country in 1998 as an adult and by 1998 all the towns are very similar in terms of the stores that are there. I dislike the way that giant chains treat their customers generally as commodities, their products are mass produced and inferior, the workers lack the expertise to actually know much about the products they sell, the workers are paid dirt and the manufacturers are practical slaves. To me it’s not progress to bring in a Target. It’s progress to create a locally financed venue to will provide the consumers with their needs while paying their workers a decent wage and not polluting the environment. That’s the kind of town I want to live in. Give me Davis-mart if we need a place to get our socks and underwear. That’s the type of vision and progress I want to see.

  15. Using the Dunning lexicon is not a good way to endear yourself to me. I really dislike what giant chains have done to America. I remember driving across the country in 1980 as a kid and then driving across the country in 1998 as an adult and by 1998 all the towns are very similar in terms of the stores that are there. I dislike the way that giant chains treat their customers generally as commodities, their products are mass produced and inferior, the workers lack the expertise to actually know much about the products they sell, the workers are paid dirt and the manufacturers are practical slaves. To me it’s not progress to bring in a Target. It’s progress to create a locally financed venue to will provide the consumers with their needs while paying their workers a decent wage and not polluting the environment. That’s the kind of town I want to live in. Give me Davis-mart if we need a place to get our socks and underwear. That’s the type of vision and progress I want to see.

  16. Using the Dunning lexicon is not a good way to endear yourself to me. I really dislike what giant chains have done to America. I remember driving across the country in 1980 as a kid and then driving across the country in 1998 as an adult and by 1998 all the towns are very similar in terms of the stores that are there. I dislike the way that giant chains treat their customers generally as commodities, their products are mass produced and inferior, the workers lack the expertise to actually know much about the products they sell, the workers are paid dirt and the manufacturers are practical slaves. To me it’s not progress to bring in a Target. It’s progress to create a locally financed venue to will provide the consumers with their needs while paying their workers a decent wage and not polluting the environment. That’s the kind of town I want to live in. Give me Davis-mart if we need a place to get our socks and underwear. That’s the type of vision and progress I want to see.

  17. Rich Rifkin… without revealing your exact place of residence( I could well understand any reluctance given the style of personal attack in your Enterprise column), I wonder where all those Yes signs were to be found. It was very illuminating to find that the bulk of the Yes signs were stuck in Davis city property, vacant lots, Caltran right of way property and hung on fences. No on K signs, with rare exceptions, were located in the front yards of Davis voters. The city clerk repeatedly informed the Yes on K campaign that this was illegal but it never stopped..and then the Yes campaign had the gall to capture a No on K campaign volunteer,frustrated at the lack of compliance of the Yes campaign, taking down an illegal Yes sign. This was put on Youtube to demonstrate the underhandedness of the No campaign.. Such hypocricy was SOP from the Yes on K campaign. The students did probably tilt the referendum towards Yes . I would guess that that the permanent resident vote was a slim majority NO. As for the the political character of Davis’ older residents, I guess it depends where you start your narrative. My Davis began in the late 60s and early 70s when it took on its decidedly progressive, populist character with the influx of young families and the social and political changes that were occuring at that time. This was in contrast to the more rural, conservative flavor of Davis with its “landed gentry” and entrenched university power centers of previous times. The past 20 years, has seen a dramatic growth of expensive home development on Davis’ periphery with little connection to the Davis ethos that we know is quite special. Keeping those values alive is one of the things that this blog is all about.

  18. Rich Rifkin… without revealing your exact place of residence( I could well understand any reluctance given the style of personal attack in your Enterprise column), I wonder where all those Yes signs were to be found. It was very illuminating to find that the bulk of the Yes signs were stuck in Davis city property, vacant lots, Caltran right of way property and hung on fences. No on K signs, with rare exceptions, were located in the front yards of Davis voters. The city clerk repeatedly informed the Yes on K campaign that this was illegal but it never stopped..and then the Yes campaign had the gall to capture a No on K campaign volunteer,frustrated at the lack of compliance of the Yes campaign, taking down an illegal Yes sign. This was put on Youtube to demonstrate the underhandedness of the No campaign.. Such hypocricy was SOP from the Yes on K campaign. The students did probably tilt the referendum towards Yes . I would guess that that the permanent resident vote was a slim majority NO. As for the the political character of Davis’ older residents, I guess it depends where you start your narrative. My Davis began in the late 60s and early 70s when it took on its decidedly progressive, populist character with the influx of young families and the social and political changes that were occuring at that time. This was in contrast to the more rural, conservative flavor of Davis with its “landed gentry” and entrenched university power centers of previous times. The past 20 years, has seen a dramatic growth of expensive home development on Davis’ periphery with little connection to the Davis ethos that we know is quite special. Keeping those values alive is one of the things that this blog is all about.

  19. Rich Rifkin… without revealing your exact place of residence( I could well understand any reluctance given the style of personal attack in your Enterprise column), I wonder where all those Yes signs were to be found. It was very illuminating to find that the bulk of the Yes signs were stuck in Davis city property, vacant lots, Caltran right of way property and hung on fences. No on K signs, with rare exceptions, were located in the front yards of Davis voters. The city clerk repeatedly informed the Yes on K campaign that this was illegal but it never stopped..and then the Yes campaign had the gall to capture a No on K campaign volunteer,frustrated at the lack of compliance of the Yes campaign, taking down an illegal Yes sign. This was put on Youtube to demonstrate the underhandedness of the No campaign.. Such hypocricy was SOP from the Yes on K campaign. The students did probably tilt the referendum towards Yes . I would guess that that the permanent resident vote was a slim majority NO. As for the the political character of Davis’ older residents, I guess it depends where you start your narrative. My Davis began in the late 60s and early 70s when it took on its decidedly progressive, populist character with the influx of young families and the social and political changes that were occuring at that time. This was in contrast to the more rural, conservative flavor of Davis with its “landed gentry” and entrenched university power centers of previous times. The past 20 years, has seen a dramatic growth of expensive home development on Davis’ periphery with little connection to the Davis ethos that we know is quite special. Keeping those values alive is one of the things that this blog is all about.

  20. Rich Rifkin… without revealing your exact place of residence( I could well understand any reluctance given the style of personal attack in your Enterprise column), I wonder where all those Yes signs were to be found. It was very illuminating to find that the bulk of the Yes signs were stuck in Davis city property, vacant lots, Caltran right of way property and hung on fences. No on K signs, with rare exceptions, were located in the front yards of Davis voters. The city clerk repeatedly informed the Yes on K campaign that this was illegal but it never stopped..and then the Yes campaign had the gall to capture a No on K campaign volunteer,frustrated at the lack of compliance of the Yes campaign, taking down an illegal Yes sign. This was put on Youtube to demonstrate the underhandedness of the No campaign.. Such hypocricy was SOP from the Yes on K campaign. The students did probably tilt the referendum towards Yes . I would guess that that the permanent resident vote was a slim majority NO. As for the the political character of Davis’ older residents, I guess it depends where you start your narrative. My Davis began in the late 60s and early 70s when it took on its decidedly progressive, populist character with the influx of young families and the social and political changes that were occuring at that time. This was in contrast to the more rural, conservative flavor of Davis with its “landed gentry” and entrenched university power centers of previous times. The past 20 years, has seen a dramatic growth of expensive home development on Davis’ periphery with little connection to the Davis ethos that we know is quite special. Keeping those values alive is one of the things that this blog is all about.

  21. Rich,
    If you look at the election results by precint breakdown, Measure K lost in primarily the older core areas of town (Central Davis east of Anderson Road through the downtown and into Old East Davis.) So your analysis does not hold that it was only the newcomers that voted against Target. The long-time residents that voted for our first Big Box just want to have a Target here in town or it could be that the older Davis citizens that have been hearing the mantra “growth is inevitable” for so long and have an unreasonable dislike for anything “CAVE”-like voted in protest. Let’s hope it was the former.

  22. Rich,
    If you look at the election results by precint breakdown, Measure K lost in primarily the older core areas of town (Central Davis east of Anderson Road through the downtown and into Old East Davis.) So your analysis does not hold that it was only the newcomers that voted against Target. The long-time residents that voted for our first Big Box just want to have a Target here in town or it could be that the older Davis citizens that have been hearing the mantra “growth is inevitable” for so long and have an unreasonable dislike for anything “CAVE”-like voted in protest. Let’s hope it was the former.

  23. Rich,
    If you look at the election results by precint breakdown, Measure K lost in primarily the older core areas of town (Central Davis east of Anderson Road through the downtown and into Old East Davis.) So your analysis does not hold that it was only the newcomers that voted against Target. The long-time residents that voted for our first Big Box just want to have a Target here in town or it could be that the older Davis citizens that have been hearing the mantra “growth is inevitable” for so long and have an unreasonable dislike for anything “CAVE”-like voted in protest. Let’s hope it was the former.

  24. Rich,
    If you look at the election results by precint breakdown, Measure K lost in primarily the older core areas of town (Central Davis east of Anderson Road through the downtown and into Old East Davis.) So your analysis does not hold that it was only the newcomers that voted against Target. The long-time residents that voted for our first Big Box just want to have a Target here in town or it could be that the older Davis citizens that have been hearing the mantra “growth is inevitable” for so long and have an unreasonable dislike for anything “CAVE”-like voted in protest. Let’s hope it was the former.

  25. “Rich Rifkin… without revealing your exact place of residence… I wonder where all those Yes signs were to be found.”

    Unlike you, I am not embarrassed by expressing myself in public. I live on Cornell Drive, right off of Sycamore Lane. Your welcome to drop in any time. My next door neighbors, who have lived on Cornell for 25 years and in Davis since the early 1970s, had a Yes on K sign. Also, there were 3 or four more on Cornell between Sycamore and Pine. Beyond those, I saw quite a few on the college streets between Villanova and Stanford.

    “I could well understand any reluctance given the style of personal attack in your Enterprise column.”

    Personal attack? Are you upset about my little FETID joke?

    I’ve never made a single personal attack of any sort, nor would I, in my column. If you think FETID was a personal attack, then you simply have no sense of humor.

    I’ve just thumbed through my last 10 columns to see if there is a thing in any of them that could be fairly construed as being personal or in any way a personal attack.

    I wrote about:

    Prop 87 — nothing personal. I did say that the measure was long and difficult to understand. I suspect most people, pro or con, could be confused by 87 (as was the LAO).
    Target — nothing. I addressed what 4 planning commissioners wrote in a letter to the Enterprise. I didn’t mention any of them by name. I simply took apart their arguments.
    Solar power — nothing. I complimented the No on X folks (though not by name), crediting them for suggesting that all new big developments ought to be 100% solar powered.
    Conaway — includes an attack on the policies of our supervisors, but not in any kind of personal way
    Tattoos — nothing. Though I guess someone who loves tattoos might strongly disagree with me.
    Col. Jos. Chiles — nothing. In fact, I got a lot of positive feedback from Chiles descendants, saying how much they loved the piece about their relative.
    PHEVs — nothing.
    The Near East — nothing.
    Rice Straw — nothing.
    DQU — nothing.

    Sorry, but making personal attacks is your style, Davisite, not mine.

    “Using the Dunning lexicon is not a good way to endear yourself to me.”

    Well, I’ve known Bob a very long time and I love the guy’s work. The Wary I is the best daily column in any paper anywhere, in my opinion. But however you feel about Bob Dunning, his CAVE acronym has become a part of the common lexicon in Davis. Everyone knows what it means. So I just use it out of convenience.

    In fact, but for Bob’s example of making up humorous acronyms, I wouldn’t have put the FETID — Folks Enraged by Target In Davis — joke in my column. But it worked, so what the hell. If Davisite has no sense of humor, there’s nothing I can do about that.

  26. “Rich Rifkin… without revealing your exact place of residence… I wonder where all those Yes signs were to be found.”

    Unlike you, I am not embarrassed by expressing myself in public. I live on Cornell Drive, right off of Sycamore Lane. Your welcome to drop in any time. My next door neighbors, who have lived on Cornell for 25 years and in Davis since the early 1970s, had a Yes on K sign. Also, there were 3 or four more on Cornell between Sycamore and Pine. Beyond those, I saw quite a few on the college streets between Villanova and Stanford.

    “I could well understand any reluctance given the style of personal attack in your Enterprise column.”

    Personal attack? Are you upset about my little FETID joke?

    I’ve never made a single personal attack of any sort, nor would I, in my column. If you think FETID was a personal attack, then you simply have no sense of humor.

    I’ve just thumbed through my last 10 columns to see if there is a thing in any of them that could be fairly construed as being personal or in any way a personal attack.

    I wrote about:

    Prop 87 — nothing personal. I did say that the measure was long and difficult to understand. I suspect most people, pro or con, could be confused by 87 (as was the LAO).
    Target — nothing. I addressed what 4 planning commissioners wrote in a letter to the Enterprise. I didn’t mention any of them by name. I simply took apart their arguments.
    Solar power — nothing. I complimented the No on X folks (though not by name), crediting them for suggesting that all new big developments ought to be 100% solar powered.
    Conaway — includes an attack on the policies of our supervisors, but not in any kind of personal way
    Tattoos — nothing. Though I guess someone who loves tattoos might strongly disagree with me.
    Col. Jos. Chiles — nothing. In fact, I got a lot of positive feedback from Chiles descendants, saying how much they loved the piece about their relative.
    PHEVs — nothing.
    The Near East — nothing.
    Rice Straw — nothing.
    DQU — nothing.

    Sorry, but making personal attacks is your style, Davisite, not mine.

    “Using the Dunning lexicon is not a good way to endear yourself to me.”

    Well, I’ve known Bob a very long time and I love the guy’s work. The Wary I is the best daily column in any paper anywhere, in my opinion. But however you feel about Bob Dunning, his CAVE acronym has become a part of the common lexicon in Davis. Everyone knows what it means. So I just use it out of convenience.

    In fact, but for Bob’s example of making up humorous acronyms, I wouldn’t have put the FETID — Folks Enraged by Target In Davis — joke in my column. But it worked, so what the hell. If Davisite has no sense of humor, there’s nothing I can do about that.

  27. “Rich Rifkin… without revealing your exact place of residence… I wonder where all those Yes signs were to be found.”

    Unlike you, I am not embarrassed by expressing myself in public. I live on Cornell Drive, right off of Sycamore Lane. Your welcome to drop in any time. My next door neighbors, who have lived on Cornell for 25 years and in Davis since the early 1970s, had a Yes on K sign. Also, there were 3 or four more on Cornell between Sycamore and Pine. Beyond those, I saw quite a few on the college streets between Villanova and Stanford.

    “I could well understand any reluctance given the style of personal attack in your Enterprise column.”

    Personal attack? Are you upset about my little FETID joke?

    I’ve never made a single personal attack of any sort, nor would I, in my column. If you think FETID was a personal attack, then you simply have no sense of humor.

    I’ve just thumbed through my last 10 columns to see if there is a thing in any of them that could be fairly construed as being personal or in any way a personal attack.

    I wrote about:

    Prop 87 — nothing personal. I did say that the measure was long and difficult to understand. I suspect most people, pro or con, could be confused by 87 (as was the LAO).
    Target — nothing. I addressed what 4 planning commissioners wrote in a letter to the Enterprise. I didn’t mention any of them by name. I simply took apart their arguments.
    Solar power — nothing. I complimented the No on X folks (though not by name), crediting them for suggesting that all new big developments ought to be 100% solar powered.
    Conaway — includes an attack on the policies of our supervisors, but not in any kind of personal way
    Tattoos — nothing. Though I guess someone who loves tattoos might strongly disagree with me.
    Col. Jos. Chiles — nothing. In fact, I got a lot of positive feedback from Chiles descendants, saying how much they loved the piece about their relative.
    PHEVs — nothing.
    The Near East — nothing.
    Rice Straw — nothing.
    DQU — nothing.

    Sorry, but making personal attacks is your style, Davisite, not mine.

    “Using the Dunning lexicon is not a good way to endear yourself to me.”

    Well, I’ve known Bob a very long time and I love the guy’s work. The Wary I is the best daily column in any paper anywhere, in my opinion. But however you feel about Bob Dunning, his CAVE acronym has become a part of the common lexicon in Davis. Everyone knows what it means. So I just use it out of convenience.

    In fact, but for Bob’s example of making up humorous acronyms, I wouldn’t have put the FETID — Folks Enraged by Target In Davis — joke in my column. But it worked, so what the hell. If Davisite has no sense of humor, there’s nothing I can do about that.

  28. “Rich Rifkin… without revealing your exact place of residence… I wonder where all those Yes signs were to be found.”

    Unlike you, I am not embarrassed by expressing myself in public. I live on Cornell Drive, right off of Sycamore Lane. Your welcome to drop in any time. My next door neighbors, who have lived on Cornell for 25 years and in Davis since the early 1970s, had a Yes on K sign. Also, there were 3 or four more on Cornell between Sycamore and Pine. Beyond those, I saw quite a few on the college streets between Villanova and Stanford.

    “I could well understand any reluctance given the style of personal attack in your Enterprise column.”

    Personal attack? Are you upset about my little FETID joke?

    I’ve never made a single personal attack of any sort, nor would I, in my column. If you think FETID was a personal attack, then you simply have no sense of humor.

    I’ve just thumbed through my last 10 columns to see if there is a thing in any of them that could be fairly construed as being personal or in any way a personal attack.

    I wrote about:

    Prop 87 — nothing personal. I did say that the measure was long and difficult to understand. I suspect most people, pro or con, could be confused by 87 (as was the LAO).
    Target — nothing. I addressed what 4 planning commissioners wrote in a letter to the Enterprise. I didn’t mention any of them by name. I simply took apart their arguments.
    Solar power — nothing. I complimented the No on X folks (though not by name), crediting them for suggesting that all new big developments ought to be 100% solar powered.
    Conaway — includes an attack on the policies of our supervisors, but not in any kind of personal way
    Tattoos — nothing. Though I guess someone who loves tattoos might strongly disagree with me.
    Col. Jos. Chiles — nothing. In fact, I got a lot of positive feedback from Chiles descendants, saying how much they loved the piece about their relative.
    PHEVs — nothing.
    The Near East — nothing.
    Rice Straw — nothing.
    DQU — nothing.

    Sorry, but making personal attacks is your style, Davisite, not mine.

    “Using the Dunning lexicon is not a good way to endear yourself to me.”

    Well, I’ve known Bob a very long time and I love the guy’s work. The Wary I is the best daily column in any paper anywhere, in my opinion. But however you feel about Bob Dunning, his CAVE acronym has become a part of the common lexicon in Davis. Everyone knows what it means. So I just use it out of convenience.

    In fact, but for Bob’s example of making up humorous acronyms, I wouldn’t have put the FETID — Folks Enraged by Target In Davis — joke in my column. But it worked, so what the hell. If Davisite has no sense of humor, there’s nothing I can do about that.

  29. Rich: For one who likes to use sarcasm and satire in your columns, you’ve been a slow on the uptake that I’m being a bit sarcastic at times when poking jabs at you. Obviously you’ve rubbed a few people the wrong way, I got 15 emails after your fetid column telling me to slam you.

    Anyway, I lost a lot of respect for Dunning last spring–he went from witty and humorous to mean-spirited and petty in some of his columns on the police issue. I know a lot of people who cancelled theirs subs after that. I like him on a personal level, but he’s more than a bit thin-skinned when he comes under attack.

    At the end of the day, I think we engage in far too many Hobson’s choices in this town–there is certainly some good middle ground that could be pursued between Target and a vacant field next to a superfund sight.

    With the Mace Ranch issue coming on Tuesday, I don’t think things are going to let up any time soon, Souza and Saylor obviously want to keep the heat on and their pursuit of higher office going.

  30. Rich: For one who likes to use sarcasm and satire in your columns, you’ve been a slow on the uptake that I’m being a bit sarcastic at times when poking jabs at you. Obviously you’ve rubbed a few people the wrong way, I got 15 emails after your fetid column telling me to slam you.

    Anyway, I lost a lot of respect for Dunning last spring–he went from witty and humorous to mean-spirited and petty in some of his columns on the police issue. I know a lot of people who cancelled theirs subs after that. I like him on a personal level, but he’s more than a bit thin-skinned when he comes under attack.

    At the end of the day, I think we engage in far too many Hobson’s choices in this town–there is certainly some good middle ground that could be pursued between Target and a vacant field next to a superfund sight.

    With the Mace Ranch issue coming on Tuesday, I don’t think things are going to let up any time soon, Souza and Saylor obviously want to keep the heat on and their pursuit of higher office going.

  31. Rich: For one who likes to use sarcasm and satire in your columns, you’ve been a slow on the uptake that I’m being a bit sarcastic at times when poking jabs at you. Obviously you’ve rubbed a few people the wrong way, I got 15 emails after your fetid column telling me to slam you.

    Anyway, I lost a lot of respect for Dunning last spring–he went from witty and humorous to mean-spirited and petty in some of his columns on the police issue. I know a lot of people who cancelled theirs subs after that. I like him on a personal level, but he’s more than a bit thin-skinned when he comes under attack.

    At the end of the day, I think we engage in far too many Hobson’s choices in this town–there is certainly some good middle ground that could be pursued between Target and a vacant field next to a superfund sight.

    With the Mace Ranch issue coming on Tuesday, I don’t think things are going to let up any time soon, Souza and Saylor obviously want to keep the heat on and their pursuit of higher office going.

  32. Rich: For one who likes to use sarcasm and satire in your columns, you’ve been a slow on the uptake that I’m being a bit sarcastic at times when poking jabs at you. Obviously you’ve rubbed a few people the wrong way, I got 15 emails after your fetid column telling me to slam you.

    Anyway, I lost a lot of respect for Dunning last spring–he went from witty and humorous to mean-spirited and petty in some of his columns on the police issue. I know a lot of people who cancelled theirs subs after that. I like him on a personal level, but he’s more than a bit thin-skinned when he comes under attack.

    At the end of the day, I think we engage in far too many Hobson’s choices in this town–there is certainly some good middle ground that could be pursued between Target and a vacant field next to a superfund sight.

    With the Mace Ranch issue coming on Tuesday, I don’t think things are going to let up any time soon, Souza and Saylor obviously want to keep the heat on and their pursuit of higher office going.

  33. The need for anonymity by the authors of this blogs comments is entirely appropriate. Using your name, as Rich Rifkin does in these comments, smacks of a sense of self-importance that is not attractive. There are two issues in anonymity. It makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE who writes the blog.. If the facts and analysis ring true to the readers, that it all that matters. The ridicule that is used by Dunning and his Enterprise columnist wannabes where they attempt to accuse the writer of hypocricy at they attack them often depends on identifying the individual who is raising THE ISSUE. A good example was Dunning’s attack on Greenwald about affordable housing needs in Davis .. ridiculing her in his column about why she didn’t rent out one of HER home properties to these people if she is so concerned about this issue.. This had nothing to do with the issue at hand and was only possible because he could attack her personally.