The Jamacian chicken (Wed-Friday) is super-spicy, but not much else. Pricey for the quality of food and the quality of non-service. There were people smoking at the tables on both side of me. Illegal in California far as I know, and certainly obnoxious. When I ordered the guy stuck the tip jar in my face which I thought was tacky. Then, you bus your own table. Generally a no-class place. Apparently much loved by a certain subset of undergraduates, however. - GusTavo

  • I find that there are more graduate students than undergrads that profess love for Delta. As far as the smoking thing, it can be allowed if it outside. Iwaca does make super spicey food. I eat at Delta about two to three times a week, just ask for a little less spice and it will suit you right. As far as the obnoxious of the smoking, although I am a non-smoker smoking is not an obnoxious act, complaining about someone smoking when you could eat inside is kind of obnoxious. But calling it a no-class place I take issue with. While you have the right to say that, I would look at the phrase no-class. In-N-Out is no class. Burger King is no class. Delta is a different kind of class than you are used to. And really, the food there is best when it is from the vegetarian menu. I'd suggest going on a Thursday night when a folk artist is playing. Everyone will be having a good time. Iwaca will be in the kitchen and if you give another dish a chance I'm sure you'll like it. -RobRoy
    • I have to disagree with RobRoy. Smoking in an eating establishment is an obscenely obnoxious act. That's why it's illegal. I resent the idea that I should be shuffled off to some hot, stuffy, dark hole to eat, so that others patrons can pollute the air. Any eating establishment that has any respect for their customers would not allow it. Of course, the place would be out of business because it is a haven for obnoxiousness and caters to that particular quality.
      • Regarding Gustavo's comment. First, I must say that there are plenty of other establishments (the majority of) that do not allow smoking on an outside patio. Don't be greedy with the few places that allow smokers to feel at home. Second, Delta Venus is a hybrid of coffee shop and restaurant. Third, it seems to me that your perspective of Delta Venus is based on an entirely different set of expectations that the owners probably envisioned.

        Coffee shops of the Delta Venus's style were not places that took their inspiration from the larger culture of America. The culture surrounding the coffee shop is one where people of man different credos get to mingle and talk. It is a place where you can temporarily forget about the ideologies of the dominant culture. It is a place where you expect to meet people that are different, mysterious or alarming even. It is a place where street kids can express their opinions and where out-of-sync philosophers can let it all out. Class? We don't want the type of class you seem to be advocating; with all its sterility. With class even the refined aromas of delicate foods stink, because the common person must feel ashamed if they cannot appreciate it. Class? Fu.

        Coffee shops are the modern day town-hall or town square. (Other than the internet). A town-hall/town-square is a place where people can communicate with other people that they do not expressly know, and is also a place where they **expect** to run into this communication. Communication of ideas and information is vital to many things, but namely to Democracy. If coffee shops are to serve democracy as a medium for the exchange of ideas and information, then they must not be **Classist**.

        Delta Venus makes your food (really good food), brings out your food, and washes your plate and cup. Personally, I think that to want any more service than that then you are overindulging yourself. I am not saying anything about whether you were getting what you paid for, mind you. I’m saying that to want more is to be overindulgent.

        As far as price well, they have to make a profit.-JoshuaLee

        • Well, that's all fine and good. But smoking is not necessary for any of that, and it's still foul-smelling, unhealthy, and obnoxious. -PenguiN42

2005-09-21 09:01:50   The Davis Municipal Code clearly states that smoking is prohibited in "(2)Seating provided by eating establishments and bars." See: Chapter 34, Section 02.010 It's not clear at all why there is flagrant disregard of this ordinance both by customers and employees. —PaulThober


2005-10-13 01:43:08   Delta serves good food, and I like the no-busing policy - it reduces costs for everyone. But, you can't count on them having food when you want it ("Oh, the cook didn't show up today. Sorry.") and the smoking is just ridiculous. Smoking in public is incredibly selfish and obnoxious - it's one of the most obnoxious things one can do at a restaurant/cafe. It's like running a car engine and piping the exhaust directly to your table, and to your neighbors' tables. I called the Davis PD to ask how to get them to enforce the smoking ban, and they said to call them when you witness someone violating it. They'll send a cop over if First Northern isn't getting robbed at that particular moment. —GrahamFreeman


2005-10-19 21:29:22   Ok, so, I'm a smoker, and I do take care to not light up around people who may not smoke or directly in front of buildings, but I had no idea until I just looked up the Civil Code (or whatever it's called) that smoking isn't allowed on outdoor patios in Davis. Maybe instead of getting pissed off about it, you should politely let the guy offending you know that it's illegal to smoke on the Delta patio. You could even play it off as if you're helping them out. I would rather be told by a seemingly well-meaning bystander that I might get in trouble than have the cops called any day. Seriously, don't you think that cops have more important things to do than ticket the guy offending you at a restaurant? —SummerSong

  • I'm sure that most smokers bear no malice when they light up - it's usually fairly compulsive, since most smokers are addicted. But your addiction is a threat to my health, and twice as much of a threat to children or dogs who might be with me. When faced with a threat to my health or the health of those in my care, I'm not going to take it lightly. That said, I've yet to call the cops on a smoker for smoking, and I may never do so. Most often, I move and/or don't return to that restaurant. Less often, I politely but firmly ask the smoker to stop or move. But I'm glad that the police option is there, and that it's becoming better-known. —GrahamFreeman

2005-10-23 18:34:58   And maybe instead of telling that person off, you should stop being a whiny ass or get the duck out of fodge. —ApolloStumpy

  • Or maybe smokers could pollute their own space and not force their deadly habit on unwilling bystanders. —GrahamFreeman

2005-10-28 23:59:21   Awesome food & great atmosphere. I think smokers should be able to smoke, but not at the risk of ruining others' appetites. Maybe designate an area that smoking cannot occur in on the patio? Just a thought. Anyway, I just want to mention that, though the food's good, don't expect it to come quickly...especially on weekend brunches. I once waited a full hour for my eggs & toast and it was served well after my friend had finished his breakfast burrito (I ordered my food right after him). But still...I love Delta and will be back many times over! —EmilyBlake


2006-06-26 18:18:41 I find the smoking thing odd too, I can't believe someone would think anyone else might enjoy their smoke while eating. I had to leave today because of the smoke. I just didn't feel comfortable asking the person to stop~ It wasn't even just one person, several tables had smokers at them.This smoking makes it hard for me to encourage people to go there even if the food is good and the service comes with a smile. Maybe they could post a nonsmoking sign?


2007-07-27 12:18:22   Come on now, people. Davis is full of cigarette Nazis. I understand that you don't like breathing smoke, but then, we smokers don't particularly enjoy being glared at as we walk down the street. At Delta all of the regulars smoke. To tell them to put it out, when they spend every paycheck here so that others, who come in maybe once every couple of months, can sit outside is what's obnoxious. For that matter, I'll tell you what else is obnoxious: the fact that yuppies and yuppie's rich children think that this town is there's. The farmers and the hippies were here first and, sorry, but we're going to keep the one patio we have left in Davis (RIP Roma.) As far as the city allowing it, when exactly was the last time you saw a cop at Delta? Please. —ElizabethJohnson


2007-07-29 16:32:11   Elizabeth, I feel like I'm wasting time by responding to you, but I enjoy debate, so what the heck.

The Nazis caused the deaths of approximately 10 million people whom they deemed to be sufficiently different from them as to be considered subhuman. In stark contrast, people who dislike smoking are trying to maintain decent living standards and minimize their chances of getting cancer. Nobody has suggested that smokers be forced to wear identifying armbands, be taken to death camps, or be subjected to torture and sadistic medical experiments. So, how is it that you see fit to equate anti-smokers with Nazis?

With regard to the Delta being a safe haven for smokers, I can't see how it makes smart business sense to alienate people with kids, people with dogs, and other nonsmokers just so you don't have to inconvenience the tobacco companies' zombies. But hey, if you're speaking for Delta and you're saying that the outdoors seating is for those who don't mind a little lung cancer, I don't need to come in two or three times a month anymore. (Hmm, doesn't that make me a regular?)

In your us vs. the world comments, you seem to be implying three things: (1) that everyone fits neatly into a given stereotype, and (2) that "farmers" and "hippies" are all smokers, and (3) smokers are oppressed.

Well, let's start with #1 - your implication that everyone fits neatly into whatever stereotype you want to paint them with. You'd probably label me a "yuppie", because I'm a technology consultant, I wear clothes that facilitate my visits to my clients' offices, I drive a fairly modern car, and I no longer live cheque-to-cheque. However, reality is not that simple, as I was raised by "hippies" in a modest setting. (Well, a bunch of modest settings - we moved on average once per year until I was in high school.) For example, when I was young, an improvement in our financial situation meant that we upgraded from living in a tent to a shack with no insulation, inconsistent running water, and a bucket for a toilet. From there, we upgraded to the place that had running water (except when it was running mud in the winter) and a flush toilet, but still no insulation and a violent drug fiend neighbor who held a loaded shotgun to his wife's head in front of their kids, one of whom was a friend of mine. Please forgive me for not relishing a return to that reality, and for not appreciating your ignorant assumptions about my background.

#2 - your implication that all farmers and "hippies" are smokers. Oh, please. That's just plainly false.

#3 - your implication that smokers are oppressed. Other addicts whose addiction-influenced behaviour is also disruptive would probably make similar arguments. Do you think that heroin junkies are oppressed because they can't freely shoot up in public? Or that drunks are oppressed because they're not allowed to drive while drunk? I don't think so, and I and many others equate such things with smoking in public.

Addiction is a powerful and terrible thing, and I do honestly feel bad for you that you're suffering under the thumb of one of the most powerfully addictive substances around. However, just as I don't pity my alcoholic uncle when he receives negative attention for indulging in his addiction in public, I don't pity you (or any other smoker) for being subjected to glares and other signs of disapproval when you indulge in your addiction in public - especially since anyone within 20 feet of you is forced to share in your deadly habit whether or not they want to.

GrahamFreeman

  • Go Graham! I believe that the people who profit off of cigarettes are most likely the yuppies everyone despises. I don't like government telling me what to put in or not put in my body, but I also don't like individuals forcing me to put stuff in my body. I don't like cigarette smoke when I eat. But, I'm not going tell someone to stop smoking at the last place in California where one can...I understand that. I just won't eat there. The farmers that were here first? I'm thinking of the Gibson family who owned everything from Dixon to Knight's landing and paid for the scalps of Native Americans. Do you mean those farmers? Or maybe the farmers who ran this town during the first half of the 20th century and did not allow blacks to own property until the late 1960's. Maybe the one farmer who burned a cross on the first black professors lawn? Those hippies that were here first? Guess what? They passed those smoking bans! But they also built Village Homes. Go figure. Please stop romanticizing the history and people of Davis. Davis is what it is today, the good and the bad, because of the farmers and the hippies - JamesSchwab
    • Wow, you are pushing your ideas on other people so hard you could be mormon. - EmilyCho
      • Emily, as a non-Mormon but a religious minority, I think you (and others in the anti-8 camp) should reconsider such prejudicial statements like the one you callously make above. While it is true that many Mormons favored prop 8 and a number of them helped finance the pro-8 campaign, the vast majority of Mormons gave no money to that campaign, some Mormons actively opposed it (notably former 49er Steve Young, a descendant of Brigham Young), and more than 90% of California voters who supported it were not Mormons. To broadly attack Mormons in the way you have here strikes me, as a Jew, as nothing less than bigotry of the worst sort. - RichRifkin
      • Regarding James's recount of the Gibson holdings, it is incorrect. The first large non-Native landowners in the Davis, Dixon, Vacaville area were members of the Vaca and Peña families, who were of Mexican/Spanish origin and migrated here in the 1840s from New Mexico. The Gibsons of Woodland, never owned large tracts of land in the Putah Creek or Solano County areas. Instead, Rancho Laguna de Santos Calle was purchased from the Vacas by Col. Joseph Ballinger Chiles, and later divided among his nephew, Isaac Skinner Chiles and his son-in-law, Jerome C. Davis, namesake of Davis, CA. According to the Yolo County Historical Society, William Byas Gibson owned 3,000 acres of land in Yolo County, most around what is now Woodland. Interestingly, his wife, Mary Isabelle Cook Gibson, was a Chiles on her mother's side. Also, James's account about scalps is entirely false. - RichRifkin

2007-08-04 16:52:52   I'm not a smoker but I am happy that other people are allowed to smoke on the patio at Delta of Venus. I enjoy the social atmosphere created in cigarette smoking zones. Everyone is just hanging out and being friendly while taking a break from whatever is they normally do. Its a comfortable environment which I have enjoyed my whole life, despite the fact that I have never personally enjoyed smoking cigarettes.

Also, I really don't think its realistic to say that you are going to get cancer because you sit 20 feet away from a smoker for 20 minutes while you eat lunch once a week. There is lots of seating in the outside area of delta that is far away from the smoking section. Can't everyone coexist? —SolomonBothwell


2007-08-05 14:52:28   Solomon, I admit to having been melodramatic for the sake of illustrating my point when I referred to people who "don't mind a little lung cancer." Obviously nobody's going to get cancer from a singlehand secondhand exposure to a low-intensity carcinogen. However, it's indisputable that exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke increases the risk of cancer, and the fact that other people feel entitled to impose upon me that increased risk is what gets my goat.

As far as socializing is concerned, you're saying that you're OK with this increased risk of cancer as the cost of participating in that particular social scene. I've never had any trouble finding great people to socialize with in the complete absence of cigarettes, but that's your choice, and I respect that. Don't impose your choice on me in public spaces. If I come to your house, and your other guests are smoking, obviously I have to put up with it or leave. That's not true at a business (such as Delta) that offers services to the public in the city of Davis. In such a setting, the citizens have agreed upon a law that requires smokers to stay at least 20 feet away from doors and windows.

Graham.Freeman

  • I agree with Graham that the law is the law and laws are passed and enforced for reasons. That said, I believe that it is a business's prerogative as to what extent it abides by these laws, much the same as it is a citizen's prerogative as to what extent he/she abides by the legal speed limit. Just as second hand smoke increases the risk of cancer, excessive speeding increases the risk of car accidents. If a place like Delta wants to be lenient on smoking, that is ownerships' decision, and they can deal with the consequences if the police or health department ever choose to enforce these laws. (Much the same as police "choose" to enforce speeding laws.)

       Also, I think Graham's "house" argument is flawed. Just because Delta provides services to the public, that doesn't make Delta a public space; it's a private business and someone—not the state or the city—is paying rent to use the property. It can choose to close to the public and hold private functions at anytime, it can remove a patron at will by claiming said patron is trespassing, and to be sure, it can choose (at their own risk) to look the other way when smokers light up.

       Look, I'm not a smoker, and I'm not a big fan of cigarette smoke either. But if secondhand smoke in an outdoor space like Delta (or even some of the local bars) is a person's concern, if you think about it, if the smoking ban was enforced, there would merely be hordes of people smoking in the parking lot or on the sidewalk directly adjacent to the patio, so you'd be exposed to the smoke regardless. At the very least, if smoking is allowed on the premises, the business can control the litter and eyesore of huge congresses of smokers loitering about. Better than having cigarette butts strewn about the streets and sidewalks. —BriannaBetancourt

  • Yes it is a business, and not a public place. However, the law is actually in place to protect the employees from poor working conditions. It is not for the customers. After all the customer can choose not to go there. However, every employer must provide safe working conditions for its employees regardless of whether the business is private or public. MattHh
  • This is a poor argument considering the staff work primarily inside the building. The smoking section only has chairs so there is no reason for them to have to walk through it to serve food. —SolomonBothwell
  • Not quite sure if I understand you, Solomon. Wouldn't staff still be potentially walking thru smoke when serving customers outside? I've walked thru plenty of smoke in front of Delta. I don't really see how chairs make a difference?

    To the general debate, I'd also like to point out that cigarette smoke causes a lot more issues than just cancer. I don't want to lecture, the hazards are widely advertised, but let me refer to one small, but very common, side effect. Second hand smoke accelerates a lot of allergies. I experience that a lot and it sucks. —JeffTolentino


2007-10-22 16:46:44  

dear delta non-smokers, if you don't like smoke, politely ask people to not smoke near you.

dear delta smokers, please be nice and stop smoking if someone asks, or else i will make you.

love, eric —EricRedpath


2008-01-23 11:32:03   You tell 'em, Eric. —ElizabethJohnson