Last week the Davis City Council by a narrow 3-2 vote approved using RDA funds for the construction of a new parking lot between E and F and 3rd and 4th Streets in Davis.
The problem began when Councilmember Stephen Souza moved staff recommendations one and two, and then added the third. The problem is that the third portion of the recommendation was not included in the staff report.
Instead, it was included as a supplemental report that was given to council prior to the meeting, but never provided to the public.
It read: “Direct staff to begin preparing a Downtown Parking and Access Plan accommodating all modes of travel, including bicycling and walking. Staff to return on September 6 with a workplan and timeline, along with a summary of issues to be addressed in the plan, after review by the Technical Advisory Group for the Transportation Implementation Plan. The goal is completion of the Downtown Parking and Access Plan concurrently with construction of the new parking structure.”
The problem is that when Mr. Souza made the motion, he never read the recommendation into the record. At no point during the meeting was the public informed as to what was enacted – it was only later that it became clear.
From what we now know, that last portion was introduced at the behest of Mayor Joe Krovoza. At the previous discussion of this item, he had requested there be a study and plan of Downtown Parking before he would be willing to support the construction of the new parking structure.
But staff forgot to include that in their initial staff report. It was only when the Mayor pointed it out to them, that they, in an effort to secure his vote, quickly and sloppily added language.
The final portion of the language makes very little sense: “The goal is completion of the Downtown Parking and Access Plan concurrently with construction of the new parking structure.”
In other words, they are somehow planning to build a parking structure at the same time they do an analysis of the Downtown Parking. That makes no sense to do it that way; you would think you would analyze the downtown parking first, prior to even approving a parking structure.
Previously, Councilmember Dan Wolk had told the Vanguard that he voted for this measure primarily because he wanted to see what would be ultimately proposed – he was not ready to kill it.
In a further discussion, he did not believe the final sentence there meant that they had agreed to go forward with the project.
But, there is a more serious problem at work here. For some time, Mayor Krovoza has been concerned precisely with scenarios such as this, where the city comes forward with new language that is never seen by the public.
He had asked the city manager to restructure the council chambers to allow the public and council to visually see the language of a motion prior to passage. The mayor told the Vanguard that this had come up back in January when he first became mayor.
However, the city manager has failed to make the sorts of changes that the mayor asked for.
There are clearly some policy concerns here about the parking structure. It is our sense that council was panicked at the possibility of losing RDA money. That is to be expected, and so when city staff came to them back in March they came to them with existing projects.
The parking structure had been planned for over seven years and they moved that forward. By the time council met last time, it had become clear that RDA funds really are not going to disappear. Council examined the issue on its merits, and started to question whether this was really the project that needs to go forward.
As we have presented previously, it takes up the bulk of the RDA money. Second, it is not clear we have a need for parking when there are huge vacancies in other parking structures.
Third, it takes a prime location out of the running for more innovative commercial development.
Fourth, it brings more cars into the downtown core.
Finally, there is another parking structure a block away, so why not build a commercial development that is dense and highly innovative, and fully utilize the parking structure at 4th and G?
By the time all of these considerations were put before council, the 5-0 vote had decreased to a 3-2 vote, with Dan Wolk apparently only agreeing to move the process forward.
It is not even clear that the developers of this project are all that enthusiastic about its completion.
But that issue aside, the real concern here is the lack of transparency in the process. It is unclear why the Brown Act would permit what amounts to a de facto secret vote. The public was never noticed prior to the meeting on this change in the language and it was never read out loud to them.
In short, the public had no way of knowing that this language was what it approved and that is troubling. It is a complete lack of transparency. And while the mayor opposed this measure, he too erred by failing to have the clerk or Councilmember Souza read the new language into the record.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Looks more like a flawed jury than a flawed investigation.
David, are you sure even the council members were aware of the full import of what they were being asked to vote on? Do you know whether Councilman Wolk purposefully changed from his “let’s go to the next step to see what it would look like” provisional approach to wholehearted support to build the structure without seeing “what it will look like.”
The mayor seemed to be judicious in demanding “a study and plan of Downtown Parking before he would be willing to support the construction of the new parking structure.” But, I guess he didn’t mean it the way it sounded or he would have been another “no” vote.[i][quote]”It is our sense that council was panicked at the possibility of losing RDA money.”[/quote][/i] It would be impossible for anyone who has followed council meetings these past months suggest otherwise. It must be frustrating for council members to find themselves pushed by staff and circumstances into full-panic, decision-making mode for such costly projects.
The council better get control for this parking edifice likely will end up being THE legacy monument for this group. They’d better make sure it’s needed and it’s functional and it looks good enough to take pride in the beauty of the design.
Your report reminds me of the mayor’s slight testiness in a similar situation awhile back, trying to display changing wording for a vote. He reminded the staff that he’d asked them to get that capability installed weeks before. Now, here we are, many weeks past that meeting and still no action. Wonder if Mr. Pinkerton will improve the staff’s responsiveness record?
Sorry, wrong thread.
[quote] It is unclear why the Brown Act would permit what amounts to a de facto secret vote. The public was never noticed prior to the meeting on this change in the language and it was never read out loud to them.
In short, the public had no way of knowing that this language was what it approved and that is troubling. It is a complete lack of transparency. And while the mayor opposed this measure, he too erred by failing to have the clerk or Councilmember Souza read the new language into the record.[/quote]
This is key – clearly the CC members DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR. Dan Wolk was the swing vote on this one, and clearly thought this was a move to merely explore the idea of doing the parking garage. He specifically asked (if I remember correctly) staff whether this meant a definite commitment, and staff said “no”. Obviously footage of the CC meeting needs to be obtained to determine what was actually said. I was sitting in the audience, and was listening carefully. It was my understanding the idea was to bring back architectural renderings, to see what a 5 story garage might look like. But that was it – not a definite commitment to build anything or commit to anything, since it is not clear what the proposed parking garage will even look like.
This is a crucial point. If CC members were given the motion at the eleventh hour, a CC member specifically asked staff the question whether this was a definite commitment to do the project and city staff said “no”, then this parking garage is not a “done deal”, regardless of whether city staff is trying to rewrite history.
Can someone please tell me how to obtain the video or view streaming footage or obtain a transcript of that CC meeting? I would like to view it for myself, and see precisely what was said by whom. I took careful notes, so I don’t think my memory is faulty here… but I could be wrong 🙂
Perfect example of how a Participatory Budgeting process more inclusive of community input, discussion of priorities, alternatives, etc., could produce a different outcome…better use of funds, better use of the property, etc., etc., etc. The discussion and vote by the City Council was a mockery of democratic and transparent process.
“They’d better make sure it’s needed and it’s functional and it looks good enough to take pride in the beauty of the design.”
Have you ever seen a pretty parking garage?
I still think the comment that we will become known as the community with the best parking lot struck me as a key point of the bungled use of RDA funds here.
David, as you stated we already have an under utilized garage only a block away from the new site. If they’re trying to promote more biking and walking an extra block walk to the downtown core shouldn’t be a problem. Building another garage only a block from another one is crazy.
First off, I voted against moving forward with this parking lot structure. But Joe and I lost the vote fair and square; there was no “lack of transparency”.
David, you are conflating a lot of issues here and unfairly accusing staff of lack of transparency.
The item on the long range calendar and on the posted agenda was [b]“Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Yackzan Group –3/4 E/F parking lot.[/b]. This was the topic. Everyone knew that this was the topic . Council had not directed staff to change the topic when we discussed the long-range agenda at any of the previous meetings. In fact, it is not even clear to me that it was legal to include Joe’s staff recommendation given the posted topic of the item; it is an entirely different, unposted topic.
So what is your beef, David? Is it that Stephen or Joe did not read the mayor’s last-minute (and not propertly noticed) addition to the staff recommendation aloud?
We frequently simply move staff recommendation. Technically, it is recommended that the Mayor repeat the motion before the vote, or ask the city clerk to do so. If anything, it was the mayor’s responsibility to either reread the motion which included his own last minute addition, or to ask the city clerk to.
Council voted to move forward with planning the parking lot. If there was any inconsistency or lack of transparency, it is because Joe wanted to have his motion included in the staff recommendation concerning a comprehensive study of all modes of transportation downtown included in an item on a specific parking structure.
As mayor, Joe works on the agenda with the city manager. If Joe felt that his comprehensive study was expected to be completed prior to a decision of the parking lot, he should have suggested that it be listed as an alternative staff recommendation, i.e, do not proceed with planning the parking structure at this time but instead — etc. Since it wasn’t, it was his responsibility to point out that it was in conflict with staff recommendation one and two.
There was no lack of transparency, David. Joe and I simply lost the vote fair and square.
For purposes of clarification, here are staff recommendations 1 and 2, which were in the staff reported which was posted on line:[quote]Staff Recommendations:
1. Approving an extension and modification of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the Yackzan Group for development of parking structure with ground-floor retail space on the City parking lot between 3
rd, 4th, E and F Streets
2. Approving a sole-source contract with Watry Design for “Phase 1” concept/schematic scoping architecture for the project, with costs to be shared equally between the City and Yackzan Group[/quote]
It is crystal clear what this means. It is not a final approval, but it does involve an investment by both the city and the developer, and this is why I said at the meeting that I thought it fairer to everyone to pull the plug now. I said that I didn’t think the project has sufficient public support, and that I thought a 5 story parking garage smack in the middle of town would be ugly.
A three dimensional model is being planned.
As I said, I do support an additional parking structure if it can be done in a less conspicuous spot because we don’t own the public parking at the 5th and G parking lot and could lose it in 17 years. An additional parking structure would also allow us to eliminate some of the on-street parking and use it for bike parking, outdoor dining, etc., which would be great.
Although my initial take is that a 5 story parking structure at this site would be too ugly, I am still listening to public input on it. So far, public input has been very negative.
[i][quote]”David, you are conflating a lot of issues here….So what is your beef, David?”
[/quote][/i]Thank you, [b]Sue[/b], for joining the discussion. I can’t speak for David, but I’ll jump in since I commented based on what I [u]thought[/u] he meant. No doubt, he’s off trying to watch a replay of the meeting (which I missed this time.)
I think he concluded that [u]approval to build[/u] the parking lot was part of the action that was approved by the 3-2 vote. And, with respect to conflation, his tendency to pull together “the whole story” every time is helpful to readers who haven’t gotten around to reading earlier coverage.
It seems the council’s approval of the Yackzan agreement extension for “development of parking structure with ground-floor retail space” covers only another (apparently open-ended) planning stage that ends with another council decision point, correct?
Can you see how others might not find this language “is crystal clear (as to) what this means”? Now, that you’ve clarified what it doesn’t mean, one has to wonder why the recommendation was written for “[u]development[/u] of parking structure” (of a certain type at a certain location) instead of for a planning step.
So, I think “his beef” is that he shares your concerns about this project at this early stage and couldn’t understand why anyone would approve development of a structure before the mysteriously unmentioned Downtown Parking and Access Plan has been [u]completed[/u].
I’m curious how you ended up voting “no” here. Did your objective to force the Yackzan Group to renegotiate the 5th & G parking structure agreement get satisfied as part of the 3-2 vote?
[quote]I’m curious how you ended up voting “no” here. Did your objective to force the Yackzan Group to renegotiate the 5th & G parking structure agreement get satisfied as part of the 3-2 vote? — JustSaying[/quote]JustSaying, am I reading this wrong or are you accusing me of making a manipulative, politically motivated vote?
If that is what you were saying (and I apologize in advance if I misinterpreted your comment), the answer is “absolutely not”.
Initially, I saw a huge advantage in being able to negotiate a huge extension of our use of the 5th and G project (I was thinking along the lines of 30 to 40 additional years, for a total of 47 to 57 years from today). I still think that this potential is a positive plus for the proposal.
I decided to vote no for two reasons. The first was when I found out that 5 stories were proposed. That really made me think of the visual impact. I was never thrilled with the visual impact prospects, but 5 stories made me think long and hard about the aesthetic effect. The second reason is that I received a huge amount of negative feedback from the public, and virtually no positive feedback. That was very important to me.
[quote]Now, that you’ve clarified what it doesn’t mean, one has to wonder why the recommendation was written for “development of parking structure” (of a certain type at a certain location) instead of for a planning step.–JustSaying [/quote]I don’t quite understand your interpretation of the staff recommendation.
David has elevated a small semantic quibble to an accusation about manipulation and lack of transparency by staff, and even illegal activity.
Staff recommendation 1 and 2 addressed planning stages, and not final decisions. Staff recommendation 3 was apparently added at the last minute to satisfy Joe Krovoza’s request. It described a comprehensive study, which ended with the phrase “ The goal is completion of the Downtown Parking and Access Plan concurrently with construction of the new parking structure.”
Given staff recommendations 1 and 2, it was clear to me that staff was recommending that, in the case that the project is ultimately approved, then the plan should be carried out concurrently with the construction of the new parking structure. Nobody assumed that this meant that the parking structure was being approved.
The point that staff was making was that it was their recommendation not to wait on the outcome of the study to embark on the parking structure, if council were to ultimately approve the parking structure.
Since the proposed study, as described, would deal with far, far more issues than whether or not to build a parking structure, there was nothing illogical about the recommendation to conduct the study concurrently with the construction of parking structure (assuming, of course, council approval of the parking structure).
This was just staffs’ recommendation. It was how staff recommended we proceed. Staff is supposed to make recommendations. We are not obligated to follow them.
It was the job of council to vote down or to amend this recommendation if we did not agree with it.
As it stands, we did not “vote to develop the parking structure”.
The workplan for the larger study will be brought back to council. Council retains total control over how and when to do a study, as well as whether or not to build the parking structure.
I see how this could be read that way, [b]Sue,[/b] and I apologize for that.
I didn’t intend to accuse at all, just to ask: 1.) How did you get from supporting this project when it was being discussed in David’s earlier post to opposing it Tuesday night? 2.) Is the Yackzan 5th & G lot lease (that you believed could be revisited as part of the new structure project) a part of what was approved Tuesday night?
In the discussion a few days ago, I wondered why the city can’t simply approach the Yackzans to negotiate a lease extension–or to propose purchasing the structure–without linking it to the new parking structure contracts. Still do.[quote]”Approving an extension and modification of the (Yackzan Agreement) [b]for development of parking structure with ground-floor retail space [/b] and calling for a comprehensive study, a Downtown Parking and Access Plan, adding that “the goal is completion of the (study and plan) concurrently with [b]construction of the new parking structure[/b].”[/quote]While the words may be crystal clear, the meaning is anything but what you note was intended. Your clarification suggests the staff recommendation should have read something like: [quote]”Approving an extension/modification of the Yackzan Agreement in order to continue evaluating, planning and designing for a proposed city parking structure at the same time the city is developing a DPA Plan”[/quote]The staff recommendation wording suggests actions (the new structure’s “development” and “construction”) that won’t be decided by the council for months.
I think David made a mistaken, but understandable and fair reading of the paperwork. It was a mistake, however, that he could avoided by asking a few questions of you or other council members or city staff to confirm his understanding.
“I think David made a mistaken, but understandable and fair reading of the paperwork. It was a mistake, however, that he could avoided by asking a few questions of you or other council members or city staff to confirm his understanding.”
Actually I spoke to at least two councilmembers and city staff.
Here is verbatim what was said at the CC mtg, from the streaming video:
[quote]KATHERINE HESS: “So we’ve got two actions that are being recommended this evening. The first is an amended and restated exclusive negotiating agreement with the Yakzun Group. And the second is a contract with Watry Design for the preliminary design of the structure. The Yaczun group exclusive negotiating agreement would allow for an additional ninety day period during which we would continue to explore both the community comfort, desirability for the parking structure, in consultation with the Watry effort, as well as the financing that would be required on the part of the Agency and on the Yakzun Group, to determine whether this is a project that fits in the community and our budget, and their budget, and is something we want to go forward with.
The concept that we are working on now for the project is a design-build process. So the way that works under state law is, and I think you’ve seen this more recently than we have, is the city would contract with an architect or an engineer to come up with the scoping documents. And then we’d go out for competitive bid and selection of somebody who would do the final design refinement, and the construction of the project itself. So the concept we have is the city would do that scoping process, in consultation with the Yakzun Group, and that’s the Watry contract this evening. During that we would do community review. We would consult with adjoining business and property owners. We’d take it through the Planning Commission, and do the environmental review and the entitlement process. At the end of that phase, we’d have a much firmer estimate of the construction cost. We’d have a better idea of what funds could be contributed from what sources. We’d have the entitlements or not, but we would know how it would fit in with the community. And with the last recommendation you have this evening, starting the planning, to look at the context of the parking and access for the downtown.
[/quote]
[quote]This other item you have this evening, and the point to that would be leading to a purchase and sale agreement. So that when the RDA or the City enters into the contract to build the structure, we would already have a seller for the retail space at the final end, knowing that those funds would be available and that would take a big part of the uncertainty away from the city. So the other contract you have before you this evening is a Watry Design. Watry is a well known, well reputed designer of parking structures. They have most recently done, in this area, the parking structure out by the Modavi Center, the entrance you see at the Davis campus entrance. You also see they have done structures in San Luis Obispo, San Francisco and San Mateo. And the proposal for Watry is that they would not do the full blown design for the project. They would not have subs for the civil engineering, mechanical work. That it would be enough to take us through the entitlement public review process and help the community define what it is we want to see on that lot. Some of the things I want to point out in particular with the exclusive negotiating agreement and the recommended contract with Watry, is that both identify as very substantive concerns that need to be dealt with, the interest of the nearby businesses, property owners, the aesthetics of the structure, and that there be quality retail space on the ground floor. The parking structures that we have right now are not the best as far ground floor retail. And that is something we want to learn from and make sure that this project when it is developed is a complement to the street and the downtown. I’d be happy to answer any questions.”[/quote]
[quote]KEN HYATT: “And I will just add the comment I made about the supplemental recommendation. I believe Katherine has handed out to you an outline of a recommendation we would like to add for your consideration this evening. And that is to direct staff to prepare a work plan to develop a downtown parking and access plan concurrently with our processes, as we proceed with the conceptual design, with the goal of developing a final plan for adoption prior to completion of the parking garage. It’s going to require a lot of public input and dialogue, but really the intent here is to develop a parking plan that doesn’t just look at how we accommodate the cars, and how we anticipate this parking garage serving downtown from a parking perspective. But will also look at what is our strategy to again improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation improvements downtown, and how that all interrelates and works together as a whole. So our recommendation is to take advantage of the TAG group that is existing and advising staff, as part of the mobility plan and update, and engage them in helping us to scope what this work plan might look like. And come back to the Council in September [6] with a draft work plan and scope for your consideration.” [/quote]
[quote]MAYOR KROVOZA: “When does staff consider there to be the real go/no go decision on this? If we took the staff recommendation tonight, we’d be getting going with the design work. I think the design work is very important to get a sense of the mass, scale, design, safety, where people would be going in and out, and the extent to which that creates real connectivity with the opportunities downtown that we want to further. When’s the real go/no go?”
KATHERINE HESS: “The absolute real go/no go is when, or if you sign the design-build contract with somebody saying you’ll give them X millions of dollars and they will provide a parking structure on the space. Backing up one step before that, you’ve got your decision to go out to design-build process, and at that time I’d say, from a real perspective, that’s when you’re saying this is what we want, this is what we want firms to provide proposals on. At that point you are going to want your CEQA review done, and probably your planning entitlement. At that point you’re likely to have the purchase and sale agreement for the retail space, if you want to go that route. Now the Agency could decide to just build it, and then either own the retail or not. So purchase and sale agreement isn’t that inevitable go/no go stage. But it’s part of the compounding.”
PAUL NAVAZIO: “I think the process in the staff report suggests ten to twelve months.”
KATHERINE HESS: “The purchase and sale agreement we would be anticipating this fall. And then the initiation of the project construction early 2012.”
[/quote]
[quote]DAN WOLK: “Correct me if I am wrong. We’re not committing to the project with this vote. I’m not interested at this point in killing the project. And I’m afraid that… I just think I want this to definitely, I want to keep the discussion going.”
KATHERINE HESS: “You’ve got two actions before you this evening. The first is a ninety day amendment and extension of the exclusive negotiating agreement with Yakzun. The city agrees to negotiate in good faith, but no more. And then the second is the contract with Watry Design for $50,000 to do the preliminary scoping architecture for that. That would be a real expenditure to be split fifty-fifty with Yakzun.”
DAN WOLK: “I think there’s a real concern that, and I’ve seen it myself, that maybe our parking is underutilized now. And I think that’s something we really need to dig into, you know, before we approve this project.”
STEVE SOUZA: “But we’ve been at this for six years, and I don’t think its time not to give it another 90 days to the question. And the question really comes down to: Are we willing to spend $25,000 plus [half the] expenses, and is the Yakzun Group willing to spend $25,000 plus half the expenses, in order to go forward with a schematic design. And engage with the community as to whether that schematic and that design is right for this spot . And if we have the third motion, to engage in a discussion on downtown parking and access plan that accommodates all modes of travel. So that’s what’s before us, if there is a majority on this body that wants to answer those questions.”
[/quote]
[quote]ROCHELLE SWANSON: “And I also support it because of this additional recommendation [3] and thank you for supporting that tonight, that we will have public input and public process. And so we’ll have people able to look at actual sketches so they have an idea what they are supporting or opposing.”[/quote]
I would say it is pretty clear Council members assumed this was not a done deal, merely the beginning of a very thorough process for vetting the garage idea…
Elaine: Thanks for going to the trouble to transcribe staffs’ clarification at the council meeting. Everyone can now rest assured that the parking structure was not approved and that staff was not engaging in subterfuge.
Elaine you spent a lot of time on that, but that wasn’t even the point of the article. The criticism in the article is that the public had no idea what was being voted on and the language itself was sketchy.
In my conclusion:
“the real concern here is the lack of transparency in the process. It is unclear why the Brown Act would permit what amounts to a de facto secret vote. The public was never noticed prior to the meeting on this change in the language and it was never read out loud to them.
In short, the public had no way of knowing that this language was what it approved and that is troubling. It is a complete lack of transparency. And while the mayor opposed this measure, he too erred by failing to have the clerk or Councilmember Souza read the new language into the record.”
Very little to no time in the article was spent on the issue of whether the project was already approve, but it is a matter of timing of the planning vis-a-vis the timing of construction.
Bottom line, it is not clear to me why the point you raised was an issue. It is the primary issue that I raised.
You were the one who stated, “clearly the CC members DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR.” I never said that. The council had that language in front of them the entire night.
[quote]Elaine you spent a lot of time on that, but that wasn’t even the point of the article. The criticism in the article is that the public had no idea what was being voted on and the language itself was sketchy. [/quote]
Are you faulting me for providing clarification on questions raised in the comment section? Really? Why? Don Shor did not censure it as off topic (thank you Don).
Secondly, I also provided this clarification bc there is a huge controversy brewing elsewhere in the community on this issue which I am not at liberty to discuss…
Thirdly, I consider the issue of process here to be minor in comparison to the misunderstanding about the motion that was actually passed that night. Just my opinion on what aspect of this overall issue is the more important 🙂 You are certainly free to disagree…
I’m simply pointing out that you spent a lot of time on an issue that was not really in question.
[quote]I’m simply pointing out that you spent a lot of time on an issue that was not really in question.[/quote]
It was a question in the mind of your commenters…
[i][quote]”I’m not exactly sure where I’m mistaken….”[/i]
[b]At long last, have you still not noticed? Your lead paragraph incorrectly reports:[/b]
[i]”Last week the Davis City Council by a narrow 3-2 vote approved using RDA funds for the construction of a new parking lot between E and F and 3rd and 4th Streets in Davis.”[/i]
[b]Then, you reinforce the “construction approval” concept by quoting the “supplemental report”:[/b]
[i]”The goal is completion of the Downtown Parking and Access Plan concurrently with construction of the new parking structure.”[/i][/quote]Your article then goes on to point out: [quote]”At the previous discussion of this item, he had requested there be a study and plan of Downtown Parking before he would be willing to support the construction of the new parking structure. In other words, they are somehow planning to build a parking structure at the same time they do an analysis of the Downtown Parking. That makes no sense to do it that way; you would think you would analyze the downtown parking first, prior to even approving a parking structure.”[/quote] Then, you on to complain about a lack of transparency issue because of the lateness of the supplemental report and the fact that the members of the public attending the meeting didn’t even see copies.
Your faithful readers, assuming your lead paragraph about a vote for construction approval is accurate, come up with different conclusions. Maybe the council isn’t a party to this Brown Act “violation,” just misunderstanding the motion as they were voting.
Elaine, who was there, confirms that the council MUST not have known what they were voting for (still, and incorrectly, assuming your report about council construction approval was how the official action concluded. However, she wants to review the video because she doesn’t remember it happening that way (a feeling apparently confirmed by her notes).
You return to the conversation, noting the “community with the best parking lot” will be “key point” to this “bungled use of RDA funds,” but without correcting the reporting mistake generating the conversation. Sue jumps in with some detail on what really happened at the meeting and asking “what’s your beef?), a question you ignore while the debate about your report goes on.
When Elaine posts her transcription, revealing that Sue was correct and your report was not, you brush it off just like you did when I told Sue how a reading of the city’s paperwork reasonably could have lead you be believe that the question before the council was whether to approve construction of the parking lot. Geez, David, you can’t even tolerate people’s understanding how you might have made the call if it requires you acknowledging that you were mistaken. Eventually, I have to conclude your many protestations of ignorance about what we were talking about weren’t really sincere: [quote]”Very little to no time in the article was spent on the issue of whether the project was already approve(d), but it is a matter of timing of the planning vis-a-vis the timing of construction. Bottom line, it is not clear to me why the point you raised was an issue. It is (sic) (is not?) the primary issue that I raised.”[/quote]