I contemplated whether or not to let Dunning’s response this morning go. I took an unusual step on Friday morning of asking Davis Enterprise Editor Debbie Davis to have the Davis Enterprise offer a public apology to the young ladies whom Bob Dunning chose to malign in his column last Sunday. She artfully dodged that request, suggesting that Dunning himself would have a response to their letter in today’s column. I was bracing for the worst.
His response comes across as part defensive and part denial. There is no contrition. To believe him, he was misunderstood. Much of it represents an artful play on words in order to make insinuations without taking responsibility for them.
“‘To set the record straight,’ they note, ‘we never said we were volunteering.’ Fine. But the record doesn’t need to be set straight since no one said that you said you were volunteering. I’m just so used to having volunteers passing out literature in this town that I made an assumption that you were volunteers as well. That assumption came from me, not you. When I learned otherwise, I reported that fact with the words ‘turns out they weren’t volunteers at all.'”
But the clear implication in his original column was not that he made an assumption, but that he was misled.
“My first thought, as I took their literature, was how refreshing it was to see college students giving up their Sunday afternoon to advocate for a cause … if we had more such bright-eyed volunteers think of how much better this world would be … turns out they weren’t volunteers at all, though they did volunteer that the developer of Wildhorse Ranch had hired a number of campus Young Democrats to push this project …”
And he then went on to impugn them by suggesting that “passion for a cause comes with a price these days.”
He goes on to say:
“I didn’t realize anyone would be so defensive about being paid $15 an hour by a developer to promote his project.”
Why wouldn’t they be defensive after Dunning said last week, “passion for a cause comes with a price”?
Now he backs off suggesting that they “didn’t do anything wrong: and that they “were well within” their “rights as citizens of this great town.” But of course that again ignores the fact that just last week he attacked them for doing exactly that. He never mentions or acknowledges the line “passion for a cause comes with a price.” So readers who were not comparing the two pieces would have no way of remembering a much less mundane word choice just a week ago.
He continues:
“Hey, if you can advocate for a cause and get paid, more power to you. Certainly much better than getting paid for a cause you don’t believe in. There’s nothing like turning a firm belief and a political passion into a paying job.”
But again that softens the blow that he had delivered last week where he made no such concession.
He then uses the column defense. Since it is a column, not an article apparently it does not matter who he offends.
‘It is insulting toward many of the young democratic women who read the article.’
Please, it’s a column. We’re very sensitive about that.
This line is very intriguing:
“But I have to ask you, were Republican women not insulted as well? I didn’t mean for it to be a partisan insult. “
Are we to interpret that statement to mean that he did intend it as an insult to women? After all he could have said he did not mean it as an insult or an insult to women, but he put the qualifier in there “partisan.” Very interesting.
Finally:
“Finishing their thought, they say these democratic women ‘are now deterred from working on any campaign for fear of getting called a ‘dollar digger’ in a newspaper.’
I certainly hope not. There’s nothing wrong with digging for dollars or bowling for dollars or distributing campaign literature for dollars. “
Wow, so there is nothing wrong with digging for dollars? Or implying that two young women are digging for dollars?
To me, Bob Dunning does not get it. Unfortunately after reading the over 100 responses to my column he was not the only one who did not get it. This was a column about Bob Dunning, the Davis Enterprise columnist making insulting remarks about two young women, part of a group that I have both great respect and affinity towards. I do not hold the No on P people accountable, although I did request that they disavow his statement in the spirit of community and decency. This is not a campaign issue. It is not about the campaign.
Some people wrote me on Friday and complained that my language was over-the-top. I agree, it was. It was reflective of my level of outrage for these comments. It was also reflective of the dismissiveness that they have been treated with by some in this supposed enlightened, liberal, and progressive community. I do not think it is okay for the columnist from the Enterprise to imply two young college students are digging for money as though they were prostrating themselves and selling themselves out. I think that is the height of insults.
So if the Enterprise refuses to apologize and hold Dunning accountable for his words, then to me that goes to the heart of the problem. Dunning has been allowed for too long to get away with this stuff. We are all to ignore it. To refuse to engage him on it. And why should this progressive community allow and stand by as veiled sexist remarks are thrown around with impunity? Why should otherwise decent people cower and fail to stand up and say, no more, enough, stop it! Why should the leadership in this town not stand up and cry from the dais, have you no decency sir? Why do we continue to take this and allow it to happen over and over again?
My wife once told that while in school, her guidance counselor attempting to discourage her from going to college, told her she would make an excellent secretary and that’s what she should aspire to be. I do not want my nieces and my daughters, if I am ever fortunate enough to have daughters, to have to grow up in a world where that is acceptable.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Geez, give it a rest dude. In my opinion the only reason you’ve gotten your panties in a bunch over this is that you have it in for Dunning because he’s got your number. You try and come off as so rightous when there wasn’t really anything wrong with what Dunning originally wrote until you decided you might be able to score a few points with it.
And the only reason that you don’t see anything wrong with it is that you are a No on P hack, and it might harm your campaign if you are supported by a sexist?
Add this: it’s amazing to me that you would completely disregard the feelings of the students involved who wrote a letter to the enterprise and one of them posted here, how do you explain that away that this is just about DPD?
I’m voting no on “P” but I don’t consider myself a hack. I’m just a Davis citizen who doesn’t think we need all these new homes at this time of economic recession and devaluing home prices. The only way I can get my word out is to speak up because I don’t have unlimited funds to pay campaigners like the developers do. Dunning is not a sexist, you’re just trying to portray him that way. The more you try and push this the worse “YOU” come off.
[i]Unfortunately after reading the over 100 responses to my column he was not the only one who did not get it.[/i]
I have to confess that I’m one of the ones who is lost.
Me too. I think we are lost in David’s personal crusade against Dunning (not really different than his personal crusade against Saylor) and his desire to increase readership. Substance went by the wayside along time ago.
I like those old-style match-up columns newspapers used to run: For vs. Against; Liberal vs. Conservative; Tree-Hugger vs. Lumberjack. This series of humorless columns in the Vanguard suggests a new quality match-up: Ideologue with No Sense of Humor vs. Humorist with A Wary I. It isn’t quite the heavyweight battle that KFBK-radio used to have, Rosenberg vs. Limbaugh. But Welterweights will suffice for an intra-mural contest.
There is a solution to this problem, one I’ve advocated for years and put into practice a long time ago: KIRK TO ENTERPRISE: CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION. If you don’t like the paper, vote with your dollars. Perhaps a boycott would help them exercise some editorial discretion.
I am a secretary who loves her job.
If it weren’t for ping-pong, China could have been lost, so there are times when a little back-and-forth fun may be of some value. The again, at some point you gotta ask: do you walk to work or carry your lunch? Well hey, it’s only babble-on if you’re not attuned to the cosmic whateversright.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Aren’t secretaries (they are now called administrative assistants, and some do quite well)part of the Davis workforce also???
What exactly is wrong with being a secretary?
What exactly is wrong with suggesting someone become a secretary?
Does David Greenwald looks down on secretaries because traditionally the job was held by women?
Who is the sexist here?
What is the old newspaper adage about whatever you say spelling someone’s name right is the most important thing. That was the thing these people should be upset about, that Dunning protected them, because of their youth and inexperience, by not using their names. I just wonder if they are getting 15/hour for their rightous indignation. This is classic Ritter style politics of stirring the pot just like Byzayan was used during the DA race. Its a nasty business, elections, but if you’re a professional you do what you have got to do to win.
As for being insulted by Dunning it is just part of being initiated into the civic life of the town. When he nailed me with a zinger I sent him an email thanking him for putting me in his venerable column and admitting he got me.
The notion that the no on P people should condemn him is as ridiculous as the idea that the yes on p people should condemn him. He took no sides but instead pointed out everyone’s flaws. The part I liked best was at the end where he points out that despite the claims of the people who came to his home that the project isn’t being built on ag land all of Davis is built on ag land. In that single idea he was criticizing both sides, those who live on former ag land but don’t want anyone else to be able to do the same and those who for political and economic gain would deny that their project is on ag land. Yes Dunning was able to insult you all at one time without spilling how he is going to vote when he punches his own ballot. Well done Bob.
I agree with Keith, David–give it a rest. You’ve twisted this thing so far out of proportion that it bears almost no relationship to the original column.
There is no reason that I can find to suggest that Dunning’s comments about these two young women are sexist. Do you think his article would have been any different (other than the use of the word “Dame”) if the two campaign workers had been young men? I’m bt his column would have been identical in every other respect.
As for the gross generalization that all members of the UCD Young Democrats are poor, hard-working, struggling idealists that need to be sheltered and protected from any criticism, that’s nonsense. More power to them, but I doubt very much that they are any less infected by the same nonsense that characterizes Davis’s Old Democrats. Just look back through this thread to see plenty of evidence of that.
David–you should have honored your first inclination and just let it go. I loved the comment above from one blogger that said, “I’m a secretary who loves her job.” Do you think Dunning will now run an article castigating you and your wife for suggesting that if a woman becomes a secretary that this is demeaning? In the words of our progressive bretheran, “Move On”.
[quote]My wife once told that while in school, her guidance counselor told her she would make an excellent secretary and that’s what she should aspire to be.[/quote] Secretary is an excellent job. With benefits and pension, many working in local government make over $100,000 a year, far more than a public school teacher. Anyone who would demean secretaries is likely some sort of regressive, backwoods neanderthal sexist. [quote]I do not want my nieces and my daughters, if I am ever fortunate enough to have daughters, to have to grow up in a world where being a secretary is acceptable.[/quote]Oh, you regressive, backwoods neanderthal sexist, you. [quote]Why should this progressive community allow and stand by as veiled sexist remarks are thrown around with impunity? Why should otherwise decent people cower and fail to stand up and say, no more, enough, stop it! Why should the leadership in this town not stand up and cry from the dais, have you no decency sir? Why do we continue to take this and allow it to happen over and over again?[/quote]I do have to admire a blogger who calls himself out like this. He may have no sense of humor. But he appears to see the errors of his sexist ways.
Hey Rich:
“Secretary is an excellent job. With benefits and pension, many working in local government make over $100,000 a year, far more than a public school teacher.”
According to those figures, that secretary could maybe even afford one of the 451,000 townhomes at WHR set aside for “affordable housing” for Davis workforce
The individual was attempting to dissuade Cecilia from going to college because she was female and a Latina.
We didn’t miss the point. I don’t believe for one minute that David is sexist or that he looks down on secretaries. But that being said I can see how his comments can easily be churned and twisted to make it look that way kind of like the same way he took Dunning’s comments and portrayed him in a bad light. What goes around comes around.
David,
Don’t give in to the NIMBYs posting on the subject. You made a good point yesterday and you make a good point today. They have their boxers and briefs all bunched up because they don’t want to accept the fact that they are a bunch of NIMBYs that want to protect their home values and don’t want any “undesirable” people living in Davis. One of the No on P people actually said this. They fact that they have that view is disgusting.
They are stuck in their ways and when they get older and look around and see that they are surrounded by a whole bunch of people that look just like them they will understand why. They will get exactly what they asked for. This town is already headed in that direction. We joke about it on campus all of the time.
The same few people who were complaining yesterday had nothing better to do with their time except hide behind some fake name and post. They complain to you and say “stop it David you’re over the top” and yet they come back for more today to complain, complain, complain. They are stuck in their ways and have nothing better to do.
We are glad that there are people like you willing to speak up.
David, Please, please stop it. This is so ridiculous and over the top that you are falling into your own rhetoric. I totally agree with Crilly, if the students had been male, Bob would have written the same column but would have used the term ‘dudes’ instead of ‘dames’ and for the record, both terms are equally inoffensive to me.
I was going to suggest that you hold your fire for when Bob gives you some real cause, but the time to have done that was when he was unjustly attacking YOU. There is no way that his original column could be described as any kind of attack on anyone. The other problem is that he usually sticks to non-serious issues and comedy. Attacks on these kinds of columns just make you look like a prude.
However, I was concerned when you raised the level of your hostility this morning because of my own personal experience as a columnist for the Enterprise.
When you start to protest the right of someone to publish their opinion in a column in a local newspaper based on your own opinion about what this ‘liberal’ community should tolerate, you are really trying to threaten freedom of speech, a right that I had always thought you believed in.
P.S. I get what you were saying about Cecilia’s college counselor. She was implying that Cecilia was not college material and should be satisfied with a job that did not require a degree. I experienced the same kind of sexism many, many times in my life and agree that it deserves condemnation, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bob Dunning. Bob has 4 daughters and I am sure he does not want any limitations on their futures either.
David,
It was clear that your wife’s guidance counselor was trying to not encourage her to attend college.
I think the fact that the same NIMBYs are saying “what’s wrong with being a secretary?” is a another example of how they do not get it. You never said that there is anything wrong with being a secretary. If they are as educated as this town claims the people are then they would understand. Are they just playing dumb? Do they not know that even in this day and age there are African American and Mexican students discouraged from attending college. They were not encouraged to attend but luckily they had a good mentor.
Davis is Alice in Wonderland.
Why do you keep using the term NIMBY here? Do you think only neighbors in Wildhorse find David’s continued ridicule of Dunning useless? If you truly believe that, than you are playing as dumb as you accuse others of?
I guess you consider Rich Rifkin and Christine Cipperly NIMBYS also using your logic; do either of them live in Wildhorse?
Christine, Do you have daughters? How would you feel if it was said that your daughters were “diggin for dollars.” They are willing to do anything they are “diggin for dollars.” How would you feel if they said it in a newspaper? I agree with UCD people in this town are a little out of touch with what certain things imply. “Diggin for dollars” is a degradation to women and implies that they are willing to do anything for money. Any father or mother would not want that being said about their daughters.
I do not live in Davis, I have 2 daughters and have been in a male dominated profession for 40 yrs. I am NO on P, not because of David, Dunning or and dames or dudes. On principle and on specifics. This is becoming ridiculous. Let’s get back to issues.
NIMBY is an acronym for Not in My Back Yard. These are people who are opposed to a project that will be adjacent to, OR affect, their properties. A NIMBY does not have to be someone adjacent to a project only.
I don’t know where Rich Rifkin or Christine Cipperly live and don’t care to know. The point made previously that I will make again since you did not understand it is that the No on P campaign has a bunch of NIMBYs trying to protect their property values and not wanting the “undesirables” to come to town. Whatever that means. The man who said it obviously has not been on campus for quite sometime because we have a lot of so called undesirables there. It’s more reflective of the real world as opposed to Alice in Wonderland once we step off campus into the city of Davis.
I meant do not Iive in or near Wildhorse. I DO live in Davis!
Hey Tansey:
The man who said it obviously has not been on campus for quite sometime because we have a lot of so called undesirables there.
You keep referring to me…I was just on campus yesterday, right after the Farmer’s Market, took my son to the MU to play videogames, we then walked down to the duck pond on a beautiful Saturday afternoon; I love the UCD campus, go there quite often, especially enjoy Picnic Day! I also work for UC Davis….
Please stop slandering me!
I’m calling it; 12:29pm. This non-issue is officially dead.
Old and New List of Acronyms
CAVE Citizens Against Virtually Everything
CAVEWIPT Columnists Against Virtually Everything When It Pertains To
(himself, his neighborhood, his readership, advertisers ————- i.e. John Whitcombe Mr. Yes on X $$$$ for Enterprise)
NIMWIT Not in My Wonderful Intelligent Town
WHAGGOMBY Wild Horse Against Green Growth In Our Back Yard
Maybe Dunning is Diggin for Enterprise Dollar$. He writes articles on basically nothing of importance but did sink to an all time low when he went after the students. Diggin for dollars is an inappropriate comment no matter how you slice it up.
So what, you say some guy made an inappropiate comment about undesirables. You pick out the one bad apple and highlight it, it’s akin to having thousands marching for a good cause but the reporter chose to focus on the one over the top poster . That’s not what No on “P” is all about, it’s about too many homes coming to market at a time when Davis home values are depreciating. It’s about adding more cars to an already crowded downtown. It’s about adding more carbon to the air when Davis has a mandate to get basck to 1990 levels. I could go on and on…..
To UCD:
I totally agree with you. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Hang in there David, you did a great job calling Bob out on his sexist statement. Extremely rude man and now he is getting all defensive and swearing he was misunderstood.
So now anyone who opposes WHR is a racist, sexist NIMBY. Got it.
I don’t for a minute believe that anyone, anywhere actually said they oppose WHR because they don’t want “undesirables” in Davis. It has been posted anonymously, without attribution as to who specifically said it. That makes it worthless.
David, next time you think about writing a post about the Davis Enterprise or about Bob Dunning, think three times, swallow hard, and then write about something else.
I see that there is someone on this blog referring to $451,000 townhouses. For the last time, the townhouses in the WHR project will sell for from $350,000 to $450,000 AT TIME OF SALE. Someone apparently just decided to do an extrapolation out two or three years and came up with the $451,000 figure.This project, if it passes, will not be building homes until 2012 or so, and at that time the town homes will be advertised for $350,000 to $450,000. And yes, that is affordable to middle income families.
Hi Don:
Tansey Thomas is specifically accusing me of saying at some “city meeting in March or April” that I don’t want “undesirables”; it is truly unbelievable what the Yes on P campaign is resorting to! Thanks for your support on this issue!
I was looking at the issues and after the comment about undesirables and diggin for dollars was made I am voting for this good project. I am voting Yes on P because it is green and reflective of what we need. I have my ballot in hand and I am marking YES and dropping it in the mail today. I am also going to call my friends that I know are registered to vote to ask them to support and vote Yes on Measure P.
There is an old saying that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. One bad apple is reflective of other bad apples (views) on the No on P campaign. It’s all NIMBYism.
“And yes, that is affordable to middle income families.”
Sure, as long as they make about $95000 per year.
Here’s a mortgage calculator for you to figure it out for yourself:
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-calculator.aspx
[url]http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-calculator.aspx[/url]
Please read the City’s fiscal analysis which uses the figure of $451,000 when the houses are built. Parlin wants to claim its fiscally neutral by jacking up the prices (to get higher property taxes) but then claim they will cost less to be affordable–they cannot have it both ways.
That is dishonest.
Mike Hart, it doesn’t look like it’s dead by all of the comments. Do you have daughters or sisters ? Would you like it to be said that they are diggin for dollars?
Then the city made an error.
(Swallowing)
To the best of my knowledge, Tansey has not posted on here.
[quote]I guess you consider Rich Rifkin and Christine Cipperly NIMBYS also using your logic; do either of them live in Wildhorse?[/quote]For the record, I don’t live there. I even voted No on the proposition when it was before us. However, I did once play a round of golf — badly, if you care — out there. And I fairly regularly take walks along the perimter preserve. While it is no reason to sway one’s vote on Measure P, one of the possible benefits of the WHR development is that the path on the east side will be enlarged and improved.
Once Again:”This project, if it passes, will not be building homes until 2012 or so, and at that time the town homes will be advertised for $350,000 to $450,000.”
Since we don’t know who you are, we have no way of knowing whether you have any idea what you are talking about regarding what the town homes “will be advertised” at. Are you the developer?
Regardless, plug $350,000 into a mortgage calculator and find the monthly payment. Then using the standard of 30% of income for housing, tell me what annual income you’d need to buy a $350,000 townhouse.
[i]”I even voted No on the proposition (as to whether Wildhorse in the 1990s should be allowed or not) when it was before us.”[/i]
Someone asked me recently why I opposed the original Wildhorse subdivision. I didn’t have a strong feeling one way or the other going into that vote. However, a couple of weeks before the election, I was out at the Farmer’s Market and there was a WHOA booth set up. (Best acronym ever in Davis politics, by the way.) A woman there — it might have been Eileen Samitz; I don’t remember for sure — showed me a large parcel map of Davis. She said something like, “If we build way out here,” pointing to the northeast section of town, “it creates a canyon here,” pointing to the Covell Village and Con Agra properties. “Then it’s only a matter of time before that canyon gets filled with thousands of more houses, since that space will be urbanized on three side.” I nodded. “When that gets filled in, Davis will no longer be Davis. It will become Vacaville. You don’t want that, do you?” I nodded again. And asked the lady, “So you would vote for this if it were here,” pointing to Covell Village, “instead of here,” pointing to Wildhorse? She looked at me like I was as dumb as I sounded. “I’m against sprawl,” she said. “I think we should try our best to contain Davis inside its present borders and let the farms remain agricultural.” I nodded and walked away, contemplating what she said. “No,” I thought. “I don’t want Davis to be another Vacaville. Vacaville smells like onions*.” So I voted no.
———–
*Newbies in Davis probably do not know that before it added fifty thousand homes and hundreds of shopping centers with big box stores, the Vacaville** area was home to hundreds of farms which grew onions. Every year, by the late summer, just about everywhere from Dixon to Elmira to Vacaville reeked of onions. After they were harvested early in the year, the farmers would stack them up in giant mounds, covered in plastic tarps with old tires placed on top to keep the tarps on. Onions, before cul-de-sacs, were Vacaville’s signature crop, much like Gilroy always has been known for its garlic.
———-
**Another thing perhaps newbies don’t know about Vacaville. It was not named that because of cows. While vaca does mean cow in Spanish, the city is eponymous for a Mexican-American family — originally spelled Baca — who, along with their in-laws, the Peña’s, owned the very large land grant in the region, beginning in the 1840s. The City of Davis is entirely on land which was once a part of that same land grant. Col. Joseph Ballinger Chiles, the father-in-law of Jerome Davis, bought the northernmost section of the Peña’s land in 1850, claiming all the property they had north of Putah Creek. … As it happens, a Peña descendant, Narcissa Peña recently died, and her home, at 4th & D, perhaps the oldest extant structure in Davis, is now proposed for a redevelopment project, which will either demolish that house or move it to a new location.
I agree with Don Shor –
DPD, the next time you decide to go after Dunning, count to 10, go outside for a walk, have a cup of herbal tea, think some more, then write about something else.
1) Dunning is a spiteful and mean spirited ^%(%(%*&^_*+_ (I stopped reading him years ago so I didn’t even notice the article about the girls from the College Democrats going door to door for the Yes on P campaign), but this column of his was fairly innocuous relatively speaking from reading the above discussion (the Provenza column was much, much worse and definitely called for a reponse from you since it was a direct attack on your integrity). You have given Dunning food for fodder, that has and is going to make you look foolishly OVERREACTIVE.
2) The girls in question are old enough to defend themselves. They wrote an article for the Davis Enterprise, which was printed. They got their message across. You did not need to step in and defend their honor. Let them fight their own battles. I suspect their “outrage” was whipped up by Parlin and company.
3) Your many articles on Measure P have shown an extreme bias in favor of the project, despite your protestations to the contrary. Unfortunately, it has shot your credibility on this subject to shreds. Your defense of these girls smacks too much of a defense of Measure P.
4) Your reaction about the “insult to the girls” sounds far too much like it came from the mouth of Bill Ritter, a gun for hire by any developer who wishes to pay him. Bill Ritter is certainly free to espouse any cause he is paid to support, but you are getting sucked into whatever maelstrom Ritter is trying to create in support of this project.
5) Demonization of either side on Measure P is not helping either cause. It is just wreaking havoc, dividing friends, resulting in a huge number of spiteful remarks, and is counterproductive. This is the same technique that was used in the Rancho Yolo controversy to good effect.
DPD, I would strongly advise you to MOVE ON…this discussion is getting silly beyond belief, and is not going to change anyone’s mind about Measure P.
Don Shor, lots of evidence of the shrill NIMBY views.
Suggest you pull the tapes from the Wildhorse Moore Village hearings. And the Parlin Wildhorse hearings. The NIMBY testimony is on those tapes. By the time of the July 28 hearing, the shrill NIMBYs sent up someone with a little more polish to do the speaking for them, so you wotn find it there.
Tansey posted that Greg Sokolov (who is the lead psychiatrist who works with criminals at the jail every day) went off at one hearing that this project would “bring criminals” to Wildhorse area. (Taped? Someone should get it.)
Greg’s anger and wild-eyed nature are always on display when he is out in public. Sad. He knows that many of those people in jail are there due to poor upbringings. How nice it would be for some poor families to be able to move to WH and experience a nice place, and nice schools. But those NIMBYs sure dont want their kids playing with kids who might be more likely to go to jail!
What a sad day in Davis. Watching the citywide expertise of the ultraleft white liberals playing those NIMBYS like a tuned violin, whipping them up, stoking the fear, trying to take down a little project that actually might be a good thing for Davis and the environment.
Mike Harrington, as an attorney, you should understand the term “libel” better than most, and that is what you are doing here with your gutter attacks on me here! Do you really think that is winning voters to Measure P! Is this what advocating for this “nice little green project” has devovled into?
How come to this date, Mr. Mike Harrington, attorney at law, you have yet to disclose on the blogs how much money you have invested in Parlin LLC? You have failed to disclose because all of your rants about “social justice”, racial bias,elitism, etc. and all the other ridiculous arguments you are making up about the NO on P support is fueled by your own ECONOMIC INTERESTS (and nothing more).
You have asked David Greenwald repeatedly to NOT allow anonymous bloggers to personally attack you, and here you attacking me (“wild eyed” nature) and trying to link it to my profession…you are right it is a “sad day in Davis”; it’s a sad day when a former City Councilmember (one-term, that is) has to resort such disgusting personal attacks on the blog (and out of his own cowardice, posts it anonymously)!
I guess your friend David Greenwald finds it ok to remove posts that refer to you as Parlington, but it’s okay for you to use such vicious and mean-spirited attacks towards others!
One additional piece of information Mr. Harrington in your continued slander of me:
Moore Village was built around 2003 or 2004; correct?
You heard Moore Village testimony from the public when you were on the CC (which I believe was from 2000-2004); I didn’t even live in Wildhorse then!
I never heard about the Moore Village, or for that part, went to CC to make comments, as I lived in another part of town.
As an attorney, I hope you prepare your evidence better in cases for depositions, or your clients must really be wasting their money on you!
NIMBYs on tape: “Don Shor, lots of evidence of the shrill NIMBY views.
Suggest you pull the tapes from the Wildhorse Moore Village hearings.”
I suggest you sign your name. Otherwise (to channel Rich Rifkin here) you are just an anonymous coward making unsubstantiated accusations and cheapening the debate.
I sign my name. Why don’t you?
“DPD, I would strongly advise you to MOVE ON…this discussion is getting silly beyond belief, and is not going to change anyone’s mind about Measure P.”
Honestly, this is not about Measure P – in fact, I couldn’t care less about the Measure P portion of this. The students may be old enough to defend themselves, but they don’t have a five times a week column to do so, now do they?
Davis:
You could care less about measure P?
Really? Does anyone believe that? (Even supporters of P ? )
Then how about asking Michael Harrington to state directly what his financial stake is in the project?
David –
I often enjoy your stuff. I’m often annoyed at Dunning’s stuff (he likes to piss people off).
That said, I’m not buying your defense of the students who are getting paid to advocate for the Wildhorse project…they’re grown-ups and can handle themselves (and did)! And given that you’re discussing sexism, keep in mind that there can be a fine line between chivalry and chauvinism…
Rather, your critique comes across as either blind defense of the Wildhorse development (which would place you on shaky moral ground), or a personal chip on your shoulder when it comes to Dunning. I’ll hope it’s the later.
In any case, I urge you not to let him get under your skin…let him blow all the hot air he wants. “He who angers you, controls you”…eh?
The attacks on Greg need to stop. If it is coming from the Yes campaign you need to stop the mud slinging. I believe that this blog site needs to stop the person who is doing it if they do not post their name. If David doesn’t want to step up and stop it then maybe we need to blog some where else.
“You could care less about measure P?”
What I actually said was:
“I couldn’t care less about the Measure P portion of this.”
You’ll notice that I never mentioned Measure P nor Wildhorse in my column.
Michelle:
I agree. Greg is not a public figure, the next post that attacks Greg will be pulled. Got that Mike Harrington?
[i]Another thing perhaps newbies don’t know about Vacaville. It was not named that because of cows. While vaca does mean cow in Spanish, the city is eponymous for a Mexican-American family — originally spelled Baca[/i]
On the other hand, that family ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baca_family_of_New_Mexico[/url]) does seem to be named after cows.
[i]The attacks on Greg need to stop.[/i]
Hmm…
Greg Sokolov: Based on what another poster wrote about you, that you’re a doctor who works with the criminally insane, I have a question: Did you formerly take your dog (and your girlfriend’s dog, sometimes) to the dog park behind Willett Elementary School (then known as WDI) more than 10 years ago? In my columnn, recently, I paraphrased a conversation I had with someone — a psychologist I thought; but maybe he was a psychiatrist — who worked at the Vacaville prison for the criminally insane. I wonder if that was you? Chances are, obviously, it was not. But in case it was, it’s funny to reunite on this blog board. My dog, who died about five years ago from cancer, was named Moxie. If we did know one another back then, you might recall her more than me.
[i]Greg Sokolov: Based on what another poster wrote about you, that you’re a doctor who works with the criminally insane[/i]
Hence his close familiarity with the motives of [b]developers[/b].
Whereas I have worked in quantum theory. So, does growth in Davis still occur if no one chooses to observe it?
Hi Rich:
No, that was not me; I moved to Davis in 2000; before that, I was doing my residency in Los Angeles. We own two cats (my wife adopted them from the Yolo County Humane Society). I like dogs, but we are away alot and its hard to take care of them. By the way, I think I have met you before at a big poker game in West Davis this past spring “Tax a Torney”; I think you were playing quite well that night, no? anyways take care, maybe some time after the nastiness of this election is over, we can play some poker again.
Greg
Yes, at Jeremy Brooks’s house. I don’t specifically recall meeting you, there, but that was a huge event. It amazes me how well organized a home tournament can be run. I have trouble entertaining 6 people for a dinner party. Perhaps that’s why Brooks does such a great job with his painting company.
My guess is that P is going to lose. I just think that if it were winning this shrill attack on Dunning would not have happened. As Dylan said “When you got nothing you got nothing to lose.”
First Greenwald injected sexism into the debate.
Now there appears to be one or more trolls trying to frame opponents of the Parlin project as racists.
I would also like to know if Mike Harrington has a financial interest in any of the Parlin LLC’s.
Mike: Two observations –
(1) You have gone to great lengths to argue that you are not shilling for Parlin as a consequence of your status as a landlord to Parlin, Talbot, and Ritter & Associates.
(2) You have not responded to the repeated questions of your potential involvement as an investor and/or stake-holder in one or more Parlin-associated LLC’s.
I find (2) extremely suspicious in light of (1).
Consequently, I am now also calling for you to disclose.
I have to say that most of you are out of line. Every article on this blog turns into a heated debate between four or five people under fifteen pseudonyms arguing about each others’ financial interests and Wildhorse Ranch.
This article is about a pompous, licentious, columnist who disrespected two young women not once, but twice in a very public forum. They deserved the opportunity to defend themselves. Dunning couldn’t help but take advantage of his publishing space and retaliate while insinuating they were liars.
All you can do is argue about growth issues dating back decades. Good to know women’s rights have come so far.
Bottom line– you can feel however you wish about Wildhorse Ranch or growth, but that’s not the point of this article. The point is that Bob Dunning’s shtick lacks humor and out-and-out disrespects the citizens of the town he’s so supposedly proud of. And I’m not just referring to these two women.
You would think in a “progressive” town he’d be forced from his column, or at least to apologize when appropriate. Instead you laugh and attack each other. Way to go Davis– show them all how a real educated community does business.
I’m confused why on the one hand you guys are complaining about Harrington attacking Greg Sokulov, and on the other hand, keep insisting on attacking Harrington. You can’t have it both ways. So both need to cease.
Druid, you’ve been reading this board from the beginning, how long have I been going after Dunning? You really want to draw conclusions from it now?
Incredible: Bob Dunning wrote a humorous (in his mind) column about two college women dropping Yes on P literature on Hunt Way. Then, David took offense, suggesting Dunning demeaned the female students.
So what happened next? A trivial, inconsequential column was transformed into a huge, lightening-rod issue, engulfing such far and wide issues as Measure P, Measure J, housing prices, housing stock, criminal elements, racism, city finances, the cost of living, NIMBYism, undesireables and every other contentious issue you can imagine.
What a great City. Let’s just rip one another until we’re dead & gone. Maybe then our children (who hopefully attended the great Davis schools) can overlook their differences and do something none of us could do:
Understand our differences of opinion, Respect one another’s viewpoints; Listen to both sides of all arguments; and Work together to make our city a better place for all to live & work.
I know: too idealistic. And from what I’ve read on The Vanguard the past couple of weeks, I’m afraid that might be truer than imagined.
Rik E.
Rick: to be fair, the students took offense to some of the words that Dunning chose to use. I’m not sure the column was that inconsequential. Certainly not to the students involved.
David Greenwald wrote:
[quote]I’m confused why on the one hand you guys are complaining about Harrington attacking Greg Sokolov, and on the other hand, keep insisting on attacking Harrington. You can’t have it both ways. So both need to cease.[/quote]Speaking for myself only, asking for financial disclosure from Mike Harrington is not an attack. To consture it as such would imply that he has something to hide. I do not make that presumption. Do you?
My rationale for calling for disclosure is:
(1) Mike has been a hyperagressive partisan, first repeatedly attacking Eileen Samitz and now Greg Sololov.
(2) A pretty compelling case can now be made that he is also be posting anonymously.
(3) The ferocity of his advocacy goes way beyond the norm for most rational individuals without a financial stake in the outcome.
(4) He has argued repeatedly that his bias is purely project-driven, and not tied in any way to his cash flow from from multiple tenants that will realize substantial financial gains from the outcome of the Measure P vote.
If we take this last point at face value, then the question about his potential financial interest(s) in one or more Parlin LLC’s is entirely fair.
So how about it Mike? Can you respond to the question so we can move on?
The problem is that he’s just a poster on a board, he doesn’t have an official role on the campaign (in fact he’s probably persona non grata to tell the truth), he’s not a public official, so you have no actual right to demand information and he has no duty to give it. So why don’t you just move anyway, it’s not as though your campaign hinges on Mike’s disclosure.
David: The problem is that his hyper-aggressive advocacy is angering a lot of people … which makes his motives fair game. If it’s not entirely clear, there are now multiple individuals asking the question (not just one individual under multiple pseudonyms).
You are obviously correct that he has no duty to give disclosure; but you are incorrect in your assertion that we have no right to call for it.
I, and others, are calling for some public statement about his FCOI with respect to potential financial interests in these LLC’s in order to decide if his actions have been incented by Parlin Development giving him a “piece of the action.”
I don’t have any bias regarding the facts. In fact, I personally give him the presumption of clean hands.
It’s a simple matter of a yes or no for the record. I didn’t raise the question. But it’s a fair question (under the circumstances), and I hope it is answered.
“The problem is that his hyper-aggressive advocacy is angering a lot of people”
Yes they are angering a lot of people including friends and allies. In fact, I would argue he’s probably doing more harm than good. So at this poin, I don’t see that questioning his motives is all that fruitful and I think there are more interesting things to discuss.
David Greenwald: Presumably, the participants on your blog determine what is “interesting” to discuss. Obviously, a number of them feel that whether or not Mike Harrington is an investor in one of the Parlin-related LLC’s is interesting.
Mike Harrington himself has raised suspicion by going on and on about how proud he is proud of his business relationship with Parlin. Then he details his landlord tenant relationship with the project, while deflecting questions about whether he is an investor.
He also aggressively denied that he argued to raise the ranking of the development priority of the large Parlin northwest quadrant holding, while a number of members of the Housing Steering Committee said that he did so argue. He then followed some of these questions with unusually vituperative rants.
All of these things together have made many people more curious to know whether or not Mike Harrington is an investor in the Parlin-related LLC.
If he is so eager to confirm or deny all of the other questions or assertions put forth regarding his relationship with Parlin, why is he refusing to give a straight answer to this one straight question?
Mike Harrington could easily put this discussion to rest.
Additionally, I would argue that Mike Harrington is a public figure. He is former council member and subsequently has run for the city council. He has kept his finger in the political pot by being active in the anti-Covell Village campaign.
As I read most of the above self-serving claptrap, I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s observation:
“The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter–it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”
Brian, I’m reminded of Steve Martin being sent off to greet the world by his dad: [quote][b]Father:[/b] Son, now that your going out into the world, there’s something you should know. You see that?
[b]Navin:[/b] Yeah.
(Looks down at a pile of poop.)
[b]Father:[/b] That’s sh*t. (Looks at some boot black.) And this — shinola.
[b]Navin:[/b] Sh*t, shinola.[/quote]Navin then walks right over a big pile of poop.
Brain K: In what way are questions about potential FCOI motives for Mike Harrington’s hyper-aggressive conduct self-serving? And who are you to pass judgement?
Brain K: It occurred to me that you may have been commenting on the faux debate over sexism … and not the FCOI question. If so, I apologize for getting a little testing.
I’ve been ignoring that part of the thread, since it’s an obvious smokescreen to deflect the Measure P debate, and actually forgot what the original topic was.
[quote]He also aggressively denied that he argued to raise the ranking of the development priority of the large Parlin northwest quadrant holding, while a number of members of the Housing Steering Committee said that he did[/quote]Anonymous: Are there any more details you can provide?
Also, from my perspective, the question is whether or not he has a “financial interest” rather than the more narrow question of whether or not he is an “investor.”
The Druid says: “My guess is that P is going to lose. I just think that if it were winning this shrill attack on Dunning would not have happened. As Dylan said “When you got nothing you got nothing to lose.””
You’re probably right. By this time in a campaign, just several weeks before the polls open( and already near 50% of the ballots absentee and in the voter’s hands), the die is pretty much cast. The polling by Parlin’s campaign consultants have most likely already projected that Yes on P will fail and campaigns usually try a “hail Mary pass” campaign move about this time which usually fails miserably. This was exactly what Whitcombe did in the last weeks of the X campaign with Helen Thomson’s letter. We will probably see more desperate campaign moves(NO on P are racists, etc.) in the next few weeks. So… let’s be optimistic but not overconfident! Let’s pound the last nails into the coffin of Measure P this weekend with a walk and drop march into Mace Ranch. contact http://www.2000housesareenough.org to find out how you can help.
Rich,
Comparing Steve Martin to Mark Twain is like comparing a jar full of fireflies to the Milky Way galaxy.
Brian
Your blog today speaks volumes to your character and offers little insight into the nature of Bob Dunning.