There has on this blog been a long debate over the viability of a proposed development on the PG&E Service Center Site located at 316 L Street. The site encompassed around 27 acres, extending from Fifth Street to Second Street.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald has long trumpeted the site as a largely relatively unused parcel that would be walking and biking distance to the downtown and even UC Davis.
Separated from adjacent neighborhoods it would be ideals for high density housing and condos.
However despite these advantages some have questioned its feasibility. One question that has arisen is whether PG&E even wants to sell the site.
Former Davis City Councilmember Mike Harrington, who also was a member of the HESC pointed out that there was a letter from PG&E to the City that indicated their interest in selling the property. (See the scan of the letter). As it turns out this was available all along on the city’s website and in the HESC packet when the site came up for discussion on July 26, 2007.
The letter in part reads:
“As discussed during the June 7 meeting, the City’s philosophy toward maximizing green, efficient and renewable technology and opportunities is consistent with that of PG&E. The company is sensitive toward the needs of the community and we are open to considering and exploring innovative alternative uses for the site.”
That should settle at least that portion of the debate. What remains unknown is the cost to the city that they would incur from purchasing the property. Although it would seem to me that a developer could do it and recoup the costs by developing the property and selling the units.
Still this would seem to be one of the more interesting sites that if available, it appears most Davis residents could get behind.
PG&E Gives $250,000 to defeat Proposition 8
The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that PG&E announced it would give $250,000 to the No on Proposition 8 campaign.
According to the Times:
“Analysts said businesses may be more willing to get involved this time because they have more gay and lesbian employees who are out and in positions of power and because they believe the amendment could hurt business if passed, by giving the impression that California is not friendly to gay and lesbians.”
Spokesperson Eilen Chiu said:
“We fought for immigration rights as well as for affirmative action. Gay marriage is the next initiative we felt is worthy to fight for. Every single employee and customer deserves the right to marry.”
The company is also calling for other California businesses to publicly endorse allowing gay couples to marry.
Not surprisingly the announcement was met by less enthusiasm by supports of the proposition, one of whom quipped that he couldn’t call them up and tell them to turn off his power.
But then again, maybe such a move might generate good publicity.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
From today’s Chronicle:
Opponents of Prop. 8 countered with their own lawsuit, challenging arguments in the ballot pamphlet by supporters of the measure who say that it would protect children as young as kindergarten from being taught in public schools that “gay marriage is OK.”
Yes on 8 spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns said the ballot argument is based on a state education law requiring public schools to have health education programs that include instruction on the legal and financial aspects of marriage. That amounts to a requirement that children at all grade levels be taught that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage, she said.
Oh, my God! How horrible is that?
But, it’s not like opponents are bigoted or anything.
Worth noting that my 16 month old son already has a playmate with lesbian parents, so I don’t think that this is going to be a problem for us, as he will know it before going to school
–Richard Estes
worth
From today’s Chronicle:
Opponents of Prop. 8 countered with their own lawsuit, challenging arguments in the ballot pamphlet by supporters of the measure who say that it would protect children as young as kindergarten from being taught in public schools that “gay marriage is OK.”
Yes on 8 spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns said the ballot argument is based on a state education law requiring public schools to have health education programs that include instruction on the legal and financial aspects of marriage. That amounts to a requirement that children at all grade levels be taught that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage, she said.
Oh, my God! How horrible is that?
But, it’s not like opponents are bigoted or anything.
Worth noting that my 16 month old son already has a playmate with lesbian parents, so I don’t think that this is going to be a problem for us, as he will know it before going to school
–Richard Estes
worth
From today’s Chronicle:
Opponents of Prop. 8 countered with their own lawsuit, challenging arguments in the ballot pamphlet by supporters of the measure who say that it would protect children as young as kindergarten from being taught in public schools that “gay marriage is OK.”
Yes on 8 spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns said the ballot argument is based on a state education law requiring public schools to have health education programs that include instruction on the legal and financial aspects of marriage. That amounts to a requirement that children at all grade levels be taught that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage, she said.
Oh, my God! How horrible is that?
But, it’s not like opponents are bigoted or anything.
Worth noting that my 16 month old son already has a playmate with lesbian parents, so I don’t think that this is going to be a problem for us, as he will know it before going to school
–Richard Estes
worth
From today’s Chronicle:
Opponents of Prop. 8 countered with their own lawsuit, challenging arguments in the ballot pamphlet by supporters of the measure who say that it would protect children as young as kindergarten from being taught in public schools that “gay marriage is OK.”
Yes on 8 spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns said the ballot argument is based on a state education law requiring public schools to have health education programs that include instruction on the legal and financial aspects of marriage. That amounts to a requirement that children at all grade levels be taught that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage, she said.
Oh, my God! How horrible is that?
But, it’s not like opponents are bigoted or anything.
Worth noting that my 16 month old son already has a playmate with lesbian parents, so I don’t think that this is going to be a problem for us, as he will know it before going to school
–Richard Estes
worth
Characterizing supporters of prop 8 as bigots and homophobes is inaccurate(I hesitate to describe it more accurately as “hysterical”).
I will remind Richard that other parents have the same right to make their own choices (as long as it doesn’t impinge on the REAL,LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others)just as he has.
Characterizing supporters of prop 8 as bigots and homophobes is inaccurate(I hesitate to describe it more accurately as “hysterical”).
I will remind Richard that other parents have the same right to make their own choices (as long as it doesn’t impinge on the REAL,LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others)just as he has.
Characterizing supporters of prop 8 as bigots and homophobes is inaccurate(I hesitate to describe it more accurately as “hysterical”).
I will remind Richard that other parents have the same right to make their own choices (as long as it doesn’t impinge on the REAL,LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others)just as he has.
Characterizing supporters of prop 8 as bigots and homophobes is inaccurate(I hesitate to describe it more accurately as “hysterical”).
I will remind Richard that other parents have the same right to make their own choices (as long as it doesn’t impinge on the REAL,LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others)just as he has.
“Characterizing supporters of prop 8 as bigots and homophobes is inaccurate(I hesitate to describe it more accurately as “hysterical”).”
Not any more inaccurate than identifying someone as racist for opposing mixed-race marriages.
Parents also have the right to teach their kids that mixed-race marriages are wrong and immoral. And to espouse any other crazy ideas.
“Characterizing supporters of prop 8 as bigots and homophobes is inaccurate(I hesitate to describe it more accurately as “hysterical”).”
Not any more inaccurate than identifying someone as racist for opposing mixed-race marriages.
Parents also have the right to teach their kids that mixed-race marriages are wrong and immoral. And to espouse any other crazy ideas.
“Characterizing supporters of prop 8 as bigots and homophobes is inaccurate(I hesitate to describe it more accurately as “hysterical”).”
Not any more inaccurate than identifying someone as racist for opposing mixed-race marriages.
Parents also have the right to teach their kids that mixed-race marriages are wrong and immoral. And to espouse any other crazy ideas.
“Characterizing supporters of prop 8 as bigots and homophobes is inaccurate(I hesitate to describe it more accurately as “hysterical”).”
Not any more inaccurate than identifying someone as racist for opposing mixed-race marriages.
Parents also have the right to teach their kids that mixed-race marriages are wrong and immoral. And to espouse any other crazy ideas.
There was a time when my grandmother thought mix-race marriage was just plain wrong.
Then she got to the point where she said Clarence Thomas (who is married to a white woman) is a good man.
So I’m willing to give people the chance to change their minds and feel more accepting of gay marriage.
There was a time when my grandmother thought mix-race marriage was just plain wrong.
Then she got to the point where she said Clarence Thomas (who is married to a white woman) is a good man.
So I’m willing to give people the chance to change their minds and feel more accepting of gay marriage.
There was a time when my grandmother thought mix-race marriage was just plain wrong.
Then she got to the point where she said Clarence Thomas (who is married to a white woman) is a good man.
So I’m willing to give people the chance to change their minds and feel more accepting of gay marriage.
There was a time when my grandmother thought mix-race marriage was just plain wrong.
Then she got to the point where she said Clarence Thomas (who is married to a white woman) is a good man.
So I’m willing to give people the chance to change their minds and feel more accepting of gay marriage.
Prop 8(from Wikopedia) – Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to MARRY. Provides that only a MARRIAGE between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Proposition 8 speaks only to the right of same-sex( and potentially other legally sanctioned relationships) to MARRY OR legally defined as a MARRIAGE. All marriage rights can be guaranteed to civil-unions and domestic partnerships in equal measure by the legislature and protected by our courts. This constitutional amendment allows the CA voters to decide by a majority vote what the definition of marriage is.. a democratic exercise in the tradition of CA populism.
Prop 8(from Wikopedia) – Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to MARRY. Provides that only a MARRIAGE between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Proposition 8 speaks only to the right of same-sex( and potentially other legally sanctioned relationships) to MARRY OR legally defined as a MARRIAGE. All marriage rights can be guaranteed to civil-unions and domestic partnerships in equal measure by the legislature and protected by our courts. This constitutional amendment allows the CA voters to decide by a majority vote what the definition of marriage is.. a democratic exercise in the tradition of CA populism.
Prop 8(from Wikopedia) – Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to MARRY. Provides that only a MARRIAGE between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Proposition 8 speaks only to the right of same-sex( and potentially other legally sanctioned relationships) to MARRY OR legally defined as a MARRIAGE. All marriage rights can be guaranteed to civil-unions and domestic partnerships in equal measure by the legislature and protected by our courts. This constitutional amendment allows the CA voters to decide by a majority vote what the definition of marriage is.. a democratic exercise in the tradition of CA populism.
Prop 8(from Wikopedia) – Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to MARRY. Provides that only a MARRIAGE between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Proposition 8 speaks only to the right of same-sex( and potentially other legally sanctioned relationships) to MARRY OR legally defined as a MARRIAGE. All marriage rights can be guaranteed to civil-unions and domestic partnerships in equal measure by the legislature and protected by our courts. This constitutional amendment allows the CA voters to decide by a majority vote what the definition of marriage is.. a democratic exercise in the tradition of CA populism.
Classic Davis discussion… PG&E is willing to discuss the sale of the most important property for the future of Davis and ooohhhh look over there! A shiny object!
Classic Davis discussion… PG&E is willing to discuss the sale of the most important property for the future of Davis and ooohhhh look over there! A shiny object!
Classic Davis discussion… PG&E is willing to discuss the sale of the most important property for the future of Davis and ooohhhh look over there! A shiny object!
Classic Davis discussion… PG&E is willing to discuss the sale of the most important property for the future of Davis and ooohhhh look over there! A shiny object!
Characterizing supporters of prop 8 as bigots and homophobes is inaccurate(I hesitate to describe it more accurately as “hysterical”).
I will remind Richard that other parents have the same right to make their own choices (as long as it doesn’t impinge on the REAL,LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others)just as he has.
Except that they keep proving it, as with the campaign’s comment about the school system and “traditional marriage”.
By the time the campaign ends, as it becomes obvious that they are going to lose, we will experience even more obnoxious examples, as they demonstrate who is really hysterical.
–Richard Estes
Characterizing supporters of prop 8 as bigots and homophobes is inaccurate(I hesitate to describe it more accurately as “hysterical”).
I will remind Richard that other parents have the same right to make their own choices (as long as it doesn’t impinge on the REAL,LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others)just as he has.
Except that they keep proving it, as with the campaign’s comment about the school system and “traditional marriage”.
By the time the campaign ends, as it becomes obvious that they are going to lose, we will experience even more obnoxious examples, as they demonstrate who is really hysterical.
–Richard Estes
Characterizing supporters of prop 8 as bigots and homophobes is inaccurate(I hesitate to describe it more accurately as “hysterical”).
I will remind Richard that other parents have the same right to make their own choices (as long as it doesn’t impinge on the REAL,LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others)just as he has.
Except that they keep proving it, as with the campaign’s comment about the school system and “traditional marriage”.
By the time the campaign ends, as it becomes obvious that they are going to lose, we will experience even more obnoxious examples, as they demonstrate who is really hysterical.
–Richard Estes
Characterizing supporters of prop 8 as bigots and homophobes is inaccurate(I hesitate to describe it more accurately as “hysterical”).
I will remind Richard that other parents have the same right to make their own choices (as long as it doesn’t impinge on the REAL,LEGITIMATE RIGHTS of others)just as he has.
Except that they keep proving it, as with the campaign’s comment about the school system and “traditional marriage”.
By the time the campaign ends, as it becomes obvious that they are going to lose, we will experience even more obnoxious examples, as they demonstrate who is really hysterical.
–Richard Estes
“Except that they keep proving it,…”
Here’s the rub. THEY( those who are rightly-called homophobes and bigots) will not be able to muster the necessary majority vote. The vast middle ground of voters who have serious discomfort with the overreaching of the CA Supreme Court(in a 5-4 decision) into the social fabric by changing the definition of marriage will determine the fate of proposition 8.
“Except that they keep proving it,…”
Here’s the rub. THEY( those who are rightly-called homophobes and bigots) will not be able to muster the necessary majority vote. The vast middle ground of voters who have serious discomfort with the overreaching of the CA Supreme Court(in a 5-4 decision) into the social fabric by changing the definition of marriage will determine the fate of proposition 8.
“Except that they keep proving it,…”
Here’s the rub. THEY( those who are rightly-called homophobes and bigots) will not be able to muster the necessary majority vote. The vast middle ground of voters who have serious discomfort with the overreaching of the CA Supreme Court(in a 5-4 decision) into the social fabric by changing the definition of marriage will determine the fate of proposition 8.
“Except that they keep proving it,…”
Here’s the rub. THEY( those who are rightly-called homophobes and bigots) will not be able to muster the necessary majority vote. The vast middle ground of voters who have serious discomfort with the overreaching of the CA Supreme Court(in a 5-4 decision) into the social fabric by changing the definition of marriage will determine the fate of proposition 8.
I assume that soil surveys have been done for possible contamination on the PG&E site. If not, the city should request (and probably pay for) a thorough analysis for possible toxicity issues before this discussion goes any further.
I assume that soil surveys have been done for possible contamination on the PG&E site. If not, the city should request (and probably pay for) a thorough analysis for possible toxicity issues before this discussion goes any further.
I assume that soil surveys have been done for possible contamination on the PG&E site. If not, the city should request (and probably pay for) a thorough analysis for possible toxicity issues before this discussion goes any further.
I assume that soil surveys have been done for possible contamination on the PG&E site. If not, the city should request (and probably pay for) a thorough analysis for possible toxicity issues before this discussion goes any further.
I am very uncomfortable that PG&E has this kind of power in a public debate – whether they are for or against a proposition. I strongly oppose the proposition, but this is a double standard – for example, public employee labor unions may not require represented workers to contribute to public campaigns, though they may be required to contribute to their representation.
And, hopefully PG&E will not inflate the value of its property as dramatically as it did during the public power campaign (how about imminent domain?)
I am very uncomfortable that PG&E has this kind of power in a public debate – whether they are for or against a proposition. I strongly oppose the proposition, but this is a double standard – for example, public employee labor unions may not require represented workers to contribute to public campaigns, though they may be required to contribute to their representation.
And, hopefully PG&E will not inflate the value of its property as dramatically as it did during the public power campaign (how about imminent domain?)
I am very uncomfortable that PG&E has this kind of power in a public debate – whether they are for or against a proposition. I strongly oppose the proposition, but this is a double standard – for example, public employee labor unions may not require represented workers to contribute to public campaigns, though they may be required to contribute to their representation.
And, hopefully PG&E will not inflate the value of its property as dramatically as it did during the public power campaign (how about imminent domain?)
I am very uncomfortable that PG&E has this kind of power in a public debate – whether they are for or against a proposition. I strongly oppose the proposition, but this is a double standard – for example, public employee labor unions may not require represented workers to contribute to public campaigns, though they may be required to contribute to their representation.
And, hopefully PG&E will not inflate the value of its property as dramatically as it did during the public power campaign (how about imminent domain?)
Nice of PGE to kick down to defeat prop 8 but it really doesn’t add up to much when you look at their 14 billion dollar market value and their 1 billion/year profit. Giving them good press for this while they post public notices in the back of newpapers about coming rate increases is letting them off the hook much too easily.
Nice of PGE to kick down to defeat prop 8 but it really doesn’t add up to much when you look at their 14 billion dollar market value and their 1 billion/year profit. Giving them good press for this while they post public notices in the back of newpapers about coming rate increases is letting them off the hook much too easily.
Nice of PGE to kick down to defeat prop 8 but it really doesn’t add up to much when you look at their 14 billion dollar market value and their 1 billion/year profit. Giving them good press for this while they post public notices in the back of newpapers about coming rate increases is letting them off the hook much too easily.
Nice of PGE to kick down to defeat prop 8 but it really doesn’t add up to much when you look at their 14 billion dollar market value and their 1 billion/year profit. Giving them good press for this while they post public notices in the back of newpapers about coming rate increases is letting them off the hook much too easily.
I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. I don't trust them AT ALL.
Furthermore, I support the right of people to wed regardless of their sexual orientation, but I have friends who oppose it and that is their right. I don't consider them "homophobes." They just happen to have views that are different and that is okay.
Let's not play the labeling game.
I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. I don't trust them AT ALL.
Furthermore, I support the right of people to wed regardless of their sexual orientation, but I have friends who oppose it and that is their right. I don't consider them "homophobes." They just happen to have views that are different and that is okay.
Let's not play the labeling game.
I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. I don't trust them AT ALL.
Furthermore, I support the right of people to wed regardless of their sexual orientation, but I have friends who oppose it and that is their right. I don't consider them "homophobes." They just happen to have views that are different and that is okay.
Let's not play the labeling game.
I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. I don't trust them AT ALL.
Furthermore, I support the right of people to wed regardless of their sexual orientation, but I have friends who oppose it and that is their right. I don't consider them "homophobes." They just happen to have views that are different and that is okay.
Let's not play the labeling game.
"I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. …
Let's not play the labeling game."
Very well said.
"I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. …
Let's not play the labeling game."
Very well said.
"I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. …
Let's not play the labeling game."
Very well said.
"I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. …
Let's not play the labeling game."
Very well said.
Huge rate increases are coming down the pike this winter. Your heating bill is going to increase considerably. Let's face it, PG&E has to pay for its anti-SMUD campaign somehow.
For PG&E to take a political stand on any issue is inappropriate. Businesses should not pretend to speak for its shareholders or employees, who very well may disagree with whatever position the company is taking.
It never ceases to amaze me how intolerant pro – gay marriage people are. It's their way or the highway. Equal rights is not enough – it must be an overhaul of a dictionary definition. They know best how to teach our children sex ed, and at an early age no less.
If I had kids in school today, believe me I would have them opt out of sex ed. Schools can't even get a basic education right, let alone sex ed – which is something that should be left to parents. For instance, how about teaching abstinence? What a controversial idea!
Last time I looked, we live in a democracy, not a socialist state. Who the heck are the left wing super liberals to tell me how I must feel, what I must drive, what I must teach my children, what I am allowed to say or not to say. I don't care to live in a place where a vocal minority runs my life.
Huge rate increases are coming down the pike this winter. Your heating bill is going to increase considerably. Let's face it, PG&E has to pay for its anti-SMUD campaign somehow.
For PG&E to take a political stand on any issue is inappropriate. Businesses should not pretend to speak for its shareholders or employees, who very well may disagree with whatever position the company is taking.
It never ceases to amaze me how intolerant pro – gay marriage people are. It's their way or the highway. Equal rights is not enough – it must be an overhaul of a dictionary definition. They know best how to teach our children sex ed, and at an early age no less.
If I had kids in school today, believe me I would have them opt out of sex ed. Schools can't even get a basic education right, let alone sex ed – which is something that should be left to parents. For instance, how about teaching abstinence? What a controversial idea!
Last time I looked, we live in a democracy, not a socialist state. Who the heck are the left wing super liberals to tell me how I must feel, what I must drive, what I must teach my children, what I am allowed to say or not to say. I don't care to live in a place where a vocal minority runs my life.
Huge rate increases are coming down the pike this winter. Your heating bill is going to increase considerably. Let's face it, PG&E has to pay for its anti-SMUD campaign somehow.
For PG&E to take a political stand on any issue is inappropriate. Businesses should not pretend to speak for its shareholders or employees, who very well may disagree with whatever position the company is taking.
It never ceases to amaze me how intolerant pro – gay marriage people are. It's their way or the highway. Equal rights is not enough – it must be an overhaul of a dictionary definition. They know best how to teach our children sex ed, and at an early age no less.
If I had kids in school today, believe me I would have them opt out of sex ed. Schools can't even get a basic education right, let alone sex ed – which is something that should be left to parents. For instance, how about teaching abstinence? What a controversial idea!
Last time I looked, we live in a democracy, not a socialist state. Who the heck are the left wing super liberals to tell me how I must feel, what I must drive, what I must teach my children, what I am allowed to say or not to say. I don't care to live in a place where a vocal minority runs my life.
Huge rate increases are coming down the pike this winter. Your heating bill is going to increase considerably. Let's face it, PG&E has to pay for its anti-SMUD campaign somehow.
For PG&E to take a political stand on any issue is inappropriate. Businesses should not pretend to speak for its shareholders or employees, who very well may disagree with whatever position the company is taking.
It never ceases to amaze me how intolerant pro – gay marriage people are. It's their way or the highway. Equal rights is not enough – it must be an overhaul of a dictionary definition. They know best how to teach our children sex ed, and at an early age no less.
If I had kids in school today, believe me I would have them opt out of sex ed. Schools can't even get a basic education right, let alone sex ed – which is something that should be left to parents. For instance, how about teaching abstinence? What a controversial idea!
Last time I looked, we live in a democracy, not a socialist state. Who the heck are the left wing super liberals to tell me how I must feel, what I must drive, what I must teach my children, what I am allowed to say or not to say. I don't care to live in a place where a vocal minority runs my life.
“It never ceases to amaze me how intolerant pro – gay marriage people are. It’s their way or the highway.”
Why is that? Because it affects a fundamental personal right. Because the absence of that right leads to discrimination.
I guess you’re suggesting we should be a little more tolerant of discrimination based on sexual preference?
“It never ceases to amaze me how intolerant pro – gay marriage people are. It’s their way or the highway.”
Why is that? Because it affects a fundamental personal right. Because the absence of that right leads to discrimination.
I guess you’re suggesting we should be a little more tolerant of discrimination based on sexual preference?
“It never ceases to amaze me how intolerant pro – gay marriage people are. It’s their way or the highway.”
Why is that? Because it affects a fundamental personal right. Because the absence of that right leads to discrimination.
I guess you’re suggesting we should be a little more tolerant of discrimination based on sexual preference?
“It never ceases to amaze me how intolerant pro – gay marriage people are. It’s their way or the highway.”
Why is that? Because it affects a fundamental personal right. Because the absence of that right leads to discrimination.
I guess you’re suggesting we should be a little more tolerant of discrimination based on sexual preference?
“Who the heck are the left wing super liberals to tell me how I must feel, what I must drive, what I must teach my children, etc.”
As long as it doesn’t negatively interfere with anyone else’s life, I don’t care what the heck you do.
“Who the heck are the left wing super liberals to tell me how I must feel, what I must drive, what I must teach my children, etc.”
As long as it doesn’t negatively interfere with anyone else’s life, I don’t care what the heck you do.
“Who the heck are the left wing super liberals to tell me how I must feel, what I must drive, what I must teach my children, etc.”
As long as it doesn’t negatively interfere with anyone else’s life, I don’t care what the heck you do.
“Who the heck are the left wing super liberals to tell me how I must feel, what I must drive, what I must teach my children, etc.”
As long as it doesn’t negatively interfere with anyone else’s life, I don’t care what the heck you do.
We have been in abstinance only education mode for all the Bush years. Of course it doesn’t work as has been pointed out by the Guttmacher Institute and others. Teen birth rates are up as are STD’s. Chlamydia is epidemic in this area and you are worried about what we are going to teach 5 year olds about marriage. Its a red herring since most teachers will try to avoid talking about it with kids so young. What we really need to do is teach teen-agers not to bully homosexuality as an expression of their own discomfort with their sexuality.
We also need to make sure these same young adults have access to health care so they can protect themselves and act responsibly after being exposed to sound educational information that allows them to understand the emotional, social, economic and health consequences of their choices.
We have been in abstinance only education mode for all the Bush years. Of course it doesn’t work as has been pointed out by the Guttmacher Institute and others. Teen birth rates are up as are STD’s. Chlamydia is epidemic in this area and you are worried about what we are going to teach 5 year olds about marriage. Its a red herring since most teachers will try to avoid talking about it with kids so young. What we really need to do is teach teen-agers not to bully homosexuality as an expression of their own discomfort with their sexuality.
We also need to make sure these same young adults have access to health care so they can protect themselves and act responsibly after being exposed to sound educational information that allows them to understand the emotional, social, economic and health consequences of their choices.
We have been in abstinance only education mode for all the Bush years. Of course it doesn’t work as has been pointed out by the Guttmacher Institute and others. Teen birth rates are up as are STD’s. Chlamydia is epidemic in this area and you are worried about what we are going to teach 5 year olds about marriage. Its a red herring since most teachers will try to avoid talking about it with kids so young. What we really need to do is teach teen-agers not to bully homosexuality as an expression of their own discomfort with their sexuality.
We also need to make sure these same young adults have access to health care so they can protect themselves and act responsibly after being exposed to sound educational information that allows them to understand the emotional, social, economic and health consequences of their choices.
We have been in abstinance only education mode for all the Bush years. Of course it doesn’t work as has been pointed out by the Guttmacher Institute and others. Teen birth rates are up as are STD’s. Chlamydia is epidemic in this area and you are worried about what we are going to teach 5 year olds about marriage. Its a red herring since most teachers will try to avoid talking about it with kids so young. What we really need to do is teach teen-agers not to bully homosexuality as an expression of their own discomfort with their sexuality.
We also need to make sure these same young adults have access to health care so they can protect themselves and act responsibly after being exposed to sound educational information that allows them to understand the emotional, social, economic and health consequences of their choices.
Abstinance makes the heart grown fonder.
Abstinance makes the heart grown fonder.
Abstinance makes the heart grown fonder.
Abstinance makes the heart grown fonder.
Abstinance its okay for a day or two.
Abstinance its okay for a day or two.
Abstinance its okay for a day or two.
Abstinance its okay for a day or two.
Not a Fan of PG&E said…
I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. I don't trust them AT ALL.
Furthermore, I support the right of people to wed regardless of their sexual orientation, but I have friends who oppose it and that is their right. I don't consider them "homophobes." They just happen to have views that are different and that is okay.
Let's not play the labeling game.
Try talking them them for awhile. You’ll soon discover that it’s not a labeling game. They consider themselves morally superior to gays and lesbians. They’ll say that they support civil rights for gays and lesbians until they encounter a real world situation requiring action to protect them. Then, they will equivocate and talk around it. They will say something like, why is it an issue, anyway, why do they have to be public about their sexual orientation?
They just aren’t going to do anything that involves siding with gays and lesbians against people who subject them to discrimination and abuse. That’s because, deep down, they have the same social attitudes as the people who do it.
–Richard Estes
Not a Fan of PG&E said…
I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. I don't trust them AT ALL.
Furthermore, I support the right of people to wed regardless of their sexual orientation, but I have friends who oppose it and that is their right. I don't consider them "homophobes." They just happen to have views that are different and that is okay.
Let's not play the labeling game.
Try talking them them for awhile. You’ll soon discover that it’s not a labeling game. They consider themselves morally superior to gays and lesbians. They’ll say that they support civil rights for gays and lesbians until they encounter a real world situation requiring action to protect them. Then, they will equivocate and talk around it. They will say something like, why is it an issue, anyway, why do they have to be public about their sexual orientation?
They just aren’t going to do anything that involves siding with gays and lesbians against people who subject them to discrimination and abuse. That’s because, deep down, they have the same social attitudes as the people who do it.
–Richard Estes
Not a Fan of PG&E said…
I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. I don't trust them AT ALL.
Furthermore, I support the right of people to wed regardless of their sexual orientation, but I have friends who oppose it and that is their right. I don't consider them "homophobes." They just happen to have views that are different and that is okay.
Let's not play the labeling game.
Try talking them them for awhile. You’ll soon discover that it’s not a labeling game. They consider themselves morally superior to gays and lesbians. They’ll say that they support civil rights for gays and lesbians until they encounter a real world situation requiring action to protect them. Then, they will equivocate and talk around it. They will say something like, why is it an issue, anyway, why do they have to be public about their sexual orientation?
They just aren’t going to do anything that involves siding with gays and lesbians against people who subject them to discrimination and abuse. That’s because, deep down, they have the same social attitudes as the people who do it.
–Richard Estes
Not a Fan of PG&E said…
I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. I don't trust them AT ALL.
Furthermore, I support the right of people to wed regardless of their sexual orientation, but I have friends who oppose it and that is their right. I don't consider them "homophobes." They just happen to have views that are different and that is okay.
Let's not play the labeling game.
Try talking them them for awhile. You’ll soon discover that it’s not a labeling game. They consider themselves morally superior to gays and lesbians. They’ll say that they support civil rights for gays and lesbians until they encounter a real world situation requiring action to protect them. Then, they will equivocate and talk around it. They will say something like, why is it an issue, anyway, why do they have to be public about their sexual orientation?
They just aren’t going to do anything that involves siding with gays and lesbians against people who subject them to discrimination and abuse. That’s because, deep down, they have the same social attitudes as the people who do it.
–Richard Estes
Given the responses above, I think you made a mistake running the Prop 8 and land issues together. Sue Greenwald is spot on about the potential of that property, and the offer to discuss needs much wider dissemination.
Given the responses above, I think you made a mistake running the Prop 8 and land issues together. Sue Greenwald is spot on about the potential of that property, and the offer to discuss needs much wider dissemination.
Given the responses above, I think you made a mistake running the Prop 8 and land issues together. Sue Greenwald is spot on about the potential of that property, and the offer to discuss needs much wider dissemination.
Given the responses above, I think you made a mistake running the Prop 8 and land issues together. Sue Greenwald is spot on about the potential of that property, and the offer to discuss needs much wider dissemination.
Sue Greenwald completely lost it at the council meeting last night. It seened that on every issue she viewed it through the prism of fighting development. On the barn issue she said something to the effect of that we don’t need to rush to a decision while the housing market is weak even though the neighbors and the Chiles family had no issue with raising the barn. Then on the water issue she said something to the effect that improving or increasing water infrastructure spurs development before attacking the non-profit group that independently studied the water issue. Her tone was so accusatory and confrontational when she was questioing the presenter that the mayor cut her off and when she was cut off she went crazy and became belligerent to the point where the mayor had to call a recess. If you didn’t see it go watch the tape, it is shocking. In fact someone ought to post it on youtube. Especially all you suephiles need to see it before you get behind her train, it is headed off a cliff.
Sue Greenwald completely lost it at the council meeting last night. It seened that on every issue she viewed it through the prism of fighting development. On the barn issue she said something to the effect of that we don’t need to rush to a decision while the housing market is weak even though the neighbors and the Chiles family had no issue with raising the barn. Then on the water issue she said something to the effect that improving or increasing water infrastructure spurs development before attacking the non-profit group that independently studied the water issue. Her tone was so accusatory and confrontational when she was questioing the presenter that the mayor cut her off and when she was cut off she went crazy and became belligerent to the point where the mayor had to call a recess. If you didn’t see it go watch the tape, it is shocking. In fact someone ought to post it on youtube. Especially all you suephiles need to see it before you get behind her train, it is headed off a cliff.
Sue Greenwald completely lost it at the council meeting last night. It seened that on every issue she viewed it through the prism of fighting development. On the barn issue she said something to the effect of that we don’t need to rush to a decision while the housing market is weak even though the neighbors and the Chiles family had no issue with raising the barn. Then on the water issue she said something to the effect that improving or increasing water infrastructure spurs development before attacking the non-profit group that independently studied the water issue. Her tone was so accusatory and confrontational when she was questioing the presenter that the mayor cut her off and when she was cut off she went crazy and became belligerent to the point where the mayor had to call a recess. If you didn’t see it go watch the tape, it is shocking. In fact someone ought to post it on youtube. Especially all you suephiles need to see it before you get behind her train, it is headed off a cliff.
Sue Greenwald completely lost it at the council meeting last night. It seened that on every issue she viewed it through the prism of fighting development. On the barn issue she said something to the effect of that we don’t need to rush to a decision while the housing market is weak even though the neighbors and the Chiles family had no issue with raising the barn. Then on the water issue she said something to the effect that improving or increasing water infrastructure spurs development before attacking the non-profit group that independently studied the water issue. Her tone was so accusatory and confrontational when she was questioing the presenter that the mayor cut her off and when she was cut off she went crazy and became belligerent to the point where the mayor had to call a recess. If you didn’t see it go watch the tape, it is shocking. In fact someone ought to post it on youtube. Especially all you suephiles need to see it before you get behind her train, it is headed off a cliff.
"I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. …
Let's not play the labeling game."
Isn't calling PG&E "slimy" playing the labeling game?
I voted for SMUD but tip my hat to PG&E for helping to oppose prop 8.
"I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. …
Let's not play the labeling game."
Isn't calling PG&E "slimy" playing the labeling game?
I voted for SMUD but tip my hat to PG&E for helping to oppose prop 8.
"I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. …
Let's not play the labeling game."
Isn't calling PG&E "slimy" playing the labeling game?
I voted for SMUD but tip my hat to PG&E for helping to oppose prop 8.
"I don't care what PG&E does they are still a slimy organization. …
Let's not play the labeling game."
Isn't calling PG&E "slimy" playing the labeling game?
I voted for SMUD but tip my hat to PG&E for helping to oppose prop 8.
Don Shor:
PG&E has been completing toxicity studies. My understanding is that they don't look too bad. I have talked with a major condo developer who says that he has dealt with another PG&E corporate yard, and has taken on clean-up. I don't expect this to be the major impediment.
It used to be a phrase of praise to say that someone had a discriminating mind.. the dictionary definition of discriminate being “to mark or perceive distinguishing features”. It’s not a dirty word.
Don Shor:
PG&E has been completing toxicity studies. My understanding is that they don't look too bad. I have talked with a major condo developer who says that he has dealt with another PG&E corporate yard, and has taken on clean-up. I don't expect this to be the major impediment.
It used to be a phrase of praise to say that someone had a discriminating mind.. the dictionary definition of discriminate being “to mark or perceive distinguishing features”. It’s not a dirty word.
Don Shor:
PG&E has been completing toxicity studies. My understanding is that they don't look too bad. I have talked with a major condo developer who says that he has dealt with another PG&E corporate yard, and has taken on clean-up. I don't expect this to be the major impediment.
It used to be a phrase of praise to say that someone had a discriminating mind.. the dictionary definition of discriminate being “to mark or perceive distinguishing features”. It’s not a dirty word.
Don Shor:
PG&E has been completing toxicity studies. My understanding is that they don't look too bad. I have talked with a major condo developer who says that he has dealt with another PG&E corporate yard, and has taken on clean-up. I don't expect this to be the major impediment.
It used to be a phrase of praise to say that someone had a discriminating mind.. the dictionary definition of discriminate being “to mark or perceive distinguishing features”. It’s not a dirty word.
“Her tone was so accusatory and confrontational when she was questioing the presenter that the mayor cut her off…”
Keep it up Sue.. the only way to get answers to important questions is to publicly press these “experts”. You were the only voice on the Council dais during the Covell Village “debate” that brought to light what the voters needed to know to make their decision on Measure X. Mayor Asmundson’s dictatorial and patronizing style of leadership is enough to drive any reasonable person to distraction.
“Her tone was so accusatory and confrontational when she was questioing the presenter that the mayor cut her off…”
Keep it up Sue.. the only way to get answers to important questions is to publicly press these “experts”. You were the only voice on the Council dais during the Covell Village “debate” that brought to light what the voters needed to know to make their decision on Measure X. Mayor Asmundson’s dictatorial and patronizing style of leadership is enough to drive any reasonable person to distraction.
“Her tone was so accusatory and confrontational when she was questioing the presenter that the mayor cut her off…”
Keep it up Sue.. the only way to get answers to important questions is to publicly press these “experts”. You were the only voice on the Council dais during the Covell Village “debate” that brought to light what the voters needed to know to make their decision on Measure X. Mayor Asmundson’s dictatorial and patronizing style of leadership is enough to drive any reasonable person to distraction.
“Her tone was so accusatory and confrontational when she was questioing the presenter that the mayor cut her off…”
Keep it up Sue.. the only way to get answers to important questions is to publicly press these “experts”. You were the only voice on the Council dais during the Covell Village “debate” that brought to light what the voters needed to know to make their decision on Measure X. Mayor Asmundson’s dictatorial and patronizing style of leadership is enough to drive any reasonable person to distraction.
The problem wasn’t Sue’s questions it was her accusatory and argumentative tone. She could have dispassionately asked all her questions and then made her comments and it would have been much more effective. As it is she humiliated herself and hurt her cause.
The problem wasn’t Sue’s questions it was her accusatory and argumentative tone. She could have dispassionately asked all her questions and then made her comments and it would have been much more effective. As it is she humiliated herself and hurt her cause.
The problem wasn’t Sue’s questions it was her accusatory and argumentative tone. She could have dispassionately asked all her questions and then made her comments and it would have been much more effective. As it is she humiliated herself and hurt her cause.
The problem wasn’t Sue’s questions it was her accusatory and argumentative tone. She could have dispassionately asked all her questions and then made her comments and it would have been much more effective. As it is she humiliated herself and hurt her cause.
“It used to be a phrase of praise to say that someone had a discriminating mind.. the dictionary definition of discriminate being “to mark or perceive distinguishing features”. It’s not a dirty word.”
Talk about what used to be if you want, but change will come whether or not you are ready for it.
“It used to be a phrase of praise to say that someone had a discriminating mind.. the dictionary definition of discriminate being “to mark or perceive distinguishing features”. It’s not a dirty word.”
Talk about what used to be if you want, but change will come whether or not you are ready for it.
“It used to be a phrase of praise to say that someone had a discriminating mind.. the dictionary definition of discriminate being “to mark or perceive distinguishing features”. It’s not a dirty word.”
Talk about what used to be if you want, but change will come whether or not you are ready for it.
“It used to be a phrase of praise to say that someone had a discriminating mind.. the dictionary definition of discriminate being “to mark or perceive distinguishing features”. It’s not a dirty word.”
Talk about what used to be if you want, but change will come whether or not you are ready for it.
‘The problem wasn’t Sue’s questions it was her accusatory and argumentative tone.’
…that’s called pressing the presenter to go beyond their prepared and canned presentation to reveal what has been potentially fudged over or omitted.
Mayor Asmundson has repeatedly stepped in to “protect” presenters from Sue’s attempts to press them for more detailed answers. If Sue does “lose it” on occasion, we all know her well by now and know “where she is coming from”. She’s up there on the dais to passionaltely represent and protect the interests of Davis voters.
‘The problem wasn’t Sue’s questions it was her accusatory and argumentative tone.’
…that’s called pressing the presenter to go beyond their prepared and canned presentation to reveal what has been potentially fudged over or omitted.
Mayor Asmundson has repeatedly stepped in to “protect” presenters from Sue’s attempts to press them for more detailed answers. If Sue does “lose it” on occasion, we all know her well by now and know “where she is coming from”. She’s up there on the dais to passionaltely represent and protect the interests of Davis voters.
‘The problem wasn’t Sue’s questions it was her accusatory and argumentative tone.’
…that’s called pressing the presenter to go beyond their prepared and canned presentation to reveal what has been potentially fudged over or omitted.
Mayor Asmundson has repeatedly stepped in to “protect” presenters from Sue’s attempts to press them for more detailed answers. If Sue does “lose it” on occasion, we all know her well by now and know “where she is coming from”. She’s up there on the dais to passionaltely represent and protect the interests of Davis voters.
‘The problem wasn’t Sue’s questions it was her accusatory and argumentative tone.’
…that’s called pressing the presenter to go beyond their prepared and canned presentation to reveal what has been potentially fudged over or omitted.
Mayor Asmundson has repeatedly stepped in to “protect” presenters from Sue’s attempts to press them for more detailed answers. If Sue does “lose it” on occasion, we all know her well by now and know “where she is coming from”. She’s up there on the dais to passionaltely represent and protect the interests of Davis voters.
I too wanted to hear what Sue had to say but she was so over the top that it was impossible to let her continue with the tirade she was on. The subject at hand is one of Sue’s passionate issues (along with the PG&E site) and I think further discussion was appropriate. Too bad Sue has no diplomacy.
I too wanted to hear what Sue had to say but she was so over the top that it was impossible to let her continue with the tirade she was on. The subject at hand is one of Sue’s passionate issues (along with the PG&E site) and I think further discussion was appropriate. Too bad Sue has no diplomacy.
I too wanted to hear what Sue had to say but she was so over the top that it was impossible to let her continue with the tirade she was on. The subject at hand is one of Sue’s passionate issues (along with the PG&E site) and I think further discussion was appropriate. Too bad Sue has no diplomacy.
I too wanted to hear what Sue had to say but she was so over the top that it was impossible to let her continue with the tirade she was on. The subject at hand is one of Sue’s passionate issues (along with the PG&E site) and I think further discussion was appropriate. Too bad Sue has no diplomacy.
Watch the segment on the water report yourself very carefully on streaming video.
You will see that Sue was firm but polite. Asmundson simply refused to allow Sue to ask her questions. Saylor joined in the intimidation.
This is a new wrinkle. Don’t allow the minority to ask the tough questions regarding a half billion dollar project that ratepayers will have to pay for.
Davis is in trouble.
Watch the segment on the water report yourself very carefully on streaming video.
You will see that Sue was firm but polite. Asmundson simply refused to allow Sue to ask her questions. Saylor joined in the intimidation.
This is a new wrinkle. Don’t allow the minority to ask the tough questions regarding a half billion dollar project that ratepayers will have to pay for.
Davis is in trouble.
Watch the segment on the water report yourself very carefully on streaming video.
You will see that Sue was firm but polite. Asmundson simply refused to allow Sue to ask her questions. Saylor joined in the intimidation.
This is a new wrinkle. Don’t allow the minority to ask the tough questions regarding a half billion dollar project that ratepayers will have to pay for.
Davis is in trouble.
Watch the segment on the water report yourself very carefully on streaming video.
You will see that Sue was firm but polite. Asmundson simply refused to allow Sue to ask her questions. Saylor joined in the intimidation.
This is a new wrinkle. Don’t allow the minority to ask the tough questions regarding a half billion dollar project that ratepayers will have to pay for.
Davis is in trouble.
I did watch the exchange between Sue and the presenter and my opinion has not changed. Sue was argumentative and any response from the presenter was not going to be accepted by Sue and would lead to another confrontation. If Lamar had been present it may have calmed things down a bit.
The apparent animosity between Sue and Ruth seems to have escalated with the changing of the mayoral title. It looks like Ruth is dead bent on showing Sue and the rest of Davis that she can run a meeting that doesn’t take all night and appears to want to rush through some things that need to be discussed further. Over the last three meetings Ruth has wanted to skip over some staff presentations solely for the saving of time. The desire to rush through public comment is another example of that.
Sue is right though, where is $500M (if that’s the correct number) going to come from?
I did watch the exchange between Sue and the presenter and my opinion has not changed. Sue was argumentative and any response from the presenter was not going to be accepted by Sue and would lead to another confrontation. If Lamar had been present it may have calmed things down a bit.
The apparent animosity between Sue and Ruth seems to have escalated with the changing of the mayoral title. It looks like Ruth is dead bent on showing Sue and the rest of Davis that she can run a meeting that doesn’t take all night and appears to want to rush through some things that need to be discussed further. Over the last three meetings Ruth has wanted to skip over some staff presentations solely for the saving of time. The desire to rush through public comment is another example of that.
Sue is right though, where is $500M (if that’s the correct number) going to come from?
I did watch the exchange between Sue and the presenter and my opinion has not changed. Sue was argumentative and any response from the presenter was not going to be accepted by Sue and would lead to another confrontation. If Lamar had been present it may have calmed things down a bit.
The apparent animosity between Sue and Ruth seems to have escalated with the changing of the mayoral title. It looks like Ruth is dead bent on showing Sue and the rest of Davis that she can run a meeting that doesn’t take all night and appears to want to rush through some things that need to be discussed further. Over the last three meetings Ruth has wanted to skip over some staff presentations solely for the saving of time. The desire to rush through public comment is another example of that.
Sue is right though, where is $500M (if that’s the correct number) going to come from?
I did watch the exchange between Sue and the presenter and my opinion has not changed. Sue was argumentative and any response from the presenter was not going to be accepted by Sue and would lead to another confrontation. If Lamar had been present it may have calmed things down a bit.
The apparent animosity between Sue and Ruth seems to have escalated with the changing of the mayoral title. It looks like Ruth is dead bent on showing Sue and the rest of Davis that she can run a meeting that doesn’t take all night and appears to want to rush through some things that need to be discussed further. Over the last three meetings Ruth has wanted to skip over some staff presentations solely for the saving of time. The desire to rush through public comment is another example of that.
Sue is right though, where is $500M (if that’s the correct number) going to come from?
Again, watch the item yourselves on streaming video. Sue was asking tough questions, and the consultant was evading the questions. Sue politely pressed him. She was the only councilmember doing her job.
Again, watch the item yourselves on streaming video. Sue was asking tough questions, and the consultant was evading the questions. Sue politely pressed him. She was the only councilmember doing her job.
Again, watch the item yourselves on streaming video. Sue was asking tough questions, and the consultant was evading the questions. Sue politely pressed him. She was the only councilmember doing her job.
Again, watch the item yourselves on streaming video. Sue was asking tough questions, and the consultant was evading the questions. Sue politely pressed him. She was the only councilmember doing her job.
Again.. our local politics is a microcosm of what we have seen in Washington. Saylor, with Asmundson politically “attached at his hip” since their School Board days, continue with the old politics of non-sustainable fiscal decisions that benefit their political patrons and cronies while leaving us and our children to pay the bills.
Again.. our local politics is a microcosm of what we have seen in Washington. Saylor, with Asmundson politically “attached at his hip” since their School Board days, continue with the old politics of non-sustainable fiscal decisions that benefit their political patrons and cronies while leaving us and our children to pay the bills.
Again.. our local politics is a microcosm of what we have seen in Washington. Saylor, with Asmundson politically “attached at his hip” since their School Board days, continue with the old politics of non-sustainable fiscal decisions that benefit their political patrons and cronies while leaving us and our children to pay the bills.
Again.. our local politics is a microcosm of what we have seen in Washington. Saylor, with Asmundson politically “attached at his hip” since their School Board days, continue with the old politics of non-sustainable fiscal decisions that benefit their political patrons and cronies while leaving us and our children to pay the bills.
‘she can run a meeting that doesn’t take all night and appears to want to rush through some things that need to be discussed further…’
This is probably going to require some “direct action” at Council meetings to challenge Mayor Asmundson’s plans. Citizens at public comment will need to DEMAND that they be heard and that the questions raised be answered to reasonable satisfaction before they voluntarily leave the podium and the Davis police are needed to escort them out of the chamber.
‘she can run a meeting that doesn’t take all night and appears to want to rush through some things that need to be discussed further…’
This is probably going to require some “direct action” at Council meetings to challenge Mayor Asmundson’s plans. Citizens at public comment will need to DEMAND that they be heard and that the questions raised be answered to reasonable satisfaction before they voluntarily leave the podium and the Davis police are needed to escort them out of the chamber.
‘she can run a meeting that doesn’t take all night and appears to want to rush through some things that need to be discussed further…’
This is probably going to require some “direct action” at Council meetings to challenge Mayor Asmundson’s plans. Citizens at public comment will need to DEMAND that they be heard and that the questions raised be answered to reasonable satisfaction before they voluntarily leave the podium and the Davis police are needed to escort them out of the chamber.
‘she can run a meeting that doesn’t take all night and appears to want to rush through some things that need to be discussed further…’
This is probably going to require some “direct action” at Council meetings to challenge Mayor Asmundson’s plans. Citizens at public comment will need to DEMAND that they be heard and that the questions raised be answered to reasonable satisfaction before they voluntarily leave the podium and the Davis police are needed to escort them out of the chamber.
I remember Ruth being at a mtg years ago and she was speaking against gay marriage in a very round about way.
She and Don do not believe in democracy.
I remember Ruth being at a mtg years ago and she was speaking against gay marriage in a very round about way.
She and Don do not believe in democracy.
I remember Ruth being at a mtg years ago and she was speaking against gay marriage in a very round about way.
She and Don do not believe in democracy.
I remember Ruth being at a mtg years ago and she was speaking against gay marriage in a very round about way.
She and Don do not believe in democracy.
I think Ruth is not very bright and it shows.
It’s quite obvious that she and Don do not believe in democracy, so it begs the questions:
1. Why did they run for office? and
2. Why do they waste their time on city council if they want the meetings to be over while limiting our input?
I would even go so far as to say that Ruth’s style is more like that of a dictator.
I think Ruth is not very bright and it shows.
It’s quite obvious that she and Don do not believe in democracy, so it begs the questions:
1. Why did they run for office? and
2. Why do they waste their time on city council if they want the meetings to be over while limiting our input?
I would even go so far as to say that Ruth’s style is more like that of a dictator.
I think Ruth is not very bright and it shows.
It’s quite obvious that she and Don do not believe in democracy, so it begs the questions:
1. Why did they run for office? and
2. Why do they waste their time on city council if they want the meetings to be over while limiting our input?
I would even go so far as to say that Ruth’s style is more like that of a dictator.
I think Ruth is not very bright and it shows.
It’s quite obvious that she and Don do not believe in democracy, so it begs the questions:
1. Why did they run for office? and
2. Why do they waste their time on city council if they want the meetings to be over while limiting our input?
I would even go so far as to say that Ruth’s style is more like that of a dictator.