I was looking up some stuff yesterday and I happened across on of Matt Rexroad’s recent blog entries:
Dunning’s column on Friday quotes from one of our own readers, Deb Westergaard’s letter to the editor. Deb is outraged that the council is suing Dixon over traffic concerns after the council put a huge Target project on the ballot that will also, amazingly enough, produce traffic concerns and add significantly and unavoidably to pollution. One small nit to pick, Dunning writes, “you see, in exchange for Davis-generated pollution, we get sales tax dollars, but we get nothing in exchange for Dixon-generated pollution unless we sue.” I like the cynical tone there and Dunning is partially right, but in fairness to the city, they are not suing for funding but rather for mitigating traffic problems. Nevertheless they are both right—the City Council has a lot of explaining to do on this one.
Finally, Tim Wallace, a deputy DA for Yolo County, writes a letter to the editor yesterday discussing the proposed rezoning of Westlake shopping center. As a neighbor of that shopping center, I was very saddened to see the demise of Rays and then Food Faire. It provided a convenient place to get a few last minute groceries. It should be a priority of the City to get a new food establishment into that site. Sadly, they are going to rezone it and move away from the local grocery store. The belief is that no local grocery store can make it in these locations which may or may not be right.
However, Wallace’s main concern is the emergence of a “problem business.” “Anything that is primarily a liquor store in that location undoubtedly will become a magnet for crime.” Take off your DA’s hat for a few minutes, good lord Mr. Wallace. We certainly do not want to attract those type of people to Westlake when there is a perfectly good Circle K two blocks away on Lake Blvd. Perhaps we’d be better off going to a dry city, that way we can avoid crime altogether.
It brings to mind an email acquired through a public records search from Bob Glynn. Glynn was one of the main people who spearheaded the drive against the Human Relations Commission. His main problem was their support for a resolution to withdraw US troops from Iraq in December of 2005. A resolution introduced to council by Stephen Souza and passed by a 4-0 vote with Don Saylor abstaining (and this was of course all the HRC's fault). In any case, on June 26, 2006, Glynn writes to council: “When you consider the Target proposal tonight I hope you keep in mind the fact that Target will probably draw more undesirable people to the area…”
When we want to decry elitism in this city, perhaps we ought to go back and look up the term “undesirable people.” So apparently, we want to bring in Target and liquor stores but worry about “undesirable people” and “problem business.” No one of course calls people on this stuff. I find this a lot more irritating though than a city council member upset that PG&E paid $11 million in an attempt to confuse the voters on the issues. But that’s just me.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
Today I was with my family cruising along I-80 headed for Thanksgiving festivities. We were just east of Vacaville when a California Highway Patrol Officer was on the side of the road hitting vehicles with the new radar gun.My reaction was: are you kidding me? This guy is a Supervisor-elect? I wasn’t there and didn’t see the “pose” the Highway Patrol Officer was taking with his radar gun. But good lord, as an elected official you should not be joking or thinking about “returning fire” on a Highway Patrol Officer, it is utterly irresponsible. I’m certain the Highway Patrol office is not going to be happy about reading this. Especially to write it on a public blog, that’s just unbelievable.
I am fully in favor of the new equipment but think it is eventually going to cause some kind of an accident. I look up and see someone pointing some kind of a gun at me from that distance and my first reaction is to take cover and return fire.
Dunning’s column on Friday quotes from one of our own readers, Deb Westergaard’s letter to the editor. Deb is outraged that the council is suing Dixon over traffic concerns after the council put a huge Target project on the ballot that will also, amazingly enough, produce traffic concerns and add significantly and unavoidably to pollution. One small nit to pick, Dunning writes, “you see, in exchange for Davis-generated pollution, we get sales tax dollars, but we get nothing in exchange for Dixon-generated pollution unless we sue.” I like the cynical tone there and Dunning is partially right, but in fairness to the city, they are not suing for funding but rather for mitigating traffic problems. Nevertheless they are both right—the City Council has a lot of explaining to do on this one.
Finally, Tim Wallace, a deputy DA for Yolo County, writes a letter to the editor yesterday discussing the proposed rezoning of Westlake shopping center. As a neighbor of that shopping center, I was very saddened to see the demise of Rays and then Food Faire. It provided a convenient place to get a few last minute groceries. It should be a priority of the City to get a new food establishment into that site. Sadly, they are going to rezone it and move away from the local grocery store. The belief is that no local grocery store can make it in these locations which may or may not be right.
However, Wallace’s main concern is the emergence of a “problem business.” “Anything that is primarily a liquor store in that location undoubtedly will become a magnet for crime.” Take off your DA’s hat for a few minutes, good lord Mr. Wallace. We certainly do not want to attract those type of people to Westlake when there is a perfectly good Circle K two blocks away on Lake Blvd. Perhaps we’d be better off going to a dry city, that way we can avoid crime altogether.
It brings to mind an email acquired through a public records search from Bob Glynn. Glynn was one of the main people who spearheaded the drive against the Human Relations Commission. His main problem was their support for a resolution to withdraw US troops from Iraq in December of 2005. A resolution introduced to council by Stephen Souza and passed by a 4-0 vote with Don Saylor abstaining (and this was of course all the HRC's fault). In any case, on June 26, 2006, Glynn writes to council: “When you consider the Target proposal tonight I hope you keep in mind the fact that Target will probably draw more undesirable people to the area…”
When we want to decry elitism in this city, perhaps we ought to go back and look up the term “undesirable people.” So apparently, we want to bring in Target and liquor stores but worry about “undesirable people” and “problem business.” No one of course calls people on this stuff. I find this a lot more irritating though than a city council member upset that PG&E paid $11 million in an attempt to confuse the voters on the issues. But that’s just me.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
