FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA
@THECALIFORNIAAGGIE
SERVING THE UC DAVIS CAMPUS AND COMMUNITY SINCE 1915
THE CALIFORNIA AGGIE
THEAGGIE.ORG
@CALIFORNIAAGGIE
VOLUME 140, ISSUE 23 | THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2022
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ENROLLED IN SPRING QUARTER 2020 RECEIVE REFUND Students who were registered for classes in the 2020 spring quarter may be eligible for a small refund BY SYDNEY AMESTOY campus@theaggie.org
KATHERINE FRANKS / AGGIE Eligible students may have received a refund based on the modifications made to campus services in the 2020 spring quarter, when many facilities closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Undergraduate students who were eligible for the refund received up to $7.76, while UC Davis law students could have received up to $2.04. To be eligible for this refund, students had to have been enrolled in classes during the 2020 spring quarter. Students enrolled in most graduate level professional degree programs were not included. Eligible students should have received their
refund through the MyBill portal by March 15, according to a press release from the university. If students did not receive a digital refund, a physical check will be mailed to them. In June 2020, then UC President Janet Napolitano decided to issue these refunds to compensate students for the impact COVID-19 had on campus services in the 2020 spring quarter. The UC Office of the President (UCOP) released a letter answering frequently asked questions about this refund and discussing how the amount being refunded was decided upon.
Napolitano had ordered all UC campuses to analyze which campus fees they would need to refund based on the service’s unavailability or change in service. Ultimately, UC Davis decided upon the roughly $7 refund based on a calculated $236,381 total of unexpended and unencumbered fees. The refund was spread evenly among those eligible. Some students, however, feel that this refund was not sufficient. “I don’t think $7 was enough to cover the cost of all the services lost in the spring quarter of 2020,” said Paulina Frost, a third-year public health major. “Maybe a few hundred.” Third-year managerial economics major Jericho Delong echoed Frost’s sentiments. “Tuition is a lot, especially out of state, and all that was lost in that quarter; $7 doesn’t seem like enough,” Delong said. Other students, such as second-year engineering major Vi Bui, felt the refund was an appropriate sum. “With as many students here, I think that is a reasonable amount to make up for campus resources,” Bui said. The total amount refunded differs per campus and in some groups of students, such as law students and undergraduates, according to the UCOP’s frequently asked questions. Expended fees were excluded, as were fees regarding financial aid and long-term projects extending past the 2020 spring quarter. A written disclaimer is now posted on the official Tuition and Fees website informing students of the refund and that only the spring quarter of 2020 will be refunded, not any of the other quarters disrupted by COVID-19.
LAWSUIT FILED TO CHANGE MISLEADING BALLOT STATEMENTS WRITTEN BY OPPONENTS OF THE DISC 2022 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Despite a double-sided victory, the opposing campaign said that, as a result, they’ve been put in a difficult position BY LEVI GOLDSTEIN city@theaggie.org On March 22, City of Davis council member Dan Carson filed a lawsuit for false and misleading ballot statements written by the opponents of Measure H. Measure H, which Davis citizens will vote on from May through June, proposes the construction of the Davis Sustainability and Innovation Campus (DiSC) 2022. DiSC 2022 includes new retail spaces, a hotel that will create jobs in the city, 460 residential units and office and laboratory spaces for UC Davis researchers, according to the City of Davis website. The City Council originally declined the initial plan for DiSC in 2020. The developers, Ramco Enterprises and Buzz Oates, submitted another application with a revised plan in July 2021. Advocates for the DiSC 2022 project approve of its promise to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040 and its support for environmental scientists. In addition, the project is economically beneficial to the City of Davis, according to Carson. “We see it as an important economic strategy for our city to leverage that relationship with UC Davis to the benefit of our town,” Carson said. “There are companies that are partnering with UC Davis in research that would love to be able to locate in our town, but there’s insufficient space for them to do so. The property and sales taxes that we would get from this project would generate about a $4 million net gain for the City of Davis.” Those who disapprove of the project believe that it will worsen traffic congestion on an already busy commuter street, according to Alan Pryor, the principal officer and treasurer of the opposing campaign. “The traffic on Mace Boulevard is horrific,” Pryor said. “The project will add 12,000 additional car trips a day. I don’t think they have nearly sufficient mitigations proposed to handle this.” There are also concerns that the developers will not fulfill their obligations for sustainability and that the retail space will negatively affect small business owners. Carson filed the lawsuit on March 22 in his capacity as a voter in the City of Davis, not as a council member. California Election Code 9295 requires that an individual plaintiff file the suit, but Carson said he was representing the entire “Yes on Measure H” campaign as its honorary chair. Election Code 9295 also requires the suit to name the city, the county and the parties of interest; the suit included the names of the persons that wrote and submitted the ballot arguments. Carson said that the City of Davis and Yolo County had no objections to the changes. The hearing was held on March 29. Daniel Maguire, the presiding judge for the Yolo County Superior Court, ultimately ordered that two statements be amended in the voter information
KELLIE LU / AGGIE guide. Firstly, the word “only” was removed from the statement, “Their only promise is to develop a Traffic Demand Management Plan if the project is approved,” as the baseline project features include nine commitments to improve traffic in the area. Secondly, the opposition wrote that “DiSC is projected to produce 54 million pounds of new greenhouse gasses annually.” However, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project listed 20,000 metric tons as the actual projected number for emissions. The “Vote No on DiSC” campaign made an error in converting metric tons to pounds, and “54 million pounds” was reverted back to the original number. The other three challenged statements were not altered. Despite a favorable ruling, the opposing campaign was put in a difficult position because of the lawsuit, due to its existing financial disadvantage. “The fact that our grassroots campaign was sued has imposed a huge financial burden on us and compromised our ability to campaign against deep-pocketed developers,” Pam Gunnell, a member of the “Vote No on DiSC campaign,” said in an article for the Davis Enterprise. Pryor and other opponents of DiSC 2022 expressed concern that Carson is using his position as a council member to gain public support for Measure H and the DiSC project. Pryor also said Carson was suing as a deliberate political move. The “No on Measure H” campaign had just days to acquire legal representation and had to do so at a reduced fee, according to Pryor. “The intentions here are clear,” Pryor said. “And that was to put the ‘No’ side in a chokehold politically and financially. This was
@CALIFORNIAAGGIE
an orchestrated effort on their part, designed to inflict the maximum possible damage.” Opponents worry that the “Yes on H” campaign’s lack of financial struggles is symptomatic of political corruption and reveals Carson’s collaboration with corporate interests, according to the Davis Enterprise and the “Vote No on DiSC” website. The “Yes on H” campaign website clarifies that the campaign received donations from one of the DiSC developers, Ramco Enterprises. Moreover, Dan Ramos, the vice president of Ramco, said during the city council meeting on April 5 that he directly funded Carson’s lawsuit. On April 7, the attorneys of the defendants, who were from the Strumwasser & Woocher law firm, filed a motion in court requesting the reimbursement of over $71,000 in legal costs. “In my experience, it is highly unusual for a sitting public official to sue their own citizens over ballot arguments,” said Beverly Grossman Palmer of Strumwasser & Woocher in a press release. “None of the attorneys in my firm can recall a similar situation in any of our collective years of practicing election law.” Pryor said in a press release that he “regret[s] that these actions are necessary” but that the campaign had little choice. Despite the contention surrounding the lawsuit, Carson believes it was a win for democracy. “We are thankful that Judge Maguire has taken a stand in support of truth in politics at a time when the spread of political disinformation is a growing national concern,” Carson said. The upcoming election will be largely mailin. Voting begins on May 9 and ends on June 7.
UNITRANS RESUMES OPERATING L LINE The L line, which was operated by Yolobus during fall and winter quarters, will again be operated by Unitrans
A Unitrans Double Decker bus at UC Davis Memorial Union terminal (Aggie File) BY ISABELLA KRZESNIAK campus@theaggie.org As of April 4, Unitrans resumed service of the L line, which Yolobus operated since the beginning of the 2021-22 school year due to Unitrans staffing shortages. “Our staffing situation has improved a little bit, so, since we do have more drivers than we had in fall, we decided to take back the L line,” Unitrans General Manager Jeffrey Flynn said. Unitrans stopped operating the A and L lines at the beginning of fall quarter. Lines which had a higher proportion of community riders as opposed to student riders were passed off to Yolobus. The A line is currently still being operated by Yolobus. “Unitrans has a lot of student riders, and we thought it would be easier for the students to recognize and expect the red bus driving by [...] instead of looking for a white bus,” Flynn said. Staffing issues arose once remote instruction was implemented in March 2020, according to Flynn. “When we went into remote instruction, a lot of our staff quit and left Davis,” Flynn said. “It was really hard to get people to apply for the job, and we still have issues with recruitment.” These staffing shortages are not unique to Unitrans, according to Flynn. “Most campus departments are having this problem,” Flynn said. “There are staffing shortages across campus, so we aren’t a stranger to that.” Marnie Lee, a third-year animal science major and a Unitrans student driver, said that it is especially difficult for Unitrans to maintain adequate staffing levels. “We almost only employ students,” Lee said. “We lose people quite regularly when they graduate [or] have other career commitments […] or simply because the job becomes too difficult to manage while being a student.” Lee also said that poor pay can contribute to staffing shortages on campus more generally. However, Lee does not think this is the case for Unitrans. “It is the best paying student job on campus, and, from my experience looking for employment in Davis, it was the best paying job I encountered,” Lee said. “We also get paid premium as of right now due to working in person in the midst of the pandemic.” Flynn expects that Unitrans will again experience a staffing shortage this fall. Because of this, Unitrans may reduce service levels for the next academic year. Flynn is primarily concerned with restoring a pre-pandemic level of service, which is directly tied to how many drivers Unitrans has. “We really need to get our driver numbers up and fully staffed before fall next year, as we do expect campus to be back to normal,” Flynn said. Unitrans is hiring drivers, and students can apply at vacancy.ucdavis.edu.