Dunning in the latest installation in his continuing saga against Lamar and “Target-did-not-get-a-mandate-gate” writes:
“You know, Sharon, Lamar’s remark was so off the wall and he’s so new at this that I’ve decided to give him a Mulligan on this one… basically, he’s trying to convince us that because it passed by such a small margin, it didn’t really pass at all…”
Yes, Bob, Lamar is claiming that Target didn’t actually pass… right. Mulligan? How many columns has Dunning written about Heystek in the last two weeks?
Looks like the good professor called it right two weeks ago when he wrote me:
“You might want to jot down Friday, November 17 as the day on which Bob Dunning started another of his standard snide and sarcastic campaigns against a new, threatening progressive Council member.”
Of course this is nothing compared to Wednesday’s column, but it’s just another example.
Speaking of Dunning… he keeps hitting on the Yamada and Souza elitism shtick
He quotes Tim as saying:
“I find it interesting that politicians such as Souza and Yamada can’t accept their defeat.”
Now I’ll be darned if I’m going to let Dunning force me to defend Souza, but geez, Bob, could you for a moment accept the possibility that when your opponents spends $11 million in order to defeat your ballot measure that you’ve been working on for a considerable length of time, you might not be the most gracious person in the world. I’m willing to accept defeat; deceit is a little tougher to swallow.
Tim if you are taking offense to that, it’s time to lighten up and get some skin. Either that or start following the opera, because politics is a tough world and those were softball comments.
Selling the suit
Another Davis Enterprise article this one on November 29, 2006, ostensibly to tell us that the city has indeed followed through on the lawsuit, because it does not actually give any further details that their previous article from a November 21, 2006 did not.
Meanwhile Crilly Butler of Davis writes into the Enterprise to ask:
“The Davis City Council is going to sue the city of Dixon for approving a horse racetrack because it’s going to increase pollution and traffic congestion. This is the same City Council that supported “our” new Target store, when the Target EIR itself stated that the impact on air pollution and traffic were “significant” and “unavoidable”?
Yes Crilly, I am afraid so. At some point, I’d like to hear Stephen Souza, Don Saylor, or Bill Emlen explain the logic. At least give credit to Greenwald and Heystek on this one—they were consistent—against Target, against Dixon Downs.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
This Dixon lawsuit is not about principle but about process. The city of Davis is probably not trying to stop Dixon Downs(this will be determined by Dixon’s own referendum if they can collect the signatures) but rather to force Dixon( and Magna Entertainment) to offer a settlement that will improve road conditions and mitigate the traffic that Dixon Downs will generate. Evidently, Davis’ overtures on this issue have been rebuffed by the city of Dixon. While our city’s public statements may lend itself to charges of hypocricy as it relates to Target, I do not think that it is warranted in this case.
This Dixon lawsuit is not about principle but about process. The city of Davis is probably not trying to stop Dixon Downs(this will be determined by Dixon’s own referendum if they can collect the signatures) but rather to force Dixon( and Magna Entertainment) to offer a settlement that will improve road conditions and mitigate the traffic that Dixon Downs will generate. Evidently, Davis’ overtures on this issue have been rebuffed by the city of Dixon. While our city’s public statements may lend itself to charges of hypocricy as it relates to Target, I do not think that it is warranted in this case.
This Dixon lawsuit is not about principle but about process. The city of Davis is probably not trying to stop Dixon Downs(this will be determined by Dixon’s own referendum if they can collect the signatures) but rather to force Dixon( and Magna Entertainment) to offer a settlement that will improve road conditions and mitigate the traffic that Dixon Downs will generate. Evidently, Davis’ overtures on this issue have been rebuffed by the city of Dixon. While our city’s public statements may lend itself to charges of hypocricy as it relates to Target, I do not think that it is warranted in this case.
This Dixon lawsuit is not about principle but about process. The city of Davis is probably not trying to stop Dixon Downs(this will be determined by Dixon’s own referendum if they can collect the signatures) but rather to force Dixon( and Magna Entertainment) to offer a settlement that will improve road conditions and mitigate the traffic that Dixon Downs will generate. Evidently, Davis’ overtures on this issue have been rebuffed by the city of Dixon. While our city’s public statements may lend itself to charges of hypocricy as it relates to Target, I do not think that it is warranted in this case.
One thing I’m not clear on about the lawsuit that hopefully some reader of this blog can clear up for me: is the city of Davis claiming that the Dixon Downs project will cause traffic on streets in the city of Davis? Or is it simply claiming that it was impact traffic on Interstate 80, which is used by people who live and work in Davis?
If it is the former, I can see how the city of Davis has a case. However, if it is the latter, then the lawsuit makes no sense at all to me. Interstate 80 passes by Davis — it actually splits our town in two, of course — but it is not actually in the Davis city limits. That is, the Davsi City Counsel has no jurisdiction over I-80. It is a federal highway and is subject to state laws. But it is not as if I-80, from the 113 North exit to Mace Blvd is the property of Davis or within the bailiwick of our City Council.
One thing I’m not clear on about the lawsuit that hopefully some reader of this blog can clear up for me: is the city of Davis claiming that the Dixon Downs project will cause traffic on streets in the city of Davis? Or is it simply claiming that it was impact traffic on Interstate 80, which is used by people who live and work in Davis?
If it is the former, I can see how the city of Davis has a case. However, if it is the latter, then the lawsuit makes no sense at all to me. Interstate 80 passes by Davis — it actually splits our town in two, of course — but it is not actually in the Davis city limits. That is, the Davsi City Counsel has no jurisdiction over I-80. It is a federal highway and is subject to state laws. But it is not as if I-80, from the 113 North exit to Mace Blvd is the property of Davis or within the bailiwick of our City Council.
One thing I’m not clear on about the lawsuit that hopefully some reader of this blog can clear up for me: is the city of Davis claiming that the Dixon Downs project will cause traffic on streets in the city of Davis? Or is it simply claiming that it was impact traffic on Interstate 80, which is used by people who live and work in Davis?
If it is the former, I can see how the city of Davis has a case. However, if it is the latter, then the lawsuit makes no sense at all to me. Interstate 80 passes by Davis — it actually splits our town in two, of course — but it is not actually in the Davis city limits. That is, the Davsi City Counsel has no jurisdiction over I-80. It is a federal highway and is subject to state laws. But it is not as if I-80, from the 113 North exit to Mace Blvd is the property of Davis or within the bailiwick of our City Council.
One thing I’m not clear on about the lawsuit that hopefully some reader of this blog can clear up for me: is the city of Davis claiming that the Dixon Downs project will cause traffic on streets in the city of Davis? Or is it simply claiming that it was impact traffic on Interstate 80, which is used by people who live and work in Davis?
If it is the former, I can see how the city of Davis has a case. However, if it is the latter, then the lawsuit makes no sense at all to me. Interstate 80 passes by Davis — it actually splits our town in two, of course — but it is not actually in the Davis city limits. That is, the Davsi City Counsel has no jurisdiction over I-80. It is a federal highway and is subject to state laws. But it is not as if I-80, from the 113 North exit to Mace Blvd is the property of Davis or within the bailiwick of our City Council.
Correction: “Or is it simply claiming that it would impact traffic on Interstate 80, which is used by people who live and work in Davis?”
Correction: “Or is it simply claiming that it would impact traffic on Interstate 80, which is used by people who live and work in Davis?”
Correction: “Or is it simply claiming that it would impact traffic on Interstate 80, which is used by people who live and work in Davis?”
Correction: “Or is it simply claiming that it would impact traffic on Interstate 80, which is used by people who live and work in Davis?”
Correction #2: “That is, the Davis City Council has no jurisdiction over I-80.
Correction #2: “That is, the Davis City Council has no jurisdiction over I-80.
Correction #2: “That is, the Davis City Council has no jurisdiction over I-80.
Correction #2: “That is, the Davis City Council has no jurisdiction over I-80.
This is what they are claiming:
“Or is it simply claiming that it would impact traffic on Interstate 80, which is used by people who live and work in Davis?”
And they are claiming it would impact I-80 at the point when it goes through Davis. And they are seeking mitigation–i.e. alternate routes–for traffic abation…
This is what they are claiming:
“Or is it simply claiming that it would impact traffic on Interstate 80, which is used by people who live and work in Davis?”
And they are claiming it would impact I-80 at the point when it goes through Davis. And they are seeking mitigation–i.e. alternate routes–for traffic abation…
This is what they are claiming:
“Or is it simply claiming that it would impact traffic on Interstate 80, which is used by people who live and work in Davis?”
And they are claiming it would impact I-80 at the point when it goes through Davis. And they are seeking mitigation–i.e. alternate routes–for traffic abation…
This is what they are claiming:
“Or is it simply claiming that it would impact traffic on Interstate 80, which is used by people who live and work in Davis?”
And they are claiming it would impact I-80 at the point when it goes through Davis. And they are seeking mitigation–i.e. alternate routes–for traffic abation…
“they are claiming it would impact I-80 at the point when it goes through Davis. And they are seeking mitigation–i.e. alternate routes–for traffic abation…”
I can’t imagine that, if it only impacts I-80, even when and where I-80 passes through Davis, that the city of Davis has any kind of a case.
If I am wrong, and Davis really has some right of redress, then Dixon ought to be able to sue Davis for Target; or they could sue UC Davis for the Mondavi Center; or Davis could sue West Sac for Raley Field; or Sacramento could sue West Sac for IKEA. All of those buildings/developments have an impact on the freeway traffic that passes through neighboring cities. If that is the standard, and I doubt it is, then every development in every city could result in a lawsuit.
“they are claiming it would impact I-80 at the point when it goes through Davis. And they are seeking mitigation–i.e. alternate routes–for traffic abation…”
I can’t imagine that, if it only impacts I-80, even when and where I-80 passes through Davis, that the city of Davis has any kind of a case.
If I am wrong, and Davis really has some right of redress, then Dixon ought to be able to sue Davis for Target; or they could sue UC Davis for the Mondavi Center; or Davis could sue West Sac for Raley Field; or Sacramento could sue West Sac for IKEA. All of those buildings/developments have an impact on the freeway traffic that passes through neighboring cities. If that is the standard, and I doubt it is, then every development in every city could result in a lawsuit.
“they are claiming it would impact I-80 at the point when it goes through Davis. And they are seeking mitigation–i.e. alternate routes–for traffic abation…”
I can’t imagine that, if it only impacts I-80, even when and where I-80 passes through Davis, that the city of Davis has any kind of a case.
If I am wrong, and Davis really has some right of redress, then Dixon ought to be able to sue Davis for Target; or they could sue UC Davis for the Mondavi Center; or Davis could sue West Sac for Raley Field; or Sacramento could sue West Sac for IKEA. All of those buildings/developments have an impact on the freeway traffic that passes through neighboring cities. If that is the standard, and I doubt it is, then every development in every city could result in a lawsuit.
“they are claiming it would impact I-80 at the point when it goes through Davis. And they are seeking mitigation–i.e. alternate routes–for traffic abation…”
I can’t imagine that, if it only impacts I-80, even when and where I-80 passes through Davis, that the city of Davis has any kind of a case.
If I am wrong, and Davis really has some right of redress, then Dixon ought to be able to sue Davis for Target; or they could sue UC Davis for the Mondavi Center; or Davis could sue West Sac for Raley Field; or Sacramento could sue West Sac for IKEA. All of those buildings/developments have an impact on the freeway traffic that passes through neighboring cities. If that is the standard, and I doubt it is, then every development in every city could result in a lawsuit.
Rich: Someone asked Dixon if they were going to do that, and their response was that they weren’t going to do that. But yes, they probably could, they just won’t.
Rich: Someone asked Dixon if they were going to do that, and their response was that they weren’t going to do that. But yes, they probably could, they just won’t.
Rich: Someone asked Dixon if they were going to do that, and their response was that they weren’t going to do that. But yes, they probably could, they just won’t.
Rich: Someone asked Dixon if they were going to do that, and their response was that they weren’t going to do that. But yes, they probably could, they just won’t.
maybe davis should file suit aginst any body in a auto accident for traffic impact……maybe suit aginst any body who has children for traffic impact…..maybe suit aginst the feds if they bring troops home from iraq, they may come through travis a.f.b. traffic impact ! maybe they should file suit aginst people who go to work every day…impact, oops then who would pay for all this “lawer food” ?
maybe davis should file suit aginst any body in a auto accident for traffic impact……maybe suit aginst any body who has children for traffic impact…..maybe suit aginst the feds if they bring troops home from iraq, they may come through travis a.f.b. traffic impact ! maybe they should file suit aginst people who go to work every day…impact, oops then who would pay for all this “lawer food” ?
maybe davis should file suit aginst any body in a auto accident for traffic impact……maybe suit aginst any body who has children for traffic impact…..maybe suit aginst the feds if they bring troops home from iraq, they may come through travis a.f.b. traffic impact ! maybe they should file suit aginst people who go to work every day…impact, oops then who would pay for all this “lawer food” ?
maybe davis should file suit aginst any body in a auto accident for traffic impact……maybe suit aginst any body who has children for traffic impact…..maybe suit aginst the feds if they bring troops home from iraq, they may come through travis a.f.b. traffic impact ! maybe they should file suit aginst people who go to work every day…impact, oops then who would pay for all this “lawer food” ?
almost forgot…suit aginst santa claus (north pole ent. inc.) for the traffic impact from christmass shoppers……..and maybe name the church also, they may have a deep pocket insurance policy……yea feed them lawers !!!!
almost forgot…suit aginst santa claus (north pole ent. inc.) for the traffic impact from christmass shoppers……..and maybe name the church also, they may have a deep pocket insurance policy……yea feed them lawers !!!!
almost forgot…suit aginst santa claus (north pole ent. inc.) for the traffic impact from christmass shoppers……..and maybe name the church also, they may have a deep pocket insurance policy……yea feed them lawers !!!!
almost forgot…suit aginst santa claus (north pole ent. inc.) for the traffic impact from christmass shoppers……..and maybe name the church also, they may have a deep pocket insurance policy……yea feed them lawers !!!!