On Thursday, Davis Columnist Bob Dunning lamented the lateness of the Davis City Council Meeting which ran until nearly 2 am on Tuesday night. He got it right when he suggested that late meetings compromise democracy.
In fact, I agree with much of what he had to say, although I do believe that ending a meeting at 10 pm is impractical given that councilmembers, or at least two of them, have 9 to 5 jobs meaning that on a regular basis starting a meeting at 5 pm is impractical.
IS THIS ANY WAY TO RUN A CITY? – Steve Souza and Sue Greenwald had it right when they said that 1:30 in the morning was not the proper time for the City Council to be making a decision about a proposed residential development in Northeast Davis – our council members may have time on their hands, but the rest of us don’t –
The Davis Enterprise picks up the theme as well in today Editorial:
WHEN THE DAVIS City Council went deep into the night Tuesday – actually, into the early morning hours Wednesday – to make a key decision on the Wildhorse Ranch development, our elected officials did no one any favors.
Every so often, the council apparently needs to be reminded that doing the city’s business when the bars are closing serves no one. And in this instance, a little prudence in planning could have saved everyone frustration.
They continue:
SECONDLY, IF OUR elected leaders can’t get the show on the road earlier, we urge them to think more clearly about their agendas: when to have public input on big issues and what kind of tributes to pay on the public’s dime.
We appreciated the outpouring of gratitude for UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef upon his retirement. But next time, consider a reception separate from the council meeting. Or, summarize the proclamations and get on with our city business.
Yes, exactly.
Both Bob Dunning and the Davis Enterprise get this right, but they do not go far enough. I understand a desire to restructure the meetings as the Davis Enterprise suggests, but the simple fact of the matter is that on Tuesday there was one item that had to be decided because of time sensitivity and that was the Wildhorse Ranch Project.
I understand that some people think we should have pushed it off until September and held the Measure J vote next June, that’s a legitimate viewpoint. The council majority opted not to delay this project. For the purposes of this discussion, if they were going to decide to hear the item, they needed to hear it first at 8 pm, not have a full discussion on the redevelopment item that would last until 10:15 pm and then rush through discussion on this item.
I agree with Councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza on that, but I have never seen Councilmember Souza stand up against the Mayor. In fact, it was just a few weeks ago to the point of absurdity that the Councilmember spoke really fast when asking questions on the issue of Chiles Ranch because he refused to back Councilmember Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek on extending the time to question the project.
The problem is that the council attempts to cram all sorts of issues onto a given agenda without much apparent thought as to how long it will take. The Mayor then sets time deadlines because without them, they would literally be there all night. That certainly does not lend itself to democracy any more than meeting until 2 am.
A few weeks ago Mayor Asmundson declared that they had to move through the agenda if they wanted to take their traditional August vacation.
That got me thinking, how audacious Madame Mayor. What makes you think you are entitled to a vacation if the public’s business is not dealt with? Given the state of the economy many Davisites are not getting a vacation this year, some don’t even have a job to have a vacation from. Maybe you ought to worry more about doing your job and less about your junkets to the Phillipines and cavorting with sister cities.
This is a council that for the most part has met every single week since May but only AFTER meeting every other week prior to that. They have had packed agenda after packed agenda. The Mayor packed each item onto the agenda and then jammed every item through often leaving just five minutes to discuss crucial and complex issues.
I would like to argue that we should limit staff reports, and that would save some time, but there is a problem with that approach as well. Back in May, the first version of the budget arrived in councilmembers hands just hours before the council meeting. On June 16, the complex fire staffing study by Citygate and the Budget arrived just the day of the council meeting. Two weeks ago, the Planning Commission received the Final EIR for Wildhorse Ranch, a long and complex document, just two days prior to the meeting. And this week, the council received about 300 pages of the staff report on Wildhorse on Friday and then as several councilmembers demonstrated, supplemental material just before the meeting.
In other words, how in the world is the Davis City Council let alone the public supposed to have read hundreds of pages delivered right before a council meeting? Is this sloppiness on the part of city staff or is there something more?
So yes I am all for changing the way that council conducts business. I agree that 2 am is way too late to conduct the public’s business. I still believe that the council hearing on the Grand Jury Report back in January was compromised by the late hour and the tiredness of the council members, but the problem here is one of scheduling and one of prioritizing what public business needed to be conducted and that responsibility falls to the Mayor.
Now Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald were attempting to use the lateness of the meeting as an excuse to delay the Wildhorse Project that they did not support. So I sympathize in terms of process, and believe that the Mayor could have designed the meeting better. She could have put this discussion up front and deferred the discussion on an important but less time sensitive Redevelopment Agency project until next week or September. I also do not believe that council made the wrong decision in allowing the project the opportunity to go forward. It is not the fault of Wildhorse that the city screwed up in terms of scheduling. As I understand it, both Councilmember Souza and Councilmember Greenwald were given ample opportunities to meet with the applicants and declined to do so prior to the meeting.
I also disagree with the Davis Enterprise that they ought to begin meetings at 4 pm. That would preclude working people from serving on the City Council. As it stands now it is difficult to do so–put in a full day of work and then put in an addition five to seven hours on the council dais in addition to the other duties involved with being a member of city council. That is why we see most of the members of the council do not work and that has often been the case in the past as well. While there is nothing wrong with that, it does leave huge segments of the population unrepresented.
My solution is that council ought to meet every Tuesday with one or two Saturdays available per month as needed to handle overflow. The council should not hear more than one major item per agenda as a regular rule of thumb unless time constraints make it unavoidable. And if the council should have no other choice but to hear more than one lengthy item, they ought to prioritize the item in terms of time sensitivity so that if they cannot reasonably act on two items, the item deferred is the item that is not time sensitive. That alone ought to change the way the city does business and avoid these kinds of problems.
I would also suggest that vacation is a luxury not a reason to cram agendas full for two months in hopes of being able to take it. If the public business is full for August, then meet in August. Seems much more logical than limiting council discussion and doing public business at 2 am.
On a final note, I notice that Bob Dunning chose to highlight the Vanguard’s brochure in his column today. Thanks for the publicity Mr. Dunning and the check is in the mail.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“…..Now Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald were attempting to use the lateness of the meeting as an excuse to delay the Wildhorse Project that they did not support.”
…..a rather outrageous statement. Both Sue and Steve argued that Measure J was being compromised by rushing the vote to Nov.(why exactly was this project “time-sensitive”??)
Today (Sunday) Dunning took the opportunity to criticize the Vanguard in his column.
Yes, that’s why I thanked him at the end of my column this morning.
[quote]On a final note, I notice that Bob Dunning chose to highlight the Vanguard’s brochure in his column today. Thanks for the publicity Mr. Dunning and the check is in the mail.[/quote]
DPD, you make good solid suggestions. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL?
There is no question in my mind that Mayor Asmundson has to take much of the blame. She is the one who decided to have less meetings, so that now things are backed up to an impossible degree. Did you hear her comments on Tuesday night? At 12:30 am, after staff and the developer made their presentations, she then turned to CC members, and made the outrageous statement “We can wrap things up in half an hour, right?”.
What is she saying here?
“Our minds are already made up, so lets cut to the chase?”
“I’m tired and want to go home, so let’s cut out discussion on this item?”
“Who cares what the public thinks and most of them are gone anyway, let’s just make a decision?”
“I don’t care what any of you has to say on this project, I’ve heard enough to make my decision?”
Furthermore, Bill Emlin should take some heat too. His staff is very tardy in getting reports to CC in a timely manner. If his staff is overworked, then take that issue up w CC. He is such a gutless wonder. The staff reports are far too lengthy, loaded with unnecessary verbiage. One wonders if that is done on purpose, as a CYA maneuver, so definitive info is buried amongst junk.
Other CC members themselves need to take some blame here. Too much time is taken up with questions that should have been asked of staff beforehand if the report was available in a timely manner (Asmundson and Souza). Too much electioneering goes on from the dais (Saylor and Souza). Saylor is infamous for restating what someone else has already said. Souza asks too damn many pointless questions. Sue Greenwald keeps repeating herself. Lamar is about the only one who tries to keep things brief and to the point. The others could take a lesson.
I have visited other City Councils in West Sac and Woodland. Our meetings are a joke in comparison.
To David Greenwald:
Please disclose the nature of the flyer Dunning is referring to. Who paid for it? Did Jim Provenza authorize his inclusion in the flyer?
Dunning is leaving the impression that the money trail can now be track tracked directly to the Vanguard.
Dunning wrote:[quote]… if the efforts of the investigative journalist can … help a developer get his pet project approved, well, mission accomplished.[/quote]
NW: Out of curiosity, why do you think you get to ask those questions behind the cloak of anonymity? What do you think the answers will reveal?
What money trail are you implying?
Since you asked so nicely, Dunning also wrote:[quote]And I might also note that the blog … accepted advertising from the family of a developer with a project before the city and then – surprise, surprise – I shockingly read that the investigative journalist himself is actively advocating for the very same project … and suggesting that we should “embrace” this development with open arms. All of this is in keeping with the first rule of every investigative journalist. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
Connect the dots and follow the money.[/quote]
Didn’t the Enterprise accept advertising from Tandem Properties and also the Yes on Measure X Campaign and then endorse the project? I’m having trouble following the conspiracy here.
One obvious difference is transparency. That’s why I asked David for disclosure.
To “My View”
The bottom line is that Lamar was the swing vote to cut off debate.
All this focus on process, history, personalities, etc is an attempt to deflect attention from this single inconvenient fact.
According to Mike Harrington on a previous thread, Bill Ritter was the driving force that put Lamar in office. That puts Heystek (by virtue of the jaw-dropping break from his normal behavior on Tuesday night) at the central nexus of the neoprogressive agenda along with Ritter, D. Greenwald, the Vanguard, and Parlin Development.
Will you be transparent as to your identity? Does the Enterprise disclose how much they received from Tandem and Covell?
“That puts Heystek (by virtue of the jaw-dropping break from his normal behavior on Tuesday night) at the central nexus of the neoprogressive agenda along with Ritter, D. Greenwald, the Vanguard, and Parlin Development.”
Maybe we should call it the cabal? Ask the Grand Jury to investigate?
“Yes, that’s why I thanked him at the end of my column this morning.”
And so you’re also helping Dunning by spreading the word about his column?
😉
I suspect Dunning is still *just a bit* more well known than David.
To Observer:
Sure. You go first.
David, Steve and I have been voting consistently to end the meetings earlier. Steve and I also voted not to start a new general plan process, because it would just be another layer of council items on agendas that are already too long. The fact that a major development project was being rammed through with virtually no public discussion was not the only factor influencing my desire to hold the item over.
Bill Emlen wants to meet only twice a month. He says it is too hard for staff to meet weekly. When I was mayor, Bill would routinely put way too many large items on the agenda in an attempt to cut down the number of meetings to two a month. I had to insist every week that we remove items and have more meetings if necessary.
Bill Emlen says that staff finishes one set of reports and then has to immediately start the next. I suggested to him that we could keep the meetings reasonable while making it easier on staff by scheduling certain department items, say for example public works and parks on rec, on the first and third Tuesdays, and and planning and redevelopment agency on second and fourth Tuesdays, so that any given department would be preparing reports every other week. As far as I know, this suggestion was not followed.
You’re the one calling for transparency, I’m just calling for you to be consistent. If you want transparency, then be transparent.
Observer: What’s transparent is your use of an “attack the messenger” tactic to try and deflect the argument. It’s not going to work.
I have not attacked you at all, I just think as a matter of fairness, if you demand transparency, you need to be transparent. What are you afraid of by revealing your name?
Anyone see the pattern on this blog?
Deflect the argument, attack the messenger, change the subject, ridicule the post (or the poster), deflect some more. Dismissive, condescending, arrogant … but never a substantive response.
If you get too close to the core agenda of the neoprogressives, this is what you are confronted with.
I see you dodging the question personally. You want transparency but won’t be transparent yourself, what are you trying to hide?
Neoprogressive Watcher: Observer’s right, if you demand transparency, you had better be prepared to give it yourself, otherwise you might as well be a troll.
Trying to deflect the argument to anonymous posting isn’t going to make it (or me) go away. I asked David to disclose who paid for the flyer that Dunning implies contains a paid advertisement for the Vanguard. Was the ultimate source of the money Parlin, as Dunning suggests?
Perhaps you are, in fact, David and can now respond directly – albeit anonymously.
Why are you afraid to discuss the issue? Why do you attempt to stop other people from discussing the issue? Why are you posting anonymously? What are [u]you[/u] hiding? Do you have any financial conflicts? Do you have any connections to Parlin? Are you connected to the Vanguard?
The allegation is now published in the Davis Enterprise and will not go away.
I encourage all progressives to follow Dunning’s advice -[quote]Connect the dots and follow the money.[/quote]
And why do you think you have the right to ask David anything behind your veil of anonymity?
Connect the dots and follow the money? Are you serious? This is too funny. Sorry, but there is not a conspiracy theory. What dots are there to connect?
The so called “dots” are very simple: a business person paid for advertising space and received advertising space on the Vanguard.
You too may do the same if you have a business.
It’s plain and simple. No drama.
How could I be so stupid? You’re absolutely correct. I don’t the right to ask these questions anonymously.
David, respectfully I withdraw all the questions.
Please do not tell me if Parlin was the ultimate source of the money that paid for the piece.
Please do not tell me if Jim Provenza was a willing participant.
Please do not tell me if there is any merit to Bob Dunning’s allegations.
To Mike Rogers:
I am not demanding anything. I simply asked David Greenwald to respond to Bob Dunning’s allegations. My initial post[quote]To David Greenwald:
Please disclose the nature of the flyer Dunning is referring to. Who paid for it? Did Jim Provenza authorize his inclusion in the flyer?
Dunning is leaving the impression that the money trail can now be track tracked directly to the Vanguard.[/quote]Based on the aggressiveness of the response, I obviously touched a nerve; and I’m sure many of us will now be digging into this in the coming weeks if there is no explanation forthcoming.
Regarding anonymous posting, many people with a point of view elect to post anonymously to avoid being attacked personally and professionally by political opponents (while most just simply elect to remain silent). This is a simple fact of life in Davis. Anyone that has been on the receiving end of “attention” from the fringe elements of our community can testify to the severity of the problem.
What I find disturbing us the conduct of posters (like Observer) who are clearly trying to squelch dialog from behind a cloak of anonymity rather than debate the issues. This obviously diminishes the Vanguard by making it clear to people that might consider posting that any views contrary to the editor will be met with a firestorm of attack.
DPD,
Now I understand why West Sacramento, Woodland, Sacramento, Vacaville and even the tiny town of Winters laugh at Davis. Oh my, the “scandal.”
Please don’t tell us that this town is full of conspiracy theorists who have nothing better to do with their time.
Please don’t tell us that the same conspiracy theorists don’t understand how a business works, i.e. you pay for ad space and you place your ad. Just like the Sac Bee and the Enterprise have ad space so too does the Vanguard.
Please don’t tell us that anyone posting “anonymously” has any cajones whatsoever.
Please don’t tell us that too many people posting on this non-issue have way too much time on their hands and have to make an issue out of a
non-issue.
Neoprogressive Watcher asked, “How could I be so stupid?” I don’t have the answer to that question. Only you can answer that, but remember that Davis is the town where a woman was fined for snoring too loud years ago.
Talk about an embarrassment!
And you are quoting Dunning as a reliable source? Dunning who pokes fun at everything and everyone? Only in Davis.
To NW: David has repeated stated that his “commentary” should not be held to journalistic standards. Unfortunately, the line between his commentary and objective attempts at journalism not infrequently becomes blurred. He does offer us the opportunity to call him on this in reader postings. There is little ambiguity concerning where David”s Vanguard “heart” lies among the various groupings of local Davis politics. I do not think there will be surprising revelations in the list of the Vanguard’s major donors and advertising supporters. As to this back and forth with Observer, no need to take the bait. It is obvious to all that, as you said,it is an attempt to “attack the messenger” and divert attention from what transpired on the Council dais that early Wednesday morning.
The conspiracy is back
No Drama in Davis
Oh the “scandel” in Davis
These are all examples of ridiculing a prior post in an attempt to deflect the argument, dismiss the content, and marginalize the poster.
In my case, it accomplishes none of the above, gives me license to respond in kind, and also gets me angry.
So if you want to talk conspiracy theories, try this on for size …
Here’s a post from a previous thread that summarizes the conspiracy theory better than I can:
“To:David” wrote on the “Odd Staff Report” thread:[quote] Let’s look at these facts (and please correct me if I am in error):
Bill Ritter worked for NO for Measure X; the developers of Wildhorse Ranch (i.e. Parlin Development) decided to avoid the same mistakes, they would hire a ” Davis Insider”, who would help to court the “progessive, environmentalists” in town; it also turns that Bill Ritter is good friends with David … Greenwald, and that the Vanguard could utlimately serve to influence key “activists” in town (who in ’06 opposed Covell Village; I am specifically referring to name by Pam Nieberg, Holly Bishop); so now in 2009, we have Parlin paying Bill Ritter to sway Davis electorate that this project is a.) green and b.) necessary (DESPITE FACT THAT CITY AND UC DAVIS HAS ALREADY APPROVED NEARLY 2000 UNITS TO BE BUILD) “Slow growth progressives”, if that is what you still believe accurately describes yourselves, PLEASE wake up and see the snow job what is happening in front of our collective eyes; Parlin Development through Bill Ritter, through David … Greenwald, is trying to sway Davis “progressives” that Wildhorse Ranch is a.) necessary and b.) the greatest thing to happen to Davis since Village Homes….please take a long and educated look before you accept this…..[/quote]Bob Dunning, are you reading?
anonymous: it appears that Neoprogressive Watcher is doing what you are accusing me of doing.
“anonymous” wrote[quote]As to this back and forth with Observer, no need to take the bait. It is obvious to all that, as you said,it is an attempt to “attack the messenger” and divert attention from what transpired on the Council dais that early Wednesday morning.[/quote]You’re right. I shouldn’t have taken the bait.
Regarding your point about the “Vanguard’s major donors and advertising supporters”, I simply asked what the flyer was and who paid for it. The Vanguard doesn’t seem to have much in the way of “visible means of support”, so it’s an obvious question to ask given Dunning’s assertions of impropriety. I was also curious about the inclusion of Jim Provenza (whom I like a lot) in the piece, and wanted to know if this was done with his knowledge and/or approval. The Vanguard “thought police” then went into attack mode.
There is a scan of the flyer on the Davis Wiki Page ([url]http://daviswiki.org/The_People’s_Vanguard_of_Davis[/url])
What makes you think that the Vanguard doesn’t “have much in the way of visible means of support”?
Vanguardian:
The link does not go to the scan.
In answer to your question, I don’t see much in the way of ads and (as far as I know) the donations are not public information.
You’ll have to copy and paste the link: http://daviswiki.org/The_People's_Vanguard_of_Davis
Jeepers I can’t even copy and paste the link. Go to Daviswiki.org and type in the search engine Vanguard and it will pop up.
Neoprogressive Watcher has too much time on her/his hands. Looking at the Vanguard on the Wiki where the brochure is located with lots of quotes from elected officials shows that Dunning and Neoprogressive Watcher, who may be Dunning for all we know, is taking advantage of a very slow news day, week or month in Davis.
I wonder if this is an attempt to deflect voters from the 4+ million dollar budget shortfall that the city of Davis is facing due to the state budget?
The sky is falling in CA and there are more important issues than a Jim Provenza, Shiela Allen, Helen Thomson, Susan Lovenburg, Lamar Heystek, Sue Greenwald quote, or a quote from other elected officials.
Sorry, but we Vanguard readers are more intelligent than the pseudo, neo, self-described Progressive people trying to make a conspiracy issue out of a non-issue.
Next.
To NW: I have little reason to doubt the passionate sincerity of Bill Ritter and his “fellow travelers” who have come forward to support his employer’s project. The fundamental issue is that the developer has chosen to go with the standard game-plan to get a Measure J vote past the close scrutiny of the Davis electorate,i.e.1.bring it forward publicly for the first time with some deadline, real or conjured, that severely limits the time for any opposition to be organized before the Measure J vote. It is now August, Davis is emptied of its voters, then in Sept-Oct.2. Deny opposition the “free air time” that an open Council session offers. In September-October, I would predict that the Council agendas will leave little time to openly debate the merits/flaws in the baseline development agreement(since it is now a done-deal). There will be no real opportunity for any significant open Council debate before the Nov. election day is upon us. With no “free air time” at Council meetings this fall, any opposition will have to be well-funded to get its message out.3. Add a 15 sec. campaign soundbite(“mandated 90% GHG reduction”)enforceable or just rhetorical, no matter. This is the issue that will motivate me to oppose this project,ie protecting the integrity of our Measure J.
It wasn’t your fault. The blog software seems to truncate links that are beyond a certain length. Thanks.
I’ve watched the meetings. One of the reasons I think they are so long is because certain council meetings stammer and ask the same question over and over again until they hear the right answer, or feel they have ridiculed the “expert” long enough. Or they bicker and lose patience like a little kid when called out on this “line of questioning” as if democracy itself were under attack. The reason our council meetings turn personal and ugly is because everyone loses patience thinking how long it is taking for one dumb question or point to be made.
Once again, look to Lamar for leadership. He routinely does his homework, has his questions prepared, and makes decisions based on the information available, not on the often contradictory information in this BLOG or some made up UC Davis experts or heaven forbid the Davis Enterprise. Lamar makes a point to contact the people affected by his decisions ahead of time to “get the scoop”- and IN PERSON. He is just about the most fearless politician we have right now, which makes him the best, since he doesn’t worry so much about losing political capital. Ironically, this is what puts him head and shoulders above the rest of the council, despite some of his freshman mistakes. Sue, take a cue.
Oh, and I have no financial ties to anybody here. Just an observer.
Wildhorse has been addressed by council for a long time. It was not rammed through as Sue Greenwald, Steve Souza and some others allege.
I agree with the others. This is a non issue. I support this project and so do my neighbors and friends.
Vanguardian:
Thanks. After looking at the flyer, my opinion is that Dunning over-reached in trying to tie this to Jim Provenza. Jim is just one of many offerring standard political endorsements to the Vanguard. Also, the paid advertising from “the family of a developer” was also overplayed. There are many more disturbing connections between the Vanguard and Parlin than this particular example.
The remaining issue for me is the mailing itself. Was Parlin involved in any way with the mailing (as Dunning impies)? If so how?
To “The sky is falling”
Take a break and go watch some TV Bill. Your check is in the mail.
I watched the last city council meeting from home and fell asleep. I recorded it so I was able to watch the remainder of the meeting on Wednesday. I think that councilman Lamar Heystek is a class act and the most intelligent member of the council that we have. It is clear that he does his homework. He asked good questions and made good comments. I hope he seeks re-election to the city council. I will vote for him again.
“anonymous” wrote:[quote]The fundamental issue is that the developer has chosen to go with the standard game-plan to get a Measure J vote past the close scrutiny of the Davis electorate …………… This is the issue that will motivate me to oppose this project ,ie protecting the integrity of our Measure J.[/quote]I have to agree with your analysis. It seemed to me that the developers were focused on maintaining the fast track timeline at all costs. In the process, they burned their progressive representative on the council and had to eat language that forced the GHG reductions on site.
Their in lieu fee and off-site loopholes were also deleted from the Development Agreement, so it will be interesting to see if these re-appear before November. If they do, I’m sure Talbot and Parlin won’t be writing any joint letters to the editor complaining bitterly about how the staff is forcing them to accept less stringent GHG language.
Your point about the integrity of Measure J is spot on. It seems to me that Measure J cannot work as intended if projects are not fully vetted by staff, commissions, and council before being forwarded to the voters in final form for ratification. If this project passes, one could argue that it has exposed a fundamental flaw in the initiative.
It’s too bad that the meeting went so late. I agree with DPD that it was a matter that could have been avoided, but I won’t point fingers as several people are responsible for the final agenda. When I was on the CC, many many meetings went way past midnight. I did not like it, but it’s part of the job.
As to the Parlin vote the other night, I think that the CC majority handled it right, and finished the job to put it on the November ballot. Don asked to put it on the ballot, but keep back the Development Agreement and ordinance. Don correctly inserted language into the Measure J description requiring that the 90% GHG reduction be accomplished on-site. He also correctly determined that a certain financing mechanism might need work, so he asked that it be brought back in September.
From what I know, the only two issues that resulted in last minute changes from the staff report were the 90% reduction (the wiggle room was taken out), and the public financing mechanism (which was entirely new). These matters can be further addressed by September’s meeting.
From my perspective, it was mostly just another late CC meeting, one of hundreds that I have seen. Wish it was not so late, but the job got done.
Sue brought up the on-site GHG issue. While Don made the motion, Sue deserves the credit.
Mike, you forgot the conservation easement (permanent protection of open space) issue that Lamar brought up.
“Vanguardian:
Thanks. After looking at the flyer, my opinion is that Dunning over-reached in trying to tie this to Jim Provenza. Jim is just one of many offerring standard political endorsements to the Vanguard. Also, the paid advertising from “the family of a developer” was also overplayed. There are many more disturbing connections between the Vanguard and Parlin than this particular example.”
They weren’t even endorsements. It is just an advertising flyer. Look at those of us who were quoted (Thomson, Allen, Lovenburg, Wagstaff, Livingston, Provenza, and myself), and see if you can find any common thread. Provenza just happened to be on the front. Should the Enterprise ever ask me for a similar pithy quote for an ad flyer, I’d be happy to oblige; I think it is a fine newspaper that serves the community well and that the Vanguard and Enterprise complement each other well.
I just want to clarify for the record that neither Parlin Development nor any associate or consultant to them had any role in the design, distribution, or financing of the brochure. There is no connection whatsoever.
Hey, Don Shor and Neoprogressive Watcher! You guys both have the WRONG brochure. I got the brochure two weeks ago and I’m looking at it right now. Jim Provenza is the ONLY person quoted. Period. There are no other people quoted. None. Not one. When I got this brochure, I couldn’t believe Jim Provenza would go out on a limb like this against the hometown paper. The brochure starts with the headline, “As Local Newspaper Coverage Wanes…” I don’t know what brochure you guys are talking about, but I’m sure I’m not the only person in Davis to receive this mailer. Bob Dunning got it right about this mailer. Get your stories straight!
Obviously the mailer was a shortened version of the original piece, why are we making a big deal out of this? I don’t see this as slamming the local paper. The reality is that the newspaper has laid off a huge amount of staff, it has cut back on coverage, and it is losing money. That’s not a slam, it’s a reality.
Ummmm…David Greenwald(aren’t YOU the bloghost?); I enjoy some of your postings and look often to catch up on the opinions out there, but seriously, are you not going to set the record straight here about your recent mailing? Did you send out a recent mailing that had Jim Provena’s (and ONLY Jim Provena’s) quote? If so, you need to let us all know. Did you NOT send out the brochure I’m looking at right now? The one Bob Dunning wrote about today? Clearly, Don and Neoprogressive and I are talking about different mailers. Please let us know!
Okay—I’ve been a reader for awhile, but now jumping in as a participant. I have some questions. You have consistently pointed out to us which politicians take money from developers and, therefore, can’t be trusted. So. In that spirit, would you please tell us if you accepted advertising from a developer’s family (a developer who now has a project before the city?). Thanks for letting us know.
I received both pieces. The brochure was on my door and I received the card stock mailer in the mail. The postcard is actually the front section of the brochure. I don’t know what the big deal is. I read the thread on the blog today and I read Dunning’s piece in the Enterprise and I laughed.
Someone in an earlier posting said that this is a non-issue and I agree. Are there not more important things going on in Davis or Yolo County?
Sorry, but I think Bob Dunning was wrong about this mailer. Maybe the Madame mislead him.
I read the Enterprise and I notice that they have an online or blog section. Most newspapers have this feature nowadays with the blog revolution.
I did not take the comment in the Vanguard mailer as slamming the Enterprise or any other newspaper. Papers are waning or decreasing in size and as a result they are seeking a new way to catch the attention of readers. I was pleased to see Helen Thomson and Sheila Allen quoted in the brochure I received on my door. David works hard on producing the Vanguard and is getting a lot of recognition for it.
David Greenwald, the Vanguard, was the first in Davis to jump start this blog phenomenon locally. One reason that I read it everyday is that it’s entertaining and he covers stories that other papers or blogs do not cover.
For those of you who like dictionaries and other books like I do, and I presume that a lot of you do, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “waning” as “a decrease in size, extent, or degree.” So the Vanguard is correct in saying “as newspapers wane…”
Keep up the good work David. You are doing well with the Vanguard and I enjoy reading your blog. In a busy town like Davis there is plenty of room for the Vanguard, the Enterprise, the Sacramento Bee, and other newspapers or blogs.
Gee, that’s nice, Ann. Hey, David, please answer my questions. A number of us would like to know the answers.
Annie – I suspect that David just may be in bed by now. I think Ann answered your question. If you’ve been reading the blog, then all your questions were answered before. If you want to hear the answers again, you’ll probably have to wait until tomorrow. I think you can email him directly through the links on the blog. There’s no need to be rude to the other people on the blog that are trying to help you out.
In my Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “wane” is defined as “to diminish in … intensity.”
Though the Enterprise is printed less often, is smaller in physical size and has fewer circulation department employees now, that doesn’t mean its content is any less intense than in years past. That’s because the reporters and column writers mostly do their own work, unlike David Greenwald and many of his commenters who reprint an awful lot of original reporting and other journalism, much of which appears first in the Enterprise.
Also, I might point out that writers of Letters To The Editor of the Enterprise consider far more carefully their words than do many of this blog’s commenters, who come off more as bickering children on a playground than writers.
Ryan-I wasn’t trying to be rude. But my questions go unanswered: Was there another mailer that quoted ONLY Jim Provenza and did the Davis Vanguard accept advertising from the family of a developer. Ann did NOT answer either question. I’m glad to know David is in bed. I am happy to wait until tomorrow for his response.
Brian K., I would like to point out, too, that the Enterprise does not allow anonymous letters to the editor. People have to actually stand by their opinions.
Annie says: “I would like to point out, too, that the Enterprise does not allow anonymous letters to the editor. People have to actually stand by their opinions.”
Annie, then why do you use a pseudonym?”
Annie, from another thread
[quote]To David Greenwald from Matt Williams
(1) What exactly is “The Vanguard” anyway?
(2) Is the Vanguard organized as a not-for profit or a for-profit enterprise?
(3) Does the Vanguard have a Board?
(4) If it does, could you please disclose the names of the individuals on the Board?
(5) What is the purpose of the Board?
(6) Does the Board meet to discuss issues and/or positions?
(7) Has the Vanguard ever received any donations and/or advertising revenue from Parlin Development (including Parlin Wildhorse)?
(8) Has the Vanguard ever received any donations and/or advertising revenue from Talbott Solar?
(9) Has the Vanguard ever received any donations and/or advertising revenue from Radiant Homes?
(10) Has the Vanguard ever received any donations and/or advertising revenue from individuals or organizations acting on behalf of the parties in questions (7), (8) and (9)?
(11) Could you please disclose if Bill Ritter or Mike Harrington have ever been affiliated with the Vanguard?
(12) To the best of your knowledge is any debate being “manufactured” by the same poster posting under different pseudonyms?
(13) If so, is the intent of this activity to manipulate the debate?
(14) Is there anyone affiliated with the Vanguard that is “manufacturing” debate?
(15) Is the core of the debate just a manufactured (and therefore misleading) dialog between a small group of people (including your Board member(s))?
(16) Beyond the Board question above, who is involved in the Vanguard? And why?
(17) Does the Vanguard have a political agenda? If so, what is it?
(18) Does the Vanuguard have any conflicts-of-interest with respect to any topics it covers? [/quote]
“I don’t know what brochure you guys are talking about, but I’m sure I’m not the only person in Davis to receive this mailer. Bob Dunning got it right about this mailer. Get your stories straight!”
Hi Annie,
I was referring to the one uploaded to the Davis Wiki.
Annie, here are the responses David posted. Other than your two flyer question, does that answer all your other questions?
[quote]
David M. Greenwald
07/09/09 – 05:44 AM
…
1. The Vanguard is an independent news source in Davis that I founded in 2006.
2. The Vanguard has filed for non-profit status. I will also note that to this date, all proceeds from the Vanguard have gone back to the Vanguard. I have not derived a single cent of profit from the Vanguard to date.
3. The Vanguard has a board of directors. They are not involved at all in terms of the day-to-day operations of this site, they have no control whatsoever over content. The views expressed by the Vanguard are those expressed by the author of the given piece and do not necessarily reflect those of The People’s Vanguard of Davis, inc or its board of directors.
4. The board currently consists of Don Shor, Pat Lenzi, Pam Nieberg, Bob Schelen, Ram Sah, Don Gibson, and Ayla Kapahi who is our treasurer.
5. The basic purpose of the board is to provide for the legal requirements as a not for profit organization. I should point out that until the paperwork is approved, the board is unofficial.
6. The board does not discuss issues or positions.
7. The Vanguard received money from the wife of Masud Monfared who owns Parlin Development in 2007 who purchased an ad for Senses Magazine.
8. The Vanguard has not received donations or advertising from Talbott Solar.
9. The Vanguard has not received donations or advertising from Radiant Homes.
10. The Vanguard received money from the wife of Masud Monfared who owns Parlin Development in 2007 who purchased an ad for Senses Magazine.
I would add there is nothing that precludes the Vanguard from accepting advertising money from any entity that wishes to purchase an ad now or in the future.
11. Bill Ritter is not officially affiliated with the Vanguard but does provide me with occasional advise as do a number of other people who are not affiliated with the Vanguard, yourself included. The same goes with Mike Harrington.
12. I don’t know what it means to manufacture debate. There are people on both sides of the issue posting anonymously. Given the number of people who turned out for the meeting last night, I would guess that it is a fairly small number on both sides.
13. I don’t know what it means to manipulate the debate. My only real concern is that people stick to the issues and do not bring in other private citizens or make potentially libelous attacks that could present the Vanguard with liability.
14. Not to my knowledge and certainly not at the behest of the Vanguard.
15. I think as I said above, the debate is between a small number of people. I don’t know the identities of most of them. I also try to respect the privacy of those who choose to post anonymously. It has always been my intent to provide this as a place for people to come and debate without fear of outside retribution. That is why I have guarded steadfastly in the face of criticism the right for people to post anonymously. There are times when people abuse this right.
16. 90 to 95 percent of the work done by the Vanguard is done by myself. However, recently we have recruited some interns that will be introduced to the public at some point at the appropriate time. Most of the rest of the involvement is done unofficially through either guest submissions or comments on the Vanguard.
17. The Vanguard’s political agenda is to promote public discourse, be an information source, and to represent the “progressive” views of Davis as well as serve as a political forum.
18. Not to my knowledge.
[/quote]
David can answer Annie’s questions tomorrow if he chooses to, but Annie and the boys need to read a little more carefully.
In an earlier post I stated, “I received both pieces. The brochure was on my door and I received the card stock mailer in the mail. The postcard is actually the front section of the brochure. I don’t know what the big deal is. I read the thread on the blog today and I read Dunning’s piece in the Enterprise and I laughed.” I am Ann. I don’t know who Annie is.
The front section of the brochure is Jim Provenza’s quote and the entire brochure has quotes from notables and politicians such as Helen Thomson, Sheila Allen, former mayor Ken Wagstaff and others. The postcard is just the front section of the brochure.
In his article today Bob Dunning quoted Jim Provenza saying “Hats off to David Greenwald for turning an interesting political blog into an important journalistic voice in the community.” I agree with Jim Provenza. He knows a good journalist when he sees one.
I found Bob Dunning’s article a bit rude. Jim Provenza and other elected officials and notables in the community such as retired Prof. John Lofland have been quoted in Vanguard pieces in the past. Why is he singling out Jim Provenza? Why did he not mention the others in the brochure? It must be a slow news day at the Enterprise since they do not publish on Mondays any longer. They are waning. They do however have an online newspaper. Some might call it a “blog.” Similar to the Davis Vanguard. Imitation is the greatest flattery there is David.
Why should Jim Provenza or any elected official cower over providing a quote to the Vanguard the way Dunning is suggesting? David reports on DJUSD issues and county issues quite often, so I imagine that Jim Provenza would read the Vanguard if he is smart. Most people read more than one news source daily. I would expect elected officials to collect news articles and opinions that pertain to certain matters of interest.
Like Bob Dunning, I think Annie and the boys are making something out of nothing. After all, Bob Dunning often refers to people by their first name only in his articles. For all we know the name he uses may or may not be an actual person.
Quite frankly I do not care who purchases ad space in the Enterprise, the Vanguard, the Sacramento Bee, or any other publication. Developers and politicians alike purchase ad space in the Enterprise all of the time.
I personally have donated to the Vanguard in the past because David works hard and does a good job reporting on issues that I do not read about in the Davis Enterprise. By the way, we subscribe to the Davis Enterprise.
Keep up the good work David. Don’t let silly comments or articles bother you. The reason some people are upset about your progress is because you are making a difference. Thank you for the work you do.
Annie:
Don’t get discouraged. The standard drill on this blog is to attack points of view that are too far out of alignment with the editor. You’re comments aren’t “silly”, you’re not “making something out of nothing”, and the Annie Oakley post was just a cheap shot you should ignore.
Thanks for bring to our attention the mailer. I’m personally withholding judgment on the solo appearance by Provenza until we find out whether or not this was done with his authorization (which I doubt, knowing Jim). Don Shor can probably tell us how the Vanguard got his particular quote, and if they asked his permission to use it in a mailer.
The bigger issues for me are: What was the source of funds for the mailing? How large was it? Was it targeted to the Wildhorse/East Davis region?
If it was a targeted mailing to the project area, then I would have to conclude that this was paid for by funds that ultimately came from Parlin or Talbot, possibly passed through Ritter & Associates and/or other entities to give David Greenwald plausible deniability.
The most important piece of information in your post was that the mailer came two weeks ago. This would be about the right time frame to promote the Vanguard via a targeted mailer – with the goal of driving traffic to the site just prior to the public hearing in order to leverage David Greenwald’s pro-Parlin propaganda (on this particular issue, David is unfortunately little more than a mouth piece for Ritter & Associates and Parlin Development).
I seem to recall that Dunning is in old East Davis. Would you be willing to disclose the general area of town you live in?
Didn’t get either in South Davis.
NW, if you are a regular reader of this blog you know I try and stay away from comments about the people who post here, and where possible encourage discussion toward discussion of the issues at hand. With that said, your 12:06 AM post does exactly what you accuse “the standard drill on this blog” of doing. Ann, didn’t attack Annie or Annie’s point. In her second and third paragraphs she presented factual information that directly addressed one of Annie’s questions. She then presented her opinion about the issue, never once referring to Annie again.
You may not agree with her opinions, but how can you call her expression of those opinions an “attack” on Annie?
Further, the Annie Oakley post was not a cheap shot. It was a question that many people ask regularly here in the blog. I choose to post under my own name. The Enterprise will not let anyone post under a pseudonym. Would you post here if David took the same approach as the Enterprise does? Perhaps those people who post here with a pseudonym should thank David for having an open mind.
Suggestion to DPD:
Perhaps you can take the info Matt Williams reposts at 8/2/09 – 10:21 PM above and condense/edit it into an FAQ or an “About” page or statement.
Many recent comments/questions here could be answered more readily by refering comment posters to the FAQ or About page. Maybe it would help to give us a little more streamlined and meaningful discussion in the comments section. (or maybe not…)
That’s a good idea wdf.
…getting back to the issue at hand, there are two elements of campaign consultant strategy that are evolving to neutralize the effectiveness of Measure J. Campaign consultants are paid handsomely to win,period; they are not exclusively the province of the “dark side”. One element is to severely shorten the time from public presentation of the project to the Measure J election day and the other are developer -promise “bones” that are thrown to the public before the Measure J vote without real assurances that they can or will be carried out. We had a good example of the first with the Covell Village Measure J vote. We all know about the Council Majority’s desperate but unsuccessful attempt to bring THAT Measure J vote to a November election day just 7 months from its public presentation(projects of that size usually took 2-3 years for staff and Council analysis). A small side issue illustrated the second strategy. There was an iconic old tree standing on the property that was loved by many and was slated to be removed. The developers made a public campaign promise to keep it in a park setting that they were planning. We learned later that the city would never have permitted this because it was an obvious significant safety hazard. Ultimately,within a year, the tree fell over of its own accord.
If the city council adhered to their agenda and heard the item at 7:00 p.m. the time it was supposed to be heard the council meeting would not have run until 2:00 a.m.
My conspiracy theory is that this was done deliberately by Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza in attempt to delay the project another year. As if the four years it’s been discussed isn’t enough.
WDF makes a good point about Matt Williams’ reposts. It will help answer questions, but you can’t make everyone happy. Some people like to complain about everything. You know who they are.
ol’ timer, one of the major benefits of a blog like this one is that open discussion of issues can not be surpressed as easily as it could when the Enterprise was the only news outlet.
Further, given the starting point of 60% “against” and 40% “for” that is the carryover from the prior Measure J vote, the developer has a major uphill climb ahead of them. To climb that substantial hill, they need to promote active dialogue rather than suppress it. I personally feel that they would have been better served by a slightly later Election Day; however, the turnout for the April elections is typically miniscule when compared to November and June, and having the WHR vote on the same ballot as the Measure J renewal would have been confusing for many voters, so I can see why a November date was the best choice for all parties.
Matt:
Where were you earlier in the day when every single post I made was under attack? My response to Annie was to encourage her to keep posting even though she, as a first time poster, was being subjected to the same BS right out of the gate. You’re not being helpful here. If you want to play this role, then don’t be selective. Also, you know full well why anonymous posting is necessary given the circumstances in Davis. Without it, this dialog would be completely dominated by Vanguard & Associates plus their syncophants. If you become more active in Davis politics, and dare wade into something truly controversial some day (on the “wrong” side), you will be on the receiving end of their attention (as will your friends and professional associates) and you will understand.
Darnell:
Thanks for the data point. IMO this was a targeted mailing to the project area two weeks before the public hearing. Thanks again to Annie for helping spotlight this.
Has anyone in wildhorse received one? That would be a way to test your conspiracy theory.
Dunning lives in Old East Davis nowhere near WHR.
And the flyer didn’t mention WHR. In fact if you look at the full brochure the issue of target was not a development but the citybudget. Your conspiracy theory has no evidence to support it other than your conjecture.
The allegations of conspiracy seem to be a stretch to me. Starting to remind me of the allegations of weapons of mass destruction. When they weren’t found, they were presumed to be very well hidden. Your right to continue to make the allegations, but without a convincing smoking gun, it starts to look wacko.
The more likely explanation is that David is trying to increase readership in general.
Seriously Neoprogressive Watcher, wouldn’t it be more productive for the two of us to sit down and have coffee?
Question/Furthermore:
Putting the pejorative label “conspiracy theory” on my post is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize the idea (Matt, are you watching?). That being said I will give a substantive answer to your question. It is my opinion that this was a targeted mailing to the project area two weeks before the public hearing. If this is true, then it is material to the Measure J integrity issue (WHR as a neoprogressive consultant-driven end-around; with the support of a co-opted Vanguard & Associates). The question will not be resolved on this blog. Ritter & Associates post anonymously, and it is too easy to make false claims to create the appearance that it was a city-wide mailing.
[quote]Neoprogressive Watcher said . . .
Matt:
Where were you earlier in the day when every single post I made was under attack? [/quote]
NW, I read every single post, and IMHO there wasn’t a single post of yours that was [u]attacked[/u]. Observer asked you a question much the way you asked Davis a question, specifically, “NW: Out of curiosity, why do you think you get to ask those questions behind the cloak of anonymity?” What followed was a universally childish (on all participants parts) back and forth of “You go first” “No, you go first.” It contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion. So if you can point to a single attacking sentence on the issue, I encourage you to copy and paste it here. Your initial questions were legitimate, and to the best of my knowledge they have all been answered not only in this thread, but in predecessor threads as well.
Matt:
Nope. If you read the thread, you will see that my comments are almost always deflected with tangential attacks (e.g. anonymous posters questioning my integrity because I post anonymously). If you want to quibble over semantics, that’s your prerogative.
You also ignore the purpose of my comments to Annie.
[quote]Neoprogressive Watcher said . . .
My response to Annie was to encourage her to keep posting even though she, as a first time poster, was being subjected to the same BS right out of the gate. [/quote]
What BS was Annie subjected to? She posted a question at 8:09 PM. Fifteen minutes later she berated Davis for not answering her question. David had quite probably gone to bed after his 7:34 PM post since he has to get up each morning at 3:00 AM in order to write the daily article. Ryan actually pointed that out to he, butr again at 9:05 Annie slammed David as nonresponsive. Can you point out a single instance where Annie was attacked? People actually tried to help her.
[quote]Neoprogressive Watcher said . . .
You’re not being helpful here. If you want to play this role, then don’t be selective. [/quote]
I’m not being selective. There is only one person complaining about attacks. I simply pointed out that the attacks you were railing about didn’t appear to be substantiated by the posts I read.
[quote]Neoprogressive Watcher said . . .
Also, you know full well why anonymous posting is necessary given the circumstances in Davis. Without it, this dialog would be completely dominated by Vanguard & Associates plus their syncophants. If you become more active in Davis politics, and dare wade into something truly controversial some day (on the “wrong” side), you will be on the receiving end of their attention (as will your friends and professional associates) and you will understand.[/quote]
I completely disagree. I have waded into plenty of controversial issues and more than a few times have been on the “wrong” side. I believed and still believe that the perception of Davis “being attacked by Yolo County” when Yamada and Thomson met with Angelo Tsakopoulos was out of context paranoia. My initial comments about TANC were underinformed and in retrospect “wrong.” I still have both my testicles. My wife hasn’t been spirited away. I could easily be wrong, but it is possible that you are letting your imagination run away with itself.
[quote]Neoprogressive Watcher said . . .
Putting the pejorative label “conspiracy theory” on my post is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize the idea (Matt, are you watching?). [/quote]
How is “conspiracy theory” a pejorative? Throughout the discussion there haven’t been enough hard facts to make your points anything other than a theory. That isn’t bad.
Per Wikipedia, Theories are constructed to explain, predict, and master phenomena (e.g., inanimate things, events, or behavior of animals). A scientific theory can be thought of as a model of reality, and its statements as axioms of some axiomatic system. The aim of this construction is to create a formal system for which reality is the only model. The world is an interpretation (or model) of such scientific theories, only insofar as the sciences are true. Everything you put forward fits this description. The missing piece that your original question was focused on was directed toward satisfying the final sentence. That was a very appropriate quest IMHO, but until the grail of that quest was uncovered, the “sciences” are as yet not proven true.
Further, the words of your initial post, Please disclose the nature of the flyer Dunning is referring to. Who paid for it? Did Jim Provenza authorize his inclusion in the flyer? Dunning is leaving the impression that the money trail can now be track tracked directly to the Vanguard. all point to the suspicion on your part (and Dunning’s) that multiple people were/are conspiring.
So, bottomline “theory about a consiracy” is a very good description IMHO. It is only pejorative if your framing causes you to see it that way.
Matt:
I think you are a good guy (which is why I’ve bothered to respond to your posts). Sorry, but I don’t have time to debate civility and semantics right now. Maybe we can discuss something with more substance in the future. Signing out.
“Seriously Neoprogressive Watcher, wouldn’t it be more productive for the two of us to sit down and have coffee?”
I would propose a beer summit.
[quote]Neoprogressive Watcher said . . .
Matt:
Nope. If you read the thread, you will see that my comments are almost always deflected with tangential attacks (e.g. anonymous posters questioning my integrity because I post anonymously). If you want to quibble over semantics, that’s your prerogative.
You also ignore the purpose of my comments to Annie.[/quote]
What was the purpose of your comments to Annie. No one told her not to post.
FWIW I considered the anaonymous posts by others to be just as worthy of a huge grain of salt. The pot was calling the kettle black and it went on and on and on and on.
Matt – the time of the posts on the blog are off by one hour. I am posting this at 12:46 pm, but it will show up at a different time. So Annie was demanding a response at around 9:30 to 10:00 pm. Just a little late to ask for an immediate response.
I could use a beer…. summit.
I agree Ryan, and nonetheless the people who were on the blog at that time all tried to provide her with answers to her questions.
I’m surprised she hasn’t been back as yet today. Her reply to you, Ryan-I wasn’t trying to be rude. But my questions go unanswered: Was there another mailer that quoted ONLY Jim Provenza and did the Davis Vanguard accept advertising from the family of a developer. Ann did NOT answer either question. I’m glad to know David is in bed. I am happy to wait until tomorrow for his response. was reasonable enough.
Matt: I appreciate the role you are trying to play here. It does some aren’t considering the fact that David’s priority may not be promoting the WHR project but rather promoting the VG itself. Also consider that in the full brochure he chose the budget issue as the issue to push. Doesn’t that also suggest his priorities are on the budget and employee compensation and that WHR is probably not at the top of the list for him?
BTW, I think a beer summit would be a good idea.
I’m all for beer.
BTW, I’m not sure I’m comfortable woth the expression “… role you are trying to play” Nor was I comfortable with Neoprogressive Watcher’s earlier comment, “You’re not being helpful here. If you want to play this role, then don’t be selective.” The word “role” connotes some sort of script, which is far from the case. When I see a situation where I think I can either 1) add to the quality of the discussion, or 2) help the discussion avoid excess subjectivity, then I post. In the absence of either of those two opportunities, I don’t see the need to clog the airways (or airwaves).
I’m sensing an opportunity here. Who would be up for a beer summit this Friday–no host, no strings?
OK with me, but must be American-made beer.
DPD: you would definitely have a coup if you could get to join us for that beer the red-haired lady who sat the entire night in the upper left corner of CC chambers during her favorite project, Parlin Wildhorse. What’s her name anyway?? Seems like it is different every hour on this Blog? She sure had a lot of comments, whispers and notes to share with Sue and Steve at the CC meeting! Maybe she likes beer? Nah! But promise her some white wine, and she will be there!
Oh, c’mon! I posted last night shortly after 8 p.m. I asked two simple questions–which have prompted all sorts of nasty comments. I asked David Greenwald, quite directly, to answer two questions: 1) Was there a mailing with ONLY Jim Provenza quoted which began with “As local newspaper coverage wanes…”? and 2) Has the Vanguard accepted ad money from family of a developer who is trying to get a project approved in Davis? David has posted since my questions were asked last night but refuses to answer the questions. For those of you who tell me, “what does it matter” or “what’s the difference–no big deal”, well, to me it is about what is true or untrue. Why should it be so hard to answer these questions and why are you so anxious to beat up on someone who asks them?
You can demand answers to your question, but it looks to me they already were answered. the answered to the first is in the affirmative and the answer to second is in the affirmative back in 2007.
Thanks, Sure. Don’t know why David Greenwald couldn’t answer the questions himself. Perhaps he likes to rile up the people who discuss on his blog. Seems to me, too many people went for too long, sharing incorrect information (See Ann, for one). David Greenwald knew this and let it go on and on. Anyway, I’ll assume you know what you’re talking about and thank you for answering my questions.
Matt–I just saw your post from David from another thread. Thank you. I appreciate your posting the answers and am sorry I didn’t see them earlier. Why couldn’t he just answer the question on this thread, where it originated. I’m confused by this game. Where should I have looked? Is this a rite of initiation for a new poster to the blog or is it just the way they treat you when they don’t like your questions? So, let me get this straight–I post a question and then I have to search the entire blog site for the answer? Why didn’t he just post the answer here? He posted here all day long and I (embarrassingly) looked for his response because I truly wanted to know. This isn’t any fun. It seems David’s goal on this site is to embarrass others and entertain himself.
The answer is simple, David has said that he will not answer these kinds of questions from people who do not post under their real name. He doesn’t want to be bullied by people who are afraid to post under their name. Makes a lot of sense to me.
Annie:
David answered your questions in today’s Vanguard post:
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2929:vanguard-response-to-dunning&catid=56:davis-enterprise&Itemid=82[/url]
“To Annie”: Do YOU think my questions were BULLY questions? Really?
Then why the need for anonymity? My impression is that if you think you are owed an answer, you ought to have the courage of convictions to put your name behind the question. Maybe I’m being naive.
Time test
The time right now is 7:41 PM
Annie, I’m confused. Can you help me? At 08:52 PM you said
[quote]Okay—I’ve been a reader for awhile, but now jumping in as a participant. I have some questions. You have consistently pointed out to us which politicians take money from developers and, therefore, can’t be trusted. So. In that spirit, would you please tell us if you accepted advertising from a developer’s family (a developer who now has a project before the city?). Thanks for letting us know.[/quote]
Then today you say:
[quote]Why couldn’t he just answer the question on this thread, where it originated. I’m confused by this game. Where should I have looked? Is this a rite of initiation for a new poster to the blog or is it just the way they treat you when they don’t like your questions? So, let me get this straight–I post a question and then I have to search the entire blog site for the answer?[/quote]
Are you someone who has been a reader for awhile, or are you a new poster? If you are the latter, then your confusion is understandable. If you are the former, then you certainly know that this blog isn’t a personal interview with /of David, but rather a community forum for the (sometimes contentious) discussion of key community events and issues.
We are sort of like a disfunctional family. We talk about many of the same issues over and over and over again. Sometimes it is repetitious. Sometimes it is even tedious. As a result many of the regulars have pretty good memories of the recurring discussions of the issues that they care most about. David actually posts in the Comments threads irregularly. If he did post regularly, he would probably be accused of “steering” the discussions. As a result, the expectation you had when you posted your initial question at 9:09 PM was probably unrealistic. Despite the late hour, some of us were still up, and Ann very clearly told you that “I received both pieces. The brochure was on my door and I received the card stock mailer in the mail. The postcard is actually the front section of the brochure.” That gave you n unambiguous answer to your question, “Did you send out a recent mailing that had Jim Provena’s (and ONLY Jim Provena’s) quote?”
You also asked So. In that spirit, would you please tell us if you accepted advertising from a developer’s family (a developer who now has a project before the city?). David’s own words, The Vanguard received money from the wife of Masud Monfared who owns Parlin Development in 2007 who purchased an ad for Senses Magazine.
I would add there is nothing that precludes the Vanguard from accepting advertising money from any entity that wishes to purchase an ad now or in the future. fully answered that question.
So, help me out. What was it about those answers that fell short of what you desired?
[quote]
To Annie said . . .
Then why the need for anonymity? My impression is that if you think you are owed an answer, you ought to have the courage of convictions to put your name behind the question. Maybe I’m being naive.[/quote]
I don’t think you are being naive, but in fairness to Annie, don’t you think it is a bit hypocritical to ask that question under cover of your own pseudonym?
Wow! After reading down to here, I’m really ready for a beer. Mr. Greenwald, name the time and place.
But please be understanding if I choose to wear a paper bag over my head or wear a zorro type mask. I may need to remain anonymous so as not to tarnish my public reputation by admitting to reading everyone of the above comments.
Matt: It’s not just a bit hypocritical, it is hugely so. But that is the point.
You know, the Atrios blog has this tradition of social gatherings called “drinking liberally.” Do you think that would fit here? Or “drinking progressively?” “drinking developmentally?” “drinking conservatively?”
Friday cat blogging is another tradition they might have that might lighten things up here.
Or drinking, but NIMBY!
Matt, thank you for your explanation. To answer your question, I have looked at this blog a number of times over the last year. I’ve read the stories, but not the posts so much. Until last night, I had never posted before. You must realize that an occasional reader of the Vanguard stories cannot possibly be prepared for the hostility he will face when he posts an opinion or asks a question that the other Vanguard readers do not like. I came to the Vanguard seeking information over the past year and more recently seeking answers to a couple of simple questions. I was greeted with absolute hostility and “rules” about questions you can and can’t ask and made fun of for having “Annie” as my name when virtually EVERYBODY on the site is anonymous. Is anyone surprised that people are “anonymouse”? You are some of the most angry and hostile people I’ve come across. I’m glad I didn’t give you my last name. From now on I will go to more reputable news sources when I want the news. I wish you luck with your “dysfunctional family”, but I see nothing to gain from being a part of it.
Does Vanguard use twitter? what’s the address
If NIMBY, then in whose backyard will we drink?
Actually Annie the hostility is kind of like a shuttle hurdle relay. First it runs from one end to the other and is handed off to the other side which proceeds to do its best Iroquois imitation whooping an hollering back across the virtual playing field. With a virtually limitless cohort of native american tribal war whoops to emulate the process is one without end.
As they say, don’t let the door hit you in the bee-hind on the way out. 8>)
@ To Annie:
Understood. But is it a point worth making? In effect by making it you are making Neoprogressive Watcher’s point for him/her.
BTW, what is a Neoprogressive?
To “anonymous”
Go to bed Bill. Your check is in the mail.
To the person posting as “anonymous” previously in the thread, are you ready to believe that this is a little less innocent than you might have previously thought?
Annie:
Don’t take the bait. It’s just a way to avoid discussing more important issues of substance.
And please keep posting.
Matt Williams wrote:[quote]its best Iroquois imitation whooping an hollering[/quote]That’s just offensive. Shame on you.
Can you believe it? This is turning into a blog about NOTHING!
Annie – Your doing fine. How it seems to work is that David writes and article and then people get to work discussing it. David follows the conversation and chimes in from time to time, but it is not really a question and answer session. You can email him directly by going to the “Give us some feedback” if you really need him to clarify something, but often you can get answers or, at least different views, from the other people on the blog. You were right to press your question, but it was just a little too late at night to expect an immediate answer. David answered your question in his letter to the Enterprise that he posted on the blog.
Keep participating. It is always good to hear from different people.
Sorry you are fed up. If you can’t recognize a tongue firmly planted in a cheek, then you need to upgrade your levels of perception.
Annie wrote:[quote]You are some of the most angry and hostile people I’ve come across. I’m glad I didn’t give you my last name. From now on I will go to more reputable news sources when I want the news. I wish you luck with your “dysfunctional family”, but I see nothing to gain from being a part of it.[/quote]Annie – Don’t get discouraged.
And please keep posting.
If they run you off the board, then they’ve accomplished their goal.
What you perceive as a hostile gang of people is probably just a neoprogressive Parlin consultant posting under multiple pseudonyms.
Matt:
Tongue in check, or not. Using Native American imagery that way is now totally uncool. You need to upgrade your level of cultural sensitivity.
Seinfeld wrote:[quote]Can you believe it? This is turning into a blog about NOTHING![/quote]Quite right! But that’s the point, isn’t it.
If the thread is about nothing, THEN we can’t discuss –
(1) Lamar’s remarkably out-of-character vote in the dead of night to send the Parlin project forward.
(2) The condition of the application that went forward.
(3) Lamar’s vote to cut off debate by two CC colleagues that were vigorously requesting it.
(4) Lamar’s connections to Ritter & Associates.
(5) The appropriateness of the advocacy from Vanguard & Associates.
(6) The notable lack of commission input.
(7) The implications of this action for the integrity of Measure J.
(8) Weaknesses in the documents with respect to GHG reduction.
(9) Whether or not the housing is really affordable.
(10) Whether there is a need for the project with 2,000 approved units in the pipeline.
(11) Possible effects of the project on property values in old East Davis and citywide.
(12) Whether or not it is reasonable to expect people buying into a supposed “workforce housing” project to spend an additional $25-30K for sustainability improvements in this housing market.
Etc, etc, etc.
Matt: “BTW, what is a Neoprogressive?”
I’ve been baffled by the use of this term here.
Neoconservatives were liberals who came to adopt conservative policies, especially regarding foreign policy; e.g., Charles Krauthammer. They became so influential in the first GW Bush term that their views largely shaped our foreign policy and led us to war. That foreign policy became such a mess that neoconservative has become a pejorative term.
So I assume that any progressive who uses the term about another progressive — one who advocates some policy about local growth issues with which the first progressive disagrees — is saying that the second person is no longer truly progressive and thus is now a “neoprogressive.” But that is backward. What they really mean is that the person is now conservative, or pro-development, or whatever the opposite of no-growth is in this town.
I think neoprogressive belongs with urban forest and McMansions as generally meaningless terms used simply for negative effect and best avoided. Urban forest actually does refer to the totality of a city’s tree population; there are respectable horticulture professionals at UC Davis who specialize in urban forestry. But in reference to a single small housing development it is just a euphemism for landscaping.
The term “neoprogressive” is being used to describe the progressive faction being organized around the Vanguard editor, Ritter & Associates, and Parlin Development that is emerging as a new center of progressive power in Davis; leveraging the Vanguard blog to frame and “manage” the progressive debate and the financial resources of Parlin Development to help advance their agenda. There are two members of the faction that are already know to have personal financial conflicts of interest in projects that they are aggressively promoting, and they claim responsibility for putting one of the Davis City Council members in office.
NW,
1) Are you saying that there are defacto rules about who a property owner can and can’t rent property to?
2) If you had rental space would you not rent it to Talbott if they want to rent that space?
3) To the best of your knowledge, is the rent Talbott and/or Parlin paying Mike Harrington above market rental rates? If it isn’t, what is the financial conflict?
4) To the best of your knowledge, was the advertising space charge Senses magazine paid the Vanguard in 2007 above normal advertising space placement rates? If it isn’t, what is the financial conflict?
“…however, the turnout for the April elections is typically miniscule when compared to November and June, and having the WHR vote on the same ballot as the Measure J renewal would have been confusing for many voters, so I can see why a November date was the best choice for all parties.”
Matt: Quite untypically and telling, you are reaching here. The election was proposed for June, not April when it would cost an additional $200,000. I see having it on the same ballot in June with the Measure J renewal and Council elections as a plus. It will increase voter turnout, focus voter attention on the issues under discussion( protecting the effectiveness of Measure J in giving power to the electorate, housing needs, affordaility, the reality of GHG reduction promises) and let the voters connect their Council candidate’s votes be directly to their votes if they are so inclined. I am not aware of any significant ballot issues on this Nov. ballot. If so, the turnout will be minimal and the effectiveness of Bill Ritter’s organizational prowess in getting out HIS “troops” will be maximized. I see NO voter “confusion” in having it on the same ballot. This observation is again untypically far too condescending concerning the wisdom of Davis voters.
I don’t think it has anything to do with the wisdom of the Davis voters, rather it has to do with the intensity of the average voter’s interest. We all budget our personal time in personal ways. You may be right about there being very little of interest on this November’s ballot, and if that is the case than November and April would be similar; however, June is going to be a cacophany of blaring trumpets. I firmly believe that half the Davis voters lack the intensity of interest that the posters here have for political issues. Many will simply “turn off the noise” and either not vote at all or only pay attention to the most important issues . . . the 2 Council elections and the Measure J renewal vote. WHR will be a backbencher in their minds . . . unless they buy into Neoprogressive Watcher’s list above. Some of the things on that list may resonate for their personal finances and therefore cause tham to vote.
BTW, I’ve been known all my life for overthinking issues. In this case what you see as reaching may well be over thinking. I’ve never had a problem acknowledging when I was wrong in the past. If I’m wrong now I’ll stand up and say so.
Don said: “…. BTW, what is neoprogressive?”
Here’s my take. Neoprogressive is a term that brings the progressive left full circle to meet the Neoconservative right in terms of political tactics and level of cynicism . It, like the neoconservatives, works to manipulate and “game” the system, rejecting the essential populist truth that the people, when fully informed, will make the best decision most of the time.
“Seinfeld wrote:
‘Can you believe it? This is turning into a blog about NOTHING!’
Quite right! But that’s the point, isn’t it.
If the thread is about nothing, THEN we can’t discuss –
yadda, yadda, yadda”
David, here, has offered to sit down over coffee to talk about this with you. Someone else suggested beer. Seems to me that a face to face discussion has the possibility of being more efficient for clarifying dialog at this point.
What do you think? Is there any problem with that? Please accept his offer so we can move the discussion forward a bit.
“the 2 Council elections and the Measure J renewal vote. WHR will be a backbencher in their minds . . . unless they buy into Neoprogressive Watcher’s list above.”
Not at all. The voters can decide whether they agree with the points that NW is attempting to air or NOT. I see no problem with the voters factoring their conclusions into their WH vote. The Council and CV developer manipulation of process was one of the major factors that I uncovered for No votes when canvassing outside of the immediate geographic impact area of the proposed CV project. Feeling fully informed in maintaining the integrity of their Measure J vote was an important part of their vote.
“Thanks. After looking at the flyer, my opinion is that Dunning over-reached in trying to tie this to Jim Provenza. Jim is just one of many offerring standard political endorsements to the Vanguard. Also, the paid advertising from “the family of a developer” was also overplayed. There are many more disturbing connections between the Vanguard and Parlin than this particular example.”
Typical Bob Dunning tactic – drive by (hit and run) sniping.
“Your point about the integrity of Measure J is spot on. It seems to me that Measure J cannot work as intended if projects are not fully vetted by staff, commissions, and council before being forwarded to the voters in final form for ratification. If this project passes, one could argue that it has exposed a fundamental flaw in the initiative.”
WHR has been debated for the last FOUR YEARS! I am opposed to the project on its merits, but to whine about this project not being previously discussed is off the mark. Problem is many citizens are not attuned to the process, or just flat out don’t care. However, the WHR item at Tuesday’s CC meeting should have been heard at 7pm as scheduled. There was no excuse for the delay – but that horse has already been let out of the barn, so lets move on. I suspect this project will be voted down bc:
1) It does not address the no affordable workforce housing issue;
2) Is being proposed at a time when we already have plenty of housing stock at cheaper prices;
3) This is not the right time, in the middle of an economic downturn amid myriad foreclosures, to be proposing new housing projects;
4) The project is too dense;
5) It is a negative fiscal impact to the city, at a time when the city is in dire financial straits.
I think it does address some affordable workforce housing issues. It is not a series of 600K plus housing. People who work at UCD can purchase some of the units.
The project is roughly the same density as the surrounding area if you include the buffers designed to mitigate impacts on the adjacent neighbors.
And the last part as Matt Williams and Lamar showed is just flat false. It does not have a negative fiscal impact to the city.
“Though the Enterprise is printed less often, is smaller in physical size and has fewer circulation department employees now, that doesn’t mean its content is any less intense than in years past. That’s because the reporters and column writers mostly do their own work, unlike David Greenwald and many of his commenters who reprint an awful lot of original reporting and other journalism, much of which appears first in the Enterprise.”
Did you catch the Katehi controversy, in which the Davis Enterprise copied David’s earlier article almost word for word?
[quote]ol’ timer said . . .
Not at all. The voters can decide whether they agree with the points that NW is attempting to air or NOT. I see no problem with the voters factoring their conclusions into their WH vote. The Council and CV developer manipulation of process was one of the major factors that I uncovered for No votes when canvassing outside of the immediate geographic impact area of the proposed CV project. Feeling fully informed in maintaining the integrity of their Measure J vote was an important part of their vote. [/quote]
You miss my point. It isn’t a question of whether the voters are not capable of deciding, it is a question of whather WHR will generate sufficient relative interest (when compared to the other issues) for many of the voters to have the will to decide. If they ration their available time to inform themselves, what issues will they tackle first? What issues will they tackle last? My point is that the Council election will come first, Measure J will come second, and WHR will trail those two enough that many voters won’t invest the time necessary to inform themselves.
[quote]What? said . . .
I suspect this project will be voted down bc:
5) It is a negative fiscal impact to the city, at a time when the city is in dire financial straits.[/quote]
Your other 4 points about why you feel this project will be voted down are all reasonable consiserations that you and the other voters will have todecide the merits of; however, your point 5) is 100% incorrect. The Staff Report indicated a $1 million negative fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund. As I confirmed with both Mike Webb and Paul Navasio, and formally presented to Council, the Staff Report ignores over $5 million of positive fiscal impact. Thus the $67,000 per year negative impact is actually a more than $273,000 per year positive impact.
Ol Timer:
My recollection is that the election was proposed for April, not June. The project applicant is paying for the special election, regardless of when it would have occurred.
“ol’ timer” wrote:[quote]Here’s my take. Neoprogressive is a term that brings the progressive left full circle to meet the Neoconservative right in terms of political tactics and level of cynicism . It, like the neoconservatives, works to manipulate and “game” the system, rejecting the essential populist truth that the people, when fully informed, will make the best decision most of the time.[/quote]An incredibly well articulated synthesis!
I would also add that the neoconservatives led the conservative movement to ruin and we are now at risk that the neoprogressives will do the same for the progressive movement in Davis.
“ol’ timer” wrote:[quote]The Council and CV developer manipulation of process was one of the major factors that I uncovered for No votes when canvassing outside of the immediate geographic impact area of the proposed CV project. Feeling fully informed in maintaining the integrity of their Measure J vote was an important part of their vote.[/quote]To me, this is why Lamar’s vote was so damaging. If WHR wins, then he will have participated in the creation of a cynical new political template to “game” Measure J.
Combine this with the facts that (1) Lamar’s behavior from the dais was out-of-character, and (2) Mike Harrington has stated publically in the Vanguard that Bill Ritter was the driving force behind putting Lamar in office, and it raises significant concerns about the neoconservative agenda. If Sue had done this, everyone in the orbit of the Vanguard would be screaming for her head.
“If they ration their available time to inform themselves, what issues will they tackle first? What issues will they tackle last….”
Matt: Unlike computers, we do not have a finite storage capacity nor are locked into on-off linear sequential processing.
That may be what a neuroscientist would argue but not what a cognitive psychologist or a political scientist would.
ol’ timer, have you ever walked a precinct. Well over half the people you talk to couldn’t care less and don’t want you to wast their time trying to exite their interest. If it doesn’t have anything to do with sex or their money it is off the radar. Its all about “What’s in it for me?”
For the vast majority of Davisites, when it comes to WHR the answer to that question is, “Very little if anything” . . . especially when compared to the greater universality of the Council election and the Measure J renewal.
Pam: My recollection is that the April date didn’t get off the ground but the discussion moved quickly to Sue’s suggestion that it be held in June. This is all getting to be too Rashomon-like but fortunately it is all recorded on video for those who are interested. As an aside, I found this moment the most interesting of the evening when Lamar appeared to be going “off script”, ruminating aloud about a June Measure J election date and how he would not be afraid to go before the electorate for reelection with the project Measure J vote on the same ballot. It was the most”authentic” Lamar moment of the evening and I believe that the reason the project manager jumped up and asked to delay the vote was his fear that Lamar(the key swing vote) might be changing his position there on the dais concerning the Nov. vote.
Check out the video on this and see if you see what I saw.
“ol’ timer, have you ever walked a precinct.”
YES Matt, I have…. a lot! Evidently, my experiences have been, on the whole, quite different from yours.
Looking at the citywide voter turnout numbers, I think my experience is more representative than yours. More often than not less than half the Davis registered voters bother to vote, and the number of registered voters is less than half of the number of Davis residents. So your chances of hitting a person with enough interest to vote is typically one in four. Not good odds.
Further, even in the years where the Presidential contest gooses voter turnout 10-20% of the voters who do show up to vote don’t bother to vote in the local issues. Any thoughts as to why?
November 2008 80.2% (President) but only 60% on Measure N
June 2008 40.7% (Council)
November 2007 32.8% (School Board, Measures P and Q)
November 2006 65.7% (Target)
June 2006 47.3% (Council)
November 2005 60.7% (Measure X)
November 2004 81.4% (President) but less than 70% on Measure S
“….creation of a cynical new political template to “game” Measure J.”
NW:I agree. A little anecdote-I remember chatting with Bill Emlen, then Davis Planning and Development Director, shortly after the No on X Measure J victory. He was clearly somewhat unnerved by the shift of power that measure J had imparted directly to the Davis voters. One could almost see the wheels turning…. what do we do next time to regain the initiative?
I think we are seeing the outlines today, deny citizen commissions input before the Measure J vote, and fast-track the baseline agreement(partial or completed, no matter)
“Looking at the citywide voter turnout numbers, I think my experience is more representative than yours.”
Matt: Some of my canvassing experiences were preselected voters with a history of voting in past local elections so that certainly increased the odds. With “cold” type canvassing, I think it largely depends upon ones tolerance of voter apathy and genuine enjoyment in attempting to initiate a dialogue with strangers. I have found that most people respond positively as Davisites are friendly and cordial almost to a fault.
I completely agree with that. However, finding people to be friendly and cordial is a world away from getting them to vote.
Even with preselected voters, after you had engaged them on the issues of the first ballot measure, then engaged them on the second ballot measure, how receptive do you think they would be if you launched into an education dialogue on a third ballot measure?
BTW, what was the typical duration of each voter encounter?
[quote]ol’ timer said . . .
Matt: Unlike computers, we do not have a finite storage capacity nor are locked into on-off linear sequential processing. [/quote]
True, true. Also unlike computers, human beings have total control of their on-off power switches. In the situations where you did cold canvas, what proportion of the people you approached went right for their Off switch? When I’ve canvassed at the Farmer’s Market, I think the Offs have outnumbered the Ons by at least 10 to 1.
Matt: I think you can guess from my postings that I am usually not at a loss for words. Some encounters are brief, others can be 10-15 min., ostensibly not very efficient, canvassing-wise, but taking the time to talk to people is the most effective tool in door to door canvassing and you often walk away with a vote(plus the 5+ family members, neighbors and friends that THEY talk to).
In the case in question, there is a potential political narrative that includes Measure J renewal and the challenges it faces ,illustrated by the fast-tracking of the WH Ranch Measure J vote that would already have occured(if approved) the past November. Candidate -for-reelection Heystek’s public record here could also be a part of this narrative. I agree, that unless these connections can be made, it is difficult to canvass for multiple ballot measures, usually the canvassing is done one issue at a time. Of course, if the Measure J vote had been moved to June and ample time given for a fully informed electorate, the above connecting narrative would not apply and we would all be canvassing for Lamar’s reelection and measure J renewal as one package. The Measure J vote on WH Ranch would stand or fall separately on its own merits after being fully vetted.
“10 to 1.”
1 in 10 is not a poor result. It is superior to expensive mailings.
Depends on what the 1 in 10 represents. If 1 in 10 shoppers buys a particular item or service most retailers would be pretty happy. However, if only 1 in 10 of those buyers actually pays for the item or service, then the retailer would be pretty unhappy.
If 1 in 10 of their patients is covered by Medi-Cal a hospital/doctor would be happy. If 1 in 10 is covered by insurance they wouldn’t be happy.
Your framing is from an efficient use of resources perspective. I am looking at it from a “winning the hearts and minds” perspective. 1 in 10 hearts/minds is a s****y result.
Wow. I feel so special. We made Parlin’s “love” list. #16! He must think we’re real special. But, geez, I checked the whole site and there was no mention of “green”. So, please, D. Greenwald, tell us all again, why this development is so special. I mean, other than the fact that they’re putting “green” into your pocket…What on earth has happened to all of you? Bill Ritter? Mike Harrington? Why is this okay with you? Please, everybody, open the site below and decide for yourselves.
http://www.parlindevelopment.com/projects.htm