Voter lists have long been open to the public and therefore it is relatively easy and straightforward for campaigns and other activists to get ahold of the latest list of registered voters. And sophisticated companies have been able to obtain and compile lists ranging from permanent absentee voters to those who voted in the last election.
According to Kimberly Hood, who works with City Attorney Harriet Steiner at Best Best & Krieger, “There is a specific exemption in the Public Records Act for utility customer information.”
Back in August, she told the Vanguard, “Specifically, the Public Records Act exempts from disclosure the name, credit history, utility usage data, home address, or telephone number of utility customers, subject to certain limited exceptions, such as where the information is being made available to a family member to whom the information pertains or upon a court order.”
The one piece of information the City could provide would be a list of those parcels subject to utility rates.
Now, as organizers attempt to mobilize for a possible referendum, they are running into the same difficulty. It is only natural that an organization seeking to gain signatures and support would want to begin with a known quantity – the list of 4800 individuals and parcels that protested the water rate hike under Prop 218.
In a September 14 letter from City Attorney Harriet Steiner, to Attorney Michael Harrington on behalf of Ernie Head, “The City will make the protests received regarding the water, sanitary sewer, and sanitation rate increases before the City Council on September 6, 2011 available for Mr. Head to review, unredacted, but will only provide redacted copies of the protests forms because of the confidential utility customer information included on the protest forms.”
Ms. Steiner continues, “As the City Clerk previously explained to Mr. Head, she was concerned with disclosing copies of the protests because it would result in the disclosure of confidential utility customer information – information which is expressly exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act.”
Government Code section 6254.16 specifically states, “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require the disclosure of the name, credit history, utility usage data, home address, or telephone number of utility customers of local agencies…”
However, it should be noted that the provision reads, “require the disclosure,” and nowhere does it state that the act prohibits such disclosure.
Ms. Steiner continues, “There are only a few limited exceptions to the disclosure of utility customer information, and the only one potentially applicable here is the exemption “upon determination by the local agency that the public interest in disclosure of the information clearly outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure.”
“The City has made no such finding, nor does it appear such a finding could be made when disclosure of utility customer information could result in disclosure of confidential information, including the home addresses of peace officers who filed protests,” the city attorney writes.
The city attorney continues, “The City has an overriding need to protect peace officers’ home addresses from disclosure to the general public. Indeed, such disclosures are indicative of why section 6254.16’s utility customer exemption was adopted in the first place. As the legislative history reveals, section 6254.16 was adopted due to the danger the disclosure of names with home addresses could cause.”
“While we certainly don’t believe you or your client have any such ill intent, what the City discloses to you, it must disclose to anyone who may request the same information,” the city attorney continues.
“The majority of the protest forms you have requested copies of include confidential utility customer information,” she writes.
The bottom line is that the address of the parcel is available, but not the name or home addresses of the utility customers: “As such, the City must redact any copies of the protest forms with the names and home address of the City’s utility customers pursuant to Government Code section 6254.16. However, the exempt utility customer information is the only information that will be redacted from the protest forms. No other information on the protest forms, including the property address that was the subject of the fee, will be redacted.”
The city will apparently provide a redacted copy of the utility customer database: “The City will disclose a redacted copy of the spreadsheet created by the City Clerk with protest information. The spreadsheet, like the protest forms, were compiled from the City’s utility customer database. The spreadsheet includes all City property addresses subject to the rates along with the corresponding utility customer names.”
The absurdity of this is quite mindboggling. Due to concerns about the names and addresses of peace officers, the city is withholding the names of all ratepayers.
Obviously, this is a potential problem with voter rolls as well. The solution that has been created to deal with that problem is not to withhold all names and addresses on voter rolls. Instead, it is to redact the information of individuals such as judges and peace officers from the voter list, so that that their private information and legitimate security concerns can be addressed.
There is no reason that the city could not do similarly with utility information, so that in the case of a Prop 218 vote, the utility rolls work just as voter lists, where those wishing to mobilize against a water rate hike can use the information to contact their voters.
Unfortunately, the public does have a very strong and compelling reason to have access to such records and the city has other means by which to address the legitimate but still remote security concerns, short of censoring all information to make the records devoid of nearly all value.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
That’s ok, it will just make the referendum peeps that much more focused.
What is the issue here? If those that are supporting a referendum truly believe in their cause, then they should set up a table at the Farmers Market, advertise in the Davis Enterprise and Vanguard, send out flyers, advertise via email, word of mouth, etc. as in any other issue slated for a referendum. I, for one, would be furious if the city divulged any information about my utility bill – my utility bill is private to me and I don’t expect any information on it to be given out by the city to the public.
[i]The absurdity of this is quite mindboggling. [/i]
No, it’s your contention that any jackass on the street may have access to personal identifying information. If you haven’t already (I’m sure you have) commit at least this one sentence to memory:
[i]California Constitution, Article I:
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and [b]privacy[/b].[/i]
Unequivocal: [i]privacy[/i]. Or do you subscribe to the theory that all personal information should be available to the general public? In this particular fishing-for-personal-data I suppose it doesn’t really matter to you. After all, as a renter your name doesn’t appear on that particular list.
There is no “compelling State interest” here, just a group that wants to take a shortcut to gain access to information. The CIty’s denial is more than correct, it is [i]necessary[/i].
“The City will disclose a redacted copy of the spreadsheet created by the City Clerk with protest information. The spreadsheet, like the protest forms, were compiled from the City’s utility customer database. The spreadsheet includes all City property addresses subject to the rates along with the corresponding utility customer names.”
I don’t understand the whole thrust of this article. The quote above seems to indicate they’ll get the addresses.
First, what ERM wrote. Secondly: [i]The quote above seems to indicate they’ll get the addresses.[/i]
But not the [b]names[/b] associated with those addresses.
We have a tradition in the US of secret ballots.
There are many good reasons for this. Foremost is to allow people to vote their conscious without worries about retaliation.
What is being proposed in this article is exactly opposite to a secret ballot.
It is completely different from voter rolls, which list only who is eligible to vote, not how they voted.
I’m sorry – I guess I just don’t see what the big flap is all about. While there are things that I prefer to keep private, my utility bill isn’t one of them. It isn’t something that I bother to shred and if anybody is so interested in what I pay that they want to dig through the recycling to find it, more power to ’em … or they could just ask me.
If the request that is being made is for the list of the names of those who protested, I agree with J.R. A protest letter may have been filed with the expectation that it would be private/secret. How an individual votes is their own business, not everyone else’s. Given the contentiousness of this issue, many might not want their neighbors or friends to know how they voted. Also, given the effort required for someone to file the original 218 protest, if the organizers of the petition for a referendum can’t easily obtain the small number of signatures required to get it on the ballot, that should be telling them something, don’t you think?
To Musser et al.: Yes, there are certain records that should be, and are, protected by privacy laws, but there is also a lot of what might be deemed by some as “private” information that can legally be obtained from various sources–and usually rightly so.
Much more to the point in this case: I am looking at my copy of the “City of Davis Utility Rate Increase Protest Form.” On it there is no information about ones utility bill! It simply asks your name and whether you object to three different utility rate increases. For the city to divulge the 4,800 people who objected to one or all of these increases it seems far-fetched to claim that this violates “secret ballot” laws.
People can probably think of many other examples, but anyone can access ones property tax assessment plus name and address through the assessor’s records. Voter reg. records reveal not only which party one registers with but in which elections one has or has not voted.
The real reason behind the city’s refusal to release this info. is that, for as long as I can remember, city staff have been the unquestioning apparatchik of the council majority who are terrified of a referendum.
If by some miracle we ever had a progressive city council majority, I bet that, at best, the “civil service” would retreat to the purported Anglo-American position of neutrality.
[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b]
Elaine, under current assumptions, there isn’t a “possibility” that there will be another 4% increase in year six – under current assumptions there [b]WILL[/b] be another increase in year six. People in the field that I have been talking with actually think ultimate project costs will be much higher, and we haven’t factored in probable large storm water cost increases, unfunded liability of sanitation workers, etc.
Now, you are talking about bi-monthly rates here (you should have labeled the chart if you are trying to clarify the billing to the public).
When I do the math, if we add 4% to the 2016 rates, the yearly total comes to – hold on to your hats — $2,300 a year. Hence, your touted rate reduction means that rates will be identical to the original projected rates, but will reach them only one year later.
I have been waiting for Paul Navazio to return from his (much deserved) two week vacation to confirm the accurate figures on where rates will in up in year six relative to where they were before the “rate reduction”, but it appears at first glance that there is no reduction – only a one year delay.
And remember, part of the achievement in the one year delay was due to delaying needed capital improvement costs that will be done within the decade anyway.
There is a simple principle that you and staff and the council have failed to explain to the public. That is, once we distribute the bonds, we have to start paying about $10 million interest a year. So, if we delay the raises, we have to make it up. That is why, even though we have changed some assumptions on interest rates and delayed paying for a few needed improvements for a few years, we have not decreased our rates – we have only delayed the increases a bit and reached the original projected rates only one year later. And we will need further increases to pay for the delayed needed improvements.
OOPS!!! Correction: Elaine, under current assumptions, there isn’t a “possibility” that there will be another 14% increase in year six.
David, I typed 4% when I meant 14% in two places in my above post. I was wondering if you could delete the above two posts and leave this corrected version?:
Elaine, under current assumptions, there isn’t a “possibility” that there will be another 14% increase in year 6 – under current assumptions there [b]WILL[/b] be another increase in year six. People in the field that I have been talking with actually think ultimate project costs will be much higher, and we haven’t factored in probable large storm water cost increases, unfunded liability of sanitation workers, etc., but we will leave these issues aside for the moment and simply talk about staffs’ current projections.
First, you are talking about bi-monthly rates here (you should have labeled the chart if you are trying to clarify the billing to the public).
When I do the math, if we add 14% to the 2016 rates, the yearly total comes to – hold on to your hats — $2,300 a year. This would mean that your touted rate reduction means that rates will be identical to the original projected rates, but will reach them only one year later.
I have been waiting for Paul Navazio to return from his (much deserved) two week vacation to confirm the accurate figures on where rates will in up in year 6 relative to where they were before the “rate reduction”, but it appears at first glance that there is no reduction – only a one year delay.
And remember, part of the achievement in the one year delay was due to delaying needed capital improvement costs that need to be done within the decade anyway.
There is a simple principle that you and staff and the council have failed to explain to the public. That is, once we distribute the bonds, we have to start paying about $10 million interest a year. So, if we delay the raises, we have to make it up.
That is why, even though we have changed some assumptions on interest rates and delayed paying for a few needed improvements for a few years, we have not decreased our rates – we have only delayed the increases a bit and reached the original projected rates only one year later. And we will need further increases to pay for the delayed needed improvements.
I agree with the trend of the comments on this post. Mike Harrington should not have access to my utility bill information, including whose name the bill is in. That is a privacy between me and the gigantic corporation running the utilities, and completely separate from voter rolls.
Nonetheless, this post is interesting and worth posting. However, the tone is obviously in favor of the referendum people like Mike Harrington. I’d suggest watching the tone in future articles about this effort in order to report in a more unbiased manner. There is no conspiracy here, nor injustice, from what I can tell. So I’d rachet down the tone a bit from “mindboggling” to “well, this is interesting.”
Sorry, my above post was meant to be under the column on rates. David, you can feel free to remove it. Thanks.
“Attorney Michael Harrington on behalf of Ernie Head” This quote from David has really caught my attention. What has been going on in the City of All Things Right and Relevant has gotten entirely out of hand. Harrington has been quoted numerous times on this subject in various media as a former council member without disclosing that he’s Ernie Head’s legal council. It is absolutely beyond the pale for Harrington to not dislose this. His relationship to Head is absolutely relevant. Harrington as recently as today commented in the Enterprise on this matter without disclosing his involvement. It is an absolute outrage! Shel Givens has been commenting at length regarding the 3/4/E/F retail and parking project without disclosing that he is the adjoining property owner. Given’s partner, who’s name escapes me at the moment, writes letters to the City Council and the Transportation Advisory Group without disclosing his conflict of interest. What the hell is going on here? Where are the referrees? I cry foul!
In case anyone hasn’t figured it out my name is Michael Bisch. I am a local small businessman with operations thoughout Davis. I am a member of the Davis community and proud to be the co-president of the Danvis Downtown Business Associatio. You can find me at 508 Second Street, Suite 107.
In the interest of full disclosure…I’m seriously pissed off and am going to do some deep breathing exercises now.
[quote] It is an absolute outrage! Shel Givens has been commenting at length regarding the 3/4/E/F retail and parking project without disclosing that he is the adjoining property owner. [b]DT Businessman —- (Michael Bisch)[/b][/quote]Really strange post, Michael Bisch. Shel Givens has not hidden the fact that he owns adjoining property. Everyone in town knows he owns ajoining property. In my book, an adjoining property owner has more right, not less, to protest a change in use next door.
Does the DBA know that you, as DBA Co-President,are speaking against a member of the DBA?
By the way,[b] DT Businessman, aka Michael Bisch[/b], would mind disclosing the nature of your “small local businesses” with “operations throughout town”?
Actually, Sue, the fact was not made clear in the Davis Enterprise op-ed that he co-authored. I think it would have been better for the Davis Enterprise to identify Mr. Givens as an adjoining property owner, rather than by his relationship with the DDBA. It gives a false impression to cite his DDBA activities, when in fact the DDBA board and parking committee supports the parking garage and has pushed hard over the years for parking solutions for downtown. “Everyone in town” doesn’t know he is a property owner with a strong vested interest in the disposition of the parking/retail project. He has every right to speak out on the project, but the nature of his interest was muddied by the way it was presented.
And, unfortunately, none of this is the topic of this thread. I’m sure MIchael Harrington has no objection to being identified as Ernie’s counsel.
Sue, your post above is misleading and disingenous. You presume that everyone in town knows the goings on in the Downtown. I hazard to guess that the average Enterprise reader has no idea who Shel Givens is or who Michael Bisch is. You know and I know that Shel is an adjoining property owner. That doesn’t mean that the readers of the Enterprise or the Vanguard know he’s an adjoining property owner, especially since he failed to disclose it. And I’m pretty sure they don’t know that Harrington is Ernie Head’s attorney. Is Harrington opining as a former Council member or as Head’s attorney? Is Givens opining as a concerned citizen or as a concerned adjacent property owner?
Sue, your attempt to dissemble has fallen short of the mark. Please provide the quote where I stated that Givens doesn’t have the right to “protest a change in use next door”.
Shel has every right to comment on the project. Indeed, he has taken every opportunity to do so. Furthermore, I personally moderated a forum where Shel was given, and took full advantage of his opportunity to comment, which resulted in a vigorous debate.
Sue, I am speaking against public speakers who don’t disclose their interest when readers might find such interest relevant. Whether they are a member of the DDBA, Davis Bicycles!, the Hari Krishnas, is irrelevant. If the DDBA choses to censure me for advocating for open debate, so be it. Apparently, you are in favor of hidden agendas and undisclosed interests.
I, DT Businessman, aka Michael Bisch, and prince of the dark side, am the owner of Davis Commercial Properties, a full service commercial real estate brokerage. I am a champion of tenants and landlords throughout Davis. I do my best to create jobs and opportunites for numerous Davis residents. This is getting kind of silly, Sue.
Don, I feel a bit chagrined now that you’ve pointed out that proper identification is not the topic of this thread. I’m simply a bit astonished that the Enterprise hasn’t picked up on this trend, nor has the Vanguard. And to have a sitting City Council member champion false impressions is more than a bit frustrating. I’ll go back and give deep breathing exercises another try.
If I recall, when Shel Givens spoke before the city council he identified his interest.
With co-authored letters to the editor with strict word count limits, it is awkward to say “one of us (the authors) owns the adjacent property.” I have often had that problem with co-authored op-eds. Usually, as Don Shor mentioned, the editor adds the identification at the bottom.
Council members usually listen more closely to neighbor concerns — not less — so it is implausible that Shel Givens would have “hidden” his identity, as was implied by Michael Bisch’s post.
[quote]Shel Givens has been commenting at length regarding the 3/4/E/F retail and parking project [b]without disclosing that he[/b] is the adjoining property owner.– [b]DT Businessman, AKA Michael Bisch[/b][/quote]Michael Bisch, You did not blame “the Enterprise” for failing to note that Shel Givens owns the adjacent building as you claim, you explicitly blamed Mr. Givens himself.
You have also posted innumerable comments on this blog concerning downtown and real estate issues using the pseudonymous handle DT Businessman without acknowledging your interest as co-president of the DBA or commercial real estate broker.
Sue, I have posted innumerable comments on this blog concerning sustainability, land use, economic development, RDA, downtown, real estate, budget, finance, democracy, unions, school parcel taxes, art, bicycles, and various other esotheric issues. Please don’t blow my cover. I don’t want anyone to know that I’m Michael Bisch.
Enterprise shame on you for failing to note that Shel Givens owns the adjacent building.
Your defense of Shel is lame, Sue. Shel spent 21 words on recounting his various DDBA posts without mentioning his ownership of the adjoining property or that his position was polar opposite to the DDBA board and the Parking Committe. That would be akin to you running around claiming to represent the Council and that the Council was against the surface water project. That’s a misrepresentation.
I failed to mention in my previous post that Mike Harrington is also a DDBA member. So I’ve now twice run afoul of the Greenwald rule prohibiting calling a spade a spade. I will have to submit myself to the appropriate DDBA sanction, recall, excommunication whatever punishment is deemed necessary. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve annoyed a Downtown landlord, likely not to be the last.
So back on point, David’s column above. Mike Harrington is Ernie Heard’s legal counsel in the recall, referendum, whatever this exercise is called that we’re going to put the community through. Mike Harrington used to be on the City Council. The City Council going back quite some time has known that we’re not in compliance with water discharge quality and have had a need to address treatment issues. Were these issues known when Harrington was on the Council, or did they become known after his community service?
I’m told Ernie Head sold the City a parcel of land, so that they could drill….a water well. Ernie sued the City as part of the transaction and won a significant award. Ernie is now spearheading a referendum. Somebody fill in the details for me. What I was told could all be malicious gossip. But then again, this is a blog and any number of other Vanguardians have been pretty loosey goosey with the facts.
By the way, Sue, I’ve noticed that you’ve beem side-stepping my points by responding to things that I haven’t said. For instance, you accused me of saying or implying that Shel doesn’t have the right to “protest a change in use next door”. I challenged you to provide the quote where I stated such a thing. Instead, you went on to make additional false attacks. And Don called you on your falst statement that “Shel Givens has not hidden the fact that he owns adjoining property”, which you also ignored. What gives, Sue? Inquiring minds want to know.
Michael Bisch, all I did was present your quote:[quote]It is an absolute outrage! Shel Givens has been commenting at length regarding the 3/4/E/F retail and parking project without disclosing that he is the adjoining property owner. DT Businessman —-[b]DT Businessman, AKA Michael Bisch[/b][/quote] and give my opinion: [quote]In my book, an adjoining property owner has more right, not less, to protest a change in use next door. — [b]Sue Greenwald[/b][/quote]
Michael: In fairness, I did not get the impression that Mr. Harrington is Mr. Head’s attorney for all purposes, only for the drafting of the public records act request.
“No, it’s your contention that any jackass on the street may have access to personal identifying information. If you haven’t already (I’m sure you have) commit at least this one sentence to memory: “
Make no mistake, you don’t have as much privacy as you think you do. Voter registrations are already public information that any “jackass” on the street may have access to.
“We have a tradition in the US of secret ballots. There are many good reasons for this. Foremost is to allow people to vote their conscious without worries about retaliation. What is being proposed in this article is exactly opposite to a secret ballot. It is completely different from voter rolls, which list only who is eligible to vote, not how they voted. “
There should have been no expectation of privacy. You did not caste a secret ballot. You mailed in a protest for the rate hikes. Under all other circumstances your information would have been public. If you right a letter to the city or your city councilmember, that is a public document that anyone can request to read.
[i]There should have been no expectation of privacy.[/i]
If you want to change the law, go ahead. But don’t tell me my private communications with a governmental body are “public”. Specious argument.
Sue, I stand corrected. I’ve apparently been incorrectly assuming that when one blogger quotes another followed by an opinion, the opinion is somehow related to the quote. “Yes, I agree”, “No, I don’t agree”, or something like that. Instead, if I understand you correctly, it’s good sport to follow quoted comments with unrelated, random opinions, as if one were suffering from some form of Tourette Syndrom. Bear with me, sooner or later I’ll get the hang of this blogging stuff.
Michael: [i]I failed to mention in my previous post that Mike Harrington is also a DDBA member[/i]
One is not a DDBA “member.” If you own property or own a business in the BID district, you pay the tax that is assessed on all businesses and properties in the BID district. So you don’t “join” and you can’t opt out.
It would be useful to know what exactly Michael and Ernie wanted to do with the list that they can’t do with just the addresses.
[quote]There should have been no expectation of privacy.
If you want to change the law, go ahead. But don’t tell me my private communications with a governmental body are “public”. Specious argument.[/quote]
Amen. If my public utility bill payment is made public, then what is to say my tax bill shouldn’t be made public, and so forth. Talk about a slippery slope!
[quote]Make no mistake, you don’t have as much privacy as you think you do. Voter registrations are already public information that any “jackass” on the street may have access to.[/quote]
So you are advocating for less privacy?
[quote]If you want to change the law, go ahead. But don’t tell me my private communications with a governmental body are “public”. Specious argument. [/quote]
The law only does not require that the public entity turn over the information. You should not assume you are making private communications with a government body – in most cases, they are not.
[quote]”Attorney Michael Harrington on behalf of Ernie Head” This quote from David has really caught my attention. What has been going on in the City of All Things Right and Relevant has gotten entirely out of hand. Harrington has been quoted numerous times on this subject in various media as a former council member without disclosing that he’s Ernie Head’s legal council. It is absolutely beyond the pale for Harrington to not dislose this. His relationship to Head is absolutely relevant. Harrington as recently as today commented in the Enterprise on this matter without disclosing his involvement. It is an absolute outrage! Shel Givens has been commenting at length regarding the 3/4/E/F retail and parking project without disclosing that he is the adjoining property owner. Given’s partner, who’s name escapes me at the moment, writes letters to the City Council and the Transportation Advisory Group without disclosing his conflict of interest. What the hell is going on here? Where are the referrees? I cry foul! [/quote]
[quote]Actually, Sue, the fact was not made clear in the Davis Enterprise op-ed that he co-authored. I think it would have been better for the Davis Enterprise to identify Mr. Givens as an adjoining property owner, rather than by his relationship with the DDBA. It gives a false impression to cite his DDBA activities, when in fact the DDBA board and parking committee supports the parking garage and has pushed hard over the years for parking solutions for downtown. “Everyone in town” doesn’t know he is a property owner with a strong vested interest in the disposition of the parking/retail project. He has every right to speak out on the project, but the nature of his interest was muddied by the way it was presented. [/quote]
Thanks for the insights. I was unaware of these connections…
[quote]You have also posted innumerable comments on this blog concerning downtown and real estate issues using the pseudonymous handle DT Businessman without acknowledging your interest as co-president of the DBA or commercial real estate broker.[/quote]
I’m not following your criticism here. First of all, ANYONE can comment anonymously on this blog, and has been able to do so from the Vanguard’s inception. Some choose to reveal their names, some do not. It is entirely up to the commenter, and no one should be “penalized”/”called to book” for commenting anonymously. For all we know, you may comment anonymously or have anonymous friends comment for you on issues where you may have a bias/interest. Secondly, in this case, the person has chosen to reveal his true name, which certainly was not necessary. Pseudonyms are a hallmark of this blog, so that people may feel free to express their views as they see fit. Those who have a problem with that policy can choose not to read or comment on this blog.
[quote]Now, as organizers attempt to mobilize for a possible referendum, they are running into the same difficulty. It is only natural that an organization seeking to gain signatures and support would want to begin with a known quantity – the list of 4800 individuals and parcels that protested the water rate hike under Prop 218.[/quote]In my opinion, this attitude is kind of creepy.
However, it’s certainly in character. If my memory serves me correctly, David Greenwald got the names from the county of all the seniors that asked for exemptions on the DJUSD parcel tax vote.
I wonder what other types of information the Vanguard collects? Is David going to get a copy of the 218 data? Does David use this sort of information for political purposes? How does it make you feel knowing that David and his allies are collecting information on you?
In my mind, the issue is not whether it is legal or not. The issue is what does this tell you about the character of the individuals involved.
Big Brother in progressive clothing.
There’s some buzz going around that Michael Harrington is planning to run for city council. This would explain his sudden reemergence as a frequent poster on the Vanguard. Can anyone speak to this rumor?
This is relevant to the current thread because he is in the middle of the request for the 218 data.
If Harrington runs he will get my vote.
@ E Roberts Musser[quote]For all we know, you may comment anonymously or have anonymous friends comment for you on issues where you may have a bias/interest.[/quote]ERM: I’ve spent a huge amount of time studying this issue and have talked to lots of progressive leaders about it. My experts have told me unequivocally that this is indeed the case. However, I can’t reveal their names because of their professional circumstances. However, you can trust me when I tell you that my anonymous sources know more about this than anyone else.
Please re-read this 20 times so I don’t have to keep reposting the same talking point. ; )
Voter 2012: You don’t have to rely an unnamed sources to make the case that the surface water project should be postponed, and that their are regulatory avenues available. First principles and verifiable facts suffice.
Voter 2012: You don’t have to rely an unnamed sources to make the case that the surface water project should be postponed, and that their are regulatory avenues available. First principles and verifiable facts suffice.
[quote]I’m not following your criticism here. First of all, ANYONE can comment anonymously on this blog, and has been able to do so from the Vanguard’s inception. Some choose to reveal their names, some do not. It is entirely up to the commenter, and no one should be “penalized”/”called to book” for commenting anonymously.—[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]Good gravy, Elaine. Okay, I’ll spell it out for you. DTBusiness just revealed that he is, in fact, Michael Bisch, co-president of the DDBA and commercial real-estate broker “with operations thoughout Davis”.
Michael Bisch criticizes Shel Givens for speaking against the parking structure without revealing (or hiding, I should add) that he owns the property next door.
Yet Michael Bisch himself has posted innumerable comments about all manner of topics of interest to a DDBA President and a commercial real estate broker while not only failing to reveal his interest in the projects, but even failing to reveal his name, which would enable someone to determine his interests.
Now do you follow my criticism?
[quote]Now do you follow my criticism?[/quote]
No. For all I know, you and others do much the same thing (see post from Voter2012). The blog rules are the blog rules. If you have a problem w the blog rules, no one is twisting your arm to read it or comment… If you want to start your own blog and set up your own rules, feel free. We all know what the rules of this blog are, the inherent conflicts/dangers…
[quote]Voter 2012: You don’t have to rely an unnamed sources to make the case that the surface water project should be postponed, and that their are regulatory avenues available. First principles and verifiable facts suffice.[/quote]
If that is true, then why do you feel the need to state repeatedly you are relying on unnamed sources if the “principles and verifiable facts suffice”?
Sue, I’m not following your criticism either. Call me stupid. I revealed my own identity, not you. And it’s been pretty clear from my posts over many months that I’m an advocate for the downtown, the schools, job growth, economic development, fostering a sustainable community, and fair and reasoned debating. Guilty as charged. So what?
And your pretense of horror and shock is hilarious. You act as if my identity as Lucifer has been unveiled. Really? Co-President of the DDBA and a commercial real estate broker? Good God! Burn him at the stake for earning a living and supporting his family.
You applied a double standard to your behavior and to the behavior of Shel Givens. You critized Shel for speaking against the downtown parking lot proposal, without explictly stating that he had a potential interest because he owned the property next door.
Yet you have posted innumerable comments on projects about which you have potential interests both as commercial real estate broker and as DBA co-president without either signing your name or revealing your potential interests.
At least Shel Givens signed his name, the that readers could research his potential interest. You did not. Hence, by your own standards, your behavior was worse than the behavior of Shel Givens, who you so excoriated.
Personally, I don’t think either of you did anything wrong.
Actually, since Michael Bisch has brought the topic up, I do think that he has done something wrong. I don’t think that someone who holds an official post should post anonymously regarding issues that relate to the official post.
I also don’t think that people should post nasty statements anonymnously. If you want to post snide or nasty remarks, I think you should sign your name. That is because the object of the remark, if an identified living, breathing creature, cannot defend themselves against anonymous attacks.
For example, if an anonymous poster makes personal attacks on a slow growth advocate by calling the slow growth advocate “elitist”, but in fact that anonymous poster works in a less elite town and is too elitist to send his or here child to school in the less elite town, the object of the attack cannot point out this hypocrasy. It is not an even playing field.
For this reason, I believe that anonymous posters should be held to an even higher level of civility than named posters.
But these are just personal opinions of mine that I have come to over the course of time.
[quote]I also don’t think that people should post nasty statements anonymnously. If you want to post snide or nasty remarks, I think you should sign your name. That is because the object of the remark, if an identified living, breathing creature, cannot defend themselves against anonymous attacks. [/quote]
Nasty remarks are never acceptable on this blog… that is why Don Shor is the moderator.